Talk:Cheep Cheep (bird)

Why is this called Cheep Cheep?Cheep Cheeps are fish,not birds;and despite what they claim,Prima isn't official(well...officially Prima perhaps).Given their record of giving things wrong(like calling Chain Chomp "wan-wan" in the Mario 64 guide,or claiming the queen is dead in the Kirby 64 guide when she clearly wasn't killed),the name is clearly a misnomer,because these birds are literally nothing like Cheep Cheeps.


 * There have been many times were Prima gets things wrong, but if that's our only source of information, then that's our only source of information. 15:50, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Prima guides are official, and we use our own discretion to decide when they are mistaken. There is no other official material that names these birds at any point, therefore we use Prima by default. The Prima guides have also been used as sources for many other articles on this wiki: unless you are going to argue that the guides can never be considered trustworthy because of an occasional mistake, there is no reason to change the name at all. 15:52, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

There is when Cheep Cheep is already the name of an established species and clearly doesn't fit.Cheep Cheeps were established to be fish in the earliest days of Mario.Why would a one off enemy be given the same exact name as a well known enemy,or the same name as any enemy,especially when they're entirely different?The name is clearly incorrect,and spreading misinformation is the exact opposite of what a wiki is supposed to do.It's no different than using fanon interpretations of a character's personality that is the opposite of their canon personality.


 * 1. Please sign your comments. 2. This isn't incorrect information, this is just is just valid information that has been confusedly named. Yes, the two are very clearly different, but what other name do we have to go off of right now? 16:12, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

No,it isn't.How is it valid when Prima isn't official and they just swiped the name from a different enemy?Hell,the bird barely even qualifies as an enemy when it's clearly not an actual living thing to begin,just like the boxing glove it's nothing more than a nonsentient trap.Prima doesn't get to decide the names of "creatures" they didn't create.If you don't have a name than clearly it is an unnamed enemy and should be referred to as such.And I don't have a signature because I don't have an account.


 * According to policy, Prima is an acceptable source for names. While the two Cheep Cheeps are very different, it is the only name we have. Also, you can sign comments by adding  even if you don't have an account.  -- 16:26, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Then your policy needs revisions.As a wiki,giving ACCURATE information needs to be top priority.If it doesn't come from Nintendo,and especially if it doesn't make sense,than you're doing more harm than good by using it as a source.Clearly it is an unnamed bird enemy and should be noted as such. 173.30.250.44 16:31, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Again, Prima has been used as an official source for quite a while on many pages. They also wouldn't advertise their guides as official if they weren't sanctioned by Nintendo, and you can tell because their guides have the seal of approval. As someone who owns many strategy guides, I can also tell you that Prima gets things right far more often then they get things wrong, and the Nintendo Power guides don't always get things right, either. The burden of proof is on you to fully discredit a source that the wiki has been fine using for years. 16:33, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Not to mention, it is the only name we have. We couldn't call it unnamed, because that is its name. Not like there haven't been things with the same name before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You're welcome to find another, more accurate source. But at the moment, this is the best name we can call it by. 16:37, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Why don't we seek out the internal object filename for this subject, and if it's usable, make an exception for it as the article title? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm for that. I remember having a discussion about this subject's name before the page was created, but darned if I remember where that is (probably on the forums somewhere). 16:55, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Official means nothing more than officially Prima.Does it make sense that Nintendo would take the name of a well known enemy and give it to a random non reoccurring enemy?Prima clearly messed up and by stubbornly refusing to admit that,you defeat the purpose of a wiki,which is to spread ACCURATE information. 173.30.250.44 16:49, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Did they mess up with the naming? Yes. But that doesn't mean that our information is inaccurate. It's just the only information that is currently available. I don't know what you're not getting here. 16:51, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Dude,if they messed up the naming than it is by definition inaccurate.Inaccurate information is inaccurate information. 173.30.250.44 16:54, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Do you have proof that they messed up the naming, especially considering that the name is used in multiple instances in the guide? Even still, so what? That doesn't make it any less official. We deal with the hand we're dealt. 16:56, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

