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)

The problem is, a timeline of any kind would also be suspect to a canon ruling, which brings us right back to square one. I remain that the best course of action is to do away with both the Canonicity and Chronology polices and just run with a 'all games are created equal' mentality. Over thinking this has caused enough problems around here. -- Chris 19:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

We are saying all games are created equally (except SSB, because that's clearly seperate), but it's the other media that are the problem. - Walkazo 20:05, 18 August 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)

I still don't understand why we couldn't just make sections just like this (example is for Mario): Yoshi's Island, Yoshi's Island DS, Partners in Time, Super Mario Bros. Super Show! live action (with note that the previous three titles taking place in the Mushroom World leaves a plothole: how did Mario get to Brooklyn and not remember the Mushroom Kingdom), Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. Super Show! animated (noting that Bowser was defeated at the end of SMB, the Super Show retconned that he maintained power even after Peach was rescued and note how the show ended before it could show Bowser's defeat, which was mentioned in Super Mario Bros. 2 that he had been out of power in the Mushroom Kingdom), Super Mario Bros. 2 Japan, Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, Super Mario Bros. 3, Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 (no plot-holes: the possibility of Bowser being locked into the Banishment Zone after Peach was rescued was not impossible: the game ends after she was rescued), Super Mario World game, Super Mario World TV show (occurs after SMW as known by Mama Luigi episode. Note that said episode was a retelling of SMW, but many things were changed, mention Luigi's story-telling tendencies from PM2, note that Yoshi character was not a baby in SMW), and so on and so on. Let's then not mention maybes at all, but just point out inconsistencies, even between games to one another. However, we should not mention inconsistencies between alternate media and games within the games sections, just within the alternate media sections. Sound good? Stumpers! 01:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I guess that would work. But we should introduce this to the rest of the Wiki via Proposal before changing anything, as there's bound to be opposition and confusion amongst the other Users if we suddenly start adding the alternate media to the History sections. - Walkazo 22:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how one would go about writing such a proposal? It would be very unfortunate to see a bunch of newcomers unaware that there is no official canon vote based on their personal ideas of canon and thus set the Wiki back a bit... our best bet may be to change MarioWiki:Canonicity to remove the fanon and replace it with the concepts we've been discussing first. There really is no argument here: fanon shouldn't be taken as canon, so this page should be pretty easy to alter, don't you think? Stumpers! 00:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I think I have a solution to this problem that will make everyone happy. We create a template that is hidden when the article is first accessed. This template will contain a section about one particular alternate canon source and then be placed in its appropriate place in the biography. If a reader wants to know about the alternate canon source's relation to the video games, he or she can click the expand button on the template and read it. Otherwise, it is easy to skip over. So, for example, if you look at the Mario article, the sections "Growing Up in Brooklyn" and "Super Mario Bros. Plumbing" would be placed in a template. Does that make sense? Stumpers! 11:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think I understand. So the headers would be something like Alternate Canon: Growing Up in Brooklyn, so people would know whether or not they'd want to read it? We'd still need the seperate Alternate Media section at the bottom for the purists who choose to pass on the templates. They shouldn't be able to complain because they can still avoid the imbedded AC sections (and all the wordy bits about how they fit in with the games); and obviously the people who want it all together will be happy. It'd be impractical to hide AM sections in small articles like M&L's Parents, so I think stating where each bit of information comes from should be good enough for organization (as I've said before, it works for the M&LP sections that already do that); with the templates on the big articles only. And, once we change the Canonicity policy, we can make the proposal give people the choise between the hidden templates and the out-in-the-open AC sections. Either way we get complete History sections, imput from other users, and no one can say we "sprung" this new policy on them. - Walkazo 21:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Excellent! I'm going to try to nail down a few specifics and then present the idea to the admins and sysops on the forum, and then if they like it we can bring it to the proposals page. Sound good? Stumpers! 01:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Yep. But if it's not too much to ask, can I have a preview of the template before the proposal goes out? Seeing as how involved I've been with this whole shebang... - Walkazo 01:38, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

