Talk:Papa Mario

(First topic)

Should we call this "Papa Mario", since the other parent is "Mama Mario"? Or should we call "Mama Mario" something like "Mario & Luigi's mother"? It seems kinda awkward to me that their both something diffrent. IMO, Papa Mario would work out here. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Mama Mario was actually called that in the live-action TV show (I think), while Mario and Luigi's father was never referred to by name. This is the only title we can use for this article that is not conjectural; as for the Mama Mario article, using an official name is better than a label like "Mario and Luigi's mother". It's awkward, but it's policy. - Walkazo 21:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

This character was actually called "dad" during the ending of Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island. -- Son of Suns (talk)P.S. Walkazo, you deserve some major props. You did a good job of covering all the information, even contradictory information, without falling into baseless speculation. =)

k. I see now. Well, we can't just move it to "dad" I guess, so lets leave it like this, and make some redirects. Super-Yoshi^{Talk? C???}

Wait...where does Mr. Mario come from? Is that official? -- Son of Suns (talk)

Oh, in Super Mario Amada Issunboshi, Mario's dad is called "Papa" and his mom is called "Mama." -- Son of Suns (talk)

It was on the Mario and Luigi's Parents article, which is where I got all the information (I just chopped out the Mrs. Mario stuff and rewrote it all, but thanks for the kudos anyway, SoS). Seeing as "Mario" is Mario's (and thus, presumably his fathers') surname, "Mr. Mario" would be what he'd be called (unless he was a doctor or a knight, which is not the case as far as we know). It's not official, though... - Walkazo 22:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Sub-Levels

I think the article was fine with each of the appearances sections as second levels. And, just for the record: I was planning on taking all the speculation out of the family section and popping it back in there (lol, no pun intended with "pop"). Stumpers! 14:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Well I did that because maybe someone would want to skip all the appearances information and move to other sections in the table of contents. If they are all listed independently, a reader would have to check each one then move on; but if we put them all under a single "Appearances" section, they can easily skip ahead to other sections. -- Son of Suns (talk)

Agreed. If I can work the relatives section into the introduction like I did personality and physical appearance information, I will make each appearance section a level 2 header again, but otherwise I'll leave it alone. Stumpers! 16:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I might even separate those two sections (physical traits and personality) out of the introduction - it's really big right now as it is. Even if the sections wouldn't have that much content in them, I feel they would be a good way to organize information, instead of cramming it all into the introduction. -- Son of Suns (talk)

It's not a long introduction if you look at what some of the most professional Wikis, including Wikipedia do. Also, in my experience separating personality and physical appearance make users more likely to go into too much detail (ie describe in-depth what can be seen clearly in the pictures) or speculate in an effort to make the sections about a very minor character longer (I'm particularly thinking about the personality section here). Stumpers! 17:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah definitely. Ultimately there probably has to be a balance. You could always create one general "Characteristics and Traits" section and just throw everything in there. It might make a good last section to summarize some of the information in the article. I think there needs to be a place of synthesis some where to bring everything together or else it just turns into a list of references. Part of the fun of Mario Wiki is making educated connections and disconnections, ya know? Not speculation, but re-organizing information in new ways. =) -- Son of Suns (talk)

I find that "Lists of Characteristics"/"Personality" sections are a waste of time on all but the extremely major (and thus, complex) characters. Conclusions are nice, but Wiki-style articles don't really support them, and the ending sections end-up sounding like watered-down padding for the shorter articles, unfortunately. - Walkazo 20:34, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Oh yeah totally. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, ya know? We shouldn't force it on the article. This article may not need it as much, it has a section about family that summarizes other connections not made in the main body of the article. I hope Stumpers is planning something similar for Mama Mario. No offense, Mama Mario is a great article, but at the end it just kinda dies out with scrambled eggs. I don't know how to describe it, but reading the impressive article and then reaching that ending just didn't feel right. -- Son of Suns (talk)

