Talk:Blurp

History section
This article appears to have enough information to add a History section, and right now I think that it looks a bit awkward without one, so should this section be added?

Proposer: Deadline: "September 18, 2017, 13:00 GMT"

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

SMM games and Cheep Cheep
So in the SMM games, the Blurps are called Cheep Cheeps, made more blatant by the River Fish in the Forest SMM2 mission. Anyways, I'm starting to think that instead of listing these as "actual" Blurps, we should list them as Cheep Cheeps that look like Blurps to fit with the game's aesthetic. A reskin cameo, if you will. Given that Cheep Cheeps already sometimes looked like Blurps in some N64 games, it's not that much of a long shot anyways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:21, March 3, 2020 (EST)
 * Yeah, I'd be okay with calling them Cheep Cheeps. 03:22, March 3, 2020 (EST)
 * Yeah, probably, if the Japanese version doesn't recognize them either. -- 05:17, March 3, 2020 (EST)
 * To be fair, it's not completely incorrect - the Blurps and Big Cheep Cheep are only one degree away from normal Cheep Cheeps after all - so it could be a holdover of the previous game not giving verbal cues to all variants, like how text doesn't match the voice for Jelectros and Sea Urchins. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:03, July 23, 2020 (EDT)

Consider the Super Mario Maker games a design cameo rather than a full appearance
See above (this affects both Blurp and Deep Cheep). In SMM/2's SMW and NSMBU styles, the designs of Blurp and Deep Cheep are used to stand in for the green Cheep Cheeps in fitting with the bases of said styles. However, they are always treated simply as Cheep Cheeps (and it doesn't even act like Deep Cheep in NSMBU style). This proposal aims to reflect that: treating these as normal Cheep Cheeps that, for stylistic reasons, happen to resemble Blurp and Deep Cheep and not being Blurp and Deep Cheep themselves. They would not be completely excised from the pages, as the usage of their designs can be noted in an "other appearances and references" section(EDIT:, or can be noted in an abridged "Super Mario Maker/Super Mario Maker 2" section if that is preferred).

'EDIT: Since this has been ignored, I'll put it up here too: all'' in-game text and vocals call these Cheep Cheeps regardless of style, and the fact that River Fish in the Forest doubles down on this shows it is not a mistake or oversight, but a deliberate choice on the developers' part. This is not comparable to Goombas becoming Galoombas in the SMW style or the Spike Traps becoming Jelectros or Sea Urchins in some underwater themes, as in those cases the text and vocals are adjusted, nor is it comparable to Porcupuffer acting like Boss Bass and Cheep Chomp, as the text and vocals call that Porcupuffer. Basically, calling these Blurps and Deep Cheeps is outright defying the only official word on the subject.'''

Proposer: Deadline: October 19, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per
 * 2) Per proposal. I don't think sprite = the species it's supposed to be.
 * 3) Per FanOfYoshi and especially the bolded text in the proposal . Because the game always called these stylistic variations of Cheep Cheeps "Cheep Cheeps," it had never even crossed my mind while playing the game that they were something different. By ignoring the fact that the game calls these "Cheep Cheeps," it could also be said to an extent that continuing to call them Blurps/Deep Cheeps is breaking the naming policy. We don't say that all Bloopers are actually Bloobers (or vice versa) just because that is what they are called in early games, we give each appearance's Blooper the same name that it has in its respective game!
 * 4) Per all. Seems like a similar situation to, say, Fishin' Lakitu.
 * 5) Per all. In the game, they are called “Cheep Cheeps,” but in New Super Mario Bros. U, they are called “Deep Cheeps.”
 * 6) Sure. All this boils down to is an aesthetic skin. You wouldn't say Peach's Daisy color scheme in the older Super Smash Bros. games is a true appearance of Daisy.

