Talk:Conker (character)

Untitled

I believe that this article should be merged with this one, as it contains much more information than this, and covers the same ground. -PlatformerMastah

Swear words

I don't really think "fellatio" is a swear word. It's not listed as vulgar by any of the dictionaries I checked. It's sexual and therefore adult in nature, but that doesn't automatically make it a swear word. — TheJames 13:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah,but it's technecly a sexual word,it may not be that much strong in language,but,hey,Rare has it's reasons of censoring.Besides,isn't Potty Mouth being able to unlock and play the game uncensored too much?

He wasn't talking about it being censored, he was referring to the article saying "Notably the only truly real swears he's uttered...". SNS 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

SNES Game

This article only mentions 3 Conker games. I remember a Conker game for the SNES. ¿What about it?

I even remember the first level. The enemies were crows and pumpkins... that's all I have on it, but I think someone should say more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.202.234 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a Conker game. It's called Zero the Kamikaze Squirrel 83.253.167.142 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Something

What species is Berri,Conker's Girlfriend?

She is a squirrel, isn't it obvious? M2K E

Not an Anti Hero

Conker isn't really an anti hero, I played Conker Live and Reloaded and he doesn't act like an anti hero at all, so i'm removing the Category Video game anti heroes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.187.116 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

dead

i have yet to play conker live and reloaded but how do you play as him in the game if he dies in the first scene and how does he die

Fair use rationale for Image:Conker-Main.jpg

Image:Conker-Main.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Conker-Main.jpg

Image:Conker-Main.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions?

If Conker is from South East England, and the characters are (Which their dialects sound like) doesn't that mean the game is set in England? So he wouldn't be asking for a five DOLLAR bill, would he? LuGiADude (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Parents?

When were his parents ever stated in the games? And,shouldn't it be stated he went on some sort of adventure of sorts when he was younger(refering to Twelve Tales/Conker's Quest) 98.14.15.12 (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

the new series

theyre making the sequel if you've heard........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gus the king (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

conker status

the rare company made a scale of the best charecter the charecter was the top and the rare is making us want conker more so they could buy more conker games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gus the king (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources to improve it

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Most of them can be used in the reception. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conker the Squirrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061320/http://rare.co.uk/blog/2011/06/22/top-5-rare-characters-who-improved-with-age/ to http://rare.co.uk/blog/2011/06/22/top-5-rare-characters-who-improved-with-age/#more-4588

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute

Oknazevad, would you kindly articulate why you think the recent additions of prose to this article, sourced from reliable published independent sources, are "junk"? I should point out that your assertion that "multiple editors" have reverted it is untrue. You are the only person making the reverts to a version you prefer. You also have removed a quality issues tag I left at the top of the article without providing a good reason why. Haleth (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The edits were first added in a series of edits by an IP editor on September 20 (an IP proxy that was blocked that same day, I might add), reverted immediately after their addition by Pachu Kannan here, re-added without discussion by an IP speaking about being unable to log in later that day.

Ten days later I came to the article from my browsings and was instantly struck by its poor state, with truly poorly written passages filled with terrible grammar and trivial details that were exceedingly misplaced in relations to the text around them. Especially noticeable was the poorly placed addition to the lead, and to the first spot immediately below the first header, neither of which make a lick of sense either as sentences or in relation to the paragraphs. They're just straight up bad.

Checking the page history I immediately noticed that they had been added, reverted, and re-added the same day. Struck me as edit warring, which coupled with the really poor quality of the edits led me to revert them myself. So already the idea that it's just me is wrong.

Plus there's a logical assumption that the original proxy user and the anon who reinstated them are the same person. And, frankly, I think that person is also you, so it's pretty clear that the only edit warring is by you. The edit summaries are similar in tone to each other, and to the poor writing of the edits, both incorrectly attempt to use Wikipedia policies to claim that the edits should stay in despite being reverted (which is not how it works).

So, it's on you as the one calling for their addition to justify the inclusion of the material, and for where it's placed in the article. oknazevad (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)