Talk:Baby Daisy

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
This is a featured article!

It represents the best of the best that the Super Mario Wiki has produced. If there are any edits that will improve the article's quality even further, make them.

Edit the article · Add to discussion (new section) · FA page Power Star icon from Super Mario Galaxy 2.
MKDS art small.jpg This article is part of PipeProject Mario Kart, an attempt to create race & battle course articles and expand on the Mario Kart Series game pages on the Super Mario Wiki. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the PipeProject Mario Kart page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Is this indeed fact, or a clever ruse? My Bloody Valentine

No, it's not.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by MDupont (talk).

Not a fact or not a ruse? :P Time Questions 10:32, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
I'd almost swear that photo was doctored from Baby Peach. <_< — Stooben Rooben It looks...odd.

It's really her. The screenshot was taken from someone who was on Wifi, plus, there is another pic floating around showing her on the Character Select screen with her 3D model. The hair styles with her and Baby Peach are totally different. - MDupont

If it wasn't a screenshot though, it could still be doctored. The crown could easily be changed, and the hair could be morphed and colored somehow. — Stooben Rooben

Don't worry. The game comes out pretty soon, and then we'll all know. Jdrowlands (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's best to just wait. It wouldn't surprise me if she was a real character though. — Stooben Rooben Nintendo's always got a new Mario character to introduce.
Quite Right! Jdrowlands (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

111.jpg http://lh3.google.com/gohanrice/R_r4FDEo-TI/AAAAAAAAAK4/1sCzzMN6mzU/DSC08982.JPG.jpg?imgmax=720

The characters will shrink again once more are unlocked.

MDupont 12:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It's real man. No matter how much we despise her, Daisy now has a baby form. A character with no personality... getting a baby form. ._. Dpiconani448.gifMaster LucarioDpiconani448.gif The Aura is with me...

I am Shocked at you people! Daisy is great and how can despise her baby form??? User: Supersmashbrosbrawl

anyone notice that Baby Daisy's place on the character select screen is where Baby Peach's should be? And there is no Baby Peach, even though she is a starting character?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Super Joshi 7 (talk).

Baby Peach is right to the right of Baby Daisy... linkswordmi2.gifPaper Jorge ( Talk·Contributions)·linkswordmi2.gif

My thoughts exactly... My Bloody Valentine

What about Baby Wario? — Stooben Rooben Or Baby Waluigi...

You are all brainless. Baby Peach and Baby Daisy have two completely different heads. She's in the spot because that's just when she was unlocked. Baby Peach's spot is never gone, it's simply cut from that image. The character select screen changes every time you get a new character; just like the brawl selection screen. Oh and King Boo, only a moron would say a character doesn't have a personality on a site with a page including a section on their personality. My guess as to why there is no Baby Wario or Waluigi? Because nobody would won't to be fat ugly obese/anorexic babies in a racing game. Seriously though, why would they have Baby Wario or Waluigi when neithe rof them would have enough in common with the other babies to have the same karts? Fixitup

Whoa, whoa, calm down, Fixit. That merits as flaming, ya know. Just cool it, I think you've made yourself perfectly clear on this subject. My Bloody Valentine

"Brainless"? ... Stating our own opinions and discussing why something is the way it is because we don't know why it's that way makes us "brainless"? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :P — Stooben Rooben Wario and Waluigi may be ugly, but they're cool.

I just noticed somthing! The "B" for "Back" is a gamecube "B"!
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdrowlands (talk).

Oh no, I said a bad word? I didn't know even the slightest point of an insult could be considered a flame. Obviously I wasn't going off on people in a harsh manner, and I wasn't yelling at anyone. I was defending the facts. Also, that's a B from a gamecube controller because that's what the person is using, lol. Fixitup

Star children

I thought that their can be only 7 star kids. (Baby Mario, Baby Luigi, Baby Peach, Baby Donkey Kong, Baby Wario, Baby Bowser, and Baby Yoshi) GrapesGrapes Grapes

Just so people know, I didn't add that, I simply replaced it. Also, it didn't say she was one, it said it was unsure if she was. Also, it's gone anyway. Fixitup

Proved false: Gamefaqs faq has the line - New characters - Rosalina, Baby Peach and Mii Racer. No mention of Baby Daisy. Sorry guys, we've been fooled :( Jdrowlands (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I doubt, on youtube (click here), a gamer was playing as baby daisy in a course ¢oincoll€ctor rsitem209.png she's sooooo adorable than baby peach....

