Talk:Cranky Kong/Archive 1

Nemesis

Donkey Kong is NOT his nemesis. They encountered eachother a whopping one time, and the only reason they fought was because he was super pissed at being trapped in a cage. -- A Link to the Past 02:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Yes Donkey Kong Sr. is Mario's ORIGINAL, FIRST Nnemesis. At the time of Super Mario Brother's release, Bowser and Mario had no backstory, and Bowser was still his Nemesis. They didn't have to have a backstory to be nemesises for that game. Nintenfreak 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And Donkey Kong was not doing it against Mario. So, he's not acting as an enemy against Mario, he's not acting as a villain, he's just angry. King Kong, was he evil? And, that doesn't really help. Nowadays, Mario and Bowser do have a past relationship. Donkey Kong and Mario's connection was never, ever established, and the only connection they ever had was rivals. DK Jr. had just as much relationship with Mario as DK did. The only relationship ever established between Mario and DK Jr. was the same as DK and Mario's - they had no past relationship, they just met. DK kidnapped Pauline and Mario thusly had to defeat him, Mario kidnapped DK Jr. and thusly DK Jr. had to defeat him. Also, note that DK Jr. was still a baby in Mario Kart 64 when Mario had met Princess Peach and company looong ago. And don't say he's not in it; that may be true, but he was in it originally. And even then, SMK had him playable. -- A Link to the Past 03:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't even notice.

Nice attempt at slipping in that whole "Nintendo can't be shown to disagree" thing. Nothing Nintendo ever said implied that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong. My statement was added to point out that Rare's writings have never been specifically supported by Miyamoto or others involved with Donkey Kong, but your words were only meant to make that statement seem pointless. -- A Link to the Past 00:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You say that Nintendo never commented on Rare's statements and can't be shown to agree. The same logic could just as well mean that Nintendo can't be shown to DISagree. So I could have deleted that point, or make another point that contradicts it. Nintendo never supported Rare's word? Never mind the fact that Rare created Cranky Kong and have every right to decide who he is, there are two points in the "in favor" side that are from Nintendo? Why are you arguing with us, anyway? We're big fans of the Donkey Kong Country games, and you couldn't be bothered to list them in your top 143 (or whatever) games. We know what we're talking about more. --Chiphead 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was exhausted when I made the original revision, so I apologize for not removing both sides. I meant to do so but was distracted with other things. --Schrei 03:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that we should assume they agree? I guess never even implying that they agree with a single letter of those statements from Rare isn't good enough for you.

And nevermind the fact that 100% of DKC = Nintendo's. So it is NOT Rare's right.

And yes, thanks. I mean, I was looking all over for the opinion of two guys from Nintendo's American division and Nintendo's Europe division. Who cares what the creator has to say on the matter?

I'm a big fan of the Donkey Kong series. You know what that means? You're biased. I'm a fan of the series, and you're a fan of what Rare puts out, so you accept what they say as fact.

I couldn't be bothered to list them because I don't like them as much as those 143 games. You're saying that because you like them more than me, your opinion is more valuable to the debates?

And the last statement of this reply... You morons! Did you even read the argument? You were demanding that it be fact that Nintendo contradicted THEMSELVES! The whole argument was about them supporting what Rare said in the manual. It cannot be confirmed either way because A. Rare is an unofficial source and B. Miyamoto has never openly expressed his views on this. However, Hal Labs, who had Miyamoto and other members of EAD working closely on SSBM, they say "he now prefers the laid-back jungle lifestyle to construction site mischief". -- A Link to the Past 03:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not to derail this into a petty fanboy argument, but I (and others) have played the hell out of the DKC games over the past decade, and know them to a degree that's simply not possible for someone who thinks more highly of over 140 other games (which is a pretty damn big number), and because of that, our word is more reliable than yours. Again, I don't want this to turn into who's a bigger fan of what, so this is the last we'll speak of it.

Now back to the point. Rare is far from an unofficial source. They not only made all the Donkey Kong games from 1994 to 2002 (discounting Mario games with Donkey Kong in them), but they created the character of Cranky Kong, so they'd have every right to decide who he is. If Nintendo never said they agree with him, that doesn't mean they disagree. Likewise, if I say Nintedo never said they disagree, that doesn't mean they agree. That's why said arguments were taken off the page. Now if Nintendo of Japan never commented on it, but NOA and NOE did, we'd have to go by the other two, as they represent Nintendo in their respective regions, and are authorised to speak for them on such matters. As for the Smash Bros. trophy, they're not 100% accurate. For example, Daisy's bio cites an appearance in Mario Golf which didn't happen until Mario Tennis.

Finally, can you please stop insulting those who disagree with you? That kind of behavior may be acceptable on the GameFAQs boards, but we're trying to settle a dispute on what is trying to be a reliable encyclopedia. You have to respect the other side if you want any respect back. Calling us "morons" isn't going to convince anyone to take you seriously. --Chiphead 04:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You assume that because you like the game better that you know more about the game. I'd say I know everything about the games' content, and if you do, then you don't hold any priority over me. In fact, your bias towards these games could reflect towards you making a biased argument and having it reflect what you want.

You didn't discount Donkey Kong '94, developed by Nintendo. And I guess the fact that Nintendo funded them, allowing them to create a character for their series (and thusly making it their character), it doesn't matter. You may believe that it's their right to decide what Cranky Kong is, but in all legal logic, it's Nintendo's.

NoA never commented on it. Employees did. Do you say that Metroid: Zero Mission isn't a remake because someone emailed NoA and an employee said so?

I can prove that Hal did not make those mistakes, but NoA themselves - for one, Masahiro Sakurai was at the helm of the game, and Meta Knight's trophy said he first appeared in Kirby Super Star. He personally created Meta Knight. Truth be told, there are two games listed on the trophy description, so NoA had removed the two games thing, only using one, and used Kirby Super Star instead of Kirby's Adventure, and in Daisy's case, used Mario Golf as opposed to Mario Tennis.

Dude, it's really awesome how two of your allies were flame happy, and you let it pass as good arguing, and when I call you morons for ignoring everything I said since the beginning of the argument, I'm a GameFAQs troll. I guess reverting edits, calling the other's reverts 'inaccurate kiddy fanboy nonsense' despite the Seal of Quality (the one single argument shown to support the statement) was shown to not actually support it. If you can't put your bias towards your allies aside, then stop talking. -- A Link to the Past 05:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about Metroid Zero Mission, nor am I aware of anything NOA said on the matter, nor do am I behind all my "allies'" (who I don't even know) arguments 100%, save for their main point, and I never accused HAL of making any mistakes. That's why I deleted the whole "Rival/Nemesis" section. Donkey Kong 94 was more of a Mario game with Donkey Kong in it (for another example, Super Mario Bros. isn't a Bowser game, and Sonic The Hedgehog isn't a Dr. Robotnik game), but more importantly, it was released before the "Rare period" that started with Donkey Kong Country. Seconly NOA employees are NOA. They are authorised to speak for Nintendo on everything, and their comments were featured in the Donkey Kong Country video, produced and distributed entirely by NOA. Besides that, Dan Owsen and Tony Hartman are considerably higher on the NOA heirarchy than those guys who answer the e-mails. They were the guys who translated and wrote the English text for all those Japanese games, among other things.

I still don't see how people who throw a bunch of money at a project have more to say on it than the people who created the character in question. If you were settling a dispute about a motion picture, would you turn to the director or the studio that produced it? As for the Smash Bros. trophy example, it only supports my point that the bios aren't 100% accurate; Daisy never even appeared in Mario Golf. However, if I remember correctly, if you set Melee to Japanese, and look at Donkey Kong's filmography, it lists Donkey Kong Country, but not the arcade games. -- Chiphead 21:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that we know that you can even understand Japanese. -- A Link to the Past 22:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I can't, but I can tell that the two games listed are for Super Famicom and Nintendo 64. The only Super Famicom games that feature Donkey Kong are the Super Donkey Kong trilogy (the Japanese name for Donkey Kong Country), and the only Donkey Kong game for N64 was Donkey Kong 64, all of which featured the modern incarnation of Donkey Kong. If this was the same character as the Donkey Kong featured in the arcade game, it would have been listed, like it was for Mario. -- Chiphead 04:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But then, that means that Donkey Kong is not Donkey Kong Jr., wouldn't it? -- A Link to the Past 10:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

No. I'd elaborate, but that's not the point of the argument. All we're discussing is whether or not Cranky Kong was the original Donkey Kong. -- Chiphead 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because it's not a point doesn't mean it doesn't factor in. Have you considered that they counted Donkey Kong as first appearing in DKC based on appearance? As opposed to counting him as first appearing in DK Jr.? -- A Link to the Past 17:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Donkey Kong did not appear in Donkey Kong Jr. in the same way that Mario didn't appear in Yoshi's Island; he appeared, but in a completely different form. But that's not what we're disputing. This page was created for the sole purpose of settling the dispute as to whether or not Cranky Kong is the original Donkey Kong.

