Talk:Bowser

Bowser Talk sub-pages: Talk:Bowser/Special Move Set.

That picture is not from Super Mario Sunshine. Bspald95 11:06, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Wreck it Ralph Movie Appearance
Should we note in the triva or somewhere that Bowser will appear in Wreck it Ralph (For those of you who don't know it is a new Disney movie.)This appearance is not just a cameo, as he is in this villain club in the movie.


 * It already has its own section in the History portion of the page, under "Other Appearances, Cameos and References". - 22:03, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Oh, sorry about that, I guess I should have read the article instead of scrolling.

NSMBU Bowser
I need Bowser's appearance to be New Super Mario Bros. U,not Fortune Street. --114.79.16.126 03:39, 16 December 2012 (EST)


 * You mean the image on the infobox? Please see this for an explanation.


 * 03:46, 16 December 2012 (EST)


 * I think that image is better because it uses HD graphics,also, I need them for more recent appearance,because current appearance,New Super Mario Bros. U artwork image is better than the Fortune Street. As such,I need it. Right?--114.79.19.234 05:21, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I agree that it should be put on the article as the latest artwork. Other users are concerned that the image it not high-resolution enough. But personally, I don't think we need it to be super-large for an image that is going to be downscaled for an infobox anyway. The image itself is good quality, but the size is what others are concerned about. But please don't replace the image just yet. Other users wish to wait a while longer before making a final decision. Thanks.

05:33, 17 December 2012 (EST)


 * What YoshiKong said, plus the other standard is that the characters in question would be facing the reader. So I doubt the NSMBU picture of Bowser would really fit criteria for the infobox itself to be changed (provided that we find a better "source version" of said picture). --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 13:14, 17 December 2012 (EST)
 * I've never heard of a "facing the reader" requirement. Really, the only policy I know of is on Template:Character-infobox (which the admins decided to write to avoid unnecessary TPPs about which artwork to use): use the latest artwork unless there's something atypical about it (i.e. if the character is holding sports equipment or kart racing ir whatever), in which case the second-most-recent image can be used (or older, if there were multiple unsuitable spin-off artwork). - 09:39, 18 December 2012 (EST)
 * Oh yes! Please see Wikipedia! It uses artwork from "New Super Mario Bros. 2"! Better to use NSMB2 rather than NSMBU! Yes or No? If Yes,I choose NSMBU,if No, I choose NSMB2!--114.79.19.202 01:24, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * What user you talking about? I don't know what user is,YoshiKong. If you don't want to answer my question,i better to replace it with NSMB2 instead of NSMBU.--114.79.19.202 01:33, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * I better choose Yes if you don't know my question is.I think in the NSMBU picture he is not wearing anything.also there is HQ in the Bowser's surfaces.--114.79.19.202 01:38, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * Hello again.If you don't want to answer my questions from above we choose answers from below.--114.79.18.33 03:42, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * This is Differences:

CANCELLED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS We already have a standard set up to tell us what image to use (see here).

Choosing an image for the infobox on the Bowser article.

Proposer: 114.79.17.172 (talk) Deadline: January 2, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Renewed as New Super Mario Bros. 2 from Wikipedia article says

 * 1) This is newer, and unlike the NSMBU artwork it shows the whole face

Use New Super Mario Bros. U

 * 1) This picture looks better and more defined, even if it doesn't show the whole face. It would make a much better infobox picture. Plus the shading helps make it look even nicer.
 * 2) I choose this picture. It looks very epic. Per Coooool123.

Comments

 * Would this be an official talk page proposal then?


 * 05:07, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * Oh Yes! This is official!--114.79.17.172 06:26, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * Voting open for two weeks. It will end in January 2013.--114.79.17.172 06:46, 19 December 2012 (EST)
 * This needs to be reformatted badly

Fixed. But if we are having this TPP, then what was MeritC referring to here?

21:07, 19 December 2012 (EST)


 * The reason is being that the "source version" of that NSMBU picture hasn't surfaced yet, and number two as PTR stated -- it's not showing the whole face. Third, that NSMB2 picture is the same as the SMG Bowser picture pose wise. My assumption is that this anonymous person is trying to get the infobox picture to be the same one that Wikipedia uses (yet, this site is trying to NOT imitate Wikiepdia for good reason). --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 22:37, 19 December 2012 (EST)

Okay, so we don't really need a TPP for the NSMB2 artwork because it rightfully gets a place in the infobox as it is the latest and there is nothing "atypical" about it. But may you please answer the question in my comment above?

