Alternate Mario Costume Implications?

BUR #23207 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

For a while now, the lack of implication through the Mario series has annoyed me. I presume the only reason we haven't gotten any is because no one wanted to create wiki pages and all that for the many, many, many throughout this series. Well, I seek to try and change that, and to test the idea out, we'll be using Princess Peach as our hypothetical guinea pig because she has a ridiculous amount of official alternate costumes alone (and there are some fandom ones in there too), and I know that once Princess Peach: Showtime! comes out in full, those tags for her already seen transformation tags are going to get flooded (and that's not getting into the ones that we'll have to create when the game comes out). It would be in our best interest, I feel, to go ahead and implicate all these, for easier tagging and findability (and because I like Peach and her many costume).

Tags missed:

Baby Peach - The younger version of Princess Peach is generally treated as her own separate character. I'm not against the idea, but I'm not too sure how many people would feel about such an implication, so I'm leaving it out for now.

Lord Peach - This is basically a role reversal on the whole Bowsette idea. Bowsette does not imply Bowser or Princess Peach for a reason, so I presume this tag has the same rules applying to it.

Shadow Queen - This is actually a completely separate character from Peach, even though she does possess her (and thus most art is of that possessed state). Not every artwork of the Shadow Queen involves Peach in some form (post #3446519), therefore, we cannot implicate it.

EDIT 2/15/2023: New costumes so soon huh? Added Figure Skater and Mermaid to the BUR. I hope to add Dashing Thief and Mighty too as soon as we get actual art of them on here.

I think Baby Peach could implicate Princess Peach. Nintendo generally seems to consider the baby versions of characters as the same as the normal versions, even if there's weird contradictions or inconsistencies caused by some of them existing (namely Baby Donkey Kong and Baby Rosalina). That's my only hold up here, otherwise I generally agree with all of these implications.

Maiden_in_Orange said:

For a while now, the lack of implication through the Mario series has annoyed me. I presume the only reason we haven't gotten any is because no one wanted to create wiki pages and all that for the many, many, many throughout this series.

I think part of it is also because the pre-Showtime non-fandom tags were also all made by a select handful of users, such as techgoose1 and niitaarruu, who hardly ever use the forum (and even still, The.Duke and KalpacMuskoxen had to step in, due to having to clean up their tagging). I still remember when a lot of these tags just suddenly popped up in the last few years (topic #23464), though in Kalpac's case he has attempted to discuss this topic further in topic #24393.

Had the creators of these tags made BURs to have them imply their intended base tag, I imagine we wouldn't be in this position.

Damian0358 said:

I think part of it is also because the pre-Showtime non-fandom tags were also all made by a select handful of users, such as techgoose1 and niitaarruu, who hardly ever use the forum (and even still, The.Duke and KalpacMuskoxen had to step in, due to having to clean up their tagging). I still remember when a lot of these tags just suddenly popped up in the last few years (topic #23464), though in Kalpac's case he has attempted to discuss this topic further in topic #24393.

Had the creators of these tags made BURs to have them imply their intended base tag, I imagine we wouldn't be in this position.

Indeed. Just about what I suspected, in the end. Hopefully, assuming this initial BUR goes through, we can finally fix all this, one character at a time.

Although, I suspect this thread will end up with at least ten pages, knowing how many there are. I don't even think I caught all of Peach's in this initial one, honestly.

Baby Peach is actually just a young version of her, I guess covered under "aged down" one of the things that I don't see people discuss that they kind of do in the games is that Paper Mario and Paper Peach and the other paper characters are separate people from the normal variants of Mario and Peach

The bulk update request #23207 (forum #268368) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

BUR #24067 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication baby_mario -> mario
create implication baby_luigi -> luigi
create implication baby_peach -> princess_peach
create implication baby_bowser -> bowser
create implication baby_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication baby_donkey_kong -> donkey_kong
create implication baby_rosalina -> rosalina
create implication baby_wario -> wario

So now that my test BUR has been approved (missing costume notwithstanding), I can now go in and add BURs for everyone else. Something I will do when I have some free time (especially to write up the required wiki pages for some of them).

