MarioWiki:RareWiki vote

CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

About The time at the top is the current time in Eastern Standard Time, USA. The time at the bottom is the time you must vote by for it to count. Voting for what? – a long-time issue on whether the Banjo and Conker series belong on this wiki. Already of territary importance, the question is whether Diddy Kong Racing or Diddy Kong Racing DS is "more true".

If you haven't been following the issue, or want a refresh, here are excerpts from two major pages as of 23:45, 20 February 2007 (EST). Click "[show]" to view:

Excerpt from Talk:Main Page __HIDER__ Canonical: DKR or DKRDS? I took notice some individuals question the canonancy of DKR + DKRDS and it would require removal of the BK artiles we have worked hard of making. Well unless an official source is stated that the N64 version is non-canon, i beleive the Banjo articles and Conker articles should stay. Agree? -- 15:49, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Check out the latest at MarioWiki talk:Importance Policy. The issue is that, not to my knowledge before, the DS version is a complete remake: it's almost all the same, with better graphics and some new unlockables. Of course, the DS version replaces Banjo and Conker with Tiny and Dixie, now that Rare is separate from Nintendo. If DKRDS is more canonical, Banjo & Conker get the boot from this wiki. Opinions? 15:54, 2 February 2007 (EST)


 * How would you tell its canacal???? Its all in a matter of opinion and they should stay until its iofficial one is canon the other isn't, that goes to SM64DS. Its booting Conker and Banjo from the wiki for no reason. -- 16:34, 2 February 2007 (EST)

I don't think it matters which is canonical. Either way, Banjo and Conker are a spin-off of a spin-off of Mario, and thus should stay. - User: Ultimatetoad

Banjo and Conker got kicked out of DKRDS because Rare got sold to Microsoft and some legal issues...so if that hadn't happened not only would Banjo and Conker WOULD have been in DKRDS (maybe not Conker because of what he did in Bad Fur Day). So let's leave Banjo/Conker articles and WarioLoaf...I would like to have a word with you Paper Jorge

Sequel.

I don't understand. Banjo and Conker are copyrighted to Rare, always have been. Why would a seperation from Nintendo matter? -- Ghost Jam 14:39, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Either way, they should stay. How would DKRDS prove DKR uncanonical? Again, this has nothing to do with how canonical the info is. The simple reason is that the company would have copyright issues, otherwise they would still be there, trust me. So the Conker and Banjo series should stay. 21:08, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Indeed. I was about to say the same. O_o

If DKR DS is a remake, that means the original game has been changed to what it is intended to be. The remake is the most canonical version of the game, as the creators specifically changed the original to new specifications (just like the changes in Star Wars; older versions of Star Wars are less canonical). Like I said before, I don't know if DKR DS is a remake or a sequel. If it is a remake, we'll have to figure this whole thing out. -- Son of Suns

Oboy.


 * Oh boy...now I have to say it may be a sequel...that depends on what is on the game. We need to ask someone who has the DS version and someone who has the 64 version: Do they Have the Same Storyline? If yes, then well I guess it's a remake but...uhh...

Same storyline.

Really the only differences between versions (storywise) are Banjo and Conker. Plus, would the events of Super Mario 64 be more canonical than Super Mario 64 DS? The point is that remakes do not prove their predecessor to be uncanonical.-- 22:19, 16 February 2007 (EST)


 * SM64 DS is more canonical than SM64 - the newer game represents what could not be done earlier, and corrects the mistakes of the previous version. Does anyone know if the DKR DS game manual or the game itself make references to the original DKR? Something like, Wizpig came back, or Diddy gathered his friends again, or something else. Remember, DKL basically had the same story as DKC, but DKL still indicated it was a sequel. -- Son of Suns

I see where you're coming from, but it's an assumption, albiet one that I would call a hypothesis, as it is based off of very cool prior knowledge. The thing is, MarioWiki is here to report on Mario and how it is presented to us, right? As such, we are given certain gaps. Now, it is all well and good for us to note our theories in the articles, tying together bits and pieces, but we should not make these facts. I'm sorry that this issue came up, and I think everyone is doing a great job discussing it, so all the power to us! It is my opinion, though, based on what people, including the administrators, have edited out of articles, that we should mind what we write as fact and what we write as opinion. For example, I mistakenly wrote in the Mushroom Kingdom article that the Koopa Troop built the eight castles. Logical: they have traps, etc. in them, but not confirmed. Therefore, I should have written that "Based on the internal design of the castles, they may have been built or redesigned by the Koopa Troop." I believe this is the same sort of thing, but of much greater importance to the Wiki. Check the Talk Page for the Imporance Policy, I explain myself even more there. ;) --Stumpers

Excerpt from MarioWiki talk:Importance Policy __HIDER__ Diddy Kong Racing DS

Hello, everyone! As you all know, Conker and Banjo have been replaced by Dixie and Tiny Kong in the remake of Diddy Kong Racing. The issue here is whether or not that means their connection to the Mario universe should be erased as a result? Is DKR DS a rewritting of the story or should it be considered that DKR DS is just a simple romp with no significance on timeline or Mario's universe?