I'm getting it sunday, so we'll all see. Jdrowlands (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't ya mean Sunday the 27? Oh and she is offical. I know it made be Gamefaq trying not to spoil the game. GrapesGrapes Grapes

Another golden statue!

Seriously there a other statue that shows Daisy and Luigi relationship as their baby self. Princess Grapes Butterfly (I'll try to find this image.) Never mind someone found it should we upload it! GrapesGrapes Grapes

Yeah, the picture of the other statue was uploaded and added to the Daisy Circuit page. -Moonshine

Quotes

Alright, there is some edit war going on about the quotes on the page. We had a proposal about removing quotes that contain "just a bunch of giberious and also something like AHHH!!! thats just someone yelling". To me, the quotes in this article clearly qualify for gibberish, all of them. We need a consensus here. Time Questions 00:24, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

As I see it, I have removed the gibberish quotes from that section. I see just about every page has quotes just like the ones I still feel qualify. Just because certain quotes like the ones from the RPGs are longer, doesn't mean anything. Fixitup

Do you have some examples? Imho, the purpose of the quotes is, and that was also brought up in the proposal I mentioned above, to show something about the character's personality. Every character can say something like "No", "Go", or "Yippieh" (all of them are even repeated, with slight variations, in this article), so those quotes say nothing about his or her personality. Also, seeing other pages that have such quotes doesn't mean that Baby Daisy can have them too, but that we should do something against them in general. At least that's what the proposal says. Time Questions 15:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Examples of alike quotes? Is that a joke? You can go to other pages and look. You are human, right? A quote is a quote. Anyone can say anything, just because it gets repeated or is used in various forms doesn't change the fact it's a quote. The only thing that should qualify as gibberish is random noises like, "Augh!", or, "FGKshngvdjnjn". Saying yipee or yay or go, counts as saying something. Also, these count as defining personality. I don't see how anything can't define someones personality. Just because other pages have them too, and you disagree with it, doesn't make it wrong. Fixitup

Well, it was you who claimed that "just about every page has quotes like the ones" in question, so you could also provide me with examples to support your claim. I admit I'm too lazy to do it myself, but laziness is human too, isn't it? Anyway, it's not just me disagreeing with having such quotes, it's the majority of the people who voted on the proposal. The decision might be about half a year old, but it's still valid. That's a fact. The question only is whether the quotes in this article (and possibly "just about every page") qualify for the kind of "gibberish" the majority of the voters was against. Of course these are "Quotes", and thus consistent with the header, but that's not reason enough to let them stay. You can't put whatever trivial facts come to your mind under "Trivia" either; it needs to be regulated. Aren't you the one who sets great store by making this wiki look professional (which, of course, is highly appreciated)? How could you say that quotes like "Yipee. Yipee. Yi-hee-hee-hm-hm.." look professional? Time Questions 17:00, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Those two-letter quotes don't qualify either, I don't think. I mean, "No!" and "Go!" is just a waste of space. Almost all of those quotes make no sense; thus gibberish. Marcelagus (T • C • E) All we need now is... BABY WALUIGI! XP

I know for a fact not all of them are gibberish. This is ridiculous, the reason other pages have these quotes, is because nobody cared until they saw the Baby Daisy page having them. No, I'm not admitting to them being gibberish, I'm speaking of your opinions. So at the very least I'd be willing to remove more of them, but I nkwo some of them should stay.

