Talk:Nipper Dandelion

Where did the name come from? I don't see any source on any of the names on this game's page. Vent (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2013 (EST)


 * I assume that the name is from the in-game enemy museum...


 * 04:47, 1 March 2013 (EST)
 * The in-game museum doesn't provide names as far as I can remember. --Glowsquid (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2013 (EST)

I thought it did - haven't played it for a while though.

07:03, 1 March 2013 (EST)

It does not. I'm playing it just now.

07:45, 1 March 2013 (EST)


 * Ah well, thanks for clarifying that. The name might come from the Official Prima game guide.


 * 07:50, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Well "might" doesn't mean "yes". Is there anybody out there that can confirm that the enemy names do indeed come from the official Prima guide? Vent (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Palutena's Guidance
The new Palutena's Guidance talks about different Piranha Plant species, and "Nipper Dandelion" is one of the names mentioned. It sounds like its referring to this one. 72.200.164.50 21:01, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * High probability that a localizer recalled the name from a fan-site, but at the very least it's a concise name. See Ghost (Piranha Plant). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Oh no. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Well, this is in an actual game. If a game adopts a fan-name (and we don't know if they even did this time), it's a different animal than an incompetent book "translator." Anyways, that move was long enough ago that it probably didn't come directly from us. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * I mean, the wiki ignores "Rudy the Clown" because it started as a fan name. Niiue (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * In a similar vein, "Hootie the Blue Fish" is called "Propeller Piranha", which is its Japanese name. 72.200.164.50 21:15, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Not surprised tbh, the Nintendo Power name was weird. Niiue (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * "Anyways, that move was long enough ago that it probably didn't come directly from us." I checked the Mario Wikia, they don't have any information on this guy. It's unlikely a name from summer 2018 made its way into a character that likely wasn't even planned at that point, so... 21:18, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * But they actually call these things "Ghosts". I mean, that's not technically wrong, but it was obviously shortened from the full name. So yeah. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * Please take this all here, for now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2019 (EST)
 * That seems familiar... I wonder why the localizers got them a wiki's name rather than giving them a new name... -- 02:01, 31 January 2019 (EST)
 * I fear it got plagiarized again. -- 06:36, 2 March 2019 (EST)

