Talk:Princess Daisy

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Princess Daisy (Mario) → Princess Daisy (character)Princess Daisy (character) I am requesting a RM as per declined G6 (technical deletion in prevision of an uncontroversial move) of Princess Daisy (character) (see discussion); rename from an over-specific disambiguator when a broader one is preferred by WP:NCDAB, specifically to avoid proper nouns and using more generic "classes". Simple correction of the mistake done by the creator of this article when he converted from a redirect; he simply seems to have been unaware of the guidelines and converted the wrong redirect into a full article. Salvidrim! 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Per guidelines, and I always find it awkward when another name is used in a disambiguation for a name article, like how it is presently... Sergecross73 msg me 05:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  Well I can kind of understand for Toad (Mario) where there are several characters named Toad (1, 2, 3). Even Toad (video game character) or Toad (video games) would fail, as Toad (comics) has also appeared in video games. But in the case of Princess Daisy, the most simple disambiguator is highly preferred indeed. Salvidrim! 06:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we go with "name" ("second name"), but it's not optimal, and is best to be avoided when possible, like in this instance. Sergecross73 msg me 06:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense. 109.175.229.40 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I find the comments on the "character" talk page disagreeable. Princess Daisy as a Mario topic is, without a doubt, the more likely name to come up when a search or otherwise is performed, compared to a book with a titular character of the same name. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Completely agree. I also don't think the heroine of the novel is widely known as "Princess Daisy", readers are more likely to search for "Daisy Valensky" for the titular character. Perhaps we should add a "Not to be confused with" after the move? SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  I was planning on a hatnote indeed. Salvidrim! 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  {{distinguish}}. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hinted At Relationship With Wario

Found here. Wasn't sure if this was worth mentioning, as it's a very specific instance in the German translation of a game, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see what others think.--YoureAGhostBaby (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I know this is old, but this is the sort of junk people love to slip into articles, so I'll respond: I think their team label of "Mismatched Pair" got mistranslated when translating it into German. Like the term "pair" was translated into a more romantic-implying word than it should have been. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Source doesn't reflect claims made

This source, linked in the header, doesn't return any hits for Daisy or Super Mario Land. Telemachus12389 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Daisy's skin tone

I don't know if it's important but I think her change of skin tone should be notable because of it changing throughout the series going from tan to light to tan again. RoseWaterSkies (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Want to nominate this for deletion, but with my 2 current deletion requests, I'll put off from this.

Want to get it dealt with as people are doubting its WP:GNG for months. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Go for it then. 2405:8D40:4D0C:E5AD:A1B7:E822:3877:BE97 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent Revert Concerning Reception Source

I already tried to reach out to the admin who reverted the edits in question and got no response after a couple days. I've explained the reason for removing the first source under the negative receptions paragraph is due to the article currently insinuating the IGN article was a simple ranking of the characters on a scale of 1-10. It's specifically about ranking the female Mario characters on how worth rescuing by Mario they are. So, it isn't what it seems, currently. It's more convoluted than simply ranking the characters on some numeral scale. On top of that, the article is filled with incorrect information like referring to Daisy as, "Super Smash. Bros.' Daisy" at a time when she wasn't even playable in the series yet. It also includes Daisy's image under Pauline's section. And finally, it specifically was written to center around asking readers to take the given rankings as a means to cast their votes between the characters. The voting system is a dead link and no such results are even given.

It's for all of the above reasons I tried to remove this source. Additionally, I tried to point out another negative source referring to Daisy as Peach with brown hair was erroneous because Daisy's hair is officially orange according to Nintendo, and in my personal opinion the character is plainly a redhead. This was also reverted.

