Talk:List of Mario series characters
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:List_of_Mario_series_characters".

content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Mario series characters article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Things you can help with:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top priority within Nintendo for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Peer review List of Mario series characters received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


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

Contents

Ostro?

I just beat Super Mario Brothers 2, and in the credits it lists Birdo as the emu looking thing that some shyguys ride on, and Ostro as the sexually ambiguous egg-shooting villain. Was this an error (I'd believe that, since this Birdo looks more like an ostrich), or did they swap names at some point? 75.49.251.170 (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


More pictures

I think there should be more pictures in this list. There are none bar the main picture, which doesn't feature many of the characters, and those which it does are small. It can't be hard to get fair use pictures of Daisy, Rosalina, Toad, Bowser Jnr and Waluigi,for example, and the others could proberbly be obtained too. 86.135.209.39 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Try on the Mario Wiki, we need images for the recurring characters, such as Waluigi and Daisy.

--Mr Alex (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Previously there were several pictures, almost one for every single character. However, it was decided that there were too many pictures. Considering that most of the characters that have any decent pictures are in the main picture, it seems unecessary to have more. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


I know that, but I think that Waluigi's and Daisy's text deserve an image where we see all their body, only for those two characters. I know they don't have a very big role in the series, but they frequently appeared, such as in the party and sport games. The other characters on the main picture are visual enough. I just ask for Waluigi and Daisy, just that.

--Mr Alex (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


We don't need anymore images, I found the perfect image that illustrate most of characters and we can see all their body. But can someone write all character's names from left to right ?

Koopaling names

Should it be noted that three of the koopalings share their names with famous punk/metal musicians? Iggy Pop, Wendy O Williams, and Lemmy. -Frank Aggro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.109.97 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Koopalings were named after Roy Orbison, Ludwig von Beethoven and Morton Downey, Jr.. I have no idea who Larry Koopa was named after, if anyone. Kouban (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Koopaling ages

Give me a source for the obviously wrong order of ages for the Koopalings. Stop spreading false information. -Prince_Ludwig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.90.213 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete?

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

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

It's obviously incomplete as I was redirected here when I searched Fawful, and he is not mentioned at all through out the article.--Phantom Kirby 20:14, 20 October 2007 (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)

I think that they would be better utilized if it was more clearly divided as protagonists and antagonists. Perhaps a third page for minor Mario enemies? Mynameisnotpj (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (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

On a similar subject, I noticed this:
"In Super Mario Strikers, Daisy is not as sexy as her sister Peach, but she makes up for it by being agressive."
It just doesn't seem "Wikipedia" enough for Wikipedia. What do you guys think? -- Snip3rNife 12:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

are you people stupid, or something? Daisy is certainly not Peach's sister. She is actually oftenly called her counterpart. Ivyluv 03:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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.htm 208.101.173.66 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres the talk page: Talk: Birdo. -- Lord Crayak

? Birdo's Talk Page exists without the actual article? My bad... It in itself should be sufficient. 208.101.173.66 23:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'source' you refer to is little more than a thread started by someone who believes Birdo is male. Their main argument is that 'it says so in the manual'. Male to female transsexuals are still considered by many to be male because they are biologically male. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant to this article. What is relevant is that Birdo appears to identiy as a female so it would be more appropriate to use the pronoun 'she' instead of 'it'. Also you're going to need to back up your claim that she is considered male in Japan. Did you get this from some poll or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.255.220 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008

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)

Are you trying to say that they should have their own article or that they are in the wrong place?Mynameisnotpj (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also some vandlism saying something like "Rosalina is Marios's New hoe" how's New friend sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.114.238 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (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)

That would actually be a very good idea. Oh wait, there already is a list of Mario series enemies. This should be fixed somehow.Mynameisnotpj (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not many obvious enimies :(

WOW.not even shyguy. How do you call it a charcter list without some EXTREMLY Familliar Enimies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.128.216 (talk • contribs)

See List of Mario series enemies for those. Hardcore gamer 48 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

birdo

i really think birdo should be called "he", because i believe birdo is a boy.

