Talk:Piranha Bud

Do we even need this? It sounds minor and sound be merged to both of those two articles. I'm skipping this entry for a while... :P
 * Perhaps it's a disambiguation page. 04:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 * Doesn't sound like an official name. - 06:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Hey guys, I added Bungee Buds. I was surprised they weren't added yet. Kobble

Delete?
Is this really needed? It's a conjecturally-named hypothetical species page mostly filled with biological speculation about the life cycle of Piranha Plants. Binarystep (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
 * The article's far too speculative for my tastes. I'm fine with removal.
 * Hear, hear! LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

Delete this page
This an unofficial term with no strong basis supporting it. Yes, there are a few large Piranha Plants with smaller buds coming out of them, but why do we need an article that does nothing but regurgitate information from other articles and speculate about these smaller buds? This is why we have the other articles to cover them. Even with something like Baseball Boy, at least it's an official term (and for the record, I don't like that article, either). This article, meanwhile, has had a [citation needed] on its name since 2015 and nothing has come of it. Nobody is searching for this, and this isn't helping anyone without being worse copies of other articles: at the very least, we can fully convert it into a disambiguation page for the other buds, but I support completely deleting it.

Proposer: Deadline: August 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Delete

 * 1) "Piranha Bud" is not a term that is used. I don't see why we need to keep it around.
 * 2) - Looks like this page is just an overly detailed disambiguation to me.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) This is an article for something that doesn't exist. Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Do nothing

 * 1) I feel more comfortable following our policy on conjecture with this article.

Comments
@Wildgoosespeeder: There has never been a "base" species that the other buds could then be linked to as subspecies. If there was a generic "Piranha Bud" that just happened to never be named, then I would agree with you, but as it stands, this is a subject that hasn't even been shown to concretely exist. All we can do is speculate about the possibility of a proto-bud, and I do not think that's necessary. 17:18, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * They have their own behavior compared to the parent, although they are dependent on the parent's survival. If the main Piranha Plant dies, so does the bud. Parent as in hierarchy, not like "Mom and Dad", kind of like how Nintendo is the parent of Game Freak. -- 18:46, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Each of the three buds have their own unique qualities, yes, which is why we have separate articles for them (well, two of them, but I'm planning on making a proposal for that too). However, there really isn't much to tie them together beyond them being attachments of bigger Piranha Plants. I don't mind listing them on each other's pages as related species, but I don't see why we need to have an article to speculate about a parent species. 22:10, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Would this be similar to merging Baby Mario and Mario and related pairings? They are the same character, but of different age and complicated time travel lore to justify their existence in the same place and time. -- 22:56, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Nope, not even close, and I'm not thinking about merging them at all. I'm not proposing to get rid of this article because this is the younger version of a Piranha Plant - at no point do I say that. I'm proposing to delete it because it's completely redundant and overly speculative with the current articles that we have. 23:00, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * I think I came up with a bad example. -- 23:09, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Is it really speculation to say they're part of the life cycles? Normal piranhas appear as buds before you encounter them in Yoshi's Island. That's what this is referring to. The use basically the same graphic, even. 21:16, 7 August 2017 (CT)
 * It's not speculation to take one look at them and they that they obviously have the same basic design, which is why I'm fine with marking them as related species. However, anything further, with the current knowledge that we have, would either be redundant, speculative, or overly obvious. 22:58, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * The buds with the confirmed names have bud in their name and are Piranha Plants in baby form. I think there is enough information to classify this unofficially as a "Piranha Bud" and will make a great distinction from fully grown Piranha Plants without it saying it is of a different species. That's why conjecture is the best course of action rather than just deleting. -- 23:09, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * But there's nothing to write about. I am not arguing about whether or not the bud enemies are the younger versions of the Piranha Plants (although going so far as to say that they're an entirely distinct species and presenting it as such to readers is too speculative, in my opinion), but even if the entire wiki agreed on this, what then? This article amounts to nothing but "these three enemies look the same", and we do not need an entire article for that. 23:14, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
 * The benefit the otherwise small article provides is reading something less expansive than Piranha Plant if all you want to know is if there anything related to the small thing the Lava Piranha has (Lava Bud). -- 00:20, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Which is why I support listing the Naval Bud and Bungee Buds as related species for the Lava Bud, but not precipitating an entire article on this. We're kinda arguing in circles here, aren't we? 00:24, 8 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Time to compromise. I thought of something. Maybe have a see also section for the bud articles and not the stage of a Piranha Plant's life. That's as far as I can agree about this whole situation. -- 00:40, 8 August 2017 (EDT)