Finally, I had added a source concerning her reception in relation to Luigi. This was removed, being sighted as unreliable, which I find odd and without reason because it's from DualShockers, a gaming website established around 2009. I'd appreciate any additional comments or input here, as the admin who disagreed with me on all this has not returned comment for further discussion. TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I simply lost track of that message. IGN is an accepted reliable source, while Dualshockers is an unreliable source. See WP:VG/S for more information. The fact that Daisy's picture is weirdly formatted changed nothing about the text that IGN wrote about her. As for AVClub, also a reliable source, come on. You're seriously arguing that the error is they said Daisy has brown hair, but you believe it's "orange, but probably redhead"? It's just a color and the sentiment they're expressing there is clear. It changes nothing about their statements or reliability. -- ferret (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's understandable enough concerning the source's reliability in general. What the IGN source wrote about her is not in the same context as what the article has written, though, and that is the main point of what I brought up about it as it is now. On top of that though, the article has numerous errors reflective of it being a poor source as I described. Mentioning one of those problems in order to minimize the degree of issues throughout the source doesn't negate the overall point that it is a bad source. It's not just the misplaced image. Again, it is also because the rating they gave is a very convoluted discussion of how worth rescuing by Mario the female Mario characters are in regards to asking readers to vote on a poll in response. They misrefer to Daisy as, "Smash Bros' Daisy" at a time when she was never even playable in the series. They also don't have any form of the poll the article centers around. For numerous reasons the article is a bad source of suggesting this was a straightforward comparison of the characters or response to the characters. It's being put in the article under a section meant to reflect a public reception to her and it's being presented as something it isn't, as I have repeatedly pointed out. And I'm simply arguing that when I put the quote about her being a brown-haired Peach as erroneous is because of their description being factually incorrect. It relates to the validity of the critique because isn't even an accurate description despite being used to describe her negatively. Your direct quote of what I said is also incorrect and seems to serve to suggest I'm uncertain about what I said, which I'm not. That's not what I said despite you putting it in quotes. TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I pretty much considered her brown haired. I simply put no deep thought into where on the spectrum of brown to orange it fell. -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your opinion being the same as theirs changes that it is not correct. In an official character profile for Daisy, she is referred to by Nintendo as having, "orange hair". source That fact directly negates the opinion, as it is literally belittling her to her hair color, so is worth being referred to as erroneous in order to correctly frame the opinion's inaccuracy. TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If I may interject, that IGN article actually isn't saying anything usable, and frankly I'm going to remove it alongside a lot of others on those grounds. The bigger problem with the Dualshockers one is while it's not unreliable per se, it's not saying a lot and the author is listed as a contributor. It's not a great ref to build on Timon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have settled my peace with the disinclusion of the Dualshocker article. However, of the numerous sources you removed, your choice to retain the one from AV Club sticks out, still. "According to official Nintendo lore, Princess Daisy is a “tomboy.” I’m not sure how this boyishness manifests itself in the character design—her choice of an unflattering yellow dress, maybe? But this “tomboy” stuff is euphemistic nonsense, anyway. I imagine Daisy is a closeted lesbian, plucked from the socially liberal dream world of Super Mario Land’s Sarasaland and forced to mold her identity to the Mushroom Kingdom’s rigid gender roles. She steals furtive glances at Toadette and posts Orange Is The New Black GIFs to her Tumblr. I imagine these things. But really, she’s Princess Peach with brown hair." It's filled with thinly veiled homophobic and prejudiced remarks. It's again, plainly wrong in referring to her as Princess Peach with brown hair, and while the notion that the claim of her being a tomboy as euphemistic holds merit at first, it is ruined by being immediately argued with strange claims of her sexuality, applying liberalism to Sarasaland, an extremely 2-dimensional setting with nowhere near the development or characterization needed to idealize such an idea, and trying to suggest the Mushroom Kingdom too has any sign of rigid gender roles isn't backed up by anything. It's all ridiculous. Surely there's a decent source of criticism for the character that is not filled with this kind of comedic made-up inaccurate commentary? TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey I said even in the summary I wasn't too keen on that one, so you want to remove it that's all on you man. As is, speaking frankly, this is barely a character that could be summed up in a few sentences ideally.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference to portrayal in Super Mario Bros movie is strange and misleading

Yes the character is called "Princess Daisy" but she is pretty much Daisy in name only.

