Talk:Deep Cheep

Appearance in NSMBU
Do they really appear in NSMBU? I mean, there's artwork of them, but I don't remember seeing any. Aokage (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (EST)

I have the same question, I have indications that appears or in Tropical Refresher or in Porcupuffer Falls or in Swim Your Life! but eh not been confirmed so it's possible it then appears in a next DLC or is in some challenge or a Coin Courses, so for now I will try to investigate if is found in the game, and later I'll give you an answer ok? . Marioyoshi (talk)
 * So, do they appear at all? --Hiccup (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2015 (EST)

Appearance in Super Mario Maker or not?
When you shake Cheep Cheeps into green ones in NSMBU style they highly resemble Deep Cheep except that they don't chase you why is that?

Yoshi's New Island section shouldn't be here
I honestly can't agree with Green Cheep Cheep in YNI being covered in Deep Cheep page just because of the internal filename when everything else from its behavior to the supplementary sources we have at hand contradict this. This is more like Deep Cheep's files being used as a basis for the green Cheep Cheeps in the finished product, which makes the filename an artifact and should have a trivia note at most. SmokedChili (talk) 05:11, February 9, 2020 (EST)

Stop considering the green Cheep Cheeps in certain Super Mario Maker styles to be Blurps and Deep Cheeps: take 2
So I attempted this on the Blurp talk page a while back, it failed mainly because they "still act like Blurp," which while true I do not find a valid reason. The fact of the matter is the green versions are consistently called "Cheep Cheeps" in every style, and River Fish in the Forest's description doubles down on this. Nothing in any of the Super Mario Maker series ever uses the names "Blurp" or "Deep Cheep," only the wiki does in spite of what the games explicitly say. Also, it's not like the games didn't change names between styles and themes for other entities, like Spike Trap becoming Jelectro and Sea Urchin. Furthermore, this can't be a "Search Pukupuku" if it doesn't search. As for the nature of the design, Lakitu in Super Mario Kart reuses Fishin' Lakitu graphics, but we no longer consider that to be an actual Fishin' Lakitu appearance; the same goes for Chomps in Donkey Kong Land using Chomps Jr's design.

Basically, I'm wanting to fix the enemy table and gallery labels on the SMM game pages and simply note on these pages that the design was used for that game, but no longer consider it an actual appearance (similar to how some articles list name appearances on Mario Golf scoreboards).

Proposer: Deadline: April 30, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per
 * 2) Per the previous proposal's support. Why don't we call Peach's Daisy color scheme in the older Super Smash Bros. games a full-fledged appearance of Daisy while we're at it?
 * 3) Per all, and my initial statements. There's no proof they're intended to be actual Blurps and/or Deep Cheeps. Just because they use the same sprites doesn't mean they're supposed to be this specific species.

Oppose

 * 1) Per the previous proposal's opposition. If something appears, it should count as an appearance.
 * 2) "and River Fish in the Forest's description doubles down on this." - The River Fish in the Forest article literally shows in the infobox that there's regular-styled cheeps and blurps. How do you know it's specifically talking about the blurp-like ones and not the regular ones? And your design point isn't very strong; "Fishing Lakitus" were confused with Lakitus for a long time because they're literally just Lakitus with Fishing Poles, a trait later adopted by many many many normal lakitus. Blurps have a very different color AND a very distinguishable characteristic (the eyeglasses), so they're not going to be sharing designs with normal Cheeps unless Nintendo actually wants to retcon and merge two species into one. I think it's fine to call the ones in SMM/SMM2 Deep Cheeps and Blurps. Also, what about Slave Basa, which is called a Basa but is clearly a Fang variant? What about Sand Cheep which is called a Cheep Cheep but is clearly a Blurp?
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per previous proposal's opposition, especially 7feetunder's comment about the "intended goal" of the proposal.
 * 5) Per all. Somebody needs to figure out if there's a more controversial topic in mariowiki history then goddamn fish.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) This and the previous Blurp proposal seems to be drastically overthinking this. If there's some weird inconsistency in a game, just take note and move on. Don't see why there needs to be a proposal over this.
 * 8) Per all, as well as the opposition from the previous proposal.

