Talk:List of Mario series enemies/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Shy Guy Merged?

Why was the main Shy Guy article merged into this one? The main Shy Guy article was a great one, and so much more complete. Can it be un-merged? General Guy 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Basically, my reason for this page was to create an incentive for people to improve these enemy pages. Boo, while he definitely deserves a page, doesn't have the content yet. So, get cracking you kids. -- A Link to the Past 01:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever you like men. King Kong666 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Just because someone creates a page that doesn't give the creator the right to choose what information gets included and excluded.

Settle down, kids. You might notice that I have not claimed any such thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Boo

So, what happened to the old king boo page which was big and has gone now?.. it was big... and now it's gone...


You can thank TTN for that. They don't contain enough info to hold such a huge article. Angry Sun 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goomba king

I noticed there is no information on the goomba king can someone add something? Thank you.

He can be found in super mario 64 two times, the first time is on the hill of the first level when you collect the first star, the second time he can be found again up on the hill when you collect another star.

Also he is found super mario 64 DS in the goomba level, the boss is the goomba king again.

Goomboss =/= Goomba King. They are not the same. Angry Sun 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are the same person. User:Pal101

He was never in the first Super Mario 64. Your thinking of the Big bob-omb.

Pal King Gommba does not have an insane look. Goomboss does. Angry Sun 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Goomba in Culex's room?

What's this BS? Sounds like a load of crap. I'm getting rid of it.

[edit] Completion

This page is far from complete, maybe I'll come back and add some more in. Being new to Wikipedia, I have yet to master the addition of pictures, but maybe I'll come back and spice it up/expand the list. --magiluke 02:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Monty Mole!

[edit] Keep Broozer!

I added the generic enemy for new super mario bros. and someone deleted it. he's the guy with the boxing gloves why did he get taken off? he counts as much a recurring enemy as a buzzy beetle.

Source? Kariteh 09:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Broozer is not a reccuring enemy, as its only appeared in one game, whereas Buzzy Beetle has appeared in several. -- Lord Crayak

what if we organize list of the villians by game? each game would have its own villian list. he could appear there

[edit] Blargg

Why does the article specify that Blargg reappeared in the GBA port of the game? It's redundant and obvious. Why is it any more relevant than all the other enemies that were also in the GBA version? Kalthare 10:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, sounds reasonable to delete that to me. --Qirex 14:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOC

This list is getting long; does anyone mind if I move the TOC to the right of the page with {{TOCright}} ? --Qirex 14:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with the change given that there have been no objections. --Qirex 04:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Deku Link?!

King Deku Link is mostly found in Jarod Movie games but found in Super Mario Avandance 2. This mighty boss has 1000 hp,but when you defeat him, he'll leave 89 1-ups. Get them before time ends,and move to the next level. On the next level, you'll battle fawful and continue.

Is this some idiot's fanon? Thanos6 06:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't really care that much about the article to revert it. Ybom 07:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blooper

I foundsome extra information on bloopers on blooper (disambiguation). Can this be copied across? Davidwil 13:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shy-Guy non-appearances

The Shy Guy section said that they appeared in Super Mario 64; I'm pretty positively sure that they weren't in it. I deleted the Double Dash reference, too, because nuking the 64 reference made that clause a bit silly. SFT | Talk 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There were Fly Guys in SM64. Is that close enough? Agent CH 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Aye, there were shy guys with little propellers on their heads in at least three levels I can remember. -206.230.184.35 00:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the shy guys were in the snow level. They made a 'boing' sound when you jumped on them, and they would boost you pretty high, and you would twirl on the way down. remember?

Those weren't Shy Guys... Shy Guys appeared in Hazy Maze Cave and the Metal Cavern.

No those were Snifits only Fly Guys apeared. No Shyguys. Pal101

come on! fly guys are shy guys, they just have the propeller, only difference. what if we just accept fly guys and all the others as sub-categories of the predominate:Shy Guy, and list snifits as either a sub-category as the others or have a "see-also" reference at the top of the shy guy page?

[edit] Magikoopa

Wasnt the Magikoopa in Yoshi's Island also

Yes, Kamek (a Magikoopa), was the main enemy in Yoshi's Island. --TBC??? ??? ??? 08:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He shrunk Yoshi to feed Prince Froggy, remember how that ended? Conker64

[edit] Dry Bones

I'm new--I unintentionally deleted the Dry Bones entry and I am not sure how to retrieve it... help please! --Jp07 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I reorganized the page because it is getting chaotic... It orginally was supposed to cover the Super Mario Bros. Series, and people were pulling stuff in from all sorts of other games. The page is also over the size limit, so maybe it should be divided into several articles, describing the enemies for each game. This article could be expanded quite a bit!--Jp07 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New stuff under "Spiny"

"Spinies are erronously referred to as a type of koopa in Paper Mario, they are actually a type of Buzzy Beetle" thi

Last I checked, Spinies were never ever referred to as being Buzzy Beetles. And the sentence even admits it was said in-game (in the second Paper Mario, BTW, not the first) that they're Koopas. Whoever added this might be thinking of Spike Tops, which are a type of Buzzy Beetle, also noted in PMTTYD.

I wanted to make sure there isn't something I'm missing before I went and deleted it. Agent CH 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps reinstating the 'Buzzy Beetle' designation. Which is annoying. Makron1n 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You know one of those times might have been me. The thing is, they look a LOT like buzzy beetle-relatives, and in mario 1 their sprites support it, but looking at official art and newer games makes it clear they're a bit more like koopas/turtles, as they have an actual beaked head, not just a little flat face with eyes like beetles and their relatives. I think they're probably some beetle-koopa hybrid
The Japanese Wiki page lists Buzzy Beetles as a kind of turtle. Which would make sense, as "Met" (the Japanese name) isn't designating a species. NoA's translation team strikes again! (Fryguy64 09:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Another interesting thing to note is that the japanese word for the 'spiny egg' is 'pipe.' Blue spinies hatch from actual segments of blue pipe in Paper Mario 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Oh wait a minute, they didn't hatch from actual pipes, but the game mistranslated the blue spiny egg as 'sky blue pipe' .. or rather, they mistakenly didn't translate it at all, like with kuribo's shoe and jugem's cloud.

I think there's a mistake here.. "Another species of Spiny called the "Super Spiny" proved to be a more powerful version of the regular Spiny, with the ability to charge up. Their eggs are thrown out by Dark Lakitus, who wore red shells instead of green." ... there's definitely no super spinies in the Paper Mario games I've played, and it doesn't say WHO is wearing red shells. Are these from Super Paper Mario? if that's the case, best say that.

There is a species of spinys called sky blue spinies but they can only be found in the pit of 100 trials. They are thrown by Dark lakitu which has a red shell and a red tinted cload

[edit] Shell Creeper vs. Koopa Troopa

Does it say anywhere that Koopa Troopas are the same as the Shell Creepers from Mario Bros.? If not, then shouldn't Koopas be moved to under the Super Mario Bros. heading and Shell Creepers be added to Mario Bros.?? SaturnYoshi|TALK 08:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koopa Troopas

Why isn't there a section of them on here? --MrRandomGuy 06:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The section regarding the Koopa Troopas is simply called just "Koopa". It describes the Troopa as well as a brief mention of Bowser and his kids. -SaturnYoshi 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiny plural

This is being very anal, but someone's gone through the article and changed 'Spinies' to 'Spinys' in each case it appears. What's the general consensus on the plural for 'Spiny'? (I haven't reverted it thus far) Makron1n 22:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Appearently the official player's guide for New Super Mario Bros. calls them "Spinys". My bad, as I wrote most of that paragraph and most likely called them "Spinies". The "ys" is the correct way, I guess. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure "Spinies" is a perfectly acceptable variant (I'd bet that Nintendo itself isn't conistent about which form to use). It would also be more correct going by English pluralization rules, but of course canonical spellings aren't always "correct" ones. I don't think there's a truly canonical spelling in this case. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Are you sure it isn't just a typo? Then again, I should be the one siting such an example, which I cannot think of right off the top of my head. David Martin Chao 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Clawglip"

Somebody had put a "citation needed" where the article states that "Clawgrip" is also known as "Clawglip". No citation is needed because the original game itself had the misspelling (at the end of the game where it showed the cast of characters). It's a simple and obvious R/L transposition as was once common in Japanese games. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to just state this in the article itself. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main articles

There's no reason why there should be so much text on this page for things like Goomba, which have their own article. Just a few sentences and a link to the main article is enough. Andre (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More enemies

I added some new sections and tagged them for expansion. I can't get to them all right now, so some help would be greatly appreciated. If there are more that I forgot, please add them also. Also, I try not to list the different versions of the same enemy. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added some information on most of the New Super Mario Bros. enemies. Forgive me if the prose isn't too great, I'm a little tired! Makron1n 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. All that is needed, really, is a start. I'm currently combing through the new additions and making little changes here and there. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Enemies

Should enemies and creatures from other Mario games such as the Wrecking Crews and Paper Marios be added here? -- Lord Crayak

Since I haven't gotten an answer yet, I just added Cleft, Bzzap!, Sentinal, Hurt Plant, M. Bush, Ruff Puff, Gulpit and Duplighost from Paper Mario; and I may add enemies from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time aswell. -- Lord Crayak

IMHO, I don't think it is a good idea to add Mario RPG series specific enemies. One, such a variety, so troublesome to account for. Two, the public that is not....in great affinity with Mario is not going to care about these obscure Mario enemies that only appeared in the RPG games. I'd largely go WTF over these huge lists of RPG enemies, except I'm a Mario fanboy. Still, I'd keep the list down to more significant enemies. We all know why Bowser is significant. Or Goombas. Yes, does this make sense? David Martin Chao 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a list, it should inherently contain everything pretaining to the topic at hand, not just significant enemies. The title of this list isn't "List of significant Mario enemies", it's a list of "Mario enemies", significant or no. Most significant Mario enemies have their own pages, anyways. There shouldn't be any exclusion of RPG enemies, no matter how large the lists are. If we made a list of states and only put 30 instead of 50 because w ethought people new to the US would go "WTF" over such a large list, would that make sense? No.

Shouldn't be a big problem though, I mean, Ruff Puffs would be under 'puffs' which are like 6 different palette-swapped RPG enemies.. cleft is okay, there are multiple varieties of that. If you consolidate the RPG enemies down to their groups or add them as footnotes on other enemy pages, then that works out without there being too many.

[edit] Super Mario Land

According to the Super Mario Land instruction manual, the first level is spelled "Birabuto", although there are several references in the article that spell it "Birabuda". I changed the Super Mario Land section to make to article use the spelling from the manual. -- WillyFourEyes 16:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a common confusion, as the second world is called "Muda". (Fryguy64 09:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Discovery: New enemy names.

Check out the ending to Super Mario Bros. Special: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNG7uGcIM1s

The game includes a credits and cast list, which is interesting. All the Japanese character names were faithfully translated to English in the released game (with the only real mistake being "Hummer Bros"). However, it's noted that the game didn't just feature enemies from Super Mario Bros. Rather, it added a bunch of other enemies from Donkey Kong and Mario Bros. (like the barrels and fireballs, crabs and fighter flies, icicles, etc.). These Japanese names don't seem to be documented anywhere, so here they are... Chokichoki, Nakaji, Tarusar, Sigebou, and Tsurara. However, the only problem is that there aren't any images of the characters next to them. Can anyone figure out who those names belong to? 208.101.131.123 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that "Chokichoki" are supposed to be Sidesteppers. The rest, I have no clue.

Taru means "Barrel" so Tarusar is likely to be the DK Barrels. But if the arcade version is anything to go by, all of the Mario Bros. enemy names are the same in English and Japanese. Tricky... (Fryguy64 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Reversion of deletions

I recently reverted the deletions by User: TTN deletions on this article. This article has the form of a list, as noted by my recent page move to List of Mario series enemies. Lists have two purposes. One type of list is to provide a way to direct readers to relevant links that are included within the topic. The purpose of a list such as this one, however, is to include items that are not notable enough to have their own article, but nonetheless still deserve mention. A list of this format should be comprehensive, and that a short description is needed for notable items in a list without a main article. For example, see List of one-time characters from The Simpsons. In addition, the similar article Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series follows a similar format to this article.

