Talk:Manhandla

(First topic)

Uhhhh, why do we cover this? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:29, March 15, 2024 (CST)

The Opening line states they are variants of Piranha Plants. Sdman213 (talk) 10:37, March 15, 2024 (EDT)

Hmm... Yes, true. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:39, March 15, 2024 (CST)

Also, this proposal allows for Mario-derived yet Zelda-exclusive material to be covered. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:59, March 15, 2024 (EDT)

Delete this article (and potentially most of its images)

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: June 30, 2026, 16:01 (UTC)

I've always been wondering why do we give this its own article when the only thing that relates it to the Super Mario franchise (as far as I'm concerned) is that according to the Japanese manual for the original The Legend of Zelda, this enemy is a variant of the Piranha Plant. This page is filled to the brim with Zelda-only info, and is already covered well enough in Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda, which I believe is where coverage of this enemy should rightfully be. Based on a brief conversation with Cloudwalker I've had a few days ago on the MarioWiki Discord server, I'm also proposing that every image related to this subject except for those from the original The Legend of Zelda get deleted too. Note that this would NOT affect coverage of Deku Baba, which does actually appear in a Mario game, that being Mario Kart 8 (including Deluxe of course) beyond changing the link in the "relatives" section of its infobox.

UPDATE: A new option has been added for this proposal, which would be turning this into a redirect to Manhandla's section in the Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda page, per Brett.

UPDATE 2: The above has been dropped in favor of a half-support option on the main part of the proposal.

Proposer: SuperGamer18 (talk)

Should we delete this article?

Deadline: July 4, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. SuperGamer18 (talk) Secondary option.
2. Arend (talk) We used to host an article for Bombite here, before it became a redirect to Bob-omb with categories. I really don't see why Manhandla can't be the same thing but to Piranha Plant instead. It feels a bit silly to have a whole page for a creature that's never appeared in a single Mario game before, just because the Japanese manual of the very first Zelda game (which means it has all sorts of early-installment oddities) stated it's a type of Piranha Plant. Definitely worth mentioning, but dedicating an entire article to what is essentially a Zelda-exclusive enemy with zero appearances in Mario? When we also stripped away such privilege from all non-Mario Smash Bros characters? We might as well restore those Smash Bros pages, and while we're at it, create a page for the Footloose Station just because it is shaped like a Blooper.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per all. I think a mention of this species being related to the Piranha Plants is warranted, but having an entire article about something that only appears in the Zelda series is overkill.
4. PopitTart (talk) This is plainly not a Mario subject, and our coverage of this Zelda boss's roles in exclusively Zelda games is entirely unnecessary. Manhandla's connection to Piranha Plants can easily be communicated in the crossover article.
5. Brett (talk) Secondary option. This boss never appeared in any Super Mario medias, so having an article about it is unnecessary given that all the informations on this page can already be found in its Zelda Wiki article. It's like if we had article for Tarin just because he's a lookalike of Mario. However, I think this enemy can still be mentioned in the Piranha Plant's article, and maybe also list it in its infobox as one of its variants.
6. Mr. Sorbetti (talk) per all.
7. Mario (talk) Article has constantly struggled to justify its existence, hinging, from what I can garner, on a technicality from a pretty obscure source, better served as a bullet point in the Piranha Plant article. I recall that was the setup earlier, but I recommend keeping that factoid as a simple trivia bullet point. It's better served in an article quipped to deal with Link content. Per proposal.
8. EvieMaybe (talk) Per all, particularly Arend. Now that Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda exists, this article does not have much reason to.
9. Cloudwalker (talk) Per proposal + reasoning of others above.
10. WACCA Lily R (talk) Per all. This article's entire relevance to the Mario franchise is saying "variant of Piranha Plant" twice. It's much better served as a trivia point.
11. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) This is not a Mario character, plain and simple. It's not conceived as a Mario character, and the devs have no intention of making it a Mario character; had it been a Mario character, it would have appeared or even referenced in the Mario franchise in some manner, but it has not. We're not going to let some text in a foreign-exclusive manual conceived from 1986 decide if this subject should get an article when its usage in the Mario franchise tells us the intent more. What is described in the manual can be both a bullet point in the Piranha Plant article and listed in the Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda article as others pointed. My belief also applies to the Zelda-exclusive Thwomp variants and the Yoshi doll as well.
12. Tails777 (talk) Per Xiahou Ba. Beyond saying "It's a variant of a Piranha Plant", absolutely none of the info on this article pertains to any appearance in any Mario series game. This is like creating an article on Kid Icarus' Komayto on Metroid Wiki cause it's clearly inspired by a Metroid.
13. Jdtendo (talk) Per Arend and Xiahou Ba.