I'm starting to believe Birdo should just be called an "it" from now on, considering Nintendo seems to keep flip-flopping on it's gender. -- Lord Crayak

I think we should leave Birdo as a female for now. I think the main Birdo is female... but then, I suppose that doesn't really account for the Birdos in Mario Strikers Charged Football, does it? : S Hardcore gamer 48
To put it nicely, isn't Birdo a bi-sexual or homosexual? →Pezzar 23:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In Japan, Birdo has always been male, despite the feminine name. Nintendo of America censored it for a while, but lately he's been acknowledged as male. 208.101.150.53 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Birdo should be a separate article, he is a character of note due to his transgender issues and is a historic character for the progressive ideas displayed through him Klichka (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that Birdo should have a seperate article. Unlike Yoshi, Birdo hasn't been the star of any games and isn't a major character outside of the games (at least, not to my knowledge). On a similar note, should Birdo be moved to the antagonist section, since Birdo hasn't really been a protagonist. That said, it was shown in Mario Power Tennis that Birdo is a whole species, like Yoshi is an entire species. Similarly, the Birdo's that have been antagonists to Mario seem to be capable of human speech (to my knowledge anyway, not sure about all the antagonist roles. It was true for Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) but in the sports games and the Mario Party series, the only noise Birdo makes is a series of strange, tooting noises. Looneyman (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

waluigi

Can he get his own article? Mario, Wario and Luigi do, why shouldnt he? Wii2-13 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Pezzar 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Mario, Wario and Luigi are major characters and have all been featured in their own games. There is no reason for Waluigi to have his own article. It was would just be a stub. Wait until SSBB is released and we will see if there is enough information then.

The toads

Okay, many people here have complained about characters only having a small section in this article, and not their own article. Now I am adding Toad, Toadette and Toadsworth to that list. Why can't they all ahve their own article? Or maybe an article called "Toads (Nintendo)"? Pezzar 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed!!! Claycrow 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have actually begun to work on an article. All I done so far is copy the text from this article though...[1]

Fryguy's Voice

I think it's worth mentioning about Fryguy's voice in both Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and Super Mario Bros. 2 for the Game Boy Advance. I want to know what the two voices are (i heard them before from other times (NON-MARIO related stuff) but i just don't know what those voices are) and explain the difference between his voice in the show and in the game.

He's voiced by different people in those two appearances; the cartoon was made before Fryguy had any voice at all. I don't see much point in mentioning that in the article. -- Lord Crayak

Oh gosh, so much ignorance with the Birdo section...

Things keep getting reverted. Why can't they just read the discussion page and leave it be? It was like that when Birdo had his own article. The gender debate is officially over, it's been proven that Birdo was originally male, and was not the result of a joke or typo. Even in Japan, where Birdo had a feminine name (some amateur translators just used up their energies to find the name and assume, but the saying hold true). Birdo being referred to female is the result of censorship, period. There's no argument for this anymore. And please, no more fanon connections to Birdo being a female Yoshi. 208.101.150.53 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

the gender debate is over, yes, however, the gender debate itself is notable! Alexanderpas (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Toad on Brawl

I would like to know something. Now that Peach was revealed today on Brawl, does that mean the possibility of Toad being on Brawl has gone to 0%?? Mr. Mario 192 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably. -- Lord Crayak

Petey Piranha appears in the Subspace Army movie. should this be mentioned in his section? Y'know, sort of like, "Petey Piranha has been seen briefly at the end of Super Smash Bros Brawl's Subspace Army movie, although it is not yet clear what role he plays in the game." 84.13.112.29 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss

Peach still has her "Toad attack" though. Pezzar 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not certain?? Actually, Petey is the first boss of the Subspace Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.162.40 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pauline

Pauline is almost certainly named after the very popular, and often parodied, The Perils of Pauline silent movie serial in which the title character is always a damsel-in-distress. Pauline's hair and costuming from the original Donkey Kong sprite design appear to match this period. Promotional art is more modern in style, reminiscent of Fay Wray's costuming in King Kong. Xot 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Toad

Should it be noted that Toad's head looks like the flag of japan? Uchiha23 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that necessary to have that info? It's trivial and doesn't add anything to his section. Mr. C.C. 08:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, his head doesn't look anything like the flag of Japan. Any likeness is probably just a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnotpj (talk • contribs) 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mallow & Geno

