Talk:Donkey Kong (1981 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

I saw that the main character's name here had been changed to "Mario" (instead of "Jumpman"), and reverted it and changed the "Jumpman" link in the article so that it linked to Mario. If anyone thinks I shouldn't have done so, please discuss it here. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

i think the name is in fact Jumpman, and the Shigiru Miyamoto article mentions that Mario is a descendant. That would be consistant with Donkey Kong actually being donkey kong junior, as cranky fought jumpman and says so, as well as the fact that shiggy just said so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.32.83.98 (talk • contribs) .

I'm pretty sure that the Donkey part of the name came from a mistranslation of stupid, mistaking donkey for ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.32.15 (talk • contribs) .

Donkey was the English word listed for stubborn in the Japanese-English dictionary Shigiru used, according to David Sheff's "Game Over." The necessary note will be added. Krupo 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember I played in my childhood a version of donkey kong in a foldable device with tho cristal liqid screens, very primitive, with two difficulty levels, ``game A` and `game B`, and you had two lives. In the manual there was written that if mario couldnt save the damsel-in-distress (that is, if you lost your first life) his brother Luigui would do the job. I dont remember the year, I´m 34 now, but I was no older than 10 at the time, anyone played this version of donkey kong?

I believe thats a game and watch Donkey kong. I havent played it, but ive seen pics, and its simaler to the DS.--72.84.195.137 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet image

What this article really needs is a good image of a Donkey Kong arcade cabinet, and preferably not a rebuilt one. Does anyone have access to such? Anyone have one of these machines still taking quarters at the local Pizza Hut? — BrianSmithson 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a cabinet, but not a digital camera. (I'd need to do a little work on it first though.) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any friends with a digital camera? — BrianSmithson 12:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Kong image

I removed the Crazy Kong image that was recently added to the article. The reason is that the article is already quite heavy on fair-use images, and adding another presses our luck too much in my opinion. Furthermore, I don't think the image is really necessary; Crazy Kong is labeled as a clone in the text of the article, and clones, by definition, are quite similar to the original. — BrianSmithson 19:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough --Larsinio 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious "See also" removed

I removed a "See also" link to Super Monkey Poop Fight. This was for three reasons: 1) That game seems to have very little to do with Donkey Kong, so it doesn't seem at all pertinent. 2) If it were pertinent, the link should be placed somewhere in the prose of the article, not appended with no thought as to where it might fit best. 3) There's a question of relative notability here. The fact that some obscure Fash game may be a parody of Donkey Kong probably warrants a link to Donkey Kong in the article about said obscure Flash game. The reverse is not true. At any rate, #1 above trumps #2 and #3. Super Monkey Poop Fight is not relevant to this article. — BrianSmithson 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Killer Gorilla

Killer Gorilla, which appeared in 1984, was another clone (but with Mario replaced with a weedy looking boy), this time produced by MicroPower. It was available for the BBC Micro and the Amstrad CPC.

Can the person who added this bit please provide a source for the information? There's nothing wrong with mentioning this, but the current article is very careful to cite sources, so any new information should follow suit. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First time claim

I do not think the following statement is true even though they have provided a source for the comment. I can quote sources all day long about a variety of things, but that does not make them true.

Although its origin as a comic strip license played a major part, Donkey Kong marked the first time that the storyline for a video game preceded the game's programming rather than simply being appended as an afterthought.[11]