But first: the point of contention that occasionally got brought up in the initial run. And if you want one baby implicating the adult, you gotta do all of them, in my opinion. I don't mind the idea, but I still feel some people would be less than thrilled by the idea out there, so I'm doing them all together on one BUR.

Proper implications should be coming soon. Please wait warmly in the meantime.

If we do accept the baby BUR, at bare minimum, for Baby Mario and Baby Luigi, we'll need folks to go through and add dual persona/multiple persona where appropriate, so that people can search for art of baby and adult Mario and Luigi.

BUR #24089 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication fire_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication elephant_princess_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication bubble_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication drill_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication balloon_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication tennis_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication dr._daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(swimwear) -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(yukata) -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(sailor) -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(fairy) -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(farmer) -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(holiday_cheer) -> princess_daisy
create implication princess_daisy_(thai_dress) -> princess_daisy
create implication biker_daisy -> princess_daisy
create implication biker_peach -> princess_peach

Daisy implications are ready to go. Let me know if I missed any.

EDIT: Whoops, missed the biker costume...Along with the Peach version, so I'm sneaking that in here.

BUR #24090 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create alias elephant_princess_peach -> elephant_peach
create alias elephant_princess_daisy -> elephant_daisy

Also, if people don't mind me doing this on an implication thread: I have no idea why they have their titles in there. They are referred to as "Elephant Peach" and "Elephant Daisy" both in nomenclature and as part of the Mario series' typical naming scheme for characters under power-ups. These are very strange outliers to that in my opinion.

Damian0358 said:

If we do accept the baby BUR, at bare minimum, for Baby Mario and Baby Luigi, we'll need folks to go through and add dual persona/multiple persona where appropriate, so that people can search for art of baby and adult Mario and Luigi.

If this particular BUR passes, I'll go ahead and do it myself. Though help would be nice if so.

BUR #24213 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication biker_rosalina -> rosalina
create implication cat_rosalina -> rosalina
create implication dr._rosalina -> rosalina
create implication fire_rosalina -> rosalina
create implication dr._fire_rosalina -> fire_rosalina
create implication tanuki_rosalina -> rosalina
create implication tennis_rosalina -> rosalina
create implication rosalina_(aurora) -> rosalina
create implication rosalina_(chef) -> rosalina
create implication rosalina_(halloween) -> rosalina
create implication rosalina_(swimwear) -> rosalina
create implication rosalina_(volendam) -> rosalina

Rosalina implications ready to go now.

BUR #24241 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication golf_pauline -> pauline_(mario)
create implication tennis_pauline -> pauline_(mario)
create implication pauline_(cowgirl) -> pauline_(mario)
create implication pauline_(party_time) -> pauline_(mario)
create implication pauline_(rose)_(mario) -> pauline_(mario)

And now, Pauline. Princesses (and Mayor) down...Everyone else to go. Starting with the Mario Brothers proper...Oh boy...

BUR #24493 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication dashing_thief_peach -> princess_peach

Missing costume from the first go at it due to not being on the booru yet. It is now, so now it's good to go.

BUR #24497 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Finally started on the implications for Mario, and here we are. Dear lord. Predictably, he ended up having just as many, if not more than Princess Peach, with the only saving graces being that many of the official alternate costumes in Mario Kart Tour don't have artwork on here (yet) and that we seem to not be tagging the alternate costumes introduced in Super Mario Odyssey (which means less work for me). Even so, that's a lot.

Tags missed (to be further deliberated):

Cosmic Mario - This is a tag with only one image in it, and it seems to be a thing that merely resembles Mario as opposed to actually being Mario as is typical. It's not on here, but Luigi has a variant called Cosmic Luigi which is the same thing. I'm not sure how good an idea it is to implicate it knowing this, so I'm leaving it out for now. It's a one post tag anyway.

