MarioWiki talk:Coverage

Limiting article creations
I don't like that. While we should have main focuses and sub-focuses, the articles that we want created will eventually be created no matter what. Limiting the number of articles one can create in a week just slows down the wiki. -- Steve (talk) http://www.porplemontage.com/images/firefox_27x15.png 21:42, 31 October 2006 (EST)
 * However, # of new pages is also the easiest to keep track of at Special:Newpages. Do you suggest a higher general limit instead? 22:45, 31 October 2006 (EST)

Honestly, wouldn't this just slow us down! Plus, it would be kinda irratating to keep checking the amount of pages and make sure the limit hasn't been violated... 3dejong

The problem is this is the Super Mario Wiki, not the Banjo-Kazooie wiki. Limits are meant to ensure that secondary and tertiary articles don't dominate this wiki at the expense of Mario. If it is the consensus of the wiki not to keep limits, that's fine by me. However, we should still keep this page to inform people of the focus of this wiki. -- Son of Suns

Shouldn't this be updated now.
 * I'll revise it tomorrow or Monday – maybe move it to a page about what topic goes to what wiki. 11:35, 30 December 2006 (EST)

spin-offs
Are there any Banjo, Conker, or any other Donkey Kong series spin-offs where a new character stars in his/her own game?----

Well... I think Timber might have had his own game planned, but it was cancelled, aside from that, no. There are rumors of a Squirrel High Command and Tediz game, both of those are from Conker's Bad Fur Day/Conker: Live & Reloaded, but, those are just rumors. -- Sir Grodus

What's Tediz?----
 * Robo killer teddy bears. Blah. Anyway, this sounds OK. Just the main stuff.. cool.

Media
Should stuff be mentioned about the tv series, the real life people, etc.?


 * A new policy is in the works. It will cover what you have mentioned. -- Son of Suns

Items and Arenas
Sorry if this has been asked before but... should we make articles for the items and arena's that appear in the SSB series? - User: Ultimatetoad


 * Those would be legitimate articles. But remember SSB is of secondary importance, so please try to focus on Mario games more than these articles. Also remember to add only SSB categories. -- Son of Suns

What about cameo characters? (Wolf.O.Donnel and Ridley both appear in the opening movie, and dont forget Tingle). What about the Pokemon that come out of Poke-balls? What about Trophies? - User: Ultimatetoad

I need an answer soon, anybody?


 * Cameo characters- don't affect gameplay, so should probably just be mentioned in the SSB game articles. Any character that affects gameplay, like Tingle, can have an article. We can have an article explaining trophies (complete with a list of trophies), but all the characters and items featured in trophies should not have articles. All the Pokemon should be in the PokeBall article. -- Son of Suns

Thank you. - User: Ultimatetoad

FA
Sorry if I overlooked this, but is it possible for a secondary or tertiary article to reach FA? -- Y ' o ' s ' h ' i ' 6 ' 2  6  20:59, 31 January 2007 (EST)


 * Yes. If good enough. -- Son of Suns

Diddy Kong Racing DS
Hello, everyone! As you all know, Conker and Banjo have been replaced by Dixie and Tiny Kong in the remake of Diddy Kong Racing. The issue here is whether or not that means their connection to the Mario universe should be erased as a result? Is DKR DS a rewritting of the story or should it be considered that DKR DS is just a simple romp with no significance on timeline or Mario's universe?

If we consider this a rewritting, it implies that Diddy Kong and friends never met Banjo or Conker. It would follow that they don't "exist" in Mario's universe per se... right? I know that I shouldn't assume that just because Banjo and Conker didn't come to the aid of Timber and Diddy that Banjo and Conker don't exist, but if we do assume that they do, it's almost like saying that Link inhabits the same world as Mario, and Link is, as stating in the policy, not getting the red carpet treatment that Conker, Banjo, Mario, and the rest will be getting.

