Talk:Papu Papu

Here are some suggestions for a way to resolve this dispute:

• First, we should get consensus on what it means to be "canon" vs. "non-canon." It seems much of the disagreement is over whether the selling of the castle is canon or not. But it's not very productive to debate that point unless we know exactly what that means. Would somebody like to throw out a possible definition, and we can see if there is any disagreement? If not, then that will stand as the definition, and we can move on to apply that definition to the selling of the castle.

Given my understanding of canon from the way it is defined in the official star trek website |Star trek, canon is an elusive concept, that is controlled largely by the creators of the video game/movie etc and is something about which even writers and fans can disagree on. It doesn't seem very useful for an encylopedia to be including something that is, by definition, a matter of opinion. Could the article simply state that "the epilogue says that Papu papu sold the ruins to a resort developer". This is a true statement of fact even if many people may consider the epilogues to be irrelevant to the real storyline (or consider them non-canonical) Zekechills 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the use of language referring to the epilogue would be a fair way to settle the dispute. By describing in neutral terms what happened in the epilogue, we can leave it up to the reader to interpret that fact in light of the reader's personal beliefs regarding the significance of the epilogue in video games such as this one. --Jonathanseibs714 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• We should get consensus on what an encyclopedia article about a video game character ought to look like. Since the old print encyclopedias didn't include such things, the Wikipedia community has the opportunity to decide. For example:

Is it legitimate to include speculation? The information might have been left ambiguous on purpose by the game's creator, in hopes that people WOULD speculate. In other words, perhaps the question of whether the castle was sold is not MEANT to be canon. If speculation as to the characters' actions is an integral part of the video game experience, then it seems that there could be a section in the article for a neutral discussion of the different speculations that are important in the gaming community. In other words, the dispute ITSELF might be something notable enough in the gaming community to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

I think it is legitimate and appropriate in this case to include a section on the speculation and differing opinions surrounding the sale of the castle and its disputed subsequent appearance in later games. My experience, and the obvious disagreement on this board, seems to suggest that this is a point of contention in the gaming community. (See alsoVU Games Community). I think the controversy is still relevant for an encyclopedic entry as it will alert information seekers to the contours of the debate and allow them to form their own opinions. Zekechills 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• We should build consensus on whether the existence of the castle in later games is relevant to the question of whether it was sold by Papu Papu. If the castle could have been sold but not demolished, then it's possible that it WAS sold even though it shows up later.
• If the question of the castle's existence IS relevant, then can somebody provide some screen shots of how the castle appears and functions in a later game? That way we at least don't have to keep arguing over whether the castle is there, whether it's intact, whether you can land on it etc. Let's just get that one taken care of easily with some proof.--Kgarrett 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be a good idea to just use the appropriate language to describe the situation with the castle. If there is a statement in the epilogue, then it might be helpful to post a screenshot or picture of what the epilogue says, or directly quote it. Therefore no one can dispute that the fact exists, though they might derive different meaning. Further if taken with Kgarrett's suggestion, the two screenshots side-by-side are just that screenshots, and indisputable. Any reader of wikipedia can then draw their own conclusion based on just the facts, as opposed to trying to speculate what makes sense. Non-reality worlds such as video games don't always make perfect sense, so maybe the best we can do is just to put out some facts. Cyberthinker 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• My take is that the concept of canonicity is sufficiently unclear that it is unreasonable to expect the wiki page to resolve this debate in favor of one or the other point of view. Maybe the best alternative is to have the page read as follows: "In the secret Crash Bandicoot ending, it is stated that Papu Papu sold the remains of Cortex Castle to a resort. Some have argued that this [epispde] should be considered canonical for reasons A, B, and C. Others have argued that the [episode] should be non-canonical for reasons D, E, F." If this is not acceptable, what's the defect and how could it be corrected? JMBleicher
  • I agree with this suggestion. The argument about whether or not it is canonical should be made with the understanding that this page is about PAPU PAPU and thus should link to the appropriate pages--like "cortex castle"--where a more in-depth discussion could be made if necessary Zekechills 19:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree that this page should not try to resolve the issue of canonicity. I think JMBleicher's suggestion of describing the debate makes sense, but since this was an argument between two people there hasn't been any evidence yet that it is actually a larger debate that should be noted in Wikipedia. An outside link to such a debate might be appropriate here to avoid the use of weasel words; otherwise we would just be using "some people" and "others" to summarize the views of two individuals. Without some evidence of the larger debate, I would suggest this alternative wording: "In the secret Crash Bandicoot ending, it is stated that Papu Papu sold the remains of Cortex Castle to a resort. The castle appears in later games as a backdrop and a bonus warproom in Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back." That way readers can draw their own conclusions based on facts reported in Wikipedia. As1412 16:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with As1412 on this: there's no indication of whether fans consider this a larger debate. As1412's proposed wording sets out the facts without generalizing the debate. Kaffeine8 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think there are two places to start here.
  • First, Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability says that the assertion should be cited to a reliable source. The policy states that the obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it, so in this case CBFan should cite to a reliable source about the epilogue being non-canon if he or she wishes to include that material.
  • “Canon” often refers to the source of the information, with items from the original source meriting canonical status in contrast to, for example, fan literature or spinoffs. The definition of canon as well as discussions of Star Trek and Star Wars canons give good context for this discussion. Fans can disagree about whether a certain item is canonical, but that doesn’t mean that either opinion is factually correct or incorrect. If CBFan can cite to a legitimately sourced debate among fans about whether the epilogue is part of the canon, it may be worthwhile to include a line describing the debate. As1412 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I would like us to consider other alternatives here than the semantics of canonicity. I think this is a dangerous categorical template for a few reasons. First, it assumes an unrealistic control over the creative continuity of serial episodic works. This stems largely from our over willingness to accept fiction as the product of a single author or creator when, invariably, they are the result of intense collaborative effort within and between works.
  • For example, in the Empire Strikes Back (Episode V), when the hyperdrive on the Millennium Falcon is damaged Han, Leia, Chewbacca and C-3PO travel from the Anoat asteroid system to Cloud City on Bespin even though they are in two different star systems. But traveling more slowly than the speed of light would have taken years, not the short time it takes in the film.
    • Conversely, in the Star Trek Universe, The Next Generation episdoe "Second Chances" refers to Commander William T. Riker's middle name as "Thomas" even though the extraordinary book "Imzadi," by Peter David says it is "Thelonious." The point here is twofold: suspension of disbelief and the impossibility of continuity in collaborative works, NOT an objective search for any discernible reality.
• Another essential aspect to consider is that episodic works, although obviously linked narratively to each other, often constitute separate realities, not necessarily teleologically structured chapters as one might unrealistically expect. For example, in the Super Mario Brothers series, Bowser, King of Koopas, seems to get killed off in every new game. Isn't he dead and his castle destroyed at the end of the first Super Mario Brothers? Strangely, in Super Mario World, Bowser's Castle seems to be underneath Dinosaur Land in the Valley of Bowser. In Paper Mario, Bowser's castle is directly under Peach's, which allows him to lift it into the sky, holding everyone in it hostage. In all of the Mario Kart games, Bowser's Castle is a course; Super Mario Kart and Mario Kart: Super Circuit have multiple examples. The track is different on each occasion, but they all share similar features.
• So in the end, perhaps we might look at this issue more subjectively and that events, however paradoxical, might not be mutually exclusive. Dsussner 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• The epilogue does say that Papu sold the remains of Cortex Castle, but as the castle is shown in good condition after this in the very next game, it sort of makes it impossible. This bit of info was unknown for a long time though. But you may need to block it again, as Mr Know-It-All is still vandalising.