It seems as though Mallow and Geno don't have a section of their own. Sure they are not prominent as others. But if Pauline has her own section, then surely they do as well. Mr. C.C. 08:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Major/Minor characters

I was perusing this page for the first time today and noticed that there are a load of minor bosses listed under antagonists. Single-game bosses are at least noteworthy if they are the main antagonists (such as Tatanga and Wart), but there are also a load of extremely minor level bosses here. Shouldn't they go on the Mario series enemies article instead? Also, shouldn't major characters from the Mario RPGs (Mallow, Prince Peasley, Sir Grodus, etc) be here as well? You Can't See Me! 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the antagonist section was apart of the List of Mario series enemies article, but they were shunted over to here when it was decided that that list would be composed solely of generic enemies. And most one-game characters, no matter how major they're role in a game is, are usually removed from here for some reason; appearing outside of video games, as the Super Mario Bros. 2 bosses have, seems to heighten a characters chances of staying though; theres also List of Paper Mario series characters. Lord Crayak 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clawgrip vs. Crawglip

Why was this reverted back? The character's name is clearly spelled Crawglip within SMB2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.168.18 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Return Toad as a main character

Toad is in a constant state of flux on this site, switching back and forth between main character (along the lines of Luigi and Yoshi, for example) and secondary character status (those mentioned in the "List of Mario Series Characters" entry). This should be fixed so that Toad simply has his own page. He still appears in games regularly (Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, Mario Party DS, Mario Galaxy), has a sidekick (Toadette), has his own starring game (Wario's Woods), and starred in the Mario cartoons and feature length film. These are reasons enough for granting the character his own page and then closing the matter for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.241.220 (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Argreed! 172.133.124.33 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waluigi.png

Image:Waluigi.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ia good page

This is good page I inttend to add to it.Frank polizzi (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bowser Junior

Bowser Junior has become a commanding force in the Mario series, and it's clear his influence won't stop anytime soon. I rally for him to have his own article.

I feel that while he is a major character sometimes, the effort would be spent better giving a different character their own page. There is not enough information to make a full article.Mynameisnotpj (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Should We change the part about Waluigi?

Should We change the part about Waluigi? It says he has only appeared in Mario sport games and Party games. Confirmed by smashbrosdojo.com, Waluigi is in it but as an assist trophie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.225.206 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BowserJr2.jpg

Image:BowserJr2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosalina

Shouldn't Rosalina be listed on this page as a protaganist? She does not have a entry, despite playing a major role in Super Mario Galaxy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jynsing (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fawful?

Where's Fawful in this? I chan specifically rmember him from Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga. He had FURY!!!69.135.198.32 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that searching for Fawful links you to this page makes it all the more stranger he's not listed. 76.210.71.75 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Princess Daisy in the future

Her latest game is Super Mario Strikes Charged and doesn't appear until 8 years later in tennis? I don't believe it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.94.25 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Daisy and Birdo

On Daisy's section, it states that she likes Nikolas. I do not believe that a character named Nikolas has appeared in any games or spinoffs. Also it should be noted on Birdo's section that Mario Tennis came out before Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga. Saltedpepper (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I think it would be beneficial to better categorize the characters, or create sub categories. Maybe sub categories as plant, animal, human. Or by date of first appearances. I am sure we can come up with a better system to catalogue these creatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nw15062 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it should just be in normal alphabetical order, rather than split into protagonists and antagonists. If someone does not know which one they are, they would never be able to find it. And, for example, in some cases Birdo may be considered either.Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FLUDD

FLUDD redirects here, but it's nowhere to be found in this article other than the briefest of mentions under E. Gadd. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowser Jr.

Guys, Bowser Jr. was first in Mario Party 3 for the Nintendo 64, not Super Mario Sunshine.

HazardousMaterial (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That was Koopa Kid. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Who deleted Junior's passage?! -- Bowser Jr. Nutt —Preceding comment was added at 13:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosalina

I was working on the Super Mario Galaxy page and I was trying to wikilink Rosalina, but I noticed that there is no Rosalina on the list of