Talk:Shroob

Gedonkos
That's the japanese name... But... What does it means? The english name is obvious (mu)shrooms... What 'bout the other one?Undead Herle King 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the "ko" at the end of Gedonko derives from the Japanese word kinoko, meaning mushroom. Not sure what "Gedon" comes from. --ThomasO1989 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry I started the argument below, I was having a really stressful week and have since calmed down. I could have simply asked you to take it down instead of demanding you take it down. I don't want to argue any more. Please forgive me.

I forgive you. I know it's easy to one to lose his temper when he has had a stressful time. --ThomasO1989 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was still rather nice of you to leave the article neutral even after I had acted like a jerk and insulted you for "not wanting a happy ending". I just need to stop "correcting" people and let them think what they want.

I just realized that Nintendo often leaves the endings in their games anticlimactic like that so that the fans can choose for themselves what happens when the game ends.

And given Nintendo's habit of leaving things unconfirmed, we'll probably never know.

Not Killed
It's already been proven that the Shroobs were not killed by the baby tears. Stop writing it down.

Proof: 1.Yoob is not harmed when the babies cry inside him 2. None of the characters say the Shroobs were destroyed 3. It would have killed all the innocent toads who had been transformed into Shroobs 4. It would have simply been cruel, considering the Shroobs were only searching for a new home 5. When E. Gadd said "Shroob Shrooms" he was referring to the poison mushrooms the Shroobs had planted, not the Shroobs themselves.

END OF STORY

There are many problems with your proof:
 * 1. The moment when the babies were crying was for comic relief, not an intergal part of the story. Also, Yoob was too big for the baby tears to do any sufficient damage.
 * 2. E. Gadd says, "...the fearsome Shroobs laid low by baby tears...", which means they were defeated by the tears.
 * 3. The characters who were turned into Shroob mushrooms were clearly restored to normal after being exposed to baby tears (i.e., Baby Bowser, Toadbert, Toadiko, and Kylie).
 * 4. The fact the Shroobs were looking for a new home doesn't change the fact they destroyed half the Mushroom Kingdom and sucked the energy out of its citizens for their own use.
 * 5. Shroobs are shroobs, if they didn't vaporize with the rest of the "planted shrooms", the Shroobs would still exist in the Present time period. Obviously, they don't, so they were eradicted by the baby tears.

Therefore, the Shroobs were ultimately defeated by the baby tears. END OF STORY

--ThomasO1989, 16:48 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1.If he was too big for the baby tears, then how come their hammers could hurt him? 2."Laid low" does not mean "got killed by" 3.I said SHROOBS not SHROOB MUSHROOMS. 4.Nintendo are not the kind of people who would do that. Besides,they were only working under Princess Shroob's orders. 5.Ever think the Shroobs could have LEFT the planet? 6.Princess Shroob cruelly abuses the Shroobs in the final battle, they don't deserve any more punishment than that. It's more likely they called a truce after that. Nintendo has done it before...(Star Fox Adventures). 7.Even if the tears could kill them, most of them were indoors, where the tears could not reach. 8.Again, Even if the tears could kill them, there were probably more shroobs left behind on the home planet.

END OF STORY! AGAIN!

Your proof still has holes:


 * 1. The Hammers have nothing to do with the tears.
 * 2. Ever read "killed" in a Mario game? No. It uses words like "laid low" and "defeated".
 * 3. There is no evidence in the game that any characters were turned into Shroobs, just Shroob mushrooms.
 * 4. The Shroobs were entitled by Nintendo as "an evil alien entity". In all Mario games, the evil is destroyed.
 * 5. Why would they leave when they still had the destroyed Mushroom Kingdom to themselves? This is the location they picked after searching the skies for one.
 * 6. Orders or not, they still chose to destroy the Mushroom Kingdom, which was evil. That, and Star Fox is a completely unrelated game.
 * 7. The Hydrogush ultimately flooded the kingdom with tears. A gush of water does not just turn to rain, it floods.
 * 8. Two faults here: 1. If Shroobs were left behind on the home planet, who cares? It has nothing to do with the plot. 2. If they were looking for a new home, they most likely moved the entire population to the Mushroom Kingdom. Why leave any behind?

You're also ignoring the fact that the game ultimately ended after the baby tears rained upon the Mushroom Kingdom, signifying that everything was all right, and the Shroob empire was defeated.

END OF STORY AGAIN.

--ThomasO1989, 03:45 28 October 2006 (UTC)

1.Who cares? I was saying they could still hurt him no matter how big he was. 2.I looked it up, "lay low" does not mean die. and Nintendo has used "killed" before in a Mario game. and E. Gadd said "Laid low ON" not "WERE laid low BY". 3.Why were they abducting the toads then? And if they can turn a yoshi into a yoob, they can turn a toad into a shroob. 4.The X-Nauts were evil, and they didn't die! Fawful is still evil, and he hasn't died! There is no proof Cackletta and the Shadow Queen died either. Nintendo always goes soft on the villain. 5.They were with princess shroob when she was battling the Marios, after they saw her defeated, they fled. 6.They had no choice, she would have killed them if they refused. 7.They didn't show it flooding the kingdom. And they didn't show the tears hitting the shroobs either. 8.They're aliens, they're not dumb enough to risk the whole population. 9.Princess Peach and Stuffwell's comment's imply that the Shroobs were already gone BEFORE the tears started raining YOU'RE also ignoring the fact that If the Shroobs fled and found another planet to live on, it would be a happy ending for all. since you don't support that theory, you must not want a happy ending. Shame on you.

