Talk:Moo Moo

I recall Kamek saying "uh...an evil cow" when he was talking to Baby Bowser. I think he may have been lying.

Aren't they called moo-moos? As in the name of the Mariokart course: Moo-moo meadows.
 * I think the Prima Guide calls them Moo moos, but they are the same people that list Chain-Chomps appearing in Moonview Highway. I'm skeptical of these people.

I think Moo Moo would be a better name. It is heavily implied by the course names (Moo Moo Farm and Moo Moo Meadows) and that one truck in Moonview Highway that advertises Moo Moo Milk. I don't think we should completely disregard Prima because of some errors.-- 17:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what the content from series other than Mario Kart? Shouldn't that mean that if we do create Moo Moo, we have to move the Mario Kart information only? It is the only series that calls these cows "Moo Moo" or something.

I don't think a whole new article is necessary. If we say that this game also refers to cows as moo-moos...well, the game doesn't actually mention anything. we could say that it is implied by other sources, like the course name and the truck label. It's a very minor thing and most other games would say they're merely cows and nothing special. I still like the name moo-moo, though.

If it is a separate sub-species, it does need a separate article. However, since there is no definitive proof that Moo Moos are a separate sub-species, perhaps we should simply mention that they are called Moo Moos in the Mario Kart series (going by the Prima source)?-- 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moo moos are not called "cows", though, they are called "Moo Moos". We can't just go around saying, "Cows (called Moo Moos) appeared in so and so". We must have a separate article if that's your point.

Well, all right. I guess we should split this then.-- 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, no we shouldn't. It's not like the Mario Kart series is a whole universe of it's own or something. I think BLOF is being overly dramatic about this. If they're referred to as Moo Moos in-game and in other licensed material, that's what they are, think clearly guys. UhHuhAlrightDaisy 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * HOWEVER, if the suggestion of a new page was because of the implication that there's a difference between regular cows that appear in say those crummy cartoons, then yes I think a different article should exist. UhHuhAlrightDaisy 08:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I don't actually think they were ever called 'Cows' - I think Nintendo meant them to be called Moo Moos, or else why name a race track full of them after them if they're not called that? I think the creator of this article is WRONG. KamekDude - I&#39;M COMING FOR YOUR BABIES! 04:36, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

Maybe we should take out the fact that they produce milk. I don't think Mario games note in any way that cows make milk so unless I can get further information, I might remove it.

Clean up this article
For the same reason that the sapient Honeybees aren't regular bees and the Li'l Oinks aren't regular pigs (this should also be stressed as a Really Good example), it should really be stressed that Moo Moos are not regular cows, for reasons of look at them. From their first apperance, they were properly called "Moo Moos" and not "cows", distinguishing them from the real-life animal. This is very much in the same vein as the previous proposal to split Honeybees from the Bee page. However, in this case, there's something else to take into consideration: it can be seriously argued that the generic cows in this article are not worth covering in the slightest.

From the top: the Royal Cow has its own article, the Koopenstein cows are only background elements, the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time references are laughably barebones (and I'll point out that no, "Cow" isn't capitalized in-game), and WarioWare contains such a wide variety of generic subjects that it shouldn't be considered as a substantial appearance. The one saving grace may be with Mario Strikers Charged, in which Thunder Island occasionally has Cows roll through the field (although they're basically ragdolls and nothing more), but Generic subjects alone disallows many of these sections. That's why there will be three options: splitting Moo Moos from this article while leaving the real-life cow information intact, scrapping all of the real-life cow info and reappropriating the article for Moo Moos, or doing nothing and leaving things as they are.

Proposer: Deadline: October 13, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Split Moo Moo from this article

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) How about "Remove Generic Subjects?"

Remove information based on generic/real-life cows

 * 1) My preferred option, for the simple fact that nothing about the generic cow is worth covering, at least not to the point where we'd lose information. Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. While previously the Moo Moos were not explicitly referred to as such until MK8 (hence the article's generic title), now's the time to properly classify them. As well, most of the other cow information are either verbal references, or one minor instance in MSC (and we don't have a page for the flying tractors, either).
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
@Doc: Could you elaborate? 21:31, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It's a stupid rule IMO. What more is there to say? I still think that the birds in front of Peach's Castle should get covered under something. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Can you elaborate on why it's a stupid rule? 21:33, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It hinders full information being listed? And is often pretty arbitrary and open-to-interpretation? And is often used for "This is a real thing that's used a lot, it doesn't matter at all."-type things? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The point of the rule is that there are plenty of generic subjects within the game that are entirely not worth covering: anything that could possibly be said about them would be redundant by the simple fact of what they literally are. I don't see an issue with that, but you're free to make a proposal callings for its removal. For the moment, though, it's a valid and official policy, and it can't be disregarded just because you don't like it. 21:38, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Just saying, this rule is equatable to a Stonk. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2017 (EDT)
 * If you don't like it, you're free to discuss it. 21:44, 30 September 2017 (EDT)