Talk:Junior (II)

has anyone ever thought of the fact that if donkey kong jr. is the present-day donkey kong that this one (if it's a girl) is candy kong
 * Candy Kong's not pink. - 18:19, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

In Mario Tennis for the n64, Donkey Kong Jr's alternate outfit depicts his fur as being pink.

should this be added to the video game appearances?


 * Yes, definitely! Add it to the Appearances, but say how the "Pink Donkey Kong Jr." is actually normal Donkey Kong Jr. in that instance. This Pink DK Jr. should also be mentioned on the Mario Tennis page, as well as the section in the DK Jr. article that deals with MT64. -  18:56, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

I gotta do some research because I have a hunch that the pink coloration is some last-minute mistake, but it's just a hunch on no grounds whatsoever.

Don't worry, I added it! Shy Guy (The guy with the mask.) (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2014 (EDT)Shy Guy

Merge Pink Donkey Kong Jr. to Donkey Kong Jr.
DON'T MERGE 4-12

Has the end times finally come?

Anyway, I believe this article should be merged with Donkey Kong Jr.. Why? Here's some of my reasons:
 * This character is unnamed and serves solely as a player 2, similar to Luigi. Unlike Luigi, however, it appears ONLY as player two in more of a game-convenient way and doesn't appear on, say, artwork or anything else.
 * Multiple colored versions of characters usually appear as playable characters in many games. Case in point: the Marios in Mario Bros., the Luigis in Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, the playable characters in Mario Golf 64, the playable characters in Smash Bros. etc. This character falls under that scope and doesn't really deserve its own article, and so should be listed as an alt color to the main character rather than receive its own article.

Proposer: Deadline: December 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Insignificant unnamed palette swap clones whose only purpose is to serve as player 2 does not a separate character make. It's like the second clone character in the Subspace Emissary getting its own article. Or the additional Mario in Donkey Kong Jr. I don't think this proposal will pass, but I'll make my opinion on it anyway, as much as I love this sacred idol of the Mario series.
 * 2) Per proposal. This Pinkie Kong "character" is only called Junior (II) as the manual linked in the comments says, and isn't mentioned anywhere else. He also doesn't get any stand-alone status to really separate him from his player 1 counterpart like the Mario Bros., and is more like those multiple Luigis from Luigi's Mansion 2.
 * 3) Leaning towards support on this one since as mentioned above the manual does indeed have "Junior (I)" and "Junior (II)" at one point, but refers to him as a single character practically everywhere else.
 * 1) Leaning towards support on this one since as mentioned above the manual does indeed have "Junior (I)" and "Junior (II)" at one point, but refers to him as a single character practically everywhere else.

Oppose

 * 1) I bet 5 dollars I'll be the only one opposing(Like 99% of the time) but Pink Donkey Kong Jr. seems to be a different case. In my opinions, recolors would should have their own pages, but Pink Donkey Kong Jr. seems like more than a recolor. That and there weren't such things as recolors back in those days. But hey, just my two cents.
 * 2) He's listed as a separate character in the manual.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) Per Aokage. I looked up the instruction manual, and he's listed as a separate character called Junior (II).
 * 5) Per Aokage.
 * 6) After thinking for a few minutes, I'm going to say no. The manual says he (or she) is a different character. The policy says we have to listen to the manual if the game doesn't say anything about it. I'm not going against the policy.
 * 7) Per the manual, of course.
 * 8) Regardless of my opinion on whether or not he deserves an article, the article should not be merged to Donkey Kong Jr.'s, simply because there's no actual affiliation or connection between the two of them besides the palette swap. The pink one isn't something that emerges from DKJr, like the Crystal King and the Crystal Bits (though honestly I think that could be looked over); it's a clearly-separate entity.
 * 9) - Per all. Even if he is just a construct, he still appears simultaneously onscreen at the same time as the regular DKJr., so it's not unreasonable to treat him as a separate entity, if nothing else, for the sake of absolute thoroughness and to give any curious searchers something to read. Heck, I still think that extra SMG Luigi should be split for the same reasons.
 * 10) Per all they appear at the same time so it can be inferred that they are different characters.
 * 11) What they said.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
NO