LinkTheLefty got two of these guides, and now, he can tell us how are they called. -- 02:24, March 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * If there is no name for it in neither guide, mention or not, will it still be moved to Nipper Dandelion, even though it is plagiarism? -- 08:05, March 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Imo, it should be moved, seeing as how it's an official in-game name. Plagiarism or not, the wiki's focus should be documenting all aspects of the Mario franchise, regardless of our opinions on the matter. It's not the wiki's job to determine what official material is acceptable any more than it's a dictionary's job to determine whether commonly-used slang terms are real words or not. Niiue (talk) 10:22, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * That's missing the point of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia proposal. At the end of the day, the same thing happened, and hopefully taking a stand on this will send a firm message to Nintendo or whomever that doing this is not okay and discourage more instances from occurring in the future. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:26, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm not too sure how to proceed either. -- 10:30, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * @LinkTheLefty: No it's not. Just because we're moving this to "Nipper Dandelion" again doesn't mean we again have to cater to SMBE, especially since it has officially been called "Nipper Dandelion" outside of SMBE. 10:32, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * @LinkTheLefty: Why is that necessary in the first place? How is it a good idea to limit our coverage to spite NoA for using our made-up names instead of making up their own names? I honestly don't get why we have this attitude that names from fanon are irredeemably unofficial regardless of whether Nintendo uses them or not. It just feels like shooting ourselves in the foot more than anything. Niiue (talk) 10:34, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Why revisit the encyclopedia when we have more official name? -- 10:36, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure how the encyclopedia's relevant here, anyhow. In-game names are a bit more official than names from a third-party publisher. Niiue (talk) 10:37, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Agreed here too. 10:38, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * (directed mainly at LinkTheLefty) Plus, it's highly unlikely that us making a "stand" will change anything at all. 10:39, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * @LinkTheLefty, what did you mean by revisiting the encyclopedia? -- 10:41, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * @Toadette the Achiever: Agreed. I doubt Nintendo will be affected in any way by us giving them the cold shoulder. Niiue (talk) 10:42, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * If we cited names from us we would essentially be citing ourselves, which is unofficial. I am fine with using names of previously unamed subjects as long as we 100 percent know it did not come from fanon, though, if it is lowest source priority. 10:47, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Why is it impossible for an unofficial name to become official? It happened with shiny Pokémon, why can't it happen here? This whole idea that we should ignore official sources unless they make up their own names just feels wrong to me. Niiue (talk) 10:51, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Glowsquid detailed this before, but Soarin' Stu (along with the many other encyclopedia infractions) breaks the terms of the wiki's licensing - and Nipper Dandelion equally does as well. Besides, we're already giving Watage Pakkun special treatment separate from the encyclopedia by mentioning the in-game "Nipper Dandelion" name within the article, just not as its title. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:57, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * @Niiue that is a fair point. I mean, while these enemies that were originally called Goombas in a PRIMA guide were unofficially called Balloon Goombas from us which was what they called in the SMBE the name "Balloon Goombas" is really the only logical name, so chances are that that name is their intended name. 11:03, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * There are a ton of examples from us, but I don't see "Balloon Goombas" anywhere. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:10, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * @LinkTheLefty: You're again missing mine and Niiue's points above. We aren't requesting that this be moved back to Nipper Dandelion just because its what's used in SMBE, but rather because it's an in-game name. Plus, the licensing issue you brought up only covers SMBE, not in-game names. 11:13, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * From my understanding, in-game names are also affected by the licensing issue since they're from commercial products that don't have the same license as us. I still think it's a bad idea to retcon official sources because of it, though. Niiue (talk) 11:17, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Never mind, that was the impression a got from the page's talk page, however looking at page 210 the book considers them the same enemy. Anyways I am for moving this back to Nipper Dandelion as it is used in-game. 11:18, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * The licensing applies to (commercial) redistribution in general, which is precisely applicable to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, regardless if you happen to see content redistributed on television or in print. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:21, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * If Comet Tico, Petapeta, Tongari, Jump Beamer (which should have an another language template since its internal filename is romanized), Pattan and Big Green Caterpillar had spirits and were respectively named "Lumacomète", "Starbag", "Spiny Hermit", "Sentry Beam", which is the same name as the mobile one, "Whimp" and "Worm", would we be using these names? No! Why? Because they're copied from us! -- 11:32, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * That's not a good thing, imo. Again, the wiki's job should only be to document whatever official material we're given. Nothing more, nothing less. Niiue (talk) 11:36, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Thwomp -> Thwimp, Whomp -> Whimp. It doesn't take a genius to come up with that name and it's silly to think it's automatically stolen from us in a theoretical situation like that. If the Encyclopedia didn't take every other name under the sun from us, we wouldn't have given them using Whimp a second thought. -- 11:53, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * That's a hypothetical, unlikely situation (and that's not a romanization) . LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:39, March 23, 2019 (EDT)