That being said, this article still needs major work. Some items on this list probably do need to be deleted. In addition, there is some poorly written material in this article, as well as unnecessary information, in some portions of the article. Also, this list is incomplete and has some notable omissions, such as from Super Paper Mario. The enemies in the list with long descriptions probably could be their own articles. Another solution would be to split this article and have each game in the series have its own enemies article.

In any event, please discuss on this talk page before you make any deletions. Thanks.

Pointlessness 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is trivial game guide material. It's all fine and dandy to want a comprehensive list, but if all we can is give a quick description of what they look like, and how they attack, that makes it a guide. Entries need to be able to be sourced by non-trivial third party sources. This is likely for major enemies that have been around for a while, but a "Flying Fish" from Luigi's mansion is unlikely to receive such treatment. I cannot speak for the two lists that you linked to, but those aren't featured or anything, so it's sort of hard to set a precedent by them.
Basically, it's fine to keep recurring enemies, and major story bosses, but there is no need for any trivial one game enemies. Nemu 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you to an extent. There is a lot of material in this article which can be considered "trivial game guide material", as you said, and probably should be deleted. What I mainly object to is deleting material on any article without discussing it on the talk page first. I understand that you have to be bold, and it is fine to delete several poorly written or irrelevant sentences in an article. However, that is different removing an entire section from an article unilaterally because it seems unnecessary. What you may consider to be trivial game guide material may be necessary information to include in an article to someone else. Therefore, I recommend that any major revisions should be discussed on the talk page first.
One thing I disagree with you on is that the only notable entries on this list are recurring enemies and major bosses. While recurring enemies and bosses are certainly more important than enemies that appear in only one game, it does not mean that the latter should be completely unmentionable. This is a list, and a list should include as many elements in a set as possible, no matter how questionable the significance of an element may seem. I believe that this list should not act as if the minor enemies do not exist.
While on the subject of removing items from this list, it is my opinion that some of the inanimate objects in this list should not exist in this list. Many objects, such as the fireball or the Bullet Bill are notable, and should remain. However, others, such as the "Ball N' Chain" from Super Mario World hardly qualify as enemies at all. If anyone disagrees with me, please do leave a comment on this talk page. Thanks.
By the way, there are flying fish in Luigi's Mansion?
Pointlessness 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it OK with you if I just revert to the removal for now? Certain points can possibly be readded if necessary, but most fit the definition of trivial. Some people like to bring even minor changes up on the talk page first, while others don't like to at all. I figure on pages like this, it is unlikely to actually receive a response from leaving a message, so it's easier to try it out to just have it done, and possibly garner attention if necessary.
The problem with listing one gamers is that it's game guide material; that's undeniable. For example, this Luigi's mansion guide [1] pretty much lists them like this does (and yes, there is an enemy named "Flying Fish"). I wouldn't mind a generalization of certain games' enemies, but there is no reason to list each one. It really isn't matter of opinion or anything. Sources cannot be found for most of them, thus not passing WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT. That also makes it not abide to WP:NOT's "not a game guide" point as information, other than gameplay stuff, cannot be found. Nemu 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that deletions should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Due to the fact that what is trivial or game guide material is subjective, some parts proposed for deletion could receive unanimous support, while other deleted parts could be opposed. For example, I agree that the entry for the "Flying Fish" is trivial, but I object to your deletion Gooper Blooper for Super Mario Sunshine, since it has appeared in multiple games such as Mario Power Tennis. It would be best if you would note specifically which parts of an article you are deleting, and leave it up on the talk page for a few days. That way, those interested in this article could defend specific parts of this article.
You also state that Wikipedia is not a game guide, which is true. This begs the question, though, what is a game guide? To me, a game guide is a set of instructions directing the reader on how to play a game. In the case of this article, a game guide would be telling the user how to beat a particular enemy. There is a lot of that in this article, which I have no objection to removing. However, merely listing the enemies and stating that they exist is not game guide material, in my opinion. Neither is describing the enemies or how they act. Game guides or any how-to pamphlets are in the second person and are subjective; descriptions are in the third person and are objective. Therefore, listing and describing the enemies is not game guide material.
Regarding references, it is rather difficult to reference an article on this subject without resorting to game guides and such. Outside of these sources, there is little evidence that these enemies even exist, even in the main articles of these enemies. For example, Goomba, a former featured article, has only two references, both from instruction manuals. Even the Bowser article has only one reference, which is surprising when you consider that Bowser is one of the main characters in the Mario universe. If official game guides count, then there should be a way to verify the existence of these characters. In the GameFAQs link you provided for Luigi's Mansion, the author states his personal names of the ghosts and then the "official names". In addition, other GameFAQs walkthroughs also use these names, suggesting there is something we can use to cite the "Flying Fish", perhaps by using an instruction booklet, a Nintendo published game guide, or a Nintendo Power magazine.
In any event, if you think of any better way to cite sources, let me know. Otherwise, you might as well put this entire article on Articles for Deletion, as well as all of the main Mario enemy pages and basically any article regarding a non-major video game character, as it would be nearly impossible to cite references for any of these.
Once again, I must emphasize the importance of stating what you are going to do on the talk page before you act, if your edit is major or controversial. Thank you.
Pointlessness 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, the problem with this is that this discussion will soon just become idle chatter if we take the time to discuss everything. That was the same with GB. Someone proposed the merger to the Sunshine article; it became pretty clear that it should be merged to Blooper instead, but nothing happened after like a month, so I merged it. That is why it is better to try things out before bothering anyone on the talk page most of the time. You and others may disagree, but I have found that to be the most effective method. For now, the content should be cut again; certain ones may be readded, but the bulk will go.
Game guide material is anything that would be found solely in a game guide. Lists of levels, weapons, techniques, secrets, and enemies will not be found on any featured content. What makes it not game guide material is the possibility of references. The major enemies have been talked about in the games and elsewhere; they are fairly notable (a few parodies and homages for some), and they have made a plentiful amount of non-trivial appearances. We may not be able to just find them out of the blue like with larger topics, but it's a possibility.
It also isn't just showing the existence of the minor enemies. They have to be written about encyclopedically. A simple guide type list will not allow that to happen. Goomba can have their creation, characteristics, and appearances and roles in the games described. That is quite impossible for Nyololin from SML. Nemu 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your definition of game guide material as "anything that would be found solely in a game guide" is (aside from being a circular definition) that is impossible to identify what can only be found in a game guide. The large majority of video game characters only exist in game guides or in related video game material. That is why there are no references for Goomba outside of in-game instruction manuals. Your claim that "the possibility of references" is also rather vague. Sure, there is the possibility that you could find a reference for Goomba out side of game guides. But what about Bullet Bill? What about Cheep-Cheep? What about Gooper Blooper? What about the Lava Lotus? And finally, what about the Nyololin and the Flying Fish? As you can see, there is no clear-cut distinction between enemies that have the "possibility of references" and those that do not. So the real question is, where do you draw the line? In my opinion, the concept of the "possibility of references" is largely subjective.
Another issue is the definition of a game guide that Wikipedia provides. In section 1.8 of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" there is the following quote regarding game guides:
"While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."
As you can see, the section about Wikipedia not being a game guide is part of a larger section on Wikipedia not being a how-to manual. Therefore, it appears that the definition Wikipedia itself defines a game guide in the same way I define one earlier, as "a set of instructions directing the reader on how to play a game". This is different as information "that would be found solely in a game guide". In defining a game guide, the source of the information is irrelevant. It is the content of the information that makes a particular article or section a game guide. In other words, it does not matter if the only source a piece of information could found in is a published game guide; what matters is that article itself does not read like a set of instruction or a how-to guide.
Lastly, you voice the concern that "this discussion will soon just become idle chatter if we take the time to discuss everything". I believe this is a legitimate concern. In fact, I applaud your boldness in merging the Gooper Blooper article (I assume that is what GB stands for). However, deleting information from an article is more controversial than a page move which has already been proposed on a talk page. There are ways make sure that if your proposal on which sections of this article to delete will get noticed. I am sure that many people are interested in the content of this page, and we can contact them to prevent this from becoming "idle chatter". For example, I am sure that at least a few members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo will interested, as well as User:The Prince of Darkness, who reverted your deletions earlier. Even in the unlikely case that no one else participates in such a discussion, I still will provide my input.

Pointlessness 00:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That is why I also added the second point of "basing it off of what is found in video game featured articles." You will not find any of the lists I mentioned, including enemies, in featured video game articles. All of the Final Fantasy FAs don't have any sections dedicated to information like that. Plus, there are hundreds upon hundreds of possible enemies throughout the Final Fantasy spectrum of games, but only the most common enemies are found at Monsters of Final Fantasy. With references, the games are suitable references for some. Not every single enemy will need "non-trivial third party sources", but I'm sure we could find a few. The point is to classify which ones do and do not need it.
The article should be formatted with "creation and development" that describes the basic thought process that goes into creating them. Then we follow with notable enemies. They will take references from the games, game guides, interviews, and whatever else we can find. It would sort of be like a mix of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Monsters of Final Fantasy, taking the better parts from the first one.
So far, you are the only person who has taken any care in this article. The Prince of Darkness just reverted it because he finds any sort of removal of information to be a bannable offense for some reason. That is why use the talk page on an article by article basis. If I know for sure that I'll have little to no opposition, I won't bother with the talk page. If I'm iffy, I'll try it. Plus, I'm still seeing it as clear-cut game guide material, which doesn't require discussion. If you don't care at this point, I would really just like to remove the junk again. There should be no need to force a discussion based purely on principal. If you find certain ones to be notable, readd them. Nemu 00:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Someone tell TTN to stop merging

He's killing good articles... Angry Sun 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article has lost most of the inofrmation it contained earlier. General Banzai 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For in-depth Mario information, you want this site or another on Wikia, not here. Nemu 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, this list is now horribly incomplete. We have a page dedicated to a topic, so shouldn't we have everything pretaining to that topic on it? General Banzai 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No. This is an encyclopedic list. It cannot use one game enemies because the only thing that can be described is what is found in a game guide; that is not encyclopedic. Maybe the page can become renamed or something, but there is no reason to list junk. Nemu 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A simple description of an enemy's appearence isn't really "game guide" material. If we cannot include the minor enemies, then this list is rather pointless, as most of the enemies listed have their own pages anyways. General Banzai 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A simple description of an enemy is just like a simple description of a weapon, technique, or level. All of those belong in a game guide, so the enemies also do. I plan on merging most of the enemies soon anyways (after this is clean enough). Nemu 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a simeple description of an enemy's stats or attack patterns would be in a game guide, but I see none of that here.
It's just my opinion, but I feel this page should be deleted. The generic enemy species are all described in the Mario Series Species list, and the bosses and villains are all described in the Mario Series Character list, meaning this page is just a sloppier, less complete list of things in other lists. General Banzai 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I redirected the species list for being cruft, and the character list is just a list without descriptions. This page needs a major cleanup, which I plan on starting eventually. I really don't get this obsession over one game enemies. Just go to the Nintendo wiki, and write to your heart's content if that is what you desire. Nemu 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no point of all these random subshoot wiki projects, because wikipedia itself can contain all the info in them. I also completely disagree with the series list being redirected. General Banzai 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it cannot contain even a fourth of the information that those can. The policies are in place to make sure of that. A list of minor game elements is completely unneeded, and only pleases fans. Nemu 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Who reads these pages BESIDES fans? I don't know anyone who doesn't like Mario or only likes it a little saying "I'm going to Wikipedia to research Mario enemies". General Banzai 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people may be interested in reading about the series and its sub-topics. It'll mostly be fans, but we aren't here to appease them. Nemu 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just please put the articles back... Angry Sun 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One other thing I am displeased about is the recent merge of the Species page. The Enemies page IS the species page, only the species page contained MORE information and information on helpful species, making it much more encyclopedia-like than this poor excuse for an article. If anything should have been removed, it should have been this. General Banzai 23:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is another I noticed Banzai...The Characters Page has Enemies...