So, here's how I see it: 1. DKR DS is a rewritting on the story. Solution: Banjo and Conker should be removed from the Marioverse (which makes me sad, I love Banjo... and the innocent Conker) 2. DKR DS has no effect on the original storyline and is an excuse to revive a classic N64 game. Solution: Dixie Kong and Tiny Kong didn't come to Diddy's aid. 3.DKR and DKR DS both tell different aspects of the same story. Solution: Dixie, Tiny, Banjo, and Conker were present. 4. [proposed by Wayoshi, see below] DKR and DKR DS are two completely separate events.

Let me know what you guys think! --Stumpers
 * I think it's a whole other story, after the original DKR, leaving Banjo & Conker on the border of the Marioverse. Maybe something in-game can confirm that. 06:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

We will definately have to wait for the game to come out before we can reevaluate our position on the subject. According to some material, DKR DS may be a sequel (like DKL is to DKC). -- Son of Suns


 * If amnything, 3. Everyone wins. And even so, its needs some official backup whether one's canon or not, or its an opinion, which is even more non-canocal --  16:35, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Guess will know the answer in five days.... -- Sir Grodus


 * Thanks for responding, everyone! I look forward to the release, then.  What I've seen of the game makes it seem like a retelling (the intro is almost identical to the story in the N64 version's manual), so I din't think we should immeadiately jump to a conclusion if Nintendo confirms that its a sequel, since all "sequel" really means is a game that was created after the original... right?  Oh, and have a fun Super Bowl, everyone!  Stumpers


 * Well, if we're going to remove information just because it isn't canon we might as well remove articles like Super Mario Bros. Super Show and Hotel Mario. - Hyper Mushroom.

The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! was just based on Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros. 2, I don't think it was supposed to have that weird "Ultimate Spider-Man: The Game"-esque canon. And is there anything really discarding Hotel Mario from the continuity? -- Sir Grodus


 * That isn't the point. The point is that if we remove information just because it isn't canon this just wouldn't be a wiki. - Hyper Mushroom

The difference is that this is the Super Mario Wiki, and games like Hotel Mario or cartoons like the Super Mario Bros. Super Show are not non-canon; they are either low-level canon, or alternate canon. They are still depictions of Mario. However, Banjo and Conker have nothing to do with Mario, outside of their tertiary connection to the Donkey Kong universe. As such, what happens in the Banjo and Conker series may be non-canon in the Mario series (instead of just being a low level of canon). Again, we'll have to see what the game says. -- Son of Suns

Weeeeeel, this is a wiki for Mario, and his SPIN-OFFS. No matter what way you look at it, Banjo and Conker both came from the Mario series. - User: Ultimatetoad


 * This is a wiki for franchises that exist in the same world as Mario. If there is a retcon, Banjo and Conker would exist independently of Mario, and thus would not be a part of his universe. They would no longer be important to the Super Mario Wiki. -- Son of Suns

The Banjo series is unnafected because Titup,a Banjo character, is present in Diddy kong racing DS--Gofer


 * Why would something go non-canon because of a remake? We still have Super Mario 64 articles here, despite its remake for the DS. Diddy Kong Racing will still exist even when DKR DS is a remake. Cobold 15:56, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Look at the comment of Sons of Suns. --Gofer

Super Mario 64 DS is almost the same as Super Mario 64, but harder and with some other changes. I guess Tiptup's and a Gnawty's appearance(s) in the Banjo-Kazooie and the fact Mario is mentioned in a few Banjo-Kazooie games (more as a joke though) would still make Banjo fit. Conker, well, I guess he could have an article, I don't know about his series. Man, this is hard, stupid continuity shift. -- Sir Grodus

Well, in the retcon, Tiptup could be a cameo character, not an in-universe character. I don't know if DKR DS is a remake or a sequel though. Also, "canon" info about Super Mario 64 should actually be about Super Mario 64 DS, but gameplay issues can still be addressed independently. -- Son of Suns

Are you talking about his appearance in Diddy kong racing ds or in Banjo game?He's playable in Diddy kong racing ds and he teach move in Banjo kazooie and tooie. --User: Gofer


 * Banjo-Kazooie. Bottles and Jamjars teach moves. Tiptup has a turtle orchestra and an egg in BK 1 and 2 respectibly. -- Son of Suns


 * So that means Banjo Kazooie is canon no matter what. And Banjo makes a cameo in bad fur day (As a hunting trophy) meaning the same for Conker! Sorted!

