Talk:List of Mario franchise characters

Comments and additions are welcome, especially for the latter three RPGs which I have not played much or any of. --TJive 03:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed in a few instances references to non-Mario games such as Tetris Attack, the Donkey Kong Country series, and the Super Smash Bros. series, where not appropriate for introducing a character's origins. As this list seems to be with the intent to categorize Mario series characters rather than secondary or tertiary appearances, especially in the form of trophies, these would simply overbear it. --TJive 23:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Tetris Attack is considered canon to the Marioverse. And how is DKC not Mario? It's a spinoff, not some own franchise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)-Mario and Donkey Kong Country are spinoffs of the original Donkey Kong, the only Mario games that aren't spinoffs are the Donkey Kong games where Donkey Kong is Mario's enemy like Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario vs. Donkey Kong.

Tried to edit the species Doogan from Paper Mario and Paper Mario 2 into the system, but I'm having such the stupidest time trying to match the formatting. Fixing it (that includes the dash mark being as long as the others, I don't know what the problem is with that) would be very appreciated. -Toastypk

Incomplete?

This article seems pretty extensive to me. Is this "incomplete" message outdated?

No Rlk89 22:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

How do you edit the template? List of non-Kremling Donkey Kong enemies isn't on it. RobbieG 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed

At how well this has taken off, and how comprehensive it seems to be, considering earlier attempts to snuff it out. I hope there are qualified editors checking to make sure vandals haven't inserted some nonsense, given the frequence of anonymous contribution to it. Also, feel free to make changes to the dashes or otherwise modify the format, so long as it affects the entire article and not merely a portion. --TJive 04:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, wtf is with all the removing?

I thought this was a list of all Mario creatures, why get rid of so many?

I mean honestly, the Albatoss, Amazing Flying Hammer Bro, Amp, Angry Sun, the Chuckya, they're all distinct enemies that were recognizable from the games they were in. Anyone who played Super Mario World knows of the Flying Hammer Bro, the guy on the grey blocks in so many levels. Some of these enemies made it into cameos of other Mario games too.

I can see the reasoning behind wanting to remove random-battle enemies that were just in SMRPG, but seriously, the list is practically half-destroyed now... I mean for god's sake, Goomba was removed too!

I decided to break my bold-less wiki nature and revert that edit. Now let's please talk about a more thorough removal rather than just a blind removing of "lesser" enemies, k? Toastypk 01:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Being well-known does not warrant an appearance on a list that is about Mario characters, not Mario species. I left all Goomba characters. A random Goomba is not a character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why not move to List of Mario Characters and Species? This is one of my favorite extensive lists and killing so much of it of it is a huge no. Toastypk 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or make a different list for species. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a huge comprehensive list like that would really hurt. I'm almost ready to call for a peer review to see if we can sort this out... Toastypk 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of making lists is NOT to make a giant list that has no order. Not only is ensuring that users can find a species in the list which is comprised mostly by characters. There is no reason to make it one list instead of two other than making it long. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but this list does have order, it's a list of Mario characters. And to be fair, you're so far the only one I've seen that seems to think this, I haven't heard anyone else say this besides you. Regardless, peer review will help sort this out, maybe I'll hear someone else say something. Toastypk 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do species deserve to be on here more than items? Why are species more characters than items? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some serious problems in this article. There's no point in having links to the game they're in on the actual word (as in, Beanstar redirecting to Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) if it states what game they're from and links to it in their description. If they all had individual pages, then directing them to their pages would make a lot of sense. However, it doesn't.

Why did we move to this format anyway? I can see the desire to have one big list of all of them, but why were the individual pages deleted? Was there any harm in having more detail of a particular character? Hanzolot 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Color consolidation

There are a goodly number of entries that I think would do well to be consolidated a bit. The Yoshi's are a prime example: if the description is merely "a red Yoshi", or "a blue Yoshi", I think it'd be best list them all inside "Yoshi" with the addendum that, for example, "Yoshi's can also be found in red, blue, green, etc.".

