Talk:King Kaliente

(First topic)

What the...? King Magma Blooper--Caith Sith 15:25, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

His name was gotton from the official Prima strategy guide.

Since when is Prima official? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:27, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Sory, but Prima usually makes up their own names. This is not official. 3D, do you have the guide?

But this article is a copy&paste of King Magma Blooper... "King Kaliente" can be a redirect, no the same article with another name...--Caith Sith 17:41, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

The Mission Name Was King Kaliente's Battle Fleet So His Name Is King Kaliente. Case Closed. P.S. You Also won the award for "Most Blind To The Obvious." - User: Thirsty for Power

Please be polite. This conversation happened before the game was released. - 2257^(Talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Black King Kaliente

In Bowser Jr.'s Lava Reactor King Kaliente is black instead of orange: [1] Freekhenstra

Your point...? GreenBoo 02:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Why?

Why isn't King Kaliente considered a Goomba if he's an Octogoomba? - Bill-tendo 23:48, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

Where are they called Octogoomba's Raven Effect (talk)

Octo-goomba, I guess? Or was it Octoombas? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:53, 13 March 2012 (EDT)

I think it's Octoombas but I was asking whats the source that calls them Octoombas cause if they are octoombas than yes they should be put in the Goomba category as well Raven Effect (talk)

Kaliente's head resembles an Octoomba, but I don't know if that's enough to merit him as an Octoomba. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

If it than he's one weird space Goomba...perhaps we should ask someone with the Prima guide Raven Effect (talk)

The Prima guide isn't exactly a reliable source. :P It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

I understand that but it's kind of the only official source unless there's a trading card for this guy...also you can't get it wrong when all the info is new Raven Effect (talk)

It's likely that he has a trading card, since he's one of the important bosses. Also, the category of Super Mario Galaxy trading cards includes him for some reason. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Well than we should ask someone with the trading cards if he's an octoomba (also fun fact the trading cards are what confirmed octoombas as goombas) Raven Effect (talk)

Just to confirm he has a trading card, here's the link to the picture. It's just a picture, though. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:28, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

So we need to either get his trading card or the Prima guide Raven Effect (talk)

Okay, then. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:30, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

prima calls it an octopus --ptr

Technically, Octoomba and Octogoomba are the same thing, and mostly, I call them Octogoombas. - Bill-tendo 20:37, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Splitting the Kalientes?

I'm not quite sure what the point is. They're both named the same character, and it's heavily suggested that they are the same character just making a return. The black version doesn't exhibit any particularly new strategies or abilities in the boss fight. And, if this were to pass, what of other recurring boss characters, like Knot-Wing the Koopa and the other Woolly World bosses, or even mid-bosses like Jr. Troopa and all? MarioComix (talk) 22:24, March 21, 2019 (EDT)

Look here for the arguments regarding it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:29, March 21, 2019 (EDT)

I think another proposal should be made. -- FanOfYoshi at 10:36, April 7, 2019 (EDT)

And i supported the split. (And i agree that it made an inconsistency, now that it failed to get split). -- FanOfYoshi at 11:35, May 10, 2019 (EDT)

I asked to Toadette the Achiever what to do with it now that the inconsistency has been caused, but did not get a response yet. I'm patient though. -- FanOfYoshi at 11:31, June 12, 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I do not support the split. Obsessive Mario Fan (talk) 11:45, June 12, 2019 (EDT)

They're the exact same character, so no. Just because they appear again with a different tactic doesn't mean they get split. Otherwise, we'd have two Petey Piranha articles. 11:49, June 12, 2019 (EDT)

Also, out of curiosity, do they, and Gobblegut have separate models? -- FanOfYoshi at 13:31, June 13, 2019 (EDT)

Almost positive it's the same model with different textures. Granted, the Piranhas might do the same thing, as the petals are potentially just a texture themselves. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:39, June 13, 2019 (EDT)

I don't know about the game, but I looked on the noclip website and the King Kalientes are the same model (with same color) and the Dino Piranhas are the same thing in both games. However, this is not true for the two Gobbleguts. I use noclip since I am not the actual games since, even though I have them, I know nothing about looking into them. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 21:00, June 13, 2019 (EDT)

Well since the second time is titled "King Kaliente's Spicy RETURN", it seems very likely that it is the same character Mario Sakuraba (talk) 20:08, June 13, 2019 (EDT)

Exactly. --DeepFriedCabbage 20:36, June 13, 2019 (EDT)

What are the name of the models? Also, the scorched one has a separate entry in the encyclopedia. -- FanOfYoshi at 07:33, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

In Hisstocrat Returns, there is a different Hisstocrat. Despite the name, it is a separate entity, and it is confirmed on Boss Blitz that Hisstocrat and the queen Hisstocrat are different. What about Shadow Mario being split from Bowser Jr.? Same scenario, no? -- FanOfYoshi at 06:42, June 15, 2019 (EDT)

I'd ask to LinkTheLefty later about the internal filename. -- FanOfYoshi at 14:51, June 15, 2019 (EDT)

All right, I think I finally know enough to weigh in on this discussion: I'd say both Kalientes are one and the same. The color differences appear to be aesthetic, and it's really the battlefield that changes. On the other hand, since the Gobbleguts have slightly differing attack patterns and have a nearly identical battlefield, it's hard to say whether they should be separate or not. ^(T|C) 15:21, June 15, 2019 (EDT)

There's also the matter of the mission name referring to King Kaliente making a 2nd appearance. In response to the "Hisstocrat Returns" situation, well, the Japanese naming makes a distinction (Hisstocrat vs. Hisstocrat (pink)) whereas the Japanese mission names use "Otaking" regardless. MarioComix (talk) 16:04, June 15, 2019 (EDT)

Both forms of King Kaliente are the same being.

