Talk:Bandit

Sub-Species

How the heck are Bandits related to Shy Guys? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Well, this is another one of the many conjectures in this wiki --™ The 'Shroom 12:21, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I wonder how many of these conjectures are out there. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

They both wear robes and cover their faces with a mask (or their faces are masks). Development-wise, they're clearly inspired by the previous Shy Guys, but any suggestion of in-universe relation would be speculatory. Logical speculation, but still speculation. Redstar 12:24, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Shy Guy's mask is a mask. Bandit's mask is a face. In Mario Power Tennis, whenever Shy Guy won a trophy, he'd trip, which makes his mask fall off his face. Bandit's "mask" changes expressions with ease, so I doubt it's a mask. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

That's why I acknowledged the possibility. But, just like Bandit, Shy Guy's have had their masks be emotive as well, though not as much as Bandit. Regardless, it very much looks like a mask, and since we know Shy Guys have masks and Bandits were more than likely based off of Shy Guys, there's a strong sense they're masks as well. Besides, looking at the images on the actual article shows straps around the head that meet with the mask/face. Redstar 12:41, 3 December 2009 (EST)

I guess you have a point about the mask part. You know, I think that one of the NPC Bandits from the Paper Mario says something about his mask or face. I'm not sure, though. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Probably. I might be playing through Paper Mario again soon, so I can keep a look out for it... I just noticed that the Tattle information at the bottom of the page for Paper Mario says "face". There's a lot of contradicting information about this, isn't there? Would make a fun "controversy" section... Here's a thought: what if his face is a mask? Redstar 12:51, 3 December 2009 (EST)

In case it matters any, ボロドー (Bandits) are described as wearing white masks similar to those of ヘイホー (Shy Guys) on Japanese Wikipedia, but Shy Guys aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. However, a link to the article on Shy Guys does appear in the related links at the bottom.--vellidragon 12:54, 3 December 2009 (EST)

You keep bringing up "Japanese Wikipedia"... Where does it get its sources, because I'd like to know those more. Redstar 12:58, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, bring us some clarification. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Bandits showing their faces?

"In some cases, Bandits will show their faces while hiding if Yoshi isn't looking at them." I haven't played Yoshi's Island DS, so maybe they do that in that game, but in the original game, they merely turn their heads left and right when you're not looking at them. Can anyone confirm that they show their faces in any Yoshi game?--vellidragon 14:46, 20 December 2009 (EST)

AGE&Height and Weight Age: He doesn't look like a child and a adult. So He is probably mid-teen(14~15) Height: Maybe he is 5 feet. Because he is a smaller than mario. Weight: He looks so thin. I think he is 30 ~35kg.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldblueberry (talk).

Uh, what does that have to do with anything vellidragon is trying to say?

Ray Trace^(T|C)

Yeah, and look at their cute cartoony eyes. They look the same. Bomberman had the same eyes as them. I think Bandits doesn't look like Bomberman.

What in the mushroom world are you two saying?Hello?Velli is trying to ask a question here?We're not here to talk about cute eyes and cartoons.Count Bonsula I need blood...

Ignoring the other idiots, I can confirm that they never reveal their faces. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

The faces on masks doesn't make them the proper population of the world. I wish there is the another Mario game with the Bandit in it. I can tell they never reveal faces in later games.

Proof of Sub-Species?

In Yoshi's Island DS, they are not in the Shy Guy variety exhibit of the enemy museum. Wouldn't this indicate that they are unrelated to Shy Guys? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2014 (EDT)

2 DT Bandits???

If you look in the Dream Team section, than you find 2 Bandits. Bandit #2 shouldn't be there because I read in the Prima Games guide that the 2nd Bandit appears only in the background. I know the guide told the stats of Somnom Woods Bandit, but if you look closely, than you will see that that Bandit has it's stats copied from Beehoss. The 2nd Bandit appears in the background holding a Golden Egg, and when you throw a Taunt Ball at him, he runs away. So, you don't fight it. 98.16.11.4 10:08, 21 January 2015 (EST)

That you don't fight it under normal circumstances doesn't change that it still appears as an enemy, so that's no real reason to remove it. --Lord Grammaticus (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2015 (EST)

Bandits are not Shy Guys

Appearances alone are not enough to claim that Bandits are a subspecies of Shy Guys. Considering the discussion at the top and LTL's comment, would anyone complain if I started making edits to remove this? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Any proof they aren't Shy Guys? Binarystep (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2015 (EDT)

They are Shy Guys. Look on the Article. Their spices origin is Shy Guy. (talk|contribs) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (EDT)

...That's what's being argued...

