MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 10) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 11) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EST)

New Features
''None at the moment.

"Relationship with other characters" sections
Most (All?) of our articles about major characters have sections detailing how they interacts with other major characters, I could do a tl:dr rant explaining why these sections irks me, but I will be short here:


 * They're poorly written. ("In Mario Party 6, Wario and Toadette's team name is named Secret Friends. This may refer that Wario and Toadette were once friends, secretly.')
 * They're unneeded. The Mario sub-section on the Bowser page could be basically summed up as "Bowser really hates Mario but team-up with him anyway"... something that anyone with half-a-neuron could have learned from reading the article. Beside, do you think anyone come on this site thinking "I'm a So wanting to read about Peach being friend with Toadette!"?
 * They're the perfect breeding ground for speculations (X and Y have [Z] team name in Mario Party! THEY'RE MUST BE A DEEPER CONNECTION!!!) and idiot wars ("Daisy is Lugi ture luv!!!" "NO ROSALINA IS!!!!!")

In short, Relationships Sections are an embarrassing poorly-written mess of informations rehashed from the Biography. Let's kill them, WITH FIRE.

Proposer: Deadline: January 5, 2009 17:00'''

Slash 'Em

 * 1) - Because I'm a totally voting against my own proposal.
 * 2) - Per Blitz
 * 3) - Per Blitz, let's burn them AGGRESIVELY =3
 * 4) I always wondered why those exist...
 * 5) - Per Blitzwing, 99% of these sections are a waste of time. For the other 1%, just add the information as a stand-alone section: to use Son of Sun's example, I'm sure a Mario-Peach Relationship section wouldn't seem out-of-place in either of their articles.
 * 6) -  Well, we'll delete the ones who have not been in a proper game together, like Wario and Toadette.

Keep 'Em

 * 1) Why can't we just keep them and make sure that they're free of nonsense? I think the sections are good information about the character.
 * 2) - Some of the official comments from Nintendo placed in those sections would not make sense anywhere else (such as commentary on Mario and Peach's relationship).  It does not make sense to outright delete them, but instead work (re-writing, cutting, editing, etc.) on them to make them better.  If we just deleted things because they are poorly written, we should probably delete most of the articles on this wiki.
 * 3) Per Son of Suns.
 * 4) Per all.  Look, while ALOT of the information bites the big one, the Interactions sections can be done WAY better.  You can see it under Waluigi, in fact, who only has three characters, Wario, Luigi, and Daisy, who are all associated with him in some way (Wario, his partner, Luigi, his nemesis, and Daisy, his apparent love interest.)  He has interacted with Mario and Bowser on numerous occasions each, but has no information regarding them because Mario and Bowser are not major connections.  Only Wario, Luigi, and Daisy are.  Also, calling something poorly written is a mark of low motivation.  If it can be fixed and needs to be fixed and you can fix it, then why not fix it?  A poorly written article is an easy fix.

Comments
While most of these sections I run across seem to be poorly-written, speculative, and sometimes way too extended (I hear rumors there was a Diddy Kong entry in the Mario relationships section?), that does not mean they cannot (in the future) be well-written, informative, and kept to a close circle of important character relationships. It could be a great place to provide all the official connections between two specific characters. For example, the Princess Peach section in the Mario article does a decent job of listing all those comments made by Nintendo about their ambiguous relationship. I found it to be very helpful, and I would not want that information to suddenly disappear. If it could just listed under a general "Relationships" section (instead of one sub-divided into many sections about individual characters) we could focus on a few key relationships - relationships Nintendo has provided a lot of commentary on, such as the Mario-Peach relationship, as opposed to the Mario-Rosalina relationship listed in the article, which is basically a plot summary of Super Mario Galaxy, but doesn't tell us anything about their relationship. So basically, I don't think we should completely delete these sections, but find a way to highlight those specific relationships Nintendo has actually offered commentary on. --
 * Then we can place the good informations in a note in the relevant game or in a Trivia section. --


 * So that means the Mario-Peach information would be unorganized and scattered throughout the article, or a three paragraph entry in the Trivia section?? --
 * THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY. --

After additional thought and EBAL PEER PRESSURE I have come to the conclusion I do not clearly support either position and will thusly abstain from voting.