I agree, but not when the colors determine their types. AKA, Gloomba is indigo, Hyper Goomba is tan/greenish. Toastypk 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable, I wouldn't lump them all into a G**mba category, but in this case there's Goombas and Gloombas. But when the only distinction is the color (like the Yoshis [Or is it Yoshi? What's the plural of that?]) resulting in a three word description, maybe they can be combined. --BakerQ 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Yoshi, Yellow Yoshi and Blue Yoshi have their own individual techniques. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Length of the article

The article is too long. The only way to alleviate this would be to split the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Step one, delete entries from an article. Deletions are reverted.

Step two, crusade against having the entries kept. Find out you're the only one and lose the debate.

Step three, continue to add dozens of entries over a few days and then complain that it's too long.

I'm guessing now step four is that you're going to sumbit to the reviewal page that the page (that you've contributed significantly to) is too long?

I think we should feel comfortable enough to remove the notice that the list may be incomplete now, eh? And thank you for the contributions. --BakerQ 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is against what should be so. Give me one good reason why Species and Characters should not be separate, and I will counter with "keeping them together unnecessarily makes the article too long (TOO long means too long - an article should NOT be this long). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Split

Given the history of the discussion on peer review, the split appears to be done to make a point. If any other user agrees with the split, I won't revert it. Yowee 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I could swing either way with the split really. Toastypk 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see little logic in not swinging towards the split. It goes with the quality guideline stating that articles shouldn't be as big as it is and you should attempt to make it smaller. And I would like to remind that a split would result in two lists that, combined, are equally comprehensive without having so much space on one article, without being very long and without burdening people by having the majority of the article being species when they're looking for characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page should not be split. The split was done to make a point. Link, be gracious and concede in this. You're edging closer and closer to vandalism each day. --BakerQ 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because after all, when I'm adhering to a style guideline, I'm damaging the article. After all, it's so bad to have all of the content remain but on two different pages for easy access. And you're not easing closer and closer to personal attacks; you're already there.

It's not always a bad thing to make a point. I made the point that there should not be a combination of characters and species, labelling both as characters. You seemed to disagree, so I went and added as many characters and species as I could. How is it bad to do so? The objective of any good list is to become complete. I helped. But in doing so, I went well above the recommended article size (in kbs), so I helped and reduced it by making two lists. And for some reason, it's too hard for somebody to click a single time to get to the species article.

Now, here's the funny thing - you have never given a single reason why they should be together other than "people would expect to see them in this article". And yet they do; they simply glance at the very first line of the page, and see that there is a separate article for species. There is literally no good reason now for the articles to be one, and several very good reasons for them to be not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Link, STOP REMOVING ENTRIES FROM THIS LIST. --BakerQ 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot. Not having it one list is bad. Because, after all, being comprehensive has nothing to do with being comprehensive, but rather, being unnecessarily freaking long! What I do reduces the size of this article, prevents it from being unnecessarily long and adheres to the style guideline that says an article should not be this long, and what you do is insist that people won't like having to click on a single link that they know is a place for things such as Goombas and Koopa Troopas, acting as if there is something so horribly wrong with all living things not being represented as characters. Give me a single argument! You are just ignoring me. You are being completely uncivil, and you are trying your damndest to not have to give up your ideal article design. You don't want to be wrong, so you refuse to put yourself in a position to be wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have, for the past week (or so) been intent on moving entries of this list to another. You tried removing them, that got reverted. When it was brought to peer review you were denied, so you instead inflated the list as much as possible, then moved the new entries along with the original ones you had issues with to another page. No one agrees with you about the removal of the entries, why can't you recognize that you might actually be wrong? --BakerQ 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure it's such a horrible thing to force people to spend all of one second clicking on a link to a different list. Why are you completely avoiding my question? Why is it that you are so intent to ignore me on every single discussion page, choosing to say "omg u vandal how dare u go against an unrelated strawman vote by improving this article, we want it this was because we sed so"? Give me a freaking good reason why one list is better! Give me ONE! This in insane! Guess what you haven't been doing this whole week? ANSWERING MY FREAKING QUESTIONS. You have completely ignored everything that you don't like to hear. By the way - did you ever notice that the content still exists?! In an appropriate page that can be accessed ever so easily? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

From my own talk; votes and intent

There was never a vote on the move. It was a vote made because I was flat out deleting the content. And will you stop calling improving articles crusade, as if I am doing something wrong? Is it so hard to actually answer my damned request? Will there ever be a day where you actually respond to this article with an argument why they should remain, and no, the fact that two people want it is not an argument. Give me a reason why this is better than what I am doing. Why is one list better than two? Think of something good, because I have guidelines on my side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I considered it a vote because everyone on the peer review page disagreed with you and wanted the page to remain as it was.