Examples(according to you): Peach

Waluigi

Toad

Toadette

Mario

As far as I can tell from your comments here, you guys consider anything with short excitement, or short phrases, to be gibberish. Fixitup

No, that's not what we're saying. True, some of those quotes do need fixing, but most can stay. For example, "Fantastico!" is a totally valid one-word quote. Fixitup, if you're extremely concerned, you could even raise another proposal regarding the rules, but I don't suggest it. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
To be fair, most of these quotes don't provide any context whatsoever. For example, the "No" Mario says in Hotel Mario is hilarious considering the context and the ways Mario is saying it. Just writing that Mario said "No" in a game isn't really helpful. Maybe the quotes on this page would be more meaningful if a context was provided. --Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)
You probably haven't even heard her say any of these things, and regardless, that is an opinion. Weather you find a quote amusing or not means nothing. Fixitup
You're still rather alone with your opinion that the quotes should stay. Your only argument seems to be that the quotes in the article, well, are quotes indeed and thus just what the header says. But you didn't respond to my argument that there is perhaps an infinite number of trivial facts that could be put under the "Trivia" section, yet we don't mention them all, only those with a certain information content. So, why shouldn't we do the same with quotes? Considering that the majority is against having the quotes, I think we should finally remove them, unless you (or anyone else) has some very good argument for keeping them. Time Questions 17:04, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Trivia section? What are you talking about? Look, the point is not all of these quotes are gibberish, and not all of them need to be removed. I'd settle on removing more, but I know there are still some that should stay. Regardless of anyone's opinion. Do you realize the argument your upholding is based on nothing but your opinion? I've shown you that these quotes aren't gibberish, and that is what the proposal was settled on. I'm not going to start a proposal on the exact same thing. Why would Mario saying Here We Go, or No, be better than Baby Daisy saying Baby Daisy! or No ? It wouldn't that's why certain quotes should stay. Seriously, this is baffling how you think perfectly acceptable lines don't count just because they're repeated, and meaningful. That's totally based on opinion. When you base the facts on the proposal, that's not an opinion, is it? I've baked up my point, and if needed in order to keep certain quotes, I'll back it up more. Oh, and the fact I was the first one to say we need to wait til this is settled, shows that you were the one that shouldn't have started the edit war. I don't like how you tried to make it look like I'm the one that started it when all you did was repeat what I said in order to have your way. Fixitup
Well, the problem with the proposal is that it's not accurate. It forbids "gibberish", but what exactly is gibberish and what is not is always open to interpretation. You say some of the quotes aren't; I (and, let me repeat it, it's not only me!) say all of them are. I might start a new proposal, with a clearer definition of what would be allowed. Anyway, I admit it's hard to argue just with the help of the outcome of the proposal, but you still can't deny the fact that basically everyone except you who stated his or her opinion on the topic interprets the proposal in the way that Baby Daisy's quotes are gibberish. And that's the point. Also, you can't argue that other articles have such quotes, too - I never said they are okay in those articles. Indeed I think some (or many) of them should be removed too, like Mario saying "No" when it has no fundamental meaning in the game. I wonder which of Baby Daisy's quotes you'd like to keep, and which could be removed in your opinion. Oh, and what? I started the edit war? No, I removed the quotes once, because to me they looked like gibberish, and that's all. I never edited the article again after that, see edit history. And I also didn't try to make it look like you're the one who started it, an edit war always has at least two people involved. Also, I'm not sure what you mean with "all you did was repeat what I said in order to have your way", but that's how arguing works, listening to the opposition, perhaps quoting them and responding to their arguments. Time Questions 04:15, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, you already started a proposal. Didn't notice before I wrote that. Time Questions 04:17, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Not accurate? I think it's more that people are mis-understanding the ultimate outcome. Yeah, and before you whent and commented on the proposal, DP agreed with me that not all of the quotes were. Also, the people that were agreeing with you were saying that the quotes didn't qualify because they weren't "good" or "humorous". That doesn't mean anything, regardless of majority. Also, if we could unprotect the page, I could show you which I would remove, and I have a feeling you would be completely fine with them. Also, I don't even care who started the war, because we both know there's no point in agreeing on that anyway. No, I wasn't saying you were "properly" arguing, I was saying you simply repeated what I said to make it seem like you were making that point. However, like I said, that shouldn't be the issue, and I shouldn't have brought it up. Otherwise, I'd be glad to show you how simple it would be to keep a certain amout of these quotes. That simple. Fixitup
I have no idea what you mean by saying "misunderstanding the ultimate outcome." But oh well. Also, unprotecting the page is not necessary to show which quotes you would remove. You could just list them here. Not like I think any should stay, but. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
Yeah, you don't. I already explained it, so I don't see why people are still confused. I mean, from that I know you don't want any of them, but most opposer's reasoning is because of the short quotes, and the ones I would be removing, while I stated that those would be the ones being removed, while the ones that actually mean something stay. Since no one seems to be able to get it through their head that those aren't the quotes we would be keeping, there's not much I can do now, is there?