#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.

Turn it into a redirect instead

1. SuperGamer18 (talk) This is now my primary option.
2. Arend (talk) I thought it was already implied we'd turn this into a redirect anyway.
3. Brett (talk) Primary choice. See my vote above.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Secondary choice. A redirect would be fine.

No

1. Salmancer (talk) This one's harsh. I mean, this is basically a fully unique case in fiction: a character in one property being a species specific to a mostly entirely separate property. (Well, I guess it isn't unique unique because Head Thwomp, but still.) I think the page is warranted. EDIT: I'm going to counter Arend by saying the wiki doesn't remove things over retcons. Even if Manhandla isn't a Piranha Plant now, the fact that it was at any point presented as a Piranha Plant is still relevant to the wiki in the same way that the Koopalings being introduced as Bowser's children is still relevant to the wiki.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I'd kinda prefer it be cleaned up to talk about its role in the first game where the statement of it being a Piranha Plant is relevant, mentioning it appears in later games without the explicit connection to Piranha Plant—and without us going into detail on those appearances—but also noting how its Oracle of Seasons sprite physically resembles them. As I mentioned below, it is important to remember that the original The Legend of Zelda shared much of the same staff as the original Super Mario Bros., making a connection like that much stronger—and considering it is known trivia that Firebars and Chain Chomps were designed for TLoZ1 but ended up appearing in Super Mario before making their Zelda debut in that series' third game, any intentional connection between enemies becomes stronger still.
3. Koopa con Carne (talk) It's a creature that is part of the Piranha Plant family. Piranha Plants are a Mario concept. Why wouldn't the thing linked conceptually and biologically to a Mario subject receive an article on the wiki about everything Mario lol
4. Metalex123 (talk) Per all, I think the article should only talk about its appearance in the first game, since that is when it was called a Piranha Plant, instead of including future appearances like Hyrule Warriors and all. We have pages on other Zelda-exclusive things, like the Mega Thwomp, the Head Thwomp and the Stone Elevator, which are fully Zelda enemies, yet are Thwomp variants, or what about the Yoshi doll, which is an item exclusive to Link's Awakening and yet we have a page on it? So why not a page on Manhandla, who was said to be a Piranha Plant variant? Future games don't call it one, so it could be considered a retcon, which is why I think focus should only be on the first game. The Satellaview remake and Oracle of Seasons information could arguably stay, since the first is a remake of Zelda 1, and the second's sprite looks like a 4-headed Piranha Plant.
5. SuperBallBro (talk) Per all, I agree with it here. Since The Legend of Zelda is closely related to Mario, why not keep this article?
6. Hewer (talk) I see both sides of the argument here but I'm leaning towards opposing this, mainly because I think if we're gonna get rid of these types of articles then we should deal with them all at once rather than one at a time, per Metalex. However I don't really understand the argument for covering only the first Zelda game, we have an official statement that it was a type of Piranha Plant in that game so that means all of its later appearances are as well by extension since they're derived from that first appearance. This kind of coverage should be all or nothing imo.
7. Nelsonic (talk) Per. I think this article covers too much, but I don't think it should be excised completely.
8. Wandering Poplin (talk) I don't feel strongly about the matter either way, but I personally feel that the arguments made by the opposition are sound enough to merit keeping this page.

#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. At the very least, I do agree with trimming coverage beyond the original Legend of Zelda.

