Talk:Blurp (Yoshi's Story)

Any proof these aren't just redesigned Cheep Cheeps, a la Flopsy Fish? Binarystep (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Any proof that they are redesigned Cheep Cheeps?
 * I think it can be concluded within reason that they are meant to be Cheep Cheeps, just given another N64 touch-up on their design like the "Bubs" of Super Mario 64. Supposing that they were named after or mistaken for the Super Mario World Blurps, the localization misread the Japanese for a very simple reason - namely, Blurp is 「ブクブク」 and Cheep Cheep is 「プクプク」. The basic small enemy is essentially still a Cheep Cheep, and we've got one source naming them Pukupuku / Cheep Cheep over none calling the small ones Buku Buku / Blurp, so that coupled with the fact that the species is a series staple makes for an easy merge. The question is what to do with the remaining two big counterparts: the English source we have appears to collectively call them Blurps, and appears to name the red one, aptly enough, Red Blurp. The Red Blurp is already strongly likened to Boss Bass, so I think they can be considered the same thing, with this article just covering the otherwise unnamed blue variant and leaving a note along the lines of, "In Yoshi's Story, the term "Blurp" can also refer to Boss Bass, which were renamed Red Blurp." (Why were multiple separate enemies placed in this article, anyway?) LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep
They act exactly the same as Cheep Cheeps and have the same Japanese name, and look pretty much the same (with minor differences from their "normal" depiction like other Yoshi's Story enemies). As for why they're called Blurps, that's likely just a translator mistaking プクプク (pukupuku) for ブクブク (bukubuku). Note that this will only affect regular-sized Blurps, not Red Blurps and "Blue Blurps".

Proposer: Deadline: June 21, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal (it should be noted that from our cited sources, "Blurp" only refers to the overgrown ones anyway).
 * 3) Per proposal. I think they are about the same.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per LinkTheLefty in the comments
 * 6) Per all and previous proposals like this.
 * 7) Sounds good.
 * 8) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) The fact that these guys have spurned off bigger versions and to a lesser extend having an official English name, I feel they have enough to stand alone. On that note, perhaps it'd be a better idea to split off the two bigger Blurps since, aside from being bigger, they hold different traits from their smaller counterparts (Red one eating Yoshi and the blue one spitting water to slow Yoshis down).
 * 2) Per Tails777.

Comments
Now, hold on... To be clear, you're referring to the small fish merging with Cheep Cheep and not the giant Red Blurp and "Blue Blurp" variations? LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Yeah, the others are too different to consider normal Cheep Cheeps. Binarystep (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

@Tails777 The English name is likely a mistake, and the sub-species argument seems flawed to me (it's like saying Flopsy Fish aren't Cheep Cheeps because they branched off into Piscatory Petes and the unnamed spiked variation from Touch & Go). Binarystep (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Can you back up that it's a translation error? What if it wasn't an error? What if it was intentional? I feel we can't be certain that it was a translation mistake so that's why I'm opposing, cause I feel we're acting more on a mistake we can't prove. (Though I can easily be wrong cause I'm not an expert on translating)
 * @Tails - I've noted this in the area above the proposal. Diacritical marks are confused for each other more often than you'd think, and the Japanese name for Cheep Cheep and the SMW Blurp literally just has the dakuten [ﾟ/ﾞ] flipped for the other. It's pretty obvious that the localization named it after the latter due to this common mistake. As for what to do with the remaining Red Blurp and "Blue Blurp" - our sources indicate that the English "Blurp" has only referred to the larger variants anyway, so having them share the same article is more bearable than spontaneously incorporating the smaller fish, but that can be decided afterwards. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
 * @TheHelper - Again, it's simply not a good idea to keep the smaller ones in the Blurp article if we cannot properly attribute the name to them. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (EDT)