Characters are Characters. Enemies are enemies.

They are not the same. Or is that what you were talking about? Angry Sun 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The characters page has enemy solitary characters, like Whomp King and Bowser, but no generic enemies such as Goomba. I made sure of that personally.

But it features enemies like the 3 Musty Fears. Sign your name with ~~~~. Angry Sun 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm new, I forget a lot. Also, I have no experience with SMRPG, so I didn't know whether they were generic enemies or not. General Banzai 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

They weren't common. They were like the Goomba Bros...

Then I don't see the issue, other than we may want to remove them from the list. General Banzai 00:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

General you are acting like TTN.

Kamek's Article was good enough as is. Angry Sun 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you're talking about. >.> Plenty of enemies listed here have their own page. That's why I said not putting minor enemies makes this list completely pointless in the first place. It's just repetitive if we have enemies who have their own page. If we add all the enemies who don't, this page actually has purpose.
And to the other guy, I went and checked that Nintendowiki thing. They don't even HAVE a page for Mario enemies, characters, species, or anything! General Banzai 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Just copy and paste the old version of the article over there, or try a Transwiki. Nemu 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure you don't. [2] Angry Sun 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what Angry Sun's mad at me about... Also, I really feel one-game enemies should at least be mentioned. Maybe a seperate page dedicated to enemies that only appear in one game?
This stuff really isn't, as you so bluntly put it, "junk", which is a term I'm beginning to detest, due to the fact that it has appeared in a Mario game. A brief description of the enemy's appearence, what game they appeared in, maybe a short biography describing the species/enemy's alliegiances- that is not game guide material. If so, then we might as well delete this ENTIRE page, and all pages of these enemies, and every page of every enemy in every video game, because due to your definition, it's all game guide material.
But it's not, which is what I'm trying to tell you. Think of a really lame state, one that isn't very famous and isn't well known. I'll go and say North Dakota right here. So, we should just not include North Dakota in lists of states because it's basically a "junk" state? No. It is there, and thus, it needs to be chronicled, whether one person thinks it's "junk" or not.
In conclusion, the minor enemies need to stay. Just because YOU may think it's junk doesn't mean everyone else does. And if you continue to say it's game guide material, just go and delete every page for every Mario enemy or Zelda enemy or whatever, because by your definition, it's ALL game guide material. General Banzai 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought you deleted the Main Kamek Article... But you didn't.

But you could have added a picture of him in that list... Angry Sun 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could add a picture. And a bit more info, like what games he appears in and stuff. General Banzai 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to find the pictures from the www.lemmykoopa.com website. Angry Sun 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just took the same picture from the Kamek page. But if you can find others, that's fine too. The picture database thing didn't have any other Kamek pictures. General Banzai 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring generic enemies

The "recurring" should be taken out. Enemies such as the Albatoss and Angry Sun are not recurring. General Banzai 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. Nemu 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My feelings are hurt now. :( Angry Sun 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Birdo a generic enemy?

Birdo isn't really as much a generic enemy as a recurring boss. In fact, as of late, she's been showing to be a helpful character.

Birdo is not a helpful type of character. Birdo just wants to hang out with Yoshi alot. Or at least that's what Nintendo is hinting at.

I agree.

Recurring Boss. Angry Sun 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Or there could be more then one Birdo, If Birdo is a species.

I'm personally leaning towards Birdo as a boss, because if you'll recall bowser in super mario bros. 1 appeared as the boss only a little more frequently than birdo and you only fight against wart once. and baby bowser in new super mario bros. was basically the main boss who just did all of the grunt work and seemed to even instigate the fights that he wasnt even in.

Even if birdo is yoshi's friend, she really hasnt proved it except in mario sports games. maybe she changed in the story and used to be evil, she hasn't quite proved it except in mario sporting games

[edit] Changes

I did not have time to edit Wikipedia for the past 5 days or so, due to the fact that I had several projects to work on in school. I notices User:TTN deleted the stuff we discussed earlier, which I guess is fine. I would have preferred to continue our discussion, but seeing as I was inactive for several days, I suppose that his making the edits were reasonable. Besides, I do not have the time to provide a rebuttal for every argument User:TTN provides, as I spend far less time on Wikipedia than he does.

To User:TTN: In your latest reply in our earlier discussion you cite the Monsters of Final Fantasy article as an example to what this article should be. I agree that that article is many times better written than this one, but it is only slightly better cited. It has loads of citation needed tags, and only two references not from a game guide that actually relate to Final Fantasy. Neither of these two references is in inline-cite form, nor are they do much except list a few particular creatures as examples. In conclusion, it is nearly impossible to write a well-referenced featured article or list on this type of topic. Until you can prove that it is possible to find references on this topic, then references are irrelevant.

More importantly, however, is that you still failed to provide a criteria on what belongs in this article and what does not. Instead, you skillfully avoided that question. Using subjective arguments like "I think this enemy is common" and "I think that you could be able to find a reference for this enemy" will not work. If you can classify what is common and what is uncommon, then do so. If you believe that references exist for some Mario series enemies, but not others, then find these references. But if you cannot draw a clear line between what belongs in this article and what does not, then perhaps you should not make any sweeping changes to this article unilaterally.

Too late now, though.

Pointlessness 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I sort of continued the arguement... I guess... maybe... but I think I took a different stance than you did. General Banzai 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wart's page was deleted?

So what's the reasoning behind keeping Mouser's and Fryguy's over his own? 208.101.136.230 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

TTN is deleting articles cause he doesn't think they are "deserving" enough to have there own articles. Screw that. Wart is the main freaking villain of the game. Someone revert is mistake... Angry Sun 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They're merged because they don't have the content for an article (real world information and analysis). You cannot argue against that. TTN 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
They are freaking Video Game Characters. Thanks for ruining every good article out there... Angry Sun 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly why they're merged. Once again, this isn't a fan site. You can find one on Wikia, though. TTN 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And Wikia isn't Wikipedia.

You just deleted tons of info that players could have learned. Angry Sun 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding all this splicing and deleting and the whatnot to be really annoying, as well. General Banzai 17:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
And I am. So what's your point? General Banzai 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I have a reason why I'm not annoyed - Wart fails notability standards. You're just annoyed because you have more lax standards. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Wart was the main villain of a very famous Mario game. How is that "low standards"? General Banzai 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
One game. You can show popularity in the game, but not the character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What's with this lame ideal that if it only appeared in one game, it's worthless? General Banzai 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As an article? Yes. At what point does not having an article make the character worthless on their face? It's not like we have to give them articles for the purpose of honoring them.
What real world notability does Wart have? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Lets all up and move to SUper Mario Wiki. It has individual articles for all these.


[edit] Waluigi?

should walugig be considered just a villian? I think he should have a whole page, but then it might be due to lack of "real games" he's been on. Metooduke 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No.
To List of Wario characters, though? Yes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Anubiz 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Waluigi deserves his own article. He is a recurring character, with a large role in terms of the characters, if not the games. Captain Red Hook 17:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He is the evilcopy.(that's the meaning of his name) plus he used to have his own page. Conker64

I find it ridiculous that Daisy has her own page, when she's equally important as Waluigi. Either give Waluigi his own page again or integrate Daisy into something else as well. MrDrake, 16:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

She will be merged shortly after the this page settles down. TTN 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He is not quite a villian towards mario at least, he's just like Wario: in the world of mario maybe he used to be a villian like his brother but now like wario and donkey kong, he's really just a mutual acquaitance. Madhatter9max

[edit] Petey's merge...

I was just wondering why Petey Piranha was merged with this page. It makes no sense to me, as he's appeared in the main series of games at least a couple of times (Super Mario Sunshine and New Super Mario Bros. only, IIRC). Yet, King Boo, who is less prominent to the series than Petey, still has his own page. I expect WP:WAX or "this isn't a Nintendo site" to come up, but surely he deserves a page more than characters that have thus far appeared only once, like Albatoss and Shroob. Hardcore gamer 48 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Petey has no out of universe information, and he has little in universe information. The two paragraphs here are enough. King Boo was around just because of a user reverting it. TTN 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that makes sense I guess. Thanks for clarifying. Hardcore gamer 48 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Petey's HUGE in the Mario universe. He's one of the most prominent reccurring bosses. I'd even wager that the only boss that appears more than Petey is Bowser. General Banzai 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Petey is in a good amount of games, but he still has nothing to write about as he is just a recurring boss. Plus, notability in the series doesn't qualify him for an article; it's outside notability that decides that. TTN 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If that were true, we'd have to delete like half our articles. I mean, what notability outside of the US does North Dakota have? None. Let's just go delete THAT page. General Banzai 04:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? I just stated that it takes inside and outside notability. Plus, being a real world location, North Dakota is not bound to the U.S. like plot points are to games TTN 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)Seeing the post on this topic WP:ANI, I decided to stop by offer my opinion as a disinterested outside observer. As per the notability criteria guideline at WP:FICT, I would agree that Petey Piranha and Tatanga do not merit articles of their own. However King Boo appears to be right at the threshold. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With the upcoming Super Mario Galaxy I believe Petey should at least get his own article then. As we have a Peteysaurus Rex to focus on. And that will no doubt be enough to make Petey's Article "Worthy". Angry Sun 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Petey will be able to have an article when real world information can be typed about him. Please read WP:FICT as I have asked. You really need to make sure that you learn the difference between a fan's definition of good and WP:FICT's definition of good. TTN 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your point here. North Dakota has as much notability outside the US as Petey has outside the Marioverse. Up at the top of this page, there's a little thing saying this page is a part of a project to make the most COMPLETE and DETAILED pages possible. If you cut and merge everything, then we all completely fail at that goal. General Banzai 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, this is what I got from that link that was so graciously provided:
"Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some works could plausibly have multiple major characters."

I see NOTHING on "outside significance" there. AT ALL. In fact, this whole thing seems to completely go against you. Even if you feel that all the info on Petey is "trivial" (which it's not), this page is still rather long, in which case "a seperate article for the list is GOOD PRACTICE". You're actually going against good practice by making an alreayd long list longer with all this merging. General Banzai 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You're seriously comparing a minor recurring character to an actual location that houses over half a million people? You cannot logically compare the two. Use featured content related to video games for such comparisons. You missed where it states that the articles need "proper encyclopedic treatment" if they are to exist. This includes all that I have stated. And "how much non-trivial information" refers to having non-trivial information such as OOU info. TTN 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Other than really main characters like Mario and Bowser, nobody in the Mario universe has any significance outside the universe. Blooper? Albatoss? None of these are even KNOWN outside of the universe. If you are of such conviction to merge everything without outside significance, you might as well delete this page. And why stop at the Mario universe? You cna go to the Zelda universe, the Final Fantasy universe... all of them! Most game series here casn just be deleted since they have no significance outside their own self-serving worlds!
Also, just because people live there doesn't make it important. General Banzai 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do people always go for the "all or nothing" approach? Most of the enemies do not need articles anyways, but they're not obscure enough to trash. Different things will have different notability requirements (which is why comparing it to a state is quite pointless). They're notable enough to keep, and possibly source here, but they don't have enough for an actual article. TTN 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's so, then I think basically every enemy should be added to this list, even really minor ones. I mean, if one-game enemies like "Albatoss" are notable enough to keep, then why not other one-game enemies? Oh, and did you see my Paper Mario enemies page suggestion? General Banzai 22:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really even looked at the Albatoss. It's probably only here because of the article, which I will eventually look at and merge. And, please look at WP:WAX and WP:PTEST, which will address your "why not all enemies if X has an article/mention" thoughts. Paper Mario doesn't need an enemy page. I believe all three games have character lists, so it would be redundant. TTN 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Characters are NOT equal to enemies. NONE of the characters on the characters page are actually enemies. Some are villains, yes, but there are no enemies like "Cleft" or "Ruff Puff". General Banzai 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
As with the main series, only certain enemies need to be mentioned. Paper Mario's standards are much lower due to the low game count and it is just a spin off series, so less enemies need mention. The few here are fine; maybe a few more could be added after this is cleaned up. TTN 01:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
General Banzai is right. He isn't an enemy but a villain. Also, There is very little Out-of-universe info in many fictional pages. If Petey should be merged he should be put in a page called "List of Mario Series villans". Bowsy (review me!) 08:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Things can be figured out after things are actually fully merged. The lack of out of universe information means no article. We aren't going to lower standards for no reason. TTN 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OOU info is not required for an article, I've already provided some anyway. Many articles don't have this and no one minds, you have no argument. Henchman 2000 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is required. WP:FICT and WP:WAF cannot be ignored because other articles are crappy. That is just WP:WAX. You have provided nothing but cruft. TTN 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He appeared in Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Strikers, Mario Superstar Baseball, Mario Kart Double Dash!!, Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time, Super Princess Peach, Mario Power Tennis, Super Mario Strikers Charged and might appear in Super Mario Galaxy. Ain't that good enough to keep seperate? ~Anonymous~

[edit] Shouldn't...

