Talk:Cheep Cheep

Does Cheep Cheep occasionally appear in the Mario Party series?F g

Probably. -- Sir Grodus

Yes. --KPH2293 20:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Then how come there's no info about the mario party series in this article?F g

Because nobody's added it in yet. --KPH2293 20:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

And a lot of other ones which I'm not going to tell fg because I'll have to rewrite the articles like I did with Sphere Factor and Monty's Revenge. A fan of Yoshi | Here

Usually I just mentioned that something appears in throughout the Mario Party series and I may mention a certain game; and if theres something notable about its appearance in said Mario Party game(s), I just jot it down, like if its a partner in Deul Mode or if it has a board themed after it. Sir Grodus

I *know* that they're in 4 and 7. They're mostly in minigames, but sometimes are just part of a background, though they do occasionally have a part in boards. Particularly in 7, where they'll knock a player back to start on the Italy board if they land on the leaning tower of Piza space (which tips and knocks them into the canals, where cheep-cheeps will bop them back to start). Xanofar 14:30, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Dialouge

I think I figured out why Cheep Cheeps couldn't talk before. Because none of the enemies in early Mario games talked. You might as well say the talking Koopas are a sub-species.-Pal101

Super Mario RPG

Didn't they appear in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars?F g

They were called Mr. Kipper there. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 11:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, they were called Goby. Mr. Kippers are cousins (Pichipichi). LinkTheLefty 15:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Fixing

I've been working on trying to improve the article - like oganizing the sections into their proper places. Just kind of randomly wanted to let ya'll know that,

-- Cheep-Cheep(CheepTalk · CheepArticle) 11:08, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Bub

The link to "Bub" leads to Goldbub's son, the golden bomb-omb. Xanofar 14:23, 5 January 2009 (EST)

SM: Sunshine

The cheep-cheep-like enemies from Super Mario Sunshine should have their own article, rather than being suggested to be a variant of Bubba, because they themselves are quiet different from most 'traditional' looking cheep-cheeps in the sense that their undersides have some sort of strange filters on them. I don't really get why, but they do. Xanofar 14:26, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Well, how can we actually confirm it's a different enemy that requires a different article? To me they do look different. Supermariofan14

Ok, something's wrong here, cuz the Bubba article claims that the fish described in the Super Mario Sunshine section of this article is in fact a Bubba, and not a Cheep-Cheep, but they both say that they do the same things...so which one is which? PHOENIX (talk • edits) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So, it's been a while since this has been discussed apparently, but can we decide on this now? I find it weird that we've had two articles claiming one enemy to be a subspecies of different enemies for this long.--Vommack 20:05, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Oh, and I just dug out my old Nintendo Power guide for SMS. It refers to them as Cheep-Cheeps.--Vommack 20:25, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

The Japanese official guide for Sunshine only lists プクプク Puku Puku. No other entries for anything resembling Bubba. Vent 00:23, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

If both the NA and Japan guides say Cheep-Cheeps, I think we can safely assume they're Cheep-Cheeps.--Vommack 18:43, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Name

Is the name "Cheep-Cheep," "Cheep Cheep," or both? -- Son of Suns (talk)

Cheep hyphen Cheep seems to be used more often, though I'm not sure about recently.--Knife (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Cheep-Cheep Island is spelled with a hyphen while Cheep Cheep Beach is not. My guess is that both are accepted. --Garlic Man (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Strange Cheep

Could you send me a picture of the strange Cheep-Cheep in NSMB? No need to send it to my talk page, just put it here and I'll come by and see it. I don't have the game, so I can't do it myself. And I think it needs a seperate article for itself. --Yoshidino 02:10, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

Name

In newer games it is called "Cheep Cheep", and not "Cheep-Cheep". Is it a new name?

Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont)

19:21, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Based on the section above, the general consensus seems to be that they're both acceptable spellings.--Vommack 20:02, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Golden

I took a look at the official manual for New Super Mario Bros. U, and the golden Cheep-Cheeps are actually called "Eep Cheeps". Should that be changed?Argonstorm32 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (EST)

A piece of advice, when you got an official source, don't wait for a response. Just knock yourself out.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Question About the Regular Cheep Cheeps in Super Mario Odyssey

I see Cheep Cheeps in the Sand Kingdom, but in this case, they are only seen when Mario fishes for a Cheep Cheep as a Fishin' Lakitu, and I don't think they should be marked as enemies in the Sand Kingdom, considering that they don't harm Mario in that kingdom and aren't seen swimming around in the Oasis. Mari0fan100 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Who agrees with this?