I don't think that "cameo" is supposed to be taken seriously. -- Sir Grodus

Remember, Tiptup is not the star of the two series. He is a minor character - a cameo even, simply because he appeared in DKR. Cameos happen all the time, but we don't have articles covering all of the Legend of Zelda or Bomberman series. DKR DS may indicate that Banjo and Conker have cut their ties to Mario's world - that Mario and Banjo could never meet and chat and talk. It's called a retcon - where the canon is reorganized. Again, I will say that I don't know if DKR DS is a total remake or a sequel, so the question of Banjo and Conker is still up in the air. -- Son of Suns


 * Whatever. I don't think their connection with the Marioverse was meant to be taken seriously anyway. There was no further mention of the Marioverse from that point, apart from a cameo from Gnawty in Banjo Kazooie and music from Donkey Kong Land in Pocket Tales. Other than that a simple, pointless appearance in Diddy Kong Racing is our only connection. - Hyper Mushroom

Stumpers' massive discussion
Hey, everyone. Bare with me here, because I believe this may be a little touchy, but I believe it is important. I would like to note that the entire concept of "Marioverse" is non-canon, yet it is covered extensively in the Wiki. "Tertiary, secondary, primary" are also non-canon in respect to the Mario series. DK and friends do not inhabit a different dimension than Mario. However, these are fine guidelines for governing this Wiki. As such, it is completely fine for us as a community to govern concepts exclusive to Wikis. However, it is not right in my opinion for us as a community to govern what is canon and non-canon in terms of remakes of games such as Super Mario 64 vs. Super Mario 64 DS. Both were made by Nintendo, with no official statement as to which we should go off of. I read up above that we're assuming that Super Mario 64 DS is to be considered a rewriting of the Super Mario 64 episode. Nintendo has made no comment on this issue whatsoever, meaning that:

(1) Super Mario 64 occurred, DS did not or (2) Super Mario 64 DS occurred, but the original did not, or (3) they were two different occurrences: both happened, or (4) they happened simultaneously, with some truths from each applying to each story.

As you can see, the task in front of us is incredible, requiring assumptions, and therefore non-canon, to describe the situation. Here is my idea: follow Nintendo's example and turn a blind eye for the purpose of the Wiki, noting the discrepancy where it appears. This is obviously a temporary solution, but a solution just the same.

Let's apply this to Diddy Kong Racing DS. We cannot turn a blind eye because doing so places Conker and Banjo in limbo. Are they or are they not part of the Mario's universe, and thus part of the Marioverse? However, there is a safe way to do this, similar to how I believe we should resolve Super Mario 64 DS.

Go ahead and make the articles for Conker and Banjo games, characters, etc, noting with a special template the issue at hand. How about this: "The following article is about an element that may or may not be part of the Marioverse due to remakes of previous games."

Sound good? No? How about solution number 2, then: consolidate all Banjo articles under one massive article and all Conker articles under another massive article, thus reducing the size of the Wiki, which I believe is an issue right now?

Thank you for your time and consideration! --Stumpers

P.S. On a partially related note, I also feel that it is incorrect to govern similar issues based on "cross-overs" vs. "cameos" vs. series that originated in the Mario universe. They all appeared in the games, and to make further assumptions would be to risk non-canon.