I'm not opposed to mentioning this in the article but I think there should be a qualifier similar to "a character named Princess Daisy also appears in the 1993 film but she has little in common with Daisy as depicted in the Mario game series." Thoughts?

Toad (Mario) has the same problem. DHCKris (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The Vice citation acknowledges that the film took creative liberties but that does not mean this is not a variant of the character. Fieryninja (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

They only thing they have in common is the name Daisy and the fact that she's a princess. It's a stretch to say she's a variant of the character from the games. Probably they chose the name "Daisy" because it works as a given name (before she knows she's a princess). Otherwise it's a distinct character. DHCKris (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Any additional commentary about this would need to be backed up with citations from a reliable gaming source, otherwise it's just personal analysis. Fieryninja (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true. The way it is now is personal analysis.

Honestly, I think that is what is bothering me: to assert that the movie character is the same as the games is someone's opinion; not supported by any text.

What I am in favor of is something more factual and neutral: merely mentioning that there is a Princess Daisy in the movie but making no claim that it's the same one. Frankly, the way it is now smacks of how a fan wiki would approach it.

To your point, my revised proposal is to say "a character named Princess Daisy also appears in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros." and remove the "portrayed by" in the infobox. That's factual.

DHCKris (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal suggests that this is some other character but that is your personal opinion. The film was made in consultation and with agreement from Nintendo. It features Mario and Luigi. It is WP:OR (original research) to say that they chose the name Daisy because it works as a princess name. The Vice source names her as Princess Daisy, the film's Wikipedia page names her as Princess Daisy. To suggest otherwise is WP:OR without a citation. You could just as well argue that Mario and Luigi in the film are not the same characters because they may seem very different to the game characters, but that would also be incorrect. Fieryninja (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I recognize I'm not getting any support here but I just feel that it's better to be more neutral since the use of the phrase "portrayed by" feels very loosely applied. Samantha Mathis is portraying a character called "Princess Daisy" but there's no proof the writers of the film intended it to be the character the article is about. With Mario and Luigi the intention is obvious. It's not original research to refuse to assume the writers' intentions. To say "a character named Princess Daisy appears in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros" (let's remove "also") assumes less than "Princess Daisy is portrayed by Samantha Mathis in the film."

I feel the current way it's written is closer to original research, since it assumes the writers sat down and thought, "let's cast Samantha Mathis specifically as the Princess Daisy character who appears in Super Mario Land." WP:OR cautions against analysis, and I admit that I'm analyzing the film and drawing the conclusion that she has little in common with the Princess Daisy character, but that she is the same character is also analysis. So to say "a character named Princess Daisy appears..." is a statement that doesn't make a judgement in either direction and is therefore preferable. Does that make sense? DHCKris (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the current text is neutral as is because it follows the source. Every source I have found refers to this film character as Princess Daisy. The fact that this is even mentioned on the page is enough to put it in the context of the game character. We cannot add any additional analysis without a source or remove anything based on interpretation. Fieryninja (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is an interview I found with the writers of the film that implies the movie character is meant to be Princess Toadstool (Peach) but as I suspected, they called her Daisy because they assumed that was her name based on Super Mario Land and it's more like a real person's name:

https://www.smbmovie.com/SMBArchive/specials/interviews/16_ParkerBennett_9-18-10.html

"And, you know, there’s stuff that didn’t make [any sense], like [how] it’s Princess Daisy in some versions of the game and it’s Princess… Toadstool [in others]. Well, obviously we can’t name her 'Princess Toadstool' in the movie; that would just be weird. (laughs) So, okay: 'She’s Princess Daisy.'"