I felt the same way when I finished it. It needs closure! I was thinking maybe a discontinuity guide, where we point out things like how they were delivered by stork in Yoshi's Island, yet she was said to have given birth to them naturally in "Plumbers Academy." That would allow us to look back upon her life overall and be a little conclusive without speculating.Stumpers! 21:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

A section called "Discontinuities" perhaps? That's a good idea, or have something like that. An article with so many sections needs some sort of final section that has information from across sources (like Papa's family section). I think that helps bring everything together and brings closure to a subject. We can't say specifically how it all fits together, 'cause the same event (Mario's birth) is depicted several different ways, but we can make connections and point out inconsistencies (which allows readers to speculate on how they want to construct the Marioverse in their own minds). -- Son of Suns (talk)

Yeah, that is a good idea, especially since there are enough discontinuities surrounding these subjects for nice, healthy sections (who would have guessed Nintendo's delinquency in the continuity department would actually help us someday). - Walkazo 22:09, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Move to "Papa"?

So far, the 2/2 sources that call him anything have Mario call him "Papa". Son of Suns and I were discussing moving this page to that name. Would anyone protest? Stumpers! 01:43, 14 January 2009 (EST)

"Papa" should be fine (and it would look a bit better than "Mario and Luigi's father" in comparrison to "Mama Mario"). But I have a question: in the History section, would he be called "Papa" in all the entries, or just the ones where he was called "Papa"? I vaguely remember a Proposal about characters known by different names in different games (Princess Peach vs. Princess Toadstool was the major one), and I think it was decided that they'd be called whatever name the game called them in that game's particular section (and their common/most recent name used in the intoduction and any other section). It's not done on Mama's article, but I'm not 100% sure I'm remembering this policy correctly, which is why I'm asking, and not editing. - Walkazo 23:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I believe you're right... but the proposal did not take into consideration that some characters may not be named in certain sources (like both of Mario's parents). For right now, I'd say we should just change it to Papa in the two sections where it applies (Amada and the film). Stumpers! 11:16, 15 January 2009 (EST)

In that case, the sections about Mama Mario in which she goes unnamed shouldn't use "Mama", if we want to be consistant between the two parents. Also, after putting more thought into it, I think Papa should be a disambiguation page, seeing as Mario and Luigi's father isn't the only "Papa" out there: there's Papa T., Goompapa (though that one's more of a stretch), and Bowser's called "Papa" by Bowser Jr. (to name a few). So if we do decide to switch "Mario and Luigi's Father" to "Papa", we'll need something to differentiate it from all the other possible "Papa"s. Perhaps "Mario and Luigi's Papa" would do? That acknowledges the only title we have for him (a step up from "M&L's father"), and it's not conjectural like "Papa Mario" or ambiguous like "Papa". We could also use the same formula for "Mario and Luigi's Grandpapa" (mentioned in the Super Mario Bros. film). - Walkazo 02:16, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think you could use "Mario and Luigi's Papa" because he is never called that. I think this page should probably be moved to "Papa," then a redirect should be added to a page called "Papa (disambiguation)" (i.e. at the top of this article, write "Papa" redirects here, for other uses of the term, see Papa (disambiguation).) The disambig page will list other uses of the word "Papa," but the article with the title Papa should be this article, as it is his only name (unlike other characters, which aren't named exactly "Papa" or have another name, like Bowser). -- Son of Suns (talk)

And then we would use "Grandpapa" as the link for their grandfather (though it'd be a redirect to the List of Implied Characters and a header of "Grandpapa"). - Walkazo 02:37, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, exactly. That makes sense. =) -- Son of Suns (talk)

Great, so should we wait for more feedback, or just go ahead with it now? - Walkazo 02:50, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Just go ahead... we've given everyone several days to comment. Usually that's all it takes for a move to be argued. Stumpers! 12:09, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Done. There's still a few links to "Mario and Luigi's father" kicking around, though... - Walkazo 02:52, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Different Characters