The template for discussing the split into Tobi Fish...

...has been around for more than a few years it looks like. Tempted to remove it, but I'm not sure that's my call. -- Lord G. matters. 01:10, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

Yeah, the discussion probably was settled years ago. Supporting. TheDarkStar 10:30, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

I don't recall seeing it before, so it's probably newer than you think. And I've edited this page a lot. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:24, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

The template was added earlier in July. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:48, December 29, 2019 (EST)

A question

If Cheep Cheeps weren't in the Super Mario Bros Show then who were those fish shown in the intro?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mario123456789 (talk).

Trouters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:21, January 26, 2021 (EST)

The "Snow Cheep Cheep" name and resistance to cold temperatures

• The wiki is still referring to the Snow Kingdom ones as "Snow Cheep Cheep", but is that an actual name? The Power Moon names are all in title case, so "I Met a Snow Cheep Cheep!" could be intended as "I met a snow Cheep Cheep!", right? Especially considering the moon's name in other languages.
• The article claims that "Besides the coloring, the only difference between the two is that the Snow Kingdom variants are resistant to the extremely cold temperatures in the water." I don't recall lake Cheep Cheeps ever being found near freezing water. Are they ever shown NOT to be resistant to cold temperatures?

Blinker (talk) 04:58, October 1, 2021 (EDT)

Did some rewriting. Also, there's a fishing spot in the Snow Kingdom where you can fish up regular Cheep Cheeps (and yes, the water is cold if you try to swim in it). 18:51, October 1, 2021 (EDT)

These Cheep Cheep-related merges... erf (I anticipate another lengthy discussion on fish)

“This place is wackadoodle! It's turning my brain into spaghetti!”

—Luigi, Fortune Street

These merges happened a while back but navigating several pages pertaining to Cheep Cheep have been an ongoing difficulty for me, more so while I'm trying to make sense of why this is so. This is not just trying to make sense of the seemingly incoherent page structures of this page, Big Cheep Cheep, Cheep Chomp, Spiny Cheep Cheep, and more but also trying to piece a timeline of proposals that transpired to these splits and merges, short of outright dumpster diving in in the Talk Page Proposal archives. More often than not I don't find the discussion I need, especially when discussion (including this one, my apologies) revolves around large swaths of text quibbling over naming schemes in guidebooks and whatnot. Seemingly passed proposals don't align with the current state of the page and vice versa (see Talk:Cheep Chomp Talk:Boss Bass where there are multitudes of failed merge proposals but are merged because of a talk page proposal on another page, maybe on Talk:Big Bertha, Talk:Bubba, or this talk page?) Basically, I had to navigate this wet warp pipe labyrinth of loosely related articles, talk pages, talk page redirect after talk page redirect. Yesterday, I personally had issues finding out why this passed proposal from Talk:Spiny_Cheep_Cheep#Split_Spiny_Fish_from_Spiny_Cheep_Cheep didn't line up with the current state of the article until I had to dive into a talk page of a redirect of Talk:Spiny Fish.

My ongoing sentiment, after reviewing some discussion (I haven't read it all, it's been difficult reading it) seemed to have mirrored some lengthy oppose points made in Talk:Cheep Chomp a while back.[1]

• Time Turner: "However, the biggest reason I disagree [merging to Cheep Chomp] is for one simple question: why? What do we gain by lumping all of these fish into a select few articles? It's technically simpler for navigation, but heck, we can merge any number of articles to make it simpler for navigation, but convenience to the reader is lost. Someone who searches for Flopsy Fish, something that appears entirely distinctly from Cheep Cheeps, is going to be confused as to why they show up in the article for Cheep Cheeps with seemingly no reason, with the article claiming that Flopsy Fish are actually Cheep Cheeps, and personally, it's something I find jarring. This is especially true if they're searching through Google; there's a tiny blurb that gives no context to where the information is located, and the link brings them straight to the top."

• Walkazo: "There is nothing wrong with having lots of little articles about slightly different takes on enemies: thoroughness in niche wikis is good as long as it doesn't get silly, and splits on an English site based on different English names, when backed up by design and/or behavioural differences more significant than the likes of RPG enemy palette-swaps, is not silly. A small handful of extra one-off appearances pages does no harm: just use {{main}} on the parent page and you're set for navigation, and having the separate names ensures we get all the search traffic and don't risk frustrating readers with redirects where they expect articles." [...] "And I'm sure a lot of non-biologist gamers, who may or may not even care about the Japanese names, feel the same way, and will wonder why the Super Mario Wiki of all places doesn't have a page for something as basic as a 'Boss Bass'."