NO

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO --Glowsquid (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Glowsquid, is that an oppose, or what?Toadbrigade5 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Someone dared defy the holy sacrament of MarioWiki. 22:18, 29 November 2014 (EST)

@Toadbrigade and Time Turner: I disagree. To me, Pink Donkey Kong Jr. seems more to be a convienience for a tacked-on feature who isn't advertised on the box. Luigi however, is advertised as Mario's brother directly on the getgo, hence the title, "Mario Bros.". This character, however, doesn't even have a name and has practically zero affiliation with Donkey Kong Jr. anyway other than he competes as a recolor of him, very similar to the Marios from Mario Bros. 19:29, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Convenience or not, the pink DK Junior is still a character. Also, you've brought up a good opposing point: he has zero affiliation with the actual DKJ, so why merge them together? However, the Mario Bros. is a good countercounterpoint, since the recolored Marios play the same role as the recolored DKJ... I'll redact my vote for now.
 * The zero affiliation thing is a result of my poor wording. What I mean by this is that, he's literally like the Mario Bros. clones. If he was lamp-shaded, MAYBE he might deserve his own article, but he's not and he's there without any sort of explanation whatsoever, much like the colored Luigi's from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon. Do we make pages on the colored Luigi's? No, we don't. Also...this point you made:


 * The pink one isn't something that emerges from DKJr, like the Crystal King and the Crystal Bits (though honestly I think that could be looked over) is actually a good point to KEEP this article the way it is, even though it's supposed to be a counter-point. 21:08, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that merging it to Donkey Kong Jr. is the wrong mode of operation. You've already made good points about other multiplayer counterparts, but I'm not the one that needs to be told that. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by my point being a counter-point.
 * Like, it's a back-story of him being split-off from the original Donkey Kong Jr. or something. If that was the case, I wouldn't make this proposal. :P 21:14, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * You're interpreting it a lot more figuratively than it literally was before, but sure.