Not every instance of a character being Mario and Luigi's father is the same exact character. The article should be re-written to acknowledge the role of many characters as their father, rather than a singular one, which is most definitely false. Redstar 00:00, 18 December 2009 (EST)

We avoided spinning off into "Mario has many fathers from many different appearances" debate on the page because that gets really muddled and speculative. Unless we have good reason to doubt that characters from different media aren't meant to be the same person, we assume they are and write the articles as such. That's why Bowser from the games, "King Koopa" from the cartoons and "Koopa" from the movie are all the same character, even though they look and act different. It's up to the readers to take what they see in the various appearances with a grain of salt and make their own decisions - our job is merely to give them the information as clearly as possible and make as few judgement calls as possible. - Walkazo 00:30, 18 December 2009 (EST)

I can accept that, but the only truly glaring example is the father seen in the Issunboshi anime. That special was a re-telling of a fairy tale, with Mario not exactly "Mario" but filling the role of the child in that fairy tale. Would it be okay to at least revise that section to state the character was "a" father to Mario, but not meant to fill the same role as the other appearances? Redstar 00:33, 18 December 2009 (EST)

It would just look inconsistent if we address all the other appearances as Papa without question but not Super Mario Issunboshi. The anime may take more artistic licenses with the characters than other media, but it's no less valid from a purely facts-driven standpoint. If we don't question things like Bowser playing the role of the Evil Queen in the Snow White adaptation, or Mario hatching from a Peach in Super Mario Momotarō, we shouldn't question Papa. - Walkazo 01:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Name revealed.

Watch this video: [1]. Charles Martinet says that Mario's father is called "Pappa Pio Mario". Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 15:14, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

Minor appearance in merchandising

l33tredrocket on reddit found this Mario tray which seemingly depicts Mario's dad on a painting. I used Google to find another picture of the tray: this one by Erin Hoffman on Pinterest .

Should I add this "appearance" on the article?

I know if this was any other character we wouldn't even try to cover appearances in merchandising (at least not in the main article), but in this case, this is the only time we ever see Mario's dad's face. This seems like a pretty big deal.

Of course, there's also the matter of confirming it's actually Mario's dad, which is pretty much impossible. I think it's clear enough that it's supposed to be him, but I guess no one really knows for sure. Oh, and if a better picture is needed, I could always try and ask l33tredrocket to take another one I guess.
Banon (talk · edits) 06:48, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

Then yes you can add it if you want to if confirmed. The RPG Gamer (talk) (edits) 06:58, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

Just for the record, an image of the same food tray uploaded 6-10 years ago already exists here, though the portrait isn't as noticeable. Mario JC 07:10, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

What do you know! Apparenty an older version of the picture was uploaded 10 years ago, too. Anyway, I've added the relevant information to the article. I treated this new information as unconfirmed. Should we change the article's main picture? The one from the food tray does show Papa's face, but it is only implied it actually is Papa.
Banon (talk · edits) 08:31, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

Did you know that Mario's eyes are looking in the same direction as the person in the painting. Well now you know. Just a minor detail just to know. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

To prevent this image from being reuploaded or posted again, this figure has been identified as a grandfather known as GPoppy.--Platform (talk) 05:24, May 2, 2023 (EDT)

Rename Papa Mario to a generic title (e.g. "Mario's father") and refocus the article to talk about the overall concept of the character as opposed to a single established being

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Tuesday, April 1, 2025, 16:11 GMT

In truth, I could make this two separate proposals but I wanted to get at the heart of what was truly bothering me and they go hand in hand anyway.

A quick briefing: the article, in its lede and "Family" sections, as well as the first few paragraphs on the History section, describes the subject of the article as a single consistent character named Papa Mario (or, as the lede suggests, "also called Papa Pio Mario") with additional details throughout multiple media that are all equally relevant to this single character.