22:55, 19 December 2012 (EST)


 * Erm, NSMB2 was first released on July 28, 2012, but NSMBU only came out on November 18, 2012 - nearly four months later. NSMBU is the most recently released game, so its artwork is what the infobox's policy is calling for, not NSMB2. The rule of thumb is that the artwork should be from the game that's also listed in the "latest appearance" line (consistency), unless that game's a spinoff and its artwork is specialized for that subseries, which isn't the case with NSMBU: it's just given stylized, moody shadowing, but there's no hard rule against that, or not facing the readers, or not being big enough, or whatever. - 21:55, 20 December 2012 (EST)
 * I get the two mixed up PTR (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2012 (EST)

@Walkazo – Then is the TPP necessary? The NSMBU art is the most suitable for the infobox regardless of what decision the proposal makes.

23:06, 20 December 2012 (EST)


 * Yep, it's unnecessary, and I'm deleting it and updated the article according to policy. The only reason this TPP wasn't deleted yesterday was because it also brought up the issue of anonymous users participating in proposals, so we (the admins) wanted to decide how that should be run first. For the record, anonymous users are free to comment in proposals and other such discussions around the wiki, but you need an account to vote or create proposals (and FA nominations and whatnot). - 00:59, 21 December 2012 (EST)

Narrow quote
CANCELLED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS This is way to minor for a TPP: just use and discuss it without the overkill of a formal vote.

The "Count Bleck, Floro Sapiens, whatever!" part of the quote is really unnessecary, so let's remove it.

Propser: Deadline: January 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per self.

Oppose

 * 1) It's what he said so why would we eliminate it?
 * 2) Per Marshal Dan Troop; my answer here is also NO.
 * 3) It would sound better, but we should have the full quote.
 * 4) Per Marshal Dan Troop and BowserJunior. I kinda like that quote.

Comments
This is the second time in a row you've neglected to list your TPP on Proposals. And your last proposal was barely even formatted at all: it should have been removed, not fixed by someone else. Either do it right, or don't make proposals at all. And in cases like these, I'd say not at all: TPPs for changing quotes are even more overkill than ones about changing the infobox images. - 19:17, 15 January 2013 (EST)
 * The admins talked it over and yeah, this is overkill, so we're cancelling it. TPPs are for splits, merges and major changes that only affect one or two pages: quotes and other such details can and should be decided by informal discussion. Use, not , to bring more attention to the issue. - 01:28, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Bowser's Inside Story Stats?
The Bowser's Inside Story section includes stats on Bowser's second fight, but not the first one in Peach's Castle. Is that information available somewhere? The Midbus article could also use that information.

Disambiguations
Just noticed all the disambiguations at the top were apparently removed from this article a few months ago with no edit summary (the same edit also removed the featured article template, which has since been added back); is there any reason they disappeared? They disambiguated the article from a seperate character named King Bowser (whose name redirects here), among other things. Checking the contributor's talk page, it appears they got a "last warning" for removing articleabout templates, so I'm thinking these should be added back.--vellidragon (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2013 (EST)
 * Good catch. I replaced the articleabout. - 01:51, 15 February 2013 (EST)

evil
Ok I understand that bowser has a soft side but in his personality section almost all references of him being evil are removed and replaced with ''he's spoft'kind'and compassionate and not that evil.I may be a loner in this but I ma a moral objectivist ad I believe that the definition of evil is bringing physical or mental harm on others for your own personal ambition.

Bowser is evil no matter what people say.Just because he loves certain people does not give him the right to turn people into bricks or destroy the universe. Bowser may not be pure evil but he IS evil because he does awful things for his own selfish ambition.

And his japanese name is daimao koopa wich means great demon king koopa.

I am not trying to make people mad but bowser is not as soft as people say he is so i think his personality section should be edited because it mostly has references to rpg games.

I have played almost every mario game bowser has tried to destroy the universe,take over the universe 3 times,tried to frame mario,tried to kill peach,bombed the mushroom kingdom,attacks some of his allies,gets upset over his galaxy falling apart and worrying for his son's safety,tried to flood the world,tried to takeover yoshis island on numerous occasions,steals stuff a whole alot,and turns people into bricks.

If thats not evil then I don't know what is! His attraction to peach is physical because if he honestly loved her then he would care about her feelings and stop doing bad things.

and mario is not evil because he does not have to kill goombas but the player makes him do it......you can just jump over them. and if he does it for self-defense and to save each so it does not count as evil because he really has not free will to decide to jump on a goomba and even if he does the same goomba will pop back up when you come back so it is not really dead.