Quotes I Would Keep:

  • "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii

Fixitup

SMB Movie

Should that be mentioned as Baby Daisy's first appearance? CrossEyed7 23:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm...yes, I think so. Also adding information about her short appearance in the movie is fine. linkswordmi2.gifPaper Jorge ( Talk·Contributions)·linkswordmi2.gif I don't remember much about the movie but...

Baby Daisy made a short appearance at the beginning of the movie. IT NEEDS A MENTION!! My Bloody Valentine

*applauds* I can't believe it... that's just awesome that you would remember that. Stumpers! 02:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh dears; I've got an issue with that because I just changed it! But in my opinion, I think Baby Daisy herself needs to be kept game series related, honestly; I doubt the SMB movie really counts. The rest of the info about Baby Daisy is certainly true, so that wasn't changed. And besides, I think it's best to keep the Daisy/Baby Daisy "relation", anyway. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 15:14, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
We keep info from the SMB Movie, so it does count. OK? SJ derp :P
Ah, I see; I just saw evidence so I do apologize for that. But I still had to clarify some stuff to avoid confusion between movie and game appearances. Besides Baby Daisy for the Mario games is defintely better. Yeah, I'm for the baby gal counterparts including Baby Daisy. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 21:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
We don't just use game appearances. We use appearances from the movie as well. SJ derp :P
The basic idea is that we want to present all official information from the complete Mario series, not just information from the Super Mario video game series and its spin-offs. There are even some forms of media, such as the DiC TV shows, that have a specific place in the timeline, but a bunch of inconsistencies with later games in the series. We still include them in the articles, either in the biography sections or in a special section, but the point is that we want people to decide for themselves which parts of the series they believe fit together. However, I've yet to figure out a way that the movie fits in withe the games, so the only option here is the separate section, which we have done. Stumpers! 18:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

XionGaTaosenai: I believe my alteration to the sub-article will clear up any confusion/debate on the movie appearance, but I need someone who knows more about the movie to help me get the details right. Just don't make it too long, and don't add a picture. I think its safe to say that 9 times out of 10 when someone comes to this page, they want info on the games' Baby Daisy, so the movie section should be small and easy to bypass. Thank you, and please tell me if you disagree on my opinions. I'm itching for an intelligent discussion/debate.

XionGaTaosenai: ...@#$% me and my inexperience... uh, let's NOT start another edit war over my alterations. Let's settle what needs to be settled here, now, before it gets out of hand. Baby Daisy is such a delightful bundle of joy... and controversy...

XionGaTaosenai: Um, would whoever undid my alterations please show themselves so that we can discuss this and come to a common decision?

I'm not hiding. ' u ' Okay, so what's up? FD09

XionGaTaosenai: Here. I spent an hour typing up a full report of my argument on this matter.