 * Blitzwing: Don't spam. Anyway, as I said in my vote, the really major developments can get sections of their own. And as Blitzwing said in his first post, notes can be made in the proper games for the more minor aspects. They're part of the "Biography" section, after-all, and for things like Mario-Rosalina, the game is all there is to them. -
 * Yeah, that makes more sense. But then this proposal seems irrelevant, as some relationship sections will have to be retained, such as Mario-Peach and Luigi-Daisy.  There is nothing wrong with taking the initiative and writing articles better, even if that includes deleting repeated or unnecessary writing (such as some aspects of the Relationship sections). --
 * It's not irrelevant. Deleting all the relationships on all the articles (excpet Mario-Peach, Bowser-Peach (on Bowser's article only), Luigi-Daisy and perhaps Wario-Mario) is a pretty big thing, and if Blitzwing just did it someone would probably make a stink about him not getting community feedback first (heck, that's why I haven't done it yet). Plus, the proposal makes the whole thing more structured; it's not just a couple Users fed-up with the one-liners, but a new way to approach inter-character relationships. It also gets more feedback on which relationships do merit sections, so no one can say, "you just made a Daisy-Luigi section because you want them to be together! >:P" -


 * Yeah, I guess some users might get upset, although I personally wouldn't care as long as the edits were of better quality than the originals. I say its "irrelevant" because, regardless if it passes or fails, the outcome will likely be the same - more focused relationship sections.  So I guess it's good that attention was brought to the issue, although it probably could have been done on the main talk page. =) --

If an article itself makes it obvious how said character relates to another character, there's no need for an extra section on these pages. However, if it's too difficult to fit this type of info into the rest of the article, then maybe these sections can be kept on articles that don't make it clear enough. I can't decide which side to support on this proposal.

Splits & Merges
''None at the moment.

Replace the current Importance Policy
This proposal would replace the current Importance Policy with a less hierarchical, more inclusive policy based on Canonicity. The proposed new policy can be found here: New Importance Policy. This would serve as the basis for the new policy and could be revised as necessary.

As you can tell, the current Importance Policy is extremely convoluted, as we are trying to base our wiki on levels of connections between series, which itself is a highly speculative act. Based on the chart, series such as Mario Kart may actually be of "secondary" importance, as it is a spin-off of the main Mario series, while WarioWare would be of "tertiary" importance, as it is a spin-off of a spin-off (Mario series to Wario Land series to WarioWare series), and the new Pyoro series would be of "quaternary" importance, as it would be a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off. As you can tell, this gets extremely subjective based on your own personal point of view. We should have a more flexible policy that does not establish superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance. Just as there is no recognized canon, we should not have a hierarchy of supposed importance. Instead this new policy establishes what is and what is not allowed based on all official sources approved by Nintendo, and also allows for "less connected" subjects to be merged, organized, etc. as deemed necessary by the community. Ultimately I feel this new policy makes more logical sense than our old policy.

