Talk:List of Mario series characters Information & Talk:List of Mario series characters Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com		 HHMI's BioInteractive - Lecture Series and Informal Talks
HHMI's BioInteractive - Lecture Series and Informal Talks
hhmi.org		 List Of Fears - Phobia List - List Of Phobias
List Of Fears - Phobia List - List Of Phobias
mindsettechnology.co.uk		 
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance)
Gamepad.svg
Crystal Clear app package games.png Video games portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikitendo2.svg
 This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
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.

Contents

[edit] pictures

this artile needs images of the characters badly.

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.41.153 (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have fair use rules. The lead image covers most of the characters, and what we don't cover... oh well. We just have to live with what we got, as either we use many images to cover every mentioned character, which is a huge fair use violation, or we provide images for only some, which gives undue weight to certain characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Diddy Kong

Why isn't Diddy Kong in this he is a very significant Character in Donkey Kongs games and he has been in lots of Mario Spin-offs also Dixie Kong has no article at all. -Slayer25769

He has his own article, and there's a page for Donkey Kong characters. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy Behavior and similar information

 I think we should tell what the enemy's attack paterns as well as a list of apperances.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.161.124 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That would make the page too much of a game guide.--76.66.180.27 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Seeing that this page has been moved recently, I tried to move it to List of Mario series characters, which, omitting the "the", I think is more grammatically correct. However, it's not letting me move the page; I've tried updating the redirects at List of Mario series characters but to no avail. Any solutions? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] mario enemies

the round duck like things(there blue,red,and maybe green)that throw you up in the air when you come near them(they are in super mario sunshine beach level and super mario galaxy the bee level. Fancychicken (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Fancychicken

Why aren't Bowser and Waluigi included under enemies? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Because of the definition of a character. The enemies section (which does not include Wario either) is used for enemies who generally are replicated endlessly to fill levels (Goombas, Koopa Troopas), and are not developed in their own right. No personality, no traits, nothing of that sort, not even backgrounds. Waluigi and Bowser have that.
Think of it as a movie; the "Enemies" are the extras, and the "Characters" are the speaking roles. We're not classifying them as "good" or "bad," more as their level of portrayal and background. BAPACop (converse) 04:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just can't think of it like that. That's like saying Darth Vader isn't an enemy to Luke and Leia. It needs a more accurate title. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
True, they are antagonists, but they're characters as well. I notice you're not adding Wario to your list of antagonists, and that confuses me a bit. I'll also admit that under the standard definition of enemies, Waluigi and Bowser do belong in that section. However, the name of the section is inaccurate (as you say), as that is not what the section is actually for. Rather, it is for the list of throwaway enemies Nintendo sprinkles in their levels as obstacles.
As a suggestion to throw out, maybe the "Characters" section should be split into three groups instead of two: "Protagonists", "Antagonists", and "Supporting"?
BAPACop (converse) 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that's a good idea. Wario can join him in the antagonists section if you want. Where does Kong fall? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
DK...good question. He seems to fluctuate between being a bad guy and a good guy, but considering he's generally portrayed as a good guy nowadays, I'd put him in protagonists. The only question now: How do we make the move? Considering the large amount of vandalism on the page, I think this conversation should be copied and added to the section on the Talk page of the article, so it can be referenced when the actual change is made. It's very likely that the change will be reverted at least once, so... Seeing as you're involved in this discussion, I'll wait for your approval before I copy your messages onto the Talk page, then I'll make the change in the article. Or, you can do it yourself. I'll make the change in the article sometime tomorrow if you can't reply. BAPACop (converse) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want with the article and this talk section Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I've made the first change to the article. It's bound to be reverted at first. Due to the switching of some characters from Secondary characters to Protagonists, I've switched all the lists to alphabetical order. Feel free to re-organize the edit. If you revert, please give reasons against here in an attempt to improve the article as much as possible. BAPACop (converse) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Toad and Yoshi merging

I'm proposing this merge, but hear me out before you jump down my throat. Currently neither article has been improved in well over a year now, and both are really Start-class and have consistently been so. As a result, I'm proposing a merge of the character articles into here, because when the fluff is taken out of both there isn't that much. However this doesn't mean that after a merge they can't be improved and separated again. Just for the time being...they're really a mess and have been for a long time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Toad should definitely be merged, and Yoshi, while possibly having some sort of potential, is currently filled to the brim with original research, so it can easily be merged until someone wishes to actually check if there is anything for it. TTN (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if Toad and Yoshi are poorly-written, they should stay as independent articles. Here's why: The page is too long already, and that's with half the sections being redirects to main articles, such as Mario and Luigi (in many articles with sections directing to main articles, there is at least a sentence or two). I think instead of merging articles into this, we need to add sentence blurbs on Mario, Luigi, Kong, and the others with their own articles, and split off another article or two (Waluigi I think should be split off next) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
When you're faced with a case of making a list too long if you merge something though you don't split character sections off into articles, you either split the list or trim it down. As it stands it could probably be split into two parts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The list is only 40KB, which is way below too large (we have featured articles around 80KB to 100 KB), and it can easily be trimmed either way. TTN (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna try working on Yoshi a bit. I did quite well with Midna; I added three paragraphs of reception to the characters of TP article (with no intention of splitting, mind you; unless, of course, I got some good creation/conception info). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Wario, Bowser and Princess Peach are also Start-class, and the first one really has pretty much no reception and creation information, while the other two have at least a bit. --Grandy02 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd venture to say Wario would be easy to make a competent reception section. With Yoshi, I'm not finding that I can find anything for Yoshi, at least not so far, so I'm going to not bother (at least for the time being). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Went ahead and merged Toad. Discussion still ongoing for Yoshi.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't agree with merging articles just because they are not of current high quality. I don't think there is anything wrong with gutting the article of extraneous information and growing it back with WP:RS. I appreciate KFM's explanation in good faith, but it feels WP:POINTy to merge Yoshi because the article is poorly sourced. I find it hard to believe that there is not enough information for a separate article on Yoshi when he has starred in a number of his own games and his recent inclusion in Super Mario Galaxy 2 seems to be considered a welcome addition. —Ost (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Toad should be moved back to his own article. He has a lot of important history in the Mario series and the article seems more cleaned up. -PropellerToad —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, I think that Toad has enough importance to the series that he should get his own article as well. -YoboDon —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Toad should definately be moved back to his own article. He's an important character with a huge history! GS Sentret 04:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that part of this discussion is happening on Talk:Yoshi#Merge?. --Yair rand (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose both, as well, but cleanup is badly needed on both articles. Both are laden with original research. MuZemike 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Grodus