kingmundi 3:43, 03 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that that fact is sourced, and if you wish to dispute the information, the onus is on you. What game preceded Donkey Kong wherein the storyline was developed before the gameplay? — BrianSmithson 02:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I will try to dig around and come up with a source, but I would think that some claims are just indefensible. For example, if I found a source that stated little green aliens planted the idea of Donkey Kong in Shigeru Miyamoto head, how would you ever find a source to disprove that? The terminoloy of "the storyline" ... "preceded the game's programming" is just very nebulous in meaning. What programmer would sit down and just start hacking away at a game without some forthought about what the game's story is about? - kingmundi 4:23, 03 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the exact implication. Pac-Man and Defender were presumably games first and stories (or no story in the case of Pac-Man) were tacked on once the designers got to the marketing stage. I don't think this precludes the idea of someone, say, deciding that Space Invaders would be about shooting aliens. But that's not really a story except very, very loosely speaking. Donkey Kong's story is simple too, but it does have a specific beginning, middle, and end. Worst case scenario, we can change the writing to say "Author so and so calls it the first game to blah blah blah", thus making it a completely verifiable statement. But as of right now, I'm not sure author so-and-so is wrong. :) — BrianSmithson 11:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see that point of view. There is something different about Donkey Kong than the popular games that came before it such as Pac-Man and Space Invaders. But it is such a strong claim about something that is very hard to define (what a programmer was thinking). For example, read this about Pac-man http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1718312,00.html He wanted to make a game for girls about a character eating and being chased by ghosts. And consider this early game written on a mainframe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnd_%28computer_game%29 The original claim hinges on what exactly is a storyline. I agree that the plot of chasing after an ape that stole your girlfriend is more detailed than eating food and running away from ghosts, or running around in a forest looking for an orb. But utimately, it is a judgement call. I just think the sentence is poorly worded and makes a claim that is very hard to prove and defend. I think it could be re worded to make it more neutral in its claim.

Yeah, I've been investigating a bit on my own, and many text adventure games predate Donkey Kong, including Zork and a Star Trek game. Whether those games have "stories" per se is debatable, but they do have a goal and a conclusion when the player reaches that goal. Would you be satisfied with the wording that "Although its origin as a comic strip license played a major part, Donkey Kong's storyline was more developed than any game that preceded it. In fact, video game historian Chris Kohler claims that it marked the first time that the storyline for a video game preceded the game's programming rather than simply being appended as an afterthought."? The source citation would be the same (Kohler's book). Incidentally, I really wish I could get a copy of Kohler's doctoral thesis; Power-Up is just a dumbed-down version of it. (By the way: Don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~~~~.) — BrianSmithson 11:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Power-up/Up

Only capitalize the first letter of a word in a title if both unites make up a single word. In this case, "Power-up", not "Power-Up". — BrianSmithson 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TMI on one port

"(also the first version accurate to the original arcade game in a Nintendo console, with a few extras)"

I've removed this twice now. It needes to be sourced, first of all, and it is too much information on an insignificant port, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Memory issues on the NES version

An anonymous editor added the phrase in commas to the article: "This screen does not appear in the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) version of the game, due to cartridge memory issues, and some other console versions." I removed it for lack of source citation. This information may be true, and I have no problem with its inclusion provideed a source is provided. — BrianSmithson 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ports: what counts?

Should the Nintendo 64 and Nintendo GameCube be listed under ports? The game is on both systems as a minigame within another game, but not on its own. Ace of Sevens 15:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games will comment? -- BrianSmithson 14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Other games

I removed some long discussions of Rare's DK games and the DK boardgame. This article is about the arcade game only, and it should stay on topic. Those paragraphs would better belong at Donkey Kong, which discusses the character and the series as a whole. -- BrianSmithson 14:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the GameBoy game? Doesn't that deserve a mention here, since it's almost the same? Brutannica 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed links to nonexistant articles.

I have changed the article so that the terms maze |maze game , Ron Judy, Al stone, R. Cade and the Video victims, and O. R. Rissman are no longer links. This was done because they linked to articles that did not exist. Please don't change them back unless an article is created.05:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know why that was not signed. 69.156.205.22 06:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I also added Don James because he was listed as a college football coach. The only other Don James is listed a writer. There is noting to indicate that either is the warehouse manager listed in this article.69.156.205.22 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Build the web. Lack of an article is no reason to delink pertinent items. -- BrianSmithson 16:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that something isn't a viable topic for an article is, though. Being Nintendo's warehouse manager and having a character named after his wife doesn't exactly make him notable. Ace of Sevens 16:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My video game histories are boxed up now so I can't provide specific details, but when I expanded the article, I made sure that the folks who got links were significant enough to warrant articles. In the case of Judy, Stone, Rissman, and James, they were all influential in the early development of Nintendo or some other aspect of early video games. The singers of the DK song are as significant as any other flash-in-the-pan pop group with an article on Wikipedia. -- BrianSmithson 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware of this particular rule. I'll make sure that I won't do that again. Thanks for informing me in a polite mannor.70.48.174.30 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jumpman name