If the above fails, should we turn this into a redirect instead?

canceled by proposer
Replaced by half-support vote in the main proposal.
Deadline: July 6, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Canceled on June 23, 2026, 21:39 (UTC)

Yes

1. SuperGamer18 (talk) I don't mind this option either.
2. Brett (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Wandering Poplin (talk) Pardon me If I'm misunderstanding the intent of this section, but if the above section decides to keep the page, why would we immediately turn it into a redirect? I think the general idea of "not deleting the page" also means "not merging the page" either.
2. Metalex123 (talk) Per Wandering Poplin, and same as my opinion on if it should be deleted or not. Making it a redirect is basically the same as deleting the article, and I feel like Manhandla can have a page, just like the other Zelda things that I mentioned before. Coverage should probably be lowered to only the games where it's mentioned to be a Piranha Plant though (so first game only). Satellaview / Oracle info arguably could stay for the reasons I mentioned before.
3. Nelsonic (talk) Per.
4. Hewer (talk) Deleting vs. turning it into a redirect is a hair-splitting technicality. This is probably a misuse of the poll proposal format.

Should we delete all images related to this subject except for the ones from its original appearance?

Deadline: July 4, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Arend (talk) Considering only the JP version of the first Zelda game (again, early-installment oddities) calls it a Piranha Plant? Yeah, makes sense. It wouldn't surprise me that they've retconned the Manhandla as some sort of fourheaded Deku Baba (which it resembles more closely). Though, I wouldn't mind keeping the Oracle of Seasons sprite for Manhandla, which actually resembles Piranha Plant.

#Salmancer (talk) Also harsh, but I can swing it. Manhandla is never called a Piranha Plant again, and it sure doesn't look like a Piranha Plant in most everything past the original appearance. Shout out to Four Swords Manhandla, which I never recognized as a plant that eats people, let alone a Piranha Plant. If the hang up is the images, I'm willing to lose them to save the entire article from being hit with a weed whacker.

No

1. LadySophie17 (talk) I don't know which way to vote regarding the fate of the page, but I know this. If the page talks about every Manhandla appearance (which it currently does), it makes no sense to remove these images. Either limit the coverage or not at all.
2. Brett (talk) I think the images could still be used in the Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda article, and maybe also the Piranha Plant article.
3. Wandering Poplin (talk) I think this is something to be decided after we decide the fate of the main article, not alongside it. If one passes and the other fails, (or vice versa), we're going to be put in a somewhat awkward spot.

Comments (I can manhandle this!)

@Salmancer at least Head Thwomps actually have a closer connection to the Super Mario franchise than Manhandlas do, judging by what I'm reading there (please do note that I am not a Zelda expert so if I say anything inaccurate, I'd like to apologize for that). SuperGamer18 (talk) 22:01, June 20, 2026 (UTC)

I assume that the second proposal is dependent on the first proposal's results. As in, "if the page is not deleted, do we keep these images?" So we don't accidentally end up in a scenario where the page is deleted and the images are kept. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 22:08, June 20, 2026 (UTC)

Well, kinda. A bunch of the images on this article are also in the crossovers page, so if that were to ever happen, then the images that aren't yet in that article would most likely be moved there. SuperGamer18 (talk) 22:15, June 20, 2026 (UTC)

@Arend honestly, I agree with keeping the OoS sprite. Maybe the BS Zelda ones could be kept too (since that is a remake of the original The Legend of Zelda)? SuperGamer18 (talk) 23:19, June 20, 2026 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, how does this affect the Zelda-exclusive Thwomp articles (Head Thwomp, Mega Thwomp, and Stone Elevator)? Those are also pages for Mario-derived characters who have never appeared in an actual Mario game. Fakename123 (talk) 7:41, June 21, 2026 (UTC)

Good question. Likely that the pages didn't even factor into this proposal's creation. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:46, June 21, 2026 (UTC)

Good question. As I've already said with the first subject you mentioned, those have a closer connection to the Super Mario franchise than Manhandlas have, so they are not covered by this proposal, and I do not plan to affect the coverage of those subjects either. SuperGamer18 (talk) 19:47, June 21, 2026 (UTC)

I do feel this should be dealt with later down the line. You have to think about potential scenarios where, say, an indie game creates literal variants of Thwomps but legally distinct ("Stwomp" maybe). How would we cover those? Most people would probably say they get a mention in a bullet point in the Thwomp article or in the List of Mario references in third party games. But that's a discussion for another day. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:52, June 21, 2026 (UTC)

