Talk:Peach (item)

Peach?
Shouldn't we call it Peachy Peach
 * No, this item is NOT the Peachy Peach. It is a different Peach in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
 * I should make a note about this concern on the Peachy Peach page. I'm sure many others would also be confused.  22:28, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Speaking of which, should Peach be made into a Disambiguation page?
 * Definately. I'll get on that.  23:52, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Never Mind, I did it. :P
 * And I added on information to that! Did you know the Peachy Peach isn't found in nature? 00:03, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Rewrite Comments
In the Growth section, the game should be mentioned directly. The quotation system was never supposed to be used for the games (and comics) themselves, it is way easier to say "in Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat", it's more convenient, better to see for the reader, and the links provided in the references are wrong as well. The citing system should only be used for websites and other info of unclear source.

The history section makes use of the "Main Article" template, which is definitely wrong here. "Main Article" would only be correct if the linked article would be "Peaches in Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat". Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat itself is not the main article about Peaches in Jungle Beat, the template has to go. Also, "Alternate Continuities" - We've had the "canon" discussion before, and right now, we've had it as "Appearances in Other Media" - with that description, uses who are not familiar with our policies might still understand what you are talking about, but "Alternate Continuities" speaks in riddles totally.

The appearance section is basically a repetition of the history section, they should be merged, or some could even go as trivia. The game's cover arts are useless here as well, they only lengthen the article unneededly, the names should be enough.

So to say, rewrite needed. - 16:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * It's true that we currently have no explicit citation policy, but my original proposal on the subject, after which the policy will be written, said:

"I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself"
 * There's no reason to overuse it, and especially no reason to move the name of the games to the References section. - 17:04, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * My my Stumpers, I'm surprised you made such an error. All of those references are invalid. If someone else could revert them, I guess I'll start up on the policy... 17:48, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * Cobold: in a quarter of the time it took you to write all of that and have that usertalk conversation with Wayoshi (Your talkpages are on my watchlist, btw, I'm not frothing at the mouth searching for injustice or something stupid like that), you could have fixed the citations, template-main's, and even had time to let me know what you and Wayoshi have decided on my talk page. You know I'm not a crazy edit-reverter... you could have saved yourself so much effort and Wayoshi could have been working on the citation policy. :( So, there you go.  That's what I think should be done.  The only tension that I think could have been caused could be the rewrite template you put there just before one of my edits (which I thought probably solved whatever problem you had).  Be sure to specify citation issues next time, ok?
 * Wayoshi: I'm glad my messing up surprises you. Like Cobold said, all we have are guidelines from talkpages right now, and I assumed that someone would just go and delete those if they didn't like them rather than all this.  Silly, I guess, but hey, just so there's no hard feelings, you know now.  I hope that, in the time since I originally saw this (I started typing, went away, came back...) that you haven't reverted the page.  There are a bunch of important edits that might come with it, as you saw on the main page.  It would be great if you could get that policy going so no one else things of my "solution" to its absence.
 * And finally, that Appearances section. Keep it.  It helps compare and constrast the different ways the subject has affected the series and provides visual learners with something to check out (and I am one of those, btw.) when all of the text is too much to take in.  I guess this would work better on an article with more games, but there you go. ;)  Um... I think that covers everything except for the appearances in other media.  I'm not about to segregate what is an isn't in the master plan of the series, so I made it alternate continuities because of what, if I'm not mistaken, other people on the Wiki have decided.  I'll leave it up to you, but until we actually get a source saying that the continuity should be divided based on media form rather than continuity, I wouldn't do it.  That's just me though.  19:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * About the first part, it's a fact that I should be doing more currently than I am, but I'm still ill. Also worth notable that right after I gave Wayoshi that message, I went to bed. Could have hardly replaced a one-minute message with hour-long writing. - 06:51, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well, the style of the Appearance section is definitely quite different from elsewhere on the MarioWiki. So we should either bringing this to the standard we had, or change it for the rest, e.g. articles like Cheese (for those who cry out at the mention) or Mushroom, too. I don't think that we should show the game's cover arts, they steal space that could be used by pictures of the actual topic. Peaches! Mentions of the word "peach" shouldn't go as far as getting their own section, that's the rare case where we get too in-depth. In any case, I think that the mention of the game they have appeared in should come first (general problem on Final Smash pages). I think we should take this discussion to the Manual of Style. I definitely don't want to block out new ideas per se, and I don't want this article be changed (to the "usual" wiki style) until we've cleared some things.- 18:17, 25 January 2008 (EST)
 * "So we should either bringing this to the standard we had, or change it for the rest, e.g. articles like Cheese (for those who cry out at the mention)" ... Hey! :P I'll agree with that, we should discuss how the article should be organised before making major changes to the page.
 * Cobold: Personally it takes more time for me to get political than do the changes that have been done already, but I know how weird everything is when you're sick, so... anyway, I think you get it. Get well soon, 'k?  I wasn't intending for the appearance section to show up in just one article, so that's not a problem.  As far as the box art, I feel it enriches that section, but if you feel that it makes the article too hard to load, it should go.  I've been looking for images of Peaches, btw, but they just don't seem to be around.  I'm usually ok with not giving references l'il sections, but my point was to show how the concept has evolved, not to sort, so anything else would be sorting.  Another idea: how about I use a sortable chart instead?  It would take up a l'il less space, right?  So... you're continuing this somewhere else?  I'll be there.  19:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Etc.
Uhm, is it just me or does anyone else think it's weird we are comparing catch phrases and logos of peaches to this item in the Marioverse? It doesn't make any sense, and in my opinion it looks like someone cares a little too much about this fruit.. It would be like having trivia on Daisy's page stating enemies like the layzee daisy or whatever other daisy related enemies appear in the PM series are. Fixitup
 * It's just completeness. And no, this isn't like trivia and this isn't like what you're saying because there is no alternate page for the catchphrase, "Peachy."  By the way, can we start talking in terms of what to add to the articles rather than what to remove?  I feel like all too often on this Wiki we think about how much better the articles would look smaller, then talk about how everything needs to be expanded.  Fixitup, this isn't you, just something generally I've noticed.  22:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Paper Mario 2
"Tell you what: I'm gonna go ahead an' get you set up in the champ's room right away. Ms. Jolene, be a peach an' show Gonzales here the champion's room, OK?" Do we include the reference? 00:30, 20 January 2009 (EST)


