Editing Talk:Kinoppe

==Should we cover Kinoppe-chan Forever?==
{{talk}}
I mean, its protagonist is part of the Toad species, I dare to say that at least a simple page about the series overall should be made (I'm also planning to buy it and find if any Mario characters appear.) --{{User:Mariuigi_Khed/sig}} 17:17, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:I don't think so. It's explicitly mentioned in [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Fan work by creators officially involved with the brand]] as an example of something that doesn't qualify. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 17:19, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::It would kinda seem similar to if the Sonic wiki started covering Ken Penders's unaffiliated work, and uh, anyone who knows what I'm talking about would know why that's a bad idea. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:23, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Ah, didn't know that. Ok, nvm. (still buying tho: maybe there might be some info related to the main manga) --{{User:Mariuigi_Khed/sig}} 17:26, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::It would also be like covering [https://tardis.wiki/wiki/K9_(TV_series) K-9] on a Doctor Who wiki. Which, whaddaknow is indeed covered. (The show I mean, not the character the show is using from Doctor Who. Man this is confusing) Of course, counterpoint to that is that Doctor Who has many of its pieces owned by their creators, which is less true Super Mario. But I'm not one to dismiss anything just because it's an especially estranged branch. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 17:32, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Myself, I find the idea amusing. I opened a discussion on this some time ago on the forums: https://www.marioboards.com/threads/47852/ <br>Reiterating here:
*This character originated in a Mario-related work.
*The character is a Toad.
*Her eponymous work is assuredly a spin-off of a Mario manga. The only possible scenario where this isn't the case is if the author of said Mario manga introduced Kinoppe in it solely so he could promote her then-upcoming starring role, a la what happened with Banjo in Diddy Kong Racing, except that ended up only materializing, you know, 2 whole decades later. Quite unrealistic if you ask me.
*Unlike what the coverage policy states, the Kinoppe manga isn't exactly unofficial, not when something like [[Fangamer|RareRacers]] is covered here (with a failed proposal that sought to remove it). Motoyama reserves copyright over both the Mario manga (see forum post above) and the Kinoppe spin-off.

Hypothetical: If Cookie Jar Group or WildBrain or whoever has the rights over the Super Mario World cartoon decided they'd produce an educational TV series starring [[Oogtar]] the curious caveman in a setting that was completely distinct from his debut, would that be viewed as official or unofficial? What if Microsoft spun [[Timber]] off into his own video game with no ties to the Diddy Kong Racing IP? Because Kinoppe's situation is extremely similar if not identical to those invoked, except it's actually happened, and I think the answer to these questions could contribute towards a verdict over the coverage of her manga. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:48, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:You know what, I'm sold. There's a very compelling case to be made for it, and I'd absolutely support a proposal to change the coverage policy to allow for ''Kinoppe-chan Forever'', if someone were to make one. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 18:05, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Idem --{{User:Mariuigi_Khed/sig}} 18:14, October 28, 2024 (EDT)


I think there's some confusion about what Kinoppe-chan Forever is:  it's a ''doujin'', meaning it's entirely self-funded/written/illustrated and Kazuki Motoyama simply uploaded it on platforms that allow for self-publication. Japanese doujin culture is a whole thing, but the meat and potatoes of it is that basically, Japanese copyright holders for nerd properties are ''generally'' more tolerant of individuals selling complete comics and games based off their IPs as long as they play by certain rules. Nobody on Nintendo had or could sign off on it (since Motoyama owns the copyright for the character) nor was it commisioned or cleared by any publisher. From what I can tell from the summaries and previews on the sites it's sold on, it contains no other elements from the Mario series (the series explicitely has Kinoppe transported to a different world to facilitate this) and she is slightly redesigned to make her Toad elements less prominent. Doc's comparison to Ken Penders (who wrote for the Sonic comic books and through a messy court case, acquired the rights to characters he created for that comic and is now using them for a self-published comic extremely unauthorized by Sega) is on-point. 

Re the above comment: A more accurate hypothetical would be "What if, some 20 years  later, the guy who did the character model  sheets for the SMW  cartoon did a webcomic starring Oogtar (and literally nothing else from the cartoon)?"