Title is mostly self explanatory, but to be specific, I'm referring to his orange form (first fight) and black form (second fight) in Super Mario Galaxy 1. Here's my reasoning:

- His second mission is titled "King Kaliente's Return". The Return, of course, implies Kaliente is returning.

- Bowser Jr refers to the black variation as "King Kaliente" in the dialogue directly before the fight.

Reasons I have received to why he is separate:

- "Hisstocrat has a similar 'Returns' level name despite being distinct entities." I would like to state that this is a completely different game, so that should be taken into account. With that in mind- While the above is true, despite the name 'Hisstocrat', there is ESPECIALLY typically only one 'King' of something in regards to titles (eg, the likelyhood of there being only one 'King Kaliente'). This actually makes the name 'Hisstocrat' make sense! Both 'Queen Hisstocrat' and 'King Hisstocrat' could be shortened to just 'Hisstocrat', which is likely what the devs of Super Mario 3D World were intending (as in the Hisstocrat family is returning). Even that said, this is a case where the two hisstocrats are most clearly different characters in their visual design in comparison to King Kaliente only getting a palette swap and a slightly varying fight. Even without that being taken into account, I feel the name being shared is a rather abstract case regardless and is something that typically doesn't happen in Mario games, and should be considered a rare example as such.

- "Dino Piranha and Gobblegut exist with the same name as their variants." Firey Dino Piranha we see hatch from a separate egg from Dino Piranha, which confirms the separation (plus the 'second' Dino Piranha is given a separate name through the level name, "Fiery Dino Piranha"). As for Gobblegut and their fiery variant, it is hard to say whether it is the same entity or not (it is listed as the same entity in the level select it should be noted). Regardless, neither of these two are explicitly shown to have the same name with different forms in the same way it is being argued King Kaliente's two forms are separate, so I struggle to see the relation.

- "King Kaliente and his second form have been listed on Japanese Nintendo webpages as separate." Even official game guides and resources have proven inaccurate multiple times, so I would exercise caution in prioritising material from websites (even if official) over in-game material.

I could understand the confusion, absolutely! Though I feel there is far more evidence and dialogue suggesting that the orange and black forms of King Kaliente are the same entity rather than separate. While it is technically a possibility King Kaliente COULD be two different entities, it feels rather improbable and I believe it would be far more sensible to list him as the same entity.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by HatInLime (talk).

Remember to sign your username with ~~~~ at the end of your comment on talk pages. Regarding the situation on treating the characters as distinct entities or not, it is because the distinction is made the same way for Dino Piranha, Hisstocrat, Gobblegut, etc. They are named as "Dino Piranha (black)", for example, and as decided by a proposal on I believe Dino Piranha's talk page. But I believe digging into this issue belies a deeper topic, such as the variants of Birdo in Mario Kart Tour who are named in a way that implies one entity of different colours, which may or may not be applicable here. But I believe that warrants further information and/or analysis before any substantial changes can be made on the Wiki as a whole. MarioComix (talk) 07:05, January 22, 2025 (EST)

Also, all of the sources that so much as imply they are the same have been localization-specific. In the original Japanese, no such implication is made; it's just another King Kaliente in the same vein as another Dino Piranha, another Gobblegut, or another Hisstocrat. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:11, January 22, 2025 (EST)

Actually, in the original Japanese text, Bowser Jr also refers to the second King Kaliente as the same character, and additionally in Japanese the level also uses the term 'Returns'. So both implications are absolutely made in the original text. I do not have the energy to discuss any more so I won't be doing so after this statement, I'm just going to voice my disagreement to separate the character and leave it at that. I apologise if my formatting is incorrect, I'm not used to responding on this Wiki Page. HatInLime (talk) 17:20, January 23, 2025 (EST)

Bowser Jr. did not say "this is the boss you fought in the Good Egg Galaxy" or any such thing in any language. Just because it is a King Kaliente does not make it the same King Kaliente. Especially since "Ota King" is just "a king version of Ota Rock." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:13, January 23, 2025 (EST)

Treat King Kaliente as one person

Rendumguy (talk) 19:37, September 11, 2025 (EDT)

I can't speak Japanese, but if the original game refers to King Kaliente as "returning", then there is absolutely no reason to treat him as two separate bosses. He's a "King", there's no other King boss treated like this.

There is another royal-themed boss that is treated that way. Hisstocrat in Super Mario 3D World. So unless you're saying thisMedia:MagentaHisstocrat SM3DWart.png boss from "Hisstocrat Returns" is the same boss as thisMedia:Hisstocrat.png boss from "A Banquet with Hisstocrat," then I don't think that logic holds. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:23, September 11, 2025 (EDT)

That boss is designed to look like a female, and has different visual facial features. (It's also a queen, not a King) There is very little distinguishing Kaliente aside from its darker color, which is explainable as lighting.

Rendumguy (talk) 07:30, September 15, 2025 (EDT)

That is certainly NOT explainable as "lighting". This is me, D-B-B! 07:39, September 15, 2025 (EDT)

Treat "both" King Kalientes as the same 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: Thursday, October 23, 2025, 23:23 GMT

The main objective of this proposal is to prioritize consistent, abundant, and clear official material over unsourced comparisons and theories. The goal is not to treat King Kaliente and Black King Kaliente as the same being under arguments. The aim is to use the official information on the page, truthful and reliable information .

