Talk:Swoop

From the Super Mario Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Swooper)
Jump to: navigation, search

MKWii[edit]

click! In the Wario's Gold Mine section you can see the Swoopers in the tunnel.Darth waluigi 19:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

SMG and SMG2[edit]

According to Wikipedia Japan, the enemy you have listed here for SMG and SMG2 isn't a Swooper but a different enemy called バットン Batton. Those icy ones from SMG are listed as アイスバットン Ice Batton. In the SMG2 Prima guide, they're listed as just Bat. Vent 14:48, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

Pat the Bat[edit]

They don't really resemble Swoopers, and they also fly haphazardly rather than do the expected "swoop", so they're probably supposed to be new enemies like the Evil Coin. (In addition, the above section mentions that the bats in the Galaxy games aren't called Swoopers - maybe someone should take another look at that.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Split Swooper and Pat the Bat into separate articles[edit]

Settledproposal.svg This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

no quorum 3-0


It seems the idea that Pat the Bat may have been a misnamed Swoop(er) comes from here, but as mentioned above, Pat the Bat doesn't really resemble Swooper except they're both bats.

Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk)
Deadline: December 21, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support[edit]

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Mario (talk) Pat the Bat is the only enemy that doesn't share the name as the other Mario enemies in the link, so I say we split. The only thing they have in common is that they're bats.
  3. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all. The name difference is fairly drastic and they don't look that much like each other.

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

Split Swooper and Pat the Bat into separate articles redux[edit]

Settledproposal.svg This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

split 6-0


See above for reasons; it was short one vote, but I'm giving it another chance to reach an actual conclusion.

Proposer: LinkTheLefty (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support[edit]

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Magikrazy (talk) Per proposal. I find it weird nobody cares about this (although the large amount of Talk Page Proposals recently might be the reason).
  3. Walkazo (talk) - Seems like it was a case of jamming in the info wherever it'd fit to avoid making a "stub". Anyway, a separate short article would be better better than the mismatched merge we have here now: per proposal.
  4. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Once again per all.
  5. Mario (talk) I'm not repeating myself.
  6. Kart Player 2011 (talk) per all.

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

Swoops[edit]

Where'd that name come from, and was it used in their latest appearance? The article isn't too clear on that (or I'm reading it wrong). ExdeathIcon.png Lord G. matters. ExdeathIcon.png 17:49, 4 February 2015 (EST)

Mario Party: Island Tour, but that was all. STONE-HILL!!! At last, the rock fell.

15:05, 22 February 2015 (EST)

And more, according to this. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2015 (EDT)

Move to Swoop[edit]

Settledproposal.svg This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

move 4-0


"Swooper" has only been used in Super Mario World and the first three Paper Mario games to my knowledge, while "Swoop" is unambiguously the modern name, being used in more recent games (and I'm pretty sure it's policy to use the most recent names).

Proposer: Binarystep (talk)
Deadline: May 22, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support[edit]

  1. Binarystep (talk) Per proposal.
  2. ShyGuy8 (talk) Per proposal
  3. Magikrazy (talk) Not really necessary, but since you're doing it, I might as well support it.
  4. Burningdragon25 (talk) I will support this one! Let's move it!

Oppose[edit]

Comments[edit]

If it's the more recent name, make the move. It's policy to do so. Making a proposal's entirely unneeded and unnecessarily prolongs it. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

The main reasons I'm doing it this way are so there's a clear explanation of the move on the talkpage to prevent someone from just moving it back immediately, and to confirm with 100% certainty that they weren't repeatedly called Swoopers in some recent thing I was unaware of. Binarystep (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (EDT)
All you really had to do was make the move and add a citation for the new name. The log and the article will both have a clear explanation, and considering the numerous examples you brought up to Swooper being an old name, I don't think there would be much room for debate. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Split Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 info into "Bat (Super Mario Galaxy)"[edit]

Settledproposal.svg This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

split 5-2

From what I've seen, in all relevant languages, the enemy in the Galaxy games is named differently, being named generically bat. It also looks nothing like Swoop(er)s, having big bulgy ringed glowing eyes instead of Swoop(er)'s signature squint. It appears to be based more off of the Keese that appeared in Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess than any iteration of Swoop. There is about as much or possibly less in common between Swoops and Bats (Super Mario Galaxy) than between Rocky Wrench and Monty (Super Mario Galaxy) appearance-wise, and as such they should be split too.