Comments
@Somethingone: "The River Fish in the Forest article literally shows in the infobox that there's regular-styled cheeps and blurps. How do you know it's specifically talking about the blurp-like ones and not the regular ones?" Er, no? Try looking down a bit. There is precisely one (1) Big Cheep Cheep. No regular Cheep Cheeps by our definition. Also note that Para-Beetle Transfer, for example, mentions Para-Beetles by name, like Jelectro / Sea Urchin and unlike Blurp / Deep Cheep. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:14, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's just a minor technicality. Keep in mind that official sources can sometimes make mistakes. 13:55, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * I just want to say that the Peach=Daisy in Smash comparison you're making is not a very good one, that is clearly just Peach dressed like Daisy. This however, it's the Blurp / Deep Cheep appearing that happen to be referred to as "Cheep Cheeps". 13:59, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * The only "mistake" here is openly defying the categorization used by all languages in all relevant games. Note the "all"s. It's not a "minor technicality" if it's consistent. It's not a mistake, it's blatantly a deliberate choice. To defy it therefore, is by definition fanon. Also, I made my (altered) intended goal very clear here in the last sentence. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:25, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah, calling it a "minor technicality" frankly sounds like another way to say not to nitpick it apart, considering that was addressing at least a whole padded line of text of that oppose vote. And not to get off track, but I fully stand by the same Peach/Daisy comparison being perfectly apt here. Look at Daisy's design. Now look at Peach's Super Smash Bros. recolors. These characters become nigh-indistinguishable, and if the games didn't give us a giant "Peach" label we'd no doubt had had discussions over whether to call her "Daisy" (following that Luigi's Smash voice was initially just Mario barely pinching his nose). By this logic,  is Luigi because he was originally represented as a very simple . Consider the fact that the new sprites in Super Mario Maker tend to  older design elements. Same deal; these are aesthetic skins. If it was only one product, sure, maybe that can be let go - but you also have Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS and Super Mario Maker 2 (which corrected Bull's-Eye Blaster), meaning that we're to ignore not one, not two, but three instances of this in a row. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:45, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm not going to get into a debate over this, I most likely won't say anything else, but the TTYD recolor is just stretching it here, especially for a game that has Luigi in it and even has them both appear onscreen at the same time. 15:17, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:19, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * How does that relate to this discussion? The argument here is that both being on-screen proves they are different entities, it has nothing to do with how many there are. 05:25, April 17, 2022 (EDT)

What about Sand Cheep? Its Japanese and English names are both based on Cheep Cheep's, but the wiki treats it as a Blurp presumably because of its appearance. Blinker (talk) 15:18, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * Blurp is already derived from Cheep Cheep. Sand Cheep may need reexamined though, admittedly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:40, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

I'll just leave my overall view on the proposal here. I am unsure which to vote for, however I do think the way these are organised are adequete enough but I wouldn't mind if these sections are rewritten to reflect that these games refer to them as Cheep Cheeps that use the design of Deep Cheeps and Blurps respectively. That would be a much better solution than getting rid of these mentions entirely. 15:25, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Y'all seem to be focusing on Blurp, despite (or dare I guess, because of) the elephant in the room being that identifying the NSMBU-style ones as "Search Pukupuku" when they by no means search and are identified only as the normal Pukupuku is incredibly disingenuous and misleading. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:57, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * Why would they look identical to Deep Cheeps if they were meant to just be normal Cheep Cheeps? 05:25, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * To fit with the style's established aesthetic. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 05:29, April 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * Regardless, if they are Search Pukupuku, why don't they search? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:57, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * Because they're the same situation as Jelectro/Spike Trap; an enemy replacement for one theme that shares the same slot in the gameplay as the enemy they replace. For them to be able to search they would've had a separate menu option/game entity in the game, but according to the files they're palette swaps of the same PukuPukuGreen entity(and Jelectro is the same situation, as the internal name data dump makes no mention of Shibire Kurage). I am removing my vote due to reading this over, but I do want to say that Japanese names aren't always indicative of an enemy's functions/classifications("Cookie" is clearly not edible, "Sweaty Youngster" doesn't sweat in-game, "Peace Sign" isn't peaceful, etc. etc.). Somethingone (talk) 14:51, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's the in-game vocals and labels too, Jelectro and Urchin are listed differently from Spike Trap but all green fish are just listed as "Cheep Cheep." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:14, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah it's inconsistent but I just don't see it as a strong reason to argue at length over. From how I see it, I'm not really on-board trying to enact changes on shaky terms being Super Mario Maker doesn't have these specific lines for these extremely derivative fish and the Japanese name for this generic creature now isn't applicable in this one game and it's evident from the oppose from this proposal and the earlier ones that I'm not the only one who thinks this. 22:45, April 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * It follows the same logic of considering DT's Nipper Plants to be regular Nipper Plants and not Fire Nipper Plant IMO. The design is the only attribute suggesting they might be the other species, and in my opinion that's arbitrary and unconvincing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:16, April 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * Well we all know Nintendo has played fast and loose with a lot with these, resulting in being arbitrary splits and merges. Why not extremely briefly mention Dream Team's Nipper Plants in Fire Nipper Plant while most of the information is found in the main article? 15:01, April 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * That is precisely what I want to do here. People who've only played SMM are only gonna think of them as Cheep Cheep anyways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:17, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

@SomethingOne Yes, and we call Heavy Troopa a Paratroopa rather than a normal Troopa. Variants of variants can have names more like the original, and that does not correlate with a base species using a variant's design. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:19, April 22, 2022 (EDT)