 * Yes. The Importance Policy has nothing to do with official canon, only what the wiki wants to emphasize about Mario and various spin-off franchises. The problem with remakes is that Nintendo did not have to make them in the first place. They could have ported the game, which they do with many other titles. Remakes, simply for the fact of being created, imply a newer, refined version of the game. Just as the GBA remake of Yoshi's Island corrects things in the original (as in the color of the Pink Yoshi, or refering to the babies as "brothers" as opposed to "twins"), so do other remakes. This indicates a part on Nintendo to correct what was wrong with the original - we as fans should respect these decisions as being the truest representation of the game. I do agree that we should cover the differences between versions, but also give emphasis to the newer title (as I have done in both Yoshi and Goomba in regards to SM64). Many Donkey Kong articles also state both versions. Both versions are acceptable, and both are canonical, just that one is less "true" than the other, but not implying that one completely replaces the other. Both should be focused, but the remake should be emphasized. As far as Banjo and Conker go, I do believe the characters should have articles at this wiki. As far as anything only in those franchises, the question is not really of what is more canonical. As you pointed out, both are kinda canonical, but as I have argued one should have more emphasis than the other. The questions now is, are Banjo and Conker so far removed from Mario games, should they even be represented here? The original DKR showed that Banjo and Conker were part of the same world as Donkey Kong. But with the release of DKR DS, are the Banjo and Conker series still relevant to this wiki? Does the community believe they are important? Maybe we should bring this to a vote, including some of Stumpers suggestions (like the template (something along the lines of "This article is of ambigious significance to the Mario series."); however I think consolidating everything about the Banjo and Conker series would be way too big - either articles stay, are marked with a template, or are deleted (and possible moved to a new wiki!)). -- Son of Suns

P.S. I don't understand your last point in the PS section.

The P.S. just means that I think we are taking to many liberties in deciding who and what is part of Mario's universe, like with the Super Smash Bros. issue. I agree that we shouldn't cover the entire LoZ universe, but I believe we come to judgements based on our feelings sometimes. But, that's a problem when Nintendo doesn't tell us what's up, right? Okay, so here's the take-home message: as far as this website is concerned, do what you want, cover what you want, etc. It's not under my control as a simple contributer. However, I really hope that we can refrain from taking the assumptions we've made in our heads and passing them off as fact, which I have been burned for. Take a look at Wikipedia, for example the topic of the singer Enya: in the "Best of" album, part of a particular song is cut out ("On My Way Home", if you want to know). It happens to be one of the most beautiful parts of the song, and adds diversity to the piece overall (if you own "Memory of Trees", listen for the flute part in On My Way Home, it's gone in the "Best of"). I don't think Wikipedia users would put up with the statement, "Enya's song 'On My Way Home' originally contained a flute solo. Enya later realized that it did not fit the song and removed it." Regardless of whether or not this is true we cannot assume anything unless the artist or even a source close to her confirms it, just as we cannot assume that Miyamoto decided later that he wanted Mario and Luigi to be brothers rather than twins. On a side note, any two babies from the same Mom delivered within the period of time that Mario and Luigi were delivered can only be twins, whether or not they are identical twins. For two siblings not to be twins, they must have a substantial amount of time between delivieries, probably more than 9 months, as there must be two separate pregnancies, which, correct me if I'm wrong, bring two different storks? Have you played Yoshi's Island 2 DS, and if so was Wario delivered along with Waluigi? If not, and if we agree they are brothers (Nintendo Power issue on Mario Tennis N64, I believe), then that would prove my point that Mario and Luigi are both twins and brothers. Phew. As you can see, a simple rewrite of one word or a remake of a game do not necessarily mean that the game's creaters wanted to change a given fact. I hope that makes sense. Until tomorrow! --Stumpers


 * Restrictions between series are meant to prevent the Super Mario Wiki from becoming a general Nintendo Wiki, something I think you understand. We need to stop making assumptions and concentrate one fact. Remakes and the originals should be covered; but we should cover both, and, I believe, emphasize the remake (but it's not that big of a deal). Of course, you are making assumptions by stating that a pregnancy takes nine months in the Mario universe. We don't know that. But we do know, according to the YI remake instruction manual, that Mario and Luigi were born in the same day, thus making them "twins". In regards to YI DS, only Wario is in the game, but there are many storks. Waluigi and Wario are ambigiously brothers, but the games themselves refrain from saying this outright. Anyways, I think we've come to an agreement, and look for changes in this wiki to occur soon. -- Son of Suns