Proposer: Deadline: December 30, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) -- Per my reasons stated above.
 * 2) - Per SoS (now I wish I hadn't revised that Importance Policy image since it's outdated, but oh well).
 * 3) Per SoS
 * 4) - should remove more speculation on "canon"
 * 5) - Per SoS and Cobold. As long as this won't flood the place with Banjo and Conker articles, I'm fine with it (series pages are just fine).
 * 6) - Per Walkazo. And if it clears anything up about my vocality on this matter, I'm not new user. I'm InfectedShroom who got a name change.
 * 7) - Per SoS, we need new importance policy. It lasted us 3 years, almost, I guess, it's time for a change.
 * 8) - Per SoS, the current policy is just plain ridiculous (okay, not everything, but you know what I mean). This new one looks much better.
 * 9) - SOS, Look at the weather! Partly cloudy with a chance of good ideas!
 * 10) - Per Son of Suns. A lot of sections in the Importance Policy are either highly outdated, or conflicts with statements made earlier in that page, or in other rules enforced throughout the site. If we change the Importance Policy to be more explanatory, and more accepting to partner series, writing will be much clearer for new users, as well as older ones that have seen big changes.
 * 11) - Per SoS
 * 12) - Yep. Per SoS.

Comments
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that this proposal breaks one of the rules for proposals. Your New Importance Policy says "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, Banjo, Conker...." The last rule for proposals says "...no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker, or Sonic series articles are allowed..." So, doesn't this need to be changed?


 * This proposal is not calling for the creation of Banjo or Conker content, as such content is already allowed under Canonicity and is available on the wiki.  This proposal would only clarify the rules regarding such content. Personally I feel that rule should be eliminated, but this proposal is not calling for the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles, which is banned by the rule based on previous failed proposals. --

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. I will still have to think my vote over for a bit though.

I would like suggest that the Importance Policy should be moved to MarioWiki:Coverage if this passes since the phrase "Importance Policy" seems to call upon classes and rankings, and coverage implies more of classless, equal information (which is what we're going for here). 12:40, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Soooo.... Please excuse my stupidity; would this proposal allow the "...mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles..." on the wiki? It seems to me that it would. Canonicity says nothing particular about Banjo and Conker. Or maybe I'm completely missing the point, which is entirely possible.
 * It would allow individual articles on the Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Wario, Banjo, Conker, and Pyoro series equally, so, yes it would. However, the Banjo and Conker articles can only be ones that Nintendo authorized, so Conker: Live and Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts would have no place here other than some mentions in other articles. 13:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Got it. So, just trying to clarify here, but we would include information on Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and Conker: Bad Fur Day, among others. Is this correct?

Actually we already have articles about the Banjo (series) and the Conker (series), which is the minimum requirement that can be allowed under the new Canonicity (which was re-written after the former proposals passed). Any content from an officially licensed Nintendo game (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Banjo-Pilot, Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge, Conker's Pocket Tales, and Conker's Bad Fur Day) is allowed, but not content from Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - those would count as unofficial appearances, but would be notable enough for some mention in a trivia section or a summary at the end of the series articles or something like that. And this proposal would not explicitly allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles. We can add as much official content to the wiki, but that does not mean the creation of articles. So if this passes, separating the merged Banjo series and Conker series may require a seperate proposal, or a discussion on their respective talk pages. This proposal only reinforces that such content is allowed, but not the form it takes (i.e. merged series article vs. individual articles), as the last section in the new policy discusses. Basically, content is okay, but whether everything in the series gets individual articles, categories and templates is a matter that will have to be resolved later. At the very minimum we would have the general series page with individual entries on characters, items, etc. -- P.S. And yes, "Coverage" is a better term than "Importance Policy."
 * Alright. It's clear now. Thank you.