While it's true that the line between what can be considered a character or a species is uncertain and confusing, this generally occurs when there isn't enough information about the subject, which leads us to deduce that there may be more than one subject at a time. However, this isn't the case, and I'll prove it to you.

1. First and foremost, we need to provide some information regarding "both" King Kalientes. The first King Kaliente (the original) is fought in Good Egg Galaxy, while the second is fought near the end of the game as one of the major bosses. Both are physically identical, except for their color, of course. Both perform the same attacks, with the only difference being that meteorites will fall in the third phase of the battle against the second King Kaliente. With that established, let's look at the following points.

2. What is King Kaliente? Well, as his crown and name indicate, he is a king and the main leader of the Octo Army. We know beforehand that currently we have problems with characters and species, but those problems always come with characters whose naming, or role are not clear or specified. King Kaliente is a king and leader of an enemy faction; under that context, the belief that there really are two King Kaliente instead of one becomes questionable. Unlike characters like Burt the Bashful or Lava Piranha, we have a unique status and characteristics that are really difficult to attribute to more than one individual. And while we have enemies like Lakitu King as a species, despite being kings, we have no context about a unique role, and several can appear throughout the game and even have their own variant. Also, let's not forget Prince Pikante, in whose very possible case of being the son of King Kaliente due to the close relationship between a King and a Prince, and the fact that both are members of the same enemy faction. That possibility would male things even more strange, a lot strange.

3. Another important point that is the context regarding Black King Kaliente. In both the Japanese and English versions of the game, Black King Kaliente is treated as the same being as the normal King Kaliente. This can be determined by both the mission name and Bowser Jr. dialogue. This same information is supported by guides, such as Prima, and also by the Japanese and English versions of the Mario Encyclopedia, where it is mentioned that Black King Kaliente is King Kaliente but powered-up. It is also important to emphasize that the encyclopedia was the first official guidebook to give Black King Kaliente a separate entry and a name, the same entry that describes him as King Kaliente but powered up....

4. Yes, but what about Black Dino Piranha and Black Gobblegut? Are both the same as their counterparts too? Well, no. As I explained above, we have official context, both in-game and in guides, that directly links "both" King Kalientes. In addition, we have a unique role (king), which supports all the information given above. While with Black Dino Piranha, we already know that Dino Piranha is a species; this is due to its direct derivative in SMG2, information from the guides and books, and the context of the game itself. Furthermore , in SMG2, both Dino Piranhas appear in the same galaxy at the same time. On the other hand, with Gobblegut, both the information in the guides and books treat Fiery Gobblegut as a different enemy that is a fire version of Gobblegut most of the time. As you can see, context and information matter, and a lot. Also, as mentioned above, the encyclopedia was the first official material to give Black King Kaliente a separate entry, unlike Black Dino Piranha and Black Gobblegut, which had separate descriptions, entries, and separations long before the encyclopedia. So there really isn't much parity here. It's likely that the developers looked at Black Dino Piranha and Black Gobblegut, then saw King Kaliente with a black coloration and came up with the idea of giving him a separate entry. And yet, they were willing to clarify that Black King Kaliente is the same as King Kaliente, which isn't the case with Black Dino Piranha and Black Gobblegut.

5. Are you really going to compare the Hisstocrats to King Kaliente? In that case, I should inform you that almost every source outside the game treats both Histocrats as separate beings, and in the boss blitz, you literally have to fight both Histocrats at the same time. The only reason those two are merged is because they don't behave very differently and nothing else. This comparison to King Kaliente is bad and just demonstrates another example of inefficient and unofficial organization.

6. So why both King Kalientes are separate? Well, I don't know if you knew, but as the I mentioned above, at the end of the day, this is a transformation of King Kaliente. Not very different from Blizzard Midbus and Midbus, or Bowser and Meowser, which, despite being the same subjects, are divided in the Mario encyclopedia and Mario Portal. That is because, despite being the same subject, the transformation brings something new: more difficulty, more movements, and a different appearance, which means that keeping it on its own space is better. That way, the information is distributed in a more organized way.

7. Why did I make this proposal? Well, to wrap things up, I wanted to explain why I find this change necessary and beneficial. First, it's important to know that outside of the wiki, everyone I've met in both videos and other pages treats both King Kalientes as the same being. Because the game says so verbatim, the guides say so verbatim, and the game context indicates it that way. This is the only place that claims both are different beings, and the only source for this claim is that it is compared to Black Gobblegut and Black Dino Piranha. But as I already explained, King Kaliente is far from the other two. Also, this page literally makes up information. Read this: "King Kalientes are bosses in Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2. They are two similar-looking Roctos who seem to be in league with Bowser, as one leads a portion of his fleet and the other is called upon by Bowser Jr. to fight Mario and guards a Grand Star" Half of this information is made up just because both subjects are considered to be different when literally every existing source tells otherwise.

Before finishing, I must clarify that this proposal does not prevent Black King Kaliente from being split in the future, since it is a transformation and transformations have their own pages. With that clarified, for better organization, truthful information, and clarification of the problem once and for all, let's treat both King Kalientes as the same being.