In short bowser is not as evil as the article originally said......BUT he is also not as good as the article says now.

And once again I am not trying to anger anyone but I'm just a little frustrated.

and of course all the references to him being serious and evil in the main games has been completely removed.any mention of him being evil has been removed. and the page is being prevented form being edited.I really think people need to understand that bowser was created as a a pure evil villain in some of the games but is remodled in the rpg's.His page just basically calls him a kind hearted and softy bully then anything.


 * The section does say Bowser's evil a couple times, and the whole thing ends with calling him a "villain who only cares about conquering lands and destroying his opposition", but there's only so much to say about how he's an evil dude, whereas lots of other games present different aspects of his personality that do need to be explained (including the many unsavoury personality issues showcased by the RPGs). The History section is the testament to all the bad stuff he's done: we don't need to go over it again in Personality too: we want content, not filler. - 23:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Yeah i see that now.It does call him evil every now and then but calling bowser undeveloped in galaxy is not true because he clearly had an evil personality there.

I label bowser as being average evil.He is not evil like ganondorf but he is not as misunderstood as king dedede.Bowser is just plain evil in my eyes.

and another thing.What source do we have other then paper mario that bowser wants to marry peach because he mentions it in very few games.In his relationships it says he woulf never kill peach but do we really have any source for this claim? Bowser did not show any love for peach in super princess peach and tried to kill her.How exactly do we know that the rpgs are even apart of the mainstream series?

I agree, Bowser is a very evil guy. i like him, he is my second favorite character. i think he is not a minor villain at all!

Latest appearance is false!
In the latest appearance section at the beginning of the article, it says nsmbu, but bowser's latest appearance is in wreck it ralph! we should change it... -KoopaHammerman


 * That section refers to the latest appearance in a Mario or related series game.


 * Toa 95 (talk)

Outcast
Bowser says he's an outcast in BIS. RPG Gamer. I HAVE RPG!! (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

Quote
i'm thinking the current Quotes is famous but, not THE most famous it's long and isn't the REAL most famous quote, "Did someone page the king of awesome?"~Bowser mario and Luigi bowser's inside storyBonkaman (talk)

Since no one else has replied, I'd like to give my two cents on this, as well. I'm not certain about "Did someone page the king of awesome?" being Bowser's "most famous quote" as Bonkaman suggested, but I do agree that the current quote doesn't properly capture Bowser's character. But when I finished Mario & Luigi: Dream Team last week, I read a great line from Bowser that I think describes him in the way Nintendo commonly views and portrays him in a lot of games. I propose we change the quote to that line, like so:

"Hear me! I will kidnap Peach OVER and OVER until I pull it off! And no one can stop me! Losing is not an option! And neither is giving up!"

- Bowser

I feel that this is more in line with how Nintendo views Bowser's character: not as someone who always "stomps fools without needing a reason," but as the catalyst for the stories of games by kidnapping Peach over and over, or even kidnapping her or at least attempting to when the story gets rolling from some other antagonist. Many games even poke fun of how it seems to happen so much, and I feel like this line is no exception, with the difference being that it's said by Bowser himself instead of some minor NPC who only appears in one game. That the current quote makes no mention of the fact that Bowser's main role in the Super Mario series has always been to kidnap Peach and get Mario going seems a little odd in comparison. It almost feels like a bit of a misrepresentation. Anyway, sorry for being so long-winded, I cut out as much of the padding from this as I could, but I still wanted to get my point across. Teamrocketspy621 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2013 (EDT)


 * You've got some very good points there. Unlike the "king of awesome" quote, the ML:DT quote does cover multiple aspects of Bowser's personality, and kidnapping Peach is about as universal as you can get - as opposed to the SPM-specificity of the current quote, which has always bugged me. So yeah, it'd totally support changing the quote to your suggestion: hopefully a few more folks will agree, and it'll be a go! - 19:19, 21 September 2013 (EDT)
 * It may not be a TPP, but per all. The quote would be an improvement.


 * I agree with using that as the quote as well. - Turboo (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2013 (EDT)


 * Agreed. GBAToad (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2013 (EDT)


 * I too feel it describes Bowser a bit better. I support changing it.

That sounds like an awful lot of support. Thanks, guys! If no one is against it, I'll go ahead and change it. Teamrocketspy621 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2013 (EDT)

Summary
Sorry about not putting a summary on the previous edit. What I was going to say was that Bowser is the secondary antagonist (after Antasma) in Mario & Luigi: Dream Team, so he is still a "minor villain" in a way.