Son of Suns: there's a couple holes in your argument against the Importance Policy Chart. As explained in the text of the Importance Policy Page, "Mario" meant everything that had "Mario" in the title (including Mario Kart, etc.,) not just the mainstream Mario titles; it also infers WarioWare is covered under Wario, so in that case, Pyoro would still be a tertiary game. I'd also like to point out something that no one (to my knowledge) has addressed: Banjo and Conker aren't from a "Donkey Kong" title, but from Diddy Kong Racing; so by your argument, they'd be quaternary, just like Pyoro (though I'm still siding with the Importance Page and saying they're tertiary, and Diddy Kong Racing secondary). However, I totally agree that the "Importance Levels" are a bad way to try and organize the Wiki (I especially don't like how the crossovers are quaternary, as they are at least as important at the spin-spin-offs (Banjo, et al.), in my opinion). I think this would be a better way to go about things, but I also think the Banjo, Conker and Pyoro aspect should be clarified a bit more. The aforementioned chart had much to be desired, but the nebulous nature of this new policy means it is wide open to interpretation, which we do not want; if we're going to enact a new policy, we should know exactly what will happen and what will or will not be created. I'm all for series pages and Banjo, Conker and Pyoro content therein, but this opens a back-door to creating individual articles down the road - something I'm against. My reasoning, and my own suggested "Coverage Chart" can be seen here. There are no levels of importance, but Banjo, Conker and Pyoro are allotted less coverage on the grounds that they aren't as interconnected with the other Mario series. I also discuss an enhanced coverage of crossovers, but I am fine with your own suggested method - my only beef is with the uncertain future of Banjo, Conker and Pyoro content. -
 * OK, just a small interjection here: why are we thinking so much into the Pyoro "series?" The so called series is simply a recurring minigame of the WarioWare series. Yes, I do know that it will soon have it's own game in the DSi Ware thing (for, what, 300 points?), but I still don't think that it will ever become it's own freely standing series. We are thinking way too far into the future, if you ask me. Also, I think that, as a recurring minigame and not a series, we should include as much information on it as we can. I mean, what other wiki will have information on it? Just my thoughts.


 * Also, I removed my vote because I'm having trouble deciding. I actually like the "...extremely convoluted...superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance..." and the "...hierarchy of supposed importance..." Call me an idiot or whatever, but I'll decide later.
 * I think the real issue is about (as always) Banjo and Conker, but this whole thing was brought up again when an issue about the Pyoro game was brought-up, here. Since they're all in the same boat as far as spin-spin-offs go, we're now including Pyoro when we discuss Banjo and Conker. - 19:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I feel we (or at least I) do want interpretation. I do want flexibility. I do want the ability to change the wiki as needed by the community without recreating policies every couple months. The problem with a few past proposals and policies is that they dictate a certain way articles must be created/organized based on random criteria. This proposal is more flexible in order to accomodate the needs of the changing community. This proposal would only reinforce the Banjo and Conker series pages - if a majority of users would later want to create individual articles, so be it. That should not be denied because you personally feel they should not be created. The matter should be subject to a democratic vote, not a dictatorial policy. As we have not had any proposals on Pyoro, as many articles about that mini-series can be created, unless the communty decides otherwise. Perhaps they will be merged on day. Perhaps not. Perhaps Banjo will be unmerged and Conker will stay merged. I feel it should be for the wiki to decide on an individual basis, not based on a strict policy, which leads to assuming certain series are more important than others (which your Coverage Chart does on some level by placing series under other series and thus should not have more artcles - it is very similar to the current speculative Importance Policy). The decision for article creation should not be part of an official policy, but community decision (based on proposals, talk pages, etc.). Personally I feel Banjo and Conker should have more articles than WarioWare, because there are clear geographic and historical links between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong, Squawks, and Mario; the same can not be said for WarioWare (besides Wario). Banjo and Conker are more interconnected with the greater Mario franchise than WarioWare, and thus should have as many articles or more than the WarioWare series. But that's my personal opinion, and should not be reflected in an official policy, just as your opinion about them having less importance should not be used to justify less articles for Banjo and Conker content. By offering flexibility, we can change the wiki based on new circumstances, instead of being stuck in stasis. -- P.S. To Bloc Partier, we'll still have hierarchies of sorts, but they will be established by the community, not by a subjective overarching policy in place for all time. I added a section about our current regulations to the new policy. This policy will not destroy barriers between Mario and other series - it only removes the speculation of what is more canonical. The wiki can still decide what the wiki's focus is collectively while keeping official information.