@Aokage: Really? I like a reference to that. 19:29, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Here's a scan of the page in the manual where he is listed as a separate character.     Zakor1138 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * The I and II identifiers are for the sake of convenience, and they're in parentheses. Notice how the manual also labels the controllers as I and II. This isn't any different when several manuals for Mario Bros. (especially the remade ones in the Super Mario Advance series) also designate numbers for each different-colored Mario. Pink Donkey Kong Jr. is essentially the duplicate player 2 character you see so frequently in older games. 21:00, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * It calls him "Junior (II)" which still makes me skeptical about him being his own character; it does not reference him anywhere else as his own character. 21:00, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Looked up a Super Mario Advance manual. The Mario's are mentioned as just palette swaps, and the numbers refer to which player is controlling them. Compare with "Junior (II)" where he is shown as being unique alongside the other Donkey Kong Jr., a Nitpicker and Donkey Kong. Zakor1138 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Junior (II) looks like the Roman numeral also refers to the player who controls them as well. I'm sure the Mario palette swaps are mentioned like this in the Super Mario Advance manual the same way the Donkey Kong Jr. is portrayed here. If the manual referred to Junior (II) a bit more, I'd might oppose this but it doesn't. 21:16, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * I already looked up the Super Mario Advance manual. It's not the same, it actually refers to the other Mario's as just colors. The numbers only refer to which player controls what Mario color. (P1, P2, P3, P4) Zakor1138 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * I quite recall that the way it was presented was still in a similar fashion as this, only with Junior (II) instead with (II) telling you that player 2 controls it.
 * The Super Mario Advance manual clearly states that the Mario's are just colors. The Donkey Kong Jr. Math manual shows the second Junior as a separate individual among its cast of characters. Zakor1138 (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Can you simply post a link to the manual for convenience?
 * PDF file only. Zakor1138 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Even after this, I STILL think these Marios are in the same vein as the clone Donkey Kong Jr. The (*roman numeral*) part clearly indicates that it's merely a clone of that character, hence why the name is the exact same except the Roman numeral. 21:32, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * That's fine. Doesn't look like this page is being merged anyways. Zakor1138 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * Not being merged or not, I'd still like some more of a discussion. I don't like having valid arguments shut off just because the majority opposes it for most reasons I find unsatisfactory. 22:18, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * I'd be perfectly fine with the article being merged or simply outright deleted, but I don't necessarily agree with the target of merging, as explained above. How about we discuss other avenues of information migration of the pink guy?
 * Maybe the pink guy's parent game, Donkey Kong Jr. Math? We don't necessarily directly move the article into its own section, but the pink thing gets a mention or so? Maybe we can delete this article instead. Also, I don't necessarily agree with your logic in your oppose. Think about the mulitplayer mode in Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon. Those different colored Luigis fall under the same concept as Pink Donkey Kong Jr. Same thing for the second Mario in Donkey Kong Jr. Yet I don't think people will support Blue Luigi, Pink Luigi, Orange Luigi, and Green Luigi's being made.
 * As for the instruction manual's case, well, I guess it really depends on the eye of the beholder, although both sides make good points. But is the (II) in the manual identifying as a separate character for players' convenience or is it truly a standalone character? It's ambiguous, that's what. 22:31, 29 November 2014 (EST)
 * It's not so much the II as it is that there are 2 Juniors in the same section. As I've stated before, the second Junior is shown alongside the other Junior, Nitpicker and "Papa" (Donkey Kong). Also, the manual has no color so the Super Mario Advance argument doesn't work as well in this case. Unless there is another game manual at the time that says a similar thing for the Player 2 character, I still stand by keeping them separate. Zakor1138 (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2014 (EST)

At the very least, once this is over, the name can probably be changed now that we noticed what it was marked as in the manual all along. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2014 (EST)

Merge Junior (II) (a.k.a. Pink Donkey Kong Jr.) to Donkey Kong Jr. Math retry
It could be me, but since the reasons against merging this feel very weak, I feel this article's notoriety and role as a running gag among regular users is preventing this merge. Not to mention, I feel the significant opposes the last proposal had stifled discussion, so I'm attempting another run-through and see how this turns out now.

Here are my rebuttals for the arguments made.

The problem is, we have multiple Marios in Mario Bros., multiple characters of one in Super Smash Bros., and multiple Luigis in Scarescraper. And no, this Donkey Kong Junior appears only in the mulitplayer mode of the game (if I'm correct), giving further weight to the claim that Junior II is a nameless player 2 duplicate that should be treated as a duplicate and not a distinct character. If he appeared independently in single player, he could be given a separate article, but no, he's tied to a multiplayer mode the same way the Marios are. If this argument is strong, then it would be a case to make separate articles for the Marios in Mario Bros. and the Luigis in Scarescraper. But it's not, and of course, that would be ridiculous. And while it's true that Junior (II) is indeed given a name, it's not quite the name that makes him a distinct character. Let's see further.
 * Junior (II) is a distinct character because he has appeared alongside Donkey Kong Junior simultaneously.


 * Junior (II) is a distinct character because he is named in the instruction booklet.
 * The instruction manual acknowledges the existence of this second Junior.

This is the main thrust of the oppose side. This argument has several problems.