First I'm gonna need to find someone who actually knows how to make that kind of template, but of course you can see it. Stumpers! 02:00, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, thanks! - Walkazo 16:14, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I have to figure this out. Stumpers, you're saying that the Super Mario Bros. Super Show is about stuff that Mario did after Super Mario Bros. 1 and 2 but before three? I didn't used to think so, but I guess maybe that's true. But I think the reason people don't consider it canon is that it wasn't published by Nintendo. All Mario games were published, if not developed, by Nintendo. Or am I wrong, and the show is published by Nintendo? If it is, then it should probably be considered canon. I thought it would work to just say that the canonicity of the show is unknown. CrystalYoshi 15:14, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, we HOPEFULLY have a solution for all of this... (you may have heard that the sysops are trying to figure this out) so we'll show you it soon. I can't say that you'll like it, but it may just be enough to please everyone. The Super Show cartoon segments do fit in between the events of Super Mario Bros. 1 and Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan ver.), although one must admit: the Super Show! never explicitly had an intro where Mario left Bowser's Castle in world 8, transformed into his cartoon appearance, and then continued his adventures, and the last episode of the show did not show him transforming back into 8-bit and continuing on the Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) adventure. What I want everyone to take away from this is that NONE of the video games do this to relate to one another, either. Take Paper Mario: no explanation is given for why the Mushroom World is suddenly paper and Mario isn't making exclamations anymore as he did in Super Mario 64 (he was truly a silent protagonist in the first PM - he got voice samples in the second game). Now, look at the two biggest complaints against the Super Show: that it has a different art style and Mario isn't a silent protagonist. What I'm asking for is that we judge the canonicity of the cartoon shows by the same rules we judge the video games. I don't think that's too much to ask for, but others will tell you different because of the whole publisher issue. They make the mistake of assuming that Nintendo, a video game company, would have put aside what it did best to oversee and release a television show just to assure that the show would be canon. Not so. For example, SSB Melee and Brawl were created by two different development teams because the Melee development team was making another video game. It's the same logic: it would be illogical for Nintendo to put aside what they were doing when they could hire out a new team to both produced and release the Super Show. Nintendo of America was right in there: giving the rights to Mario away and making sure that DiC didn't mess up their character's image. I don't think we should be judging the Super Show because Nintendo made the smart decision and hired a bunch of seasoned and experienced cartoonists and people who had experience in the television industry while NoA was busy releasing Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA). Stumpers! 20:12, 6 September 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

All games are canon; though many feel they are not all created equally, what stays and what goes isn't up to us to decide. Besides, even the central titles create inconsistancies amongst themselves. The best we can do is point out the problems, and steer our readers through the murky bits the best we can. - Walkazo 22:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Proposal: Enforce the Canon to Higher Standards

I read through articles like Daisy's and Baby Mario's, and most of the character's history has to do with spinoffs like the sports games or Party series, usually by order of release. I think this has to go, really, and that we should determine which games count in the storyline and which don't (like, say, have the main storyline be the most pertinent to the article, with noteworthy extraneous appearances on the side). Maybe separate them into levels on canonicity?

Well, the high canon would be, unanimously, the Mario platforming and RPG games. They are the true core of the series. They should be the games pertinent to the storyline and thus are integral to the Mario universe.

I think the middle canon would be the solo character games, like Luigi's Mansion, and spinoff franchises like Donkey Kong and Wario games. They're still important to the series, but tend to not interact with the main series or branch off into their own. Of course, sometimes there are subtle references or times when they connect, but as a whole, they're far away enough from Mario to hold their own. They themselves can fall into their own levels of canon, but as far as Mario is concerned, they fall just below his main games.

Low canon, then, would be the games with individual storylines applied to them, but rarely having an influence on other games. The best examples would be Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix or the Mario Party games, which are largely licensed off to Hudson Soft. They often have a story included, but they don't really affect other games or they create inconsistencies that you rarely find in the other levels of canon. They can still potentially count, but are seldom mentioned.

Then there's non-canon. Several people have differing views on what's non-canon, and I personally think this can be tied in with the low canon material as they are mostly self-contained. Two types of games belong here. All the Mario games with no storyline whatsoever go to this group (like Mario Kart and the sports titles). Also, all the licensed stuff that Nintendo's trying to forget (like edutainment games and Hotel Mario) are a given. Nintendo was marketing Luigi's Mansion as Luigi's first solo adventure when Mario's Missing preceeded it, but that is because Nintendo of Japan never authorized it and LM is a first-party title (in fact, the licensed edutainment games and Hotel Mario I believe were licensed only through Nintendo of America, not the Japanese branch, so saying these games are part of the series is like telling Zelda fans they should count the CD-i trilogy). These games can be fun, but if they've got no story or they're not fully approved creations, then they don't truly continue Mario's adventures.

This just leaves alternate canon, which I think we've got down. This is alternate universe Mario - and not just one alternate universe, but many. They're basically Mario taken through to other media with the writers taking some liberties since he's a fictional character. The Super Mario Bros. Super Show, The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, and Super Mario World cartoons are all connected with each other, but they don't tie into, say, the Super Mario Bros. Movie. They are self-contained or one-shot, based on the games sometimes but not in the same continuity. I think one exception to this is the Super Smash Bros. games. They are not supposed to be the original characters, but rather copies of them, so it can be considered an alternate universe.

Oh yes, and the canon wouldn't be complete without miscellaneous bits of information in the series that gets skewed (or censored) over the translation process. Like, say, Vivian and Birdo's gender, or King K. Rool's "brothers" (as mentioned by Super Smash Bros. Brawl). Since the Japanese made most of the Mario games, whatever the original version of those games said goes (hence, Vivian and Birdo are male since that's what the creators wanted). On the other hand, since King K. Rool is a creation of Rare (as licensed by Nintendo properly), their original say is the correct intention, so the rumored "brothers" (whether it's a mistranslation or a direct word-for-word of the Japanese version) are really disguises.