As it stands, this focus with which the article is written is frankly weird and seems more geared towards fanon-based ideas on characters in the Mario series; every appearance of "Papa Mario" in the Mario franchise has been that of a completely different character every time, most of which simply have no name. Not to mention the confusion and misinformation that has been spread with the Mario movie introducing a new "Papa Mario" character for which details mentioned in the article's lede section, including the aforementioned name, don't apply to the character in the movie at all. Also, his name can't be Papa Pio Mario, right...?

Proposer: Superstarxalien169 (talk)
Deadline: April 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT

SUPPORT: Change the focus of the article to a shared concept across multiple characters

1. Superstarxalien169 (talk) Per proposal.
2. PopitTart (talk) These are clearly not all the same character. Per Proposal.
3. Pseudo (talk) The current state of the article seems to come from a time in the late 2000s when wiki contributors were regularly trying to square a consistent canon between works in the Mario franchise, which even the developers of the games never cared about, but certainly the developers of the Super Show did even less (relative to the games). This is an article about multiple interpretations of Mario's father, not even remotely the same character, and they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. I'm fully in support of doing the same for Mama Mario.
4. Rykitu (talk) If Mama Mario is also changing to "Mario's mother", then per all.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per Pseudo
6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is an article talking about one specific incarnation of the character (how he appears in the Dreamworks film) as though the dozen-or-so other interpretations from across almost 40 years are somehow all the exact characters, which we think is nuts. We'd support a more generalized approach, alongside doing the same to Mama Mario/Mario's mother.
7. Jdtendo (talk) Per Camwoodstock. Also, per Mario jc's comment, we should rename the pages for Mario's parents to "Mario's dad" and "Mario's mom".

OPPOSE: Talk about a single character throughout multiple incarnations and media

1. Mariuigi Khed (talk): I actually agree on the idea, but I'm not ok with the name change tho

Comments (Papa Mario, the Idea vs. Papa Mario, the Man)

@Mariuigi Khed Votes are required to have a reasoning accompany them. --PopitTart (talk) 06:45, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

I mean, we don't have the same issue for the Mushroom King, and he sometimes isn't even the same species. I agree in a rewrite, but not really in a rename: we do have a name for this guy, why would we revert to "generic descriptive name", aka to a conjectural one? Mariuigi Khed 07:36, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

The issue with Papa Mario (and to a similar extent Mushroom King) is that the article is actually about multiple completely different characters that all share a same concept/role. Based on this, there isn't really a single one name for the article that fits best, unless you just want to spread misinformation on any which iteration of the character. Superstarxalien169 08:41, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

But "Papa Mario" is official, came out of Charles Martinet's mouth while he was playing Mario. I understand what you are saying... but at this point we need to generically rename the Koopalings too, since each media makes them quite different? Or the Hammer Bros? Or the... I get your logic, but I really don't get why shouldn't we keep the official given name. Mariuigi Khed 10:20, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

If the proposal passes, will Mama Mario also be moved to "Mario's mother" and rewritten? 1468z (talk) 07:09, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Ideally, yes. Superstarxalien169 07:16, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Mama/Papa Mario may not necessarily cover all iterations of Mario's/Luigi's mother/father, but the issue: changing it to a "generic" title turns it into a conjectural one. Why can't the article "refocus…to talk about the overall concept of the character as opposed to a single established being" while also keeping the name? What's stopping us from renaming "Mushroom King" to "Princess Peach's father" because not all depictions of Princess Peach's father directly call him the Mushroom King? The sections generally don't use a specific name when it doesn't apply to that media already, so the more I look it over, the less sense it makes. We don't have to tie "the overall concept of the character as opposed to a single established being" with the name of the article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:42, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

That's what I'm saying! Mariuigi Khed 13:32, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Could we have an option to re-adjust scope, but retain the Papa Mario name? ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 13:44, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Why would you use the name of a single character when referring to many different ones? It comes to reason that people would just start referring to all of them under the name of that same unrelated character, which is precisely what happens with Mario's dad from the movie. I don't think the wiki's rule of conjectural article titles should apply to a subject that is not about a single specific character, but a generic character concept. Superstarxalien169 13:54, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Still, I don't see how the articles change much if the names change to more generalized ones. Different depictions of the same character concept =/= different characters. If they were different characters altogether, they'd be split-worthy. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:26, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

