Should we call this "Papa Mario", since the other parent is "Mama Mario"? Or should we call "Mama Mario" something like "Mario & Luigi's mother"? It seems kinda awkward to me that their both something diffrent. IMO, Papa Mario would work out here. uper-Yoshi
- Mama Mario was actually called that in the live-action TV show (I think), while Mario and Luigi's father was never referred to by name. This is the only title we can use for this article that is not conjectural; as for the Mama Mario article, using an official name is better than a label like "Mario and Luigi's mother". It's awkward, but it's policy. - Walkazo 21:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)
- This character was actually called "dad" during the ending of Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island. -- Son of Suns (talk)P.S. Walkazo, you deserve some major props. You did a good job of covering all the information, even contradictory information, without falling into baseless speculation. =)
- k. I see now. Well, we can't just move it to "dad" I guess, so lets leave it like this, and make some redirects. uper-Yoshi
- k. I see now. Well, we can't just move it to "dad" I guess, so lets leave it like this, and make some redirects. uper-Yoshi
- This character was actually called "dad" during the ending of Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island. -- Son of Suns (talk)P.S. Walkazo, you deserve some major props. You did a good job of covering all the information, even contradictory information, without falling into baseless speculation. =)
Wait...where does Mr. Mario come from? Is that official? -- Son of Suns (talk)
Oh, in Super Mario Amada Issunboshi, Mario's dad is called "Papa" and his mom is called "Mama." -- Son of Suns (talk)
- It was on the Mario and Luigi's Parents article, which is where I got all the information (I just chopped out the Mrs. Mario stuff and rewrote it all, but thanks for the kudos anyway, SoS). Seeing as "Mario" is Mario's (and thus, presumably his fathers') surname, "Mr. Mario" would be what he'd be called (unless he was a doctor or a knight, which is not the case as far as we know). It's not official, though... - Walkazo 22:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)
Sub-LevelsEdit
I think the article was fine with each of the appearances sections as second levels. And, just for the record: I was planning on taking all the speculation out of the family section and popping it back in there (lol, no pun intended with "pop"). Stumpers! 14:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Well I did that because maybe someone would want to skip all the appearances information and move to other sections in the table of contents. If they are all listed independently, a reader would have to check each one then move on; but if we put them all under a single "Appearances" section, they can easily skip ahead to other sections. -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Agreed. If I can work the relatives section into the introduction like I did personality and physical appearance information, I will make each appearance section a level 2 header again, but otherwise I'll leave it alone. Stumpers! 16:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- I might even separate those two sections (physical traits and personality) out of the introduction - it's really big right now as it is. Even if the sections wouldn't have that much content in them, I feel they would be a good way to organize information, instead of cramming it all into the introduction. -- Son of Suns (talk)
- It's not a long introduction if you look at what some of the most professional Wikis, including Wikipedia do. Also, in my experience separating personality and physical appearance make users more likely to go into too much detail (ie describe in-depth what can be seen clearly in the pictures) or speculate in an effort to make the sections about a very minor character longer (I'm particularly thinking about the personality section here). Stumpers! 17:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Yeah definitely. Ultimately there probably has to be a balance. You could always create one general "Characteristics and Traits" section and just throw everything in there. It might make a good last section to summarize some of the information in the article. I think there needs to be a place of synthesis some where to bring everything together or else it just turns into a list of references. Part of the fun of Mario Wiki is making educated connections and disconnections, ya know? Not speculation, but re-organizing information in new ways. =) -- Son of Suns (talk)
- I find that "Lists of Characteristics"/"Personality" sections are a waste of time on all but the extremely major (and thus, complex) characters. Conclusions are nice, but Wiki-style articles don't really support them, and the ending sections end-up sounding like watered-down padding for the shorter articles, unfortunately. - Walkazo 20:34, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Oh yeah totally. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, ya know? We shouldn't force it on the article. This article may not need it as much, it has a section about family that summarizes other connections not made in the main body of the article. I hope Stumpers is planning something similar for Mama Mario. No offense, Mama Mario is a great article, but at the end it just kinda dies out with scrambled eggs. I don't know how to describe it, but reading the impressive article and then reaching that ending just didn't feel right. -- Son of Suns (talk)