"a carpenter named Jumpman (an amalgamation of Walkman and Pac-Man, later renamed Mario)" This was pulled from the general description of the game. I don't have a problem with the name Jumpman, I know that was his name, it's the 'amalgamation of Walkman and Pac-Man' that I have a problem with. How the heck to you get 'Jumpman' from amamlgamating 'Pac-man'a nd 'Walkman'? --Thaddius 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's from Kohler. Perhaps "amalgamation" is the wrong word, though. Jumpman is supposed to suggest Pac-Man and Walkman. — BrianSmithson 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, 'along the same lines as Pac-man and Walkman'? --Thaddius 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. A note though: He wasn't renamed Mario in later games; according to Kohler (if I remember correctly; the book's boxed up), the American cabinet art gave his name as Mario. — BrianSmithson 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

default article

Why is this not the default article for "Donkey Kong"? I know younger gamers may find this less relevant, but this game was a cultural phenominon. I would think given the number of non-gamers aware of the Donkey Kong arcade game, the term "Donkey Kong" would be more commonly used to refer to this game than the character. Is the article about the character really more notable? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 06:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some articles link to Donkey Kong as the character, while some link to it as the video game. I redirected it to the disambiguation, and changed some of the links in the major articles. Ideally Donkey Kong should lead to the video game, but there are a lot of links to clean up. IsaacAA 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Screen sequence

I'm moving the screens into the sequence that I remember them. The screen labeled #4 (the blue one, with the filename ending in 4) was the second, while screen #2 (the orange one, with the filename ending in 2) was the fourth. At least, that's the American sequence -- I rarely got to #4, so I'm quite sure this is correct. if the sequence varied in other countries, this should be noted in the article. HalJor 04:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Following up (since someone just reverted the screens), some online reviews of the Atari 7800 version of Donkey Kong confirm the converyer belt was #4: "Another unpleasant surprise is the fact the final Donkey Kong screen – the conveyor belt level – is completely missing" [1] and "Also, there is no fourth screen of the cement/conveyer belt, or "pie factory", as a lot of people called it..." [2] HalJor 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This screen sequence is also supported by the sources I used to write the article. Unfortunately, they're boxed up. But we aren't making this up. :) -- BrianSmithson 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to determine the correct order would be to play the actual arcade game, either via MAME or by finding an arcade cabinet. Kouban 17:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Donkey Kong 64 version of the game, Screen 2 and Screen 4 were swapped around, making the conveyer belt level number 2. This could be the reason for the confusion. I think that the article should mention that somewhere. -SaturnYoshi 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I took a stab at revising for clarity, though I didn't specify changes for each port. I imagine this list might be fairly extensive (the game was ported to many different platforms) -- I just don't have enough details to really get the list started. HalJor 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely skeptical about this claim, both the inclusion of the arcade machine in Donkey Kong 64 & the first four levels of the Game Boy version of Donkey Kong (which are the levels from the arcade game) were for nostalgic purposes. It would defeat the point (& be completely random) to change the order of the levels. Besides, why is this the first time I have ever heard of this? I mean you would think such a change would be talked about by the Mario fandom on many sites... Either way though, that part about Donkey Kong 64 introducing that order of levels needs to be changed since the Game Boy version was released five years before that & it had that order. SNS 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a page that might explain it (see the Updates section): [3] It states that the Japanese and US versions had different sequences. I'm thoroughly confused now -- I barely remember the pie factory in the arcade at all, but I'd gotten to the elevator screen many times. HalJor 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of the evidence, I've reverted my re-ordering. I'm still confused, and not certain enough to be insistent. HalJor 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Following Kouban's suggestion of 29 Jul 06 above, I downloaded MAME and the Donkey Kong ROMs from this site. In both of the "US Set" ROMs, the sequence is: beams-rivets//beams-elevator-rivets//beams-pies-elevator-rivets. This is the sequence I remembered. Why the difference from the main article, when MAME/ROMs are supposed to emulate the original software? HalJor 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Game & Watch image

File:Gw donkeykong.PNG

Donkey Kong Game & Watch.

This image might still be relevant to this article, so I'm putting it in the talk page. BrianSmithson objects to it on the grounds of it being a fair-use image in an already fair-use-heavy article, but I thought fair use only applied to copyrighted images - is that not so? Does a company's product being featured give the company copyright control over the image itself? --Maebmij 04:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry -- I thought that was a Nintendo press image or something. I should have clicked through to the description page to see that it is actually GFDL. Yeah, by all means, put it back in the article! -- BrianSmithson 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Veritas Cluster Server / VCS ... really?

