Talk:Purple Klaptrap

DKC Purple Klaptraps
I just noticed that purple Klaptraps (not the DK64 ones) appears in Donkey Kong Country, but the only thing they do in it is jumping at the same time as the Kong. Should we at least mention these Klaptraps here (something like Not to be confused with...)? --Metalex123 (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Gonna bump this year-plus-old conversation point to say that I had thought of that as well. Thing is, these were referred to specifically as "Purple Klaptraps" while the ones on DKC were just referred to as "Klaptraps"/"Klap Traps." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2017 (EDT)

Merge with Klaptrap
It's a color variation. The behavioral difference is a simple difference in durability. And since this isn't an RPG, it's not like the former Gritty Goomba/Limbo Bro/Dry Bones/Chuck Guy scenario.

Furthermore, purple Klaptraps appear in the original SNES Donkey Kong Country, where they jump. But adding that to here would be problematic, as the GBA version makes them red. Red ones also appear in DK64, but only in cutscenes. This just seems odd to be split.

Finally, the guide that distinguishes these two also calls Gnawties "Beavers," Kritters "Kremlings," Kasplats "Krushas," and Koshas "Clubbies." That's not even getting into "Bones," "Ghost," "Robokremling," and "Shroom," which if Japanese names are anything to go by, should be "Krypt," "Kreeper," "Krank," and "Kroom," which are far more likely. (Seriously though, why has no one asked Steve Mayles about them yet?)

Anyways, this is an odd color exception, and should be merged.

Proposer: Deadline: September 22, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) For consistency with how we handle colors.

Oppose

 * 1) They are considered a separate species in an official guide. We have pages for simple recolors of ennemies on the wiki, so why should this one alone be merged? Let's take the Goombas for example: A gold-colored Goomba, a Goomba with a slight different name, Goombas that are sad & mad and heck, we even have a page for a tower of Goombas. All of these have very minor differences, so why would the Purple Klaptrap not deserve a page too?
 * 2) Metalex is right--similar, yet different subspecies have their own title. Purple Klaptrap isn't an exception.
 * 3) Yeah, it is concidered as distinct from normal Klaptrap. Does it on a Japanese guide?
 * 4) It is far different from the Koopa Troopas (which their shells are a good way to be a compromise) and Cheep Cheeps in that they are invincible to most attacks for the other, and the other two aren't. For Shy Guys, we have the ones needed to be split. And this enemy is unique as this enemy isn't defeated by normal attacks on the other with Big Goomba coming close.

Comments
@metalex This is more like Red and Green Koopa Troopas, which are commonly listed as separate in guides. None of those examples you've listed are even remotely comparable, and in fact have some pretty major differences. This is being given a different hue and less weaknesses, and said guide has proven itself to be unreliable at best regarding enemy classification, as I have stated. And no, the only "simple recolor" pages are for specific RPG enemies, like KP Koopas. Platforming enemies like this are against policy to have "simple recolor" pages. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
 * A Purple Klaptrap has a completely different way of killing it (Oranges instead of normal attacks), they don't attack with their teeth when killed and give Oranges. They sound very different from regular Klaptraps, unlike the Red and Green Koopas, who's only difference is the shell color and the way they move. Also why would the Goombos not be a good example? They're literally just Goombas. They do everything the same, with the only difference being the name. --Metalex123 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
 * "Goombo" has a completely different design, as its Japanese name would suggest. More chibi. And that does not change the fact that having this be split off is still against policy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Okay then, why do we have a page for Big Goombas, for example? They are the same thing as a normal Goomba, but bigger (like the Purple Klaptraps), when defeated they do something different than normal Goombas (like Purple Klaptraps), and are killed in a different method from their original species (like the Purple Klaptraps). If we merge the Purple Klaptraps to the normal Klaptraps, we should also merge a lot of other pages who deserved their own pages. This is not just a simple reskin, this is a sub species of the Klaptraps. --Metalex123 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * We don't use the term "sub-species." And no, a specific recurring enlargement that typically uses completely different graphics is not the same situation as a recolor. And again, this page is against policy. Anyways, what about the purple Klaptraps in the first DKC? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * I think metalex was going to suggest "not to be confused with" when referring to the purple-color normal klaptraps in Donkey Kong Country Results May Vary (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * But it's still a purple Klaptrap. Which is also a red Klaptrap. See the problem here? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

@FanOfYoshi No, as I said, on an English guide clearly written by incompetents. It's the exact same situation as our Troopas, Shy Guys, Snifits, Gnawties, Kritters, and Cheep Cheeps. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

'*Looks through policy pages* Um... it's one thing to say something is against policy. And another to actually provide a clue (but preferably a link) to the policy. Doing so helps other users find it easier. Especially if it is a link. So can you please either provide a clue or link? 01:37, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * I've always just seen admins and others say it's against policy (or at least an unspoken rule), and it's been consistently been used as a reason. If we split one thing by recoloring, we split them all, which opens far too many cans of worms regarding Shy Guy inconsistencies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, most of the time when they say something is against policy, they link to it. And if it isn't in the policies, it's probably in the proposals. So you saying that this article is against policy without proof should not be done. But if you have evidence to support that this is indeed against policy, then you don't actually need a proposal unless it's on the border line. And if you have evidence (whether it is clear or it is on the border line), you must provide it so other users can find it (in the event an article is merged or deleted, it is provided in the summary for a record when viewing the history). The way I see it (without proof that this is against policy), this enemy is a unique case. And it should only include the DK64 info to keep it that way. 11:07, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * I may have been wrong about that. But I seem to recall always being told it was against policy. Anyways, it is against conventions. And what's that thing about the Shy Guys supposed to mean? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Ok... I'm going to end this by saying nothing. And I mean Black Shy Guy and White Shy Guy. 16:59, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
 * One of those varies between Anti Guy, a Propeller Shy Guy, and a normal Shy Guy (and as such is ambiguous) and the other is an ally. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2018 (EDT)