No, actually he is a major villain in Dream Team, because he is the true main antagonist and final boss.

Possible Page Splits?
Alright, I'm new here and I might be overstepping my "newbie" boundaries a bit, but here's a thought for everyone.

I've noticed that Bowser's article on this wiki is, to put it in his words, "HUUUUUUGE!" To make it a bit less tedious to look through, might I suggest creating a separate page for information about him as a boss (e.g. a page called "Bowser (boss)" or something similar)? It'd make this page a bit more manageable, I think.--SliverEmperor (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * This page could use a lot of optimization, but I don't think your solution is ok because it breaks the consistency. 16:34, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * Got to agree with Baby Luigi here, generally pages are split when the subject is different. Bowser (boss) is the same as Bowser (character), and don't worry, you're not overstepping anything.
 * I've always liked the idea of splitting out the horrible stats sections of major character as a way to shorten those monster pages and simplify their structure and navigation. No more having two headers for each spinoff game, and no more inconsistencies like having some stats in the Histories while other ones are separate and at the bottom; if you want the history and stats back-to-back you could open each page in separate tabs instead of having to scroll up and down - but if you only want one or the other, you'd only have to load one. I think having the main page just consisting of the nice body paragraphs (the Creation/Development, Histories and General Information sections, plus the Quotes and other things that should be paragraphs rather than bare redirects as per the Empty Section Policy) is more presentable than having them half made up of the messy, messy stats stuff. - 17:08, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * No, Bowser the boss is the same as Bowser the character. Should we split Peach into Peach (NPC) and Peach (Playable Character)? No, we shouldn't. However, for the RPG games we could make a subpage like Bowser/stats and put the stats for SMRPG, PM, and M&L there. -- 17:31, 19 December 2013 (EST)


 * Nah, let's keep it this way. There is a table of contents people can use to jump down to the section. And as the main villain in the franchise we cover, he would be expected to have a big article, right? SeanWheeler (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * It's not just the size itself-this page is always a pain in the ass to load. 19:06, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * Yeah, I avoid this page when possible, which is counterproductive. It already takes a long time to load on my computer. I can only imagine how it feels to load this monster on an older and slower computer *shudders*. This will make other users avoid this page. The table of contents does nothing to alleviate this. 19:23, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * Really? My computer loads this pretty quick. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * Older computers will just make the browser hang-which is the majority of computer users here since the computer I'm using is fairly new and strong yet it still hangs at this page. 19:28, 19 December 2013 (EST)


 * So how come my computer loads it so quickly? I have Windows 7. Is that powerful? SeanWheeler (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * Operating system does not determine loading speed. It's actually your CPU and your processor. I know my computer is an i7, which means quadcore, and each runs at 1.7 GHz. Memory is 6.00 Gb 19:46, 19 December 2013 (EST)


 * There are other long pages like Mario, Luigi, Donkey Kong, Princess Peach, Toad, etc. Pretty much a lot of the main Mario characters have long pages. Would this be too much of a problem? SeanWheeler (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2013 (EST)
 * I'm aware of that, but Bowser is somewhat unique in that he has equally large roles as a character AND as an enemy in the games. What I meant by the possible page split was to keep everything pertaining to Bowser's character, personality, and role in the games on one page, and then make a second page dedicated to the battles against him in the various games (attacks, strategies, etc). Either that, or maybe a separate page for his giant form, since it appears in so many different games?--SliverEmperor (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2013 (EST)
 * Splitting Giant Bowser may be a good idea as we have pages for larger versions of enemies, the only problem I can see of that is that the name may be conjectural.
 * I don't think we need to split Bowser at all. If we split him into a character and an enemy, what about all the other enemy characters? Wasn't Wario a boss in his first appearance? And the giant enemies like Giant Goombas are sub-species. But stuff like these on Super Mario Wiki are settled with talk page proposals. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2013 (EST)


 * I don't want to sound stubborn here, but I can't help but think that everyone is missing my real point here. Bowser ISN'T the only character who also acts as an enemy in the Mario series, but he IS one of the few characters who has an extensive history as both a recurring enemy/boss in the games and as an important character in the storylines. I'm not saying that we need to separate the pages of every enemy into their appearances as a character and as an in-game foe, but I think that Bowser could have a separate page for his various boss battles without making it or its progenitor page too small.--SliverEmperor (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2014 (EST)


 * And they've still illustrated a point nonetheless; the change is unnecessary for the most part, and the enemy bit was explained to establish a slippery slope argument, i.e. there's a standard of consistency here, and why deviate from the established way of doing things (if it ain't broke don't fix it). Plus that means if we DO do this, we HAVE to do it for other large enemy articles due to that standard of consistency.