I think the root problem is that, at least in video games and other 'worlds' where a mushroom with eyes can be given a name, people don't see much of a difference between the name of a species or the name of a character. I see the first Goomba in SMB as a character. Every single one. Every Spiny, every Turtle Brother, every Bullet Bill. If you were trying to scientifically categorize them all, I guess you'd need to make a distinction. But then, scientifically, the race of Bullet Bills would die out because they're all males and don't have reproductive organs, etc, etc. It's a bullet named Bullet Bill, they all are, and they're all characters. That's what everyone thinks. Except you. I'm sorry if you're dissatisfied with the list, but we're not. Even with the additions you've made, we're still happy with the list. That's the "single argument" that you're not accepting. It's not us that needs to convince you. --BakerQ 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, calm down. You'll be much more well-received. --BakerQ 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried being calm, I am not calm because you are ignoring everything you do not like in my words. If you want to put every single Goomba on the article, then go ahead. But the collection of Goombas is not a character. It is a species. A Bullet Bill is not a species because it is mechanical. Perhaps I should make the "List of Mechanical objects in the Mario series"? This is not a scientific categorization. It is a sane categorization. They are species. They fall into the definition of species. The fact that you want to add every single individual enemy that Mario, Luigi or Princess Peach ever encounter, I don't care. But the group of species is NOT a character, by the very definition of the word character. It is a collection of characters and non-characters. Your single argument is of poor quality. Few people would ever refer to the first Goomba in SMB as a character. What I do improves the article and gives equal content, and what you do keeps the article bad and does nothing to improve it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your position, you've communicated it plenty of times. Personally, I see Bullet Bill as a living character because of the face, but it can be argued that it's just paint like WWII planes. I like to cling to the fantasy elements of the Mario worlds that do include living bullets the live to be flung across the screen and then move on. Anyway, I understand and appreciate your position on this matter. But the problem (again) is that it's your position. I have yet to see one single person agree with you. And each new argument you come up with, each new tactic, seems hell bent on the original mission, which was to remove a large number of entries from this page. --BakerQ 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically, because it started out with me deleting it, it's bad for me to keep the content but make the article less sucky. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Exasperation

I will defend my actions in the follow two ways. Firstly, Link's original intent was to remove the entries because they did not meet his definition of 'character'. When he began to move them to their own page, all I saw was the deletion and stubborn refusal to accept another definition of 'character', resulting in the revert battle earlier today. Link was, also, acting completely solo in all actions as every voiced opinion was opposite to his. His attitude and quickness to flame me wasn't exactly seen good faith, either.

I will concede the splitting of the pages. The note at the top specifically mentioning two of the most popular and most well-known examples helps out. However, as to the definition of character, I have one small request. The List of Mario series species should be added to the "Mario Characters" category. This would help cross-referencing and would help people easier find the characters they're looking for, even if that character is technically a species. --BakerQ 02:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Different criteria for split, maybe?

I'll start off by admitting that I am nowhere near an expert on the Mario games, but I saw this on PR and thought I might comment. While Link has a point, namely that the style guidelines recommend against an article of this length, I disagree somewhat with the method of splitting. If this were Star Trek where there is a definite difference in what constitutes a "species" and what constitutes a "character," this method would be satisfactory. I suggest, instead, categorizing by the nature of the character/species. For instance, Mario, Luigi, etc., would be obviously in the "good guy" category, while characters like Bowser would be in the "bad guy" category. There may be characters who would fit on both sides (again, I'm no Mario expert), but there could be yet a third article for those. This seems to be a little more definite of a distinction than a character/species distinction. Just my 2¢ --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, there's definately people who are good and bad at different times. Like Wario.

