Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > "Nightmare Star"

Is "Nightmare Star" really as deserving of being a subtitle to Princess Celestia as Nightmare Moon is to Luna?

Nightmare Moon has been featured in multiple episodes of the show, and is a major character in her own right, despite being the same character as Luna.  That's the reason Luna's page is subtitled Nightmare Moon.

Nightmare Star isn't even an alternate name given by Hasbro in the same way that Derpy Hooves, Ditzy Doo, and Muffins have all been given for the same pony.  It's a single trading card intended to be a joke more than anything.  There isn't any other Nightmare Star merchandise, and as far as my and the page's knowledge goes, she's never been referenced in any other media.

Whenever someone looks up the page, "Nightmare Star" is going to be right there in the profile under "Princess Celestia," which will lead to confusion when the only reference to Nightmare Star in the article is "some merchandise" and the trading card.  Leaving the merchandise mention in the intro and trading card info will allow anyone to understand upon a glance that it's not a major version of Princess Celestia.  

I won't go back and change it for now, since an admin has insisted on changing it back, thus I took their advice and brought the issue here.  Maybe if Celestia had the alternate character forms tabs that the other character pages do, Nightmare Star could be mentioned under that and not have to be given equivalence in notoriety to Nightmare Moon, because it may deserve mentioning, but it certainly doesn't deserve the place it's been given. 

PFV (talk) 06:06, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

Note well that "Nightmare Star" was once there as an alternate form. It was moved to Princess Celestia/Gallery/Overview, since it is one of many alternate versions of the character and hardly a notable one at that. I reverted the edit, but I am not particularly pleased with the inclusion of the name in the infobox header either. Guildmaster Grovyle (talk) 06:14, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
So was there some sort of rule you were following (as opposed to a conviction) that made you decide to revert the edit?
PFV (talk) 21:11, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
That's right. If the character has one or more alter egos (as in Daring Do/A.K. Yearling) or simply conflicting names from different sources (as in Derpy/Muffins), then it is grounds for a secondary name. Since "Nightmare Star," obscure though it may be, does refer to Princess Celestia, it warrants that place in the header in accordance with this guideline. In fact, it is her only alternative name that does so. Guildmaster Grovyle (talk) 21:23, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way to change or circumvent this guideline?
PFV (talk) 09:35, October 11, 2016 (UTC)
Circumvent? No. Change? Make a proposal in a forum like this one. Guildmaster Grovyle (talk) 09:41, October 11, 2016 (UTC)
Which guideline is that under? I remember a guideline similar to that, but only if the appearances/mentions for the alter egos have a substantial amount of evidence, and for conflicting names it's usually just as said. If Celestia has the name "Nightmare Star" as an alternate name, shouldn't that mean Rarity would also have "Nightmare Rarity" as the same, or has it changed since I last saw the guideline? FANMADE Pinkie portal front by blackgryph0n-d3f93p8Lord of Shadows Words mean nothing!FANMADE Pinkie portal back by blackgryph0n-d3f93p8 04:52, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
I've been sorely tempted to remove it on that grounds alone, but I believe it has something to do with the nature of the merchandise. In the case of the TCG, there's no context. It's simply Princess Celestia being called Nightmare Star. However, in light of this discussion, I think I'll go ahead with it. If it's reverted for a good reason, I'll get back to this forum with that reason. Guildmaster Grovyle (talk) 05:07, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
The card on which Celestia is called "Nightmare Star" calls her that exclusively, whereas the comics in which Rarity is called "Nightmare Rarity" don't call her that exclusively. (7)6(four) (talk) 05:08, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it has occurred to me that this forum has been open for two weeks. In that time, no one has come forth in support of keeping the name in the infobox. I cannot declare a consensus with these numbers, but if we consider the original question posed a proposal to take action, then there has been no opposition in the life of this forum. That is not insignificant. Guildmaster Grovyle (talk) 05:24, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.