First off, yes, an infant Daisy (if you can call the movie's Daisy "Daisy") DOES appear in the beginning of the Super Mario Bros. Movie, and this happening needs a mention. However, by no stretch of the imagination can this appearance be considered the debut of the Baby Daisy we know and love today.
The Movie's "Baby Daisy" is merely a generic infant dropped on someone's doorstep. You see exactly 2 seconds of footage of this "character", and in these two seconds, the "character" doesn't even do anything. At least, not anything that would denote some kind of personality, or establish any kind of distinct identity. This two-second appearance shows nothing to denote any kind of actual character, and thus should not be considered as one.
Compare this to toaday's Baby Daisy. Today's Baby Daisy was invented to be a fresh face into a new Nintendo game. The REAL Baby Daisy does a lot more than cry for 2 seconds then appear again all grown-up. She walks, she talks, she babbles, she plays baseball and drives a car for freaksake! And she'll probably do even more things as time progresses. She has a distinct personality, and distinct features that give her an identity of her own. In other words, today's Baby Daisy is an actual character. But you all know that already.
The only thing these two kids have in common is that they are the immature forms of a character named Daisy. They aren't related in any fashion, and by no stretch of the imagination can they be called one and the same. In fact, the infant at the beginning of the live-action movie doesn't even have a name in the 2 seconds she appears. We know the baby is later named "Daisy", but the infant is definitley not ever specifically referred to as "Baby Daisy". As my final argument, the two don't even exist for remotley similar purposes. The infant "Daisy" is merely part of a short scene to set a small amount of backdrop to the movie. The real Baby Daisy is meant to be a new and soon-to-be familiar face in Mario Spin-off titles (and maybe even some main-series games), another choice of playable character to add to the variety.
Yes, an infant form of a character named and related to Daisy appears in the live-action movie, it does need a mention. However, it should be established that the live-action movie is NOT the debut of the real Baby Daisy. Also, this mention, and the related footnote, should be small, short, and lacking a picture, so that it can be easily skipped/skimmed over by readers who 9 times out of 10 will want to know more about the real Baby Daisy, and not the movie appearance.

Thank you for reading, please tell me your own opinions so we can come to an agreement.

Everyone in the movie is different from how they are in the games, but that doesn't mean they're different people, just different incarnations of the same character. The young, clean-faced Luigi is still Luigi, the humanoid King Koopa is still Bowser, and the crying baby Daisy is still Baby Daisy. Ignoring the movie would be a huge oversight: we include all depictions of the characters in their articles. Just look at the mention of "Warios Weihnachtsmärchen" in the Baby Mario and Baby Wario articles, or the "Toddler Terrors of Time Travel" section in Baby Luigi and Baby Mario, or the "Two Plumbers and a Baby" depictions of Baby Bowser and Baby Peach. They look different, and they don't necessarily act the same, but they are legitimate "versions" of those characters as babies, and so they are mentioned in those characters' Baby articles. - Walkazo 19:33, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
Xion: This is correct, and that is why the movie appearance needs a (small) mention. But in all the other above examples you showed, the characters take some legitamate action that defines them as characters. Not so for the Infant Daisy in the live-action movie. Now, if a toddler Daisy showed up causing two-year old type havoc at Mother Teresa's in a scene lasting longer than say, five minutes, I would buy it. But the way it is, I don't think that the Live-Action movie counts as an official legitamate appearance of Baby Daisy.

Protecting

Erm, Time Q, it's against the rules to protect regular articles like this one. Sysops shouldn't be the only ones who can edit, ya know. If articles are protected, it's no longer a Wiki, just a regular website. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG

Well, in this case, it was to temporarily stop Fixit, who was insanely undoing edits, with no reason. The block will soon be lifted as the dispute is settled. Kind of like what happened with Toon Link. Marcelagus (T • C • E)
Oh, another editing-related flame war, eh?? Well OK, but if the page was protected to stop Fixitup from editing it, why wasn't he just blocked?? Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG
Because you can't get blocked for doing this. Fixitup tried to force his point, but Garlic Man (and me too in the beginning) just did the same, so there's no reason to block one of them. The only solution thus is to temporarily protect the article. Sorry for the inconvenience, I don't like that either, but there's simply no better solution afaik. Time Questions 18:16, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Recently another edit war has occurred over her relationship section between me and two others users. At this point, I don't care if it stays or not, but at this point I think it should be protected again to put an end to it. -Moonshine

Just thought I'd chime in with a few corrections.

