I don't like Super Mario Wiki, there, I said it!

[EpicGyllynn]

I have a strong dislike for Super Mario Wiki because of it including the Cartoons and Comics in the mix as though they are canon! I mean, I can look over it most of the time, but if I try to find anything such as Koopa Sub-species, I have to be careful to to get linked to a Super Mario Bros. Super Show Koopa that has NEVER even been in a game! I tried out MarioWiki, as well, I like that they don't put so much into the Cartoon/Comic articles, but they are just plain disorganized! Any suggestions?

[SMBBQ]

Well, Super Mario Wiki isn't there to provide canon, as it's run by those who don't care about canon (mainly). They're just doing their best to compile as much Mario info as they can.

Face it, we are the only people who try to make sense out of Mari games.

[EpicGyllynn]

I know that, but why can't there be a Mario Wiki that cares... *sobs*

Seriously though, why?

[SMBBQ]

This reminds me: someday, I'll just make a thread that will compile all of our knowledge into one topic, sorta like a rough-wiki.

[EpicGyllynn]

I though about making a Wiki Partner Site for the forum, where we could compile all of our theories on subjects within it's articles... But the problem would be other users who aren't a part of the forum coming in to edit articles.

[SMBBQ]

Well, there are Wiki-templates you can use for a wiki, without ever being connected to Wikia. Sadly, I don't know how to find/make one...

[EpicGyllynn]

Uhhh... My goal would be to compile a Mario Encyclopedia for people to view, but I wouldn't know how to keep people from vandalizing/falsifying information. I love the idea of a Super Mario Bestiary, or a Locations List that doesn't include those from Hotel Mario, and the Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. And if someone could point me in the right direction, I'd gladly set it up!

[PDoogan]

Super Mario Wiki isn't meant to be cannon or not. It's just there to document all published Mario...stuff.

[EpicGyllynn]

I know that, I never said it was meant to be canon; I said that I disliked it because it treats the cartoons and comics on the same level as Nintendo games. Which is reason enough for me to dislike it... Yet I will continue to use it until I have something better. Speaking of which, what do you guys think of a Mariology Wiki, well, we wouldn't call it that, but you know what I mean?

[PDoogan]

It seems a little redundant. Mario Wiki does have all the cannon information anyone could ever need.

[EpicGyllynn]

I know, but I meant an Wiki-based Site to organize all of our theories on the various topics, in addition to things like a Bestiary,and such. Just a place where we dig up all of the Mario info we can, and throw in our theories(but we would have to clarify that they are theories, and not facts).

[Sarisa]

I don't think we should try to beat Super Mario Wiki at their own game, which is collecting data and doing some minimal processing into information. Instead, if we put up a wiki, we should link back to SMWiki for raw data and use our wiki pages to organize. Let them describe every Koopa Troopa subgroup; we'll put up a page listing them by canonicity tier in debut-game order.

[Clive Koopa]

Someone should create a new Mario wiki or at least another site for the games only.

However, I quite like Mario wiki personally. I learnt a lot about game characters, game places and games which I've never played. But I do agree about it being disorganised. The games, comics and TV shows should be split up into different sections.

[Koopalmier]

I go on Super Mario Wiki to check (or add) forgeing names for things, and to look at pictures and official bios. That's all. I don't even bother reading the articles, because they become ridiculous due to the fact they don't want to separate the games and the cartoons.

[cheat-master30]

My only criticism of the site is that it's just too 'formal'. Mario 'canon' isn't exactly set in stone, so sometimes you can make some interesting comparisons and change a bit when it comes to unpronounceable names. Okay, I guess I understand why they changed many obscure character and enemy names to obscure Japanese ones, but they're an ENGLISH wiki. No one (at least, few people at best) even know Japanese, so the names just make it useless to understand what's being referred to in many cases. See, most articles about Mario Land and Wario Land enemies.

They also need to make some more reasonable comparisons in some cases, their assumptions are often ridiculous. Like when they compare characters to obscure Mario Land characters that which look nothing alike, yet consider there to be no similarity whatsoever between near identical characters from other sets of games. They also like to find non existant 'canon' references, like when they thought a certain Mario Galaxy 2 enemy was a Chargin' Chuck.

There's also a bit much trust of Japanese sources. See the names, the site referenced is awfully made, gives no references or evidence and is on free hosting, yet Mario Wiki practically treats the site like word of God.

yossi6.s309.xrea.com/mario

It's basically like trusting a Geocities fansite. But nope, apparently official magazines aren't good sources, yet Japanese fan sites run by thirteen year olds that have now shut down are.

[EpicGyllynn]

Sarisa
We don't need to compete with them, but I don't think we should reference them. I'd like a Wiki to simply be about the Games, as well as presenting some of our theories; but the increased orginazion is a must-have.

Koopalmier & Cheat-Master
This & This.

[Clive Koopa]

A seperate wiki would be good as long as the theories aren't presented as fact as everyone would have their own opinions on the game canon/universe.

[Sarisa]

Before you attack Japanese fansites, keep in mind that Japan is still in the Geocities Era of personal sites. (Literally. Geocities Japan wasn't shut down.) Corporate sites can be slick, but Japanese individuals still want free hosting. Also, without Japanese copies of the games, it's surprisingly hard to find information. Those fansites are all there is. I didn't put as much trust in the New Super Mario Unabridged Dictionary as in the Super Mario Wiki (which still required some checking) but it was still valuable for fine points of Japanese canon. I referred to it a few times to get names straight.

A question - if we do a game wiki, where are we getting the content? Are we going to plagiarize another Wiki or write it all ourselves? That's why I wanted to link back to SMWiki, so we neither plagiarize the articles nor have to rewrite half of it from scratch.

I love the idea of a wiki for theories, and clear separation of theories. Should theories be on the relevant page but clearly set off using italics or something, or linked to the relevant page for maximal separation?

[SMBBQ]

This is all still hypothetical, right?

Also, let's not forget that sites like Super Mario Wiki are part of NIWA. If we ever had a wiki that were to link back to Mario Wiki, I think we'd need to be part of NIWA (Think, not know). And NIWA isn't in the best shape right now...

[EpicGyllynn]

Sarisa
I'm in favor of writing our own content, But... I'm not sure about theory organization... Maybe we could have a theory briefly described on the relevant page, but also link it to another article that describes said theory in detail. I guess that could work.

@smbbq
Yes, this is still hypothetical. That's one of the reasons I didn't want to link back to Super Mario Wiki; I really wouldn't care too much about being part of the NIWA(Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance, for those who don't know).