- Thread starter
- #1
Discuss your opinion on this matter, with Diddy Kong Racing DS having come out, do Banjo and Conker still "fit in".
Your Opinion on Conker and Banjo's Place in the Marioverse
- Thread starter Sir Grodus
- Start date
If DKR DS is a sequel - yes, they belong in the Marioverse and the wiki.
If DKR DS is a remake - no, they no longer belong in the Marioverse and the wiki (but should probably spin-off into a Banjo-Conker wiki).
If DKR DS is a remake - no, they no longer belong in the Marioverse and the wiki (but should probably spin-off into a Banjo-Conker wiki).
- Thread starter
- #3
Personally, I think Diddy Kong Racing DS is probably is a remake; but Conker and Banjo will always atleast be a small part of the Marioverse, since, though the continuity may be rewritten, the fact that their first starring appearance was in the original Diddy Kong Racing can't be denied.
Yeah, I agree. Banjo and Conker (the characters) are on the fringes of the Marioverse. However, anything that has appeared in their universes, like Gruntilda and Gregg, may be clearly distinguished as seperate from the Marioverse.
ultimatetoad
Sparky
What about a GNAWTY appearing in BK? that seems proof enough for me. I mean, as far as we know Tiptup was raised in the BK universe. But Gnawtys started out in DKverse. And DKverse started out in the Mariovese. So....
Note that the beaver's name is Gnawty (it's not a species)- it could be a cameo. Link and Samus have appeared in SMRPG, but we don't write articles about everything in those series. Goombas and Lakitus have appeared in the Legend of Zelda, so that means Zelda is a part of the Marioverse, right? No. The same applies for Gnawty in BK.
- Thread starter
- #7
Well, he is obviously a Gnawty, resembling Really Gnawty or a brown, Donkey Kong 64 Gnawty.
But really, I don't think generic enemies appearing in semi-related series is enough.
But really, I don't think generic enemies appearing in semi-related series is enough.
ultimatetoad
Sparky
Well, then theres the whole Tiptup thing, and PJ just told me he found a Jinjo cameo in DKJB.
Paper Jorge
who? am? I?
Actually it's Jinjos.ultimatetoad said:
- Thread starter
- #10
You sure there Jinjos?
Paper Jorge
who? am? I?
I'm wrongPaper Jorge said:
.
Again, Tiptup is a very minor character. If Tiptup had his own franchise, then he would legitimately be able to stay, as he is still in DKR DS.
- Thread starter
- #13
Man, there sure was alot of Tiptup fans out there once, he was like the Jack Sparrow of video-games.
And Son of Suns, I'm glad you brought up a "Tiptup Series", gave me excuse to whip this out:
http://www.gamehiker.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=1&pos=251
And Son of Suns, I'm glad you brought up a "Tiptup Series", gave me excuse to whip this out:
http://www.gamehiker.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=1&pos=251
- Thread starter
- #15
So, if it turns out Banjo and Conker aren't really that canon.... can we still keep this part of the forum right and maybe mention them in The 'Shroom sometimes, pweaty pwease?
Hiya, guys. I just posted this on the Importance Policy Talk Page, but I think it may go better here. Admins, feel free to edit it out if it's too long or whatnot
Hey, everyone. Bear with me here, because I believe this may be a little touchy, but I believe it is important. I would like to note that the entire concept of "Marioverse" is non-canon, yet it is covered extensively in the Wiki. "Tertiary, secondary, primary" are also non-canon in respect to the Mario series. DK and friends do not inhabit a different dimension than Mario. However, these are fine guidelines for governing this Wiki. As such, it is completely fine for us as a community to govern concepts exclusive to Wikis. However, it is not right in my opinion for us as a community to govern what is canon and non-canon in terms of remakes of games such as Super Mario 64 vs. Super Mario 64 DS. Both were made by Nintendo, with no official statement as to which we should go off of. I read up above that we're assuming that Super Mario 64 DS is to be considered a rewriting of the Super Mario 64 episode. Nintendo has made no comment on this issue whatsoever, meaning that:
(1) Super Mario 64 occurred, DS did not or (2) Super Mario 64 DS occurred, but the original did not, or (3) they were two different occurrences: both happened, or (4) they happened simultaneously, with some truths from each applying to each story.