Proposer: Sorbetti (talk)
Deadline: October 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. Martendo (talk) Seems right to me. The mission where you fight Black King Kaliente is titled "King Kaliente's Spicy Return!" and Bowser Jr. refers to him as "King Kaliente".
3. Arend (talk) The fact that both Black Dino Piranha and Black Gobblegut are merged to their respective counterparts, whereas Black King Kaliente isn't, is a bit strange to me. Either split them all, or merge them all, but don't pick and choose which gets their own article and which don't. It is a bit odd that the page (rather inconsistently) treats King Kaliente as a species, when we don't really have proof that the black King Kaliente is a completely different character beyond its coloration and adjective-ified name. At least the pink Hisstocrat from 3D Worldhas visible eyelashes and different attire, and even appears alongside the first Hisstocrat.
4. MarioComix (talk) Per Nintendo101, I'm also feeling persuaded. It's simpler to treat King Kaliente as an individual with a black form, and there's evidence to back it up after all. Regarding the Naming section, I don't really see where the issue lies. The name seems to be no different from how we would treat names like the variants from Mario Kart Tour (ex. Black Yoshi or Birdo (Black)). You could just say his black form/variant has a name on the Mario Portal, or call it the name he uses in his second encounter (although I don't think even the Japanese mission name calls him that, it's just a Mario Portal thing).
5. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Never saw the rematch variant as a separate entity just because of his mission title and Bowser Jr.'s dialogue.

#PrincessPeachFan (talk): Because I hate Mario Portal, that's why.
#Nintendo101 (talk) I felt meaningfully persuaded by Sorbetti and Hewer below. To my understanding, this proposal is more about pros, pronouns, and singularity vs. plurality in the body text.
#Hewer (talk) Per Nintendo101, I suppose. I do think some of this proposal's arguments are flawed, but I also think the current state of the page is flawed.

Treat the page as a boss, not a character, not a species. Just a boss. (intermediate option)

1. Hewer (talk) Per the oppose votes, I think situations like this are allowed to be ambiguous. The main change I want is just for the article to not be written as though "the King Kalientes" are a defined pair of characters.
2. MarioComix (talk) This still fits with the overall proposal treating the article as "one King Kaliente at a time", so I can agree with this too. The point is I think it's over-complicating for the article to act like there are "two" King Kalientes in existence.
3. PopitTart (talk) It's what i argued for in my oppose vote, so.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
5. Blinker (talk) Per PopitTart.
6. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
7. Sorbetti (talk) Per MarioComix.
8. Arend (talk) Second choice; basically the same reasoning as with the first support option
9. Nintendo101 (talk) Per prior comments.

Oppose

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Disregarding the fact that, in our opinion, we ought to be splitting color enemy variants in the first place... How, exactly, would we handle the fact that Black King Kaliente has a name? What happens to the naming section? The proposal itself just kind of glosses past this point, just saying "oh, refer to the mission name and dialogue, and you'll see Black King Kaliente is just King Kaliente powered up", but basically every way we could handle the naming section in this change doesn't sound appealing to us, and without any real protocol for what would happen... It could be as jarring as "leaving the naming section untouched, and locking all mention of the Black King Kaliente/King Kaliente (black) names to one section", or be as extreme as "removing the mention of the names altogether, asserting that it's just a form." No real explanation is given, and to be honest, the sectioning, and the formatting of the page overall, is fine enough as it is right now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. PopitTart (talk) I am unconvinced by the arguments that King Kaliente should be treated hardline as an individual. I would much rather the article be reworded to be less declarative one way or the other.

Nintendo101 (talk) I personally was not compelled by the points raised in this proposal. I think it would be healthier and more accurate to acknowledge the fluidity between "individual" and "species" (for lack of a better word) across many Super Mario games, and not write in a way that is so declarative about one interpretation over the other. We already write about King Kaliente and other similar bosses across the site this way, and I do not see why this needs to change.
#Hewer (talk) I kind of agree with the goal of this proposal (to not have the article describe "King Kalientes" as two individuals) but I think its reasoning is fundamentally flawed, mainly because it uses the idea of "characters vs species" where those are two completely different and mutually exclusive things, which is an idea I want the wiki to move away from. So I don't think we'd really benefit from an enforced proposal that requires us to take a side here. Per PopitTart, I think we'd be better off writing the article ambiguously without strongly favouring either stance. #Blinker (talk) Per PopitTart and my comments below.

Comments, questions or opinions before voting

What specific changes would be inacted on the wiki if this proposal were to pass? - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:26, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Well, as the proposal indicates, both King Kalientes will be treated the same, which will change the way this page is written and, consequently, the other pages where they both appear as well. Also, if they split in the future, Black King Kaliente will be treated as a transformation of King Kaliente. Sorbetti (talk) 09:24, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock: As mentioned, the Japanese version of the original game calls him Ota King. The Mario Portal saying he's King Kaliente (Black) is a years-later thing. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 08:53, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

The second boss has been known as「オタキング黒くろ」(Ota Kingu Kuro, "King Kaliente - Black") as early as 2007, the year Super Mario Galaxy was released, so the assertion that the name for the second boss is anachronistic is incorrect. - Nintendo101 (talk) 10:47, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock Well, this actually does appear in the proposal, but in a very subtle way, so I understand why it was not understood. The fact that Black King Kaliente has his own name is explained in point 6, where I clarify how, despite being separated from King Kaliente in the encyclopedia and Mario Portal, he is treated as the same being, but powered up. Just like what happens with Bowser and Meowser. On the other hand, this is my fault since I thought that most people are familiar with the proposal that Nintendo101 is making to divide the colored enemies, where the two King Kalientes are going to be split too, which is fine, since, despite Black King Kaliente being King Kaliente, he is treated as a transformation, and we divide transformations on their own pages. So, the reason for my proposal was to stop the page from treating both King Kalientes as separate beings, and with that in the future, if Nintendo101's proposal is enabled, Black King Kaliente will be split as a transformation, not as a separate being. The names will remain here for a while, but not forever. Also, as I explained, the page is not working in its current state; we are not providing true information. Literally, every person I've known outside of the wiki treats both as the same being, and that's because literally every existing source tells you so. The only thing we're achieving by keeping the page as it is, is not having a reliable King Kaliente page. Sorbetti (talk) 09:44, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