Not really following this discussion, but I agree with those who think we should use the English names. It's ridiculous and stubborn to ignore perfectly good in-game names because "it might be citogenesis", but at what point does it stop? How many more names that were confirmed in-game are we going to ignore because there's the chance it could've come from us or another fan site? I opposed renaming Rudy the Clown, and I oppose it here too. It's one thing for a book to blatantly copy from wikis, and I still wholeheartedly agree with not using it, but it's another for a name to actually be used in a game, and I think it's completely ridiculous that some users think we should ignore in-game sources because of the potential origins of those names. -- 11:41, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Dare I say this is also getting dangerously close to the wiki, rather than being an objective source on the Mario series like it should be, now leaning on opinions and picking and choosing what's canon. -- 11:50, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Agreed 100%. Niiue (talk) 11:54, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Moving this back to Nipper Dandelion would basically lead us to make an encyclopedia counterproposal, so let's not. -- 12:05, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Why would it? There's a pretty big difference between in-game names and names from a third-party book. Niiue (talk) 12:08, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I can assure you that just moving this back to Nipper Dandelion would not, by itself, count as an SMBE counterproposal. 12:12, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I said lead us to make one, not that move counts as one. -- 12:14, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I can assure you that won't happen either. 12:15, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * It's not "it might be citogenesis" but rather "it must be citogenesis" - I had my suspicions with the unrealistically flat usage of "Ghosts" in the same guidance (in which other translations use the more sensible "Ghost Piranhas" or "Ghost Piranha Plants"), but a localizer going through these names without the original game's context simply wouldn't reach "Nipper Dandelions" from "Watage Pakkun" (or "Fluff Piranha") alone. This isn't a case like "Fire Nipper Plant" where the translation is very straightforward and likely coincidental. I'm not seeing the issue when it's not only a redirect, but also directly mentioned, which is much more than the encyclopedia names get. That's as far as it should get for being "in-game" despite the similar action. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:39, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * With all due respect, I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion. 12:44, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * "Nipper Dandelion" is also a very logical name for this enemy to have, and it fits the Nipper Spore naming scheme better than a literal translation of "Fluff Piranha". A lot of enemy names aren't literal translations anyway, I don't see why the only acceptable name in this case would be one. Niiue (talk) 12:47, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Was it given generic mentions, or isn't mentionned at all in the guides? -- 12:50, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * "Soarin' Stu" was also a very logical name that fit with the naming scheme, but that opinion doesn't change the facts. And so we're completely clear on this: neither the Nintendo Power nor Prima Games guides from Yoshi's Island DS use the name "Nipper Dandelion" at any point. The obstacle seems to be treated as an extension of Windbag or Nipper Spore which, in practical terms, it is. Another factor is this sentence under Naming: "When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead." Granted, foreign names generally appear to be an exception to this statement, but renaming to Nipper Dandelion would also be knowingly validating a fan-name at the time on top of that. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:55, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Soarin' Stu also has a contradictory English name, which Nipper Dandelion doesn't. And I still don't see why something starting as a fan name makes it permanently unofficial regardless of whether Nintendo uses it. Also, we wouldn't be the ones validating a fan name. Nintendo already did that. We'd just be documenting it. Niiue (talk) 13:19, March 23, 2019 (EDT)