Shouldn't Dimentio and Count Bleck be added to the villains list? And before anyone runs up screaming "They were only in one game and therefore mean NOTHING! (Bwahahaha)", let me inform you that MOST enemies on the villains section are one-game only. General Banzai 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

They're already on the SPM list, so there is really no point in mentioning them here. TTN 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, is there a Paper Mario enemies list? I've seen a lot of people complaining how there are too many Paper Mario enemies to fit on this page, so why not make a seperate article dedicated to Paper Mario enemies? General Banzai 04:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout and re-organizing enemies

what if we organize the villians just by what game they appeared in? each game could have its own seperate villians list page for the villians for that game. because since lots of people are getting technical and saying:" Birdo isn't a villian because she races in yoshi's car!" she was a villian at some point. so if we were to put her on the SMB2 page she would be an enemy there...but not later on mario kart stuff.

I find this request ironic, considering thats how the page used to be. -- Lord Crayak

[edit] Spike

Is there any proof that "Spike" is the actual name of the enemies in SMB3 who spit spiky balls? I heard someone say they were called "Mace Penguins". General Banzai 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the manual calls them that. Angry Sun 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they're named Mace Penguins in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. -- Lord Crayak

So we have two games contradicting eachother. One taking place in the past. One taking place in the present.


I think the one in the present is more correct. Angry Sun 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We should at least note both names, no? General Banzai 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one character who has been butchered by localisation issues. It was called Spike in SMB3, Mace Penguin in Yoshi's Island, Gabon in Yoshi's Story, and Clubba in the Paper Mario series (which includes Tubba Blubba in PM and Grubba in PM:TTYD). They are definitely all the same species, as their Japanese names in all games are Gabon (and "Gabon Hei" in Paper Mario). Don't know if that helps any! (Fryguy64 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Fryguy from Nintendo Database?

Wow. So I think we should mention that they were Mace Penquins but they are now Clubbas. Angry Sun 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Fryguy64 from NinDB. And it's not true that they are now Clubbas. They are again referred to as Spike in Super Princess Peach as are the ice variants in New Super Mario Bros. As Gabon Hei means "Gabon Soldier" we should probably stick with Spike for the main enemy, and Clubba as a sub-species of Spike.
I suspect the NoA Yoshi's Island Players Guide was written without reference to translation efforts that has preceded it, whilst most new titles are trying to undo those mistakes to some degree. (Fryguy64 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

"What about the ones in New Super Mario Bros.? You know, the ones whith snow balls. Conker 64

You mean Snowspikes? -- Lord Crayak

[edit] Koopa types

Shouldn't there be some sort of note talking about the different Koopa types? There's no mention anywhere of the four basic shell colors of Koopas, Koopa Paratroopas, Koopatrols, etc, etc.

Also, the saem can be done for Hammer Bros. and various other enemies here, which have many different types/forms. Most of them aren't ever explained either here OR there respective articles (assuming they have one... also, the Hammer Bros. seem to be an exception to this). If we go through the trouble to make artcicles/notations of the main enemy, it would make a lot of sense if we include all sub-types in there. I mean, if an enemy has many sub-types, that does increase notability, no? General Banzai 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split for Waluigi and Petey

I think that Petey Piranha and Waluigi should have their own articles. Petey has appeared as bosses in several games and playable in over twice that amount. Waluigi, for sure, needs his own article. He defidently has enough of a backgroung to have his own article.--User:Rat235478683--

These are the two requested split articles, Waluigi and Petey Piranha. Discuss below.--User:Rat235478683--

They do not have any chance of meeting WP:FICT's standards. Read some of the discussions above to see why. TTN 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The notability criteria for fiction in the WP:FICT guideline indicates that characters should have their own articles once their entry here in the list becomes too long. Once all the original research, un-encyclopedic, and un-referenced information is removed from Waluigi and Petey Piranha, neither of the articles meet the threshold for having articles of their own. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then someone merge King Boo here too. He has less info than what Petey and Waluigi could have.--Rat235478683--

These articles DO meet the criteria once encyclopedic info. replaces the unencyclopedic info. (which has happened in Petey's case). They are notable enough when you consider some of the other characters from CVGs that have articles. So Petey and Waluigi are major bosses/characters meaning they deserve an article. It just takes some sense. Bowsy (review me!) 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
They cannot meet WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Those define what is encyclopedic, and without real world information, these aren't encyclopedic. TTN 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Define real-world information. General Banzai 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Creation, development, reception, effect in culture, ect; it's all found scattered throughout here and in WP:WAF. TTN 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Major bosses like Petey and King Boo have 3 out of 4 of those. General Banzai 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Where? I have yet to see anything close to that. Note that game appearances don't count towards any of that. TTN 22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Bowsy above, you describe Petey Piranha as being an article where encyclopedic info has replaced unencyclopedic information, however this article still has serious issues. For one thing, it is positively chock full of original research, which is explicitly forbidden by official Wikipedia policy. A few of the many examples include sentences such as "he is seemingly a pet or accomplice of the alien Shroob race and even swallowed Princess Peach and Kylie Koopa, but they were both spat out later" and "the two were formidable racers, in spite of Petey's lack of eyes." Once this sort of original research has been removed from the article, it no longer meets the guidelines for notability set by WP:FICT. Perhaps that is why Henchman 2000 continuously reverts TTN's deletion of the original research ([3], [4]). --Kralizec! (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying about me and Bowsy. ANd thanks for the tip, I'll remove that info now. Henchman 2000 08:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, EVERYTHING has a creation and development. All we need to do is find it. Also, big bosses like Petey definitely have a reception. Petey in particular has a lot of hate geared towards him. Isn't that reception? General Banzai 21:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the exact problem with creation and development sources; they may exist, but they need to be found. That needs to happen before claims are made. Reception needs to be more than criticism. That can easily fit under "Petey is often criticized for x *ref*". TTN 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Petey is obvious created from all the Piranha Plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Sun (talk • contribs)

I'm getting a bit concerned myself with all this merging. While I understand you are being bold, TTN, I can't help but feel you're taking this all way too seriously; surely it's worth giving more information for characters like Waluigi other than "He appeared as an antagonist in Mario Party 3 [...] He appeared as a major villain in Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix." People should be adding more information about his roles in the games (like how Waluigi stole the Mischief Star, or how his favourite food would be eggplants) I hope that you're taking this merge approach with other articles, not just Mario characters. Forgive me for saying this, but it's like you're scaring others away from contributing -- which, I might add, may currently be a good thing for articles such as Toad (Nintendo), but isn't really good when you keep cutting interesting information. : / Hardcore gamer 48 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm geting slightly concerned as well. At this rate I fear we'll soon have Wario in the list instead of his own article. --LuigiManiac 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the point in dwelling on every minor appearance? If he has no out of universe information, his article/section is only being used as to reference those game appearances. People don't need to know his roles in the games here. They are able to goto those articles for that. That is why he needs to be on the list. I merge characters as I come upon them. A few months ago, most of the side characters of Sonic the Hedgehog were merged. I would never merge someone like Wario. He has held many starring roles (enough to define himself), should have enough possible creation, development, and reception sources, and is indeed notable enough to require an article. TTN 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You are acting WAAAAY to bold, that has been established on your talk, and now on this. I totally agree with every word Hardcore Gamer 48 has said to you and I think we have found our consensus, NO MERGE FOR PETEY. Henchman 2000 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you just want a fan article to stay. Consensus is built around discussion, not numbers. Nothing has been achieved because no one has actually discussed. TTN 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
TTN, it's kinda become you vs. everbody else. Everyone here seems to want a stop to the merging except you. Major recurring bosses like King Boo and Petey need to stay. Also, I'm glad the species list is back. Now I don't have to complain here about the lack of information on almost every enemy in the Mario universe. General Banzai 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
When "everybody else" is like five people, it doesn't really matter. And as fans, your opinions sort of matter less because you ignore WP:FICT just to suite your needs (please note the "sort of"). Unless they have information, importance in-series doesn't matter. If Mario had nothing to write about, he wouldn't have an article. I will put the species article up for deletion pretty soon. TTN 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no "ignoring" it. You just interpret it differently than us. General Banzai 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How does one interpret "articles must have out of universe information"? That is the guideline; there is no disputing that. TTN 21:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How does one interpret "all minor chaarcters must be put into lists"? That is the guideline; there is no disputing that. Which means your little "That enemy is too minor to be in this list for my tastes" tirade needs to stop. General Banzai 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If a character has no out of universe information, they are merged. These have none, so they are merged. You may find value in them, but it doesn't make them worth it. TTN 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the minor enemies like "Flying Fish", TTN. Now, there's not a single thing in the standards that goes against it. At all. In fact, it even encourages all minor enemies to be put in lists. General Banzai 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're becoming obsessed, and you're reading it too literally. Single game enemies just aren't covered. Every single game would have giant sub-articles otherwise. TTN 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What? When YOU post something out of the guidelines, you expect us to take it literally. Otherwise, there would be zillions of definitions for "out of universe info". But when I post soemthing out of the guidelines? First, you insult me, and then you say "that's not what it really means, it's just what it says", because otherwise YOU would be wrong, which can't happen, can it now? General Banzai 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
By too literally, I mean acting as if all minor characters need to be mentioned because they only divide them into those two. I'm not wrong in this case. If I was wrong, Final Fantasy's article would be more than only the most notable enemies. The Final Fantasy project is one of the most active projects (a bunch of FA and GAs), so they know what they are doing. TTN 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
They obviously DON'T, because they're going AGAINST the standards set by Wikipedia. Let's ASSUME you're right, for a second. There is a category called "too minor". But what constitues it, eh? We don't know, because there are no standards clarifying what's "too minor". You want to know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO TOO MINOR. Wikipedia never intendied for there to be a "too minor", and thusly never made guidelines for it.
Let's see... first, you say that what Wikipedia is saying is not literall. Then, you're going to be nice enough and pull some guidelines for what constitutes as "too minor" because there are no guidelines because there is no too minor. General Banzai 22:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what, you're not going to listen to what I have to say, so please either ask an admin, or use something in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes such as the third opinion. TTN 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not listening to what YOU say? You're not listening to what Wikipedia says! Why would I want to go through soem complicated procedre (that i assume you expect i don't know how to do) just to set up some thing that will serve the exact same purpose of arguing here? Isn't that the POINT of this page, to debate what happens with the article? General Banzai 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Some information isn't to be included on this site. This isn't a dumping ground for fans. If you don't believe me, do what I suggested. TTN 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm merely following the rules set in place by Wikipedia. General Banzai 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You're still being too literal. Ask someone neutral to the discussion for their opinion. TTN 23:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as neutrality. No matter who we ask, they'll be biased in one way or another. And you can't be "too literal". The Wikipedia rules CLEARLY state it, no if, ands, or buts. I don't see the official Wikipedia editing guidlines having many idioms in them or anythign like that. General Banzai 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find many neutral people. Just because they likely won't side with you doesn't make them not neutral. It doesn't state "anything with a name should be mention." It states that minor characters should be confined to lists. These one game enemies aren't even minor characters. Again, ask someone else because you're really just thinking as a pure fan at this point. Your place is on Wikia. TTN 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guidelines never define how minor is too minor. in fact, they never even say there is a too minor. What you are doing is making up rules to suit you. General Banzai 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If you find no truth in my words, ask for clarification elsewhere (WP:FICT for example). TTN 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I did as you suggested and contacted an Admin. General Banzai 03:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so, General Banzai. While I can agree with TTN that merging minor or one-game enemies like Albatoss and Mouser is indeed a wise decision, I'm sort of surprised that it's gone as far as characters like Waluigi and Petey Piranha being merged (yes, yes, WP:FICT, not-out-of-universe, etc., we know). They're still important to the series (Waluigi, not so much, but there still tends to be a story in the spin-offs). I don't suppose this counts as a neutral opinion, does it? >_> Hardcore gamer 48 03:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tell Taku to stop deleting caption