The first part took account into search engine discoverability, which was partly the reason I was also generally more pro-split back in the day, but the last part also struck me a lot. I was also puzzled why we don't have a page on Boss Bass or Big Bertha, instead being redirected to Big Cheep Cheep and finding out that the "Boss Bass" in Yoshi's Island DS is found in Cheep Chomp? I am CURRENTLY experiencing a lot of frustration with redirects of Boss Bass, Big Bertha, Bub, Bubba, Piscatory Pete, and so on, having difficulties finding information for the subject I'm looking for, as they're found in these crowded articles. I'm also thinking about the comment Steve made a while back regarding the Chuckster merge[2][3] which I think applies here: several of these fish merges are hurting our search engine discoverability. It also appears at least one reader in Talk:Cheep Chomp is confused by this, (and I had a lot of issues tracing that comment back in the meantime!)[4] and the reasoning for the confusing merge appeared to be "Japanese name": quite literally "That's all there is to it." (more on that). There's another lengthy comment also being confused by the merge.[5] If just being on hiatus for several months at a time can cause me to be confused, I can only imagine how it must be for the average reader to stumble on the page, the average reader who won't go on talk pages because talk pages can be rather boring if you're not invested in the information (I mean I always encourage readers to check talk pages if they dispute any information on the page; they should also always view pages with a critical eye, but most people just aren't trained to be critical thinkers).

When I asked around why these pages are the way they are, the common response I got, and from the tedious, boring, mind-numbing paragraphs of text I had to wade through, circle frequently around obscure Japanese guidebooks, very specific contradictions, and other media that is obtuse and not as easily apparent as readers get from the page and maybe references to tidbits from data leaks, or using these tidbits as a basis for then overplaying "just a design oddity".

Severa cases here. I'm likely missing more because I'm still spending an afternoon reading through this.

• The Big Cheep Cheep/Boss Bass/Big Bertha situation is a messy one. In Big Bertha' case there's even a character called "Bertha" in allusion to this (who is a redirect to Big Cheep Cheep, the most baffling redirect I've seen). The reason Big Bertha is merged with Boss Bass are primarily appearance similarities and a shared Japanese name, and I'm not seeing anyone address the argument on WHY Big Bertha even has a separate name in the first place, because I think "initial creators' intent" was the assumed talking point. Later on, we get Boss Bass/Big Bertha being merged to Big Cheep Cheep[6] based on technicalities like "boss bass underwater are big bertha and don't act like boss bass" and "Japanese names and data leaks. It's basically a double merge.
• See Talk:Piscatory Pete; Piscatory Pete is merged to Cheep Cheep despite existing and looking very different in the same game as Flopsy Fish , also merged with Cheep Cheep, and the reasoning hinges on highly specific technical jargon, on sprite assembly, a shared Japanese name, and contradicting(!) guidebooks having a name shared with Cheep Cheep (despite Flopsy Fish having a separate name) though on first glance they are sprites for two completely different-looking fish to be in the same article as each other. That this peculiar fish gets reused for Yoshi's Island DS is dismissed because Yoshi's Island DS lazily reuses sprites anyway. Couldn't it just be possible that the developers saw Piscatory Pete as its own entity and reused its sprite? I get why Flopsy Fish should be merged, as it's just a weird name of a Cheep Cheep as how "Mace Penguin" was used for Spike, but why also Piscatory Pete?
• Cheep Chomp: I understand the angle that maybe it was created as a Boss Bass replacement starting with Super Mario 64 DS due to having similarish appearances but the merges on this page hinted entirely on Japanese names with no regard with physical appearance. The whole confusion surrounding Bubba is really apparent when I have constant issues figuring out the Cheep Cheep in Banshee Boardwalk is and why it's Big Cheep Cheep but replaced by Boss Bass (but that article is merged to Big Cheep Cheep) it's apparently Cheep Chomp. The Boss Bass in Yoshi's Island DS is also not Boss Bass despite two sources, but Cheep Chomp due to a Japanese name?? How did this split happen? I'd like to know because it's difficult tracing this one.