They would most likely go to the list of third-party games references, given that they would have no official connections to Nintendo. Brett (talk) 20:32, June 21, 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It must be remembered that SMB1 and TLoZ1 had pretty much the same staff, including Miyamoto directly designing much of the games' content. No idea if Testitart being a Packun Flower was his idea, but it's still an important connection here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:10, June 21, 2026 (UTC)

If The Legend of Zelda crossovers page makes individual articles like Manhandla redundant, why not just move the information to a Mario-related enemies in The Legend of Zelda sections/list? That way, the infoboxes can be relatively unimpacted and basic info preserved. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:45, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

It may or may not make a difference that Mega Thwomp and Stone Elevator are from Link's Awakening, which theconsiders to be a "guest appearance" game (meaning it gets its own article), and we have policy that explicitly allows for directly Mario-derived elements in guest appearance games to have articles. Other examples of this include Nintendo Village and Donkey Kong's Crash Course. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:43, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

Rather than outright delete this article, I think it should instead be turned into a redirect for the Manhandla section in the Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda article. Brett (talk) 16:39, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

I've added a new option to this proposal which should satisfy your request (and possibly other people's). SuperGamer18 (talk) 22:13, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

@Wandering Poplin if the article doesn't get deleted, then it wouldn't be turned into a redirect in the first place.

@Doc von Schmeltwick while it may be true that Zelda 1 and SMB1 were developed with most of the same people and that Firebars and Chain Chomps were originally meant for the former, we cover these because these are recurring subjects in the Super Mario franchise, even though they were originally meant for the Zelda franchise.

@Metalex123 I don't believe your Yoshi doll example is valid, as that is a blatant derivative of a Super Mario subject, which is of course, Yoshi, and since it's official and has more than one appearance, there's no need to affect its coverage. SuperGamer18 (talk) 22:44, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

Manhandla is also a blatant derivative of a Super Mario subject that is official and has more than one appearance. (For that matter, it has more appearances than Yoshi doll, which seems to only appear in Link's Awakening and its remakes.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 22:47, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, the Yoshi doll straight up looks like a Yoshi, while Manhandlas resemble Piranha Plants at best. SuperGamer18 (talk) 21:39, June 23, 2026 (UTC)

Those mean the same thing... Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:30, June 24, 2026 (UTC)

sigh not really in this context, but how about I try to convey the example better? Compare some early 90's artwork of Yoshi (doesn't matter if it's the character or the species, as long as it's green) with some artwork of the Yoshi doll and you'll notice that they look nearly identical. Now, if you compare the original iteration of Piranha Plants to the original iteration of Manhandlas (or the more consistent modern appearance with the Oracle of Seasons design, that works too), you'll notice a few passing resemblances at best. SuperGamer18 (talk) 09:55, June 24, 2026 (UTC)

But there's no question on whether Manhandla was based on Piranha Plant, we literally have an official statement that it was. If Yoshi doll is fine then Manhandla should be too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:46, June 24, 2026 (UTC)

@SuperGamer18 Then you need to clarify that in the proposal itself. As is, the wording implies that "If the 'delete the page' proposal fails, should we turn the page into a redirect instead?"

Truth be told, it probably should've just been a section of the main proposal as a "partial support" option, which would have likely mitigated the confusion altogether. Wandering Poplin (talk) 22:51, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for the confusion, it was not what I was trying to do. I've proposed something a bit different on the MarioWiki Discord server. How about I cancel the standalone redirect option and turn the deletion option into a redirect option? If you don't like this, I could go ahead and implement your suggestion instead. SuperGamer18 (talk) 23:30, June 22, 2026 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that. I'll just implement your suggestion instead. SuperGamer18 (talk) 21:39, June 23, 2026 (UTC)

@Arend: The difference with Bombite was that we don't actually know for sure whether it was based on Bob-omb (it could easily have been an independently conceived cartoon bomb enemy design), whereas we know for a fact Manhandla is based on Piranha Plant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 22:48, June 24, 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, I've chosen to abstain from voting. If we do end up deleting this article, how would it affect the "Guest appearances" rules in our coverage policy? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 16:01, June 30, 2026 (UTC)