Now I was looking at the article's history page, and I noticed an argument on the legitamacy of the Seal of Quality. I take the Seal with a grain of salt. I don't believe that Nintendo thoroughly examines the entire manual of, say, Britney's Dance Beat, but I'm sure they check the manuals and contents of the games that they publish, and any other uses of their characters (for example, Mario in NBA Street). If it's established in the game and documentation that Cranky is the original DK, and Nintendo published it, it means that Nintendo approved it. If Nintendo didn't support the notion, they would have made Rare change it. -- Chiphead 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the design of Donkey Kong is very different in DKC.

So, you're saying that we should go on assumptions that they knew what Rare said? -- A Link to the Past 18:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course Nintendo knows what Rare said. They published their games. If they oversee what EA does with their Mario characters, they would oversee what Rare does with their Donkey Kong characters in a game that they publish. The different design could be because they are different characters. It's more evidence to my point than yours. -- Chiphead 18:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you're willing to bet your account that you can provide a source saying that they read the manuals of their games, right? Of course, you probably won't, because you'r assuming all of this.

And, Donkey Kong Jr. does NOT look like Donkey Kong, not even remotely. -- A Link to the Past 18:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson as a kid doesn't look like Micheal Jackon today. Donkey Kong has just aged considerable, as well as Cranky. Maybe Jackson wasn't the best example, but that's not the issue at hand, and this is the last we'll speak of it until the Cranky Kong issue is resolved. And I don't see why you find it so inconceivable that Nintndo reads the manuals to the games that they publish. You say Donkey Kong Country is Nintendo's, right? That would mean that Nintendo approved the content of the game, the notion that Cranky Kong is the original Donkey Kong being no exception. -- Chiphead 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. For one, Baby Mario looks like Mario, so why not DK Jr.? And just remember that DK Jr. coexisted with Mario, indicating that DK has to be older than Mario.

And I guess it IS a bit crazy to want proof, as opposed to assumptions, on Wikipedia. Mario Party and SSBM both claim DK to be the original DK, and Nintendo supervises these things more than they did originally. Claiming they contradicted themselves based on the assumption that they knew that Rare said that in the manual is not POV. -- A Link to the Past 19:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

And, I'm going to end this with this: As I've said from the beginning, I do NOT want a POV. I would LIKE Cranky Kong to be called Cranky Kong and not Donkey Kong, but that's my POV and COULD be wrong, through some happening. But the way it is now tries to play Nintendo out that they're contradicting themselves with any recent statements. I want to end this because I am far too stressed to deal with debates, especially frivilrous ones like this. -- A Link to the Past 19:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is not POV; it is a simple fact. It was clearly spelled out since Cranky's first appearance in Donkey Kong Country, which was developed by Rare, and supervised and published by Nintendo. It was stated in the manual (which may have been written by Nintendo; I'd have to check the games' credits). Then-prolific NOA employees such as Dan Owsen stated the fact in a promotional video for the game, and it is the cause for his primary characteristic: a grumpy old man who longs for the days of old video games. Rare, who created Cranky Kong and made every Donkey Kong game between DKC and the Microsoft buyout, has verified this numerous times, both in the games (all of which were published by Nintendo) and their online letters column. Nintendo only recently started making Donkey Kong games again, so they don't know the series as well as Rare, and have been known to slip up occasionally (for example, promotional material for Mario vs. Donkey Kong, though it should be noted that the fact isn't contradicted in the game itself, nor does Cranky make any appearance, at least not as Cranky Kong), but for the most part Nintendo's North American, Japanese, and European branches have been shown to agree with Rare. -- Chiphead 04:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo has never shown support. Until Donkey Kong's creator actually shows support, it cannot be fact. No one involved with Donkey Kong in NCL has supported it, either. Just because Rare made some games for the series doesn't make them the authority. Since your statement cannot be shown to be supported by the copyright holder, it cannot be considered fact. Now drop it. -- A Link to the Past 04:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I thought you chose to end this (those were my closing arguments), but if you wish to continue, we shall. Anyway, if the creator of Donkey Kong doesn't comment on the matter, we have to take the word of the creators of Cranky Kong. And Rare didn't just "make some games" in the series. They made the series what it is today. They created almost all of the caracters (including the character in question, Cranky Kong), and made every Donkey Kong game from Donkey Kong Country until William Henry Gates III's wallet made them stop (even now they still do Game Boy Advance DKC ports). Also, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe ARE Nintendo. They represent Nintendo in their respective regions. If they support a fact, Nintendo supports it. I also checked the Donkey Kong Country credits and it turns out that the DKC instruction manual and text of the game were written by Dan Owsen of NOA (that's right, Nintendo didn't just read the manual; they WROTE it). With that in mind, there are no less than six "Arguments in favor" that are supported by Nintendo. Read the main argument page before you say never. -- Chiphead 05:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So, wait, you're telling me that Miyamoto has no right to the original Donkey Kong? Because you're giving Rare the right to take that character and make him into an old, senile ape. Until Miyamoto or someone involved with EAD supports this statement, it cannot be called fact. -- A Link to the Past 13:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Miyamoto has no right to the character, but if he doesn't say anything, you can't assume he disagrees, and I can't assume he agrees. However, if he objected to Nintendo and Rare making Donkey Kong into a cranky old man, he would have made them change it. -- Chiphead 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you agree to put a neutral POV on the Cranky Kong page. You would also note that they never used the idea since DK64. -- A Link to the Past 17:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I keep saying that it's not POV. It is a fact that has been verified several times. Just because there is no evidence of Miyamoto agreeing with it doesn't make the countless other sources null and void. Also, the NOE press release was for the GBA Donkey Kong Country, released in 2003, long after DK64, and the fact was referenced in the GBA port of DKC2, released in 2004. -- Chiphead 18:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Both made by Rare. We should go on the lead source. You may cite quotes of them, but you cannot say that the DK is, by fact, Cranky. If Miyamoto agreed, I'd be all for it, but he has not expressed his opinion. In fact, there have been claims that Miyamoto was unhappy with Cranky Kong. -- A Link to the Past 19:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

They were made by Rare, but published by Nintendo, meaning Nintendo must have overseen the game's content. And if Rare's word didn't mean anything, Cranky Kong wouldn't even exist in the first place; the only non-Rare game that Cranky appeared in was Super Smash Bros. Melee, and he was only a silhouette in the background of a level. -- Chiphead 19:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing much they can do about it. He already exists. It's possible for Nintendo to change him. Anyway, you're wrong that Cranky didn't appear in any non-Rare DK games; DK: King of Swing has him, all of the Konga games have him, and I believe Cranky is in Jungle Beat. -- A Link to the Past 19:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected, even though Cranky did not appear in Jungle Beat. Now I've got a question: Do you consider the Metroid Prime series part of Metroid canon, even though it was developed by Retro Studios? Do you consider the Zelda Oracle games canon, even though they were developed by Capcom? Is F-Zero GX canon even though it was developed by a Sega studio (Amusement Vision?)? If so, how are Rare's games any different? And if not, and Nintendo doesn't consider the Rare's games to be canon, why have they been using their design ever since? Why have they been allowing Diddy to show up in recent Mario games (and Kremlings in even more recent games)?

And looking back at that "Nintendo doesn't know what Rare did" argument, it still doesn't make any sense to me. A couple of years earlier, Acclaim ported Mortal Kombat to both 16-bit consoles. The Genesis version had the exagerated blood that the arcade vesion was (in)famous for, but Nintendo made them take all the blood out of the Super Nintendo version, and tone down many of the Fatalities. If they have that much control over third party titles, why wouldn't they know what goes on with their own games? -- Chiphead 21:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, because they knew in advance that MK was going to be bloody? They COULD control Rare and have them take those statements out, but how, exactly, can you say that they went in deep to remove every little thing that they disagreed with? Just face it, your opinion is POV, because *drumroll* it's not confirmed by the copyright holders (which would be Nintendo Corporate Ltd., not the guy who wrote a manual).