Doc was discussing how the zeldawiki is falling to to overriding everything which Dark Horses guidebooks. I am worried that this wiki is starting to lose focus due to exterminating any trace of Dark Horse's mistakes, even if names from their books are being used in-game. I 100% agree with Waluigi Time, and honestly, not using an in-game name just because it might of come from us is speculation. Continuing of what Niiue said, the MarioWiki is a documentation of the Mario franchise, not a Game Theory about its canon. 13:18, March 23, 2019 (EST)
 * Exactly this. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if most of the Dark Horse names end up being used in more official things eventually, just because Nintendo doesn't seem to have the same "thou shalt not mix fanon with canon" attitude we have. Niiue (talk) 13:26, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Completely agreed. It feels like at this point we're setting aside accurately documenting the franchise to focus on being petty and "sending Nintendo a message". Let's be honest, Nintendo won't care what name we use and won't change anything they do. Niiue is absolutely right, I'm sure we're going to see names used in the Encyclopedia show up in-game in the future, as we already have, and at that point we really have no excuse not to use those names. "Well the Encyclopedia got it from us, and it was in the Encyclopedia first!" So now any name that was first used in the Encyclopedia, regardless of what Nintendo themselves decided to do with it, can never be used? Going into theoretical situations a bit here, but are we really going to focus so hard on "sticking it to the man" that we'd be willing to have an enemy's article used a Japanese name even if they'd had a name in English for five games in a row just because we don't like its origins? This is an extremely dangerous and slippery slope that we're a little too close to falling down for my comfort. It might not be such a big deal now, but what about five years down the road? -- 13:43, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * According to that encyclopedia proposal, we should not let citogenesis creep unto or wiki. -- 13:48, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * This is a name used in-game. 13:49, March 23, 2019 (EST)
 * Okay, imagine this; let's say, later this year, a new Mario Party game comes out. Nipper Dandelions appear in a minigame, and are mentioned in its instructions. Because the name appeared in the Encyclopedia, we refuse to use it, and it stays named Watage Pakkun. The next year, it appears in a Mario & Luigi game as an enemy, named Nipper Dandelion; later another New Super Mario Bros. game comes out where Nipper Dandelions appear, and their name is mentioned in a level title. That's now four different games with Nipper Dandelions mentioned by name, but because it was mentioned in the Encyclopedia first, we refuse to use that name and stubbornly keep the article as Watage Pakkun. Fans start asking why, and we tell them "oh, it's because the name was first used in a book a few years back that we agreed not to cite". Now our wiki looks ridiculous, unprofessional, and silly, because we're ignoring in-game information over the first place the name was used years ago. See the problem? -- 13:58, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * The main problem for you being that it's extremely doubtful for Watage Pakkun to have a renaissance of sorts anytime soon. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:23, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * My argument has absolutely nothing to do with Nipper Dandelion, it was just being used as an example. Switch it out for any other enemy who used a conjectural name from us in the Encyclopedia and my argument remains the same. -- 14:55, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I don't know what on earth you're all on about, because documenting it accurately is exactly what has been done. It's in the article, and it's not going away. The idea is not to "exterminate any trace" or whatever. Also, broader problems with these books oversimplifies a more complex issue that is not really part of this discussion. If Nintendo does reuse this name, which they may (Piranha Pod) or may not (Micro Piranha Plant), then we can cross that bridge when we get there. For now, it's only arguing hypotheticals. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:52, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * So you're saying there's the possibility for these names to be used if Nintendo uses them in multiple games, but not when it's only been used in one game? What's the point of that? Why are names first used in the Encyclopedia that later appeared in-game bad until Nintendo uses it an arbitrary amount of times? -- 13:58, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * It is just that we are not using an in-game name for an article just because it might be citogenesis. If a person sees the in-game name, then it is much easier for them to find a page named using its english name then a redirect. We are blatantly ignoring the another language template saying "If an official name from an English source is found, the article should be moved to its appropriate title." Yes, while we are documenting the name, we are doing it in a confusing way. 13:58, March 23, 2019 (EST)
 * Actually, the SMBE does not even talk about these enemies, they are seperate from that book. 14:16, March 23, 2019 (EST)
 * We have two (possibly three) instances of the same guidance sharing suspect info with us, so it's safe to say that the translator looked us up (I'd guess because the downloadable content is ultimately more an afterthought for the game localization). And honestly, I would be open to revising the text on the another language and conjectural title templates because these proposals mean that it is no longer absolutely paramount to do so. You're putting way too much stock is put into where this name is being used. I don't think it being in-game means that we should automatically give them a pass; if anything, it should be even more egregious. And if we're speculating about future name usage, how about this: what if Nintendo silently revises the guidance during a version update to avoid the use of fanmade material (like they've already started doing)? Now wouldn't it be pretty silly to get worked up about it now? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:23, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I honestly think that ignoring in-game material is silly, we are a wiki about a video game franchise, so shouldn't the game go first? It is like if we did not rename the Galoomba page. Not renaming this page because of the potential of its new name coming from us seems the opposite of having factual, up-to-date info. 14:31, March 23, 2019 (EST)

Jeeeeeeze, this has gone on too long >.> So what if they use a fan source for ideas on naming for two freakin' enemies? It's not like SMBE, where it was used for 60% of the book. And again, Nipper Dandelion in not a, but the logical conclusion to make with naming these, given how Nipper Plant and Nipper Spore already are (which don't follow their JP names themselves). Just move the dang thing and be done with it. "Piranha Pod" was in SMBE and you aren't arguing about it. It's additionally different from that clown, because this isn't adding some extra stuff to a pre-existing name, this is giving a subject an English name, period. "Ghost" is more likely to have come from us, but for all we know they were called that in localization documents for the initial game (given how lazily done everything about YIDS is). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * The wiki will not lose anything by renaming the page of an obscure enemy to its new name that was used in-game anyways. 14:52, March 23, 2019 (EST)
 * Piranha Pod literally came out of nowhere, and may have been referenced from official Nintendo documentation that Prima overlooked for their guide. It's impossible to know for sure; either way, we never used it, so it's not the same situation. Anyway, since Toadette the Achiever asked Glowsquid about the licensing issue, I say let's defer to his judgment about it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:00, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * It may be from a different fansite, which was my impression. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:01, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * The name is used on the Nipper Spore page on the Yoshi wikia, however I doubt that Nintendo looked there, especially since it does not have a page there. Anyways I still think that the name should still be used as it was used in-game. 15:13, March 23, 2019 (EST)
 * @Doc - I just accidentally came across the name of the "Ghost" in page 279 of the Prima guide: "Jump over the Polterpiranhas and flutter to the right to reach solid ground." LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:39, March 25, 2019 (EDT)

got told to check this out by TTA. I'm not fully convinced in either way for this specific scenario but considering I was one of the more proeminent folk in the whole "citogenesis" debate (I wish we had a less nerdy name for that thing), I suppose a statement is expected.