-Toa 95 (talk)

@Binarystep: Any proof they are Shy Guys? Didn't we have this discussion already? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

That's that I'm trying to find, actually. Though I will say I don't think the Enemy Museum proves much (considering it also puts Snifits in a different exibit from Shy Guys). On an interesting note, if our stance is that appearance doesn't prove anything, one could make a good argument for Porcupuffers and Rip Van Fish having nothing to do with Cheep Cheeps. Binarystep (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2015 (EDT)

I wouldn't go as far to say that appearance doesn't matter at all, but it shouldn't be the only factor, or at the very least it should be corroborated by other piece of information unless there's an incredibly-clear visual resemblance between species (Piranha Plant and Chewy, for example). I'll have to do more research into Porcupuffers and Rip Van Fish before I say something definitive about them. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

bandits are shy guys 6-10
The similar appearances of Bandits and Shy Guy aren't enough to link the two species together.

That's a really simple way of summing up this proposal, but let me prattle on for a bit. The first mention on the wiki I can find of Bandits being listed as sub-species of Shy Guys is on the Bandit page, being quietly listed as "Shy Guys" back in 2006 (on a side note, hahahahaha we used to link to Lemmy's Land). Nearly ten months later, it popped up on the Shy Guy page, the first user added them to the Shy Guy template, and it all seems to go from there. It's not as if the users who added the info weren't reputable, but the problem is that they didn't exactly supply a source. Since those users probably didn't have lengthy discussions about this, I'll assume that they linked the species together because of their similar appearance (if I'm wrong, feel free to politely call me out on this). That doesn't really do it for me, though: it's impossible to deny that they have no visual connection, but saying that that makes the Bandits a sub-species is going too far for me. They have similar-looking robes and white masks, but all that really tells me is that they accessorize at the same boutique. Another problem I have with this is that there's no reason for the Bandits to be the sub-species and not the Shy Guys. If it's just because the Shy Guys appeared first, that's not a reason that's actually backed up by any proof. The wiki's definition of a "sub-species" is already muddled, but with this little information, it's taking it too far. All in all, listing the Bandits as sub-species of Shy Guys isn't really substantiated and just serves to make the family tree more complicated than it needs to be; therefore, I want to remove mention of Bandits being tied to Shy Guys, or at the very, very least list them as a related species only.

Proposer: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: June 7, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Bandits are not Shy Guys (make changes)

1. Time Turner (talk) Per me.
   Baby Luigi (talk) I'd argue that the Bandit's appearance IS proof that they're not related to Shy Guys. Second, I'd go as far to say that Snufits are not Shy Guys. Basically, Shy Guys are enemies that usually have "Guy" at the end of their name, like Fat Guy, Fly Guy, Mariachi Guy, Groove Guy. Snifits and Bandits don't have the "Guy" suffix in their name, therefore not drawing any connections to Shy Guys outside of being robed, masked people. And this isn't some sort of rule I made up. Nearly every enemy that has "Guy" in their name and looks like a Shy Guy (so barring Fry Guy and such) can safely be classified as "Shy Guys", as they all share the same mask feature, which is pretty much a trademark symbol for Shy Guys. Considering that Bandits don't have that...well, again, I doubt they're Shy Guys. I agree that they should at most be just related species.
2. Burningdragon25 (talk) They don't look like it so, per all!
3. Lumastar (talk) Per all. The outfit is literally the only major similarity between the two, and even then the Bandit's outfit makes it appear more human while a Shy Guy's outfit makes it appear remotely alien.
4. SJ (talk) Per all
5. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) No evidence that they are shy guys other then speculation.
6. LinkTheLefty (talk) I definitely agree with the notion to do away with certain terminology, but per the original observation about YIDS museum categorization that indicates they're technically unrelated. As it stands, this proposal is explicitly about determining if Bandits are actually a sub-species (the current Mario Wiki implied definition of it) - whether or not Bandits are "conceptually" Shy Guys is a separate argument.

