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.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎173.30.250.44 (talk).

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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎173.30.250.44 (talk).

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.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎173.30.250.44 (talk).

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. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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)