The context makes the difference in this case. In this case, the context turns an argument against the merge into an argument for the merge. Let me elaborate. First, we have two controllers designated as (I) and (II). These Donkey Kong Jr.s then have corresponding designations (I) for brown and player one, (II) for pink and player 2, which suggests that (II) is merely a duplicate in the same way we have different colored Marios in Mario Bros. and different color Luigis in Scarescraper. And unlike Luigi, from Mario Bros. (the green Mario recolor) though, this Donkey Kong Jr. has no name other than Junior (II), which I said, is more likely a simple generic name, making him a indistinct character. Luigi, on the other hand, is shown alongside Mario in artwork, has a separate name, and is promoted as a separate character. The instruction booklet makes no distinction between the two Donkey Kong Jr.s. It doesn't say "Junior's father gives Junior and Junior (II) some math problems". There is no reference to the second Junior as a separate entity anywhere in the evidence used to oppose the merge, other than Junior (II) is listed alongside Junior (I). Furthermore, it has been stated that the instruction booklet has no color, so Junior (II) had to be used as a "name" so players can distinguish between the two. The multiple Marios have no Mario (I), Mario (II), etc., because those instruction booklets were in color. But even then, they're given identifiers per color (P1, P2, P3, P4). So... how is Junior (II) any different?

The Mario recolors are listed and named as P1, P2, P3, and P4 in the Mario Bros. manual They might as well be called Mario (I), Mario (II), Mario (III, and Mario (IV). Is that really the distinction you're advocating for when creating this article?

There's a difference between listing and acknowledging the existence. There is no evidence that Junior (II)'s existence is acknowledged. It says "Junior's father gives Junior some math problems". The controls are listed for Junior. Junior (II) is not mentioned once nor does he have his own name nor does he appear as a distinct and separate entity. I say, "distinct" a lot because that's a key word when it comes to defining separate characters in this case, not merely separate or "acknowledged" in the instruction booklet.


 * "The Super Mario Advance manual clearly states that the Mario's are just colors. The Donkey Kong Jr. Math manual shows the second Junior as a separate individual among its cast of characters."

The manual for Donkey Kong Jr. Math clearly shows Junior (II) as a recolor as much as the Marios are shown as recolors, backed up by what I argued above.


 * "[...]Also, the manual has no color so the Super Mario Advance argument doesn't work as well in this case."

That would be a point for the merge. The lack of color would make the Junior (II) identifier much more important. If they really intended the Pink Donkey Kong Jr. to be a distinct character, surely he would get a more unique name like in Luigi's case?

While the evidence isn't blatant, there is a whole chunk of support and examples to conclude that Junior (II) is a mere player 2 construct in the same way the other three Marios and Luigis are mere multiplayer construct. This Junior (II) does not deserve an article and deserves only as a mere mention in the Donkey Kong Jr. Math article. The reddish recolor in Mario Tennis 64 can be mentioned in the trivia section.

On a final note, this isn't the same as the second Luigi in Super Mario Galaxy because this second Luigi is treated as a separate character in a single-player game, not a one-off multiplayer construct. Unlike Junior (II), he has his own dialogue, suggested lampshading, and just actual recognition as a separate character. It's borderline red herring. I'd still oppose the merge simply because of the facetious lampshading.

So now I spent some breath and brainpower constructing this argument, come at me. I'm ready for the torches and pitchforks.

Proposer: Deadline: April 23, 2015 (23:59 GMT)

Merge

 * 1) I'm up for any discussion, but please reconsider your opposition from last time. If my argument (my rebuttal mainly) has flaws, please let me know.
 * 2) Per Mario.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) That is a great idea so, merge it to the game!
 * 5) Per proposal. Also, for consistency, it's either merge this or make a new page for every recolored duplicate character ever.
 * 6) Per my previous stance.
 * 7) Per my previous stance too. It's exactly the same as before.
 * 8) I previously opposed merging Junior II, but now it just seems like keeping a separate article for the Blue Mario in Mario Tennis 64. Per all.

Don't merge

 * 1) I still believe that this should be a separate page, simply because the instruction manual acknowledges the existence of this second Junior.

Comments
@Aokage: I've refuted your oppose thoroughly in my own proposal. I've listed examples and parallels and stated why it's a logical and consistent merge. Is there a flaw in my point? Seriously, if you can't come with any new points, especially since I've specifically attacked your old points aggressively this time, you shouldn't be using the same reasons as last time. 14:59, 9 April 2015 (EDT)