I agree with you on all counts here. As long as we're not going to entirely through the originals out the door (before a statement from Nintendo, of course), I'm happy. Thanks so much for your time and consideration. P.S. Good points on pregnancies... we know nothing about them, or if they even exist! For that matter... couldn't a couple have nine babies in the space of nine months because of the stork system? Anyway, I'm off topic. Oh, and just for the record, I'm really glad you specified by what you meant with emphasis. I'm totally with you now... but still enormously confused about the relationships between DS remakes! ;D  Look forward to working on articles with you soon! And this is for all the administrators: thanks so much for running the Wiki! --Stumpers


 * Lights a match, blows some dust away* Is anyone still reading this? I was just wondering, if Banjo and Conker were kicked out of the wiki because they were retconned, why not other retconned information like Mario being Brooklyite or Luigi's age? - Hyper Mushroom

Banjo-Conker-Free!
Take Banjo and Conker off the importance policy! Max2
 * Will-do. 17:06, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Question
Of what level of importance are Mario is Missing!, Wario's Woods, Luigi's Mansion, Super Princess Peach, Dr. Mario, Dr. Mario 64, and Vs. Dr. Mario? Waluigi 23:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * All of that is primary. Peach, Mario, and/or Luigi in a game always means primary importance; Toad in Wario's Woods makes that ok; all games with the word "Mario" in the title is worth mentioning here. 23:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Mario is Missing! is considered low-canon, if thats what you meant. 23:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Yoshipedia
Wait a minute. Somebody created a "Yoshipedia", does that mean that Yoshi is off the wiki. A wondering fan of Yoshi
 * No, since that wiki is not associated with this wiki. -- 21:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm a bit worried about the Yoshipedia. Yoshi's so related to Mario... 21:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Banjo and Conker series notability
Neither are spin-offs, despite debuting/cameoing in Diddy King Racing for marketing-purposes. Even if they are to be considered spin-off series, would a spin-off (Banjo and Conker series) of a spin-off (Diddy Kong Racing) of a spin-off (Donkey Kong series) of a main series (Mario series) really be considering notable? Redstar 18:09, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 * Just found this: Coverage.
 * Uh, yes. That's on the page you linked before. As I said before, it simply gives instructions on how to handle those examples. I'm just curious on if the series themselves are notable enough for this wiki, considering their multiple spin-off status. I'd say either relocate all relevant information to the List of Cameos, or delete the series articles and keep the relevant characters, since they're the ones we're after, not their series. Redstar 18:23, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 * Actually, if we are going to get technical, Mario is a spin-off of Donkey Kong. The Banjo and Conker series are more relevant in this mindframe, and the Banjo games actually make references to the Mario-series, albeit not major, they still connect the series to Donkey Kong, and are major enough to get some more coverage than cameos. Just curious, what's your opinion on the Pyoro-series? 18:36, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Also, "The following regulations are based on previous proposals and consensus reached via voting on talk pages.". Keep that in mind. And just to point htis out: you are not allowed to alter other's comments in any way, and that includes put the ":" thingy by my comment. Just saying, not that I care if you put that there.
 * @SMB: True enough. However, I'd probably be more technical and say that while the Mario series is spun-off from the Donkey Kong series, the current Donkey Kong series is quite different from the original, so was re-created as a spin-off of the Mario series. Very circular. As for the Pyoro series, I'm fine with it. While some would consider the WarioWare series a spin-off of the Wario series, and that series itself spun-off from the Mario series, I'd disagree and argue that the WarioWare series is the Wario series at this point, and considering Wario has appeared alongside Mario in a main-series, non-recreational spin-off, I'd say that the Wario series is concurrent and largely the same as the Mario series. So, the Pyoro series is only about one-removed, whereas the Banjo and Conker series are three-removed, or an entirely different, non-spin-off series (per my above reason of marketing).