As you can see, the task in front of us is incredible, requiring assumptions, and therefore non-canon, to describe the situation. Here is my idea: follow Nintendo's example and turn a blind eye for the purpose of the Wiki, noting the discrepancy where it appears. This is obviously a temporary solution, but a solution just the same.
Let's apply this to Diddy Kong Racing DS. We cannot turn a blind eye because doing so places Conker and Banjo in limbo. Are they or are they not part of the Mario's universe, and thus part of the Marioverse? However, there is a safe way to do this, similar to how I believe we should resolve Super Mario 64 DS.
Go ahead and make the articles for Conker and Banjo games, characters, etc, noting with a special template the issue at hand. How about this: "The following article is about an element that may or may not be part of the Marioverse due to remakes of previous games."
Sound good? No? How about solution number 2, then: consolidate all Banjo articles under one massive article and all Conker articles under another massive article, thus reducing the size of the Wiki, which I believe is an issue right now?
Thank you for your time and consideration! --Stumpers
P.S. On a partially related note, I also feel that it is incorrect to govern similar issues based on "cross-overs" vs. "cameos" vs. series that originated in the Mario universe. They all appeared in the games, and to make further assumptions would be to risk non-canon.
Hey, everyone. Bear with me here, because I believe this may be a little touchy, but I believe it is important. I would like to note that the entire concept of "Marioverse" is non-canon, yet it is covered extensively in the Wiki. "Tertiary, secondary, primary" are also non-canon in respect to the Mario series. DK and friends do not inhabit a different dimension than Mario. However, these are fine guidelines for governing this Wiki. As such, it is completely fine for us as a community to govern concepts exclusive to Wikis. However, it is not right in my opinion for us as a community to govern what is canon and non-canon in terms of remakes of games such as Super Mario 64 vs. Super Mario 64 DS. Both were made by Nintendo, with no official statement as to which we should go off of. I read up above that we're assuming that Super Mario 64 DS is to be considered a rewriting of the Super Mario 64 episode. Nintendo has made no comment on this issue whatsoever, meaning that:
(1) Super Mario 64 occurred, DS did not or (2) Super Mario 64 DS occurred, but the original did not, or (3) they were two different occurrences: both happened, or (4) they happened simultaneously, with some truths from each applying to each story.
As you can see, the task in front of us is incredible, requiring assumptions, and therefore non-canon, to describe the situation. Here is my idea: follow Nintendo's example and turn a blind eye for the purpose of the Wiki, noting the discrepancy where it appears. This is obviously a temporary solution, but a solution just the same.
Let's apply this to Diddy Kong Racing DS. We cannot turn a blind eye because doing so places Conker and Banjo in limbo. Are they or are they not part of the Mario's universe, and thus part of the Marioverse? However, there is a safe way to do this, similar to how I believe we should resolve Super Mario 64 DS.
Go ahead and make the articles for Conker and Banjo games, characters, etc, noting with a special template the issue at hand. How about this: "The following article is about an element that may or may not be part of the Marioverse due to remakes of previous games."
Sound good? No? How about solution number 2, then: consolidate all Banjo articles under one massive article and all Conker articles under another massive article, thus reducing the size of the Wiki, which I believe is an issue right now?
Thank you for your time and consideration! --Stumpers
P.S. On a partially related note, I also feel that it is incorrect to govern similar issues based on "cross-overs" vs. "cameos" vs. series that originated in the Mario universe. They all appeared in the games, and to make further assumptions would be to risk non-canon.
- Thread starter
- #19
A wizard did it....
too. :Pultimatetoad
Sparky
Frankly, I am tired of this entire conversation. I say we go with stumpers special notice suggestion.
- Thread starter
- #23
Originally, I wanted the whole RareWiki thing, but I thought it was kind of a bad idea. I think the notice thing was a somewhat better idea.
B
Blitzwing
Guest
I hate the idea of a Rarewiki and i hate even more the idea of teaming up with DKvine.A Rarewiki would most likely endup like the DKwiki.