If we consider this a rewritting, it implies that Diddy Kong and friends never met Banjo or Conker. It would follow that they don't "exist" in Mario's universe per se... right? I know that I shouldn't assume that just because Banjo and Conker didn't come to the aid of Timber and Diddy that Banjo and Conker don't exist, but if we do assume that they do, it's almost like saying that Link inhabits the same world as Mario, and Link is, as stating in the policy, not getting the red carpet treatment that Conker, Banjo, Mario, and the rest will be getting.

So, here's how I see it: 1. DKR DS is a rewritting on the story. Solution: Banjo and Conker should be removed from the Marioverse (which makes me sad, I love Banjo... and the innocent Conker) 2. DKR DS has no effect on the original storyline and is an excuse to revive a classic N64 game. Solution: Dixie Kong and Tiny Kong didn't come to Diddy's aid. 3.DKR and DKR DS both tell different aspects of the same story. Solution: Dixie, Tiny, Banjo, and Conker were present. 4. [proposed by Wayoshi, see below] DKR and DKR DS are two completely separate events.

Let me know what you guys think! --Stumpers
 * I think it's a whole other story, after the original DKR, leaving Banjo & Conker on the border of the Marioverse. Maybe something in-game can confirm that. 06:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

We will definately have to wait for the game to come out before we can reevaluate our position on the subject. According to some material, DKR DS may be a sequel (like DKL is to DKC). -- Son of Suns


 * If amnything, 3. Everyone wins. And even so, its needs some official backup whether one's canon or not, or its an opinion, which is even more non-canocal --  16:35, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Guess will know the answer in five days.... -- Sir Grodus


 * Thanks for responding, everyone! I look forward to the release, then.  What I've seen of the game makes it seem like a retelling (the intro is almost identical to the story in the N64 version's manual), so I din't think we should immeadiately jump to a conclusion if Nintendo confirms that its a sequel, since all "sequel" really means is a game that was created after the original... right?  Oh, and have a fun Super Bowl, everyone!  Stumpers


 * Well, if we're going to remove information just because it isn't canon we might as well remove articles like Super Mario Bros. Super Show and Hotel Mario. - Hyper Mushroom.

The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! was just based on Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros. 2, I don't think it was supposed to have that weird "Ultimate Spider-Man: The Game"-esque canon. And is there anything really discarding Hotel Mario from the continuity? -- Sir Grodus


 * That isn't the point. The point is that if we remove information just because it isn't canon this just wouldn't be a wiki. - Hyper Mushroom

The difference is that this is the Super Mario Wiki, and games like Hotel Mario or cartoons like the Super Mario Bros. Super Show are not non-canon; they are either low-level canon, or alternate canon. They are still depictions of Mario. However, Banjo and Conker have nothing to do with Mario, outside of their tertiary connection to the Donkey Kong universe. As such, what happens in the Banjo and Conker series may be non-canon in the Mario series (instead of just being a low level of canon). Again, we'll have to see what the game says. -- Son of Suns

Weeeeeel, this is a wiki for Mario, and his SPIN-OFFS. No matter what way you look at it, Banjo and Conker both came from the Mario series. - User: Ultimatetoad


 * This is a wiki for franchises that exist in the same world as Mario. If there is a retcon, Banjo and Conker would exist independently of Mario, and thus would not be a part of his universe. They would no longer be important to the Super Mario Wiki. -- Son of Suns

The Banjo series is unnafected because Titup,a Banjo character, is present in Diddy kong racing DS--Gofer


 * Why would something go non-canon because of a remake? We still have Super Mario 64 articles here, despite its remake for the DS. Diddy Kong Racing will still exist even when DKR DS is a remake. Cobold 15:56, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Look at the comment of Sons of Suns. --Gofer

Super Mario 64 DS is almost the same as Super Mario 64, but harder and with some other changes. I guess Tiptup's and a Gnawty's appearance(s) in the Banjo-Kazooie and the fact Mario is mentioned in a few Banjo-Kazooie games (more as a joke though) would still make Banjo fit. Conker, well, I guess he could have an article, I don't know about his series. Man, this is hard, stupid continuity shift. -- Sir Grodus

