This is a sort of game-like topic, but not for spamming. It's more of an informational thread to help enlighten other users. What you do is post Fiction - a commonly believed Mario myth and follow it up with Fact - what really is the truth. If need be, backing it up with sources. Since this thread is supposed to be informational, please leave discussion posts out unless you are refuting someone's facts. (Once refuted, Vorpal or I will remove said posts).

Fiction: Lugi and Daisy are a couple, much like Mario and Peach.

Fact: Luigi and Daisy are usually tag-alongs in a quaret along with power-couple Mario and Peach, as shown in Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour. In the original Mario Golf game, (which name I forgot) Diasy was Luigi's partner, like Peach was Mario's. Luigi's love life is a virtual unknown, but he seems to be hiding affection for Princess Eclair in Paper Mario 2.

^Note that Eclair is actually in love with the Chestnut King, so unless they have a terrible break-up, Luigi's stuck with Daisy.

Daisy was reintroduced in Mario Tennis 64 for the purpose of being Luigi's doubles partner. There is an offhanded comment by the producers at Camelot in an interview in Nintendo Power that implies that Daisy could be Luigi's girlfriend, or that there is, at the least, some interest between them.

Of course, Luigi could also be treating Daisy like a little sister...

^Also, in Mario Power Tennis in Peach's win animation, both Mario and Luigi look love struck toward Peach. That might not account for much, but it's something to consider...

I thought Luigi was Mario's double partner, and Daisy was Peach's double partner.

EDIT BY LUIGI (to save space): Mario is Peach's doubles partner.

It goes:

Mario - Luigi
Luigi - Daisy
Peach - Mario
Daisy - Birdo

DAISY AND BIRDO?!? Oh, well...

Fiction: Birdo is Yoshi's girlfriend.

Fact: Birdo and Yoshi often appear together due to their dinosaur-like appearance, and their ability to lay or jet-propell eggs. But, there is no proof that Yoshi and Birdo are truly together...

The Daisy and Birdo is a typo. It should be Yoshi and Birdo

Fiction: The modern- day DK is DK JR, with Cranky being the original DK.

Fact: There's no clear-cut answer here, despite the contentions in Donkey Kong Countr's manual. Ever since the DK crew have been reintegrating with the Marioverse, it seems that Nintendo is, at times, bent on reinstating DK as the original (note DK's trophy in SSBM, the manual for the GBC port of Donkey Kong Country(which lacks any claims of DK not being the original DK, unlike other versions) or the plot line of Mario Vs. Donkey Kong), or, at others, simply ignoring the issue altogether. I'm surprised this site didn't note that trend... I mean, Cranky is here to stay, but it seems more and more like he's a joke character. The evidence for any conclusion to this matter has become increasingly flimsy, so that ANY answer could be true; it's just hard to tell which ONE.

I've been neutral on the whole 'Who is the modern DK?' debate. For now I've stayed on the side that the modern DK is DK Jr.

However, if Nintendo gives hard evidence to the contrary (rather than vague hints), I'll no doubt make the change.

Reguarding this certain point, is does not seem to be a fiction/fact issue, such as other Bowser's relation or Toad's name, or even Luigi and Daisy as a couple.

The issue of DK/Cranky, etc. is a unsolvable dilemma, because there is evidence both ways. I would not reguard any Smash Bros. trophy entry as definitive proof, because it gets a lot of other facts wrong, such as Daisy appearing in Mario Golf 64, and other things. Also, the circumstantial evidence surrounding Cranky in DKC and DKC2, such as DKC's opening on the red construction beams, and Cranky's talk of the good-old-days, while now deminished, is still quite good evidence that he is the original DK. Joke character or not, and whether they try to push it anymore in more recent games or not.

Now, you could make a more convincing arguement that the current DK is not DK, Jr., but again, there is conflicting evidence within games. And depending on which you choose to take precedence, you'll come to a different answer.

I meant that the contention that Cranky was the original DK as an irrefutable fact is, in itself, a fiction. In fact, I do recall my stating that the truth is that, "There is no clear-cut answer". The fact that this site seems to ignore the other possibilities entirely is what I find at fault.

Would it have been better if I'd stated, "Cranky was DK. End of story" as my fiction instead?

If you read in the DYK part, you might have noted this bit:

"The relation to the original Donkey (Cranky) is hard to figure out. Some references point to him as grandfather and others to father. Some have even suggested that the 'Rareware' Donkey Kong is not DK Jr., but in fact his son and a third generation Donkey. This would be further complicated by the appearance of the 'Rareware' Donkey AND Retro style DK Jr. in Mario Tennis 64. However, Baby Mario appears in this game as well, giving any theories related to this very little weight."

Granted, this doesn't address the possibility that the modern DK is the original DK, but it does essentially say that nothing is absolute.

Yeah, I saw that. But still, it's kind of annoying when the only possibility being ignored is the one you personally believe in.

This isn't true. No one is ignoring anything. They're just saying that there's very large evidence that cranky is Donkey kong.

But there's a lot of evidence he ISN'T. Nobody knows for sure.