Should Sir Grodus really be included in this list? He only appears in one game, as many other characters do (who are not listed here). --Grandy02 (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the title is "List of Mario series characters", which would seem to imply a comprehensive list. Of course, that list would be entirely too long for this page. I think the main characters from each game should be placed in this article, namely the main villain and any major supporting characters. BAPACop (converse) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if so, I do think Wart and Tatanga should be included as they are main villains in the series as well as from 3 main series titles. --VitasV (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wart and Tatanga should be included

The characters Tatanga and Wart should be added under supporting characters . Why they should be added is that Tatanga was the main enemy as well as supporting character in the main series titles Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2. Wart even though only in Super Mario Bros. 2 has been referenced many times as well as a fan favourite. So can we please add them? --VitasV (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I don't any reason why you shouldn't. BAPACop (converse) 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Toad Back to his own article

Toad should go back to having his own page. There is too much important information about him and being one of the main characters of the series he should get his page back. User:GS Sentret 2, September 2009 9:56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.113.16 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. He's been featured in alot of Mario material. --VitasV (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Toad's article is more cleaner now and I'm sure it will be cleaner if he was moved out from the list to his own page. User:PropellerToad 13:29,4 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved Toad back to his article for now and cleaned it up. GS Sentret 16: 19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Change from "Enemies" to "Species and enemies"

Well if you look at it, Goombas, Bloopers, Boos and others are more of a species than just enemies. As from what we've seen in the Mario RPGs, Goombas and Boos arn't just enemies but as well allies. --VitasV (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Toad

I understand that a number of you believe that Toad should have his own article. That is fine with me. However, expanding Toad's section in this article to ridiculous proportions is not okay. The fact is that whether or not you think he should have his own, separate article, while on this page his section needs to be kept shorter so as to not overwhelm the rest of the page. Toad's section is currently too big for this page already, that's why it says to shorten it. So in other words, deliver a consensus on returning Toad to his own article (and then do so), assist in shortening Toad's section to fit this article, or leave it alone. BAPACop (converse) 15:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved Toad back to his article for now and cleaned it up. GS Sentret 16: 19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antagonist? Supporting?

Why are some bad guys such as Kamek and the Kooplings in "Supporting"? Is "Antagonists" only for the main bad guys? I dont quite understand. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When I split the sections, my idea was for main enemy characters to be Antagonists, and back-up enemy characters to be Supporting. Like in a movie, the main bad guy is the star, and his second-in-command would be a supporting character. Of course, that's not actually helping categorize the supporting characters at all. So that being said, I'm fine with them being in Antagonists as long as nobody else has a problem with it. I think when I split it I left the Supporting section alone and just split the first section... BAPACop (converse) 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

A great number of entries on this list have a complete lack of any notability to them, and editors are protecting them from meeting these standards. No matter any "self-imposed standard of notability" by members, the current standard of "being a Mario character" is not acceptable, and nowhere near the lowest standard of notability an article should hold. If no effort to fix this error is made, I'll bring this to wider attention. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As shown here, you're very quick to shoot down other editor's suggestions, but are never able to provide your own. My suggestion from that conversation: "any character whose removal would require a re-write of half to all of the game's plot and/or script." In my opinion, that makes them notable. Your suggestion: "importance + recurring" is also an excellent suggestion... If it wasn't for:
  • The fact that non-recurring characters can still be notable (Midna), which you appear to support yourself here...
  • When asked to give a definition of importance, you said: "that's not for me to judge." Without a definition of importance, it's all a matter of individual opinion. That's why I gave a solid definition, which you didn't reply to.
Here's the original conversation on my talk page, from which I have pulled these quotes. Remember I've given a definition of importance, that many non-recurring characters are considered notable enough for seperate articles, and that if you have a better idea, you are free to supply it. BAPACop (converse) 15:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Way to bring up Midna. Yeah, I'm sure Rosalina's 100% in-universe paragraph of plot information SURE holds up to one that has critical commentary and creation information. And I am quick to shoot down "if they're important in one game's plot, it's okay for them to have no out-of-universe notability". In my experience on Wikipedia, I am not known for shooting down ideas that actually work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
And of the characters I would particularly like to see removed, Sir Grodus, Rosalina, Tatanga, and Wart, Midna's reception section is bigger than all those combined. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
And two more points: Apparently, in spite of giving no suggestions, I gave an excellent suggestion at the same time. And just because I gave no standard of notability didn't give you a free pass to say "free pass for all characters to be on the list!!" - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said in the LoZ:TP characters page, notable characters are ones that made a big appearance in a game,(Rosalina) or are a reoccurring character.(Dry Bones) I think that some of the "Enemies" section could use a cut, but the rest are plenty notable to be on this list. They need to be notable to the series, which could be characters that appear in things such as Mario Kart, or other side-series games as a playable character.
Character lists are for characters that are notable to the series, but aren't notable enough to have a full article. If the series is notable, then the characters can have a list. Some series that aren't very notable don't have full character lists. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
To New Age: I'm going to go through your comment sentence by sentence.
  • Yes, "way to bring up Midna." I was bringing it up as a point that you apparently feel that non-recurring characters are notable, despite saying much to the contrary about this article. Quote, "If they are important to one game, then I'm lost as to what they contribute to the article besides plot information." Please explain to me the difference, as you're implying that there's absolutely no way that they're notable. I understand that you're saying that since Midna has more information, that it's notable. However, that flies in the face of your own advice, that non-recurring characters will never be notable.
  • If you delete Rosalina's section as soon as it is added, there is no chance that it can be expanded with other information that is not in-universe. This is called a "stub". They generally take a little bit to be filled in.
  • The majority of these characters have no out-of-universe notability. No one gives a darn about Goombas in the real world. Face it, real world notability is really not going to work here, 'cause you'd basically end up with a blank page. So we have to go with notability in series. Listing, "Third Koopa Troopa from the Right in Scene #23" would not be notable. We both agree on that.
  • Shooting down ideas that don't work is fine, just make sure you have an alternative in mind.
  • I was trying to tell you that your suggestion would be good if you describe details.
  • I am astounded that you still think that I'm suggesting that a "free pass for all characters to be on the list" as long as they're in the Mario series. Let me write what I've said at least three times now in big letters for you so you can read them:
"Any character whose removal would require a re-write of half to all of the game's plot and/or script."
The real amazing part here is that you reference that, and then go right back to thinking I'm talking about a "free pass." Though I do have to point out that, WHILE I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT, having no standard on notability is, by definition, a "free pass." So please, tell me the idea you have yet to propose. BAPACop (converse) 01:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
To Blake: I agree completely. BAPACop (converse) 01:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Well, I'm sorry. From now on, I'll focus on the complete lack of sources, notability, verifiability, out-of-universe information, etc., and for being 100% plot summary and nothing else, instead of the fact that Rosalina only appears in one game and has notability. I've never suggested that one-game characters had no place, and you're blatantly taking it out of context, by the fact that I've made multiple one-game character articles (another recent being GLaDOS). The message was, in effect, referring to these characters.
  2. As soon? [1] Are you suggesting that nearly eight months of being on the page is not enough to make it important? Well, let me think here... it took me less than 24 hours combined editing to create the GLaDOS article. Are you telling me that eight months was too short of time to add even one line of out-of-universe information to her section?
  3. I do listen to alternatives. But "an indiscriminate list that includes notable and non-notable characters" is an idea that I will reject 100% of the time.
  4. Okay, so, you're saying I have no idea to propose. Well, you got me - in fact, I definitely did not list that idea that you said in your original reply I brought up. At what point is "importance and reccurance" not an idea? When you decide that it doesn't count outside the times you try to make witty comments, calling it my "excellent idea"? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Good. Except that you can help fix that! Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So you too can help by fixing up Rosalina! And yes, that is a "witty comment." In a nutshell, why don't you help improve it rather than complain about it?
  2. Well if you're that good, why don't you help out and add some information instead?
  3. What part of "I never said that"? The part where I never said that, or the part where I never said it? How about the part where I never ever ever ever ever ever said it? How about the part where I said that if you reject my idea, and you don't have one, that's all we're left with? How about the part where I said that as what would be left if there was no agreement, and not as an actual suggestion.
  4. So, the idea I said that you say you never brought up. You know, "importance + recurring"? The one you have to be talking about because I didn't mention any other one. ... You bring it up in the very next sentence! Come on, I linked to the very conversation that includes that quote from you! Don't try to tell me you never said it.