On this specific instance: I don't really want to make a definite statement rn, first because it's a somehwat more proeminent deal than a single line in a third party-developed spinoff where the character doesn't even appear in and a specific translation of a book where one of the people involved outright admitted to checking out the wiki, and second because the name is so generic and plainly descriptive it's perfectly possible someone could've thought it up independantly. I'm aware from a scan of the above discussion there's some more stuff that could mebbe possible wiki reading and that the mention is handled differently in the Japanese script, but this is one of those times where I'm better off reading things over and letting it sink in before making my opinion.

On picking and choosing what's canon: Having an hardline stance against a very specific scenario that technically run afoul of the wiki content sharing license (and yes, nobody's going to court because someone mebbe lifted the name of a super obscure Yoshi's Island enemy from a fansite page, but I think this is worth emphasizing) is a world of difference from fudging up Hotel Mario's visbility on wiki pages because many people think that game sucks and is stupid, or having banners saying "THIS ARTICLE COVERS NON-CANON INFORMATION WILL YOU ALLOW YOUR EYES TO BE TAINTED BY NON-CANON" on pages like some wikis do.

Framing it as "thou shalt not mix fanon with canon" is imo being quite disinguenous and missing the complex issue here. If in some freak accident, an anglo fan got hired to work on the franchise in an official capacity and decide to make the name he and his IRC buddies gave to the kremling mushroom in DK64 enemy official - that wouldn't be a problem. And if a future Mario comic reintroduced the green Thwomp from MK64 and named him "Marty", that wouldn't be an issue either. The specific scenario of "Official source uses a name from a wiki (that has a very specific content sharing license) page, without acknowledgement" is, the problem.

How many names are we going to ignore? Currently there's two instances of an ingame name (arguably, possibly) originating from the wiki. On a wiki with 21,805 pages, that's nothing. This isn't a scenario where there's a character in a proeminent game that appear and is called by X name and is know to that name by fans who play the game but the wiki still isn't calling it that - it's a single line of dialogue in DLC for a crossover game where Mario is only a plurality of the content.

If the dandelion showed up in Yoshi's Crafted World and had this name in the game, that would be a different conversation. And if a vandal moved the Kirby page to "John Kirby" and coincidentally, the English translation of the next Smash Bros game 2 years later and only the English translation started calling Kirby "John Kirby" with absolutely no explanation, that would also be a different convo. But that really isn't what's happening here, ad we're really better off discussing the future where Nipper Dandelion becomes the breakout character of the Yoshi series and appears in 55 videogames when it happens.

For my $0.02, I think the ideal way to handles situation would be to mention the character is named X in X source [which I think most of the relevant pages already do] but that Because The Wiki Has A Stick Up Its Ass, it's not used as the page name to provide a transparent explanation of our stance regarding this and let readers decide of the validity of the material for themselves. And for my other $0.02, considering we got kudos from a proeminent figure in the video game archiving movement regarding our handling of the SMBE mess, I think we doin' something right ;). --Glowsquid (talk) 15:22, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I wonder what will happen when I create Crown Fragment and Nintendo copies that as well. Fair enough, though I think the "How many names are we going to ignore?" argument is the best application here. 15:56, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I don't care for the "not much has come of it yet" attitude that's being used as a rebuttal to the future-proofing argument. Yes, it's only happened twice, but since the release of the English Encyclopedia, we've only had three game releases, one of them being a remake and another being a port, along with an expansion for Treasure Tracker. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if, Piranha Plant (and potentially Treasure Tracker) DLC aside, these games were too far along in development to even be affected by the Encyclopedia anyway. It hasn't happened much yet, but it hasn't really had a chance to. -- 16:26, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Keep in mind that the release of the encyclopedia was put on a strategic delay for over half a year (and you can tell from reading it that it remained virtually untouched during the entire time, given the amount of stuff that was changed and corrected on the wiki in that period). LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:15, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but it still seems that it's only been used as a resource by anyone at Nintendo since it was released. Although you do make me curious if there were other names taken from here for the Encyclopedia that were used in any games in the time between when it was supposed to be released and the actual release. -- 17:35, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Not really, especially given the guidance actually features a correction, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like Bull's-Eye Banzai eventually resurfaces. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:30, March 23, 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I'm on the "If the name is used in a game, it's official, regardless of where it came from" side. SMBE was a major disappointment, but so what if Nintendo themselves decided to take a name we used and incorporate it? In my eyes, that means we made it big! But this discussion has gone on faaaaaaaaaar to long. A proposal is likely necessary at this point to solidify anything, otherwise we're just going to keep talking in circles. 16:24, March 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * I guess, if there's still impetus to do so. I think Glowsquid said it well. Whichever way it goes, we could go a bit more in-depth about the name in the article for the sake of transparency. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:15, March 23, 2019 (EDT)