- I felt the same way when I finished it. It needs closure! I was thinking maybe a discontinuity guide, where we point out things like how they were delivered by stork in Yoshi's Island, yet she was said to have given birth to them naturally in "Plumbers Academy." That would allow us to look back upon her life overall and be a little conclusive without speculating.Stumpers! 21:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- A section called "Discontinuities" perhaps? That's a good idea, or have something like that. An article with so many sections needs some sort of final section that has information from across sources (like Papa's family section). I think that helps bring everything together and brings closure to a subject. We can't say specifically how it all fits together, 'cause the same event (Mario's birth) is depicted several different ways, but we can make connections and point out inconsistencies (which allows readers to speculate on how they want to construct the Marioverse in their own minds). -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Yeah, that is a good idea, especially since there are enough discontinuities surrounding these subjects for nice, healthy sections (who would have guessed Nintendo's delinquency in the continuity department would actually help us someday). - Walkazo 22:09, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- I felt the same way when I finished it. It needs closure! I was thinking maybe a discontinuity guide, where we point out things like how they were delivered by stork in Yoshi's Island, yet she was said to have given birth to them naturally in "Plumbers Academy." That would allow us to look back upon her life overall and be a little conclusive without speculating.Stumpers! 21:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- Oh yeah totally. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, ya know? We shouldn't force it on the article. This article may not need it as much, it has a section about family that summarizes other connections not made in the main body of the article. I hope Stumpers is planning something similar for Mama Mario. No offense, Mama Mario is a great article, but at the end it just kinda dies out with scrambled eggs. I don't know how to describe it, but reading the impressive article and then reaching that ending just didn't feel right. -- Son of Suns (talk)
- It's not a long introduction if you look at what some of the most professional Wikis, including Wikipedia do. Also, in my experience separating personality and physical appearance make users more likely to go into too much detail (ie describe in-depth what can be seen clearly in the pictures) or speculate in an effort to make the sections about a very minor character longer (I'm particularly thinking about the personality section here). Stumpers! 17:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)
- I might even separate those two sections (physical traits and personality) out of the introduction - it's really big right now as it is. Even if the sections wouldn't have that much content in them, I feel they would be a good way to organize information, instead of cramming it all into the introduction. -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Agreed. If I can work the relatives section into the introduction like I did personality and physical appearance information, I will make each appearance section a level 2 header again, but otherwise I'll leave it alone. Stumpers! 16:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Move to "Papa"?Edit
So far, the 2/2 sources that call him anything have Mario call him "Papa". Son of Suns and I were discussing moving this page to that name. Would anyone protest? Stumpers! 01:43, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- "Papa" should be fine (and it would look a bit better than "Mario and Luigi's father" in comparrison to "Mama Mario"). But I have a question: in the History section, would he be called "Papa" in all the entries, or just the ones where he was called "Papa"? I vaguely remember a Proposal about characters known by different names in different games (Princess Peach vs. Princess Toadstool was the major one), and I think it was decided that they'd be called whatever name the game called them in that game's particular section (and their common/most recent name used in the intoduction and any other section). It's not done on Mama's article, but I'm not 100% sure I'm remembering this policy correctly, which is why I'm asking, and not editing. - Walkazo 23:19, 14 January 2009 (EST)
- I believe you're right... but the proposal did not take into consideration that some characters may not be named in certain sources (like both of Mario's parents). For right now, I'd say we should just change it to Papa in the two sections where it applies (Amada and the film). Stumpers! 11:16, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- In that case, the sections about Mama Mario in which she goes unnamed shouldn't use "Mama", if we want to be consistant between the two parents. Also, after putting more thought into it, I think Papa should be a disambiguation page, seeing as Mario and Luigi's father isn't the only "Papa" out there: there's Papa T., Goompapa (though that one's more of a stretch), and Bowser's called "Papa" by Bowser Jr. (to name a few). So if we do decide to switch "Mario and Luigi's Father" to "Papa", we'll need something to differentiate it from all the other possible "Papa"s. Perhaps "Mario and Luigi's Papa" would do? That acknowledges the only title we have for him (a step up from "M&L's father"), and it's not conjectural like "Papa Mario" or ambiguous like "Papa". We could also use the same formula for "Mario and Luigi's Grandpapa" (mentioned in the Super Mario Bros. film). - Walkazo 02:16, 17 January 2009 (EST)
- I believe you're right... but the proposal did not take into consideration that some characters may not be named in certain sources (like both of Mario's parents). For right now, I'd say we should just change it to Papa in the two sections where it applies (Amada and the film). Stumpers! 11:16, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't think you could use "Mario and Luigi's Papa" because he is never called that. I think this page should probably be moved to "Papa," then a redirect should be added to a page called "Papa (disambiguation)" (i.e. at the top of this article, write "Papa" redirects here, for other uses of the term, see Papa (disambiguation).) The disambig page will list other uses of the word "Papa," but the article with the title Papa should be this article, as it is his only name (unlike other characters, which aren't named exactly "Papa" or have another name, like Bowser). -- Son of Suns (talk)