I understand when people cite Japanese names and guidebooks to discern enemies from each other, but all too often it's used as a bludgeon over localized names[7] (assuming the Boss Bass name for the YIDS boss is just a "flub" while assuming the Japanese name as correct) over the flimsy reasoning of "creator intent" a flimsy frequent talking point) that relies on a premise assumed to be true, "begging the question". The premise being "Mario is a Japanese series and so Japanese developers have more 'involvement' making and organizing names". That localized names are automatically somehow more contrived than Japanese names (although Japanese names are definitely contrived! Also do localizers not cooperate with Japanese developers?) In reality, video game developers don't pay much attention to naming schemes and enemy organizations as we think we do, not as much as they need to make a game for people to enjoy and a world to make minimum sense; this is a topic for another day, but people who edit wikis need to come to terms with this and then also also keep functionality for our wiki in mind while considering convoluted contrivances in Japanese guidebooks and occasional localization hiccup.

If nothing falls through, then please at least we need a way of documenting proposals that affect older ones because it was super frustrating for me to search through several talk pages and also wondering if there were fish proposals on MarioWiki:Proposals I missed. I'm also very sorry about starting this discussion on Big Cheep Cheep, because I feel in the future, if people want to refer to my thoughts, it'll be tricky figuring out which fish talk page started it all, so I do encourage linking here and there when needed. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:04, October 29, 2022 (EDT)

I won't steal your shtick of putting an image of Mario with a thumbs up here but pretend I accomplished those general vibes. I agree with pretty much everything here and I've never liked all these merges focusing on Cheep Cheeps and their variants (yes I supported the Boss Bass into Big Cheep Cheep merge back when it happened, looking back on it I do regret that and think it was a misstep on my part) and I really don't know why they keep happening. Japanese names are not and should not be the ultimate deciding factors for cases like this, and I don't like the sentiment that some people have that when it comes to naming if the developers do it it's right and if the localizers do it it's wrong. That devalues the localization process too much and assumes way too much of the developers themselves, it's a 40-year old game franchise with likely thousands of people who have worked on it over that time. Properties with far more dedication to continuity have made bigger mistakes. If localizers can apply the same name to two different subjects or apply two different names to the same subject, why can't the developers do the exact same thing? Why can we point out that the localizers made a mistake but can't acknowledge and correct what is clearly a developer mistake that the localizers themselves caught on to? (It's got the design and localized name of Boss Bass, but apparently the Japanese name being shared with Cheep Chomp trumps that for some reason.)
Overall I think the current state of the merges are too complicated and will confuse the heck out of the average reader, and it doesn't harm us at all to have separate articles for subjects like Boss Bass or Bubba or Piscatory Pete, we may actually be shooting ourselves in the foot by merging these. By the current setup, in Mario Kart DS Cheep Chomp (which is also Bubba) appears with the appearance of a Boss Bass which is actually an old design for Big Cheep Cheep. And this isn't confusing how? Time Turner and Walkazo's points still stand and I agree with them 100%. We have entities here that have consistent designs and names attached with them - let them have pages! Frankly I couldn't care less what their Japanese name is in these cases. The average reader isn't going to get this. It's not our job to "educate" them that, for example, Boss Bass and Big Cheep Cheep are actually the same thing when we really don't even know that ourselves. Split things back up so that it's not confusing, and if we run into things like "this fish with this design has the same Japanese name as that fish with that design" then make note of it and move on. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:45, October 29, 2022 (EDT)

Okay, I do not mean any offense for this whole blurb I wrote up, but I'm gonna be honest here; I am not convinced.

1. The part about the talk pages being cluttered and seemingly contradictory is not a Cheep Cheep issue, it's a natural progression of splits and merges happening over the course of this wiki's lifespan. Of course the pages will get a bit cross-linked. We don't have a set guideline/archive page to store every proposal, so there's no limit to where a talk page proposal can be in the Talk: namespace. If you want to make a proposal to create standardized archives holding every talk page proposal similar to how we handle regular proposals, go right ahead honestly.

2. If people are confused about why a completely different looking/acting thing being on one page when it looks so different from the "standard" version of that page's enemy/character/thing, that's what text is for. Redesigns are surprising and even confusing to new readers, yes, but it's something this series is no stranger towards. This page alone can be used as proof that redesigns are, in fact, a prominent thing on this wiki; just look at Cheep Cheep's appearances in Super Mario World, Yoshi's Story, and Super Mario Sunshine.