As for the other thing, an example would be with the koopa troopa. They're turtle creatures, and mostly nondescript. But there are a select few who have distinct names. There's Kooper from Paper Mario, and Koops from Paper Mario 2. They're still koopa troopas but they're distinct characters. It's analohous to the difference between generic Klingon and Worf. Toastypk 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have played enough Mario to know what a koopa troopa is. But anyway. Here's a thought. Reserve this article for "main" characters, i.e., those who are featured as key parts of a game. Basically, any playable character, any character that is a constant factor in the game and any level bosses. That criteria may need to be expanded, but essentially it's any character directly involved in the game's storyline. Then you could have one article for the "other" goodies and another for the "other" baddies. If there are still ambiguously-affiliated minor characters/species, give them a third article. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

About this other mass deletion

I don't have the time to go back and fix everything right now, but the baby characters and Paper Mario 2 characters are still unique characters, regardless of if they already have articles or not. They need to stay. Toastypk 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The characters don't have enough information to really hold articles, and they cannot satisfy WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Toad may be major, but the article has no real content. TTN 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Take away the games list, and this article becomes a little stubby. And the Princess Daisy from the movie can be added to the movie's article, if necessary. Suigi 01:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

NO F***ING WAY! Toad is one of the "Big Eight" of Mario games, and one of the major games of the series, even though his roles have been reduced over the years. Toad DESERVES his own article! I am completely AGAINST the idea of a merge. - Smashman202 03:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is the whole "notability" thing that is bound to come up sooner or later. While I don't relish the idea of them being merged, what must be done must be done. : S There's no point bringing up another argument... Hardcore gamer 48 04:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll merge these tomorrow. TTN 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't merged Princess Daisy and Toad and TTN will be in trouble. 70.16.135.201 23:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How so? He's going by the rules and whatever... there should really be a Wikipedia clone like this out there (as in, not cluttered with joke articles) that lets you put whatever information you want on any article, provided it's true. Ah well. Hardcore gamer 48 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I put it this way, if Waluigi is getting merged, then the other "Fillers" along w/ him better, so imo Daisy should be merged. Exodecai 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've add Merlon (Mario), though I doubt I'll actually include the information here. I just need to get rid of it. Maybe all of the Paper Mario lists should be redirected to their main articles due to a lack of actual information beyond the games (like Mario and Luigi). If we have a series article, recurring characters can be talked about there. Any thoughts on that? TTN 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need=/=Want. Meh. If the Paper Mario characters lists remain, then Merlon should be merged there. He definitely is not deserving of an article, and that's something I can actually agree with TTN on. As for merging the lists with their respective articles... I'll leave that up for discussion to the others. I don't mind the sound of it, actually.

BTW, is that Smithy Gang article going to be merged eventually? : ) Hardcore gamer 48 12:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after the Paper Mario ones are redirected, I'll just use those as precedent to kill off that and the SMRPG character list. TTN 12:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hardcore gamer 48 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

There's a lot of duplication between this article and List of Mario series enemies. What do you guys think about merging them into one article? Or would it be too long? Useight 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Princess Daisy not to be merged

I don't want that article to be merged because Princess Daisy is a main article and so is Toad. 70.16.142.227 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How so? Does it have notability outside of the game's canon? Are there verifiable sources that can certify this fact? If so, then please add them. If not, then please use Super Mario Wiki for in-universe references. Suigi 00:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they DID both appear in the Super Mario Bros. movie... but I'm not going to even bother attempting to fight to keep the articles this time around. There seems to be no point doing so anymore. = / Hardcore gamer 48 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Daisy's Information is too Short

I know that Daisy doesn't play a big role in Mario's adventure series but she does in Super Mario Land. I liked the page where they had a lot of information on her. The info on the old design and the changes were also interesting. I also think if the information on her kingdom, meaning noting the theme of real world sites like Egypt's pyramids and Easter Island's stone faces, was included it would get long enough. I think that she's as famous as Yoshi or Toad, and her history is interesting.