  • Any article can and will be protected for any reason as the need calls.
  • You can be suspended for starting or participating in an edit war. To my knowledge, only one user has actually been suspended for that, however.


Thanks and have a great day. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 02:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Possible relationships

Recently, there was a section of Baby Daisy's relationship with two of the other Babies. There was one of Baby Luigi:

"Like her elder incarnation, Baby Daisy may have a crush on (Baby) Luigi. As mentioned above, this is supported by the fact a statue of the two infants interacting appears in the Daisy Circuit level; just as a statue of their alter egos does. Any other hint at a relationship between the two is yet confirmed."

It, along with her relationship with Baby Peach (which wasn't as supported, but still) was deleted because of lack of proof and the fact it only being a possibility. But I think that it should have stayed. Because if other pages can include "possibilities" (Like reg. Daisy and Luigi), then I don't see a problem with hers. Does anyone else think that this should stay?

Well, there's always a "possibilty" that Mario and Luigi have a romantic relationship (I know, bad example, sorry). And, while there is a statue of Luigi and Daisy on one of the courses, there are none with their infant versions. Possibilities originated from possibilities is just too non-official. Marcelagus (T • C • E) BTW, sign your comments with ~~~ or ~~~~

More bull, every page has relationship section(S) based on hints from the games, because unless stated in a biography, it isn't a complete fact, but an obvious outcome. They wouldn't have put Baby Daisy anywhere near Baby Peach, had they not been intended to have a good relationship. This is exactly how other pages support character relationships, so I don't see why this one is getting harassed out of nowhere. Fixitup

The MarioWiki is fact, not fiction. They might have thought that. Or not. Other relationship sections have something to base themselves upon, and be it a Mario Party team name. This one has...particularly nothing. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
So I guess the giant statue of the two Babies dancing means nothing. Same with Baby Peach, while yes, alone the two just standing next to each other might not be enough to confirm a relationship, you also have to factor in the fact that the two full grown princesses have a good relationship. So I think theres more than enough proof to at least say they might have relationships. -Moonshine
You could put in the information less formally, e.g. as a Trivia item, mentioning the statue which implies that they have a good relationship. But an entire section of speculation just doesn't fit in my opinion. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:04, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, I'd be fine with that. Again, sorry for getting mad at you about this. =) -Moonshine

Relationships section

No, there is a statue of the two babies, its right behind the one of the adults: 942008_20080414_screen057.jpg (sorry it's so big)

But I guess I'm fine with the baby peach one being gone.

(Crap, I screwed up. REALLY sorry, I'm not an HTML person.) =/

Oh... Well, that changes things. Oh well, the page is protected right now, so there's no way to fix it, anyways. :P Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Indeed, bad timing I suppose. xD

can someone put that pic. on the page, 'cause it's blocked! Blue KoopC


Ha, an image being big doesn't matter, as long as it isn't small, we can fix it. I suppose having a picture of the final ending screen would prove the baby peach relation according to the automatic acceptance of this? If not, then I smell something fowl; aside from that commentary I don't think any relationship section needs imagery to prove a point. . Fixitup


Heres the pic of the two standing next to each other. They're both in the center: http://lh4.ggpht.com/gohanrice/R_xJazEo-eI/AAAAAAAAANk/McpakxjovN4/DSC08998.JPG?imgmax=512 -moonshine

UGH! I wish it was in a higher quality! Fixitup

Looks like we ALL have to decide whether or not this will belong in the trivia section, or a relationship section....again. At this point I don't care where it goes, but it is worth mentioning. I do however still think that a relationship section will be good, as I feel no reason not to treat this the same as any other relationship. But again, either will suffice as long as it gets mentioned. -Moonshine

Yeah, I thought this was settled too. Anyway, like I said to the Sysops, all character relationships have information worth adding, and information based on hints from Nintendo/the specified games. That's what relationship sections are. I don't see why this page, out of any other, is getting such a bag. Fixitup

Protection

I say that this article should stop being protected. I mean, what if other users have to add information that they know? They don't want to go tell other sysops or 'crats to do it for them -.-' King Mario f_KMThumbm_38614a2.png So unprotect this page!