Oh, yeah, of course that's relevant, since I clearly stated that the DKC games are not canon. Let's just assume that since the only ones to use the statement are PORTS, that the statement is not true for NoA. Metroid Prime? Nintendo EAD and R&D1 worked closely with them. Miyamoto and other EAD developers helped create the game, while R&D1 guys made all of the music. Oracles? Again, the gameplay was provided by EAD. Miyamoto supervised the games, and a third Oracle was cancelled by Miyamoto. By the way, Capcom didn't make Oracles, it was an independent third party that assists in Capcom, Sega and Nintendo games. Oh, and play Donkey Kong Jr. - Nintendo made Kremlings. -- A Link to the Past 21:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Snapjaws are not Kremlings. The Kremlings were created by Rare for another game, but when Donkey Kong Country came up, Rare decided to use them there instead. However, I wouldnt' be surprised if Klaptrap was inspired by Snapjaw. -- Nintenfreak 22:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, looking over this whole debate, the core of A Link to the Past's argument appears to be "No aspect of any work of fiction (in this case video games) can be considered 'official' unless explicitly confirmed in an official statement by the company that has the distribution rights. If no official statement exists (which can't simply be from a high-ranking employee, but must from the comany itself through official channels), then no article can state it as a fact within the context of the work." I'm sorry, and I honestly don't mean to offend, but that's ludicrous. Big companies simply don't make statements like that on a regular basis. They don't because there's no reason they should have to. It would just be redundant. You can reasonably assume that anything actually stated in a game is true within the context of that game. One can't help but wonder why several of the video game articles you have listed as your "favorites" don't hold up to this level of stringency. -- Sparky Z 22:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Miyamoto makes it a point to establish his characters. He has never expressed that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong, yet we have to believe it to be so? There are far too many inconsistencies - if Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong, why is that established at no point in any of the new games? If Rare's statements are true, why hasn't anyone that actually had a hand in the creation of the series commented? We can mention that Rare says this, since they do not have the authority to define such a thing without Nintendo's approval. There's the fact that DK Jr. appeared with Mario in Super Mario Kart, implying that DK Jr. was still DK Jr. after Super Mario Bros. He was going to be in Mario Kart 64, but was cut for the new Donkey Kong. Wario was in the same game, and thusly, this would mean DK Jr. was still DK Jr. after Super Mario Land 1 and 2. If DKC takes place after these, when DK Jr. grew up, then it wouldn't make sense, considering later connections with Mario. And, of course, Mario is the same age, yet DK Jr. apparently aged. The fact that Rare says it is irrelevant; there must be some good reason why it's not used anymore. -- A Link to the Past 22:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that it isn't restated in each new game is that it doesn't need to be. It's an established part of cannon. You seem to be demanding rediculous amounts of documentation to prove our point, while not providing any such material for your own argument.

The Donkey Kong Country manual (which you can find archived at www.world-of-nintendo.com) states "CRANKY KONG: Donkey Kong's grouchy pappy is actually the original Donkey Kong who starred in the many Donkey Kong arcade classics of the eighties." It doesn't get more definitive than that. This manual was directly written by Daniel Owsen, an employee of Nintendo. What more do you want? If you can provide evidence of equal weight that supports your argument (instead of just minor inconsistancies which are bound to crop up in any expansive franchise), please do so. If not, please just give this up. -- Sparky Z 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem presented: I'm not the one attempting to shove my opinion down the throats of Wikipedia. WOw, David Owsen?! That changes everything! When I want information on Nintendo franchises, I always go to an employee of NoA, who rarely gets any approval to any changes they make to games and their elements! But wow, here comes Owsen! So what'd he do? Did he make the game? Did he make the character? But seriously now. Throughout this entire argument, I've attempted to make a compromise that would appeal to both parties, and you guys refuse any such compromise. You can't accept that your argument could be, in any way, flawed. YOU just give it up and accept the compromise, and stop being so difficult. Wikipedia is not for Donkey Kong Universe members to spread their opinion. -- A Link to the Past 00:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If we're just here to spread our crazy opinions, then how come we're the only ones providing actual evidence? You've just been doing everything you can to question our credibility, or the credibility of our sources. "But wow, here comes Owsen! So what'd he do? Did he make the game? Did he make the character?" No, that wasn't his job. His job was to write the manual about the game, that descibed, among other things, the identity of Cranky Kong. What reason do you have to doubt him? True, he isn't a "big name", so to speak, but he's better than anything you've shown us. All I ask is that you provide real evidence from real sources. Is that so hard? If it is, maybe you should reconsider. -- Sparky Z 00:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

And Donkey Kong was not doing it against Mario. So, he's not acting as an enemy against Mario, he's not acting as a villain, he's just angry. King Kong, was he evil? And, that doesn't really help. Nowadays, Mario and Bowser do have a past relationship. Donkey Kong and Mario's connection was never, ever established, and the only connection they ever had was rivals. DK Jr. had just as much relationship with Mario as DK did. The only relationship ever established between Mario and DK Jr. was the same as DK and Mario's - they had no past relationship, they just met. DK kidnapped Pauline and Mario thusly had to defeat him, Mario kidnapped DK Jr. and thusly DK Jr. had to defeat him. Also, note that DK Jr. was still a baby in Mario Kart 64 when Mario had met Princess Peach and company looong ago. And don't say he's not in it; that may be true, but he was in it originally. And even then, SMK had him playable. -- A Link to the Past 03:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

To the first part of that: In can't even figure out what you're trying to say, or why it's relevant.

To the second part (about MK64): In other words, you're saying DK Jr. was originally going to be in MK64, which would have caused a time paradox, and the fact that he was removed, fixing the paradox, doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? Did it ever occur to you that he was removed beacuse the inconsistancy was discovered? That implies that Nintendo agrees with our position.

And, anyway, I've been unable to find any information about DK Jr. being in MK64. I'd ask for a source, but why would you start now? -- Sparky Z 01:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant (this is about Cranky, not Donkey Kong Jr., though if we can prove the latter point, the former would have to be true), but there's no evidence that the games take place in real time. Super Mario Kart and Mario's Tennis may have come out only a few years before DKC, but that's not to say they take place only a few years before. -- Chiphead 02:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"And, anyway, I've been unable to find any information about DK Jr. being in MK64. I'd ask for a source, but why would you start now?" He's gotten DK Jr. mixed up with Kamek. Because that's the only character I'm aware was taken out in favor of the DKC Donkey Kong, who by the way, was put in to sell the game due to DKC's sucess. -- Muffin_man

Okay...

So, you guys have a personal dispute going on, and as I know nothing about Nintendo, I'll openly admit that I didn't read it all. All I'm interested in is, can the current version of the temporary page go on the main page without starting an edit war? Setting aside the question of who's right or wrong, the point should be to make sure that all valid arguments are represented. Once we have that, you can settle any disputes elsewhere. Thanks. --Schrei 21:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

An NPOV statement should be put in place, addressing the lead argument for each side, and not establishing a victor. -- A Link to the Past 22:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Unless a further agreement can be reached, I can settle for something along the lines of "Cranky Kong was introduced by Nintendo and Rare as the original Donkey Kong who appeared in the arcade games. However, in recent years, Nintendo has said that the DK in the arcade games is the same character as the Donkey Kong that is being used now," or something to that effect -- Chiphead 22:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I will NOT agree with that. Nintendo Corporate Ltd., the people who put the energy into the development of Donkey Kong, has not even COMMENTED on this. And you cannot use Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe; You DO realize that Princess Peach was renamed as Princess Toadstool by NoA, without consent from ANYONE at NCL? Miyamoto only ever learned of the name change by Super Mario 64 and Yoshi's Safari. Cranky Kong may have been created for some humorous purpose, to make him out like an old man talking about yesteryears (15 miles and that sort), but once Rare left, the idea of Cranky being DK left with them. -- A Link to the Past 22:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that for a different reason. Nintendo hasn't "said that the DK in the arcade games is the same character as the Donkey Kong that is being used now,". They've never said anything one way or the other. Until they do, what Rare said remains canon.

I'm having trouble imagining why you expect Nintendo of Japan to specifically confirm every detail of every game. -- Sparky Z 23:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is an important detail that even Miyamoto would know of the debates over it. If Miyamoto would worry about less important issues, why wouldn't he dabble, at all, into this? It can't be a coincidence that the idea left along with Rare. There must be a good reason why after appearing all over Rare developed games, that all games not made by them never mentioned the idea. Thusly, it can't be POV to say that CK is canonically Donkey Kong (although it would not be POV to say that Rare created Cranky for humor's sake). -- A Link to the Past 23:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, Mr. Schrei, no. And we can use Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo of America as evidence, Mr. Past. They aren't a puppet organization, they actually localize products for release in said regions. Besides, until you can provide us with a statement from Nintendo Co. Ltd. or a representative thereof, NOA and NOE's words still stand. -- Nintenfreak 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now Link, just because the games that followed Rare's havn't commented on Cranky's identity one way or the other doesn't mean they disagree. It just means that it's not necessary to the plot, so there's no reason to say it all over again. Also, why do you keep bringing up Miyamoto? He gave Rare his blessing to continue the franchise. You state things about his intentions without backing them up. How about some documentation? An inteview will do fine. Otherwise, stop pretending to know what he thinks. -- Sparky Z 00:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

...So, wait, you're responding to me trying to put a neutral POV in the article with them disagreeing with it? I offered to end the debate with adding a POV that doesn't take either side, and no one seems willing to accept. And let me remind you - Miyamoto didn't sell the franchise to Rare. It didn't suddenly become THEIR franchide. Cranky Kong's backstory was never relevant to the plot. -- A Link to the Past 00:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There sure are a lot of Shy Guys in Yoshi's Island, for it to be made buy the same guy who was furious that NOA took creative liberties over Peach's name. -- Nintenfreak 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Link, you seem to think that Miyamoto, and consequently Nintendo, had absolutly nothing to do with Donkey Kong Country. This is not true. "In the case of the original DKC, because I was concerned about the outcome, I was checking and putting in comments myself, especially during the last few months. At the very beginning, my personally involvement was ten percent. This lessened as the sequels went on, but of course other people at Nintendo were always involved. The total involvement was always around ten per cent and this was mainly from my people." -from this interview If the character of Cranky had been contrary to Nintendo's intentions, then they would have changed it, plain and simple. Instead of just arguing with your opinion, back it up with verifiable facts. Otherwise, end this nonsense. -- Sparky Z 00:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Cranky's backstory was relevant. It established that main character in Donkey Kong Country was not the same Donkey Kong that was the bad guy in the old games. -- Chiphead 00:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem presented... again: Miyamoto probably did not supervise much of the translation, because he is not fluent in English, perhaps? And, then, why does it warrant a mention in anything other than the original DKC? -- A Link to the Past 01:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

There was no translation involved. Rare is based in England. They speak English there. The game was originally made in English. I imagine that if they were so closely partnered with Nintendo at the time, then there were people there who spoke fluent Japanese. I don't see how something this important could have slipped through as a translation error.

