Talk:Daisy Duck

Journal entry
There is no journal entry in BBS about her? Sum2k3 13:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because she was only seen briefly during BBS. She didn't even had lines and was only seen at the end alongside Minnie when presenting the winner of the festival.-- 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I don't know why the PAL-version has a journal entry and NTSC doesn't. :/ (the winnie of the million dreams trophie got the entry). Sum2k3 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the PAL game has a journal entry for her, can someone add it? 10:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got a journal entry for her, and I have North American version. Are you guys sure you don't have one? -- 18:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have one, Neum-senpai, then you post it! Problem solved! :)-- 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Shard already did post it, it's in the infobox now. -- 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, cool!-- 23:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin cartoon
I agree that if the game is going to list real-world data and has it wrong, we should list the correct data and point out the error. However, in this case, there is no concrete source from Disney saying that Donna (the duck in "Don Donald") and Daisy are or aren't the same. Per Wikipedia, there seems to be more evidence that Disney considers them one and the same, and Donna was just an early name for Daisy like Dippy Dawg was for Goofy. In particular, again per Wikipedia, Disney listed Daisy's origin in 1999 as being "Don Donald" on a collector's pin. As it stands, it would appear that the Kingdom Hearts series is the closest we can get to a current official determination as to where Daisy originates. 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that KH, being owned by Disney, would also count as statements made in Disney's own voice. 21:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Since there's no concrete proof the two are the same, we should be transparent. It's a mystery if the two are the same. Just because there may be evidence skewed a certain way, as wiki editors, our duty is to not take sides. Even if there seems to be 99 percent evidence of favor of something and 1 percent against, a professional wiki will still be considerate of the 1 percent and not claim the "99 percent side" as factual. There was even a comic strip where the two are shown to be different, so why should a collector's pin of all things be the ultimate verdict? KH1 also says she originally appeared as Daisy in Mr. Duck Steps Out and does not mention Don Donald at all almost as if she is irrelevant. I don't see why KH2/BBS's journal entries should be taken into higher account than KH1, when KH2 also claims Goofy's debut is Two Weeks Vacation (his 41st short of all things), while KH1 more accurately lists it as Mickey's Revue, showing that the KH1 team did far more proper research, and shows the KH1 devs aren't include to mention a past incarnation of a character as their origin (KH1 considers Dippy Dawg to be Goofy), again adding to Donna's irrelevancy. Even the journals conflict each other between games. KH1 says Minnie debuted in Steamboat Willie, KH2 says Plane Crazy, and BBS says Mickey's Surprise Party.


 * I also disagree with the notion that a journal entry in a Disney spin-off game, primarily developed by Square Enix, is somehow the verbatim official word of Disney. We have no idea who was responsible for writing these journal entries, and if the writers got official information from Disney or not, or were forced to do Internet research online. Let's not forget that even official Disney material can have mistakes and errors (such as the controversial naked woman in The Rescuers).


 * As for the infobox, I find it a shame we can only list one parameter for the origin, since I wish we could list more in cases like this (I'd prefer it to say "Don Donald or Mr. Duck Steps Out"). Since we can't, I don't have a huge issue if it lists Don Donald, even if it's technically unprofessional and murky. However, I feel we could go into this situation more in her Origin section. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm making this issue a huge deal - I'm more concerned about how wikis should operate in this situations like these, and the principle of the matter. Soroxas (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a real-world, measurable artifact, so it's not a mystery -- it's a question of what the authors are defining as the canon of their fiction. Back during KH1, the canon was that Daisy's origin was Mr. Duck Steps Out. Since then, they have added that the origin is also Don Donald, and Don Donald came out three years before Mr. Duck Steps Out, so that's what goes in the infobox. The infobox is meant specifically to be a box, not an alternate format for the entire article itself -- there's a limit on how much information is appropriate to put in there.
 * "a professional wiki" -- Wikipedia treats the consensus of the sources as fact, and history/science, practically speaking, treats the consensus of the evidence as fact. Wikipedia actually has strict rules against giving undue weight and calling something a "controversy" if the sides aren't evenly supported.
 * "higher account" -- because 1937 is before 1940.
 * "KH1 says" -- Each of those is a different incarnation of Minnie. The games have differentiated before whether they're using origin to refer to the entire archetype, or just a specific incarnation (see KHUX especially).
 * "verbatim official word" -- Disney has been very clear that they own KH and it is part of their brand. In fairness to your argument, it is specifically part of the Disney video games brand, which is why it rarely shows up on TV, the parks, or the Disney store (via personal discussions with people who work on the games), but it's still an official Disney publication.
 * "The Rescuers" -- I don't see how that is a mistake or error -- the info I can find on it indicates it was a hidden joke inserted by the artists.
 * "Origin section." --- go for it.
 * "how wikis should operate" -- We take any statements from the authors about their universe as fact, report without comment. That's why Terra-Xehanort's BBS-KH section is so convoluted, because Nomura keeps adding new details to that period in history without explicitly revoking enough of the past details. If it is an actual real-world inconsistency (like, for example, if Nomura's interviews claimed France was in Egypt), we could correct that, but if KH claimed France was in Egypt (or, more specifically, that Big Ben was on a world called "Neverland"), well, that's how things go for KH France and KH Egypt in the KH universe. Hell, we don't even get to complain, in the wiki's voice, about stuff like "Gale" and "Stormy Stone". 14:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When a character has multiple journal origins, I don't think it's up to us to determine which one is correct and which isn't, unless it's obviously wrong, like KHUX using The Incredibles 2 as origin for the Incredibles medals when they all appear in the first movie. It isn't clear if Donna is Daisy or not. There are official Disney sources saying she is, and others saying they are two different characters. What we should do is just go with what the journals say, and use the oldest origin, in this case Don Donald. 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be referring to that version of the characters being from The Incredibles 2, like the CotM medals being from The Three Musketeers, or some versions of Roxas being from Days, some from KH2? Either way, I think I understand what you two are saying, so that's what I'll follow. Let me know if the current rev of the page is satisfactory. 17:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it was more because it was a collaboration event for the Incredibles 2 movie. And KHUX messes up origins more often than that, like using KH2 for Halloween Sora (wielding the Pumpkinhead). 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the level of involvement of Disney in the development of the Kingdom Hearts series is very unclear. Some days, it seems they're very involved. Other days, they seem to be leaving Square Enix on their own within a few guidelines. But to be sure, Disney is involved in the development of the games, and they should be considered an official Disney publication. As I said earlier, we should be willing and ready to list errors made in the games when they delve into real-world information, but we also shouldn't completely discard the games as if they weren't a primary source on Disney. We also shouldn't quantify the level of "official-ness" of the things Disney publishes their name on; a pin is just as much a Disney publication as any of their movies. We, as volunteer editors of a third-party, non-affiliated site, have no authority to determine whether some publications weigh more heavily than others on our own arbitrary qualifications.

Per the Manual of Style, we use the most recent localized name for article titles. Perhaps we'd like to do the same with this and other similar scenarios: use the information listed in the most recent game. KHUX should be the exception, as it lists different origins for different variations of the same characters. 19:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)