To Walkazo, perhaps that was too harsh wording. Your essay seems open to change as well, which is why I feel we should just keep the policy open. Perhaps at the bottom of the policy we could list major proposals that have passed to provide the specifics regarding each series, but also note these rules is subject to change (but must be obeyed until they are changed). In regards to Banjo and Conker content, they are to remain on their individual series pages unless the wiki decides otherwise at a later date. Again, Pyoro is up in the air, as there has been no proposal about it. A section keeping track of proposals regarding article creation would give explicit instructions without affecting the main policy. --

Also, this policy would not mean we couldn't create series articles based on other franchises. Again, as long as the content is retained, it can be organized any way we agree upon. So your Star Fox and Sonic series articles are a definite possibility, although I think the main series of Itadaki Street is actually Dragon Warrior. =D --
 * Yeah, of course we'll decide how much coverage Banjo and Conker get democratically (and if we were a dictatorship, I ' d hardly be the one making the rules); I was merely voicing my concerns, just as this proposal is you voicing your ideas. Personal pronouns have a nasty habit of making one seem like an egomaniac who only cares about what they themselves want, but it's hard to not use them in response to certain types of proposals - I don't know if people share my view: I can only speak for myself. Now, about my Coverage Chart: it's based on a web I drew (on a piece of paper) showing how the series branch off from each other. Wiki syntax makes 2D representations kinda hard, so I compromised with the indenting on the chart - it's meant to represent a family tree, not a hierarchy. Moving on... You raise a good point about WarioWare being less connected to the other games as Banjo and Conker as far as in-game aspects go (if you ignore all the Mario-themed microgames), however WarioWare is trademarked by Nintendo, whereas Banjo and Conker were never directly owned by Nintendo - they were, and still are, Rare's creations. That's why they went with Rare when it was bought-out by Microsoft (whereas things like Donkey Kong remained with Nintendo), which is another source of problems surrounding the inclusion of Banjo and Conker material. You say Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts aren't "official" because they were made during Microsoft's ownership of Rare, but I ask you, why? They aren't fangames or black-market swag, they're legal, valid aspects of the Banjo and Kazooie series. My opinion on this matter is solely a result of reading this article, so I could be way-off, but as I see it now, whether it's Nintendo's fish by way or Rare, or Microsoft's fish by way of Rare doesn't matter, it's still a fish, and it's still Rare's catch. The whole thing confuses the issue of what is and isn't official (one of the reasons I'd just as soon stay away from Banjo and Conker for now), but most people don't actually care about who owns what, and would just notice the lack of recent Banjo and Conker information... -

I'm currently neutral on this proposal, but are the Banjo and Kazooie series really spin-offs of Diddy Kong Racing? As far as I know, the Banjo and Conker games were already in development before Diddy Kong Racing's release, and the two characters were put in for advertising the future games. Would anyone call Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi a spin-off of Super Smash Bros. Melee because Roy appeared first in the latter game? Banjo's article also tells that he starred in Diddy Kong Racing for advertising Banjo-Kazooie. The user KingMario pointed that out. Not that this would change something to this proposal, just wanted to tell, since the series articles say they are spin-offs which might be incorrect. --

Who knows if someone from Warioware isn't going to appear in the DSI Pyoro game?

And as Bloc Partier pointed out above, Pyoro was alway a recuring character in Warioware (Storyline-wise, he's even the reason the series exist), meanwhile, Banjo and Conker were only two guys put in a spin-off of a spin-off to advertise their own games and who were taken out of the remake. The Pyoro\BanjoConker comparison is full of holes. --

Some responses:

1) This proposal is not about Banjo and Conker, which cannot be denied under the current Canonicity policy (this would have to be changed to make Banjo and Conker content from official Nintendo games illegitimate).  This new Importance Policy will instead ensure such content is placed in two articles (in a database of close to 9000) instead of hundreds of articles being created and Banjo content being placed in Mario categories, etc.  This policy serves as clarification - a place where the rules developed in proposals can be seen and thus followed.