Bandits are Shy Guys (do nothing)

1. LudwigVon (talk) I think they are Shy Guy. They wear a mask like Shy Guy. The bandits wears a tunic that looks much like those worn by the Shy Guy with the exception of color. Several Sub -Species of Shy Guy and Bandit are similar to both. So I think we should believe that the Bandits are Shy Guy until good evidence.
2. TheHelper100 (talk) There most certainly Shy Guys because appearance is one thing but like LudwigVon said they have multiple colored clothes like shy guys and have a lot of sub-species of themselves besides I look at a Bandit and immediately think of a Shy Guy so I go with there Shy Guys.
3. Pyro Guy (talk) There are many confirmed species of Shy Guy that don't have 'Guy' in their name. Snifit is one example. And they have their most distinctive feature- the mask and strap- put on both of them. Also, the overall 'dress code' is the same, bar the belt is replaced by a stripe. So that is why I think that Bandits are a species of Shy Guy. Also, "they all share the same mask feature, which is pretty much a trademark symbol for Shy Guys."
4. Walkazo (talk) - They're clearly conceptually based on Shy Guys and do bear clear resemblance to them, and we're doing ourselves and the readers no favours by thoroughly severing the connection. It's like how things like Hammer Bros. and Clubbas are still clearly Koopas: the only difference here is that while there's a general Koopa page and category, there's no umbrella for Shy Guys and their kin, just Shy Guy itself and its category, so the Bandits get put in there by default. Admittedly, the category stuff does feel like it's going a bit too far (like putting H-bros, into a "Koopa Troopas" category would), but a better solution would to make the Bandit category a subcategory of Shy Guys, allowing for the connection without having the two sets of pages mixed up together. As for "subspecies", this is a perfect example of why we should get rid of its usage altogether across the wiki, because it implies a much stronger relatedness than most pages actually have: just saying Bandits are a "derived species" would be far more accurate, like how Koopa Strikers, Koopeleons and Electro-Koopas are all "derived" from Koopa Troopas, but certainly aren't members of the same species (despite what the poorly-titled Koopa umbrella page suggests: another thing we should fix).
5. Toadbrigade5 (talk) Per all, and just another note: The bandits that swap Baby Mario for a shy guy are working directly with Shy Guys, something Shy Guys of all subspecies commonly do. Just saying, not really a point, but just something I felt deserved to be mentioned.
6. Tails777 (talk) Per Walkazo
7. Binarystep (talk) Per all.
8. Mario (talk) Definitely NOT a subspecies, but Bandits have close enough resemblance to have a "related" or "derived" species mention, and they can fit within the Shy Guy species navbox (into its own section, not lumped with Fly Guy, Fat Guy, Stupid Guy, Sleeping Guy, etc.)
9. ShyGuy8 (talk)Per All. They may not look the same buy they are still relatable.
10. BabyLuigi64 (talk) Changing vote, per Walkazo.

Comments

What proof is there they aren't Shy Guys? Binarystep (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

The mask, no "Guy" suffix, different robes, and no "HeiHo" in their Japanese names. Now your turn. Ray Trace^(T|C) 01:42, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

Barring the Japanese name and the robe points, one could use that to say Snifits aren't Shy Guys either. Binarystep (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

...Which is exactly what BL's arguing as well. Your point? Also, you can't just say "well, what's the proof that it's not what you say" without providing anything in return, especially after I've already provided multiple points, as BL listed. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

I missed that part of BL's vote because I'm a moron. Anyway, I'm actually trying to find something official calling them Shy Guys (hence why I didn't vote yet). Binarystep (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

If there's nothing outright stating they are Shy Guys or not, investigation and inferences drawn from available evidence is a far more powerful persuasive tool than the argument of simply a lack of an official source. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:19, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

By the way, Time Tuner, this proposal will affect several pages, including Slugger and Green Glove (who really shouldn't be called "Bandits" in the first place anyway). Just letting you know that. Ray Trace^(T|C) 01:41, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

Duly noted. Perhaps the follow-up could be about those stray Bandit sub-species... Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Also, Zeus Guy also seems to be an exception to the Shy Guy species rule (well not really, they don't have "Ho" in their Japanese name, a feature that -probably- all Shy Guy species have). Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:12, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

Dancing Spear Guys (Yariyari Dansā) don't. Binarystep (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

They don't count probably because they're a subspecies of Spear Guy. Logic says this:

A: Spear Guys are Shy Guys

B: Dancing Spear Guys are Spear Guys

C: Therefore, Dancing Spear Guys are Shy Guys

Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:29, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

What about both types of Chuck Guys (Ūrara and Ōrara)? Binarystep (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

Some Shy Guys don't even have "Guy" in the English name (Glum Reaper, Greaper, Springer, Stretch, Train Bandit). Binarystep (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

And according to TMK, regular Spear Guys are called Yari Dansā in Japan (at least in Paper Mario, notably, they're called Yarihō in the Yoshi series, where they also act slightly differently by carrying shields). Binarystep (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