The article lists ports by Coleco to Atari 2600, Intellivision, and VCS, which is specifically linked to the Veritas Cluster Server article. This must be a mistake. This sounds like confusion over the fact that the Atari 2600 was at that time referred to as the Atari VCS ("video computer system"). Noidner 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article title: change from "arcade game" to "video game"

This article doesn't just cover Donkey Kong, the arcade game. It also covers the various console ports of that arcade game. There isn't (and shouldnt be) a separate article on the NES version, or the ColecoVision version, etc., because all that information is here. Therefore, the article title is inaccurate. Let's move the article to Donkey Kong (video game). There's nothing currently there, so the move will be a very simple matter. Please give your thoughts. If there are no dissenting replies within a few weeks, I'll move the article. --Ecksemmess 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the change. --SaturnYoshi 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a bad idea. Be sure to change all the articles that link to this one, though. — BrianSmithson 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

John Kirby and Kirby

I removed a bit that claimed that the Nintendo character Kirby was named for Nintendo lawyer John Kirby. I don't think it's relevant to Donkey Kong, though it is relevant to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., a daughter article of sorts. However, it still needs a source there. Can anyone provide one? — BrianSmithson 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The source is the book Game Over by David Sheff. This was stated on Kirby (Nintendo)'s talk page in the section about his name. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I own the book, but it's in America at the moment. Do you have a page number reference? — BrianSmithson 08:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfourtunately, I do not own the book myself. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wii Virtual Console

Can we find a better source than a Youtube video that Donkey Kong will be a launch title for the Wii Virtual Console? This is a featured article; the sources need to be high-quality. — BrianSmithson 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Virtual Console games even have "Wii" in the Platform section? Xbox Live Arcade games don't have "Xbox 360" in the platform section afterall. SNS 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Video Games Guide

What page does Donkey Kong appear on in this book? The Glory Boy added some information about Donkey Kong being in the book, but he didn't give a page number to complete the reference. Anyone got the book? — BrianSmithson 09:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Universal Studios lawsuit?

Is that bit in the beginning about Universal suing Nintendo because of a name similarity true? It sounds interesting, but I fail to see any cited sources. Can someone help me out on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.112.182 (talk • contribs)

It's customary not to explicitly cite information in the lead that's simply smmarized from elsewhere in the article. Donkey Kong (video game)#Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. is the relevant section with full citations. — TKD::Talk 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Account of game development to digest into article

Some of this is reflected in the text, but I thought it would be helpful to dump it here for further digestion. This is copied from a federal court decision in the Universal trademark lawsuit, and as such the text copied below is in the public domain. As the judge's account was directly based on Nintendo's submissions, it should be rather accurate.

Nintendo's development of Donkey Kong began in March 1981. In the design [*918] stages, the original game concept involved a port scene, and featured the Popeye cartoon characters -- Popeye, Bluto and Popeye's girlfriend, Olive Oyl. Because it was determined that it was not technically possible to present the Popeye characters on the video screen, the characters Popeye and Bluto were replaced with "Mario the Carpenter" and a comical gorilla, and the port scene was changed to an unfinished building.

The name "Donkey Kong" was selected for the game through an informal process. The word "kong" was adopted because it was believed to be readily understandable as denoting a gorilla; the word "donkey" was derived by consulting a Japanese/English dictionary which gave the word "donkey" as a translation for a Japanese word meaning stupid or "goofy." Shigeru Miyomoto, the Nintendo employee who designed Donkey Kong, testified by deposition [**15] that he had seen King Kong movies, and that he referred to the Donkey Kong gorilla as "King Kong" while designing the game.

The object of the Donkey Kong game is for the player to maneuver Mario the Carpenter up an unfinished girdered structure to rescue a girl from the gorilla at the top. To reach the top, Mario must run up ramps, climb ladders, jump on moving construction elevators and ride conveyor belts while avoiding obstacles such as cement tubs, fox-fires, barrels, and beams rolled down the structure by Donkey Kong. Mario wins such prizes as telephones, umbrellas, lunch pails and birthday cakes on his way. At the top of the unfinished structure, Donkey Kong struts back and forth and jumps up and down.