It warrants a mention because it became canon and was never removed from canon. Therefore, it remains canon. Why is that so difficult? Things don't stop existing the moment they stop being mentioned.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your arguments with a source of any kind. -- Sparky Z 01:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You... for Heaven's sake, are you blind? What am I supposed to do, find a link to Miyamoto saying that he has not expressed this opinion? I've constantly offered a compromise to express both opinions without siding with either one, but your refusal shows your zealous nature. Is it THAT big of a deal that you refuse any compromise, that you'll debate to the bitter end to have your viewpoint expressed as the only viewpoint? -- A Link to the Past 01:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Miyamoto has stated that he was involved with Donkey Kong Country, and quite a few people from Nintendo have verified our "viewpoint." We have presented sources to prove it. And I did present a compromise, but you're the one who turned it down. -- Chiphead 01:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If I accepted the compromise, the article would include a statement that it was at least once fact. There IS reason to believe that Miyamoto never knew about this. Miyamoto didn't know about Princess Toadstool, yet it's absurd to believe he didn't know about this? Is is that horrifying of an idea to have both viewpoints expressed? -- A Link to the Past 01:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not blind. I'm asking you to prove, or provide sufficient evidence, that the identity of Cranky Kong provided by Rare is no longer canon. "There's a chance that Miyamoto didn't know about it" doesn't cut it. Since when does Miyamoto determine what's canon, anyway? We need something more sunstantial. Otherwise, anybody could say anything and call it a "viewpoint". Under your system, I could claim that Cranky Kong is actually an old senile version of Samus Aran, and you'd have to include it. That's not a compromise, it's a free-for-all. -- Sparky Z 01:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Except that's not an issue. You're turning Wikipedia into a circus; the two both legitimate viewpoints on Cranky Kong are that he is either Donkey Kong or just the father of Donkey Kong. Same as how Ganon expresses the two viewpoints on whether or not Ganon can apply to both Ganon and Ganondorf. You're just trying to be difficult and make up crap like this to invalidate any sort of a compromise. You DO realize that many articles project multiple viewpoints, right? So why, exactly, must this be the one and only article that cannot? -- A Link to the Past 01:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about Ganon, so I can't comment on what is fact on that subject. You object to my compromise because "the article would include a statement that it was at least once fact." It WAS fact. When Donkey Kong Country first came out, it was first established, and there was nothing that contradicted it. Nowadays, Nintendo's marketing has been known to slip up (for example, Mario vs. Donkey Kong promotion), but that wasn't an issue at the time. -- Chiphead 02:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Insisting on rigourous fact-checking turns Wikipedia into a circus? How does that work? And just what crap was it that I made up? Please, enlighten me. I'd like specifics.

Anyway, this article can have as many viewpoints as can be supported by the evidence. In all this time, you have not posted a single source. Not one. Why is that?

The guidelines in question state "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject—you will not be around forever to answer questions. This is a good opportunity to check your own facts. Who knows, you might find that what you were about to write was incorrect or incomplete." You havn't done that, and until you do, your statements have no more weight than my Samus Aran theory. -- Sparky Z 02:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That would entail the Samus CK connection to actually exist. The counter-argument to the CK/DK connection is very much existing, and claiming it's not is just denial. As it is now, I can put in that Ganon is actually his stage name? Because the article established multiple view points. -- A Link to the Past 03:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You need sources if you want a valid argument. When you asked for a source, you got it. [1] Now we're asking you for a source. Either provide a source that states that Nintendo/Miyamoto never agreed that Cranky Kong is the original Donkey Kong, or accept my compromise. -- Chiphead 03:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That can't be sourced. It is a matter of assumption that since Miyamoto has never commented that his opinion cannot be established. -- A Link to the Past 03:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Coming from somebody who couldn't assume that Nintendo oversees the content of a game that they published themselves, assumptions aren't sufficient. We have an interview in which Miyamoto flat-out stated his involvement with the game. If his team was involved with the game, they would obviously know about the characters, and about Cranky Kong. Now where's your evidence that they wouldn't know? This is getting ridiculous. -- Chiphead 04:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The man can't read English all too well now as it is. When you look back at DKC, he would have an even worst time at it. -- A Link to the Past 04:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The language barrier shouldn't be an issue; if what you're saying is true, there was probably an interpreter to translate everything. -- Chiphead 04:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The same translator that told him what they changed Peach's name to. -- A Link to the Past 04:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that? You're still not giving us any sources. -- Chiphead 04:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You sure love that fact, don't you? Ever occur to you that he just never bothered to ask? As far as he was concerned, the game was completed. That's different from being involved in the developement of a game that takes place in a second language. If you consider yourself 10% involved, you've defenitly had some in-depth discussions.

Funny how everytime we counter one of your arguments, you just ingnore us and move on to the next one. Stop avaoiding our questions. -- Sparky Z 04:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and read all of these arguments, and it seems to me that there is one assumption that is causing all the trouble - that the DK who appears in games like Mario Party and Jungle Beat is the same DK who appears in DKC. Obviously he's the same "character," just like the Link in the original Legend of Zelda is the same "character" as the Link in Wind Waker, even though they are, in terms of continuity, different individuals. Since the very beginning, Mr. Miyamoto has had no problem with creating different versions of his characters. As he stated in the interview cited above, it was his intention for the player to control Donkey Kong in Donkey Kong Jr, he just made a smaller version for practical reasons, while preserving the original at the same time. This is exactly what Rare did in DKC, creating a new Donkey Kong who served the purposes of their game, while preserving the original in the form of Cranky. Mr. Miyamoto didn't have a problem doing this himself in DK Jr, and if he has a problem with Rare doing it, he's certainly been keeping quite about it for the last decade.

So, Rare ran with their version of Donkey Kong throughout their DK games, while the "character" of Donkey Kong continued to appear in Mario games. Now it is natural to assume that the DK in all those Mario games is the Country DK, but it was never actually been stated either way. Sure he looks the same, but that was an artistic choice and has nothing to do with continuity. Just look at the art style in Wind Waker, for example. Just because it looks fundamentally different from Ocarina of Time doesn't mean that it isn't part of the same story. The point is Nintendo never said that the DK in Smash Bros, Mario Party, or Jungle Beat is the same version of Donkey Kong who appeared in Donkey Kong Country. Therefore, there is no contradiction as you perceive it, Link to the Past. All those games that refer to what looks like the DKC Donkey Kong being the original Arcade Donkey Kong are merely talking about the character Donkey Kong, and not referring to a specific version. There's no reason, for instance, why the arcade DK can't have kidnapped Pauline, been kidnapped in return, invaded a greenhouse, gone on a nonsensical rampage through the jungle, had a few parties, played a few rounds of golf and a couple of games of tennis, and then eventually retired an old, cynical ape who remembers the good times and waves a stick at people. Nintendo obviously isn't all that fussed about which version of DK they are using in what game, so I don't see why we should be either. So how about something like this for a compromise, "Donkey Kong has been portrayed in many ways in his long career. As the 8-bit ape who kidnapped Mario's girlfriend; as his heroic son Jr and the tie-wearing hero who thwarted King K. Rool (who may or may not be the same ape), and even as his old, retired self, Cranky Kong, etc., etc." There, no unfounded arguments about whether or not Cranky is the original DK, which he is as surely as George W. Bush is currently the president of the United States (his dad never actually told me he we was president, but I'm taking other people's word for it). No insinuations that Nintendo are contradicting themselves by saying that Donkey Kong is Mario's oldest rival (by any overly complex definition of the term "rival"). Just the facts about Donkey Kong as they have been presented to us by all of those people responsible for his creation. Not just Mr. Miyamoto, not just Rare, not just King Kong, and not just Popeye. Every single person who has had a hand in making a Donkey Kong game has helped shape the character in his many, varying forms. Each has just as much weight as the others and it is just blatantly biased fanboyism to say anything to the contrary. --Frogstar 07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Cranky Kong was made for the sake of being the original Donkey Kong, but I am denying that it is completely canonical. If I didn't, I would be gunning for my position being used in the article as opposed to yours, but I'm trying to get both positions in. -- A Link to the Past 11:52, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be canonical? It was referenced in several games, and clearly stated in his first appearance. If that's not canonical, neither is Cranky Kong's existance in the first place. -- Chiphead 14:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I said COMPLETELY canonical. Just end this with an agreement that both sides will be presented. -- A Link to the Past 14:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by completely canonical? Either it happened or it didn't. Now accept my compromise, or explain why you don't agree with it, with sources to back yourself up. -- Chiphead 14:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There ARE no sources claiming he never commented on this, because that would mean he HAS commented on this. Completely canonical would mean that it's officially established, just like multiple Links. There is dispute, but not on the level of this. I don't agree with it because it requires that the statement be in your favor. -- A Link to the Past 14:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, it WAS officially established in the first game Cranky Kong appeared in, which Miyamoto and friends supervised. This would suggest that Miyamoto supports the fact that Cranky is the old DK. There is nothing that suggests that he doesn't. If he never commented on this, maybe he didn't feel the need to. -- Chiphead 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In one game, that can't be shown that Miyamoto even knew the line was put in. The fact that it's no longer even mentioned shows that there IS a need for both viewpoints to be put in. Miyamoto has constantly commented on things in Zelda that are made obvious in the games. -- A Link to the Past 15:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why this even in dispute. Unless they specifically say otherwise, what happens in the game is canon for that game and series. That's what canon means. Did Miyamoto confirm every single detail that can be found on the Link page? Of course not. But he hasn't disputed it, either, which means it's correct by default. You have to come up with something better if you want to question Cranky's identity.