I don't count Super Mario RPG enemies, as I'm well aware they're called "Shyster" (just as how various other enemies in Super Mario RPG have strange English names, like Cheep-Cheep for example). It's just a general rule, it's not a rule set in stone. The difference is that those enemies have the trade-mark Shy Guy appearance, with the same mask and body build. Bandit doesn't. He has a different mask, different robes, and hands for hands instead of nubs in which what Shy Guys have. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:45, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

I can see your point about the appearance (that's also the reason I haven't voted and prefer to find actual evidence in a guide that they're Shy Guys). Binarystep (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

Okay, a bit relevant to this proposal, but is Porcupuffer a Cheep-Cheep, then? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:20, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

Let's pick this apart one at at time, mkay? Ray Trace^(T|C) 17:21, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

Sigh, some of these voters are demonstrating exactly WHY this voting system is flawed >_> Ray Trace^(T|C) 00:13, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

It's not like the opposition is enough to overturn your infallible reasoning this time, sis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:13, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind if I got a convincing opposition to my vote. What is getting opposed is not a reasonable opposition. Ray Trace^(T|C) 00:37, 27 May 2015 (EDT)

Bandits aren't Shy Guys because they steal items in Paper Mario games so, that is why they're different! Burningdragon25 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

...What? Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Um, dude, you do realize Shy Guys DO steal items in the original Paper Mario? Ray Trace^(T|C) 17:23, 26 May 2015 (EDT)

"As for "subspecies", this is a perfect example of why we should get rid of its usage altogether across the wiki, because it implies a much stronger relatedness than most pages actually have: just saying Bandits are a "derived species" would be far more accurate, like how Koopa Strikers, Koopeleons and Electro-Koopas are all "derived" from Koopa Troopas, but certainly aren't members of the same species (despite what the poorly-titled Koopa umbrella page suggests: another thing we should fix)."

Per all the way. "Subspecies" isn't even used correctly in this wiki. That this wiki is actively misinforming me while confusing several readers is not a good sign. I remember subspecies being used as a term for minor, but coherent differences within a species, generally divided by region; e.g. woodhouse scrub jay vs. California scrub jay; the several dark-eyed junco variations; Audubon yellow-rumped warbler vs. Myrtle yellow-rumped warbler. I hope Walkazo understands what I'm talking about. But this usage is totally misleading as it implies they're simply species based off a parent species. That's how I understood from being in this wiki for way too long.

Thank you, MarioWiki. You failed zoology. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:12, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, a more authentic use of "subspecies" would be the red and blue Spike Tops (with the additional Red Spike Top being a separate species on the side - like the Gilded Flicker to the Yellow/Red-Shafted Northern Flicker subspecies pair), but we don't even use it there. (But keep in ind that most cases, like red and blue Bandits, multicoloured Cheep-Cheep and different Koopa shell colours don't run by geographical divisions (because multiple colours occur in single games), and so, aren't subspecies, just polymorphisms.) Anyway, these latest TPPs are convincing me that something really needs to be done about the term, so I'm probably gonna make a Proposal about it tomorrow; no sense waiting until these proposals are over since the subject's not in direct conflict or anything (but I do need to wait until I'm not falling asleep). - Walkazo 21:36, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

I had to disagree with keeping Bandits the same "species" as Shy Guys, personally I always saw them as different things. Maybe they share similarities, but I really don't see Bandits as Shy Guys, especially considering we have a myriad of "Guy" (or "Ho") species that are clearly intended to be Shy Guys and the similarities aren't enough for me to draw the connection. I'm not advocating completely separating the line, I just want to say, "yeah, bandits are related to shy guys, we can add them to 'related species' but they aren't shy guys period". The Porcupuffer thing is more clear-cut out than this imo. Again, just personal bias and I'm just using my logic to justify it.

Or just ---- it, we can just wait for your proposal to come Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:19, 3 June 2015 (EDT)

Bird lady 'kazo isn't advocating to keep Bandits as the same species as Shy Guys, per se. Baby Luigi, you're technically agreeing with her with the "they share similarities" and how you don't advocate "completely separating the line". You agree with her fundamentally. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

What I'm saying is more like how birds are derived from dinosaurs, and so, are technically dinosaurs, but are different enough that we talk about them separately. Similarly, Bandits are ultimately based on Shy Guys (and bear some similarities as a result), and therefore should be in the "derived species" umbrella, but are different enough that they should be talked about separately overall. Meanwhile, "related species" are things that are branches from a common ancestor (i.e. pterosaurs and dinosaurs - two separate reptile lineages) or similar by chance (i.e. pterosaurs and bats - convergent evolution of membranous wings). - Walkazo 22:46, 6 June 2015 (EDT)