2) Actually Banjo and Conker were "owned" by Nintendo at one time, just as Mario was "owned" by Philips at one time. Rare was a second party owned by Nintendo and was given official approval to create Diddy Kong Racing, the Banjo series, and the Conker series and were allowed to create those connections, establishing a clear link between all three.  Similarly, Philips was allowed by Nintendo to create Mario games such as Hotel Mario. If we decide to base articles solely on the present instead of actions in the past, we would have to eliminate most of the articles on Super Mario RPG, as the characters are now owned by Square-Enix (a third party company), not Nintendo. This is shown by Geno's inclusion in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. He is a copyright of Square-Enix, and thus should not have an article if we include only characters "owned" by Nintendo.  Nuts & Bolts and Live & Reloaded would not be included here based on  Canonicity, which only allows content from licensed Nintendo products, which those two games clearly are not.

3) I'm not actually sure where the Pyoro "comparison" came in, as it is not part of the proposal but part of the old Importance Policy which this proposal is trying to change. Again, Banjo and Conker have established connections both in the games and in the fictional universes, and thus have a "label" of "spin-off" (which is as artificial as calling Mario Kart a "spin-off" - it's just a label).  What is important is that there are clear connections between the three series as established by Diddy Kong Racing.  Based on  Canonicity and  Chronology, remakes are no more "true" than the original, so just because Banjo and Conker were not in Diddy Kong Racing DS makes no difference to their relative importance (but may be important for how we organize such content).  Just as we don't get rid of connections made in Super Mario 64 because it has been remade, the same applies to Diddy Kong Racing DS. And the label of "spin-off" does make some sense based on the clear connections made in the fictional universe. This is made explicit in the story of Diddy Kong Racing (as described by the official instruction booklet). When Wizpig attacks Timber’s Island, Timber sends a letter to Diddy Kong asking for help. Diddy Kong responds by writing letters to his friends Banjo and Conker, asking then to come along on his adventure. Diddy Kong then has Squawks personally deliver the handwritten letters to Banjo and Conker. This establishes a clear historical and geographical connection between Diddy Kong, Banjo and Conker. They don’t simply meet for the first time in this game, they have been friends for a some amount of time before. Also, the parrot Squawks is able to fly to Banjo and Conker, establishing that they all live relatively close together.

Also consider the official profiles for these characters.

Banjo (page 24): "Even before the start of his future partnership with Kazooie, Banjo isn’t one to turn down the chance of an adventure. So when Squawks brings the message from his pal Diddy Kong, the Honey Bear stuffs a few things into his trusty backpack and takes to his heels."

As above, this establishes a connection between Banjo, Diddy Kong, and Squawks. This references also indicates that Diddy Kong Racing chronologically takes place before Banjo-Kazooie, that this part of the Donkey Kong series is a part of the same continuum as Banjo’s timeline.

Conker (page 24): "Another friend made by Diddy Kong on one of his endless adventures with Donkey Kong. Conker is also an exploration nut who’ll jump at any chance to break free of a squirrel’s less than exciting routine.  He’s eager to join up with Banjo as the bear passes through."

Conker not only has an explicit connection with Diddy Kong and Banjo, he is also connected to Donkey Kong himself. All four of these characters met before the events of the game, establishing the geographical and historical connections made above.

There are also some more minor references that not only establish links between the worlds of Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker, but to Mario’s world as well.