The proof is that it's already the name of an enemy and makes no logical sense.Again,no it isn't official.Because it didn't come from Nintendo.Saying it's official despite a very clear mess up would be like saying Gannon is the official spelling of Ganon because we messed up in the first Zelda localization,except that has actual ground because it was done by NINTENDO and not a third party that makes guide books.Use common sense. 173.30.250.44 17:02, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * When there's no other official source that gives us the information we're looking for, Prima is valid. It may not have been officially endorsed by Nintendo until 2007, but it is always a valid source of information. Additionally, "Gannon" was corrected in later games, but that's not the same case here. The point of the matter is this is the only name we have to go off of right now, and whether you feel it's correct or not is not our problem. 17:06, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Is it really that illogical for a bird to be named cheep cheep? Like that's a pretty common bird sound

Sunshine was released long before 2007,meaning that argument holds even less ground than it already did.Your own argument admits that the guide was not endorsed by Nintendo meaning it is by definition it is not a valid authority.That isn't debatable.If you don't have an official name,then it's an unnamed enemy.Refusing to acknowledge that is plain unprofessional and at this point obnoxious.And yes,it is illogical because there's already an enemy with that name. 173.30.250.44 17:16, 9 October 2017 (EDT)


 * What's "Obnoxious" is people demanding we make exceptions to our policy when there's no exception to be made in said instance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

You're trying to force an obvious invalid and unofficial name and refuse to acknowledge it as such.I've every right to call you out on that when you run a wiki. 173.30.250.44 17:19, 9 October 2017 (EDT)


 * And you also have every right to not do it in the most pretentious manner possible. And just because one thing shares its name with another doesn't make it invalid. See how we run King Bill? There's a reason for that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

And you're choosing to purposely ignore the fact that I've pointed out multiple problems with the naming it has to avoid admitting the name is erroneous.There's nothing pretentious about pointing out the stubbornness is obnoxious at this point 173.30.250.44 17:27, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You've yet to show proof that the name is invalid, only your errant speculation. 17:37, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

Here's a thought: If this rubbish keeps up any longer, I'll ban you for disruptive behavior, not following the guidelines we have set on our naming policy ("A name from an officially-licensed Prima Games Strategy Guide (when they were published concurrently with Nintendo Power) is also an acceptable alternative"), and not listening to the clearly valid information that experienced users who have been editing this wiki a lot longer than you have are giving you, which is perfectly acceptable to do according to our blocking policy. Deal? 17:38, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

It isn't speculation that the guide wasn't endorsed by Nintendo,nor is it speculation that it's invalid to give to completely different enemies the same name.Even trying to rely on your King Bill argument doesn't work because those are the same type of enemy,whereas a fish and likely nonliving bird are completely and totally different creatures.So no,it's no speculation that that isn't valid as a name.It's common sense.And banning someone for pointing out the problem with an article in the talk page only proves my point about this being completely unprofessional.Someone points out your mistake,so you resort to banning?Making a discussion on clearly inaccurate naming isn't disruptive at all.Disruptive would be vandalizing the article instead of talking about it.But go on.Ban me.You only prove my point that you're obnoxious and unprofessional with how you run your wiki,and a coward to boot. 173.30.250.44 17:46, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * [[Media:Prima Guide-SMS.jpg|Do you see that red sticker at the bottom]]? That's a sticker calling the guide an officially licensed Nintendo product and definitive proof that it was endorsed by Nintendo. Your entire argument is based on an untrue misconception. 17:48, 9 October 2017 (EDT)


 * What you're doing is being annoying and ordering us to do things that the rules state we shouldn't do. And then you have the gall to call us "cowards" for having an actual system in place that works. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm fine with being a coward if that means the right course of action is taken. Disruptive behavior is anything that is ultimately proving to be unhelpful, which this is becoming. Our naming policy says that any Prima guide is a valid source of info if that information is the only available information, and you are very clearly not listening to the users that are trying to help you understand our policy. Last chance, man. Drop it. 17:52, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

What I'm doing is pointing out the flaws with your wiki and rules.You are cowardly.Not because you refuse to change the rules or the page,no that's just the obnoxious part.No,you're cowards because you resort to banning when your question about using invalid info.Pointing out the flaws in your system is unbecoming?Sure pal.Keep telling yourself that while ignore the problems with your system. 173.30.250.44 17:56, 9 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The sticker still shows that the guide's officially endorsed. 17:57, 9 October 2017 (EDT)


 * Except there isn't a problem in this regard. Bye bye. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2017 (EDT)