Oppose

 * 1) This seems a lot like arbitrarily picking and choosing what does and doesn't count. The way I see it, if it's in the game, then it should count as an appearance. Also, what about Jelectros and Sea Urchins being design changes for Spike Trap?
 * 2) Per Hewer, it's still a physical appearance regardless.
 * 3) Per all. If they weren’t meant to be Blurps, they wouldn’t be Blurps.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) The proposal's reasoning is fine, but Hewer's reasoning is even better. Plus, the proposal doesn't account for Porcupuffers gaining Cheep Chomp behaviors in SMM2. Do we suddenly move the bulk of that info to the Cheep Chomp article? No, because a cursory look would reveal that the behaviors were just transferred to another enemy.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) It definitely needs to be reworded, that's one thing for sure...but I think it's an appearance nonetheless.
 * 11) The problem with this proposal is not its reasoning, but its intended goal. I'm not going to argue with your points - they're all sound and I generally agree with them. However, that doesn't change the fact that the proposed solution of relegating Blurp's and Deep Cheep's appearance in SMM to an "other appearances and references" section is the wrong way to handle this. It has already been pointed out that such sections do not have a consistent scope across the wiki, and they still physically appear in the game even if they're not acknowledged as such. Their SMM sections should be rewritten, not removed entirely.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per 7feetunder.
 * 14) Just because this one single appearance isn’t named by the sound effects means that it’s only a cameo? I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If the galoombas were called goombas by the sound effects, would we be considering that a cameo? Just because it isn’t named doesn’t mean it doesn’t appear, and I feel like this passing would just make a bunch of slippery slope “name determines all” cases of inconsistent consistency. Also, per 7feetunder.
 * 15) Obviously not. Per all.

Comments
Does the same apply to Galoombas in the Super Mario World style? 06:09, October 5, 2021 (EDT)
 * No, the warbly voice actually says "Galoomba" there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:36, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

I can understand treating them as regular Cheep Cheeps if the game treats them as such, but why not keep the Mario Maker sections, and just word them in a more "in X theme, Cheep Cheeps appear as Y" kind of way? Blinker (talk) 14:19, October 5, 2021 (EDT)
 * I guess we could, but Deep Cheep already has an "other appearances" section for something similar. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:36, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

@Opposition The warbly voice says "Jelectro" and "Sea Urchin" for that. It says "Cheep Cheep" for this. Also check out the description for River Fish in the Forest. It's not arbitrary, it's following the game's lead to a T. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:36, October 5, 2021 (EDT)
 * Still, I feel that an appearance is an appearance and we shouldn't get into semantics about what does and doesn't count. They probably only called them Cheep Cheep to avoid confusion, as having a similar-looking and identically-functioning enemy to a Cheep Cheep but calling it something else would probably just confuse people unfamiliar with Blurps and Deep Cheeps (the Galoombas actually differ in function and Jelectros and Sea Urchins look much more different to Spike Traps, so the same doesn't apply to them). 03:53, October 8, 2021 (EDT)

I always saw "Other appearances" as a section where we list appearances of things in media we don't cover on the wiki. So far it’s been a pretty inconsistent deal, though, as such sections may also cover things like cameos in Mario-related games. For the record, we definitely should draw a line somewhere on what to put in such sections and what to allocate their own game sections. 14:48, October 5, 2021 (EDT)