 * Continuing on that subject of standard, there hasn't been a need thus far to seperate Bowser the character from Bowser the boss (for lack of a better way of putting it); one reason that occurs to me in particular is because it'd seem "game guide-y" to make that separation, silly as that likely sounds, but bear with me. As the site's an encyclopedia, it's more befitting of thay status to include it all under one article for relative ease of access (there's also the standard I mentioned).


 * To my knowledge, most of the time they have two seperate articles about what would appear to be the same subject, it's because there's a distinction of sorts between them (e.g. the Scutlet enemt and the boss Scutlet inside Bowser; they're clearly the same species but the boss one has abilities not seem in the enemy versions and a different Japanese name to boot). There's nothing about Bowser's page that really fits that bill, or any other criteria they'd use to split up pages, and that's probably a big factor as to why this is considered unnedessary. Lord Grammaticus (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2014 (EST)


 * And a few people having slow browsers isn't a good enough reason to split a page. SeanWheeler (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (EST)
 * It isn't, but it's still a problem since it deters potential editors from this page. And it doesn't matter if I use Firefox or Chrome, the page is still a pain in the ass to load. 22:04, 3 January 2014 (EST)


 * Not to me. The Spider-Man disambiguation page on the Marvel Database is more of a pain than this Bowser article. SeanWheeler (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2014 (EST)

King Bowser Koopa?
This might be a pedantic little thing, but is "Bowser Koopa" really an official English name? I'm only aware of him being called that in the cartoons, and only one time I think. Is he ever referred to as anything other than Bowser in the official canon? This seems like an incorrect holdover from side material much like "Mario Mario" and "Luigi Mario", but please feel free to correct me. Fizzle (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * The cartoons are official canon. So is the film. See here for more info. I'm not sure if he was called by his full name in a game at some point, although I know the SMB instruction manual referred to him as "Bowser" and "King Koopa" (and "Bowser, King of the Koopas"). He was also referred to as "Bowser Koopa" in the song "Ignorance is Bliss", and called "King Bowser Koopa" in the story included with the album containing that song, White Knuckle Scorin'.- 18:12, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * This reminds me of this whole "Princess Toadstool" thing. Bowser is referred to that only a few times, but it's not really "canon" as much as it is "established". Sounds like a nickname more than an actual name. 20:29, 2 January 2014 (EST)
 * The cartoons are canon? Well let me raise my eyebrow through the roof. And further. Oh dear. What happened here? So does that mean Hotel Mario is canon too? Haha, well. That's... certainly an... idea. Have fun with that. I know the Mario series has a very loose canon, but there's loose and then there's utterly flimsy. Personally I would not classify anything of that nature as being canon. Or at the very least, I certainly wouldn't keep that sort of thing in the main heading of an article. That would be like claiming that Mario speaks with a Brooklyn accent. Fizzle (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2014 (EST)

well actually the proper thing to say would be that nothing is cannan. Because there's no cannan. So everything officially-licensed is Cannan. wow.

I do think the wiki sometimes pay too much heed to these early western licensed stuff. Not necessarily in term of organization or the like, but I occasionally read statements like "In Mario Party 10: Nanotech Disaster, Mario says he is 27-years old, even though he said he is 36 in episode 5 of The Super Show" (crappy example, but you get what I'm saying), which is just silly for several reasons.

(don't get what's so laughable about Hotel being cannan, either. It's an officially licensed product and doesn't feature any obvious departure from the series, apart from the two bros being more chatty than usual. It's a shitty game, so what? So is Yoshi's Universal Gravitation.) --Glowsquid (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2014 (EST)
 * Well, if Hotel Mario is canon, that means the CDi Zeldas are canon, and they sure as heck are not! But, that's a slightly separate issue I guess. Aside from that, Mario and Luigi speak in those Brooklyn accents I believe and it seems readily based on the cartoons rather than the games (much like the CDi Zeldas). Also like the Zelda games, I suspect it had NO involvement from anyone at Nintendo aside from the licensing. Nintendo pretty much disowned all the CDi games before they were even released. They only exist because they were made by Phillips on the cheap to cash in on the license they received as part of the fallout from the failed SNES CD deal. They're a unique case, but similar to the cartoons I would not consider them to be "canon" and I suspect nobody in Japan developing Mario games have even played them, and most may not even be aware they exist. Fizzle (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2014 (EST)

"Well, if Hotel Mario is canon, that means the CDi Zeldas are canon, and they sure as heck are not!"