 * The character Tiptup is in both Diddy Kong Racing and Diddy Kong Racing DS, as well as Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie. Tiptup and Banjo first met in Diddy Kong Racing, and would chronologically later meet up again twice in the Banjo series.  His relatively major presence in all these games indicates a strong link between all four titles, even if Banjo and Conker were not included in Diddy Kong Racing DS.
 * In Banjo-Kazooie, the character "Gnawty the Beaver" looks exactly like the Gnawty enemy from Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64. Gnawty could be considered a representative member of his species, just as Yoshi is to the Yoshis and Toad is to the Toads.
 * In Banjo-Kazooie, a picture of Conker’s girlfriend Berri can be found in Rusty Bucket Bay. Gruntilda also mentions Conker the Squirrel in her quiz at the end of the game.  Additionally, not only Donkey Kong but the original Donkey Kong Mario battled, Cranky Kong, is mentioned by Gruntilda.
 * In Banjo-Tooie, the character Goggles has a Donkey Kong doll.
 * In Banjo-Tooie, the toilet character Loggo is clogged up with paper. Kazooie tells him to call a plumber, then suggests that Mario might be free.  Loggo then states he doesn’t think Mario is in that line of work anymore.  This conversation indicates that it would be possible for Mario to travel to Loggo’s location if needed, and that there is awareness in Banjo’s world that Mario’s profession has changed throughout his many adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom.

4) The last point is, regardless if Banjo and Conker were in development, Nintendo did not have to release the games. They owned Rare and did not have to license their products nor did they have to create connections between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong and Mario.  New characters are always being created to promote new franchises.  Wario was created and placed in a Mario game then immediately had his own series, just like Banjo and Conker. Ultimately Nintendo made a choice and established this connection and approved the continuation of the Banjo and Conker series.  We should respect that choice, just as we respect Nintendo's choice to make a game about a jumping carpenter and a stubborn ape instead of a game about Popeye and Bluto. --

I agree that Banjo and Conker have more connections story-wise to the main DK/Mario series we cover than WarioWare. But also WarioWare has some, the by far strongest one being Wario himself, who is a very important recurring character in the Mario series (that can't be said about Banjo and Conker), but Diamond City and the Wario Bike have also appeared in the Mario Kart series. In terms of story-unrelated references, WarioWare surely has more content (all those Mario-related microgames and mini-games and the Mario Paint content). Anyway, if I understand this proposal right, it does not mean that we create articles on everything in Banjo and Conker, but can also have just one article per series instead? I'd go with the latter one, because of the lack of appearances of Banjo and Conker in the Mario/DK series, unlike Wario, who is a recurring character in the Mario series (and Pyoro being a recurring character in WarioWare again). But then it should also include the Microsoft-published titles, even if they aren't authorized by Nintendo, they are still official for the two named series. So, please tell if understand this proposal right. --
 * I think you understand the proposal (and if you don't, then I don't either), and I also agree that the Microsoft games should be included. After all, by allowing the trademarks for Banjo and Conker to remain with Rare, in a way, Nintendo was sanctioning the creation of future Banjo and Conker titles. Nintendo leases out its characters all the time (i.e. the aforementioned Hotel Mario), and this time it sold its characters instead. As for the Super Mario RPG example, that sounds more like a double-standard than a justification of keeping the Microsoft content out: if the SMRPG characters owned by the third-party company Square Enix are still "official", why not the Banjo and Conker characters now owned by Microsoft? If we include those series at all, we're making a judgement call concerning canonicity: the characters started out in a Mario (spin-off) game, therefore they are canon, and everything they do is canon. "Everything" includes Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - if we're dealing with canonicity (and have already established these games are legal commodities, not fan creations), why bring Real World economics into it at all? Also, the Banjo-Kazooie Wiki doesn't discriminate between the pre- and post-Microsoft games, so why should we? Moving on, most of the cross-references between the Banjo, Conker and Mario series that Son of Suns kindly provided us, seem, to me, no more major than the many Zelda-Mario connections. Video game companies like to establish links between their franchises - it's fun (and it's free advertising), but compared to Grandy02's WarioWare appearances in Mario Kart, it's not very significant. -


 * I am afraid that this proposal will go too far, which is why I hove not yet voted. It seems to me (currently, my opinion could possibly change) that it is just a quite complex mask to bring back Banjo and Conker articles. I don't want that to happen. I love Banjo-Kazooie and its sequels, but I do not want articles about them here. And I really don't want Conker stuff here, for the same and different reasons. I believe that the series articles are fine, but this proposal seems to hint that the wiki will go much further than just the series articles if it passes.