3. The part about links taking people to the top of a page instead of a specific section is going to happen no matter what. Most article searches online don't take you specifically to the part of the text you searched & that appeared on an article preview, but that's what Ctrl+F is for. Just use that when you're on the article.

4. Despite what many people may think, all these recent merges have not been significantly impacting our search results. Here's a graph showing the search results for the Super Mario Wiki. Our "peak" search results was during the period of 2010-2012, and most of the merges in question for this discussion happened from 2017 to the present day. The ones concerning the Cheep Cheeps happened in 2017 for Spiny Cheep, 2020 for Big Cheep, and 2021 for Piscatory Pete. Merging articles is, from what I am able to see, not as big of a factor in determining search result prominence as many people have recently begun to think.

5. If our goal is to describe Mario information to the best of our ability to the public, then accuracy to the series and all its nooks and crannies is what we should focus on, not just the surface-level "how the casual readers might see it" info. the Mario series may not be "down the trench" deep but it most certainly does have more than a few moments that raise questions that cannot be answered by a simple "it looks like [X result], so it is [X result]" statement. For example, would a casual reader know that Sky-High Sundae was developed originally as a Tour course despite releasing on 8 Deluxe a day earlier? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people that when it's the truth.

6. The Cheep Chomp/Boss Bass confusion in YIDS is not as big of a confusion as you seem to make it; even if we are putting aside Japanese names, its design in that game looks exactly like its design from SM64DS and MKDS, which is itself just what it looks like nowadays but with typical Cheep Cheep coloration instead of purple skin with a green dorsal fin. It's not that confusing when you just look at the images.

7. Again, having trouble finding information on a big page is not an issue that stems from us merging some articles together, it's literally just a by-product of a page being big. Someone may find it a little tricky to spot Goomba's info about X niche game due to scrolling, but does that mean we split off Goomba's info on that game into a new page to "make it easier to see"?

8. If a reader won't take the time to look at a talk page & see what discussions got a page to be what it currently is like, that's their own problem. It's not something we can really fix.

9. "obscure Japanese guidebooks"? The guidebooks we use are 95% of the time from Shogakukan, which is basically what PRIMA/Nintendo Power is to the English world. Its guidebooks are no more or less obscure than PRIMA's/Nintendo Power's are. And Shogakukan is officially recognized by Nintendo and has been from the beginning, which is saying quite a lot to the legitimacy of using them as a reference.(and to compare legitimacy and volatility of NOA vs. NOJ, here's an example; compare the amount of changes from the SMW2 Player's Guide to the SMA3 Player's Guide, and then compare the changes from the SMW2 Shogakukan Guide to the SMA3 (and YIDS/YNI for the matter) Shogakukan Guides. I'd link to scans for this but this comment from LTL sums it up pretty well.)

10. On your points about the specific cases;

"In Big Bertha' case there's even a character called "Bertha" in allusion to this" - That was from a comic system that also turned Mouser into a species called "mice". It's just characterization so that people have something to react to in the comic's story.

"I'm not seeing anyone address the argument on WHY Big Bertha even has a separate name in the first place" - Because "Boss Bass" and "Big Bertha" came from a PRIMA guide that saw the same enemy doing two different things and made two separate names for them, a la the Seedy Sally/Short Fuse/Grinder situation. Note how MPS uses Boss Bass's/Big Bertha's original Japanese name of "Kyodai Pukupuku" to refer to a generic Big Cheep Cheep, how Mario Portal recently re-translated Big Bertha's name as "Mega Cheep Cheep", and (I'm pretty sure that) encyclopedia SMB said something about Boss Bass being called Big Bertha when underwater in the English version (which we can't site because plagiarism but the fact is that it still happened before we even merged any Big Cheep Cheeps).

"and the reasoning hinges on highly specific technical jargon, on sprite assembly, a shared Japanese name, and contradicting(!) guidebooks having a name shared with Cheep Cheep (despite Flopsy Fish having a separate name)" - How is the sprite thing "technical jargon" when that same game used two completely different spriting methods for the various sizes of Milde in Marching Milde's Fort, and how is the guidebook stuff contradictory? Shogakukan used one entry to refer to both in SMW2, and when they made a separate entry for it in the remake's guidebook they didn't give it a separate name, just an identifier. If by "contradictory" you mean English versus Japanese then that's the same reasoning as the previously mentioned Seedy Sally/Short Fuse/Grinder situation. Localizations have always been more split-happy than Japan has.