And by the way, it wasn't a "witty comment," I was actually saying that your idea might work if you had any idea what your idea was. But until then, let me repeat again that I am not at all saying that it should be "an indiscriminate list". You really aren't reading what I'm typing, are you? BAPACop (converse) 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Oh? Wow, I haven't seen that in a while - "the most successful argument ever used in an AfD!" Oh, wait, no, it's a really bad argument. I'm not interested in improving that, nor am I interested in many of the articles I've merged or nominated for deletion. It's not my job to fix every problem I point out.
  2. Because I'm working on GLaDOS, Midna, Birdo, Post 217, Controversy over the usage of Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man, Mother 3, EarthBound 64, Characters in Mother 3, Brain Age Express, WarioWare: Snapped!, Ōkamiden: Chīsaki Taiyō, Plants vs. Zombies, 'Splosion Man, and others. Just because I recognize the problems doesn't mean I have the time to fix them.
  3. As someone who continuously asserts that I proposed no alternative solution (except for the one where I proposed that they be important to the series?), you seem to really care that I seem to misquote You. Here's an idea: You had eight months to fix it, I'll give you three days to get to work! Good luck. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. You're right it is a bad argument, I'll admit it. But here's the difference: the character is notable, simple as that. It's been stated by at least one editor other than mine. If you don't care, fine, but don't complain about it.
  2. Again, the main problem is that it's not a problem. At least, not in anybody's eyes but your own.
  3. I mentioned that you could not identify "important to the series" in a way that you couldn't actually say what constitutes importance to the series! Without that, it's an editor's opinion, and therefore (you guessed it!) an idiscriminate list. Which is why I proposed a succinct alternative. Oh, and you know what they say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" And that's exactly what I'm going to do. But I'll be ready for you to come back in three days and complain some more! BAPACop (converse) 02:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. So if 2/6.5 billion people say it, it's true? So I just have to find someone who calls Spiked Paragoomba notable, and if I say it, it's true? Notability is a lot of things, but if there ever was one thing it wasn't, it's not "two people agreeing because of personal opinion, and nothing more".
  2. I REALLY think you have a poor grasp of how Wikipedia works. You're basically demonizing me for saying "Oh hey, this character on this list is a complete failure in regard to attaining notability, not counting made-up notability rules by one guy, this should either be removed or fixed."
  3. Okay, my proposal right here. Follow notability guidelines. That if you don't have out-of-universe importance in your section, the section doesn't exist. You know, like how all good lists and articles are? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Well, you're the only one who's saying it's not.
  2. If you take out everything in this list that has no out-of-universe notability this is what's left. That completely eliminates the need for a list. Also, WP:NNC, the very guideline you say I'm not following? Quote: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." And we both know this is not a list of people.
  3. Again, I'm following guidelines per WP:NNC. But if you want to argue that:
Blue check.svg This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcuts:
WP:N
WP:NN
WP:NOTE
WP:MIRS

This is most certainly an exception, seeing as the list is useless without anything in it. That also falls under common sense. Remember, guideline is the key word. But if you really want to read them strictly, WP:SOFIXIT. BAPACop (converse) 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. If a million people call something notable, and then I follow up with "nuh-uh", I win by the virtue that I'm the only one of those 1,000,001 people who can make such a declaration - my proof is that you have no proof.
  2. In-universe content is only okay if it's accompanied by OUT of universe content. What you're suggesting is that we can ignore the notability guidelines because you can't pass them. The exception = a situation where if this guideline is used on the article, it's damaging to Wikipedia. An article that asserts no notability? I'm not sure why you don't find this damaging? Common sense does not tell me "articles don't have to have notability to them". If it can be ignored, then nearly any subject can be listed on Wikipedia as exceptions to the rule. So, why is this the occasional exception? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If I might interject so we don't get any more massive text, an outside opinion on this. Rosalina, is, a one-shot character, and really the entirety of her existence could be covered in Super Mario Galaxy without hurting anything, and that includes the mention of her appearance in Mario Kart Wii. That's not saying she's an important character, but that is saying since everything about the character is already in one article, adding it here has the nasty side effect of bloating the list more and basically repeating what the game's article says. That really goes for a lot of things like FLUDD, Count Bleck and whatnot as they can be covered by their respective games (does anyone need to know anything about them other than what's said in those articles? Why repeat it just to repeat it?).