...This doesn't clarify anything for us. Meowser is a poor example because he already has his own page separate from Bowser, thanks to Maker 2 giving a compelling enough reason to split the two even when we usually merge variants like this. Is the idea that, in the interrim between the colored enemy split, provided this proposal does past, the information on Black King Kaliente would just... Be basically a form page, slapdash merged into the page for a character, and then when the enemy color split is proposed, provided it passes, then we just split Black King Kaliente off anyways but still assert him as just a form? That doesn't sound appealing in the least; it's a far more clunky form factor and would lead to even more confusing prose, when the present format is already fine enough as it is, and while we're already unsure if Black King Kaliente should be treated as a "form" once that split happens, the idea that, during the middle period, the two pages would be slapdash merged together is frankly even less appealing. If you really, and we mean really, wanted to argue we should treat Black King Kaliente as a form, it should probably wait until after that is proposed, and Black King Kaliente is actually split. We don't need to take perfectly fine formatting and try to split it up into two articles... In one article's trenchcoat. And, again, what exactly happens to the naming section? What, do we get two distinct naming sections, for the two portions of the article--one for King Kaliente, and one for Black King Kaliente as a "form?" ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 14:30, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Certainly, personally , I don't see the problem with what the proposal is looking for at this precise moment . Sure , you can say that having two naming sections is weird, but now you have Car Pom Pom and Cat Bum Bum, which also have their own sections. The page will be left in an orderly and concise manner, clarifying that Black King Kaliente is a transformation of King Kaliente, similar to how it was before . The fact that King Kaliente and Black King Kaliente are treated as different beings is something relatively recent, since the page from 2020 onward already treated both as a single being. In any case, I don't know if we should divide Black King Kaliente ; regardless of whether it is a transformation, the differences are mainly in the difficulty and are minimal. Although , there you also have the x-versions of the bosses in the Mario & Luigi games, which have their own pages. In any case, what happens to the page afterward is beyond the scope of this proposal. I only seek to treat both as the same being and for Black King Kaliente to be considered a transformation. This would restore the page to its former self, which presented no problems. If Black King Kaliente is later split into its own page as a transformation, that's beyond my control. I only seek a consistent, viable, truthful page that's a reliable source for people both inside and outside the wiki. Sorbetti (talk) 15:12, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock: I'm not really understanding why you keep bringing up the naming section. What does that section have to do with what is being proposed? Did the proposal say anything about changing that section? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:46, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 While yes, we use these things in other bosses or enemies on the wiki, it's because their official descriptions aren't consistently defined, something that lead us to decide. There's no source that treats the two King Kalientes as distinct entities, so treating the page as the same being isn't declarative; it's just following the official word. If we had any source, even the slightest bit, that treated Black King Kaliente as a distinct being, I'd be more open to keeping the page as is. But there aren't any, they don't exist. The page's statements weren't a result of confusion or a lack of information about both King Kalientes, but rather a consequence of maintaining a comparison with Gobblegut and Dino Piranha, which also have Black versions. As I explained above, you can't compare a king to a dragon and a dinosaur; there's clearly a difference of ideas. A king of a faction of enemies is a character by itself; a dinosaur and dragon need unique traits that show they are characters. Furthermore, the name Black seems to be a way of clarifying that the boss you're fighting is a more difficult version of a boss you've faced before. Deciding whether a Black boss is a separate character or the same being should be based on the official information we have, not just to maintain similarities. This will be my last argument in the comments. I feel like I've already said what I needed to say. If this doesn't convince you, there's nothing I can do. Regards ✌️. Sorbetti (talk) 11:30, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@Arend You seem mistaken - Black King Kaliente is merged with the King Kaliente article, just like Dino Piranha and Gobblegut. - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:35, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

...then what the heck is the point of this proposal? The current article doesn't at all make it clear that Black King Kaliente is a different character from the regular one, so doesn't that mean what is proposed here is already in effect? rend (talk) (edits) 11:48, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Yes it do, here are all the times the page does it:

"King Kalientes are bosses in"

"They are two similar-looking Roctos who seem to be in league with Bowser, as one leads a portion of his fleet and the other is called upon by Bowser Jr. to fight Mario and guard a Grand Star."

"The first is fought in the Good Egg Galaxy, and the second..."

"Their name comes..."

"The two King Kalientes are differentiated from each other in the same manner as the counterparts for..."

"English trading cards treat the two as the same individual."

"The second King Kaliente's..."

"The standard King Kaliente..."

"The second, dark-colored King Kaliente..."

"Only the first King Kaliente makes..."