• How does it make it impossible? Nowhere is it stated that the resort tore it down. And please refrain from personal attacks. Also, protection is not an endorsement of the page's current status.

• So you're saying you HAVEN'T played Crash Bandicoot, or at least seen the ending? Make up your mind. It quite clearly says that Papu sold the REMAINS of Cortex Castle...which he could not have done if the castle was still intact. Also, as you are a flammer, it is very difficult to not make a personal attack...especially with multiple accounts.

Resolution

• I am curious - what actual steps need to be taken before this issue is considered resolved? Do the original parties to the dispute have to sign off on some resolution? Is there a wikipedia official who will make an announcement? Or can the group of people who have been editing this page over the last day or two just arrive at consensus on a particular outcome? If we had the answers to these questions, maybe we would make some progress in terms of putting this dispute to rest. JMBleicher

Nothing on Wikipedia is resolved permanently. This issue can be considered temporarily resolved when all interested parties either come to an agreement or get tired of arguing. The issue may be brought up again if other parties become interested in it in the future, and they may even come to a different resolution, althought that too will probably be temporary. --Ideogram 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So what if one of us who has thought about this a fair amount were to propose a particular solution and the rest of us who have been keeping track of developments on this page were to vote on whether that solution seems fair to the contending parties? I think if the solution gained the support of the vast majority, that would be good evidence of its fairness. JMBleicher

I think "vote's" the wrong word, but some sort of consensus would be helpful. Both Cyberthinker and JMBleicher make solid suggestions above. Would anyone be opposed to either of those solutions? Kaffeine8 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that either of Cyberthinker or JMBleicher's suggestions or a combination of the two are good resolutions to the dispute. --Jonathanseibs714 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we necessarily need to decide in terms of "right" and "wrong." A lot of the frustration voiced here might be creatively diverted into a separate article exploring the thorny subject of serial video game discontinuity. As for the immediate issue of the castle, as my illusion to King Bowser was meant to illustrate, many different things can be true at the same time. Perhaps we might all watch Kurosawa's Rashoman and report back. Dsussner 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay WAS 4.250 08:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to check out the work of Hayden White on narratological structures in historical writing. His basic point is that non-fiction owes quite a bit to fiction writing. So I think this is a great discussion to be having here as it embraces a more subjective vision of "Reality." Can we agree that many possibilities are open to Papu Papu and his castle without being mutually exclusive? Dsussner 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)