And just in case you think "But wait, Midna has her own article and so and so and so forth!", look at said article. It has literally a very sizable chunk of reception, so much that it would give the character undue weight if merged into the game article. At the same time, combined with the development information behind the character, enough was established to assert notability. So yes, while Midna's whole existence is pretty much a summary of a lot of Twighlight Princess's plot, it can split off due to asserting enough real world importance for its own article.

I understand this matter is important to you, but shouting about it is pointless. Now with that said, is there honestly any character you can think of that needs special attention for its own section here to the point that it can't be or isn't covered in the parent game article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An overall pardon for any grumpiness; flu. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Two sections. First, to New Age:
I'm not suggesting that we "ignore the notability guidelines" because I "can't pass them." I'm saying I can pass them, thank to WP:NNC. And even if that doesn't work, again WP:SOFIXIT. You obviously have the time and ability as an editor to be able to dig up sources and whatnot, how about helping out? If we indeed read WP:NOTABLE as a rule and not just a guideline, the majority of the characters only violate it because of a lack of real-world information. Since you've already proved you can find such information, and can spend your time in this discussion, why don't we both stop arguing about it, and perhaps you can actually help to improve the article?
Second, to Kung Fu Man:
Thanks for phrasing your comments in a way that does not make it seem like you think I'm an idiot. The only thing I can say is, again, if you remove all characters with no real-world notability in their pages, you have this as a result. So basically, you have no list, just a page full of redirects. Now I would think it goes against common sense to trim a page down that far, but if you take out all sections that have no "sizable chunk of reception", you have nothing! Aren't the lists supposed to be used to hold sections that do not have enough information (yet) to merit their own article? Doesn't deleting them for that reason foil that purpose and give us this?
Also, the word "Rosalina" appears only six times in the Super Mario Galaxy article, and only in the plot summary. The name redirects to this page! There is no information about her character at all; in fact there's more on this page right now than in that entire article. So we're not "repeating it just to repeat it", we're not repeating at all. It's not anywhere else! BAPACop (converse) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
BAPACop, for the redirect, my suggestion is to just fix it to point there, and work the missing info into that article. Does that sound good to you? I'm not saying "reduce the article to nothing" (recurring and established enemies for example surely have a place here), but tidying won't hurt either.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I still honestly don't see how leaving out information in an article is the best way to go. If a person who knew nothing about the Mario series and wanted to read the list to find out what characters the series contains, they'd get the major recurring characters. Which is good. However, they'd have no idea what other characters were in the series. They could eventually find them, but they'd have to go through article after article to find out. I personally think that's a bad thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be making it hard on people who are using it to find information. She should have a section somewhere on this page, even if it is only a line of text with a redirect to some other article.
I understand that there's no reception or development information in the majority of the articles, however I have to say this: WP:NOTABLE is flawed in that there can be perfectly notable things that do not fit into its criteria, and completely unimportant things that do. I understand that we have the guideline to cut down on opinions, but I feel this (and situations like it) are exceptions to the guideline. Just because we don't have the information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And just because Nintendo hasn't told us anything about a character's development doesn't mean that the character is not notable. Unfortunately, sometimes you do have to exercise the "guideline" part of Wikipedia's guidelines. And I feel that in the context of the series, the character is notable. And if the series is notable, then all notable characters within that series are also notable out of that series, and indeed have to be notable to make the series notable, for any series is non-notable without characters.
I'll leave it at this, my original idea for this page: the main non-recurring protagonist and antagonist in any game, plus the recurring characters such as Mario, Peach, etc. It also seems to me that with Super Mario Galaxy 2 that Rosalina will become a recurring character soon. I understand WP:CRYSTAL and do not wish to violate it, I just thought I'd point out that fact. If that doesn't work, I'd at least like to know which characters you plan to remove from the list and integrate into the articles. Maybe I (unlike New Age) can help.
P.S.: Also, when I mentioned the redirect, I meant that the word Rosalina in the plot summary in the Super Mario Galaxy article links to this page, not the general redirect when you type in "Rosalina." That, ironically, links to a dismbiguation page, and then to Recurring characters in the Mario series#Rosalina, which then links back to here.
BAPACop (converse) 05:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told I'm probably not going to work on this article soon, I've got so much I'm juggling right now it's nuts. I will say regarding this list though that I think Toad should seriously be merged back into here...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Toad should remain in his article. He is a highly recognizable character in the series and making him go back to his section will just downgrade his status. Honestly I don't see why he should go back when characters like yoshi and wario are in with their own articles. Also tons of information will be lost as well. It has also been agreed he should have his article before with not much opposing it. GS Sentret 19:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break