Now I'll run through some potential opposition:

"Plenty of SMG enemies used very different designs than before, like Mechakoopa, Urchin, Porcupuffer, Koopa Troopa, Torpedo Ted, Sliding Stone, Micro Goomba, Tox Box, Amp, Scuttlebug..."
Most of these enemies hadn't appeared in a mainstream Mario game in years, and many not in 3D models ever. They had to make the models from scratch, and as such things were redesigned somewhat. Koopa Troopa was on all fours so it would have a reasonable hitbox, since every enemy from Galaxy seems supersized in comparison to normal; for all the evidence I need for that, look at the enormous Troopas in Super Mario 3D Land. Tox Box had a slightly different Japanese name from before. Urchin wouldn't receive their current design until New Super Mario Bros. Wii. And for all of them, supplementary materials in at least one language still identify them as the enemies from the other games they represent.

"People will be looking for them in the Swoop article."
And people will be looking for Monty (Super Mario Galaxy) in the Rocky Wrench article. Which last I checked, was a tad unhelpful of a page in regards to locating the other, only having it under "related species." Also, people may look for Undergrunt in Monty Mole, but at least it lists that sufficiently.

"The internal filename is the same as Swoop's."
And probably early in development, when they first saved the file, they intended for it to be Swoop, but later decided to do something different. The official Japanese name listed in official guides, including the most recent ones, is Batton. Having the same name in a place people aren't intended to see it means nothing.

"There's no reason for them to make a new enemy with the same attack pattern."
My, the existence of the Monty (Super Mario Galaxy) article is giving me so much counterargument material! And what about other bats with similar behaviors?

"The "Bat" name is wrong because Prima gets É̸͠V̛E͠͞R͏̧Y̴͞͡T̀͞H̷̡́I̡͟͞N͠͡G͠ wrong."
Strawman argument, the name is different in all languages. And no they don't. And official word is official word.

I think that about covers it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 4, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support[edit]

  1. Niiue (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Time Turner (talk) Let's go for it. Per all.
  4. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
  5. Mister Wu (talk) Different official name, different appearance, slightly different attack, no sign of Nintendo using the terms Bat and Swoop interchangeably. I think we have enough material suggesting that a split might not be inappropriate. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important to acknowledge that the Bat's internal name is the romanization of the Swoop's name, though.

Oppose[edit]

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) One problem - the internal object name "BasaBasa" carried over to the sequel. I think if Nintendo wanted to fix the filenames, they had a nearly three-years window of opportunity to do so, so the intentions are clear in my opinion. There is the argument that we shouldn't consider unseen material such as filenames as the basis for valid information, but that's also asking for the majority of pre-release and unused content articles to be delegitimized, not to mention development names are already acceptable under naming policy. All in all, I'd rather we stick to what closest matches the game data over go into a guessing game as to why the developers labeled it the same as Swoop, and I believe that is what's currently represented in the article.
  2. Camwood777 (talk) - On the subject of the internal object name being evidence it's Swoop, just because it's different from the common Swoop doesn't mean it simply isn't a Swoop. Look at the Bull's-Eye Bill as it appeared in Super Mario Sunshine. They have a MUCH different appearance than any other appearance, yet you don't see anyone saying to split those.

