Talk:History of Toad

Re-implementing the "Possible Appearances" section?

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that must be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

This is a feature that used to be on Toad's article which I noticed is missing from this branch of the page.

I recall that a few users tended to dislike the section for being inherently speculative, but it's absence has led to some confusing messiness on this article, such as the "possible appearance Toads" seemingly being outright merged into the main history section of the page as if they were fully confirmed appearances. This eventually resulted in a entire proposal being created last month just to remove the more "ambiguously-defined" Toads from this page, which has, conversely, left certain iterations of Toad with nowhere to be covered at, such as his appearances in Super Princess Peach or Paper Mario: Color Splash.

I personally believe that most of this situation could have largely been avoided if the "Possible Appearances" section had still in place on this article somewhere.

I also couldn't seem to find an explanation for the section's complete removal, either. This section of Toad's talk page does briefly discuss the idea of removing it, but there doesn't to be any information regarding its absence in the any of the relevant history sections for this page, the main article, nor could I even find a proposal regarding its removal. (That is, unless I missed something on the Proposal archive page.)

A few articles, such as Yellow Toad and Blue Toad's page, still retain a comparable section to what used to be here, and re-adding one to this page would give us a place to cover certain "Toad-like" Toads which may not be fully confirmed appearances of the character, without necessarily contradicting the aforementioned proposal from last month. Does anyone else think it's a good idea, or perhaps you might have a better solution in mind? (For the record, the Toad (species) article would not be up to the task of sufficiently covering things like "PMCS Toad" in the slightest.) Wandering Poplin (talk) 00:54, February 21, 2026 (UTC)

Off-topic, but we also need a new quote for his page now. If we aren't currently considering the Toad from Mario Super Sluggers to be "The Toad", we shouldn't be attributing that line to him anymore. Wandering Poplin (talk) 00:54, February 21, 2026 (UTC)

Well, that problem's been solved now. But the broader issue still remains. For any users who may disagree with the prospect of re-implementing the "Possible Appearances" section, do you have a better proposition for how to handle these edge-case Toads? I don't think the current handling of the situation is quite acceptable, but I'm also trying to not step on the toes of the "Tighten Coverage" proposal too much for the moment. Wandering Poplin (talk) 01:26, March 7, 2026 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what is/was the criteria for inclusion in the "Possible Appearances" section, anyway? I recall that one "possible appearance" of Yellow Toad and Blue Toad was removed for being unconfirmed*, but neither were the other three appearances listed in that section**. Knowing what the criteria for inclusion was supposed to be would be helpful in terms of figuring out how to improve that system for this page.

(*That section was re-added to the article later on. Looks like its removal was just part of a misunderstanding.)

(**Luigi's Mansion 3 might be an exception, since I believe the problem there is that we don't know if it's specifically the NSMBW duo, or just two unrelated Toads with the same colors and names.) Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:59, March 7, 2026 (UTC)

I would personaly agree. There are multiple games where Toad the character is propably in. Even if not 100% confirmed. The "Possible Appearances" section was the best middle ground for covering his questionable appearances in games. So I am 100% for brigining that back. Kirby the Formling (talk) 21:02, May 20, 2026 (UTC)

Well, since it wasn't removed via a proposal*, it doesn't look like there's anything which is actively preventing the restoration of the "Possible Appearances" section as far as I can tell.

That being said, I'd personally like to figure out how to revise the system before attempting to do so, lest we end up in a situation like this once again at some point down the line.

(*From the look of things, the section was in a pretty sorry state at the time, and it was seemingly merged into the main page on a whim.) Wandering Poplin (talk) 01:25, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

Bring back the "Possible Appearances" section

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

canceled by proposer
Proposer realized proposal was poorly thought-out

There was a propolsal made a few months ago on the Main Toad page that removed a lot of content from Toad's history. Mainly the games where Toad the character appearing was far more debetable. And while I understand that the idea of Toad the character's history including that he appeared in games where we have no 100% confirmation he was actually in is wrong. I do think that outright saying that he did not appeared in set games is not exacly better.

For example: In Paper Mario: Color Splash, at the beginning of the page, Mario, Peach and singular generic ToadMedia:Paper Mario Color Splash - Mario House.png go to Prism Island. The fact that it is shown that they took 1 singular Toad with them does suggest that this is The Toad. The only reason why we are not 100% shure that this is the Toad is because that game includes a billion other Toads that look the sameMedia:PMCS Samba Toads.png. However, that does not suddenly make that 1 singular Toad at the beginning of the game not valid to be consider Toad the Character. I mean Toad the character and generic Toads can co-exist in the same game. Ask the original Super Mario RPG with how they handled Toad the character.

This is why "Possible Appearances" where so good. As it allowed the page to talk about games where Toad the Character could have appeared in. Dispite there not being 100% definite proof that it is meant to be the Toad. It made people who do consider these games to include the Toad (like me) satisfied without technically brigining missinformation.

I know that "Possible Appearances" section does make the page go into the theorising teritory. However, it's not my fault that Nintendo decited to make both Toad the Character and Toad the spiecies. Considering how confusing the entire debate is. A little bit a theorising is needeed. Especialy when the evidence is strong.

Funny thing is that some pages such as Yellow and Blue Toads keep the "Possible appearances" section and I don't see anybody complaining about that being a bad edition. All it does is that the page acknowledges that there are some pieces of media where Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are shown together. Dispite not being 100% confirmed that they are meant to be The Yellow Toad and the Blue Toad from the platformers. If these pages only benefit from having that section. Then I fail to see why it would hurt this one.

So my idea is to bring back the previously removed information: Super Mario 64 & Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Sunshine, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga & Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions, Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, Mario Pinball Land, Super Princess Peach, Mario Superstar Baseball, Mario Super Sluggers, and especialy Paper Mario: Color Splash to the new "Possible Appearances" section where we give cover to these questionable Toad apperances.

I am open to variation of which games should count or not. I might add extra options to vote for if you will want. But for now: I'm currently for brigining back the coverage for these games on this page.

Proposer: Kirby the Formling (talk)
Deadline: June 04, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes! Acknowledge The Toad! (Support)

1. Kirby the Formling (talk) Per all.

Big mushroom brain discussion (The Comments)

...Isn't it a little early for this? I'd been deliberately holding off on the matter until I could find a solution that works for everyone. This proposal currently does not sufficiently address any of the rules, concepts, or arguments established during the previous proposal, nor any of the issues which users had with the section prior.

It's also critical that you find a better counterargument regarding its inherent "speculative" nature than "it's not my fault that Nintendo decited^[sic] to make both Toad the Character and Toad the spiecies^[sic]", especially when there are some users who still dislike the entire idea of these "[subject] the character" and "[subject] the species" splits as it is. (The failed Yoshi proposal from February is not very distant in memory.)

I'm in favor of the general idea of restoring/reworking the section, but I think it would've been better if you'd waited and given the issue a bit more time to be discussed with the wiki community before drafting this proposal.

I also want to clarify that there is more evidence for "PMCS Toad" being "The Toad" than just "singular Toad who follows Mario and Peach." Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:57, May 21, 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Admitibly this wasn't the most thought out propolsal. For now I am canseling this propolsal until I will find more and better arguments to logically reverse the previous propolsal in a way that everybody will be happy. Kirby the Formling (talk) 17:16, May 21, 2026 (UTC)