Talk:Banjo

3rd Party Characters?
Since Rareware has officially left Nintendo and taken Banjo and Conker with them, would those characters be "3rd Party Characters" now? 16:09, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not really sure, since they haven't actually appeared in an Extended Marioverse game since becoming third-party characters, should they be counted as them? - Sir Grodus

That's what I think, anyway. Remember, they got over-written in Diddy Kong Racing DS if you see that as a replacement for the original. It would seem that they really have no connection anymore, not even the connection that 3rd Party Characters are implied to have. 16:30, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

They're ex-2nd party characters at best. Booster

Hmm... there's so much gray area with this... maybe we should just call them 3rd party to be sure. 00:42, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Every character owned by Rare is considered third-party. 13:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

That settles it then. And I see someone already added it! 16:06, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Kazooie!
Kazooie is a much more important character than Bottles, she should have her own page! I should know; I own both of the original games; and I know that in N&B he was only a minor part. Yes, I know that he was in a comic, but Banjo has his own article. Besides, Kazooie appears in more Banjo games than Bottles does.Krizzy 16:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is because Banjo appears in Diddy Kong Racing while Bottle has Club Nintendo articles going for him. Kazooie has the N-Gang comics behind him, but it isn't as Mario-centric as Club Nintendo. Number of appearance has nothing to do with whether an something should get its own article when it comes to outside series, otherwise Gruntilda would have an article too.-- 17:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kazooie is female. 00:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture
The picture is from a 360 only game. If you ask me, the picture should be from the most recent game he appeared in when he was a Nintendo character.

Re: Current Edit War
Don't we normally have pages like these to discuss reasons behind edits so we don't get a constant string of undos? Lord Grammaticus 18:29, 13 December 2011 (EST)
 * I explained in my edit summary.

So long as the constant reverts are overwith. Lord Grammaticus 18:33, 13 December 2011 (EST)

Banjo=one of the Brothers Bear?
Could it be that Banjo and his family are related to the Brothers Bear from Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!? He's an anthropomorphic bear, a friend of Diddy Kong, his name starts with a "B" (just like the other Brothers Bear), he was created by Rareware, and the landscape of the early Banjo games looks very similar to the Northern Kremisphere of DKC 3. EldritchNexus (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
 * http://www.dkvine.com/interactive/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=10803&view=findpost&p=399717 --Glowsquid (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Unrelated, huh? That's a shame. I think that would've been a great opportunity for Rare to tie the Banjo and Donkey Kong Country series together. Though I imagine Microsoft wouldn't want to give the rights back to Nintendo. EldritchNexus (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2015 (EDT)

Banjo/Conker as "third party" characters. (Revisited)
I really don't see how they could be considered a third-party character. Yes, Microsoft currently owns the rights to the Banjo-Kazooie and Conker games, but they both started out as Nintendo characters.If Banjo and Conker started off in standalone titles before being brought into Diddy Kong Racing, then it would be more reasonable for them to be viewed as third-party characters, but Banjo and Conker both debuted in Diddy Kong Racing, which is still considered a Mario game and (like Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and the early Conker games) was made when Rare was still a second-party company for Nintendo.

So wouldn't it be fairer if we treated the Pre-Microsoft Rare games that feature those characters as spin-offs of the Mario series instead of being completely unrelated? You know, like how the first two TMNT films were listed on the Jim Henson Wiki since he was involved in them, but the later ones weren't, or how the Disney Wiki added articles of Marvel and Star Wars characters once the company attained the rights to those franchises, even though they didn't start out as Disney characters. EldritchNexus (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2015 (EDT)
 * In my opinion, this case is a bit different. While Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario spun off from the Mario games, they still consistently appear in Mario games to this day. Meanwhile, Banjo and Conker only appeared in one Donkey Kong game, and never showed up in anything Mario-related again. Banjo and Conker in Diddy Kong Racing was probably just an advertisement for their upcoming games, like Roy in Melee. -- 18:00, 18 July 2015 (EDT)
 * The difference is that Roy in Super Smash Bros. Melee was a big advertisement for this upcoming game practically as soon as he was unlocked, whereas Banjo and Conker weren't marketed as 100% totally being Rare characters in Diddy Kong Racing to my recollection. Even the Xbox Live Arcade versions still mention Nintendo in their ending credits. Maybe Banjo-Kazooie & Banjo-Tooie and Conker's Pocket Tales & Conker's Bad Fur Day deserve at least partial coverage over, say, Punch-Out!! LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (EDT)
 * I just feel the general problem between the relation of Conker and Banjo to Mario compared to Donkey Kong, Wario, and Yoshi to Mario is just the extreme disconnect Conker/Banjo have to Mario, as Super Wario YoshiBros. has pointed out. Their only relation is a single playable character in a spinoff of a series (Donkey Kong) very related, but not intertwined, with Mario. Diddy Kong Racing is not a Mario game, it's strictly a Donkey Kong game, a spinoff. Due to this, covering Banjo and Conker is beyond the scope of this wiki. Even if Banjo and Conker weren't Rare property, I still think coverage for their games is beyond this wiki's scope, but that they're now not Nintendo just gives us less reason to cover. I'm not viewing this as "they were playable in a Donkey Kong game before receiving their own series; since we cover Donkey Kong games, we should cover their series", I'm viewing it is, "Sure, they're in Diddy Kong Racing first, but they have extremely little relation to the Mario series, especially when you compare it to Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario games. Your Disney comparison seems flawed since you place too much emphasis on company ownership rather than series relationships. We're a MarioWiki, not a NintendoWiki. Finally, on arguing that Banjo and Conker are third-party, yes, they are strictly third-party as of today. Microsoft can't just go back and erase Conker and Banjo from Diddy Kong Racing 64, but it's been shown that they weren't included in any future games ever since the ownership changing. Again, the Disney comparison is flawed due to being a polar opposite. If Nintendo suddenly acquired Popeye and put him in Mario games, Popeye would indeed be a Mario character at that point. All in all, Banjo and Conker are third party characters despite Nintendo origins. Covering them is beyond the scope of this wiki and they should not be treated as first party characters, evident from the way Microsoft handles them. 21:49, 18 July 2015 (EDT)

food for thoughts:

1: The wiki did use to have singular Banjo (series) and Conker (series) pages that had info on every games and characters/etc in those games, but they were fucking awful and everyone agreed we should do it right or just not do it at all. The later won out in a vote.

2: saying the two character were "spun-off" from diddy kong racing is highly arguable: banjo and conker's own games were in development before diddy kong racing (the former even if you discount the mostly-unrelated "project dream" iteration) and were supposed to release before diddy kong racing/rc am 64, but both got delayed and dkr ended being Rare's big holiday game. Nobody's going to call fire emblem 6 a "smash bros melee spinoff". --Glowsquid (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Good points. I was about to bring up no. 1, but I can't be bothered to provide some links detailing the history on the series articles, and I'm also not very well-versed on those pages, since I joined during the late part of their lifespan. I recalled that we agreed to delete those pages not only of their atrocious quality (which was just beyond repair) but of stretched scope. Additionally, I just want to say that during the timespan I was not a user, it was baffling to see Banjo and Conker content covered here. I also vaguely recalled that Banjo and Conker were intended to have separate series during development of Diddy Kong Racing, but again, thanks for those points. 23:11, 18 July 2015 (EDT)