The problem with placing Toad back into this article is that there's a lot of information there. I think that merging it back in would require eliminating a lot of that information. I was against the split originally, but with the near-constant set of edits to the article, I would suggest you give it maybe another week or two, to see if somebody miraculously pulls up the all-important development information out of thin air, before you try to merge it back. I also must say that, considering the effort against the merge, there was almost no one supporting it. In fact, if you re-read the conversation, consensus seemed against it, with only yourself and one other editor supporting the merge. Of course, you had good points, seeing as they hadn't been edited recently, but I must point out that the merge and restore has caused a lot of editing to follow. It may die down in a little, and then you can try to move it back. But for right now, I'd suggest leaving it where it is. BAPACop (converse) 06:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well consensus isn't a vote, and if memory serves a few of those came pouring in after the merge was done (the typical "OH HOW COULD YOU?!" from people that will gripe about an article's removal but never improve it). The Toad article currently is bloated to hell: I just removed whole chunks of the Characteristics section because they were all original research. And sure, Toad's appeared in tons of games, and is a mascot for Nintendo, but appearing a lot doesn't mean much on wikipedia sadly, just the impact of those appearances. If someone could improve that article heavily I'd say nothing about it: Zero (Megaman) is a good example how a former clustermuck of an article can pull a 180 and become decent, and all the current Pokemon articles have managed to become B-class or higher with the exception of Jynx IIRC, and there was a time when it looked like we'd only have Pikachu. People can do something with the articles and if they can't, merging them or putting them on a user subpage to incubate sometimes is the only recourse. Right now the only thing Toad has to say "Hey world I'm significant" is that GameDaily ref. Even the song is circumstantial.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I just would like to point out that I have already merged Toad information back into the list. It is just hidden. If you want to merge Toad back, then take away the <!-- -->. Feel free to edit it if you have something to add or trim. I would also like to make two points
  • 1. I think a character shouldn't have to have "real world" information to be on a "List of Mario series characters". Otherwise they would be off the list and have a full article. You guys are acting like we are trying to make "Random Koopa#6 on world 2" look notable. We aren't. They are main characters in the series. They deserve a section of a list on this character article.
  • 2. If you want to make a "Characters" section in all games that have non-notable main characters(Rosalina), then that would be fine. But it isnt about saying "Rosalina did this in the game." Its about saying what she looks like, how she acts, and who exactly she is. Plot information does not belong in character lists. Character information does.
In short, Characters dont need to have real world information to be on the list. They just need to be notable to the series. They are not filled with plot info, and if they are, then you can remove the plot info. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Having real-world information doesn't make an article notable, it's about "having enough". And if all Rosalina's section is is plot and what fingernail polish she uses, I don't see exactly what makes her so special. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I must point out the "having real-world information" is exactly what you've been pushing as criteria. Also, I agree with the fact that for a List of Mario series characters, the list is to hold those characters for whom there is not "enough" to have a full article. You seem to think every section in the character list is an article. It's not, that's the reason for having the list. You also seem to forget that without a plot, there are no characters. So some mention of plot is required.
I agree that the section on Rosalina is lacking. However, in the time you claim to not have which you have spent arguing about a non-problem, you could have fixed it yourself and made everyone happy at once.
Again, I believe that if a series itself is notable, then any notable characters within that series must also be notable, for without characters you have no series.
To Kung Fu Man about the Toad article, a simple question series:
Do we honestly have to look for a source which states "Toad has blue spots in SMB2"? Do we honestly have to look for a source with detailed information about his statistics in-game? Can we not just cite the game? I agree with about half your deletions, such as the "Voice" and "Personalities" sections. However the rest of it (with the exception of the statement about NES color limitations leading to said blue spots) seems to be just lacking citatons, and not original research. BAPACop (converse) 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Yeah, but I said that assuming you didn't think "one example of her importance in the real world".
  2. Um, lists of characters aren't depositories for bad content.
  3. Rosalina is notable to Galaxy. Galaxy is not a series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The one game characters without any major recurring roles should definitely be removed. Tatanga and Wart only have minor cameos, the RPG characters don't need to be here, and Rosalina hasn't appeared enough yet. If Rosalina appears in Galaxy 2 or another spin-off, I'm for her inclusion. TTN (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Fawful could be in, if expanded with some better information; he has been in all three Mario & Luigi games, IIRC. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even notice that one. I guess that's probably fine. I thought I saw someone mentioning the Super Paper Mario antagonist along with Grodus. TTN (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
To New Age:
  1. You're still changing your position. Please say what you mean, not what you think I'll interpret.
  2. Where do you see bad content? I don't see any bad content. I only see content covering information that is currently covered nowhere else, that is not causing a problem here. At least, it wasn't until you started stirring up a storm about them. Honestly, what is the problem? Please, point out to me the "bad" content as opposed to the "lacking" content. Lacking content can be fixed. Bad content I can't find on that page, because there is none.
  3. Rosalina is notable to Galaxy. Galaxy is a part of the Mario series. Where's the confusion here? Plus, the release of Super Mario Galaxy 2 will make Galaxy a series as well.
To TTN:
I still don't get why Rosalina needs removed. I'll admit that while Wart and Tatanga, despite being the major villians in their respective games, make short appearances. But if you go to their game's pages, there's barely a sentence on them! I suppose you're aware that if we remove any of these three's content (Rosalina, Wart, Tatanga) there's no information on them anywhere else?
You are also aware that (unlike the Legend of Zelda) we don't have a recurring characters list. Maybe we should split them off? But either way, there's no reason to remove information from the encyclopedia completely.
To everybody:
Look at List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games). That has only recurring characters, but is okay because the title says "recurring" in it. I was going to even further explain my point, but I've decided to revert to an argument no one as been able to give me a good reason against:
  • Aren't lists for content that is not notable enough to have it's own article? BAPACop (converse) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. Look at Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Sora and a few others could easily have their own articles. It all fits together better on the list though.
"Um, lists of characters aren't depositories for bad content." We are not saying that these people arent notable. We are saying that they are notable within the series. I do agree that some characters would do better on their Game's article in a section. But they should be listed here. There isnt any reason not to. Rosalina is notable to the series, otherwise she wouldn't have been in Mario Kart Wii. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to point everybody towards WP:SAL, specifically the section on selection criteria. Quote:
When deciding what to include on a list, ask yourself:

  • If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
  • Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
  • Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

And my responses:

  • Yes.
  • Yes.
  • Yes.