Then there's Cranky Kong, a Rare character. Early on, Rare wanted to make him Donkey Kong's grandfather, but then they tried to retcon that in Donkey Kong 64 by saying he's his father. Whatever the case, he's the original Donkey Kong, and the current Donkey Kong is either Junior grown up or Junior's son. Nintendo of Japan is choosing to go with Cranky being DK's grandfather and having him carry his namesake over to his grandson shortly after Donkey Kong '94. So, we can take this one of two ways... What the creators wanted, or what the copyright holders (ie. Nintendo of Japan) are saying. Personally, I'd go with the former, but it's too inconsistent and Rare has tried both approaches to Cranky's character.

Let's see, other things this can fall under... How about Star Hill and Shooting Star Summit, or the Chancellor and the Minister of Mushroom Castle? Between Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario, the Japanese names of this place and character is the same (Falling Star Hill and the Minister), so they are the same even though the localized name is different. Or what about Yo'ster Isle in Super Mario RPG? It's a bit confusing, but the Yoshi's Island of Super Mario World and Yo'ster Isle are the same, as they were called Yo'ster Island in the Japanese version. So Yo'ster Isle is not their summer home (as fans have been calling it). Despite this, there was a game called Yoshi's Island. Or the Star Road. The star transporters in the Japanese version of Super Mario World had no name, so it's not affiliated with the Star Road of Super Mario RPG. Then there's Kameks/Magikoopas and Kamek the Magikoopa, or minor name changes in general (Big Boo to Atomic Boo, after Atomic Teresa). I'm not saying that we call them by their Japanese names (although that would be the most accurate), but rather we note it down somewhere on their information and use the originally intended information whenever an inconsistency comes up between languages. We'll just have to grab whatever comes up, because there is a lack of interested translators outside of The Mushroom Kingdom website.

I think that covers my proposal. Of course, feel free to ignore me. Mario does have a very loose definition of canon to begin with, but to see so much applied to the character-specific pages here, I think we need to change things at least a little bit. LinkTheLefty 15:36, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

How ironic. Us sysops recently discussed wiping out this page.

And beside, what's with the Hotel Mario/Education Title hate anyway? As much as these game sucks, the developers had to get permission from Nintendo to use the Mario License, they're as official as any other games.

But, first and foremost, what's the point of doing that anyway. There's no official rules for what is "Canon" or not, and there's no point in saying X NEVER HAPPED!!!!!!!! when we're still going to document it anyway. Currently, this page could be renamed "Son Of Suns doesn't like X so it doesn't exist". --Blitzwing 16:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Where do you discuss those things? In the forum? Not fair to those sysops who aren't in the forum. (like me) - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

How is it unfair? We have a sysops board so we can have a more fluid discussion and not clog up the wiki with out banter. You have the option of being part of that. Take it or leave it. -- Chris 17:11, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree and don't agree with this. I agree that Donkey Kong and Wario series have little to do with the Mario universe. However, this doesn't count for Luigi's Mansion, Super Princess Peach, and the Yoshi series. They are quite clearly set in the Mario universe. (E. Gadd reappeared in general Mario games later on; Baby Mario has many appearances in the Yoshi games).

Also, whereever there have been name changes or controversities (e.g. Birdo's gender), we shouldn't decide to go for one version but state that both exist and where they come from.

I would agree on merging the Minister and the Chancellor because it's definitely the same person. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

All you have to do is register and ask Steve for a shinee rank. What's so hard in that?

btw i still think this is useless bull,

--Blitzwing 17:04, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

The levels of canonicity in particular. As Stumpers said a few sections back, this should just be merged with (or rather, replaced by) MarioWiki:Chronology - it already deals with (all) games vs. alternate media; and that's all that's really needed, isn't it? - Walkazo 20:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Uh...Hi there! I'm a new user as of today and not only did I take this opportunity to say hello to all you people, but also to write something new here! (Seriously, it's been nearly two years since the last post!) Anyway, just like Walkazo, I consider all games canon and the TV series (like Stumpers). In fact, I consider ANYTHING canon... Except for a few things, namely Super Mario Bros. the movie, it probably is canon, but let's just say the Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Princess Daisy, Yoshi and other characters alternate versions of the actual ones, and the Koopalings' birth order from The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Captain N and the New Super Mario World........I think the order of the Mario, Paper Mario, Super Mario Land, Mario Party, Wario, etc... as shown in the Super Mario Kun mangas publication order to be the actual order for the games, except for Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Story... Also, about Yoshi's age, Hip(Lemmy) and Hop(Iggy) are both six in the cartoons, and they go to princess Peach's kindergarten class in A Little Learning where, among others, Yoshi is, so he would be six, therefore he was born in 1985, assuming A Little Learning takes place in 1991. What does anyone think? BTW, I forgot my user ID, so do I need it to do some certain changes around the wiki? - B.T)B.T. 11:48, 7 July 2010 (EDT)