 * @Fawful: Previous proposals can be overturned. I'm not pushing anything now, but I would at least like to discuss it so I can be aware of all the reasons behind this current standard. I also apologize for adding the formatting. I'm just compulsive and sometimes do it without thinking, and if it's not formatted I have difficulty following a discussion. Redstar 18:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 * If I recall correctly, the current standard (Banjo and Conker getting series pages only) is a compromise erected to stop the "Include/Exclude Banjo and Conker" proposal wars. Every few months, it would flare up again and give everyone headaches, and so we finally decided on this. Both sides have valid arguments and everyone has different opinions on what is a spin-off of what, not to mention personal biases for or against the inclusion of Banjo and Conker, all of which is why the issue is so problematic. If you want more info, dig through the proposal archives and see the old discussions for yourself. - 22:57, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 * If it's been done to death, I have no reason to press it again. The current standard works for me if it's a compromise. Redstar 23:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 * What I don't like about this compromise is that it ignores the standards set by the coverage policy itself (I know it is an amendment, but still, it is only half coverage). We should completely cover the subject or not at all (I would personally support Banjo and Conker articles on this wiki, a lot of the earlier controversey could have been sparked from the Conker-series shifting into a M+ rated series; yet the wiki community has established on many occasions that we will not filter adult content out if it is related). I feel Banjo and Conker are not crossovers, since it is their first appearance in gaming, and the whole debate was not if they are important enough, but rather if Diddy Kong Racing DS erases Banjo and Conker's appearances in the Donkey Kong series. That is where the true issue lies. 23:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Just because Diddy Kong Racing was remade doesn't mean the original didn't happen: we view all appearances as equally tangible, true events in the history of the Mario series and make no judgement calls as to which titles depict the "true" series of events. That flawed aspect of this debate should not be considered at all when we try to come up with any sort of decision concerning Banjo and Conker; similarly, people's personal aversion to M-rated games in our wiki should also be ignored, as you pointed out. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done: someone who hates Conker's Bad Fur Day can always say they just want the games excluded because they're too far removed from the Mario games, and we couldn't prove otherwise. If we include the series in their entirety, people are going to be angry, but if we cut them out entirely, different people will be angry - and with good reason. We have to include Banjo and Conker in some way because they originated from a Mario game; to deny that would be folly. However, the people who argue against full inclusion also have some valid points of their own. Since their creation, Banjo and Conker have separated themselves from their parent series as a result of Real World politics: unlike the other sub-series within Mario, Nintendo does not own Banjo and Conker, and so it cannot include them in the crossovers that bind Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario together (namely, the party, sports and kart racing games). They are like estranged cousins, and to many, their information would be out-of-place in our wiki because of this; we cling to Nintendo's approval as a way to weed out unofficial material, and since the series are no longer Nintendo's, that's enough grounds for people to cast them off. But again, denying the existence of the more recent Microsoft Banjo and Conker titles would be wrong because they did happen and they are part of the series, which as I said before, we must cover in some way. We are lucky we were able to come to a compromise in the face of all these unruly factors, and go this long without incident. The coverage was written for this, so the compromise is not ignoring anything, merely forcing us to get creative with our standards in order to avoid constant fighting. We have to include something, but we will never be able to include everything: even if by some miracle full coverage of Banjo and Conker is approved by the community and stays that way, who will write the articles? We already struggle to fill the Donkey Kong pages, imagine how it'll look if we add countless Banjo and Conker stubs to that number. Instead of pushing against a wall, we'd be wiser to put our energy towards fleshing out the Banjo and Conker series pages, so we can be proud of what we did manage to accomplish. With our open-minded coverage policies, maybe we can even include basic series pages for the SSB series, instead of redirecting people to specific characters and categories. I'd rather see that than the circular Proposal Wars again, that's for sure. - 00:36, 19 December 2009 (EST)
 * I see your points (that sia,d the points of other users in the past). But (not to create an argument, just a suggestion) couldn't we make regular articles for those games, characters, and enemies that are from the Nintendo era of Banjo and Conker (which is most of the games in those series, to be honest), and then add the ones from the Microsoft era into the series pages (and link the ones that get pages with main templates)? Not necesarily saying we should do that soon, but it is a possible change that is yet another compromise while marking the relations of Banjo and Conker to Mario and Nintendo. 00:47, 19 December 2009 (EST)