Comments[edit]

I don't think that your fourth counteropposition argument works, as the bats you mention are less ambiguously different from Swoops. P.S., Fangs actually attack by aimlessly traveling in sinusoidal patterns hoping to bump into Yoshi, a behavior that Swoops lack. MLPJToadetteWink.gif ToadettetheAchiever 19:23, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

And Bats from Galaxy fly around aimlessly and deliberately chase. Besides, many enemies in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and the rest of the Yoshi series act different. Not to mention that Goombas sometimes chase and sometimes don't, default Bullet Bills may or may not chase, Pokey's had all sorts of inconsistencies...But the bats I listed look about as similar to Swoops as Galaxy Bats do. ie, they don't look similar. I didn't bring up D-Bat, Kobatto, and Minicula. And Fang patterns actually seem to vary by individual. And even if that half of the fourth point doesn't work, the Rocky Wrench/Monty (Super Mario Galaxy) argument still does.Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

You forgot your own vote Doc. SmokedChili (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

I want to add, if the split succeeds, I'd recommend classifying it as a derived species instead of a related species at the very least, due to the internal name. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

Would it be possible to compare the model names of various entities that have appeared in both Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 to see if/how they have changed? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 16:42, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

I figured they just straight up ported the original files over from the original, making a few minor changes with some (such as Goombeetle). Sorta like all the Donkey Kong Jungle Beat creatures in Galaxy 1, but I'm not sure how the internal names compare with that.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc von Schmeltwick (talk).
My reference for the Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 internal names comes from here - though note that the object database is incomplete and seems to be only about halfway done (for example, it doesn't list most of the Super Mario Sunshine / Donkey Kong Jungle Beat leftovers or the Electric Pressure, which was apparently found in Partition 0/ObjectData/ElectricPressure.arc). It looks like the vast majority of returning elements retain their internal names; however, TCRF also states that some (not all) of the Jungle Beat models in Super Mario Galaxy were changed from the original game, which they take as an indication that the developers may have had plans for their inclusion like the swinging "Creeper" flowers, so renaming would appear to happen in applicable cases. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

Sorry for coming up late, but we do have news: the Super Mario Pia, an official 30th anniversary memorial book, clearly list Swoops and the Super Mario Galaxy games' bats as separate enemies, even listing Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 as the only games where the latter appeared in the Super Mario series. But there's more to it: both the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. and the Super Mario Pia consistently refer to these enemies as 「バットン」, which is actually the name of enemies previously appeared in Super Mario RPG, Enigmas. The Super Mario Pia even notes how these 「バットン」 indeed have a pig nose, just like the Super Mario RPG enemies:

「バットン
姿はコウモリのようで、鼻は豚に似ているモンスター。氷をまとったアイスバットンもいる。
登場作品 SMG,SMG2」

This is odd, since Square Enix was thought to have the rights of all the original content of Super Mario RPG, yet I think that these two similarities - same name and pig nose - being acknowledged in official material should prompt us to reconsider this possibility.
If you need the scans of the Super Mario Pia as reference to cite, I can upload the specific parts here on the wiki, same for the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros..--Mister Wu (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure Square Enix still does, it's just that the author happened to notice that the two enemies have similar traits and acted accordingly. With all due respect, no matter how closely the author worked with Nintendo, I doubt that they have an intimate knowledge of the relationship between Nintendo, Square, and how all of the subjects within Super Mario RPG are being dealt with, and one single enemy does not change that. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 10:13, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
Super Mario RPG is actually mentioned in the Super Mario Pia, still of course this doesn't change anything - ultimately nothing is said about who owns the IP of 「バットン」 in Super Mario RPG. What is being said though is that the names of the bats in both Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 is indeed 「バットン」, this being confirmed by the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. as well, and that the pig nose is a notable enough trait. If this were a case of Dorrie and Bahamutt I would have no problems in acknowledging that the same name is likely not on purpose, but in this case we are talking about enemies both having the same name and being bats with a pig nose, so the similarities are definitely there.--Mister Wu (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
Well to be fair, said name is just a variation of the word "bat"... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
Does this change anything, though? 「バット」 is a common name, meaning bat - more precisely, the baseball bat; if you want to look for the animal 「コウモリ」 should be the term to look for, unless you're looking for terms directly derived from English -, 「バットン」, while clearly based on 「バット」, is still a specific name.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
I've mentioned before how Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. is just not a good source for keeping track of legitimate name changes since it segregates information by game and isn't organized like, say, a wiki, but I admit I'm unfamiliar with Super Mario Pia. I suppose my biggest question is: who wrote it and how closely were they working with Nintendo? One of the recent licensed The Legend of Zelda books, Hyrule Encyclopedia, ended up having a disclaimer that stated the authors took creative liberties with the source material, which meant that a lot of its unique (and questionable) information was taken with a huge grain of salt -- does Super Mario Pia have a similar statement? Also, the name Batton isn't that uncommon, being a simple derivative of a loanword that rolls off the tongue. Enigmas from Super Mario RPG have an entirely different attack move on top of that, splitting into a swarm of miniature bats. Regardless, that isn't an argument for splitting the Super Mario Galaxy bat into its own article, but moving the information from Swoop to Enigma, which is not in the scope of this proposal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
The Mega Man enemy is one of the main reasons I didn't include "Merge to Enigma" as an option, as well as the fact that they don't have the hive mind-esque swarming behavior, and the fact that the name is obviously intended to just be taken from the English word for bat. The Japanese word for any version of "bat" is irrelevant here; it's taken from the English word. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
Knowing that the validity of the book was important to know, I scanned page 98Media:SMP page 98 opt.png, which indeed contains the authors, copyright and the copyrights involved. You can see that the degree of involvement of Nintendo is collaboration, 「協力」, making it an official book. Also, there's not the sentence you mentioned before - that's understandable, since there is no real story to be told here. Since the page containing Swoop and Bat also contained Boss Bass, I'm adding the link to an excerpt of it containing the relevant information hereMedia:SMP page 62 excerpt.png. At this point, we have contradictory information coming from Super Mario Galaxy's object names and official information released after. I don't know how much we can count on Super Mario Galaxy 2 because the game was explicitly stated to be an add-on of Super Mario Galaxy in the initial phases of development, and with games based on other games copy-pasting is definitely a thing - after all, the player is not supposed to look at those data. Anyway, returning on topic, the internal name of the objects is surely interesting, as if anything it tells us that those bats were meant to be Swoops; still, the 2015 material still points to them being distinct by name and appearance, with the Super Mario Pia outright stating that they are different enemies. I wonder if what we are watching is just the beginning of their development - internal name - and the end result - different official name and appearance. Regarding the Enigma similarity, I'd say an unofficial vote has already been made, so unless someone wants to reopen the discussion in another moment I guess we'll just keep this to the Trivia like we are doing with Dorrie and Bahamutt.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
The fact that an entry for Boss Bass / Cheep Chomp is on the same pageMedia:SMP page 62 excerpt.png proves my point about these official Japanese books having some extremely iffy information/organization with regards to name changes, however. It states that the enemy fish debuted as "Baku Baku" in Super Mario 64 when we know clearly thanks to Yoshi's Island DS that it's a name change and visual update for the Super Mario Bros. 3 fish (indeed, its subsequent redesign in New Super Mario Bros. onwards is a purple version of this same appearance - we can actually have Boss Bass and Cheep Chomp share the same article with these details). The same phenomenon is present in Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten, and is also in Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. (for example, the Giant Land enemy variants don't have matching names with their later counterparts) and can be seen on Japanese Wikipedia when it considers Enigma and Batton to be the same thing. These books are valuable resources, but they should still be held to some degree of scrutiny because they obviously take name changes at face value and do not reflect our concept of it as outlined in policy. Granted, a lot of name changes can be chalked to translation differences over time, but that's not always the case. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