Additionally, it's worth noting that the same list outright defied and corrected the wiki on a few matters, notable the Spiny/Prickly Piranha Plant situation, so thy clearly weren't outright holding our word to whatever ZD was. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:42, March 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * We brought up the encyclopedia because it plagiarized first, not because it was included in it. It doesn't even cover the Yoshi games, just mentions the Yoshi seriers. -- 08:48, March 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * And that has nothing to do with what I just said, leave it out of this particular comment sub-chain. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:45, March 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * It should be a proposal then... I doubt we'd keep as Watage Pakkun. Basically, moving this page back to Nipper Dandelion would be basically citing ourselves, even though it's in-game. -- 03:07, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * I still disagree with the idea that conjectural names are permanently unofficial regardless of whether they get used in-game. Fan nicknames get appropriated by official sources all the time, this is the first time I've seen so much pushback about it. Niiue (talk) 03:33, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * I agree with Niiue, as detailed here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:56, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * Like i said, to settle things, it should be a proposal. However, i wouldn't recommand one, as we would rename the page to "Nipper Dandelion", even if there is a disagreement on that. -- 08:02, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * We're not really citing ourselves anymore in this case though, we're citing Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. The name was mentioned in-game, and as far as I care that's as official as you can get, and Naming agrees. Like I've said, it's one thing to cite a book that blatantly copied from us; it's completely different to cite a name confirmed in a game by Nintendo themselves. -- 13:07, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * You realize your statement can be easily twisted to "we're not really citing ourselves anymore in this case though, we're citing Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia" and that would more or less mean the same thing, right? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:36, March 29, 2019 (EDT)

Move to Nipper Dandelion
I highly recommend viewing the above discussion first.

Many valid arguments have already be wrote for this subject that express my opinion on this subject, which I will quote here.

Here I will list off the potential disadvantages of moving to Nipper Dandelion.

Disadvantages: In short, not using an in-game name, the highest form of officially, feels like the exact opposite of having up-to-date, factual information. Remember that fan-made names can become official too. I feel that moving this page to Nipper Dandelion would help push the MarioWiki forward to an even better future. Also, per LinkTheLefty’s request, I have also included an option to move this page while using Nipper Dandelion’s Japanese name when talking about its appearance in YIDS.
 * We may be using a fan-made name. So what if a fan-made name was officially used? Fan-made names are officially used all of the time such as with Shiny Pokemon, does Bulbapedia ignore that name because it was fan-made? No, because it has officially used and thus is official, regardless of were it came from.
 * This would contradict the SMBE proposal! It would not, Nipper Dandelions are never mentioned in the book, and unlike the book were one of the translators admitted to plagiarism we have no idea if SSBU plagiarized from us.
 * We may be citing ourselves
 * What about other similar situations? Nipper Dandelion is different from these other situations that may involve conjectural names being used. Rudy the Clown had a valid English name before with him getting an expansion of his name in a brief mention in a third-party game (I would now oppose moving his page back to Rudy due to the fact the "the Clown" is a logical extension, fan-made names can become official, we do not know if FS plagiarized, etc., but that is a different discussion), Ghosts have a valid non-generic English name from a YIDS guide while being generically named in two SSB games, and Fire Nipper Plant is not only an extremely logical name but also a direct translation of its Japanese name, and they have several other valid English names. These situations are different and thus should not be compared.