The information on Sarasaland might be better located in the Super Mario Land article, or a possible "List of Mario series locations" article. Suigi 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to put in information about her appearances. She originally wore a yellow and white dress, a red crown, and had hair the same length as Peach, and in Mario Party 4 and subsequent games, she wears a yellow and orange dress, a golden crown, and had shorter hair. --PJ Pete

Birdo/Catherine is a male (or maybe transgender)

The SMB 2 manual clearly states Birdo is a male character who thinks he's female. And in Japan, it had always been called Catherine but known as male. Yet, this article makes no mention that Catherine is male (or whatever). Maxwell7985 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you add these facts, they will always get reverted. It is no use trying. This is the Wikipedia way. --74.194.118.12 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I added a source, you're the one who removed it and accused me of deleting content from the section. -- Lord Crayak

That "Wikipedia Way"?! Last I checked, the "Wikipedia Way" was about presenting the facts to their fullest extent, it's not supposed to be about what you may or may not like. Fact is, Birdo's male in Japan, and this is highly relevant information since it's technically one of the first video game characters of its type. You need a source? Go find the Talk Page that belonged to Birdo, that had all the little sources you need, and I'm not going through hell to get it back together. 208.101.173.66 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give away the one source I can find that wasn't originally on Wikipedia. The Talk Page had a rather long, essay-like explanation and translation notes going into detail, but since that is gone this is the only thing I could still find that wasn't in Japanese: http://www.gametalk.com/talk/yoshi/82954593.htm208.101.173.66 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What the crap happenend here!

The Koopalings don't belong here. They are more than just petty enemies. They are Bosses for God Sakes. Parodied off of famous celebs... Angry Sun 03:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does my additional info on Waluigi keep getting removed? His information is too short

Hello. I'd like to know why does the information on the etymology of Waluigi's name keeps getting removed, as well as information on appearances in other games, especially since I post links to back this information up? I think this information is relevant and there are dozens of other articles about Waluigi that list this information.

The name "Walugi" is a portmanteau of "Luigi" and the Japanese adjective warui meaning "bad"; hence, "bad Luigi".

This should be included in the Waluigi article.

user:mavericker 1:24 AM EST 20 July 2007 Mavericker 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want articles characters like Waluigi, go to mariowiki.--Ridley76 21:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that even answering his question? Personally, I have nothing against keeping the information you wrote, but unfortunately, there must be a good reason as to why it keeps getting removed. = / Hardcore gamer 48 12:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That info still keeps getting removed. user:mavericker 11:50 AM EST 27 July 2007 Mavericker 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Change the page of mario series characters

I like the page when you see abc order a very small list is better. 70.16.142.86 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And you like this page because TTN is mergeding all of the mario characters and help me put it back into a main article again. 70.16.142.86 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

The only ones that would be necessary would be the ones of the character's most recent appearance. --PJ Pete

Provided the characters actual appearance doesn't change, what does it matter? Hardcore gamer 48 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters in the Main series or spin-offs

Princess Daisy first appeared in Super Mario Land, and is her only appearance in the main series. She now appears in spin-offs since NES Open Tournament Golf. Her classic appearance from SML to MP3 is her only appearance for the main series. How she appears since MP4 is a spin-off-only appearance. Waluigi is a spin-off-only Mario character. The main series is the actual Mario continuity. A spin-off is something that is a completely different continuity than the actual. --PJ Pete

I don't see what your trying to say; to not include spin-off characters or what? You also seem to be saying Mario Party 3 is main series, while Mario Party 4 isn't. -- Lord Crayak

I didn't mean that Mario Party 3 was part of the main series, even though I knew that game was one of the spin-offs, Daisy's classic appearance was made for both main and spin-off, and her current appearance since Mario Party 4 is her spin-off-only appearance, which Nintendo decided that she will longer appear in the main series. --PJ Pete

Article Split?

Perhaps we should split this article somehow, its long as hell and takes quite awhile to load on my computer... Perhaps we should split it along the protagonist and antagonist lines? Ace Combat Fanatic 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)