Well, in the retcon, Tiptup could be a cameo character, not an in-universe character. I don't know if DKR DS is a remake or a sequel though. Also, "canon" info about Super Mario 64 should actually be about Super Mario 64 DS, but gameplay issues can still be addressed independently. -- Son of Suns

Are you talking about his appearance in Diddy kong racing ds or in Banjo game?He's playable in Diddy kong racing ds and he teach move in Banjo kazooie and tooie. --User: Gofer


 * Banjo-Kazooie. Bottles and Jamjars teach moves. Tiptup has a turtle orchestra and an egg in BK 1 and 2 respectibly. -- Son of Suns


 * So that means Banjo Kazooie is canon no matter what. And Banjo makes a cameo in bad fur day (As a hunting trophy) meaning the same for Conker! Sorted!

I don't think that "cameo" is supposed to be taken seriously. -- Sir Grodus

Remember, Tiptup is not the star of the two series. He is a minor character - a cameo even, simply because he appeared in DKR. Cameos happen all the time, but we don't have articles covering all of the Legend of Zelda or Bomberman series. DKR DS may indicate that Banjo and Conker have cut their ties to Mario's world - that Mario and Banjo could never meet and chat and talk. It's called a retcon - where the canon is reorganized. Again, I will say that I don't know if DKR DS is a total remake or a sequel, so the question of Banjo and Conker is still up in the air. -- Son of Suns


 * Whatever. I don't think their connection with the Marioverse was meant to be taken seriously anyway. There was no further mention of the Marioverse from that point, apart from a cameo from Gnawty in Banjo Kazooie and music from Donkey Kong Land in Pocket Tales. Other than that a simple, pointless appearance in Diddy Kong Racing is our only connection. - Hyper Mushroom

Stumpers' massive discussion

Hey, everyone. Bare 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.


 * Yes. The Importance Policy has nothing to do with official canon, only what the wiki wants to emphasize about Mario and various spin-off franchises. The problem with remakes is that Nintendo did not have to make them in the first place. They could have ported the game, which they do with many other titles. Remakes, simply for the fact of being created, imply a newer, refined version of the game. Just as the GBA remake of Yoshi's Island corrects things in the original (as in the color of the Pink Yoshi, or refering to the babies as "brothers" as opposed to "twins"), so do other remakes. This indicates a part on Nintendo to correct what was wrong with the original - we as fans should respect these decisions as being the truest representation of the game. I do agree that we should cover the differences between versions, but also give emphasis to the newer title (as I have done in both Yoshi and Goomba in regards to SM64). Many Donkey Kong articles also state both versions. Both versions are acceptable, and both are canonical, just that one is less "true" than the other, but not implying that one completely replaces the other. Both should be focused, but the remake should be emphasized. As far as Banjo and Conker go, I do believe the characters should have articles at this wiki. As far as anything only in those franchises, the question is not really of what is more canonical. As you pointed out, both are kinda canonical, but as I have argued one should have more emphasis than the other. The questions now is, are Banjo and Conker so far removed from Mario games, should they even be represented here? The original DKR showed that Banjo and Conker were part of the same world as Donkey Kong. But with the release of DKR DS, are the Banjo and Conker series still relevant to this wiki? Does the community believe they are important? Maybe we should bring this to a vote, including some of Stumpers suggestions (like the template (something along the lines of "This article is of ambigious significance to the Mario series."); however I think consolidating everything about the Banjo and Conker series would be way too big - either articles stay, are marked with a template, or are deleted (and possible moved to a new wiki!)). -- Son of Suns

Vote We have three options to take care of the issue:
 * 1) Keep Banjo and Conker articles on the wiki.
 * 2) Use a template on every Banjo and Conker article saying that their canonicity is questionable.
 * 3) Create the RareWiki and team up with another DKU community, DKVine, who is also looking into creating a wiki. Banjo and Conker series would be of primary importance. Son of Suns has contacted the DKVine admins regarding the possibility.

At the end of the week we'll assess the community's decision and move forward. Vote with # or #~.

Keep Articles

Add Template

Create RareWiki Comments
 * 1) – DKVine needs a wiki, puts Banjo & Conker in primary importance. Everyone wins.
 * 2) Son of Suns
 * 23:59, 20 February 2007 (EST) - i may be at the rarewiki more than here if this passes, but yahoo!
 * 1) Sir Grodus
 * 1) Sir Grodus
 * 1) Sir Grodus

Sure, why not, but if it does come to pass, be careful around the dkvine guys, they can be kinda snappy and forceful in their views, 'specially regarding Grabbed by the Ghoulies and Viva Pinata, which they say is in the same universe as Donkey Kong/Conker/Banjo. -- Sir Grodus