I don't see any ambiguity here. Another quote:
Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert.
Now, you can predict Rosalina will probably have her own article after Super Mario Galaxy 2 is released. And of course, she is verifiably a character in the Mario series. But even if she doesn't, this list falls under "list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles." I'm sure the person who placed Goomba, or Boo, or Monty Mole in the list was not expecting them to have a standalone article created. BAPACop (converse) 23:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Your suggestion leads to the incredibly awesome "wave of characters who barely/clearly meet the standard you set that eventually brings the article to the attention of people who eventually cut the list in half because for such a broad series, "being important to one game" is such a broad criteria that it would make the list explosively large.
  2. So we can assume notability then? And her appearing in SMG2 is absolutely not indicative that she'll receive her own article. A list cannot exist without an assertion of notability. Why do you think List of Harvest Moon characters was quickly deleted? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't get how you don't have notability here! You can help me, answer these questions with yes or no first, then supply your commentary:
  1. Is Rosalina notable in a Mario game?
  2. Is a Mario game part of the Mario series?
  3. Is the Mario series notable?
Now, answer this question (not yes or no):
  • How can a character possibly be notable within their series, and the series itself be notable, but the character not be?
I await your answers. Now on to clarifiying your misinterpretations of my statements:
  1. No it doesn't, it leads to common sense. Common sense tells me that there's no way that Rosalina is not notable. Common sense also tells me that neither I, nor anyone else with common sense, is going to add ridiculously stupid characters to this article, such as "Goomba #4 From the Right in Scene #2 in World 4-4." You're taking my statements and distorting them into that, I'm not going to go against common sense here, as you think I do.
  2. No. I never said that, I said "Rosalina will probably have her own article after Super Mario Galaxy 2 is released." Since I have to explain this reasoning to you... Your complaint is that there is not enough information. We will have more information. You will have nothing to complain about. Problem solved.
Here's my major problem with you: could you please type a sentence without being condescending to me? And before you launch into the predictable "well look at your post," please look back at the original conversation we had on Talk:Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story#Rock Solid Proof and tell me who was condescending first? I tried to be polite with you, but I gave up because it was impossible. I am sorely tempted to ignore anyone who is consistently rude to me like you are, but as of yet have not been able to because you're so insistent on ignoring what I'm saying to the point where I have to point it out because your misquotes and misinterpretations of my statements are so off that, frankly, it's embarrassing to see how badly you've done it. So please, please, follow this rule: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Remember that I've complimented you multiple times on things, and you promptly turn around and insult me for making the comments. That is all. BAPACop (converse) 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to think that being notable in any regard is good enough. Whether Rosalina is notable in a Mario game is irrelevant because Wikipedia doesn't look at in-universe notability. There are a lot of unlisted characters that are notable in the Mario series, but not notable outside of it. With such a huge series, it's silly to have such a loose standard for inclusion, and I don't think you understand just how loose your standard is. As someone who complains about misquoting, you're often citing "Goomba #4" when I've never suggested generic enemies as potential inclusions from your proposal. And my complaint isn't a lack of information, it's a lack of worthwhile information, such a reception for the character, the character in other media (ie outside the series or outside the genre). Appearing in SMG2 won't necessarily bring that, so the probability is low. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
But then how are Bloopers, Bob-ombs, Boos, Bullet Bills, Chain Chomps, Cheep-Cheeps, Dry Bones, Goombas, Hammer Bros., Koopa Troopas, Lakitus, Magikoopas, Monty Moles, Piranha Plants, Pokeys, Shy Guys, Thwomps, and Wiggler notable out-of-universe? Also, Birdo, Kamek, Pauline, the Koopalings, Petey Piranha, and Professor E. Gadd? The majority of these have no out-of-universe information either. How many of those are we going to delete as well? BAPACop (converse) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, where I come from, we generally fix problems by fixing problems. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right! And with your criteria, everything I listed is a problem as well. So, how much are we going to delete? BAPACop (converse) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess all of it, since you don't seem interested in improving the content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Um... Well you have to apply your guideline all the way through right? If you delete one thing from an article for some reason, how do you figure you can keep another part that violates that same guideline? Is there a secret "this guideline only applies to characters that start with Rosa and end with Lina" part to the guideline?
Oh, by the way, who's not "interested in improving the content?" The one who has repeatedly said "just because I recognize the problems doesn't mean I have the time to fix them" is definitely not a person who is trying that, they're just someone who is interested in deleting content they (for some reason) don't like.
Again, I'm willing to help. But there's no point in filling in the article if you're just going to delete it again! And again, if you do delete Rosalina, make sure you delete anything and everything in the article that violates your own guideline, because... Why would you only apply it partway? BAPACop (converse) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. I noticed that you took the nail, the hammer, and hammered the nail on the head. I am not interested. It is not in my interest to improve this article. Why are you who fights for this content only fighting hard enough that you don't actually improve it? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I think it's fine the way it is, that's why. Since the only reason you can give me that it's not fine is one you immediately decline to use on any other part of the article, that's why. It'll be "fixed" eventually. Many entire articles have been stubs longer than this one section and no one has tried to delete them. And since it's not in your interest to improve this article, I suggest you stop continuing this argument and allow those of us whose interests it is in to discuss this. Thank you, and good night, sir. BAPACop (converse) 01:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So because I don't have time to help you by doing all the work (well, what can I say? Your complete hostility towards doing it yourself doesn't tell me you're going to do much to fix the problem at all!), I'm not interested in seeing it improved? And that many articles have gotten away with being poor for very long doesn't mean it's acceptable. You obviously don't have any concern with improving the article, or you'd try to address the complaints as opposed to covering your ears and screaming so you can pretend they don't exist. Again, character lists aren't reserved the right of having no assertion of notability, nor do its users reserve the right to make their own guidelines for the article's quality. If such lists are entitled to be like this, then you wouldn't see them deleted day-in and day-out for being unnecessary. And in the future: Saying "stop misquoting me" while constantly misquoting everyone else is a very, very bad thing to do. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No, because you say so yourself that you're not interested in seeing it improved. Also, I have no hostility towards doing it myself. You of all people should know it's not an instantaneous process. I do have a concern with improving the article. Unfortunately, I've found that your complaints have no validity! If you're going to delete Rosalina for lack of out-of-universe information, then you have to delete everything else on the page that has a lack of out-of-universe information. There's really no way around that, you simply can't do that! And by the way, give me one example where I have misquoted you, and I will gladly admit I have done so. BAPACop (converse) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Instantaneous? I guess I must have missed the memo that said that a whole eight months of being on an article is not enough time, needs a few more month before it stops being instantaneous! And no, I don't have to do that. If I have to, then logically, everyone who nominates a character for deletion can't do this unless every character of similar quality is put up for nomination? I didn't delete those characters because I felt they could be improved, and Rosalina and Sir Grodus I deleted because I DIDN'T think they could be improved. And funny how you say that in the same edit where you made a blatant misquoting - "No, because you say so yourself that you're not interested in seeing it improved." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
By instantaneous I meant my editing. The memo you missed is that, even if I had been a member all eight of those months (which I wasn't) no one considered this a problem until now, so why would anyone be trying to fix a "problem" they didn't know existed?
Oh, and what a blatant misquote I made... Here's what you said: "I noticed that you took the nail, the hammer, and hammered the nail on the head. I am not interested. It is not in my interest to improve this article." You made this comment at 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC). Look up the page, it's there. Now, care to point out an actual misquotation? BAPACop (converse) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming you're partly intelligent, so all I can see is that you're twisting whatever you can to make it seem like your terrible position is slightly less terrible. I guess instead of the position I've taken ever since I stated it, that I did not want to do the work, was what I said. At what point does that become "I don't want to see it improved"? That you knew my position shows an incredible level of deceit and intentional miswording. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break 2