 * Also, I don't see why we can't cover more WarioWare stuff. To me, Mario and WarioWare are clearly related, and only by complicated, legalistic logic can we deduce that Mario, Conker, and Banjo are somewhat related. Yeah, I understand the tier thing, with Mario at the top, then Yoshi, Wario, DK, then Banjo/Conker and WarioWare, but if anything, that's screwed up. You can argue that the Wario series are spin-offs of Mario, and the WarioWare series is a spin-off of Wario, but I fail to see how that puts the WarioWare series on the same tier as the Banjo & Conker series because the former is clearly closer related to the Mario series than the latter. So yeah, that's just my opinions and reasoning. Please excuse my lack of italics.

I think all three of you stated things perfectly. Banjo and Conker are definitely less related than WarioWare, and that's why they are only allocated series pages (as listed in the regulations section). They aren't that important, but that does not mean they are completely un-important to the Mario franchise and thus should be left out. The Banjo and Conker series pages are good compromises - providing coverage of a connected series but preventing the creation of hundreds of Banjo and Conker articles (this is stated in the policy, based on the comments provided by Walkazo). Addressing Bloc Partier's concerns, this policy would do away with complicated degrees or tiers of seperation and connection between series, which is very speculative. So while Banjo, Conker, and WarioWare may be on the same "tier" (based on certain interpretations), we can say Banjo and Conker are less important than WarioWare, which means all Banjo and Conker content gets stuck in two articles, whereas WarioWare are given individual articles, showing their greater importance to the Mario franchise. As far as Microsoft titles are concerned, the series pages features sections about games for Microsoft systems, but under Canonicity it would be hard to say whether the two Microsoft-only titles could be represented here, as they are not directly licensed by Nintendo nor was the production of the games approved, as Microsoft can do whatever it wants with Banjo and Conker (probably), whereas I am sure Phillips had restrictions on what it could do with Mario (i.e., couldn't make a game about Mario shooting up drugs or something). So those games would have some mention, but MarioWiki: Canonicity would likely prevent complete coverage, as the Mario franchise is controlled by Nintendo and Nintendo has no say in what Microsoft does. -- P.S. Looking over  Canonicity, information from the two Microsoft games could count as notable mainstream appearances of Banjo and Conker, and thus such content could be allowed on the series pages. However, such content would not be completely protected - if the wiki agrees the content is not notable enough for inclusion, then the content may be dropped. The other games are licensed by Nintendo, and thus their inclusion is allowed under MarioWiki: Canonicity. What is "notable" outside Nintendo's licensing is subject to debate.
 * Sounds good. You're earlier comment stating that the proposal "would not explicitly allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles" and that that "may require a separate proposal" (emphases my own) particularly worried me ("weasel words", and all that), but now that you've clarified they will only have series pages, I'm fine with the policy. Perhaps we can make another Proposal concerning the Microsoft games, so they're not floating around in the limbo of uncertain notability (once this one runs its course and tells us exactly what policy we'd be building upon, that is). -


 * Right. Bad choice of words on my part.  This policy is only about content, not articles.  As stated at the end of the policy, article creation would be dependent on proposals, then listed at the end of the policy so everyone has quick access to decisions regarding what the community has determined deserves articles and what does not deserve articles. --
 * Alright! Thank you so much for the second clarification. It cleared it up a lot. Cheers!

This must surely be the longest section of comments for a proposal? Or have there been bigger ones? BTW, I'd never heard of this weirdo called Conker until exploring this Wiki, and judging by his appearance and the fact that I don't know him, I'd say he's pretty gay and no-one likes him.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.