Proposer: Deadline: April 11, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Move the page to Nipper Dandelion while using its English name for all of its current appearances (YIDS and SSBU)

 * 1) Second option, per proposal.
 * 2) Per my extensive thoughts above.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) - Citogenesis or not, the name is used officially in a video game. Would probably be more solidified if it was in a main title than a spin-off, but that doesn't really matter too much. I think we're being a bit too superstitious about the ESMB situation, this isn't a bad thing happening here. Fan name used in a game or an official translation, can we even tell? Would it even matter?
 * 5) Saying that Dark Horse shouldn't be lazy on a many-year delayed project is a reasonable thing to say. Saying that Nintendo is prohibited from adopting fan names for previously unnamed-in-Engish subjects is a petty and possibly pretentious thing to say.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) The situation is ambiguous enough and the name so plain and straightforward I feel concerns over possible "plagiarism" are a wee bit msiguided (btw I want to eat a shotgun for introducing the word "citogenesis" to this website).
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) It's not like the "Nipper Dandelion" name was all that confusing to begin with anyways.
 * 11) You know what, fuck it, the name change isn't unreasonable too. Per Alex95 specifically, I think in the end, I'd rather have a coherent English name.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Move the page to Nipper Dandelion while using its Japanese name when talking about its YIDS appearance

 * 1) The Polterpiranha situation (which this proposal conveniently ignores) makes it painfully obvious exactly what happened in this Palutena's Guidance, but at the same time, I acknowledge the weight the wiki gives to in-game names. Treating Nipper Dandelion's Yoshi's Island DS appearance as conjectural and its Super Smash Bros. Ultimate mention as official is precisely what "accurately documenting the franchise" means. This approach would be a very reasonable exception given these circumstances, making it the ideal middle ground. Per all the counter-quotes that I'm not going to retype here.
 * 2) Second option per LinkTheLefty.
 * 3) Actually perfectly aligns with our policy, as LinkTheLefty found out. Per proposal otherwise.

Do not move the page at all

 * 1) If say, Petapeta, Jump Beamer, Pattan, Winged Strollin' Stu, Tongari and Comet Tico had spirits and were respectively named Starbag, Sentry Beam (which is actually another enemy's english name), Whimp, Soarin' Stu, Spiny Hermit and Lumacomète, would we be using these names? No! Why? Because they are conjectural, were unsourced, and one of them was a mistake. The aformentioned Piranha Pod was because it was used in another source than the encyclopedia, so using that name wouldn't be against previous proposal. If this proposal passes, we'd be making a Super Mario Encyclopedia counterproposal for consistency with how we cover citogenesis, partial, full or nothing. Second option would confuse casual readers.

Comments
So if this passes, should Fiery Walking Piranha be automatically moved to Fire Nipper Plant since it's essentially the same situation? Niiue (talk) 20:14, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * It's not really the same situation, since that had an English name beforehand, two in fact, but neither of them were very good. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:32, March 28, 2019 (EDT)
 * True. I'd argue it's still close enough, though. Niiue (talk) 20:40, March 28, 2019 (EDT)

@FanOfYoshi And your entire argument is based off an entirely conjectural event. Besides, they already showed themselves to be far more competent than Dark Horse in said list. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:35, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * And the fact that, unlike with the SMBE where one of the translators admitted to plagiarism, we do not know if SSBU plagiarized from us. (And Nipper Dandelions were never mentioned in the book, this is an entirely different situation.) 06:26, March 29, 2019 (EDT)

@FanOfYoshi:

"If say, Petapeta, Jump Beamer, Pattan, Winged Strollin' Stu, Tongari and Comet Tico had spirits and were respectively named Starbag, Sentry Beam (which is actually another enemy's english name), Whimp, Soarin' Stu, Spiny Hermit and Lumacomète, would we be using these names? No! Why? Because they are conjectural, were unsourced, and one of them was a mistake."

Again, a name being conjectural at one point shouldn't make it permanently unusable regardless of whether it's used in an actual game. Also, names from the encyclopedia aren't really relevant here.

(Sidenote, those aren't even good examples since two are straightforward names Nintendo could've arguably come up with on its own, two are blatant mistakes, and one contradicts an existing English name)

"The aformentioned Piranha Pod was because it was used in another source than the encyclopedia, so using that name wouldn't be against previous proposal."

Nipper Dandelion is from a different source than the encyclopedia, though. Yoshi enemies aren't even covered in the encyclopedia.