I personally consider Boss Bass and Cheep Chomp to be different, but at the same time I think the intent was probably for them to be the same, with the color change coming about to avoid confusion with the similarly-sized Big Cheep Cheep, especially given the low resolution New Super Mario Bros. has. But that's a different discussion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
I would like to point out what happened to Baby Bowser, who then became almost identical to Bowser Jr.. Initial appearance and name matters, and if an enemy becomes similar to another enemy in the subsequent games we should always check if we are looking at another Baby Bowser case. Names and appearance matter a lot to Nintendo, as together they tend to be an important part of the IP, when both official name and appearance change I think the name change theory should be discussed, not the official material that legitimately lists enemies having different appearance and different official name as being separate. Returning on point, this case is different as Swoops never changed their name nor appearance as much as to resemble those bats in the Super Mario Galaxy games - even in Super Mario 64 they had a round nose -, neither do enemies with the name of the latter return in subsequent games and become similar to Swoops. So we should try to see if there are other explanations that might have led to the object name being the same, such as Swoops being the starting point of what then became a different species.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
I mentioned the "they were probably Swoops in early development" in the above spiel. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
I presume one reason for the Boss Bass / Cheep Chomp coverage gap in Super Mario Pia can be due to the writers not using Yoshi's Island DS as reference material given the creditsMedia:SMP page 98 opt.png, but on "name change theory" - again it demonstrably isn't a theory (those alone would cause an organizational mess). The Baby Bowser and Bowser Jr. example doesn't hold water because they are established characters with their own irreconcilable origins and history, not just any random obstacle for the player to overcome - I'm pretty sure no one was wracking their brains over which was which because that's information that can be gleaned easily from paying the slightest attention to the in-game story, but subjects like these don't have such luxury. How about another one - Sledge Bros., which were originally named "Himan Bros." (Overweight Bros.) in Japanese and are currently called "Mega Bros." since their major reappearance? Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. lists its legacy name in the Super Mario Bros. 3 section (pg. 36) - should we split the article as a result? Do we have a Baby Bowser / Bowser Jr. situation on our hands? Of course not; that'd be unnecessary and confusing when the simplest solution of a deemed rename is already in practice. It's absolutely an observable fact, not just a theory, that name changes do happen now and then even in Japanese material. Judging from Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten, Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. and now what little I've seen of Super Mario Pia, official book writers seem to generally operate on a stricter policy that doesn't factor basic name changes and instead preserves older names verbatim. At any rate, on "BasaBasa" - how can we look for filename explanations when we're not privy to that information? LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
Incidentally, you picked up a case in which the name change is officially acknowledged in the Super Mario PiaMedia:SMP Sledge Bro.png. But at this point I think it's better to consider an interesting recent example. Even though in the original Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga the Beanerang Bros. had the same official name of the Boomerang Bros. and a very similar attack, they were separated from the latter just due to their appearance which was somehow reminiscent of other enemies in the game. It turns out that the editors were right. In this case, in which the appearance is different, the attack is slightly different as well, but even the official name was reported to be different from day one, and Nintendo never showed Swoops similar to Bats and Bats similar to Swoops, we shouldn't follow a similar criterion, which proved to be correct? And by the way, I'm definitely not undervaluing the importance of the internal names, which are an important and reliable source of information which in my opinion shouldn't be ignored. Also, I'm not suggesting splits based just on appearance, of course, in this case also the official name is different.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2017 (EDT)

@Camwood There is no proof those were intended to be Missile Bills other than their attack. Remember, the Japanese name for Bull'seye/Missile Bill was the same as the one for Bullet Bill up until New Super Mario Bros. Wii, so there's a lot of ambiguity. It's possible that the purple ones are intended to be Missile Bills, but it's equally possible the chasing ones found in Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy were intended to be them as well, because in Japan at the time, they had as much distinction as a red or green Cheep Cheep. They were considered merely differently-acting versions of the same thing. Also of note is that the English name for the chasing Bullet Bills in Sunshine is simply "Purple Bullet Bill," matching up with its "Killer (Purple)" Japanese name. Finally, Bats don't even attack much in the same way as Swoops, since Swoops are always found roosting at first, then will attempt to fly into him before being on their way, including in Super Mario 64, and always have a squint. Bats are often found on the wing at first, and will constantly attack while never flying off of going back to roosting after an attack, and have huge bulging eyes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2017 (EDT)