 * We can mention somewhere that the word "peach" is also used as an informal term referring to a nice or pleasing person (i.e. has the same function in Mario's world as in English). =) --
 * I remember at one point we did the same for the word "peachy". Oh, and btw, the way Grubba used "peach" is the same meaning that Princess Peach was named after.  Just a bit of trivia for you.  00:52, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Merge this article to Peach Blossom
Recently, I've cleared out some information from the article, which is a bit of an understatement. Now, having articles be about one specific subject instead of everything that remotely resembles it is part of our Good Writing policy, and I felt that the item in Smash Bros. was what warranted being that specific subject, when compared to everything else. With that said, now that I've cleaned up the article... I don't really think it needs an article in the first place. Let me go through the four detailed appearances that were listed in the article and explain why I don't think any of them warrant articles.

Super Mario Momotarō: The anime is based on a story of a boy (in this case, Mario) floating down from the sky in a peach. And... that's all the peach does. I mean, the story's named "Peach Boy" and all, but the peach doesn't have any real impact besides being popping up to pop out Mario. There's nothing here that couldn't be covered in the anime's article. Donkey Kong Jungle Beat: I... honestly don't quite understand the section, but peaches seem to be the thematic element of one of the levels, and they appear at the end of levels in presumably a cinematic or something. In any case, they play a very minor role and, unless I'm missing something, can easily be covered in Peach Kingdom. Super Princess Peach: This section is based on a decal that appears on a drum and literally nothing more. Besides the fact that I'm not sure if it's actually a peach, it's an image that appears in such a minor capacity it should get a line on Peach Hit Five and nothing more. Super Smash Bros. Brawl/Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U: Here's the most notable one: here, peaches act as items that spawn with Princess Peach's final smash, Peach Blossom. With that said, there's not much to it besides "giving life" and "being consumable, which is something that everything from Food would like to have a word about, and I don't think it should gain special priority just because it appears in an attack. It could just as easily be covered as part of Peach Blossom's article.

From what I can tell, none of the sections that were there deserve articles, meaning that we shouldn't have this article. Now that the one that remains is the SSB one, I propose to merge it to the attack that it appears in, Peach Blossom.

Proposer: Deadline: November 6, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Merge

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Those three things are so minor they really shouldn't be an article. Since they were cleared out, there is only the information about the Final Smash, which really doesn't need an article.

Don't merge

 * 1) Eh. Lol. Well. Uh. No one to per all. So... It IS different than the final smash. So... Minor as it may be, just leave it seperate.

Comments
Eh I'm not sure. First of all, Peach Blossom redirects to Peach herself so that'd be merging information on a food with a character. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge it to Food instead, since the effects are the same as a typical piece of food?
 * Food refers to a specific group of food (highlighted in this image), and the peach isn't a part of that group. Even if it acts like a regular Food, merging it there would be incorrect. What we're merging not matching up with what we're merging it to is something that's happened in numerous proposals (level to character, object/species to minigame, item to character, etc.) and I don't see a reason to make a fuss over this one. As long as it's noticeably minor, and Peach falls under that category as I've explained, and it's relevant to the target of merging, I don't see a problem with going ahead with it. This also applies to Toadbrigade's oppose vote.