The best example really is Pokemon. There are multiple of almost every Pokemon, and that's not a problem for the likes of Pikachu, Charizard, Ivysaur, Squirtle, Jigglypuff, or Lucario. I know they're from a monster collecting franchise, but they're still part of a species and are not individual characters. What makes Pokemon different?
For the record, I'm legitimately asking a question here.
What makes Pokémon different? You literally just answered that.
It's a monster collecting franchise.
The best way to represent such a franchise is through, well, the
monsters. Mario is different. It, as I repeatedly stated, is a franchise that has a core cast of characters. Best way to represent the franchise is through that core cast of characters. Generic Toad #52 isn't any more a part of it than Generic Koopa #37 or Generic Goomba #149.
Though, as I said, having a generic Toad be the "ambassador" of the Toad race for Smash is possible (but not for this upcoming pair of games for obvious reasoning). However, it really cannot be compared to Pokémon.
Especially when all the examples you listed outside of Jigglypuff (which even then is debatable) all have glaring counters to the case.
You've referenced this a some times before. Would you mind filling me in on your findings?
As someone who supports "Toad," I'd love to know more about what exactly I'm supporting!
To summarize my main points:
-The concept of "Toad" is not present in Japan. (You even mentioned the "Kino" vs. "Kinopio" thing; that isn't real. All "Toads" are "Kinopios".)
-There are too many inconsistencies in regards to who "Toad" is to the point of ridiculousness. I even have a quote for this: "Every Toad is 'Toad', except when they're not."
I'm actually going to make a video about it in the future.