It's difficult to call all of these takes on Mario's dad the same character due to how radically different they are from each other, and unlike something such as Lady/Pauline they've never been referred to as the same character, and most likely won't in the foreseeable future. If this demands an article split I would be okay with that as well, I just figured it wouldn't be necessary due to how little there is to talk about each character. Superstarxalien169 23:10, March 25, 2025 (EDT)

The Mario Movie credits refer to Mario and Luigi's parents as "Mario's dad" and "Mario's mom" btw, so I think those should be their names. Most recent and official while also being generic titles. Mario JC 23:04, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

^This. Thanks! LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:26, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

I'd support a move to "Mario's dad" then. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:58, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

THIS I can get behind Mariuigi Khed 08:58, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

This makes sense to me, especially as it's a more general and widely applicable name than Papa Mario. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 16:37, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

This brand of logic is unnecessarily strained; you don't need to source an officially-used name if the article in question is about a concept as generic as "Mario's father." Still, I would also prefer those names, but I would be wary of adhering to the wiki's existing naming guidelines for a topic such as this. Superstarxalien169 23:10, March 25, 2025 (EDT)

The wiki's naming guidelines would be to use official names, I don't see why an article being about a concept rather than a singular character should make it exempt from that. There's absolutely no reason to use a made-up name for this subject when an official one is available (not to mention it's very similar to the made-up name). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:34, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

As far as I understand, the wiki's guidelines are really only made for concrete elements in Mario media as opposed to abstract concepts that don't necessarily exist within the scope of the Mario franchise. There aren't many pages in the Mario wiki dedicated to abstract concepts related to Mario not by virtue of being officially referenced as a part of the brand but by ostensibly being a forming concept of any which aspect of it; that is to say, since the wiki doesn't really explain general topics related to the existence of audiovisual media but only those that were specifically defined for the franchise, it makes sense to be apprehensive of titling this proposed article focus with a "conjectural" name, but I don't see any other alternative that makes sense. Again, the subject of the article is not about a single specific concept defined exclusively for the Mario franchise, that would require it to follow a name that it has established. Superstarxalien169 07:40, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

In what way is the concept of Mario's father not specific to the Mario franchise? "Mario's dad" and "Mario's father" mean literally the same thing, there's no reason to not go for the official one of the two. It's a name that was used officially in reference to the subject that the article would be about. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:23, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

The way in which the concept refers to a "father" character for Mario, wherein the "father" character is the generic concept being referred to which isn't a unique element to the Mario franchise but rather is generic enough to apply to any character in media whatsoever; Mario is just the modifier here. Superstarxalien169 09:28, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

it's generic enough to not need a special name to be sourced and for it to not be able to count as conjecture if there isn't one is all i'm saying Superstarxalien169 09:34, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

I don't follow. The page would specifically be about instances of Mario's father, not just any father in general. The concept of Mario himself is original to the franchise, so is the concept of his father. And "Mario's dad" is hardly a "special name". Using it would get the same point across while completely avoiding this argument. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:36, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

Semantics aside, what, exactly, is the purpose of this proposal now? Recent official names (disregarding that they don't seem to be "encyclopedic" enough for the proposer) were found during the proposal that suit our purposes. Moving to them would seem to be clear-cut were it not for an active proposal whose majority support didn't have this information. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:16, March 27, 2025 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've already noted that the name of "Mario's dad" also fit the proposal of changing the article's focus so it covers the subjects more properly, though I find it concerning that in cases where such an article focus is needed the article's name would still have to follow the rigid rules for article naming on the wiki. It's more of a tangent, as the original goal of the proposal is still the same otherwise. Superstarxalien169 17:07, March 28, 2025 (EDT)