And stop trying to use the Multiple Links theory to justify this. That's entirely different for 2 reasons:

1. There are many mutually exclusive details about the Links from various games, making it entirely impossible for it to be the same one in every game, and...

2. The theory doesn't try to remove or invalidate details from any of the games. Instead, it uses all of them to create a theory, because there is no legitimate reason that any game is less canon than any other.

Your theory isn't justifiable, because you are arbitrarily picking your sources to acheive your own ends. Either come up with something better then you have, or give it up. -- Sparky Z 15:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

And the fact that it's no longer mentioned means nothing. It's only contradicted if the exact opposite is said. We have more evidence that Miyamoto knew about the fact (which was more than one line; it was constantly being referenced throughout the game) than you have that he didn't.

I've also decided to amend my compromise: "Cranky Kong was introduced by Nintendo and Rare as the original Donkey Kong who appeared in the arcade games. While Nintendo's marketing department has been known to contradict this (such as promotional material for Mario vs. Donkey Kong, there is nothing in the content of the games that contradicts it," or something like that. And don't use the Smash Bros. trophy, because we've established that those aren't prefectly accurate. -- Chiphead 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statement on the accuracy of the SSBM trophies is applicable, but again, there are flaws; the idea that Hal would have made a mistake like in Meta Knight's case is highly unlikely (Japan's Hal, mind you). If you specify that NCL has not confirmed this, but David Owsen and NoE has supported this idea, then I'll accept this. -- A Link to the Past 15:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I can accept that. -- Sparky Z 15:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't know... NCL was pretty involved with the game. That seems like confirmation to me. -- Chiphead 21:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That 10% may not have covered even plot. A confirmation would entail that they actually imply agreement. Did you know that the Oracles contradict The Wind Waker, in showing a Triforce symbol on Link's hand, despite him being outside of Hyrule? Miyamoto supervised every bit of the game, too. -- A Link to the Past 22:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know much about the Zelda series, but how is that relevant to this discussion? There hasn't been a contradiction like that in the DK series. Are you suggesting we base our decisions on "It's possible they might contradict it later". That applies to any fact about any franchise ever. If it ever actually happens, then, of course we'd add it, but not until.

As for the 10% not covering plot, what else would it be about? The sound effects? Miyamoto is primarily an idea man, and we're talking about the entire concept behind the game, here. Not an insignificant detail.

I still don't see why you insist that we say "While it is in the game, Nintendo has not personally confirmed it" in the article. That applies to a lot of facts in a lot of VG Wikipedia articles. Why this one? Quite frankly, I think the one Chiphead proposed most recently says all that needs to be said. -- Sparky Z 22:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because it is in need of being pointed out. If people are told that Nintendo agrees, they won't know all the facts. They will assume that Nintendo means Miyamoto has said this Aonuma, Iwata, Yamauchi, Sakurai, Yokoi, etc. have said this (despite several of them not having anything to do with this and added for no particular reason), as opposed to NoE and David Owsen saying it. The fact that this is only cooberated by their American and European divisions needs to be pointed out. I'm not claiming that the article say NCL disagrees, so what's the problem? -- A Link to the Past 23:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I said, that applies to a lot of facts in a lot of VG Wikipedia articles. Why this one, specifically? -- Sparky Z 23:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because the other games' facts aren't involved in an argument that spans many forums. Presenting that NCL has never officially commented on the matter would help people understand the matter more. If people are told that Nintendo supports it, they'll assume that it's being openly supported by Nintendo as a whole, which can't be shown to be true. -- A Link to the Past 23:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but you're the only one I see arguing for your side. That's not enough. To once again quote the guidelines for citing sources: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel phrases like, "Some people say..." Instead, find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion." Find that, and I'll agree. Otherwise, just the fact that you've kept arguing with us for several pages isn't enough to justify adding it to the article. -- Sparky Z 00:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

To put it bluntly - if no one was on my side, there would be no argument. And if you deny that there hasn't been a widespread argument over this, then I can't help but wonder what rock you've been under. -- A Link to the Past 00:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If it's so widespread, why can't you produce a source? Sure there were several on your side towards the beginning of this whole ordeal, but they stopped arguing around the time we starting producing evidence.

Furthermore, even if you choose to count them on your side, that's still not enough. I just provided the exact text of the Wikipedia guideline refering to this very situation, and you ignored it. Until you fulfil those conditions, you have no case. -- Sparky Z 00:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have no case that they never commented on this? The problem is that you know well that the argument IS widespread; The fact that you seem to think that the side against Cranky Kong being DK is miniscule. Are you telling me that giving a vague reference to Nintendo AS Nintendo, opposed to actually saying WHO actaually supported this is not a good idea? Putting in Nintendo implied that NCL, NoE and NoA combined have confirmed this. Saying that Nintendo is supporting this is not accurate, because the region-based division of Nintendo most commonly attributed with this is Nintendo Corporate Ltd. When people say Nintendo, they either mean Nintendo as a whole or Nintendo in Japan. Nintendo of America is not often specified as Nintendo, and Nintendo of Europe even less so. There ARE people on both sides, and the fact that you refuse to accept that there's an argument shows that you're being stubborn to prevent the opponent's argument from being presented. There is obviously POV behind this; no matter how much proof you have that David Owsen, Nintendo of Europe and Rare support this, you want to leave a statement in the article implying that NCL supports this. -- A Link to the Past 00:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

NCL gave permission to make the game in the first place, and collaborated with Rare, overseeing what they were doing with their argument. We've gone over what Dan Owsen and other NOA employees have said, and the NOE press release. The original heading for the article simply said that Cranky was the original Donkey Kong. I say we bring that back, with a footnote like what I wrote before, explaining where any confusion would come from. --Chiphead 01:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If NoE, someone who is almost completely uninvolved, can release a statement, why can't NCL? I'm not suggesting telling people that NCL doesn't agree with it, I'm suggesting telling people that they have never expressed an opinion on it. Referring that Nintendo has made the statement will confuse people. Specify that NoE and NoA have taken a stance on this and NCL hasn't, but don't make it seem like they have. -- A Link to the Past 01:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the Wiki entry on Cranky as it stands right now with the problem areas (as I see them) highlighted,

"A number of years ago, Rare released an official statement that Cranky Kong is indeed the original Donkey Kong. However, Donkey Kong was created by Shigeru Miyamoto and copyrighted to Nintendo. Nintendo has countered Rare's claim by stating that the Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong Country and all games following is the same Donkey Kong that kidnapped Mario's girlfriend Pauline, not Cranky Kong. Nintendo constantly refers to Donkey Kong as "Mario's oldest rival." Hence, Cranky Kong is NOT the original Donkey Kong.

It should be noted that contradicting Nintendo's claims, the manual for the Game Boy title Donkey Kong Land (which was approved by Nintedo for distribution) has Kranky referring to himself as the original Donkey Kong, and challenging the pair of Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong to have as good an adventure as Donkey Kong Country on less powerful hardware (the Game Boy of the time being more powerful than the original machines which played Donkey Kong, but slightly less powerful than a [Nintendo Entertainment System])."

As it stands, this is a biased entry that implies one side of the argument to be more valid than the other.

First of all, Rare didn't just "release an official statement" that Cranky is the original DK, they set it forth as the very basis for his character and the foundation of the Donkey Kong Country series. It wasn't just a one-time thing, it's what the whole character is all about.