False equivalency. Zelda has official material that outline its continuity, all of which pointedly ignore the CD-i games. Mario, well, doesn't. I guess, you could argue it isn't in that booklet bundled with Super Mario AllStars Wii, but then so is Super Mario land. And I don't think anyone's going to pretend Wario doesn't exist.

 I believe and it seems readily based on the cartoons rather than the games (much like the CDi Zeldas).

I... don't see it? The Koopalings have their game designs and use their game names rather than DIC's, most of the characters and items are somewhat accurate to the previous games, it doesn't feature the DIC Cartoon's character design or stylistic quirks... etc. Any difference in voice acting and characterization can be handwaved as Hotel Mario being released during that period in big franchises existences where things like voice and characterization aren't set in stone.

I suspect nobody in Japan developing Mario games have even played them, and most may not even be aware they exist.

If "it's outsourced" and "it's not popular" were factors to decide what's cannan or not, stuff like Mario Pinball, Donkey Kong Barrel Blast, Universal Gravitation... etc would be out too. I just don't see what's differentiate the game from any of the previously mentioned third-party droll, except not being directly published by Nintendo. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (EST)


 * @Fizzle: Your argument, "It's crap, so it can't be canon" is also flimsy, especially if you apply the argument's inverse (if that's the correct term): "it's good, so it must be canon". Would you consider Super Smash Bros. games, considered popular, excellent games, to be canon to the Mario series? Not to mention, like what Glowsquid said, Link games do have an established canon. Mario does not, so we have to assume Hotel Mario occurred in the same timeline, no matter how horrifying the cutscenes are. 22:34, 18 January 2014 (EST)


 * PLEASE don't straw man my argument, that's poor show, come on. My argument isn't "it's crap so it can't be canon", my argument is "it wasn't published, made by or has since been recognized by Nintendo or even released in Japan, so it's not canon". My argument is not that one thing makes it uncanon, more that MANY things make it not canon. Also, I'm of the opinion that if the CDi Zeldas are not recognized by Nintendo as part of the series I'm not sure why the Mario games would be, but I understand that has no "proof" behind it. I don't see much difference, however. Hotel Mario simply escapes due to having a looser canon to begin with. It still falls into all the different pitfalls that the Zelda games do, otherwise. Fizzle (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2014 (EST)


 * @Glowsquid, there is a BIG difference between a second-party game (such as Donkey Kong Country and the games you mentioned) and Hotel Mario. Hotel Mario was developed with no actual involvement from Nintendo (aside from apparently a cursory input on how the characters should look, however they do this for any material using Mario's likeness, I've seen the actual guidelines they release to the press), no advertising, publishing or Japanese release, nor even a release on a Nintendo console. It will never be officially released or even mentioned by Nintendo in any official capacity ever. You cannot compare the two things. The CDi games were effectively third party titles with license from Nintendo to allow them to use these characters (due to a legal dispute, I might add). It is better to compare them to Mario's cameo in NBA Street V3, since it simply revolves around use of the Mario license.


 * Honestly, the fact that Hotel Mario ISN'T as horrible as it could be actually hurts my argument somewhat, because it is not absolutely abhorrent to the canon since it doesn't affect it much (like the Zelda games would). But using any form of logic I simply cannot accept it is on the same level of canon as a game like Super Mario Galaxy, even with a series where canon is not a "big deal". I find it fascinating, interesting, but entirely irrelevant to the actual Mario series, much like the movie. Fizzle (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2014 (EST)
 * I don't accept it either, but I follow the wiki rules simply because it is more logical and not reflecting my personal opinion. Nintendo has never stated that Hotel Mario is unofficial. I don't think the Mario comics and cartoons are developed with extensive from involvement from Nintendo (Nintendo is a game company first), nor are they mentioned from any other medium. You can't compare NBA Street V3 either because the characters are guest appearances while Hotel Mario is a Mario game (takes place in the Mario universe). Nintendo has never established an official canon; as a result, we cover everything from the same timeline and give equal treatment until Nintendo has a say on it. Right now, we're just in the gray zone, so we should just assume the affirmative and cover everything as we do now. 00:29, 20 January 2014 (EST)