Taku revert your edits. You are deleting captions for no reason. Angry Sun 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting captions to match the upper half of the page where there aren't any. If you're so dead set on having the image say the name of the character, despite the image being the name of the character being in the title of the section, then I'll go add captions to the captionless images. Plus I didn't notice your edits until I went to remove the small grey boarder on the Wario image and came back after doing so. Takuthehedgehog 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please add the captions back. That would make it way better. Perhaps add what game they are from? Angry Sun 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I added what game all the in game screenshots and promotional 3D renders appeared in, other then Wario and Waluigi who's images don't state what game the image was for. What do you think should be done for artwork though, say "Character, as he/she/it appears in promotional art for game", or just "Character, as he/she/it appears in game"? I'd do it myself, but I have to leave in a few minutes. Takuthehedgehog 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Both in the case of Wario and Waluigi. As for the rest: Whatever the picture is. Oh that is Wario from Super Mario 64 DS. Angry Sun 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I think this article should look more like this. A cactuar article, Tonberry article , weapon (monster) article and 3-article bestiary were merged into that and the chocobo/moogle articles were merged into another article, so I think something similar could happen here, although I guess really prominent stuff like goombas and koopas could still have their own articles. I understand a lot of Mario fans will be probably be offended or whatever, but I'm sure many FF fans were angered by the above examples of cleaning things up. (Note: I'm not saying "fan" in a manner someone would say "fanboy".) Also, I do not think Waluigi should have his own article until he appears in the main canon beyond a cameo (or if he appears prominently in something such as a Paper Mario game but not a sports/party/etc. title) or if much more info. is found/given. --Jopasopa 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Why would we do that?

FF has it's list. Mario has his. Angry Sun 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He is just suggesting a merger (like I have been slowly doing). TTN 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be done to Daisy as well. GEM036

[edit] Cleaning-up the article.

I've tried to address the tone of the article as per the box at the top of the page. It would be great if other people could help. Although I only got down to Blooper, I think simple things like italicising game names (something severely lacking within image boxes), trying to write in a more formal tone (one of the worst examples I have come across was under Alabatoss, which stated "Mario and the gang can hitch a ride), and (perhaps not so simply) writing in an out-of universe style could address the issue. Suggestions? --Zooba 19:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to delve in and help with that also (I only came across this article this week). The tone is way too in-universe and informal, and could easily be fixed up. (Fryguy64 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Don't let that IP touch this list

He's gonna ruin it... Angry Sun 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked from editing now. Gurko 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. Angry Sun 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Wiki format

I know I shouldn't keep going on about the Japanese Wiki site, but I notice there's a lot of annoyed contributors here on both sides of the fence, and would like to propose a possible solution. There are those who think the pages aren't formatted well enough and should be merged, and those who think the pages should be separate. I half agree with both sides of the argument - a lot of the pages are empty and haven't been written that well, but in many cases you could easily expand them into a better list. Similarly, I think having everything merged onto this poorly formatted and inconsistently written list is more damaging.

On the Japanese Wiki site they have got a nice clean format for Mario enemy pages. You have the opener, followed by a chronological game-by-game evolution of the enemy (main-series or notable games only). Under that you have descriptions of all sub-species, and then a simple list of all games the character has appeared in. Only main enemy groups are covered in this way (Goomba, Cheep-Cheep, Shy Guy, etc.) but that covers most of the enemies that have appeared in all of the games. Less notable enemies appear on a list like this one, or merged onto the game pages themselves.

I will happily try putting together a mock-up for an enemy group that has already been merged onto this page, if allowed. Maybe it still won't be enough information for everyone's liking, but I'd like to at least give it a shot, and perhaps reach something approaching a decent encyclopaedic entry for a fictional Mario enemy! (Fryguy64 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

[[5]] Here's a sample Buzzy Beetle entry. I didn't do the list of games. (Fryguy64 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kingboo.jpg

Image:Kingboo.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 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 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Magikoopa1.jpg

Image:Magikoopa1.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 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 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spiny.jpg

Image:Spiny.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 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 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline for Fiction. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability is not established explicitely, the article is likely to be considered for deletion, at any given time, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Kariteh 10:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Holy crap you people are too damn bureaucratic. Ok so the article isn't well-sourced, and there's already a tag that says so. But a fucking NOTABILITY tag? You people are honestly going to tell me that enemies in arguably the most famous video game series of all time are non-notable?! 151.197.193.94 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...That's 3 rules right?

Listen here BUB. You aren't thinking about continents like Africa. So next time you try to be a big man. Next time bring something that doesn't make you sound dumb. Angry Sun 20:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE. Kariteh 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What do you want us to do, upload pictures of each type of villian? Ask Nintendo to send us an official list of all Mario series' enemies? There just isn't any real good way to cite sources here. As for notability, these are the enemies from the best-selling video game franchise of all time. Useight 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that an encyclopedia can't assume things, it must have them explicite. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. Examples of pertinent sources could include online articles about one or several monsters (perhaps there are articles on the evolution of the Koopa throughout the series, somewhere on the Internet); poll results on gaming sites (like those popularity contests on GameFAQs, etc.), important mentions in reviews, etc. Kariteh 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Situations like this are why WP:IAR exists. Common sense dictates that Mario enemies are notable, so there's no reason to have a notability tag on the article. Yes, it needs to be sourced, but there's already a tag on the article for that, so what's the point of having an inaccurate and superfluous notabilty tag on it? 151.197.193.94 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." From WP:FICT. Tonytypoon 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

OK, to get this over with, we'll have to go for a "consenus." All of these characters or groups don't need separate coverage on this site due to a lack of out of univserse information and all of that jazz. After these are merged, the main and recurring enemies will be moved to a character list, while the generic enemies remain here. TTN 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you put "consensus" in quotes to establish the fact that you have no respect for it.24.235.73.86 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I know. OOu info isn't essential unlike you may think. Many are still willing to work on these articles and actually have improved them and made them more encyclopedic and there is now no reason to merge them as they are too notable and long and contain loads of info. Major Mario Enemies need their own pages and do not belong in this crap, unnecessary shitty list that nobody likes anymore. Henchman 2000 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It is required to establish that the topic needs to be covered. A topic needs to be relevant in the real world to count. This goes for people, music, and fictional characters, so it needs to be shown for them to be kept. They are only notable in the Mario series and that is it. TTN 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shroob is the only one worthy of being merged, IMO. I also believe Smithy Gang is too; all these characters have only appeared in a single game each... but meh. I'm not fussed if they're not merged. As for the others... I believe that a majority of the characters you mentioned should remain, but if you're going to bring up WP:FICT and all that crapola then I honestly can't be bothered arguing anymore. While you're at it, please merge things like Mime Jr. with things like Mr. Mime. Hardcore gamer 48 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I plan on getting the Smithy Gang merged with the SMRPG list if not outright deleted. The Pokemon project is doing their own merging thing (although it's slow as hell). We can't just pass of WP:FICT and WAF as nothing for fan articles. TTN 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you guys to decide, but I really think that Blooper (Mario) article is great the way it is. (Especially since alot of great info has been added to it in recent weeks). Since Blooper has been in quite a few games, and is now a playable character (courtesy of Mario Party 8), and has many variations, I don't see why he can't have his own article. But I'm by no means an "upper echelon" editor (I've been here since December and only edit a few of the articles. I don't even know how to post pictures!) , so if he is not "notable" enough to get his own page or whatnot then so be it.Giantdevilfish 04:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Variations are too trivial to mention unless they become their own separate character or species in some way. The list of games is also too trivial to bother with, so you are left with a list sized entry. Notability in-game and the amount of in-game information we can write about them doesn't go towards the creation of an article. Out of universe significance need to be shown to shown or we're just repeating information and likely breaking the fair use policy and law (We are free to use the information within an encyclopedic situation, but we cannot just become an alternative for it.). TTN 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Variations are only trivial for the creation of a new article, but I would say are perfectly suitable as a sub-section of a major enemy's article. While it will be difficult, if not impossible, to source a real-world application of "Blooper" (unless in the exceptional circumstances where Miyamoto et al explains how the character was created) there seems to be no reason we can't simply track the development of major characters and their variations within the series. So long as it isn't written in an in-universe style, then I fail to see the problem with this.
It's about looking at the games in their historical context rather than as fictional worlds. The problem with your proposals TTN is we will end up with nearly everything on this page (which will be very difficult to navigate) and it will be so much harder to keep in a coherent style. Nobody will want to make any major edits, and any possibility of cleaning up what is already one of the worst Wiki sections just won't happen.
You seem so dead set on merging, TTN, that any possibility of discussion with the rest of the contributors to the Mario enemy pages has been cut off, and any compromise or alternate possibilities have been written off before they are brought up. You need to maintain more flexibility - your rules can be met with other options. (Fryguy64 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
Variations fit under game guide material and are just trivial. All articles must have real world notability. Writing about fiction in an out of universe perspective doesn't cut it. We don't keep articles for easiness (also, this will be trimmed and split to make this easier to look at). Articles must assert notability; that is non-negotiable. I am happy to discuss, but so far, there has been nothing proposed other that keep them because *insert pretty much everything in WP:ATA.* Discussion must have some sort of basis in guidelines and policies, not just in the mind of a fan. TTN 22:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of out of universe significance for Blooper. I've read that next to Superman and Mickey Mouse, he's the most reconizable fictional character in the World. Why, just last Halloween, there were about 30 different kids on my street that were wearing Blooper costumes! Hollywood is planning a $500 million dollar budgeted Blooper movie. The Kraken (from Pirates of the Carribean) has said numerous times in interviews that it was the Bloopers that inspired him to become an actor. Angelina Jolie has stated that if she could date any fictional character it would be a Blooper. So you see, he is significant!!