Second, until you can provide a direct quotation stating that "Nintendo has countered Rare's claim by stating that the Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong Country and all games following is the same Donkey Kong that kidnapped Mario's girlfriend Pauline, not Cranky Kong," this statement has no place in the article as it is blatantly false.

Third, the article is currently laid out as if Nintendo and Rare are at odds with each other over the issue. It's all "Rare claims this" or "Nintendo refutes that," when actually there is no such conflict between the two companies. Rare created Cranky as an elderly version of the original Donkey Kong in a Nintendo sanctioned game. Nintendo has never contradicted this point to this day, and you can't prove otherwise without a direct quotation from one of those people who you assume represent Nintendo as a whole. And Nintendo saying that Donkey Kong is Mario's oldest rival doesn't cut it. As I explained above, the architypal charcter Donkey Kong is Mario's oldest rival, just like the architypal character Link is Ganon's oldest enemy, despite the fact that Link has been at least two different individuals in his career. If Nintendo were to say of the Wind Waker Link, "Ganon once again comes face to face with his old nemesis, Link," would you insist that the content of Wind Waker's story has been officially nulled by Nintendo and that the Link in WW is the same person as the Link in OoT after all? Of course you wouldn't.

And finally, "Cranky" is spelled with a 'C' --Frogstar 01:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

For convenience, this is a breakdown of Link's recent posts argument by argument.

"I have no case that they never commented on this?"

I don't know if you have one, but if you do, you certainly havn't presented it.

"The problem is that you know well that the argument IS widespread; The fact that you seem to think that the side against Cranky Kong being DK is miniscule."

Actually, I don't know that, and you havn't done a very good job of convincing me. I sure don't see any legions of people rushing to support you.

"Are you telling me that giving a vague reference to Nintendo AS Nintendo, opposed to actually saying WHO actaually supported this is not a good idea? Putting in Nintendo implied that NCL, NoE and NoA combined have confirmed this. Saying that Nintendo is supporting this is not accurate, because the region-based division of Nintendo most commonly attributed with this is Nintendo Corporate Ltd. When people say Nintendo, they either mean Nintendo as a whole or Nintendo in Japan. Nintendo of America is not often specified as Nintendo, and Nintendo of Europe even less so."

You apparently seem to think that NCL, NoA, and NoE are entirely seperate companies. They aren't. NoA and NoE are divisions of NCL. They're all one big corporation. Therefore, if NoA or NoE say something, it is entirely correct to say that "Nintendo" said it. That is the legal defenition of a corporation, a large group of people that acts as an individual.

"There ARE people on both sides..."

If there are, I'd sure like to meet them. Despite our requests, you have yet to show us anywhere that has. Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

"...and the fact that you refuse to accept that there's an argument shows that you're being stubborn to prevent the opponent's argument from being presented."

What have I done to prevent you from presenting your argument? In fact, I asked you repeatedly to bolster your agument with facts and sources. You've simply ignored us.

"There is obviously POV behind this"

Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. In fact, let me make this perfectly clear, all we are doing are rejecting arguments that have no factual basis. We aren't trying to push some sort of ideology, we aren't trying to hide the truth. We aren't even trying to discredit you. We've already stated that we will gladly include your argument if you back it up with facts.

"no matter how much proof you have that David Owsen, Nintendo of Europe and Rare support this, you want to leave a statement in the article implying that NCL supports this."

and

"If NoE, someone who is almost completely uninvolved, can release a statement, why can't NCL? I'm not suggesting telling people that NCL doesn't agree with it, I'm suggesting telling people that they have never expressed an opinion on it. Referring that Nintendo has made the statement will confuse people. Specify that NoE and NoA have taken a stance on this and NCL hasn't, but don't make it seem like they have."

As I said above, NCL does support it because NoA supports it and NoA is part of NCL. That's how these things work.

I will repeat this one more time. All you need to do is fulfill the Wikipedia guidelines regarding this situation, and we will accept your argument. Believe it or not, the rules do apply to you. -- Sparky Z 01:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I did not write the claim that the original DK was the original DK. Will you guys stop being so stubborn over the idea of pointing out that it is not necessarily supported by NCL? If we're going to say Nintendo supports this, then we're going to have to point out that only two divisions of Nintendo have openly supported this.

Nintendo of America said that Princess Peach was actually Princess Toadstool, but NCL thought different. They sure do work closely together, eh?

And, here's the thing: the fact is that they have NEVER commented on this, so I have a very GOOD case that they haven't.

Even the biggest supporter on your side would not claim that the argument does not exist. So, you guys are arguing with yourself? That, or there are people arguing against you.

And you constantly tell me "Well, if you can PROVE they've never commented, we'll include it." Proof that they never commented will make my argument null and void, because that would require that they comment on it in the first place.

And I'm just so bothered that you so vehemently refuse to include a note that NCL has not commented. If NoE says something, say that NoE said something. We do not say that Nintendo changed Princess Peach's name, because Nintendo of America did it. Despite your beliefs, NCL and NoA aren't that close right now as it is, consider how bad it was then. You're telling me to accept a statement that implies NCL commented on this and agreed. It cannot even be proven that NCL knew about this; stuff implies this, such as other divisions stating this, but they do not work that close with the other divisions.

Anyway, let's just assume that you won't have a fatal heart attack at the sight of your viewpoint not being the only viewpoint presented in anyway, that if we include a statement that even gives a miniscule hint that NCL may not have agreed with these texts you won't have a stroke. Is it so horrible of an idea to tell the visitors of the page that this is not a viewpoint necessarily felt by Nintendo as a whole? -- A Link to the Past 01:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Listen to what we say for once. We have never asked you to prove that they've never commented on it. We're asking you to prove all of the other statements you've made. I'm compiling a list, and will post it soon. -- Sparky Z 02:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here are the 4 most overt statements you've made for which you've provided no sources:

"Also, note that DK Jr. was still a baby in Mario Kart 64 when Mario had met Princess Peach and company looong ago. And don't say he's not in it; that may be true, but he was in it originally."

"The problem is that you know well that the argument IS widespread"

"When people say Nintendo, they either mean Nintendo as a whole or Nintendo in Japan. Nintendo of America is not often specified as Nintendo, and Nintendo of Europe even less so."

"NCL and NoA aren't that close right now as it is, consider how bad it was then."

Also, at one point you acused me of "trying to be difficult and make up crap." I asked you what crap I made up, and you never responded.

Just to be clear: we do not dispute the fact that nobody from NoJ has commented on this issue wither way. We simply qeustion whether it is relevant to include. -- Sparky Z 02:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because this point HAS to be addresseds. By saying Nintendo, it is not adequate. It sounds less like "NoE and NoA are saying this, but NCL is not necessarily agreeing with it" and more like "Every division of Nintendo agrees with this". You ARE being difficult. The argument doesn't exist if there's no one on the other side. It's common knowledge that this is disputed.

...Well, I guess I can't prove they don't have good connections. Other than the fact that NoA changed Peach's name, and it took more than a decade for it to be reverted. And it IS common knowledge that people apply Nintendo to NCL and Nintendo as a whole. NCL is the first division of Nintendo ever created, and was created more than 100 years ago. NoA, NoE, NoAu were all made to translate their games for their respective regions. NCL is the core of Nintendo, and thusly, is what Nintendo is most commonly applied to. Many people never even heard of NCL, always assuming it to be NoJ. And, you call DK Jr. being in Mario Kart 64 overused, when I said it once? If you say Nintendo, it will create confusion that the original Nintendo studio made these statements, not Nintendo of Europe or David Owsen. It should be established WHO said what. The way it is now in this compromise is clearly in your favor and is completely relentless to see to it that it not be stated that NCL has not commented on these. We always point out in stories, that such and such has no comment, and in an issue such as this which has been disputed since it started, Nintendo not commenting and even never bringing it up once since Rare left. This IS relevant. Putting in Nintendo makes people think NCL, not NoA or NoE. It's common sense, it does not need to be proved. You're saying that the oldest division by 100 years, the division that makes the vast majority of Nintendo's games, is not what people think of when they hear Nintendo (outside of Nintendo as a whole)? If it's relevant to include a mention that this statement has not appeared in any games after Rare left, then it's relevant to point out that Nintendo has not commented on it outside of the game either. -- A Link to the Past 02:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's just step back for a second. Link to the Past, why don't you tell us how you think the article currently labeled "The Original Donkey Kong?" in the Cranky Kong section should read and we'll go from there. --Frogstar 03:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's say... Expand on the 'Rare and Nintendo' supporting the idea to specify what parts of Nintendo actually have openly supported it (and pointing out that no position has been established by NCL), include the notice about how it has not been used since Rare had left. Reasonable enough? -- A Link to the Past 03:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I hearby declare this section a failure. Lets start over. -- Sparky Z 03:17, August 10, 2005

Okay, Lets Try This Another Way

This argument has gotten so convoluted and intricate its hard to keep track of. Lets just start over. The issue in dispute here, and the entire reason for this discussion, is to determine whether Cranky Kong is the original Donkey Kong or not. I say we debate this more formally to avoid the same thing happening here that happened up there. Please keep your writing unitalicized so that it's easy to tell our writing apart.

