This answer will be very negative. Sorry.
It also applies to recycled concepts for mooks too. The Dragon Quest games have umpteen different types of slimes but they all have different models. They're just all called slimes and they move and behave kind of the same. So in that case it's more the name being recycled.
The trope doesn't apply to creature recycling. If you take a closer look to the quotes posted 8x
, you'll see the trope is in fact talking about Models or Sprites, not criature types.
Sprites are expensive. Rendered 3D objects even moreso. As a result, there is a tendency to keep the number of distinct enemy types small.
The solution many games go for is to have a small set of monster types, but have them appear with slightly different graphics.
Those phrases wouldn't make ANY sense unless the trope was talking about re-using sprites or models with small modifications, and nothing else.
But from time to time, the trope itself is very un-clear about this aspect. A lot of examples talk about "re-using mooks", instend of "re-using sprites/models".
And besides, the image on the right gives you the idea that it's the mook "idea" that is re-used. We should change that image from something more like this: ◊
That said, I don't see a reason to rename something with this trope's stats. 138 wiks and 1, 226 brought to the wiki is proof that this is a very healthy trope.
The stats are most often than not good indicator of "title health", but not always.
If a trope is used a lot, it'll be linked a lot even if the title is "bad".
Just to give a crazy example, if the trope My Kung-Fu Is Stronger Than Yours
were called In Asia The Only Thing That Provides A Winner Is A Stronger Kung Fu
, it would still be very linked to; don't you think?
And the last title is all but healthy.
Just call me Nac.