All this without counting what appears on other pages. This page suddenly treats King Kaliente as one character and then as two, and does so without any real basis other than a comparison, which I already denied above. Sorbetti (talk) 12:00, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Oh, so basically, the page is inconsistent about whether to treat King Kaliente as one individual or as a species of two. I see. rend (talk) (edits) 12:21, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@PrincessPeachFan What does Mario Portal have to do with this at all? I mean yeah, I know that's where the English name for the black King Kaliente comes from, but not only did other Japanese sources already give the black King Kaliente a different title already, but the Mario Portal itself seems to treat different bosses as separate entities regardless if they're an alternate form or not. If a separate entry with another name was a hard confirmation that it's a separate character, then Meowser would be treated as a completely separate individual from Bowser, which is asinine. rend (talk) (edits) 12:36, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

@Nintendo101: I agree with all of your vote except for the last sentence. The article opens by describing "King Kalientes" as "two similar-looking Roctos", which I would say is very much declarative about one interpretation over the other. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:49, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

I agree with you. The article as written is too declarative to the impression that King Kaliente is a multi-species group, which I would also oppose as a proposal. I would support changing that phrasing, as well as a number of the other framings in this article, but I'm not sure it should be done via a proposal that ingrains the assertion that "King Kaliente is always a single individual." I think it's more accurate to write the article from the framework that King Kaliente may be an individual, but also may not be. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:26, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

And that's the problem. With other bosses, we have a minimal acknowledgment or source that recognize them as distinct beings, which is not the case with King Kaliente. Saying there is only one King Kaliente is not affirmative; it's using the official information we have. As I've repeated, if we had a source that even treat Black King Kaliente as a different being, I would agree with how the page is, but that is not the case. So the mere idea of thinking there are two King Kalientes doesn't even have any basis or foundation. The page should be guided by the information we have and not by assumptions that don't have any source. At the very least, we could mention that perhaps, perhaps both King Kalientes are different; that should be all. We can't compare the wealth of official information with the lack of official information based on assumptions and comparisons, especially when most people understand King Kaliente and Black King Kaliente as the same being, while we are the only ones who don't. Sorbetti (talk) 16:12, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

I don't agree that official information points to much of anything here. You bring up the title of King Kaliente's Spicy Return, but note that not only does the mission's Japanese name ("King Kaliente on the Lava Planet") follow the same format as the equivalent Dino Piranha mission ("Dino Piranha on the Magma Planet"), but the English title isn't too different from that of Hisstocrat Returns, and you've already given your thoughts on the Hisstocrats. This means the mission title isn't a very good argument. Then you argue the fact he's called a king, but again, that doesn't mean there can't be more than one. Look here, for example. You also bring up Prince Pikante's existance as an argument for considering Kaliente an individual, which is strange because just two points later you bring up Peewee Piranha as an argument for Dino Piranha not being an individual. So which is it? How does having a child serve as an argument for two opposite things? And with the Bowser Jr. dialogue, I'm not even sure what your argument is. Would you expect him to say "Give 'em some heat, King Kaliente (black)!" or something? I joke, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with that one. Blinker (talk) 18:21, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Okay, let's start.

1. Yes, the point of the mission names is important, the Japanese names of the missions of Black Gobblegut, Black Dino Piranha, and Black King Kaliente imply that they are the same. However, when determining if they are different, it is because of the treatments that are given consistently. Note how Black Dino Piranha appears simultaneously with Dino Piranha in SMG2. The reason I brought up the name of the mission is because in that name Black King Kaliente is implied to be the same as King Kaliente, and that, unlike Hisstocrat, Black Dino Piranha, and Black Gobblegut, it is the only one that has been consistently maintained throughout all the guides, books, and other sources. Therefore, maintaining consistency with what the name of the mission implies is a really good argument, especially if it is backed up by all the other arguments.

2. Is this point really good? Are you suggesting that, even though two King Kalientes appear, they are the same character, just like King Bob-omb? The only difference here is that it is supported by numerous sources. Well, anyway, in Mario Party, it is common to see a single character appear multiple times. Also, the difference is that you see the same character at the same time, in addition to them being physically identical, while here they are seen separately and are physically different, which is consistent with what the guides and books claim since Black King Kaliente is a powered-up transformation of King Kaliente.

3. I did not claim that Prince Pikante was the son of King Kaliente; I just left it as a possibility, a more significant possibility than Peewee Piranha being the son of Dino Piranha, due to the obvious king-prince relation that exists and that both are members of the same enemy faction. Furthermore , the descriptions of Peewee Piranha have been consistent and might resolve your doubt. Peewee Piranha is a baby Dino Piranha because, yes, the guides and books have consistently treated Dino Piranha as a species, not as a character, which fits perfectly with the existence of Black Dino Piranha as well.

4. It makes perfect sense. Unlike Black Dino Piranha or Black Gobblegut, here it is being explicitly clarified that this enemy you are facing is King Kaliente, and this is backed up by the guides, the name of the mission, the books, and every source existent. Sorbetti (talk) 18:59, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Why do the Japanese names of the missions imply they are the same exact entities fought in the first encounter? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:13, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Because it says King Kaliente on the lava planet, which indicates that what we're going to fight is King Kaliente, although this may not always be consistent in other mission names. So, despite the fact that I included it as an argument here, in general , I'm not in favor of mission or level names being used as arguments for anything. Also, the mission name is supported by Bowser Jr.'s dialogue, something that doesn't happen with any of the other mission names. In any case, the name of the mission as an argument is not even that important ; it was just something I wanted to emphasize and that can be removed at any time if necessary. Sorbetti (talk) 19:25, October 14, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed with Sorbetti. The King Kaliente's Spicy Return is pretty explictly an in-game name in English and Japanese and thus takes higher priority. Black King Kaliente is a years-later retcon. The difference with Gobblegut is that 2 indicated the Fiery version was the same guy in Japanese and strategy guides said they were different. Same thing with Fiery Dino Piranha. PrincessPeachFan (talk) 08:55, October 15, 2025 (EDT)