Sparky Z's argument

It has been established above that...

1. Cranky Kong was introduced in DKC as the original DK.

2. It is more likely than not that Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of Donkey Kong approved of this.

3. Throughout the production of DKC, either Shigeru Miyamoto or "his people" acted as representatives of NCL, involved in a self-proclaimed 10% of production, and never stopped Rare from claiming that Cranky is the original DK.

4. An excerpt from the manual of DKC, written by an employee of NoA also confims that Cranky is the original DK.

5. The game was originally made in English, so this could not be the result of a translation error, a la Princess Peach/Toadstool.

6. Since that time, it has not been officially disputed by anyone or anything that Cranky Kong is not the original DK.

If you disagree with any of these facts, please let me know.

I believe these facts provide sufficient evidence that Cranky Kong is indisputably the original Donkey Kong. Despite searching, I have not been able to find any public individual or group which is aware of these facts but disagrees with my conclusion. Therefore, I don't consider it necessary to include this as a contrary viewpoint.

Finally, as long as the facts I listed are presented in the article, I do not believe it is necessary to state that NoJ has not commented on this issue one way or the other. In fact, it is rather silly to assume that they would, as there is no reason to consider this widely disputed. -- Sparky Z 03:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

There's also the fact that they haven't used the idea after Rare left. -- A Link to the Past 03:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

But they've used the character of Cranky Kong, and he has not said or done anything to imply that he is not the original DK. There's no reason to assume that just because it hasn't come up means it is no longer true.

Ultimatly it does not provide evidence either way. -- Sparky Z 03:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

When did I say it did? It IS a point that has to be addressed in a neutral article. -- A Link to the Past 03:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why that would be necessary. In fact, I tried drafting a version that mentions it, but it just sounded superfluous. There's no real dispute involved. Being the original DK is an established part of his character. Why would anybody expect them to constantly restate it? -- Sparky Z 03:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

It seemed important enough to establish Cranky Kong's identity in Donkey Kong Land, Donkey Kong Country and various other games, but not in any Nintendo-developed games featuring him? -- A Link to the Past 03:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall it being brought up in Donkey Kong Country 3. Does that mean that Rare didn't agree with the fact for a few years, then decided to bring it back in Donkey Kong 64? It doesn't make any sense to me. As long as the fact isn't specifically denied in a game, it's still valid. --Chiphead 04:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It IS a relevant point that Nintendo-developed games never expressed this view. It isn't the whole skipping the fact, it's the whole company change; Rare often presented this fact in their games, Nintendo hasn't. -- A Link to the Past 04:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

But there have been games in which Rare didn't feel it necessary to state the fact. Nintendo is no different. By that logic, rewriting the entire series is the only way to avoid erasing anything from canon. --Chiphead 04:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and there haven't been any games with Cranky Kong in them that even mentioned it. DKL felt it necessary to state this? Wow, really? I didn't realize, since the statement was completely irrelevant to the game. Four games with Cranky Kong developed by Nintendo and not a single one of them even hints that he's DK. You DID seem to think it deserves a mention in your first compromise, now you seem to be trying to fade it out to underexpose the argument that he's not DK. I try to get the fact that NCL hasn't commented on it in, you say "No, that's not relevant, let's just say Nintendo and assume that the readers will know that NCL didn't comment on it, somehow." I say include the fact that the idea hasn't been used in five years and has not been used in non-Rare games, you say "Well, it wasn't in DKC3 either!" You assume coincidence, I give the benefit of the doubt to both sides. You cannot say that these are not applicable, because pointing out that Nintendo said it makes it seem that Nintendo as a whole did a press release, when only one did, a membet of another wrote a manual, and NCL didn't even comment on it at any time. And, seriously, stop. You've been trying to block any argument from entering the article, even if it has some legitimacy. It puts forth the idea that Nintendo may not support this. Note 'may not'. And your one single argument is that Rare didn't state it in one of their games. There's a big difference between Rare using it in almost all of their games, and Nintendo using them in none. -- A Link to the Past 04:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

We've been blocking arguments? That's not even possible. We've never erased anything you've said, or stopped you from saying it. In fact, in most cases we asked you for more information which you refused to provide.

Instead of mocking our reasons for omiting those points, why not try explaining why they should be included in the article. -- Sparky Z 05:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Changes in creative staff for long-running series happen all the time in every type of media: TV, movies, books, comics, etc. When new writers take over, they don't feel the need to restate what the old writers have said, as long as they don't contradict it. Video games are no different. --Chiphead 05:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant in the article. I have a hard time thinking otherwise, when Chip, you had changed your mind completely to keep the argument out. Anyway, the disclusion of Nintendo Corporate Ltd's lack of statement on the matter completely is just unnecessary. It serves as an argument that they may not agree, so if we DO compromise, then it wouldn't be much of a compromise if this aspect of the argument isn't allowed. Anyway, let me just ask you - what is so horrifying about these facts being in the article? Yes, I mean, God forbid that the readers actually KNOW who said what. You say Nintendo agrees with this? Which division? They don't know anything about the matter then! Confusion WILL arise, despite your insistance that there would not be any. If they're not told that Nintendo of Europe didn't say it, then what? If they're not told who wrote the manual, then what? Limiting it to Nintendo implies that everyone has commented on the issue at hand. And, as such, that would be a lie.Oh, and it'd be really nice if you stopped claiming that I mocked anyone or anything. I never said your argument held no merit; It is you who time after time says that there should be no mention of Nintendo's lack off comments on the issue, and requiring that it just be referred to as Nintendo. If we say "Nintendo has commented on it", that would entail that the company as a whole or Nintendo Corporate Ltd. had commented on it, both of which are false. There will be no compromise if you insist that we don't establish the POV from all sides, even the lack of POV from them. And Chip, you basically said that it is impossible for Nintendo to disagree, at least now. You tell me to prove that NCL has not commented or whatever, yet you feel no need in telling me one good reason why my argument is virtually impossible? The only way a compromise will EVER happen is if the compromise has at least a single itsy bitsy support to our side. As it stands, your compromise is "Okay, well, have our argument be fact, and have none of your evidence presented in the article." That is not a compromise. The argument of the recent games is that they may no longer consider CK as DK. Unless you can give me one good reason why this argument can't be true, you cannot leave it out. If adequate evidence is going to be given to each side, you are going to obviously provide that Nintendo of Europe has commented on it, and the fact that NCL cannot be shown for undeniable fact to have agreed with this IS relevant to the article, regardless of the fact that it does not support your viewpoint. -- A Link to the Past 05:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

My original compromise was that Nintendo and Rare established it, but Nintendo has recently denied it. Upon realizing that nothing in the actual content of the games contradicted the fact, I amended the compromise to mention it, but also felt the need to mention that Nintendo's marketing department has been known to make mistakes on the subject, so as to explain where any confusion (and the only "argument against" that isn't directly contradicted by an "argument in favor") comes from. I find the fact that NCL didn't comment to be irrelevant, as they collaborated with Rare on the game; and my compromise to be perfectly reasonable. --Chiphead 05:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly reasonable. If you're going to use the fact NoE supports this, there is no logical reason why the fact that NCL has not even hinted, from its own mouth, that Cranky Kong is Donkey Kong. There is nothing, at all, stating what they collaborated WITH them on. It never says they had even a miniscule role in the plot. You absolutely refuse to allow that to be pointed out; you wish that there only be the fact that NoE commented, that David Owsen wrote the manual for DKL, and you wish that the fact that NCL has never commented by mentioned, but you also wish to refer to the agreers as every division of Nintendo. And since you seem to have ignored it; why is it an impossibility that the argument I present, on Cranky Kong not being referred to as the original DK by Nintendo as of late in any of their games? Have fun with that. -- A Link to the Past 05:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Three global branches of Nintendo have been shown to have agreed with the fact at least once: The American branch (DKC manual and text), the European branch (DKC GBA press release), and the Japanese branch (Smash Bros. trophy). Plus, the American and European branches write in English, making it considerably easier to find statements from them than the Japanese branch. And has we have already stated several times why Nintendo may not referenced the fact. --Chiphead 06:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't you see that your whole argument does not warrant the level of attention you are trying to give it? You even said yourself that you were "not denying that Cranky Kong was made for the sake of being the original Donkey Kong." Why then must you insist on drawing attention to the idea that NCL may or may not agree with this characterization despite the fact they have never contradicted it even though it has always been in their power to do so? Sure, since Rare left they do seem to have been keen to ignore the idea in favor of a more generalized, architypal portrayal of DK, but they have never, to my knowledge or by any proof that you have been able to provide, contradicted it. Therefore, I see no need to mention any of this in Cranky's bio. His whole character hinges on the idea that he is the original Donkey Kong. It is a fundamental part of his personality that even you have admitted to agree with. Why then, in an encylopedia entry that is supposed to inform people about who this character is, do you feel the need to state your unsubstantiated opinion that Nintendo might think differently? And, yes, it is your opinion that Nintendo might not consider Cranky to be the arcade DK, because they have never said so themselves in any way shape or form. Until you can provide evidence that Nintendo do not consider Cranky to be the original DK, then all you have is your own personal theory, and that sort of thing does not belong here. --Frogstar 06:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So, to put it bluntly, there IS no compromise? I just have to sit back and accept no representation of my side's arguments, right? Yeah, that's really great. However, I don't subscribe to that kind of crap. Pointing out that Nintendo has no taken a position on the character that THEY themselves own IS necessary if we're going to point out that Nintendo of Europe and David Owsen agree with the identity of Cranky Kong. If Nintendo may possibly be dropping that side of Cranky Kong, then that's a relevant point. If Nintendo agreed then, then there could be an argument that they don't agree now because of the fact that they have never, themselves, added any mention of it. You may think that it's new writers, then include a note about it. But it is NOT expressing my opinion when I'm the one trying to get each argument presented equally without trying to block my opponent's evidence. Twice, you have not answered my freaking question, so answer it now - WHY. IS. IT. IMPOSSIBLE? Why could it not be that maybe they never mentioned it because they no longer agree with it or never agreed with it in the first place? You present your interpretation, great! But thaat does not rule out my interpretation. -- A Link to the Past 13:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence to your interpretation. As we've stated numerous times before, unless they specifically CONTRADICT a fact in a game, there's no reason to believe it's no longer true. Also, we have at least one piece of evidence from three global branches of Nintendo (including the Japanese one) that they believe the fact. --Chiphead 14:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question, of course it's not impossible. However, there are a lot of things that aren't impossible but still have no place in a Wikipedia article.