Plus I'M not changing the article to confirm to my theory, i've only been editing it to make it neutral to either side.

yawn... end of story... again... whatever...

On second thought. since neither theory has been proven, couldn't we just stop arguing, both shut up, and leave the article neutral until we both know for sure? I'm not completely against your theory. I will accept it if i'm wrong. All I wanted was a happy ending.

And if you STILL want to continue arguing over the stupid ending of a stupid videogame that most Mario fans hate, I don't care. I'll just sit here and watch you flood everyone's mind with an unconfirmed rumor.

THE END! GOOD NIGHT! GOOD BYE!

I put in the article about the tears that there is "debate". I'm not willing to argue either, but it is annoying that you are the type who ignores important details and concentrates on the ones that don't matter. What baffles me is that you say you "don't care" even though you complain so much if an article for a "stupid videogame that most Mario fans hate" is neutral and accurate. Ever notice that most articles on Wikipedia are also inaccurate and "flooding everyone's mind"? No one has the time to fix that. Accept it.

And your proof STILL has holes.


 * 1. Yoob showing pain when the babies used Hammers was not part of the story. It was something the game designer decided to put in for effect.
 * 2. This shows you only take the term literally and not figuratively. Check your sources again, he did say "laid low by".
 * 3. They abducted Toads so that they can deplete them of their vim and use it to refuel their flying saucers.
 * 4. When I say "evil", I mean the main anatagonist or final boss. The X-Nauts don't count; they mellowed by the end of the game. Fawful doesn't count either, his demise was the first game; Nintendo chose to put him in this too. The fact you say there is no evidence that Cackletta or the Shadow Queen die is appauling. Cackletta is destroyed inside Bowletta and then Cackletta's ghost is seen departing Bowser's body and finally disappearing. The Shadow Queen is seen disappearing in a flash of light, screeching about her demise.
 * 5. No evidence is given.
 * 6. Doesn't matter.
 * 7. The whole thing with the rain shows it was purging the kingdom of all the Shroobs. Figuratively it got into buildings and destroyed them there.
 * 8. It still doesn't change the fact the ones we're worried about are in the Mushroom Kingdom, not on their planet.


 * Whose happy ending are we talking about? Mario's or the Shroobs'? Besides, why would any one want a happy ending for the villians?

--ThomasO1989

Massive Clean Up
I just rewrote and removed portions of the article so that it is more professional, and less FAQ-like. The information however, is very simple; it should serve as a building block for all future additions. -- ThomasO1989 19 Sept. 21:50 ESOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK time to clear this up!!!!!!!! This is what happened!!!!!The shroobs did not get destroyed yet. some must have escaped while the tears were pouring down. SHROOBS will live on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They will have a sequel..........u get it..........shroobs r not extinct yet!!!!!!!!!!!they will come back in revenge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am serious Nintendo will create a shroobs return sequel someday. They may be mentioned in a future Super Smash Bros. game or something. Just hang on tight and keep ur eyes peared....shroobs are everywhere! -Nintendo fan(anonyomous)

Picture
Could someone upload a picture? --Rai 14:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! Also got rid of Petey Piranha's section. I mean, this article is about Shroobs and Shroob-like enemies, so he shouldn't be here. - NES Boy 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This page has a lot of guides to beating them, I think it should be gotten rid of, we're not GameFaqssry nintendo fan is me just saying

Random speculation
I would think that the Shroob's planet was exosolar, right? So they'd need a tapetum, right? So their eyes would glow red, right? Vitriol 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When I say 'exosolar', I mean "not orbiting any star". I've forgotten the real term >_< Vitriol 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of a Rogue Planet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Shouldn't this have...
All the foe beings that had shroobified versions? 24.193.51.71 03:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that a table listing all the Mario enemies, their Shroob counterparts, and a brief description of the Shroob would be most appropriate and organized. It shouldn't, however, be a complete guide of how to beat them and whatnot. But, if it gets too expansive it would do good in a separate article. --ThomasO1989 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just added a chart reading the obvious Shroobified enemies. I also put their Japanese names, which I know since I own both English and Japanese versions of the game. --ThomasO1989

Princess Shroob is hot.
Anyone agree that Princess Shroob is very pretty? I know this has nothing to do with the article but this is a discussion page, right? If anyone thinks this has no place on the talk page, feel free to discard this thread starter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.19.218 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Does the article section about Princess Shroob the younger being beautiful that I put in violate the NPOV clause? I'd guess that it does since it was promptly removed. 209.158.19.218 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it was just a biased opinion. It's unneeded to say if one princess is more attractive than the other in an encyclopedic article. --ThomasO1989 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)