- And then we would use "Grandpapa" as the link for their grandfather (though it'd be a redirect to the List of Implied Characters and a header of "Grandpapa"). - Walkazo 02:37, 17 January 2009 (EST)
- I don't think you could use "Mario and Luigi's Papa" because he is never called that. I think this page should probably be moved to "Papa," then a redirect should be added to a page called "Papa (disambiguation)" (i.e. at the top of this article, write "Papa" redirects here, for other uses of the term, see Papa (disambiguation).) The disambig page will list other uses of the word "Papa," but the article with the title Papa should be this article, as it is his only name (unlike other characters, which aren't named exactly "Papa" or have another name, like Bowser). -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Yeah, exactly. That makes sense. =) -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Great, so should we wait for more feedback, or just go ahead with it now? - Walkazo 02:50, 17 January 2009 (EST)
Done. There's still a few links to "Mario and Luigi's father" kicking around, though... - Walkazo 02:52, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Different CharactersEdit
Not every instance of a character being Mario and Luigi's father is the same exact character. The article should be re-written to acknowledge the role of many characters as their father, rather than a singular one, which is most definitely false. Redstar 00:00, 18 December 2009 (EST)
- We avoided spinning off into "Mario has many fathers from many different appearances" debate on the page because that gets really muddled and speculative. Unless we have good reason to doubt that characters from different media aren't meant to be the same person, we assume they are and write the articles as such. That's why Bowser from the games, "King Koopa" from the cartoons and "Koopa" from the movie are all the same character, even though they look and act different. It's up to the readers to take what they see in the various appearances with a grain of salt and make their own decisions - our job is merely to give them the information as clearly as possible and make as few judgement calls as possible. - Walkazo 00:30, 18 December 2009 (EST)
- I can accept that, but the only truly glaring example is the father seen in the Issunboshi anime. That special was a re-telling of a fairy tale, with Mario not exactly "Mario" but filling the role of the child in that fairy tale. Would it be okay to at least revise that section to state the character was "a" father to Mario, but not meant to fill the same role as the other appearances? Redstar 00:33, 18 December 2009 (EST)
- It would just look inconsistent if we address all the other appearances as Papa without question but not Super Mario Issunboshi. The anime may take more artistic licenses with the characters than other media, but it's no less valid from a purely facts-driven standpoint. If we don't question things like Bowser playing the role of the Evil Queen in the Snow White adaptation, or Mario hatching from a Peach in Super Mario Momotarō, we shouldn't question Papa. - Walkazo 01:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
- I can accept that, but the only truly glaring example is the father seen in the Issunboshi anime. That special was a re-telling of a fairy tale, with Mario not exactly "Mario" but filling the role of the child in that fairy tale. Would it be okay to at least revise that section to state the character was "a" father to Mario, but not meant to fill the same role as the other appearances? Redstar 00:33, 18 December 2009 (EST)
Name revealed.Edit
Watch this video: [1]. Charles Martinet says that Mario's father is called "Pappa Pio Mario".
15:14, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
Minor appearance in merchandisingEdit
l33tredrocket on reddit found this Mario tray which seemingly depicts Mario's dad on a painting. I used Google to find another picture of the tray: this one by Erin Hoffman on Pinterest .
Should I add this "appearance" on the article?
I know if this was any other character we wouldn't even try to cover appearances in merchandising (at least not in the main article), but in this case, this is the only time we ever see Mario's dad's face. This seems like a pretty big deal.
Of course, there's also the matter of confirming it's actually Mario's dad, which is pretty much impossible. I think it's clear enough that it's supposed to be him, but I guess no one really knows for sure. Oh, and if a better picture is needed, I could always try and ask l33tredrocket to take another one I guess.
Banon (talk · edits) 06:48, 23 August 2016 (EDT)
- Just for the record, an image of the same food tray uploaded 6-10 years ago already exists here, though the portrait isn't as noticeable.
Mario JC 07:10, 23 August 2016 (EDT)
- What do you know! Apparenty an older version of the picture was uploaded 10 years ago, too. Anyway, I've added the relevant information to the article. I treated this new information as unconfirmed. Should we change the article's main picture? The one from the food tray does show Papa's face, but it is only implied it actually is Papa.
Banon (talk · edits) 08:31, 23 August 2016 (EDT)
- What do you know! Apparenty an older version of the picture was uploaded 10 years ago, too. Anyway, I've added the relevant information to the article. I treated this new information as unconfirmed. Should we change the article's main picture? The one from the food tray does show Papa's face, but it is only implied it actually is Papa.
- Just for the record, an image of the same food tray uploaded 6-10 years ago already exists here, though the portrait isn't as noticeable.
Did you know that Mario's eyes are looking in the same direction as the person in the painting. Well now you know. Just a minor detail just to know. 
Yoshi the SSM (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2016 (EDT)
To prevent this image from being reuploaded or posted again, this figure has been identified as a grandfather known as GPoppy.--Platform (talk) 05:24, May 2, 2023 (EDT)