There might be a deeper debate here, that being: should the Super Mario Wiki loosen up its "official material only" policy and go more in depth in regard to derivative material and the culture that surrounds Mario? I'm saying this because if your stance is "Yes the Super Mario Wiki should cover unofficial Mario content more  ''and'' have a page on Kinoppe-chan Forever" that's very fair! But if it is "No the Super Mario Wiki should not have page on derivative content but it should have a page on Kinoppe-chan Forever", I'm sorry but that's not coherent. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 19:09, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

:1. The context that allowed that comic to be made is honestly irrelevant. Fact is, Motoyama is one of the parties with ownership over the Kodansha Mario manga, which he then decided to spin off. The hypothetical you presented would be similar only if you could prove the character designer has any rights over Oogtar.<br>2. "it contains no other elements from the Mario series (the series explicitely has Kinoppe transported to a different world to facilitate this)" This premise honestly sounds [[Wario: Master of Disguise|very familiar]].<br>3. "But if [my stance] is 'No the Super Mario Wiki should not have page on derivative content but it should have a page on Kinoppe-chan Forever', I'm sorry but that's not coherent." I'm going to have to ask you where have I ever even remotely said such a thing. If your response is "you said at one point we shouldn't have entire articles on projects developed by people who were affiliated with Nintendo at one point", that's because there were apparent reasons for my disagreement with that. For instance, I'd disagree giving ample coverage to the [[Super Mario Bros. (film)#Sequel webcomic|comic sequel to the 1993 Super Mario Bros. film]] because apparently none of the entities with some legal stake in the original film authorized the project in any fashion. Motoyama is one of the parties who own the Kodansha Mario manga in some form, and it's been tacitly decided that [[Talk:Fangamer|ownership over a project that Nintendo used to be involved in is enough to make any undertakings of the other party related that project official]].<br>If you're curious how I'd handle the Kinoppe manga coverage should it ever be allowed, and keeping in mind the apprehensions that would arise over it, I'd personally prefer that there be only one article or a very limited amount of articles on the subject, similarly to what Wikipedia does with many fictional works. Have one article containing an overview of the plot, a list of characters, a table that summarizes each episode, and more, though without necessarily going too in-depth or giving individual pages to any of the characters or episodes. If it's decided that one such part of the article, such as the episode list, would be better off split into its own page for technical reasons, then so be it. Of course, I'm not exactly opposed to giving it the same type of coverage breadth as any other thing on the wiki either. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:08, October 29, 2024 (EDT), edited 06:18, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
:: A: On the contrary, the context in which it was produced has all the relevance in the world. Users here seem to be under the impression that Kinoppe-Chan Forever is an "official" manga that happens to only feature one Mario character due to funny legal sheanigans It's not, it's a fanfiction sold for money (and yes, "[https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Alignment creator's fanfictions]" are a thing), and the fact that it can be sold for money is due to the unique ecosystem that exists between IP holders and producers of derivative work in Japan. Had Kinoppe-chan Forever been pitched to be serialized by a manga publisher, it likely would've resulted in even greater changes to the character - or more likely, nobody would pick it up as to not attract attention from Nintendo

:B: Point is that even with Kazuki Motoyama apparently owning the rights to  the character, he made a point to divorce it from the Mario IP as much as possible. It's not a Super Mario spin-off manga, it's a Kinoppe manga. 

:C: I wasn't there for that rare racer proposal, but if I had I would've voted for it as I agree with DrippingYellow's reasoning on there. However, even there it seems the main argument the opposition had "Well Microsoft owns the Diddy Kong Racing characters and they agreed to license it so it's stil an official work right?" Kazuki Motoyama doesn't own his Super Mario manga, just one character from it. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 10:19, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