Okay, please tell me how quoting you word for word is miswording, let alone deceit. Tell me how it's twisting it? It's an exact quote for crying out loud! Tell me how when you say that you don't want to see it improved, that you can possibly be surprised when someone quotes you on it? Frankly, I see this as a personal attack on my integrity. And keep in mind all I did was quote you, while you're accusing me of things I never said or did.
You want to delete a section because of a lack of out-of-universe info, then act like I'm crazy when I mention that that would require removing every section that has a lack of out-of-universe info, because you do not implement a guideline partway... EVER. I don't think we have to talk about my position, you're not even sure what your's is! Please be consistent, and stop throwing unfounded accusations at me. BAPACop (converse) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you guys shut up? Hippie, this article(and many other lists) has been like this for years. I don't see why everyone has suddenly taken an interest in deleting "non-notable content". The rules haven't changed. Your interpretation of it has. We have pointed out plenty of quotes from guidelines. If they are notable to the Mario series, then they deserve to be on the list. Really, there aren't that many notable characters in the Mario series. They are reused alot.
Right now, Rosalina is notable because she has been a main character in recent games, and even was in Mario Kart Wii. If she gets dropped from Super Mario Galaxy 2, then I doubt she will be appearing in any more games, and it would be fit to put her information in the Super Mario Galaxy article under a "Characters" section along with Lumos and other various people in the game(I have suggested the same be done with other minor characters). If she does appear, then she could possibly appear in many more sports games and become a staple in the Mario sports series, and she would have to be on this list.
If you wish to debate individual characters on the list, then list your reasons why. You should not sit here and flame each other though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize for the "flaming," but I felt it necessary to defend myself. BAPACop (converse) 02:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Because you are blatantly taking a statement and completely overlooking the meaning and context. I never said I didn't want to see it improved. Tell me - did I say "I had no time to work on this article"? Yes. Did I say "I don't care if this article improves"? No. Did I say "I have no interest in improving this article"? Yes. Tell me - at what point is the most likely meaning of that statement something I never stated? You can't throw your interpretation of what my statement meant and validate using it as the official meaning of my statement, so just accept that you misused my statement to mean something it did not mean.
  2. A list being like this for many years has never been a validation for keeping the list like that. The way the list is set-up, it can NEVER be a GA or an FA. It's pointlessly crippling the article to say "well, you don't have to prove out-of-universe notability" (of which I could probably find many references for many of these entries in almost no time). And you're using a crystal ball argument to support Rosalina - if "she could be" is a good argument, "she couldn't be" should as well. I mean, Hell, I've already written an article for Birdo close to being split-offable, so why should it be so hard for half these characters? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is basically going nowhere. The only way to get this resolved is going to have to be officially, and I propose starting the dispute resolution process. Seeing as there have already been more than two editors here, we'll skip the Third Opinion stage. I'm going to put this page up for informal mediation via WP:MEDCABAL tomorrow (it is 23:39 where I am, expect it up around 19:00 UTC tomorrow). BAPACop (converse) 03:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There was a comment posted at WT:VG but I'm kind of loathe to express the unpopular opinion that I think we should start by sticking to what we have sources for because that's the most practical solution to the problem of "Would including this character make him seem more important than he actually is?" Nifboy (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I have already said, if they are a main character in the series they belong on this list. If they are a main character in a game, they should probably just be on that game's articles in a character list. If you wish to debate individual character's notability to the series, then put up a list with your ideas, and we will discuss them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I TLDRed some of this, but I still read much. I like the idea above of incorporating one-off characters into their articles instead of the list. This doesn't imply removing the information, but moving it and cleaning it up to fit into the articles so the articles cover the characters more than they currently do. However, I am sympathetic to the concern about organization of material and how it may be easier for someone to come to a list to find a character and then determine what game(s) she is from.
The big issue is what degree of notability is needed to be included on a list and I see this as a bigger issue than just this list. I think it's difficult to just go by sources. I do agree that we don't want WP:OR, but much information on lists like this can be at least verifiable with the game or manual. While guidelines exist about lists, consensus at AfD or merge discussions seem to drive inclusion criteria. I think that lists such as these are intended to give the reader a better understanding of the series and focusing only on real world coverage would have cascading effects across characters list articles such as Lists of Pokémon. The unofficial approach seems to be that if something is notable to and visible in a popular series, then it is reasonable to include information under the expectation that enough readers would be interested. Discussion is used to determine the fringe cases—which is partially the problem here; Much of the discussion has been between two editors without much room for other opinions. I would suggest getting some air—maybe some Airborne for Hippie—and seeing what others suggest now that this is on WT:VG. —Ost (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So... Should I put this on for mediation or no? BAPACop (converse) 19:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tatanga

I'm confused as to what evidence you need that he was in the game other than the fact that he was in the game...
That being said, here is a (extremely abridged) list of sites that mention him being in Super Mario Land 2:

Mario Wiki*
Nintendoland.com
Super Mario Bros. HQ
Super Mario Wiki*
Nintendo Wiki*
Gamehiker Nintendo Wiki*
Giant Bomb*
Everything2.com