  • Alright alright, maybe I'm stretching the truth a little :) Giantdevilfish 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If there was anything like that available for these things (though less exaggerated), it would be enough to keep them. But they don't have even a smidge of it. TTN 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just thought of something for Birdo that's OOU -- that song about her by HORSE the band. I don't suppose that would allow her to keep her article, now would it? Hardcore gamer 48 06:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not getting one on that small fact. Along with that, it needs to have at least full fledged reception and development sections (such as real sourced information talking about the gender thing). TTN 11:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... it's not getting one what, exactly? Article? Meh. Look, the way I see things, the only possible way we can put this utterly stupid argument to rest is to get someone higher up to decide whether the characters should have articles or not. The same goes for Waluigi. <_< Hardcore gamer 48 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no "higher ups." Admins are just editors like us with special buttons. The AC is the only thing that could count, but they don't handle trivial things. TTN 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We should not take this course of action, as we have voices and they need to be heard. We have a clear consensus here against the merges and have brought up several points, while TTN is using the same, useless arguments. All these characters are too notable and major to be in this stupid list. What is already here is enough on the list, and people should be able to go to the articles to find more detailed info. We currently have this senario and there is no need to change this because of one editor's opinion. Of, and OOU info is not needed. Many other Mario articles don't have it and they are about major characters and they aren't merged with anything, so these major characters should be the same. Only one of these articles stands any chance of a merge and that's King Boo, as he hasn't made many appearances unlime the rest. Mabye we should just merge him and forget the others, and move on to things worth our time, rather than squabbling here to one user who cannot accept when he is on the minority side of a consensus. Henchman 2000 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I have notified an admin. TTN, please actually listen to ehat he is going to say, realise you are in the wrong and back down. Henchman 2000 12:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. My points are not the tired ones. When I can link to WP:ATA to counter your arguments, those are the bad ones.
  • 2: The fact that these these have been around doesn't matter. They fail the guidelines.
  • 3. Because these are important in the games doesn't matter. Real world notability from verifiable sources is required. The fact that other crappy articles exist doesn't change this. WP:FICT and WP:WAF are clear in what is required.
  • 4. A consensus cannot be formed by people that wish to bypass our policies and guidelines for some fan based articles. You need policies and guidelines to back you, not opinions on how "important" some minor enemies and characters are. TTN 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out a few things:
  1. WP:ATA/WP:NOHARM/WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:WAX is neither a policy nor a guideline.
  2. WP:WAF refers you to WP:FICT for reasons that certain things would have their own articles rather than covering it itself.
  3. WP:FICT is a guideline that specifically contains this: "Noonien Soong is a minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." (emphasis mine) The Noonien Soong article is shorter than most of the articles we are talking about now, with only a single source.
  4. WP:CON is a policy that dictates exactly how consensus works on Wikipedia. WP:DR states exactly what to do if consensus cannot be reached. However, it appears that there is a consensus with a sole dissenter in this instance.
  5. Merging them into a single article would make the article adversely long. See the guidelines WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY, which I previously mentioned. Oh, yeah, that's right, someone did previously mention some guidelines.
  6. WP:CIVIL (policy) doesn't go out the window if someone disagrees with you, even if they were rude to you at some point.
--Powerlord 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
1. It isn't supposed to act as one. It is just an easy link to throw around to show why these arguments are not good.
2 + 3. They're both interconnected. Nooien Soong is not a good example. It is just one that has passed an AfD with "it's notable" over and over. It signifies nothing. Even then, we cannot compare two different series' characters. Some may be more worthy than others.
4. Consensus has nothing to do with pure numbers (unless it is like twenty to one). We don't keep non-notable real world subjects just because a bunch of people want it (non-notable dead U.S. military personnel). It's not even a matter of numbers; I could ask for more people and they could get more also. That is why the "consensus" needs to be formed around policies and guidelines. It's often a long process, but it doesn't have to be in this case. DS is fairly useless in this situation. The only things that would actually work take way too long, so there is no point in it. I will continue to push here until I get results.
5. Information can be placed elsewhere and trimmed. We don't keep junk just because it is long. If it cannot possibly satisfy guidelines, it is merged or deleted depending on the notability of the parent topic.
6. I have been civil enough. My diction may not be the most desirable, but it works. TTN 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no real problem with the merging of several of these creatures, though the Koopalings strike me as the most notable and article worthy of the lot, having had major roles in video games, manga, anime, comics, cartoons, books and that Super Mario Adventures graphic novel. Plus, the article has some concept and creation in it (the design and naming). -- Lord Crayak

The variety of media that they appear in also doesn't contribute much to the need for an article. It all comes down to real world information. In this case, we have two points; one is unsourced (broken link and a fan site) and the other is decent (though sourcing the magazine would be better). Neither make the article worth it or show the possibility for more. To get that article to warrant its existence, it needs to show the possibility for much more sourced development and reception information (and their whole disappearance if possible). Remember, only the good possibility must be shown. You don't actually have to rapidly work on it. TTN 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
These articles are perfectly fine and could easily be made to pass your policies if you actually tried. WP:SIZE and SUMMARY say the article would be too long and the info. couldn't be summarised efficiently. People have researched these topics, I have seen someone research Boo and Koopa and all are notable characters. You also haven't been civil and your approach to this has worked against you. Please stop and face the facts. Henchman 2000 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As I have asked you before, where are the sources? After something has been challenged, sources should be found. Not one source showing real world notability has been found in the month or so that I have been pursuing this. Doesn't that say something? Keeping article size down is just a way of doing things. If this were modeled after Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, we would be fine with this size. Though, after being split, this will be around 50-60 kb, and after a trimming, probably around 40. That is a fine size. You should probably actually read WP:SUMMARY before trying to use it.
Being useful doesn't matter. Being well liked doesn't matter. These need sources showing real world notability just like any other topic on this site. People, bands, events, and all that need real world notability beyond themselves, so characters are no different. We need Jabba the Hutt, not Anakin Skywalker. You are the only one here that is actively opposing this. Other people want these articles, but it is easy to tell that they are on the line about it. You are also the least deserving to make civility comments, by the way. TTN 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those will really do anything. RfCs never leave anything that actually helps, and by the time mediation takes hold, it is already solved. Plus, it'll probably be the same thing as I have been saying ("People wanting to keep the articles should find sources") along with some more neutral, but worthless suggestions. TTN 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a general note to people, even if I am forced to back down or something, I will trim these to list sized entries, so it will be the exact same outcome. There will just be a bunch of articles instead of list entries. TTN 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problem there is that I'm almost positive people will revert your edits. I won't be reverting any changes, personally, but I can only imagine that will happen. = / Hardcore gamer 48 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
They will stick whether people like it or not. People may be able to stretch around notability and the such, but game guide material, OR, and over the top details will stay gone. TTN 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the first time I've really checked out this article but personally I think that the majority of the individual articles are fine as they are. And TTN, threatening to revert people's edits simply so that they conform with own your idea of how the articles should be is called vandalism. You have some valid arguments but so does the other side and if they outnumber you, you need to accept that and back down. Vorpal76 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Six or seven to one is no reason to back down (especially when most of those people are on the line about it, and the rest ignore fully developed policies and guidelines). I will revert them because it is the correct thing to do. We don't bend to the will of fans; we bend to the "will" of the encyclopedia. Not one person has presented an argument that is truly backed by even a guideline, while I have anywhere between five to ten at my disposal. TTN 22:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It's still six or seven to one, and last time I checked these types of decisions were based on concensus. And one person, no matter how passionate they are, does not a concensus make. As I understand it you're arguing that these pages don't meet the notability requirement. However clearly some video game characters do, as Link and Wario are both featured articles. Personally I'd argue that some of the characters being challenged are just as iconic and notable as Wario, so where do you draw the line in notability for a video game character based article? Vorpal76 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Consensus!=numbers. Consensus is built off of constructive discussion, not WP:ILIKEIT. Notability on this site is asserted by sources, not importance. Characters like Link and Wario (which isn't an FA anymore) that can have out of universe information backed by reliable sources can stay. Minor ones that don't assert real world notability and have no real world info need to go "bye bye." TTN 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether Wario is no logner FA class, what matters is that the mods obviously deemed that article worthy of existence. If an article based on one Mario villain can assert real world notability what makes you think that others can't as well? Just because they aren't at the moment doesn't mean that won't change in the future. Yes, those articles aren't perfect but they like every other Wikipedia article are works in progress. Vorpal76 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just pointing that out; nothing was meant by it. I have been going after this for a month and not one source has been added or suggested, even with all of these people around. That shows that they cannot be improved, so they need to be merged. TTN 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Also in case you weren't aware Goomba was at one time a featured article candidate, it was also once already tagged for deletion but the concensus was to keep it. Any article that has been promoted to FA candidate or GA status has already been extensively reviewed and found to meet notability standards. Even if such an article no longer meets FA or GA status that onyl means that the qaulity of that article has diminished not the notability of its subject. Vorpal76 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That was way back when we were not strict with this kind of thing. Compare the version that got promoted to any real FA, and you'll see that it doesn't compare. That is why it was demoted. The "consensus" set by those can all change, especially because most of the information needs to be cut. TTN 23:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I realize that the FA standards have changed, but nowhere in its entire FA demotion discussion does anyone ever question it's notability. In fact it seems that you are the first to ever do so, it simply says that it fails to meet current FA guidelines not that it fails to meet notability requirements. The same goes for Lakitu. Also Monty Mole, Koopa, Koopaling and Piranha Plant are all B-Class articles. No one is disputing their qaulity status and they never would have been prmoted if the reviewers felt they failed to meet that most basic of requirements, notability. Vorpal76 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they did ignore real world notability and replaced it with a false "in-game" notability. Notability on this site is asserted by reliable sources, nothing else. That is something Goomba lacks, and it is one of the main reasons that it was removed. Being B class doesn't mean much because anyone can rate an article up to that point, and it just doesn't really matter. TTN 00:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes granted anyone can promote an article to B class, but that's not the case for the former FA's or FA candidates. Those were all extensively reviewed by knowledgable contributors and if their notability was a legitimate issue than they never would have been promoted, they would have been deleted, which they weren't. Vorpal76 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
TTN, stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by fighting against an overwhelming majority of editors. WP:CON describes consensus as: (bolding mine)

...a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'.

I believe that you fall into these last two categories as you stubbornly insist on your position, refusing to consider other viewpoints in good faith. Since you are the sole adherent of the merge and, your objections aside, there is a consensus against it, any attempts to merge these articles, in direct defiance of the community view, can and will be considered vandalism. It seems unlikely that you will change the minds of those who are already engaged in this disagreement, but if you believe the wider consensus of the Wikipedia community may be different then, by all means, appeal to them. If, however, you do not wish to appeal to the wider community, discontinue this licentious pugnacity and move on. D4g0thur 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey wait, I agree with TTN for the merge. I haven't seen the discussion until now. Perhaps we could start with the easy stuff by trimming things which are blatantly unnotable and/or unsourced, etc. Then we'll see in what direction to go from there. Kariteh 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're still in the minority though. By the way Kariteh, are you saying you agree with all of the proposed mergers or just some of them? Vorpal76 23:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
All. Except a few maybe like Bowser Jr. if external sources (not primary) can establish their notability. Huge, indiscriminate, game-guidish lists like the one in Shy Guy#Other Shy Guys should not exist. Kariteh 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone here is actually saying that no articles should be merged; however, TTN's rather extreme and aggressive approach - to merge all articles on Mario's enemies - is not that way to go about it. Consensus at the moment seems to be that while the more notable enemies (such as Koopa Troopa, Boo, etc.) should have their own article, the less notable ones (such as Kamek, Petey Piranha, etc.) should be merged. This approach is a middle ground between the two extremes of "merge all" and "don't merge any" and, as such, seems a good compromise (often an integral part of any consensus) for all parties. D4g0thur 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess the best solution is to forget these stuff about "it should" or "it shoudln't". Let's be pragmatic. If an article establishes its notability, keep it. If it does not establish its notability, merge it, even if it *could* establish its notability (people have had tons of time already to find sources). This way, we'll have a good comprise: some articles will be merged to satisfy people who want to have them merged; some articles will remain separate since they don't violate policy; and some potentially-notable articles will be merged, but will still be free to be expanded upon and de-merged some day if people actually come up with sources to establish the notability of the stuff as separate articles. There's too much theorizing in this talk page IMHO. We seem to be judging notability with guesses and opinions instead of coming up with actual published sources. It's about time we act concretely. Kariteh 11:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You're looking at a different discussion than I am. Not one person has suggested only keeping a couple of articles. They are all notable and they all deserve articles in their eyes. Anyways, we can keep articles based upon their potential to establish notability. Only Goomba has any real possibility, but nothing has shown that. This also isn't a time issue. This has been brought up for over a month, and not one source has been added to any of the articles by any of the editors. I'm just going to wait for the mediation request to go through for now. TTN 17:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, discussion seems to be happening here rather then medcab, so I'll join in. I'm a little surprised as to why TTN wants to merge everything at first glance, that doesn't make sense to me. There are some that should probably be merged, most of which already have been. I'm not sure though on others. I mean, the article's already 80kb. Wizardman 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets go over this. On this site, everything needs to assert notability. This ranges from people, events, and locations to fiction. So, of course, fictional people, events, and locations must also assert notability. To do that, they need to show that they are more than simply a piece of that fiction, that they have real world relevance. That is done through reliable sources that depict this real world relevance.