"If they weren't meant to be Blurps, they wouldn't be Blurps." Considering that the green palette does not work on SMW Cheep (it uses the yellow palette), using the sprite of the resident green fish as a stand-in makes perfect sense. Additionally, the NSMBU ones don't even act like Deep Cheeps (ie Search Pukupuku), so I cannot believe they are "actual" Deep Cheeps. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:37, October 9, 2021 (EDT)
 * So what you're saying is that, since there was no existing green pallete for SMW Cheep Cheeps, the developers naturally gravitated towards another fish-based species from that game that fit the behaviour intended for green Cheep Cheeps in Mario Maker--i.e. swimming uninterrupted in one direction. Yeah, they're still Blurps through and through. Green NSMBU Cheep Cheeps are a different deal as they do not have the behaviour of Deep Cheeps, so there'd be no grounds for concluding they are meant to be one and the same. 04:08, October 10, 2021 (EDT)
 * There's the thing: the game treats the "Deep Cheeps" in the same manner as it does the "Blurps," so we can't really have one without the other on this. Additionally, I want to point out that in all styles, the "green" is treated as the basic version and needs to be changed to access the red, the importance of which is that said basic form is always considered just Cheep Cheep. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:53, October 10, 2021 (EDT)
 * The game doesn't treat anything as a Deep Cheep because no such enemy exists within Mario Maker--the Cheeps that swim unwavered in the NSMBU style only superficially resemble Deep Cheep without retaining any sort of distinguishing feature from them, such as their characteristic homing behaviour or something as little as their frowning expressions. This is not comparable to the case of SMW green "Cheep Cheeps", who are not only designed to hearken back to the generic underwater enemy of that game, but also behave identically, which is enough to safely construe them as actual Blurps. Your second point ignores the fact that many Mario Maker course elements can be changed into distinct things, such as Rocky Wrenches having to be shaken in order to obtain a Monty Mole (or vice-versa, I don't remember); it's by no means indicative that two elements sharing a slot are meant to be one and the same. 16:52, October 10, 2021 (EDT)
 * Eh? The NSMBU-style green Cheeps absolutely have the Deep Cheep "angry" eyes. And I did not ignore that, I specifically noted the game has it "always considered just Cheep Cheep," and the same cannot be said for Rocky and Monty. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:01, October 11, 2021 (EDT)
 * I must admit I didn't check whether what I said about the green Cheeps was true, only going by my untrustworthy memory. Sorry about it. Regardless, should we go down the route of "these are not actual Blurps/Deep Cheeps", what real impact would it have on the way we currently handle our coverage of them? Your proposal advocates putting these design cameos in a general "Other appearances" section, but as I said above, these sections tend to have a rather inconsistent scope between pages, and I believe this is something we must sort out before deciding if relevant information about a subject should stay in its own section or be relocated somewhere else on the same page. 02:13, October 11, 2021 (EDT)
 * For one, we'd stop treating it as a different enemy on the SMM pages and navtemps, because according to said games, they aren't. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:07, October 11, 2021 (EDT)
 * The navigation templates are meant to link all related subjects, so removing two subjects that are very much related just because they supposedly 'don't count' is probably just going to be an inconvenience for navigation. Even if the game doesn't say they appear, that doesn't mean they aren't in the game. 11:17, October 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * Doc says we would stop treating it as an enemy, not that we would strike it out of that template entirely; obviously she (duly point out if the pronoun usage is correct or not) acknowledges that the Blurp still appears in the game in a capacity. I still oppose the proposal because treating Mario Maker Blurps like some sort of design diversion constituting no more than a cameo just because they act like Cheep Cheeps and are even conflated in-game with them is positively baffling. 14:17, October 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * What's baffling to me is defying what the game identifies them as on multiple fronts in every language. It's the exact same principle of relativity I brought up here: we should list them as the game's creators intend, not based on similarities to pre-existing variations. If they are officially considered the base species, listing them as the variant is disingenuous. Also I don't care about pronouns lel Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:45, October 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * Per what i said on this thing in that sprite =/= the species it's supposed to represent/be, check those spiked thingies, which are Urchins from TLoZ underwater, though that is just an asthetic change. I'll admit the Jelectros may be actually Jelectros, but that's still an asthetic change, and doesn't actually change anything about them. -- 14:07, October 14, 2021 (EDT)
 * The Sea Urchins and Jelectros are called as such in-game. Meaning that's what they are. The "Blurps" and "Deep Cheeps" are just called Cheep Cheeps. Meaning that's what they are. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:40, October 14, 2021 (EDT)

@Archivist Toadette That again completely ignores the fact that the in-game voice (and the textual label SMM2 adds if I'm not mistaken) is calling that "Porcupuffer" but calling everything this proposal covers "Cheep Cheep." For perspective, no official source for SMM/2 uses the phrases "Blurp" or "Deep Cheep," in reference to the green Cheeps or otherwise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:50, October 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * The fact that they're called Cheep Cheeps doesn't suddenly mean they aren't in the game. Like I said before, they probably only did it this way to avoid confusion with a similar-looking and identically-functioning enemy having a different name. 05:49, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * That remains speculative and still openly defies all official evidence on the subject. Basically making it fanfiction. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * How can it possibly be fan fiction if it's clearly based on an official design in official material? 14:44, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * Koopa Troopa in Mario Clash is built directly off Shellcreeper's original design, but it's not a direct appearance of Shellcreepers. Adult Yoshis for years used a design built off Baby Yoshis in Yoshi's Story, but we don't consider those Baby Yoshis too. And then there's that whole kerfuffle that took years to sort out regarding Cheep Chomp being redesigned to resemble Boss Bass and subsequently recolored to look less like it. This is actually also fairly comparable to how the wiki formerly considered the Goombas in Mario Kart 7 to be Big Goombas based on appearance alone. In some respects, it can also be compared to how Bullet Bill would occasionally use a design many people would more associate with Banzai Bills. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:56, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

