Talk:Continuity

Rework

There is a lot I want to suggest, but going over this article in general, I feel it needs to be completely recreated and most likely moved to a page called "Continuity", to better reflect how this whole subject is officially treated by the developers.

The thing is... there is no "Kirby canon". There are loose connections between some titles but that's it. This page was originally created and filled with speculation of what is and wasn't considered canon for Kirby games, and it was rewritten last year to remove most of that based on the recent clarification that the series has no definitive timeline. With that in mind, the whole concept of "is this mode from this game canon?" stop making sense. As such, a page about "canon" also stops making sense, hence my proposal to move this to a more generic "continuity".

A couple of my problems with some parts of the article currently, for example:

Canon is a term used to designate indisputable facts that are consistent within a single story and other stories in that narrative. In terms of the Kirby series, the term would be used to describe anything that has definitively occurred in the series' storyline.

From this definition of canon, Kirby has no canon. And Kirby also has no fixed storyline.

In the context of the Kirby series, when considering the storyline of a title, it is generally understood that events played out differently to the actual characters compared to what the player has Kirby doing during gameplay. In-game items such as Food and collectibles like Energy Spheres can be considered diegetic and thus canon, but extra lives and score are not canon, and only serve as non-diegetic gameplay elements.

This is not really confirmed, and many vary between games (like scores, Challenge Stages exist after all).

By extension, any part of the game that breaks the fourth wall is also not considered canon.

...Why not? Fourth wall breaks come in many ways, in many that it can be argued it is "canon". Like, is this saying that the Queen glare is not canon??

Unless otherwise specified by HAL, the events of the Story Mode (or Main Mode) in any given title are what "officially" happened, and any Extra Modes are alternative scenarios.

...Why? What is the source of that?

This has been confirmed at least regarding Kirby: Planet Robobot, and is presumably the case in other games of the series as well.

Ah ok, this source. The thing is, we cannot presume that. We are a wiki, we deal with facts.

As such, the chronology of the series is not entirely clear, but it is generally safe to assume that events in earlier games come before later ones.

As much as I also think this, I don't think it's our job as a wiki to speculate about that.

The whole part later that lists main series and spin-offs split is also very speculative. Sure it says that usually main series game have narratives, but then we say:

While spin-offs are not necessarily canon

...Who says that?

When it comes to developer commentary on backstory and additional information about the setting, characters, etc., this information can be considered canon if it is released as part of an official statement from a developer such as HAL, but such information can potentially be overruled by in-game events (both for current titles and future ones) that contradict the statements. As such, gameplay narrative always takes precedence over any commentary outside the games.

I don't think it's our stance once again to claim with so certainty one way or the other in this case.

Anyway, I'm done rambling, but you can see that the current state of this page is very bad, hence why I want to propose a full soft-reboot of this page. Rewrite it completely from the ground up, with no speculation from any editor. We should present the facts as HAL has told us when it comes to series continuity. Thoughts? - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with everything you said, but maybe we should leave canon as a redirect. SilvTheGrape (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we can keep Canon as a redirect. - Gigi (talk • edits) 15:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, the current state of the page comes from a rework I did a while back that attempted to reconcile the page's previous state with the current official stance, but I think it would be best to completely throw it out and redo it from scratch. I do think the main-series and spin-off split is pretty definitive with regard to the naming scheme and how they are treated in terms of numbering, and I think the "canonicity with adaptations" and "retroactive continuity" sections can stay mostly untouched, but the main body of the article needs a major rewrite to match what the current official word is. StarPunch (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the article seems more speculative than it should be right now. The redo of the page should probably have as many citations as possible. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)