You yourself, at the beginning of this section, admitted that the fact that Nintendo hasn't commented is entirely ambiguous, and provides no evidence one way or the other. That means that there's no reason to include it in the article. It's just meaningless clutter.

If somebody ever asked a representative of NoJ what they thought, and they said "we refuse to comment", then it would be significant. As it stands, this isn't a refusal. It's simply an issue that Nintendo hasn't considered important enough to worry about. There is a very large amount of things that Nintendo as a company has never commented on. This is because the games speak for themselves. They don't need to be independently confirmed by the company which publishes the games. -- Sparky Z 14:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence to your interpretation. It SHOULD be noted that this fact appeared in several games under Rare's development, but then ceased to be mentioned in the Nintendo-developed games. You may argue that it could be the different writers, then add that to the article. But my point still stands that your interpretation is no more legitimate than mine.

And can you PROVE David Owsen represents Nintend of America? Nope. We are NOT going to say that Nintendo has commented on it because only David Owsen and Nintendo of Europe have. NCL has not. -- A Link to the Past 14:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, yes I can prove it, because that is the legal defenition of a corporation. A group of people acting as a single individual. That's why if a McDonalds employee spills coffee on you, you sue the company and not the specific employee. Furthermore, while it could be argued the Nintendo of Japan hasn't commented (despite the trophy), It can't be argued that Nintendo Co. Ltd. hasn't because NoA is a division of NCL. -- Sparky Z 14:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If Dan Owsen (who was not the only NOA employee who has commented on this) didn't represent NOA, they wouldn't have had him write the manual and text for their games. He had been working for the company for quite a few years, wrote the English text for a lot of other games (including A Link to the Past), and had a letters column, "Ask Dan" on Nintendo's old web site. And we have already pointed out evidence that NCL agrees, and why they could have stopped mentioning it. The fact that they haven't mentioned it means nothing, because they haven't mentioned anything contradicting it. It provides no evidence to either side. --Chiphead 15:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fact of the Day: Visit Metroid: Zero Mission's talk page, look around, and you'll find two NoA employees contradicting themselves.

Anyhow, how about this: "Nintendo Corporate Ltd. was reportedly involved with 10% of Donkey Kong Country, although they have not officially confirmed this idea." and "After Rare left, Cranky Kong being Donkey Kong has not been mentioned in any material in recent times, although this does not indicate that Nintendo does not support it." -- A Link to the Past 15:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If it does not indicate that Nintendo doesn't support it, nor does it indicate that they do, why mention it in the first place? And the Metroid Zero Mission debate is as pointless as this one. It was promoted as a remake, and while I have never gotten very far in the NES version, I recognized enough of the game in Zero Mission to know it's a remake. The fact that one of Nintendo's e-mail answering drones contradicted that means nothing. --Chiphead 15:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To show that NCL has not expressed an opinion on it, although it is likely that they may have. -- A Link to the Past 15:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

But what's the point in saying NCL hasn't said anything (which isn't true; their various worldwide branches are still part of the company) when it doesn't prove anything? We have more than enough evidence for our side, so seeing a point that's not on either side seems unnecessary. --Chiphead 16:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your first suggested statement is misleading. Saying it's been reported, but not confirmed seems to be saying that an outside source has claimed this without proof. In fact, the man in charge of this 10 %, Shigeru Miyamoto, confirmed it in an interview. That's as much "official confirmation" as any person could resonably expect.

You're second statement is also poorly worded. Saying that they have "never" commented on this is not necessarily correct. We havn't been able to find a comment, but that doesn't proclude the possibility that one exists. In fact, it isn't suprising we can't find one, considering that none of us speak Japanese. I'm willing to bet we could find the answer to all this in the instruction manual that came with Super Donkey Kong (the japanese version of DKC). The issue is simply finding a copy and translating it. Saying "never" when you havn't discounted every possible option is irresponsible. -- Sparky Z 16:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

NCL is not NoA + NoE + NoJ (which doesn't exist). NCL is only used for the Japanese branch. It does not support your argument, but it does question if Nintendo agrees currently or at all, because they have never once claimed it so. Yes, NCL is obviously far less able to comment on this in ANY way than NoE. If NoE can do a press release on this, then they can't they have one single respected member comment? Throughout this whole talk page, you've been trying your damndest to keep every single piece of information that support our argument. Problem presented? You cannot prove that NCL's lack of comment isn't indicative of disagreement. Problem presented, it can't be proven that Nintendo of America necessarily agrees with that specific writing of David Owsen. You're making an attempt to claim that because there's possible alternatives to that lack of mention in recent games, that it should not be mentioned. Mention it adequately and present your point, not try and silence this point. If it's phrased that all of Nintendo openly supports this, then they will be mislead.

Oh, okay, then remove the reportedly. It's that easy.

Well, I'd assume that since there has never been a quote shown (in this argument or outside of it) where they commented on it leaves room for doubt. Then change it to "No comment on the issue can be found from NCL on the issue, however" - add that to the 10% statement. Honestly, I do not see how big of a deal it is to include that after mentioning that they worked on the game. Because no comment CAN be found. -- A Link to the Past 16:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

How's this? We leave a comment (only visible to those editing the article) stating that we've been unable to find a source from Nintendo of Japan since the sale of Rare confirming this information. We ask anybody who has such a source to inccorporate it in the article and then delete the comment.

Can you provide a source clarifying how to use NCL and NoJ? The wikipedia article on Nintendo seems to support both versions. -- Sparky Z 16:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but on the condition that you include a notice saying that it has not been used in recent times after the sale of Rare. I'm not implying that it should be indicative of them not agreeing now and/or ever. As Chip has said, it can have multiple interpretations. Point out that it may indicate this, but that it could also be the new writers. [2] NCL doesn't have many Google results, but that is on account of it being an underknown fact. This is used at IGN and GameSpy, remember. And I do believe that NoJ is actually fanon. -- A Link to the Past 16:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, how about we refer to it as "NCL (The Japanese Branch of Nintendo)." That removes all ambiguity.

When you say "include a notice" do you mean on the page or in the comment?" -- Sparky Z 16:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

On the page. Don't make people think that it indicates that Cranky Kong has ceased to be Donkey Kong, but at least make this apparent to them. -- A Link to the Past 16:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a way to write that so that it fits into the Wikipedia "style" without sounding tautological, then I'll agree. At this point, it still seems to me that it's a "technically true" fact that still contain no useful information, and would only serve to clutter the article. That's why I think it will fit better as a comment. Something anybody can read, but won't get in the way. -- Sparky Z 16:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The article has officially been unprotect. Make changes now. -- A Link to the Past 17:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have to go right now, but I'll work on the article tonight. -- Sparky Z 17:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about removing the section labeled "The Original Donkey Kong?" altogether and in its place adding a paragraph to the end of Cranky's bio that reads something like this,

"Cranky is also said to be the original Donkey Kong who battled Mario in the Arcades back in 1981, with the present Donkey Kong being decended from him. This point was the focus of much of the humor surrounding Cranky in the Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong 64, although in more recent titles like Donkey Konga and DK: King of Swing, Nintendo has opted to not stress it so much."

I'll do that now and you guys and fiddle with it as you see fit. --Frogstar 17:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)