Who protected this page in the first place and where was it decided that it was a good idea? (p.s. I believe I can unprotect this, but I'd like to contact the sysop in question first.) Stumpers! 23:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
The page is now unprotected

¢oincoll€ctor rsitem209.png 23:48, 24 April 2008 (EDT) now users can still editing the page...

Stumpers, it was me, because of the edit war that was going on there. Time Questions 05:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Edit War

Alright, enough. State your issues and let's come to a conclusion. Let be the last time this article need be protected.
If something is agreed upon and I'm not here to mediate or do Sysops things, I will ask my fellow Sysops to please take over. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 02:54, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

OK, I made a Proposal on this subject. Please take it there before you guys decide to get this page protected again. My Bloody Valentine

Good deal. However, let's keep the page protected until we have an definitive agreement. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 08:21, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, yes, of course. The kiddies won't stop fighting until the final order is made, so the article should remain protected. But... I honestly think that it's just gonna get protected again a week later. XD My Bloody Valentine

You're probably right. Some articles are more trouble than they're worth. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 08:34, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Heh, this article has been protected three times in one week. XD My Bloody Valentine

--Mauj.gif 00:57, 1 May 2008 (EDT)Owwwwww, she is cute!

Not the place, Birdoshi. *points at the Forums* My Bloody Valentine


someone needs to put this on here page:{{Mario Kart Wii Playable Characters}}--Blue Koop 19:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Now that the proposal has passed and we have a solution, should the article now be unprotected? -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 17:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I feel like as soon as we do it's gonna come back... but I suppose we have to unprotect it again sometime, huh? Stumpers! 21:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The page is just gonna get protected again, you do know that, right? :| My Bloody Valentine

Don't jinx it. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 23:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Why not? D: My Bloody Valentine

Baby Daisy's Voice Actress

Okay, this may sound crazy, but still needs to be asked -- does anyone have any proof in terms of Deanna Mustard being the voice actress for Baby Daisy? I know for sure that Deanna does the "main" Princess Daisy, but just want clarification she also does Baby Daisy (even though it seems all roads point to her in that case). Thanks. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Enthusiast! 21:38, 25 June 2008 (EDT) Babies are voiced by the same people.Nintendofan146 09:12, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

WTF?

Baby DK has been around longer than Baby Daisy and her article is uber longer than his?! Just because people like Baby Daisy better doesn't meen her article has to be longer than a less liked character!!ani_smwyoshimario.gifPhailure (Yapbox) (Contributions)616461558465c6ea5a3a8cym0.gif

What do you want to do about this? Shorten Baby Daisy's article? No. If you think Baby DK's article should be longer, go ahead and expand it. Time Questions 12:58, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
This is a Wiki. Length of articles does not always mean notability. In Baby DK's case for example, it means the amount of effort people have put into the article. We have a group of users on this Wiki who are fans of the "damsels" and thus the articles on Peach, Daisy, Baby Peach, Baby Daisy, and Rosalina are complete while articles about the DK series are not. Stumpers! 17:11, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow I really hate the fact I have to harshly watch what I say nowadays. Ok, to the person who started this: UHHH?? Then if you care so much improve on his article yourself. FD09

Expansion of Introductory Part

The introductory part of this article should be expanded. It's just two short sentences, and looks bad on the main page. I don't know much about this character, so it would be great if someone else could expand it. I didn't want to nominate this article to be unfeatured just for this, but if it isn't done, I will nominate it :P Time Questions 13:00, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Baby_Daisy&oldid=610163"