"If this proposal passes, we'd be making a Super Mario Encyclopedia counterproposal for consistency with how we cover citogenesis, partial, full or nothing."

This has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Putting a blanket ban on all formerly conjectural names (even when used in-game) because of citogenesis is a bad idea. As I said before, there are countless examples of companies taking names from fanon. This is the first time I've seen the "once unofficial, always unofficial" argument.

@LinkTheLefty: Except that option defies what we normally do in situations like these, simply because the name used to be conjectural, and still has remnants of the "it was conjectural so it can never be official ever" argument that the majority of us clearly disagree with. I see no good reason to change our usual processes over the name's possible origins. -- 11:06, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * This situation is fairly unique and the proposal will set a certain precedent for future cases similar to it. The middle option is far and away the safest choice in my estimation, as I fear flatly going with the first or even third ones could prove regretful in the long run. Anyway, most (if not all) of the selected quotes in the proposal's introduction have already been replied to, and I'm not keen on repeating myself at this juncture. I encourage further voters to read the Palutena's Guidance section carefully and decide for themselves. I will say that I cannot comment on the "Shiny Pokémon" example because I don't know the history of the term for myself, except to say that it looks at a glance that it was renamed more due to Japanese terminology (and I do know that fans have also grouped Mythical Pokémon together with Legendary Pokémon, so I'm not fully convinced that the case is that a fan-name had a direct influence in that decision). Also, I feel like the claim that the first option "would help push the MarioWiki forward to an even better future" is a funny overstatement. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:22, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * If they did use the "Ghost" name from here, they probably just saw that it was cited and assumed it was from something absolutely official and directly YIDS-related, and not wanting to preempt previous names if they were accurate to the subject (unlike, say, Hootie the Blue Fish). They had to research names for a crapton of species, so expecting them to look at the exact citation for each and every one of them with an existing English name is a bit unreasonable. And while they may have borrowed "Nipper Dandelion" from the wiki, it didn't have an actual English name, and I personally don't find the mentality of "Oh well, seems there's no pre-existing official name in English, let's use this obvious and concise name" to be unreasonable. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:45, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * That's why I shifted my position from using Watage Pakkun and not Nipper Dandelion to using both, just the former then and the latter now, because I did listen and take into account the arguments for moving it. Yes, we would rename it to Nipper Dandelion and be done with it in a normal context, but special circumstances demand we reexamine how we go about it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:02, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * IMO, you should either link to the user page, or use the "quote2" template, given that you link to non-existent pages without the "User" mainspace. -- 14:25, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * Used the quote2 template, thanks. 14:30, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * We use English names when available, though. That would be inconsistent. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:32, March 29, 2019 (EDT)
 * As stated by Naming (and as reinforced via proposal): "When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead." Technically, the foreign name exception is actually an unwritten rule to this statement; otherwise, we strive not to be anachronistic with terminology. Maybe the question is, why should it be an exception, given it does not happen often enough to even be mentioned in policy? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:55, March 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * I agree that the first option is complicated as it had no english name at the time, and was given generic mentions in both guides. -- 12:58, March 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * I completely forgot about that because it so rarely happens. I would go for foreign names being an exception, due to it being for example awkward calling Piranha Pod's by their Japanese name when talking about them in the original NSMBU when they have an English name (Which could be confusing to readers). Changed proposal to match this. 13:01, March 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * Personally, I feel foreign names should be ignored in that case. Passing off a Japanese (or other language) name as a subject's former name in the same vein as Bloober/Blooper or Toadstool/Peach feels misleading. It was never called that in English, we just had to fall back on it because there was no other option, and documenting it as a subject's historical name just doesn't seem right. -- 13:28, March 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * I agree too, however that is our policy and a separate proposal needs to be made to change that. 13:30, March 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * Unless I missed it, Naming doesn't say anything about continuing to use foreign names when a subject has been renamed. Also, I wouldn't technically call this a rename, since in English they never actually had a name prior to Ultimate. -- 13:34, March 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * It is not explicitly disallowed in policy (note that the use of an English name "regardless of the source" is in reference to the title of the article, which is separate from using legacy names whenever appropriate), and Japanese and English name changes certainly do not have to coincide with each other. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:10, March 30, 2019 (EDT)