*I understand wikis are unreliable, however I doubt this many wikis would have incorrect information... And they don't.
So is there any reason to doubt his appearance? BAPACop (converse) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason to doubt the speculation of fans? Yes. Oh so yes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
How is it speculation to say that he's in the game? BAPACop (converse) 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, besides the fact that there is literally no evidence that he is in SML2? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
For your viewing pleasure, a video of Super Mario Land 2 gameplay in which Tatanga appears: [2] Are you going to argue with actual gameplay footage? BAPACop (converse) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that we should speculate that this character is Tatanga? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And let's say that it is Tatanga. Let's say this inconsequential boss, this boss with as much importance to the plot as a random Goomba, who was an obstacle and barely a character, is Tatanga. We don't mention every role that Mario appeared in, including ones that are far more significant than this supposed role of Tatanga's, so why should we include this assuming you find a source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's useless trying to hold a conversation with you isn't it? You refuse to accept the evidence directly in front of your face. I've posted the question at WP:NINTENDO here so we don't drag this out. I'll just wait for their response. BAPACop (converse) 02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you refuse to listen, this conversation DOES go back and forth. You obviously do not know what speculation is or understand reliable sources/original research. How would writing "Tatanga is in SML2", using a YouTube video (which can't be used as a source) not be OUR original research? And if you use any of the above sources, the statement is invalid because those don't serve as evidence! Explain to me why me saying "Oh hey, it looks like Tatanga and as such is Tatanga" is not the most base form of speculation? Just because it's LIKELY Tatanga doesn't mean I'M not the one saying it's likely Tatanga? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've posted the question at WP:NINTENDO here so we don't drag this out. I'll just wait for their response. BAPACop (converse) 03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Right now, explain to me, how we can use any "evidence" you've provided. You say you provided evidence, and yet you refuse to explain how this is true at all. Guidelines and policies say that none of the evidence provided can be used in an capacity, so simply explain to me how it is usable and this argument will be over. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not having another argument with you. I've posted the question at WP:NINTENDO here so we don't drag this out. I'll just wait for their response. I'm hoping the people focusing on Nintendo-related projects will be able to provide reliable sources for one side or another. BAPACop (converse) 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll patiently wait for people to reiterate the same guidelines and policies that I've already told you about. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall repeat: "I'm hoping the people focusing on Nintendo-related projects will be able to provide reliable sources." BAPACop (converse) 04:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

why are you guys always fighting? though I am starting to get sick of this hippie guy who never knows what hes talking about. obviously, someone saw him in the game. if someone played it, then obviously they saw him there. a lot of websites say it. Mario & Luigi RPG 3 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate my point: "If a million people who were not in a position to say that this boss is Tatanga said that it was Tatanga, it wouldn't matter until someone who actually worked on the game or on the character." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Without a reliable source, nothing should be added. Yes, the article is not fully referenced, but that doesn't justify adding more unreferenced information. DKqwerty (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, the boss in Super Mario Land 2 IS Tatanga. The official Japanese website confirms it. --Grandy02 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming what it says in there is true, thank you for finding a source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden information

I put a summarized entry for Toad in this article if the full article failed, that way they wouldnt put the whole article and make it too huge. For some reason GS Sentret took it out with no explanation, which I assume is because they are one of the users fighting for the Toad article. Just wondering, is it ok if it is there? I dont know if having that much information there not even showing is against the MoS or something. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's against the MOS, but I know it would seem weird for a new and/or inexperienced editor to find that much data in the edit box and have it all invisible. Maybe you should just take the text and mirror it on a user subpage? BAPACop (converse) 04:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Going to bring up that the Toad article still hasn't achieved notability for the record. GS Sentret can complain all he likes but it's still insufficient for the time being.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be good idea to tell him exactly what notability guidelines it has yet to achieve. BAPACop (converse) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise Blake about that removal, but I feel Toad deserves to be with his own article. At the moment his article looks a bit better compared to articles like Wario and Yoshi. He's also one of the major characters and with his major roles in games like mario 2, wario's woods and even the new super mario bros wii I think he should have a chance for his own article instead of being neglected to this article. User:GS Sentret

It may perhaps be better written, but Wario is actually past the threshold for content, which Toad has not. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

So just curious, why is Tatanga and Sir Grodus gone? If it's because they havn't had much appearances as say Wario even though they're main antagonists, then should also Wart be removed? --VitasV (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed both Sir Grodus and Wart due to their lack of appearances. Funky on Flames (user;talk;edits) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, is Sir Grodus permanently gone from the list? If he is, we should fix the redirect. Mario777Zelda (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Funky on Flames (user;talk;edits) 16:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question about the section re-ordering... Why was Antagonists switched with Supporting, and why were all "bad" characters removed from the Supporting section? BAPACop (converse) 16:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the explanation of the Japanese names?

I guess I'm specifically talking about the common enemies. I remember looking at this article YEARS ago, and it had explanations like how Boo's japanese name Teresa, came from some Japanese word for shy, and Wanwan was a Japanese onomopia(sp) for a dog's bark.

It would be and interesting fact to know. 75.72.205.243 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they were removed due to them being Original Research that weren't supported by Reliable Sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Birdo

Why dont you just split Birdo off? It certainly has enough reception to be notable enough for an article. Then you dont have to edit war over the section being too big. You already wrote an article. Just flesh it out and publish it. Along with some other articles. They are notable enough to become articles. Once they are out in the open, then other editors will feel more free to edit them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's ready quite yet to be split out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I agree that these sections are probably too small. They could start with adding appearences and characteristics. The problem is, I don't know where you would find sources to reference it. Pokémon has the Pokédex entries. Mario doesn't really have anything like that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. Wikipedia is not a guidebook and things like individual appearances and physical or social characteristics are largely of trivial importance, do nothing to improve the article while lengthening and cluttering it considerably, and are in some-cases wholly non-canon interpretations of events. Seriously, how much is there to say about things like Thwomps and Kooopas? If a section gets over four or five paragraphs in length, it really should be split into its own article considering the already lengthy nature of this one. DKqwerty (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If things are sourced then it is fine. Also Appearence and characteristics are not trival. They define the character. This is what character articles are about, saying who the character is, not what they did. Saying what games they were in and what they did is fine and contributes a bit, but its not the main purpose of the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Waluigi's interest in Daisy

Just to say some instruction booklets and guides tell of Waluigi's secret crush towards Daisy. Should we maybe have this added in somewhere? --VitasV (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Mario_series_characters"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots