Talk:Piranha Plant (Pit of 100 Trials)

Shouldn't this be merged with Piranha Plant? They're basically the same.:/--
 * See Talk:Pale Piranha.

this has so many issues.gloombas arent merged with gombas,dark puffs arent merged with ruff puffs.this is a Sub-Species of Piranha plant,so it needs its article fixed up and the redirects to piranha plant deleted,with Piranha Plant(Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door) merged with Piranha Plant
 * See Talk:Pale Piranha

Merge with Piranha Plant
I've looked around and, aside from their names being different between regions, I still don't see very many real reasons as to why these Piranha Plants are split from normal Piranha Plants. Recently, we've had many proposals centered around the naming aspect of many enemies and all those have made good points that can be brought right here: naming is not a sole deciding factor in whether or not an enemy is the same or not and we should go more with what makes the most sense. In this case, these guys look like Piranha Plants, they act like Piranha Plants (maybe not sprouting from pipes, but the Piranha Plants in Paper Mario and Paper Mario: Sticker Star didn't either and they're considered normal Piranha Plants), their English name is Piranha Plant, three solid signs that these guys are Piranha Plants. Now I'm not saying that the English name should have the dominant say in this cause, cause I'm aware that English is the only name that reads Piranha Plant, but the naming isn't the main point: I'm going more by looks and acts; which are identical to Piranha Plants.

Proposer: Deadline: May 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) These are referred to ingame (in both Goombella's tattle and the Log) as being "the strongest of Piranha Plants", indicating they're a more powerful relative.
 * 2) - Per Binarystep: the tattle clearly states "It may look like a normal Piranha Plant, but don't be fooled!", so let's not be fooled! (Unlike the English writers - but the Japanese and PAL writers heeded the tattle, at least, lending support for the pro-split option, despite the proposal's eagerness to dismiss the other names.)
 * 3) Per both.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) The game flat-out says that it's not a "normal" Piranha Plant. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) As usual, the Japanese name takes priority for me. Per all.
 * 10) I don't feel the majority of the oppose arguments are very strong due to the conflicting statements on this Piranha Plant. The Tattle says, "That's a Piranha Plant." You can argue that the "don't be fooled part" can be referring to the Piranha Plant species. but I suppose that's reading between the lines that aren't there. The one deciding point for me, however, are the regional names, which are not only different, but more apt on a supposedly toughest variant of Piranha Plant.

Comments
@Binarystep: Well multiple Piranha Plant sub species appear in game so it's possible she was referring to the various Piranha Plants found in game.
 * It's not far-fetched to say this is a sub-species of regular Piranha Plants, considering they're from the same game that made "normal" red Spike Tops a seperate species. Factoring that, what I said in my vote, and the foreign names (which should not be simply dismissed as hearsay) in, our only proof of these being the same is the English name and nothing else. Binarystep (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

@Walkazo: For the record, I'm not eager to dismiss or ignore the other region names, not once did I say that. My eagerness lies more in their looks and acts rather than their names. Their English names are merely to back up my point on their similar looks and acts.

But, to put the tattle into context, the first sentence explicitly says, "That's a Piranha Plant. In fact, I think this is the strongest type of them all." And the article says that "[t]heir coloring and name implies that this game made the original Piranha Plants the toughest Piranha Plant species in the game." So, uh, any explanation for this discrepancy? 19:10, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Poor writing on the part of the random user that added that bit to the article, and poor proofeading skillz on the parts of everyone who's read it since then and didn't think "uh, no?" - 15:49, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, so it's misleading. It's hard to tell if that's actual information or poor writing, though. 19:07, 24 May 2015 (EDT)