Dr. Mario - Normally, I wouldn't hesitate here (as Dr. Mario is very much meant to be Mario), however there's also the issue of Super Smash Bros., which doesn't treat him the same way as regular Mario. He's not "Mario in a doctor costume" the same way he is in the Dr. Mario series. I'd like to implicate him to Mario if possible, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea with this in mind. How do we wanna do it, guys?

Mini-Mario - They're toys. Toys that resemble Mario, yes, but still just toys. They are generally not considered to be Mario either, so I'm hesitant to implicate them. Also not to be confused with Mini Mario, which is very much an alternate form of Mario that gets to go in the BUR. This tag might need a qualifier of some sort, honestly.

Maiden_in_Orange said:

Dr. Mario - Normally, I wouldn't hesitate here (as Dr. Mario is very much meant to be Mario), however there's also the issue of Super Smash Bros., which doesn't treat him the same way as regular Mario. He's not "Mario in a doctor costume" the same way he is in the Dr. Mario series. I'd like to implicate him to Mario if possible, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea with this in mind. How do we wanna do it, guys?

Young Link and Toon Link are both implicated to Link despite being separate from the regular version of him in Smash, so I think it's fine to implicate Dr. Mario to the main tag.

Mini-Mario - They're toys. Toys that resemble Mario, yes, but still just toys. They are generally not considered to be Mario either, so I'm hesitant to implicate them. Also not to be confused with Mini Mario, which is very much an alternate form of Mario that gets to go in the BUR. This tag might need a qualifier of some sort, honestly.

I agree with not implicating these, they're basically robot replicas of Mario. Would be like implicating Metal Sonic to Sonic the Hedgehog imo

HeeroWingZero said:

Young Link and Toon Link are both implicated to Link despite being separate from the regular version of him in Smash, so I think it's fine to implicate Dr. Mario to the main tag.

Alrighty, sounds good. Just wasn't sure of how much of a wrench Super Smash Bros. might end up throwing into my planned BUR, so I wanted to play safe just in case. Dr. Mario now added to the BUR.

BUR #24692 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication bubble_luigi -> luigi
create implication cat_luigi -> luigi
create implication cloud_luigi -> luigi
create implication dr._luigi -> luigi
create implication elephant_luigi -> luigi
create implication fire_luigi -> luigi
create implication flying_squirrel_luigi -> luigi
create implication fox_luigi -> luigi
create implication frog_luigi -> luigi
create implication ice_luigi -> luigi
create implication kitsune_luigi -> luigi
create implication penguin_luigi -> luigi
create implication tennis_luigi -> luigi
create implication luigi_(golf) -> luigi
create implication luigi_(lederhosen) -> luigi
create implication luigi_(vacation) -> luigi

Luigi implications ready to go. Wasn't anywhere near as bad as his brother, it turned out, but he still has some things that need to be sorted out.

Next up will probably be Bowser. And after that...Maybe the handful of Toads (and Toadette) that got costumes? Dear lord, there's a lot of characters here...

Tags missed (to be further deliberated):

Mr L: ...Alright, how do we want to handle this guy? Because yes, he is Luigi (and most images of him are also tagged Luigi, supporting implication). Nor is it a spoiler for that to be the case. However, things like forum #273112 suggest pushback against the idea, and does open the can of worms presented: are the Paper Mario versions of characters the same as their regular versions? I'm personally for implication, as I would consider Paper Luigi to be the same as regular Luigi tag wise, but since this is one of those weird cases, I wanted feedback before putting it in the BUR.

Weegee: Infamous meme version so detached from the original Luigi that I think it's safe to say we don't want to implicate that to Luigi. But I'm open to having my mind changed.

The bulk update request #24089 (forum #272003) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #24090 (forum #272004) has been approved by @nonamethanks.