The main problem with fictional topics is that they lack the sources. This is the case with these enemies. Even with Goomba, all we do is describe how they are inside of the Mario universe. We mention nothing of how they were developed, taken by fans/critics, or how they have affected the world. Granted, there is no time limit on this site, but topics don't just sit around forever waiting for sources. I have been asking for over a month, and not one source has been added. These are free to come back when the sources can be added, but at this point, they don't need to exist.

Regarding size, the article will be split off soon, and a lot of it can be trimmed, so it is not a factor. TTN 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see what you're saying. Keep in mind though that sourcing for fictional, well, anything, is extremely hard to come by and very hard to be done properly. This is a problem throughout the fictional part of wikipedia, not just here. As opposed to sourcing, I'm looking at each enemy's notability in the series, which some of your suggestions clearly pass if we go by that. Wizardman 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It may be hard, but it is not something we can just pass off. Using reliable sources to build an encyclopedia is the point of this site. I said that they need to show that they are more than a piece of the series, so in-series notability means nothing past a point. If the Mario series was just as popular, but Mario had nothing to write about, he would not get an article. TTN 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it becomes more a question of how important is reliable sources in a fictional article? Second, how would one reliably source a fictional article? I ask becuase I'm trying to look for an example to support your point, but I can't find anything. Wizardman 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sources are required on every article. Fiction articles receive no slack for being harder to source. If anything, the standards are higher. Jabba the Hutt is one of the better examples. It has everything that is required: role in the fiction, creation, reception, and role in the world. There are more if you need to see them. TTN 16:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
So it's a question of what's more important then. Making every character sourced or making the characters encyclopedic. Sure, there are a couple more that need to be merged, but not every character. I'm looking at it from a notability standpoint, sure, but you're actually looking at it from a completely inflexible standpoint, which is probabyl why it was taken to MedCab in the first place, you need to have some wiggle room. Wizardman 15:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability in the series has nothing to do with it. Sourced real world information is all that matters (Sourcing an article and making it encyclopedic is the same thing.) Sources need to be provided for any topic to become encyclopedic, so that is a strange stance. All I need to see is "Here are a couple of sources that provide x for y." and I'll be all set with letting that sit. Not one single source has been provided. Not one at all has even been suggested. All that has been thrown around is "They're good." or "They'll become better if we leave them." That is not acceptable when these have been around for years and this topic has been up for well over a month.
Also, you're not supposed to take sides as a mediator. You're supposed to analyze both sides, and try to give as many neutral compromises as possible. TTN 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I haven't (re)heard the other side yet. I sound like I'm against you but I'll sound the same way for the other side, so I can decide what's best. You make valid points, I'm not saying they're not. By saying "sourced real world information is all that matters though" sounds rather bureaucratic to me. Which, again, may be good. I have to analyze both sides yet.Wizardman 00:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you may want to give a heads up next time. Even though it can bring about good results, it is rather annoying to think a mediator is pouncing on you. TTN 00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, heh. I'm close to a compromise idea though, should be good for both sides. Wizardman 00:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

TNN, I realize that you are just trying to follow Wikipedia policy, but the fact is that Wizardman is right, in the vast majority of fiction related articles on Wikipedia, little to no "real world notability" is provided, and yet no one questions the legitimacy of their existence. Look up the majority of novel related articles, and tell me where they provide this information? As I Lay Dying, A New Life, Gun With Occasional Music, Cocaine Nights, Microserfs, heck even The Sun Also Rises fails to cite a single external reference and nobody has ever nominated any of these articles for deletion. Why? Because imperfect as they are, they're still completely legitimate articles. The same is true for the majority of character articles in general. Yes, Jabba The Hutt meet your criteria, but it is an incredibly rare exception. Where's the sourcing on Grand Moff Tarkin, Boss Nass, or even Mace Windu? And yet nobody is nominating any of these for deletion. Why? Because, in order to be the truly comprehensible encyclopedia it aims to be, Wikipedia needs a Mace Windu article. The same is true for Goomba and Lakitu. Yes those articles don't meet your perfect criteria, and because of that the Admins revoked their FA status, but they never even hinted that they needed to be deleted or merged. Trust me those guys reviewed the heck out of those articles, and if they felt this sort of drastic action was needed they would have been the first to suggest it. Vorpal76 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He was just playing devil's advocate in a way. That doesn't seem to be his true position. You do realize that you're comparing real world things that have a very good likelihood of getting information to fictional things that may or may not have information, right? Real world topics have that possibility, so most don't bother with them. Only when they are on the edge do they get nominated for deletion. Fictional topics don't come with that liberty. They must show that they are more than a piece of the fiction to exist. Please note that they can have time to do that, but they must prove it if they're challenged.
In regards to crappy character articles, see WP:WAX. You cannot seriously suggest that just because someone hasn't touched an article, it somehow means that it is good. This sat around for a long time before I bothered to do something with it. Should articles be limited to that standard because of that? Some characters also receive slack due to a precedent though. Star Wars characters have shown that they can become good and there are abundant resources on them, so I doubt anyone will bother them. These, on the other hand, are all crappy, and there are no sources provided. Don't bother bringing other review processes into this (especially back when we were much more lax with fiction). We have WP:FICT and WP:WAF (and parents like WP:N and WP:V) to show what is needed for an article. Some people overlooking them doesn't change that. TTN 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm no, I'm sorry but last time I checked Star Wars characters did not receive more relaxed standards than other character articles just because they were from Star Wars. The truth is is that you would never try a stunt like this over at a Star Wars character page because you know that if you ever tired you'd get you're butt kicked by 500 angry Star Wars fans. Character pages should all be held to the same standard no matter that series they come from. Using the rationale that "Jabba the Hutt is a featured article so it doesn't matter if the others meet my criteria" makes no sense whatsoever. Also if real world establishing notability is such a huge issue why would novels, which consititute a large portion of Wikipedia be exempt? You seriously think that some obscure novel that was published in the 40's which no one has read in 60 years shouldn't have to establish its notability just because its a book, but the pages we're debating should? Dude, they're still a fiction related article and I'm really having trouble seeing the consistency in your logic at this point. Vorpal76 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't try it with them because they have the potential to become good. Everything on this site is based upon real world information backed by reliable sources. We give topics time to establish that, and time is up for these articles. Novels are real, so it is much easier for them to establish that notability. They aren't exempt, though. If challenged, they must assert notability like any other topic. Please read over WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. TTN 23:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So basically you're saying that Mace Windu, which doesn't cite any external references and is actually older than most of the articles being challenged warrants existence because it has the potential to become good, because its from Star Wars. Whereas none of these articles have any possible potential because they're from Mario. And yes, I've read the WP guidelines, I do my homework before I debate these sort of things. I just happen to still disagree with you. Vorpal76 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no rush to merge it because it has a great possibility of sources due to being a character in the Star Wars series. That is because the series has a variety of sources from both the creator and outside ones, not just because it is Star Wars. Though, Mace Windu may be on the side of merging for all I know (I'm not a big fan or anything). Obviously, not all of the characters receive the liberty. Minor ones can still be merged.
Until these prove otherwise, none of them have a chance. Only one good source exists outside of the main characters (that is like twenty articles), and it is certainly not enough to back an assertion that these can become much more than they are now. Really, if you want these to exist, go get some sources. I don't get how people will just avoid that completely (besides the fact that there a pretty much none). TTN 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... this is a harder decision to make then I would've guessed when this started. I'm not a particular merge fan, but TTN's made good arguments for it. I've been in this situation before in an AFD, when someone nominated an article for deletion due to lack of secondary sources. It was kept, the DRV endorsed it, and it at least got some primary sources which is better than nothing. So, is sending one to AfD to see what they say an option? It might open a huge can of worms, so maybe I shouldn't do that. At the same time, just to let you know "just because someone hasn't touched an article doesn't mean it's good" is factually wrong. However, "just because... means it's bad" isn't true either. I'm actually surprised that Goomba and Lakitu would've been up for FA in their condition, I'll have to review those discussions to see why. Wizardman 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
AfD's are double edged swords for fiction articles (and pretty much all articles). Sometimes it's a straight kill, while other times we get random people asserting that they're notable. How is my statement wrong? I'm just saying that just because an article has been in hibernation means nothing. It can be good or bad. It is just impossible to say that "Oh, it hasn't been put up for deletion, so it is the standard for all other articles." Those two were probably put up when the site was less caring about the status of fiction and all articles in general. There has certainly been a greater push towards quality in recent years. TTN 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it can be good or bad. Obviously if a few of these articles are *former* FA's then they're not perfect but then again if they are former FA's then there must at least something worthwile in them, and more importantly none of their demotion reviews mention anything about them not meeting the notability requirement. Vorpal76 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
TNN, at your suggestion I reviewed WP:N. As you have reminded us, several Wikipedia Guidelines have changed in recent years. However anyone who checks will find that Notability is not one of them. This guideline has remained virtually untouched in the past two or three years. I also noticed a clause toward the bottom of the article labeled "Notability Is Not Temporary". Any article that was granted GA or FA status, even if that status was eventually revoked, was found to have met Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The notability guidelines have not changed in recent years, and since Notability is not temporary I see no reason why any current or former Ga's/FA's would fail to meet Notability requirements. True, this does not prove the notability of all or even most of the articles in question but I believe it effectively closes the book on the FA/GA's. Vorpal76 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So where are we?

Where are we with this right now? Everyone that wanted to keep the articles in the first place haven't even commented. TTN 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you care, I'm an admin. This seems to be a lengthy, heated-but-thankfully-civil, dispute, and it's very much tl;dr. Would someone like to fill me in on the (brief!) arguments to merge and not merge, and what specific articles are in dispute? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles in the merge tag in the article are the ones being discussed. There are no sources or real world information possible for the articles, and nothing asserts that they're notable past the series. The topic has been up for over a month, and not one source has been added to any of them. The keep arguments boil down to the average "I like it"s and "It's notable/important/whatever" (Sorry if I misrepresented anyone).
Wizardman is acting as a mediator (I believe he is leaning towards merging), but none of the original people wanting to keep them are even here anymore. Only Vorpal76 is in the discussion, and he really wasn't part of the original discussion before the mediation request. TTN 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, in a nutshell it's between whether or not those articles should be merged. I'm trying to think of something that would help both sides, problem is I don't even know if the anti-merge side is participating anymore. What I'm probably gonna go is go through article by article and see which one should and shouldn't be merged, as well as one's I'm not positive about. We'll see though. If I was a better mediator we'd be done by now, sorry. AMIB's pretty well known for resolving heated disputes, so he can help if he wants to. Like I said, I'l at least get a rough draft compromise up by tomorrow and we'll go from there. Wizardman 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The only ones that have any real potential for sources and real world information are Goomba and Koopa Troopa. I tried searching for information, but I could find nothing. At most, it seems there might be some obscure development information, but that's about it. TTN 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, information on many would be near impossible to find, hence this debate in the first place. If you want one to keep you busy, Kamek is an obvious merge, as he was in one game and probably has no sources on him. Wizardman 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary Decision/Compromise

Hopefully this will be final. I decided to split the articles to be merged into three camps: Merge, Don't merge, and editor's discretion/other. Since TTN's been the main discusser, ones in the third camp will, i assume, be merged. However if sources can be found those can become articles, but that's a conversation for when/if that happens. There is one that I have a different idea for: Merge King Boo into Boo, since they're rather similar as it is.