"Couldn't it just be possible that the developers saw Piscatory Pete as its own entity and reused its sprite?" - Possibly, but we can't know that without actually asking the developers themselves. It's best to go with the official research we already have, which treats Piscatory Pete as a fully-underwater version of Cheep Cheep (and honestly, I'm not too opposed anymore to doing the same for Bubble Dayzee for consistency as well).

"I have constant issues figuring out the Cheep Cheep in Banshee Boardwalk is and why it's Big Cheep Cheep but replaced by Boss Bass" - Again, look at the actual thing. It's design is just Cheep Chomp's SM64DS design (ie, its current design with normal Cheep Cheep coloration). This coupled with the Japanese name & no contradictory English sources for MKDS suggests it being Cheep Chomp with no signs pointing otherwise for this iteration.

"The Boss Bass in Yoshi's Island DS is also not Boss Bass despite two sources, but Cheep Chomp due to a Japanese name??"- Again. The design is identical. The L.O.O. name is identical. The function is identical. The english sources just pulled a Seedy Sally/Short Fuse/Grinder.

11. The point about Mario being a Japanese series and that somehow makes Japan more reliable...yes, yes that's correct. Why wouldn't it be? Count all the times a localization blunder (or if you really are set on the "this is an English wiki" card, just the blunders in English) has happened and then count all the times there were blunders in the country/language of origin. Which do you think will tally to more blunders overall? The truth is that localizing a game invokes changing some parts of the story to better suit a new audience, which will create more discrepancies between the country/language of origin than the country/language of origin will create within itself. Yes, Japanese names can be a little kooky sometimes (like with "Sweaty Youngster" for instance), but they're far outweighed by the wacky names made up by the localizations. Just look at all the name mishaps in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars; they named Exor's mouth "Neosquid", called the basic fireball attack "drain", they named Cheep Cheeps "Goby", etc. L.O.O. will be more consistent and reliable than localizations could be.

12. Yes, game developers don't care about enemy organization as much as we seem to think. But there's times when they do, such as with encyclopedia, so there's no harm done in us caring about enemy organization a little more than they do. We have more reasons to organize things, after all; we're a wiki, not a recreational game.

Overall, I don't see any reason to think something went wrong with the way we handle fish now. ^S _o ^m _e ^t _h ⁱ _n ^g _o ⁿ _e ! 20:53, October 29, 2022 (EDT)

I don't have the energy to address this entire comment but I will point out that this has nothing to do with the search results for the wiki itself (we're obviously not getting substantially less traffic because we merged some pages) but the search results for specific subjects if their pages are instead merged into larger ones. Also yes, the SMRPG localization was... certainly a thing, but that's also a pretty extreme example (worked on by someone not involved with Nintendo, mind you) and not a good representative of localization for the franchise in general. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 21:09, October 29, 2022 (EDT)

I don't have a lot of time for this either, but I'll add that Mario Portal more or less reconfirms much of the current organization. Also, I never really found the search result argument too convincing. Don't misunderstand me - I get where it's coming from - but Mario is not a niche series that needs all the help we can muster, and if it ever could be considered one at some point, hardly in this wiki's own lifetime, or even many of its users for that matter: it's a massive, multi-million mascot franchise. With no shortage of subjects to draw articles from, merges/splits theoretically affect the wiki's performance little in the grand scheme of things, and if that's such a concern, the time would ideally be served by filling in red links and making more unique articles. Besides, if the closest competition wants to do things differently, it's my belief that it'd be best to remain firm in our wiki differences than to allow it to be a major factor in switching up our coverage, which would probably give the wrong impression of "following the leader" at this point. Of course, I admit that I could be reading details in the situation incorrectly, but that's my take from where I'm standing. [EDIT: I'd be remiss not to mention the top Mario-related search engine results for Boss Bass and Big Bertha are still this wiki's disambig pages, which basically renders that angle irrelevant here.] Now, I do agree that supplanted and obsoleted proposals need a better navigation system. On the archive pages, we have a helpful color-coded table that tells us the status of each proposal, but the problem areas are the yellow (passed, but is no longer enforced or applicable) and blue (failed, but proposed changes are currently enforced) categories. They don't direct us exactly to which newer proposals or policies affect older ones, and thus, sometimes you have shift through a lot of fish to find what you're looking for. So I think what would go a long way to help alleviate confusion would be a new parameter for settled proposals, or maybe a new template altogether, that actually points us to supplanted and obsoleted proposal outcomes. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:25, October 30, 2022 (EDT)