Followed by "Interviewer’s note: Princess Daisy of the Super Mario Land side-series and Princess (Peach) Toadstool of the core series are two different characters, as has become clear in recent years due to their divergent personalities and appearances, but in 1992 there was some confusion over whether they were two princesses or one." DHCKris (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Good work finding the interview. However, the only information I can gather from this extract is that they were aware of two characters with princess names but "in 1992 there was some confusion over whether they were two princesses or one." They therefore simply chose the best princess name which was Daisy not Toadstool. Your interpretation is that this shows it was meant to be Princess Toadstool, whereas my interpretation is that they simply chose the one with the most sensible name. That doesn't prove it was meant to be one or the other, only that they chose Daisy over Peach. This is why we don't use personal analysis but follow the sources instead. Fieryninja (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

My original point is that the article is currently misleading. "She is portrayed by Samantha Mathis in the live-action Super Mario Bros. film" implies that the character in the film is unambiguously Princess Daisy, the brown-haired, yellow-dress wearing tomboy princess of Sarasaland, but this is just not the case. Given that there is some ambiguity regarding the writers' intent to portray this character (in the interview) I still propose the wording be changed to "a character named Princess Daisy appears in the live-action Super Mario Bros. film" or something similar. At the very least, the language "portrayed" I think is too strong. It suggests an intent to depict exactly this character that is just not factually supported. Are you amenable to this? I'm open to other suggestions. DHCKris (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is much ambiguity. They admitted they were aware of two princess game characters named Daisy and Toadstool but just chose one name over the other. We could add more context with citations to explain how the film character name was chosen and then that would explain why the film character is different. I do think we need to keep "portrayed" though because that is factually correct. Daisy is portrayed by Samantha Mathis no matter how different the character is. Fieryninja (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen the film? I understand it's original research but it's obvious that the character in the film is at the very least an amalgam of Mario princess characters. Her father is King Toadstool, she is kidnapped by King Koopa (Bowser), she possesses blonde hair. But yes, she is named Princess Daisy. It's clear from my source that the writers chose "Daisy" because they felt the name "Toadstool" was ridiculous, but it's ambiguous whether they thought Daisy was Princess Toadstool's name or knew it was another character.

Based on the same source, it seems in the original draft of the screenplay, her name was Princess Hildy. Had they gone with that, how would Wikipedia have handled it? I can only speculate, but my guess is that the Princess Peach article would have a mention of Samantha Mathis portraying her "as Princess Hildy." It wouldn't occur to you, me or anybody that Princess Daisy was even on the table as a character to appear in the film. Despite being the obvious source of the character, there is no mention of the 1993 film on the Peach article at all. A different name and your perception would be that an entirely different princess were being "portrayed." See the problem?

Given this, can you empathize with my frustration at the way the article is currently written? It is definitive in its declaration that the character portrayed in the film is exactly the character this article is about. I understand fully that we cannot use my interpretation of the film here, but there has to be a middle-ground, because I think that saying Princess Daisy appears in the film and Princess Peach doesn't is just as much of an interpretation. The sources indicate she is Princess Daisy but there is no source that Princess Daisy — the specific character from Super Mario Land who is different from Princess Peach — is portrayed in the movie.

Another proposal: instead of "she is portrayed by Samantha Mathis in the live-action Super Mario Bros. film," how about, "her name was used for the character portrayed by Samantha Mathis in the live-action Super Mario Bros. film, but it is unclear whether the writers knew she was a distinct character from Princess Peach." Something like that. Then, providing more detail gleaned from the interview/fan site (such as "Princess Hildy" and the Toadstool/Daisy confusion) in the "in other media" section. DHCKris (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think adding that context is fair so long as it is backed up by citation. I think the second half of the sentence would need to simply report how the writers chose the name rather than Wikipedia making an assessment eg something like "The writers said they were unclear whether Daisy and Toadstool were separate characters but chose Daisy as the preferred name." Fieryninja (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)