:::"Kazuki Motoyama doesn't own his Super Mario manga, just one character from it." I defer to you on legal stuff, which is why I request that you clarify one thing regarding the legal fine print I showed in that post. It says the following in the bottom right corner:<br>"©本山一城 1989 [...] 協力/任天堂 (株)"<br>("© Kazuki Motoyama 1989 [...] Cooperation/Nintendo Co., Ltd.")<br>Same goes with the [https://imgur.com/a/kc-mario-vol-16-super-mario-kart-part-2-YSRrv#0 volume where Kinoppe debuted] and [https://imgur.com/a/kc-mario-vol-18-super-mario-usa-wlw0e#0 the one where she actually has some plot relevance] (<small>imgur.com</small>), except for the copyright year. If Motoyama only owned one character from it, wouldn't the legals specify something like "©Nintendo, Kinoppe © Motoyama"? My reference point is [https://youtu.be/NM2CnNUhCwk?t=997 this], but if Japanese copyright over a given character was signalled differently back in the '90s, I'd like to know it, because as it stands, it looks like he has divine ownership over the Mario manga (and the manga alone) and that makes anything he makes derivative of it official, kinda like ''Rare Racers''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:10, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
Latest revision		Your text
Line 31:		Line 31:
	:C: I wasn't there for that rare racer proposal, but if I had I would've voted for it as I agree with DrippingYellow's reasoning on there. However, even there it seems the main argument the opposition had "Well Microsoft owns the Diddy Kong Racing characters and they agreed to license it so it's stil an official work right?" Kazuki Motoyama doesn't own his Super Mario manga, just one character from it. --[[User:Glowsquid\|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid\|talk]]) 10:19, October 29, 2024 (EDT)		:C: I wasn't there for that rare racer proposal, but if I had I would've voted for it as I agree with DrippingYellow's reasoning on there. However, even there it seems the main argument the opposition had "Well Microsoft owns the Diddy Kong Racing characters and they agreed to license it so it's stil an official work right?" Kazuki Motoyama doesn't own his Super Mario manga, just one character from it. --[[User:Glowsquid\|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid\|talk]]) 10:19, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

	:::"Kazuki Motoyama doesn't own his Super Mario manga, just one character from it." I defer to you on legal stuff, which is why I request that you clarify one thing regarding the legal fine print I showed in that post. It says the following in the bottom right corner:<br>"©本山一城 1989 [...] 協力/任天堂 (株)"<br>("© Kazuki Motoyama 1989 [...] Cooperation/Nintendo Co., Ltd.")<br>Same goes with the [https://imgur.com/a/kc-mario-vol-16-super-mario-kart-part-2-YSRrv#0 volume where Kinoppe debuted] and [https://imgur.com/a/kc-mario-vol-18-super-mario-usa-wlw0e#0 the one where she actually has some plot relevance] (<small>imgur.com</small>), except for the copyright year. If Motoyama only owned ~~the original characters~~ from it, wouldn't the legals specify something like "©Nintendo, ~~Characters~~ © ~~Nintendo/~~Motoyama"? My reference point is [https://youtu.be/NM2CnNUhCwk?t=997 this], but if Japanese copyright over a given character was signalled differently back in the '90s, I'd like to know it, because as it stands, it looks like he has divine ownership over the Mario manga (and the manga alone) and that makes anything he makes derivative of it official, kinda like ''Rare Racers''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:10, October 29, 2024 (EDT)		:::"Kazuki Motoyama doesn't own his Super Mario manga, just one character from it." I defer to you on legal stuff, which is why I request that you clarify one thing regarding the legal fine print I showed in that post. It says the following in the bottom right corner:<br>"©本山一城 1989 [...] 協力/任天堂 (株)"<br>("© Kazuki Motoyama 1989 [...] Cooperation/Nintendo Co., Ltd.")<br>Same goes with the [https://imgur.com/a/kc-mario-vol-16-super-mario-kart-part-2-YSRrv#0 volume where Kinoppe debuted] and [https://imgur.com/a/kc-mario-vol-18-super-mario-usa-wlw0e#0 the one where she actually has some plot relevance] (<small>imgur.com</small>), except for the copyright year. If Motoyama only owned one character from it, wouldn't the legals specify something like "©Nintendo, Kinoppe © Motoyama"? My reference point is [https://youtu.be/NM2CnNUhCwk?t=997 this], but if Japanese copyright over a given character was signalled differently back in the '90s, I'd like to know it, because as it stands, it looks like he has divine ownership over the Mario manga (and the manga alone) and that makes anything he makes derivative of it official, kinda like ''Rare Racers''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:10, October 29, 2024 (EDT)