MarioWiki talk:Canonicity

I wholeheartedly disagree with this article's mentioning of "alternate-canon." I have always accepted the Mario cartoons, comics, and video games as one in the same canon and I know many of my friends and other fans hold the same opinion. I don't think anyone has the right to write off the other Mario sources as a canon separate from the games, especially when Nintendo themselves claim that they like to leave it to the player to decide for themselves. I think this article should be reworded, maybe renaming "alternate-canon" to "debatable canon" so as to make it more neutral. -- Some Guy

Is the movie also canon then? -- Son of Suns

Regardless, I have changed the wording to say alternate-canon material has an unknown level of canon in the video game realm. I like the word alternate-canon, as these mediums often provide an alternative background to the characters. -- Son of Suns

What about comics, books, and the Mario Movie? Are they like the Show? Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)

I'm guessing so. Ya' know, I used to think the Valiant Comic's Mario comics and the cartoons took place in the same continuity. :) -- Sir Grodus

Wow, I didn't expect this to become a policy.--Knife (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Congratulations it did. Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)

Each comic, book, movie, and cartoon series is like their own little universe, all distinct from each other and the video game universe. -- Son of Suns

I think the position as to the canonicity of remakes should be a little more complex than currently considered. For exmample, what is canon, the original version of Super Mario Bros.? Super Mario All-Stars' version? Super Mario Bros. Deluxe? If the most modern one was the canon, then Deluxe would be it; yet in a throwback to the original color schemes, Super Paper Mario uses the Mario and Luigi colors of the original Super Mario Bros. (when using the Pill Pals or the Mega Star); furthermore, the original Paper Mario also affirmed the fact that Luigi does, in fact, have a white suit. Thus, the remakes would not be more canon than the original if canon sequels acknowledge the original's depiction of something and not the remake. We have yet to see how this affects a game like Super Mario 64, for which the remake was radically different. Finally, how does one consider the Mario sport and party titles in relation to the platformers and/or RPGs? Paper Mario and TTYD do acknowledge the general actions themselves, but they do not acknowledge specifically the events portrayed in those games; other than that, those spin-off titles are never referred to in the RPGs and platformers. - Jean de Pied

Made some changes to reflect what should be said in the article. Remakes are as canonical as the original games - they are simply retellings. This should have been changed a long time ago. Also, any title, regardless of genre, has high canonical value if it was produced by Nintendo. -- Son of Suns

Official Nintendo Seal

In light of the fact that Nintendo has used two different seals throughout their history, (see Wikipedia or compare a modern and retro title) I suggest we remove the note about the Official Nintendo Seal being a method to determine canonicity. The first seal, you'll remember, only applied to Nintendo games on Nintendo sysetems. The new one is more inclusive, allowing for movies and other forms of media to be included. Basically, as it stands anything released before the new seal is Nintendo's way of saying, "This will work on your system," not, "We approve this game into the Mario canon." As such, we shouldn't be using the first seal to determine the latter. Stumpers! 16:27, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I would have to agree with that, a bit. The seal stands for official games made by Nintendo. But it also stands for "This game is good quality". Heck, Nintendo even uses it in toys related to Mario or Nintendo. I agree, we shouldn't use the seal for that. Paper Jorge ( Talk·Contributions)·

Right. It's a claim to quality in both cases, and to say it is more is conjecture. Stumpers! 16:43, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree too, but does that mean we can now include Hotel Mario and other third-party produced games equal to the stright-edge Nintendo games? Personally, I don't think we should be saying they're less important anyway. - Walkazo

That's right. Any game with a story can now be put in the biography. Stumpers! 13:56, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Alternate Canon

Up above Son of Suns commented that "alternate canon" is to mean that we don't know for sure that the source connects to the video games. Wrong for two reasons: First, we don't know that all of the video games happen in the same canon. It's just as likely for Paper Mario not part of the "main" canon as it is for "The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!" The only thing separating them is the fact that people who wrote this, like Son of Suns, didn't like the show and didn't take the time to sit down with it, discover the real story behind it, and notice that all it is is a "lost adventures" between Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros. 2 USA. It doesn't perfectly line up, but then again, contradictions much greater than those seen in the Super Show exist all over the Marioverse, video game and otherwise. Secondly, and this is what's more important and fixable: people are taking alternate canon to mean "alternate universe." CrystalYoshi for example made comments on several talk pages to that extent, citing this page. I had to tell him that it was a fanon term, but now that I look closely at the talk page, I see that it isn't fanon: Son of Suns just used the fancy wording "alternate canon" instead of writing out, "sources which have not been referenced in the central video games," Why? I don't know. But, I have a hunch that he didn't follow that arguement because it would mean that games like Paper Mario, which aren't referenced in Super Mario Sunshine or Galaxy, would then become, "sources which have not been referenced in the central video games."