@PrincessPeachFan: What do you mean, "retcon"?! The Japanese Super Mario Galaxy guide published by ambit in 2007 already gave King Kaliente's black form a name in オタキング黒くろ Ota King Kuro - something I previously alluded to when I @'d you yesterday. King Kaliente's black form being given its own entry on the Mario Portal only corroborates to that part, and doesn't at all retcon him as an entirely different character. If that were the case, then Meowser would ALSO be a different character from Bowser, which, as I already said to you yesterday, is asinine. rend (talk) (edits) 11:18, October 15, 2025 (EDT)

I just checked said citation from my copy of the guide and didn't find that particular name. Just オタキング. @Nintendo101, explain. SmokedChili (talk) 12:58, October 15, 2025 (EDT)

Okay, that's odd. Hm. Regardless, the original Japanese version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia also has the black King Kaliente listed separately as オタキング（黒） (Ota King (Kuro)), for what it's worth. That book is a 2015 release, but still predates Mario Portal, meaning that Mario Portal still didn't "retcon" anything like PrincessPeachFan claims (also, in case one is curious, the very flawed localized English version of that book refers to the black King Kaliente as "King Kaliente (Scorched)"). rend (talk) (edits) 14:15, October 15, 2025 (EDT)

When I compiled information for the Super Mario Galaxy portion of our names in other languages project, I was unable to secure a complete, unfiltered view of any of the 2007 Japanese guidebooks, so I instead compiled photographs from the various books as posted on online storefronts as the next best thing. I think it is important to determine how long certain names have been in use as part of understanding the subject's localization history, so I don't try to relay on the encyclopedia alone. But I am not perfect. The SMG NIOL draft page was a big one with a lot of different information from different sources and pages on it, and it is quite likely I made a mistake here, and I unfortunately did not save all of the photos I had compiled from storefronts to double check on my end. However, I still have this pageMedia:SMG Nintendo Dream Gudebook 208-209.jpg from the Nintendo Dream guidebook that does demonstrate that the second Dino Piranha is referred to as「ディノパックン黒くろ」(Dino Pakkun Kuro, "Dino Piranha - Black") in the text. If King Kaliente really isn't treated the same in the Nintendo Dream guide, then I am unsure as to why. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:30, October 15, 2025 (EDT)

Looking at that image, actually that's not the kanji for "kuro", but it's just a tad too blurry to make out either the kanji or the furigana on top. It does show that this Dino Piranha is named as a variant, at the least. MarioComix (talk) 01:30, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

It's 戦 sen, the "war/battle" suffix. NinDori guide uses it for almost every boss, the second Topmaniac battle misses it for some reason.

@Arend So it's a retcon by ESMB and PrincessPeachFan was off by just one source generation. SmokedChili (talk) 09:17, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

Not that, either: PrincessPeachFan would claim that Mario Portal would've retconned the two King Kalientes as separate characters (especially since they have a massive unwarranted hatred for Mario Portal), JUST because the two forms have separate entries. But this is also the case with Bowser and Meowser in Super Mario 3D World: BOTH on Mario Portal and in the Encyclopedia. And again, it would be asinine to think that Bowser and Meowser are separate characters. Really, the only """retcon""" (if you can call it that), is that the alternate form of King Kaliente has been given an identifier, nothing more. rend (talk) (edits) 11:18, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

That's what I meant, the ESMB made up the "black" identifier for the harder fiery Galaxy bosses. It's a retcon regardless of its scope and in that sense PPF was right, it's a years-later retcon. SmokedChili (talk) 14:39, October 19, 2025 (EDT)

1. I was explaining why I don't find the mission title to be a good argument. It doesn't become a good argument just because there are other arguments that would lead to the same conclusion. That's really not how it works.

2. You presented him being a king as an argument for him being an individual. I showed a picture with two King Bob-ombs side-by-side as an example to show why that is not a good argument. There are surely many other cases, this one just happened to come to mind. I showed this picture in the context of your argument.

3.1. I'd say "Ota-king" and "Ota-prince" are about as obviously related as "Dino Packun" and "Dino Packun Jr." You say that the two cases are different because you claim Kaliente is an individual and Dino isn't. But you can't use that as a premise when that's the conclusion you're trying to reach in the first place. Doing so just makes your argument circular.

3.2. I don't mean to doubt you there, but in situations like this you should cite the "guides and books" you're referring to. Especially in this case where they're not quoted in the article.

4. But everyone here already agrees that that is (a?) King Kaliente. "King Kaliente (black)" is (a?) King Kaliente. Your argument that Bowser Jr. calling him "King Kaliente" means he's the same individual as the earlier boss only makes sense if you're already assuming "King Kaliente" is the name of a specific individual. But you can't do that, because again, that's what you're trying to prove in the first place. Again, this is a circular argument. Blinker (talk) 17:26, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

1. If it doesn't work for you, fine. Let's just pretend it doesn't exist. Does that change anything about the other arguments?

2. Yes, and we actually treat King Bob-omb as a unique character, not a species. Also, you're forgetting that, unlike King Bob-omb, the "two" King Kalientes don't appear at the same time. This is why I find this argument odd. Also, do you know why, even though multiple Petey Piranhas can appear at the same time, we don't consider them a species? It's because their official descriptions consistently treat them as a character.