  • Merge: Bowser Jr. (no sources, relatively recent created character it seems), Kamek (in one game, obvious merge imo), Koopalings (though merging them into Bowser if perfectly acceptable as well, I'll leave which to do to you guys), Petey Piranha (notability is there, but info and reference wise I have to say that it should be merged), Blooper (Mario) (same as petey), Monty Mole (well written but too minor), Chomp (Mario) (again, in a lot of games, yes, but probably can't be saved), Shroob (one game? it's mergeable), Dry Bones (character) (not enough source potential).
  • Don't Merge: Bob-omb (you might disagree with this one, but there's enough tangible information where sources could be found. I'm willing to lean on this one), Lakitu and Goomba (there's enough information, especially since they were former FAs, that some sources can be found, plus some sources are present in these), Koopa Troopa and Boo (Nintendo) (they are major enough, plus the fact they have been good guys in some games makes it harder for me to allow them in an enemies list).
  • Other: Birdo (there are some sources on this one, but is Birdo major enough for its own article? do as you will), King Boo (merge to Boo) Piranha Plant , Bullet Bill, Bob-omb and Shy Guy (merge these for now; these are discussion worthy if an editor can find some good sources. There's enough info where these would be hard to merge).

So in the end that's 14 out of 19 that can be merged. I'd say you made out pretty well, so long as you're in agreement with this. Wizardman 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kamek was in more than one game but I have no problems with him being merged. In fact, I have no problems with any of these characters mentioned being merged. However, if Piranha Plant remains as an article, would it be possible to merge Petey Piranha with that, instead of List of Mario series enemies? To me, the articles worthy of keeping would be the recurring major characters (which would be a few characters, such as Birdo and Petey), but I'm perfectly content with this if everyone else is. :) I'm definitely satisfied for Shroobs to be merged. Hardcore gamer 48 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you defining as information in those articles? Most of the information is pure game guide material and speculation. With actual characters, we can describe their roles in the games, but that is pointless with generic enemies. All we can do are give minor changes (i.e. game guide material) because they don't play real roles in the games. Being major doesn't matter if you can't type much about them (trimming down excess info probably takes away a good 80% of the articles).
So, then to get actual information, we need sourced real world information. The problem is that sources aren't available. We can say that it looks really possible, but unless someone can actually provide some, it's pointless to think about. I have spent a few good hours searching, but there is little online for specific enemies (that's why we need some general information here). I really doubt that there is much more than a couple of minor details (see Chomp) in printed sources.
I'll take it as it is if I must, but please look over those and really tell me if you see them ever reaching the quality of the current featured character articles (the Stars Wars ones seem to be the better ones). TTN 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
True. As I've said, sourced real world information for fictional characters is very hard to find. We have the Mario Bros. episodes, which isn't ideal but at least it's something. I modified it a little bit, bob-omb can be merged after I slept on it. However, if there are minor details in sources, then that is information. But, if both sides seem to agree enough with this list, then I'll keep this as it is. Wizardman 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think, you've done a pretty stand up job so far, Wizardman you've definitely got my thanks. There's only one article you mentioned merging that I'm personally against. At heart I'm also against merging Shy Guy, I think that he's certainly notable enough to warrant his own article, however I realize that at the time said article is in beyond terrible shape so I'll be content to have the article merged, with hopefully it receiving its own page at a later date, when someone actually takes the initiatve to write a better one. That being said, the only I'd really hate to see merged at this point is Koopalings. I can see where people would get annoyed if each Koopaling had their own article, but that's not the case. I mean they're recurring characters and have appeared in several games as well as two of the animated series and the Valiant comics. From what I understand about the new Notability in Fiction guidelines being dicussed, these are the sort of things that can count as "real world sources" for fictional characters, so I believe they warrant their own page. Other than that I'm fine with merging the other articles, although as I mentioned with Shy Guy, there's always the possibility that some of them could get their own articles (Birdo, Pirahnna Plant) if someone decided to take the initiative and create a well-sourced one (should be easier to do once those fiction notability guidlines are nailed down). I'd also ask whoever ends up merging the articles to try to keep the core of those few that are actually well-written (i.e. Monty Mole) as intact as possible. Finally, thank you TNN, for being willing to come to a compromise. Vorpal76 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Bob-omb was crossed off the list of articles to keep? He'd be one of the four or five essentials in my mind, also yes TNN we realize these articles might not be as good as Jabba The Hutt, but they will be as good as some of the Star Wars character articles (the majority of which, such as Mace Windu, don't cite their sources either). Vorpal76 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh, we'll see about the keep articles after they're trimmed. Don't expect them to be nearly as large as they are right now after game guide material, speculation/OR, and pieces of trivia are removed. Anyways, WP:FICT is only being made more concise in that these type of articles are not to be accepted (It puts a lot more emphisis on merging and preforming a transwiki), so don't expect it to do much for your case. If the source material is all that we can provide as a reference, that why we merge them. Articles are not meant to be a simple extension of the source. Each needs to be its own independent article; the source information is only here to provide context for the actual information.
Only compare featured and good content to regular articles. Comparing crap to crap gets you nowhere. TTN 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
And as a note, I probably won't be touching these for a few weeks. I'm working on getting the Pokemon articles merged as quickly as possible, so I don't really feel like fiddling with these right now. TTN 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to state my opinion. I don't think All those other articles should be merged. Those particular Mario enemies are infamous enough to have their own articles.[citation needed] Koopa Troopa, in particular, should have his own article. Or am I thinking of just Koopa. In any case, I am against the merge. - Smashman202 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TNN, the point of us having this disussion and having a mediator is so that we can discuss the future of this article and come to a mutual solution. I do not appreciate the fact that you made several major edits to this page and have already begun to merge articles when we are still in the preliminary phases of and have yet to come to an agreement. You are begininning to take action without stating what the end result will be. Wizardman has graciously devoted his time to helping us reach a compromise, however at this point I must ask if you are even willing to come to a compromise? Your posts early on in this discussion suggested that you had no intention of coming to any sort of compromise and your last post seems to reinforce this idea. I believe myself and the other editors in favor of keeping articles have already been generous in efforts to some to an agreement. In accordance to Wizardman's suggestion we are allowing 14 of the 19 disputed articles to be merged. And in respone to what the fate of those remaining 5 articles will be, all you can say in is "Eh, we'll see about the keep articles after they're trimmed"? I'm sorry TNN but we intiated this discussion and entered mediation so that we can lay this issue to rest once and for all, not so that you can bring up this issue all over again in a few weeks. We really are trying to come to an agreement with you, and therefor we are willing to compromise, but if you are not then you are wasting mine, Wizardman's and all of the other contributors time. I would appreciate a straight answer when I ask if you have any intention of even coming to a compromise? Vorpal76 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What? The discussion is over, and I'm sticking with the compromise. I'm just thinking people will think differently about keeping the articles after I trim them. I have been planning the split for a while now, and I have mentioned it several times. TTN 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I had seen WizardMan's comment that he hoped "this was final" but I hadn't heard anyone actually agree to it before your previous post. I didn't mean to sound cynical I just wanted to make sure we were all in agreement, and I'm glad that we are. Vorpal76 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think more of Shy Guy should be merged, along with an image. Henchman 2000 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wario and Waluigi

I'm not so sure that Wario and Waluigi should be considered "enemies" or "villians". I always thought of them more as "evil brothers". What do you guys think? Useight 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wario was the boss character of Super Mario Land 2, so I guess he can be considered an enemy at that time, but not so much now. Waluigi, on the other hand, has not been featured in any game in the main series. He usually just creates mischief and doesn't really try to bring any harm to Mario and co. on purpose. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The key is to not consider anything, and provide a source instead to back up the statements made. Kariteh 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
They'll be split off onto a general character list soon (so characters like Daisy can be merged), so it won't really matter. TTN 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Major Edit

While I don't necessarily agree with the developments going on regarding the super-merger, there is a bigger problem here, and that's that this page is generally pretty awfully written. Characters are not in alphabetical order, entries are filled with game guide info and the whole thing is just a mess. That's the main reason I'm against the merger - pulling half-decent articles onto an awful giant article. So I am going to make it a personal project to work on this entire page. You can watch my efforts here [[6]] and let me know what you like/don't like. (Fryguy64 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for taking the initiative. Vorpal76 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Why is Warts description significantly larger than Bowsers? Bowser doesn't even have a picture either and he's the main villain. Warts been in...one game? Anonymus

And a Dream Game at that... Ler's remember.

Bowser has a article. Wart does not.

Bowser still has more info than Wart. Angry Sun 07:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATTN: TTN

As you are a user of this page, I feel this should go here. people are annoyed that you keep merging articles, so maybe you should speak to them first. Lesser Shadow 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umm

Some of these enemies such as Hammer Bro. deserve their own articles, because they are actually major characters in the series.--Ridley76 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GOOD LUCK! If you can get past TTN you will be a god among men(kidding). Angry Sun 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"because they are actually major characters in the series" -> Sources? Kariteh 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, hammer bros don't deserve their own article, they are minor characters.Wizardman 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My suggestion

I suppose the pages for each of the normal enemies stay there and are not merged with this one. After all, Goombas have got great storylines (Goombella, non-evil Goombas, and other stuff which I forget), Koopas also, and many other enemies have too much information to become a single part of a complete page. ~~Gameshunter~~

[edit] Which image should be used?

Image:Hammer Bro..jpg or Image:Hammer Bro Brawl.jpg? I ask this as I think that the image on the left would be better suited to this article (as other artworks are featured here), while the other would be better suited to Super Smash Bros. Brawl (perhaps to illustrate the Assist Trophies). Any thoughts? Hardcore gamer 48 08:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image policies suggest we should just use one of the two for both articles. As for which one, that's up to you guys, so long as they both have the rationale, pick one and orphan the other (which seems to be what you're doing). Wizardman 11:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess that we're sticking with the Brawl image, then. = / BTW, thanks TTN for fixing my error; I only realised how to make images into something like this (<_<;) yesterday. I completely forgot about this until just today. Hardcore gamer 48 11:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use images need fixing

I'm tagging any images here that current do not have a fair use rationale in them. Hopefully someone can go and add some so that we can keep the images, however they do have to be added in. Just throwing it out there, if I have time I'll come back to them and do them myself. Wizardman 22:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. ; ) Hardcore gamer 48 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I just put the tags on the images at List of Mario series characters as well (the ones that didn't have them already). Hardcore gamer 48 04:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion

Just to ask, but what really qualifies a creature to be added to this page, should they have appeared in a certain number of games (4, 5?) or what? -- Lord Crayak

It's more their importance to the overall series than arbitrary numbers. Bosses are easier in that regard, it'd probably be an enemy-by-enemy basis. What enemy are you asking of? Wizardman 02:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mostly creatures that have appeared quite often, such as Swooper (6), Fuzzy (4) and Rex (4) who aren't on here, as opposed to Unagi (2) and Chargin' Chuck (2), who are on here. Also, it seems as if boss enemies are going to put on the main Mario characters page now. -- Lord Crayak

Enemies that are mentioned in external sources such as reviews, articles, interviews, etc. Kariteh 08:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the last four

OK, I have done a fairly rough trimming of those four. They can obviously be cleaned up, but that should be around the real maximum length without any real cruft, OR, or game guide material. Should they still stay as single articles? TTN 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll merge these tomorrow if there are no objections. TTN 19:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no objections, please do. Kariteh 08:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There's only no objections because everyone who objects got so fed up with TTN that they left. >.> General Banzai 07:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, TNN, you ruined the Wikipedia. I am serious. HOW DID YOU GET TO DO ALL OF THESE EDITS WITH ONLY ONE PERSON AGREEING WITH YOU? Oh, and I object. Knowitall 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Goombaa mISSING