So here's what I'm calling for: we stop the use of alternate canon on this page and specify Son of Suns' publicized intention, "sources of questionable canon." After that, we work on removing all speculation from this page, including the fact that any source can be of questionable canon. Does this mean we're going to have to call the movie canon? Yes and no: I've also dug deeper into the movie, and guess what? It's connection to the Marioverse is spelled out in the first ten minutes of the film and we've all looked over it: the narrator clearly uses the term, "What if" to the extent of, "What if the dinosaurs were banished to an alternate dimension?" In other words, its a what-if scenario. Whether it's a what-if scenario for the non-fictional world we live in, or if it's a what-if scenario for the Marioverse doesn't matter, it's still not connected to the main plot. Everything else though, needs re-examination. Stumpers! 14:07, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Why don't we run a bulldozer over this page and rename it "Guide to place the games in a good order"? --Blitzwing 16:24, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

I like the bulldozer idea. Either your name or, "Page Organization" would work, I think. Maybe we can just merge this with, MarioWiki:Chronology. Stumpers! 16:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Merging sounds good; the two pages are practically the same anyway: this one deals with what section to put what information, Chronology deals with what order to put the information in those sections. I still think the TV show, Movie, Comics and all that jazz should be seperated from the games, otherwise it'll probably confuse people. I also think we should consider merging the sports/party/racing games in with the major titles too: lots of them have valid plots anyway. - Walkazo 18:38, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Yup, it's been my belief that readers will see the heading, "Bibleography" and expect to hear about all events in the order in which they happened. So, what I would think is that the biography should be about the events of a game. So, you would mention the fact that Mario once again went to play tennis in Mario Power Tennis, and there he thwarted Bowser, Wario, and Waluigi. However, I don't think it is necesary to expand on Mario's play style (all around, 108 m/h serve, etc.) in this section. You could have a separate section for that down below so that the information would not have to be repeated for each incarnation of Mario Tennis. Mario Party, of course, always has its own storyline and should definately be noted fully each time rather than be stuffed at the bottom. Of course, if we do that, wouldn't it be more confusing for readers NOT to have comics, TV shows, etc. in their proper places? Stumpers! 22:27, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

About the sports: There's already sections for stats (or at least, there should be), so only including the plot's a given. About the mixed-media: Some things like the TV series and most comics could be fit into the main section without much difficulty, but then you've got the movie, the live-action bits of the show, and things like the Super Mario Adventures comic which messes up the Super Mario World story. There's so much room for confusion. Plus, people will probably not like the movie being held in the same esteem as the games; prejudice bites, but it's there nonetheless. - Walkazo 00:13, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

The movie is a "what-if" scenario to Earth, but we don't know if it's supposed to be the fictional Real World Earth of SMB or if it's the real earth. So, it doesn't fit into the central storyline at all and doesn't need to be mentioned. I think we need to keep in mind two things: (1) We are not here to make the plot make sense. If the release date/story context tells us that something takes place at one point in the timeline, we present it as such, even if it contradicts. Then, like any good Wiki, we point out the inconsistency, only offering a solution if it is blaringly obvious (we wouldn't say that Yoshi, Mario, and Luigi must have forgotten the events of SMW, we would instead say that, "Should the writer of Super Mario Adventures intended it to take place in the same timeline, Mario's fear of the Yoshi is incongruous: he had previously dealt with Yoshies in Super Mario World. It is possible that SMA was intended as an alternate take on the story of SMW, as the Mario-Kun manga adaption was.") If you want an example of what not to do, see Mario and Luigi's Parents (I take responsibility >.<) I'm not sure if you know this, but the live-action parts of the Super Show! occured prior to Mario and Luigi entering the Mushroom World. We would, in this case, note that Mario and Luigi were shown as babies to be inhabitents of the Mushroom World in YI, which was released after the television show. I hope this kind of makes sense: my idea is to mention the source, point out any inconsistencies to satisfy the frothing-at-the-mouth haters of alternate media (who, by the way, never seem to stay more than a month but long enough to screw up a proposal vote). But still, status in the biography section should never be considered giving a source "esteem". It meerly means a listing of all sources as they occur in relation to each other. Mario-Kun, the manga I mentioned above, could be mentioned in terms of rewrites, just as remakes are mentioned too. Stumpers! 01:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Um, where does (2) start? Anyway, I think the "Should the writer..." thing is a bit clunky and would take away from the article's aesthetics. Other arguments against merging the games and alternate media sources into one section include: the unworldy amount of rewrites this would necessitate and the complains/attempts to switch it back that would ensue, jumbled timelines, and general confusion. It's easier to just leave them seperate (like in the major articles), and deal with the little articles that mash them together instead. I've actually followed the development of the Mario and Luigi's Parents article for a while, and I think it's a good example of, not only confusing multi-media soups, but of clearly defining juxtaposing sources as well. For example, the Introduction discusses relatives introduced in various series, and lists those series right there, so the reader gets the whole story in nice, succinct paragraphs. The Appearances section's good too, since it describes what source provided what information; whereas History is ambiguous half the time, as are the sections about the individual parents. The speculation also detracts from the readability of History (which actually brings me back to my first point). - Walkazo 21:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, the argument here really isn't against history sections that mention both central and alternate canon sources, but it's against history sections that don't cite sources, which is already a bad thing according to MarioWiki policy. Stumpers! 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I guess, seeing as how the parts of the M&L's Parents article that do cite sources are quite readable. But there's still the issue of wordy "this might have been intended on a reimagining of SMW as Mario did not seem to know Yoshi..." and the fact that speculation is as big a no-no as the absence of citations. At least packed away in their own little sections, we can sneak in the "reimaginings" without having all the "maybes" that makes us look unprofessional. - Walkazo 23:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Sports, Party and other spin-off: canon?

Sorry for my English, I'm Italian. Really the Mario Sports, Mario Parties and other spin-off (such Game & Watch Gallery) are canon? These games are incongruous with Platform (and RPGs); for example the existence of both Baby Mario and Mario in same time period or the design of Mushroom Kingdoom (and character attitude) in the Mario Strikers. - Feffe