3. Dino Piranha is indeed a species. The official Japanese guidebook treats Black Dino Piranha as a variant of Dino Piranha. This is supported by literally every source out there, like King Kaliente. There you have Prima, old Japanese guides, and the encyclopedia, where he is treated as a species, not an individual. Also, this matches with the fact that in SMG2, both Black Dino Piranha and the normal Dino Piranha appear simultaneously in the same mission. By the way, if you're going to discredit Mario's encyclopedia, I have to tell you that it was the same encyclopedia that gave a different entry to Black King Kaliente for the first time, an entry that describes him as King Kaliente but powered up.

4. No, I'm not trying to say that King Kaliente is the name of an individual; you're trying to tell me that King Kaliente is not an individual. I'm using official information; you're using comparisons. All official sources describe King Kaliente as an individual, all of them. There are no exceptions. The name Black King Kaliente was first used in the encyclopedia, which describes him as King Kaliente himself. Both Black Gobblegut and Black Dino Piranha had separate descriptions long before the encyclopedia, so they can't really be compared to Black King Kaliente, especially since the only site that gives Black King Kaliente a separate entry with a description describes him as the same King Kaliente. My proposal is about using official information over assumptions, and arguments to try to discredit official information to reprioritize assumptions are odd because, unlike assumptions, the other arguments support each other across multiple sources. The votes on these proposals are not about denying official information but rather deciding whether it is better to go by official information or assumptions without any sources. Sorbetti (talk) 15:04, October 19, 2025 (EDT)

@PopitTart The article isn't going to treat King Kaliente hardline as an individual. The article is going to use the official information we have. At the end of the article, the possibility that Black King Kaliente is a separate individual can be mentioned. Otherwise, don't take the proposal as trying to treat King Kaliente as an individual over the possibility that there are two. Take it as the page using the official information we have and leaving the possibility of there being two individuals as something small compared to the official info. Sorbetti (talk) 17:50, October 15, 2025 (EDT)

If that's what you meant, then you should really have been clearer about that in the proposal itself. The title is 'Treat "both" King Kalientes as the same being', and in the proposal body itself, your only mention of what the proposal is trying to achieve is 'let's treat both King Kalientes as the same being'. How is that different from 'going to treat King Kaliente hardline as an individual'? You can't fault people for reading what you write and thinking it means what it says, you know? Blinker (talk) 17:26, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

Throughout the proposal, I compare how we have overflowing official information, which literally contradicts every single unsourced argument that tries to claim that both Kings are distinct beings. Throughout the proposal, I point out how this page prioritizes theories and comparisons over official information. I guess I could have been more explicit, but that's not entirely my fault. Also, the title is fine since it describes the change that the proposal seeks to make. Do you want a title like "Use official information over theories and comparisons without sources?" which can actually be a bit offensive and framing? Sorbetti (talk) 18:35, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

You keep responding to everything by saying you're "using official information" when that wasn't what was being asked. What Blinker was getting at (and what also has me a bit confused) is that, in your comment to PopitTart above, you said "The article isn't going to treat King Kaliente hardline as an individual", which seems contradictory to everything else you've been saying. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:07, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

Oooh, now I understand; thanks. I meant more conceptually. Yes, the article will treat King Kaliente as a unique character, but that's based on the information we have, so it's equivalent to saying that the article will use official information, which treats King Kaliente as a unique character. I find the Hardline comparison erroneous since, unlike other similar problems between characters and species, this is verifiable information versus theories and comparisons. I think the term Hardline would be well used if we actually had something that states that Black King Kaliente is different, which would mean it is official information versus official information, to which I would be more open to leaving the article as is. But that's not the case; this is information versus supposition, so it's not Hardline; it's using information to write the article accordingly, like many other articles. I hope it is better understood this time. Sorbetti (talk) 21:19, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

I think the point is to write the page as-is with the simplest context, that is, "King Kaliente is a boss, and King Kaliente appears again." As a boss character, there is no reason to assume there would be multiples of King Kaliente unless multiples are seen at once (they're not). This case differs from enemy characters, where common enemies are assumed to appear or have the capacity to appear in multiples. (There is a reason the Wiki generally differentiates between enemies and bosses.) Finally, I believe we should stick with the case that it's best to go with the simplest explanation until new information proves otherwise. For example, Petey Piranha would never have been assumed to exist in multiples until multiples were seen in Mario Hoops and Sports Mix, and even then, we still treat Petey as a character and note that these are one-off depictions of multiples. (The same for King Bob-omb.) So I think it's the most logical and accessible to treat King Kaliente as a singular boss since there's never multiples shown at once. MarioComix (talk) 01:30, October 16, 2025 (EDT)

I appreciate the new intermediate option but I think the wording of it still doesn't quite match my stance. Instead of having an article that says "King Kaliente is probably one individual but could maybe be two", I'd rather we just didn't make a statement on the matter. I don't think it's something that has or needs to have a definitive answer. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:16, October 17, 2025 (EDT)

And how do you think it could be better? The best I can come up with is to say it's a boss, just a boss, not a character, not a species. It's a boss, and that's what matters. Is that better? Sorbetti (talk) 08:27, October 17, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, that would work. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:55, October 17, 2025 (EDT)

I don't have much strong opinion over this but I like to comment that this proposal discussion (not even the entire talk page!) is longer than the article it's on. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:04, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

Nothing unusual. Check out the length of this proposal compared to the page it was about. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:03, October 19, 2025 (EDT)

I don't these exactly warrant huge discussions but that's probably just me. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:57, October 19, 2025 (EDT)

As long MarioWiki discussions go, I'd say this is a tame example. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:42, October 20, 2025 (EDT)