@HappyToad: This is a completely different situation to Bloobers being renamed to Bloopers. Those are the same thing but with different names, while these are different things but with the same name. 05:49, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * Sure, it's not a perfect example, but I really don't think that it's that different. We could go ahead and start calling Bloopers "Bloobers" because they look and act the same, but because the games say otherwise, we don't. It should be the same here. The game calls these entities which look like Blurps and Deep Cheeps "Cheep Cheeps" and therefore by most naming logic used on the wiki, their official name is Cheep Cheep. 06:14, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * I really don't see how that is similar at all, "Bloober" is the old name for "Blooper" which was renamed later on (I believe its Japanese name never changed). 06:18, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * As I said, it's not the best example, but the point that I'm trying to make is that based on the newest name available, and that of the games which we are discussing in particular, if anything, the current name of a Blurp is a Cheep Cheep (I'm not going to argue that it is, but what can't be denied is that the most recent name for a Blurp is effectively "Cheep Cheep" according to the wiki's interpretation of the Cheep Cheeps in Mario Maker at present). If the game called the game-style dependent variations of Cheep Cheeps what they're being called here on the wiki, then there would be no reason to change (I refer to the Bloober -> Blooper example here: if games had've continued to call them Bloobers, then the name on the wiki wouldn't be "Blooper". I'm also sure that if for some reason, Nintendo decided to go back to calling them Bloobers, we'd consider that species as Bloobers, at least for that appearance just because the game says so). But going back to what I was saying before, seeing as this isn't the case, the Mario Maker series's appearances should simply be considered Cheep Cheeps seeing as that is what is stated in game material. See comment below. 06:44, October 16, 2021 (EDT); edited 15:11, October 16, 2021 (EDT).
 * I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of most of that was, but Bloopers and Bloobers are exactly the same thing just with a slight name change. These are very much different things that happen to use the Cheep Cheep name to avoid confusion. 08:04, October 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * Ok, I've read over what I wrote again and had a think about it, and it didn't really get the point that I was trying to get across. What I was trying to say is that if for some reason Nintendo called a Blooper a Bloober again (even just for a single appearance), we would acknowledge that based on the official name, while continuing to call the ones from previous appearances what they were called at that point in time. My point is that seeing as it was clearly a deliberate choice on Nintendo's part to, at the very least, call Blurps "Cheep Cheeps" based on the River Fish in the Forest description, it should be acknowledged here.
 * The part where I said that 'if anything the current name of a Blurp is effectively "Cheep Cheep,"' I was trying to say that by the logic which is being used at the moment and the most recent name part of the naming policy, as well as the first point in acceptable sources being "Name provided in-game or in the enclosed instruction manual," these appearances of Blurps go by the name "Cheep Cheep," and so it makes the most sense for them to be on that article. Also consider this: someone is playing Super Mario Maker 2's Story Mode and they came across River Fish in the Forest. They see the name "Cheep Cheep" in the description and they don't actually know what a Cheep Cheep is. Rather than just playing the level and finding out, instead they Google it, and one of the first things which comes up is the Cheep Cheep article on this wiki, and so they click on it, but when they look in the gallery, they don't find any green Cheep Cheeps from the SMW style in the game because we're considering them to actually be Blurps. If we called them Cheep Cheeps, as the game does, then this theoretical person wouldn't have had this issue and would've known what they were about to find in the level straight away. 15:11, October 16, 2021 (EDT)

I can't check at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that several objects that had its own name in Super Mario Maker 2 did not have its own name in the first Super Mario Maker. One example we have on hand is "Bill Blaster" in the Bull's-Eye Blaster article. Yet it'd be unnecessary to, for example, split the Super Mario Maker version into the parent Bill Blaster article simply because it did not have its name until Super Mario Maker 2. Is it possible that Blurps and Deep Cheeps are just a simple oversight, and the Blurps in that one level are just named Cheep Cheeps generically? Nothing else to my knowledge just has its shaken alternate completely changed in other styles. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:56, October 18, 2021 (EDT)
 * Considering green is treated as the basic and red is the "shaken" (at least in the original), I doubt it, especially considering the underwater spike traps. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:29, October 18, 2021 (EDT)