In July 1981, the Donkey Kong game was introduced into the United States market. The game was a major commercial success. Nintendo has received over $180 million from the sale in the United States and Canada of approximately 60,000 Donkey Kong video arcade games. Nintendo has licensed its trademark in the Donkey Kong name and characters to over 50 licensees for use in connection with a large variety of products and has received over $8.5 million in royalties for such licenses. [**16] Major licensees include Atari, Inc. ("Atari"), Coleco Industries, Inc. ("Coleco"), Ruby-Spears Enterprises, Inc. ("Ruby-Spears") and Ralston Purina Company. Nintendo has also developed and now markets video arcade games called "Donkey Kong Junior" and "Mario Brothers," based on the characters made popular in the original Donkey Kong game. In addition, Nintendo has developed and now markets handheld video games called "Donkey Kong," "Donkey Kong II", "Donkey Kong Junior" and "Mario Brothers." Nintendo also manufactures and sells tabletop video games named "Mario's Cement Factory" and "Donkey Kong Junior."

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., 578 F. Supp. 911, 917-918 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

Postdlf 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Mario"

In the "Development" section, this article states that "Mario was named for Mario Segali, the warehouse landlord." But the Luigi article states that "Luigi's name was inspired by a pizza parlor near Nintendo of America's headquarters in Redmond, Washington, called 'Mario & Luigi's'." The article also states "During the development of Donkey Kong, designer Shigeru Miyamoto had created Mario (then known as "Jumpman") hoping that he would be able to recast the character in a variety of different roles in future games." This implies that the Mario was also named after that pizza parlor. So, remove them both because there's no certainty? They're both backed up by sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterofpsi (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to see a more authoritative source than a random website or the pizza parlor story. This article's version of events is supported by a published book that had editorial oversight, and I think it should take precedence. (What may have happened is that Mario was named for Mario Segali, but when Nintendo needed a brother, they chose "Luigi" from the pizza parlor due to the happy pairing with the name of their previous protagonist. But this is just a guess on my part.) — Brian (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If books can get written on such dubious subjects as UFO's and psychic powers, then it's obvious that untruths can be published. I have no idea how trustworthy the "International Arcade Museum" is (although it doesn't look very professional), bur who's to say it's more trustowrthy than some guy who wrote a book? I think the comments should be removed from both articles until someone's checked out the book and seen this guy's sources---or talked to Miyamoto in person. XD Masterofpsi 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. The book in question cites sources, numerous sources, including interviews with Miyamoto. The arcade website does not. Ergo, the book is more reliable that the arcade website. If you can find a reliable source that states that Mario was named for a walrus in Russia, we can add that information. Until such time, the book's story is the best one we've got. :) — Brian (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, then, I'll remove the info in the Luigi article. Masterofpsi 03:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't imply that both Luigi and Mario were named after the Pizza Parlor, it specifically mentions Luigi only. [4] I don't see any conflict here, Mario was named after Mario Segali according to one source and Luigi was named after a Pizza Parlor according to another; very simple.Kingston Jr. 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Biggest" game?

Calling into question this line from the article:

“ At four screens, Donkey Kong at its debut was the biggest video game ever produced. In fact, the only use of multiple levels to precede it was Gorf by Midway Games. ”

Two issues I see with this statement, other than grammar issues:

• What do we mean by "biggest" video game? The wording of the sentence seems to indicate that it was the most complex game released by that time. This may be true, but I think it should be stated a bit more clearly than it is now.
• The arcade version of Gorf had five distinct levels, compared to Donkey Kong's four. If judging by number of levels alone, Gorf would be more complex, and it was also released earlier. Also, Tempest (Atari) was released around the same time as well, and featured sixteen unique levels. So this statement at least needs clarification. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sellers may be in error. It may be enough to note that at four screens, DK was one of the first multi-level games or something. Do you have a firm release date for Tempest? — Brian (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tempest cites a similar book and says that it was released in October 1981. That would put it late in the year, and most likely later than Donkey Kong.

The accuracy of Sellers's information has been called into question before, as well, and IMO, if we're going to make a claim about a game being the "biggest for its time", the claim should be very concrete - either in terms of graphical complexity (which DK does have), number of levels (beaten out by Gorf), or size of code and data (can be analyzed by looking at the combined ROMs). Otherwise, it may be POV or otherwise subjective information, and not readily verifiable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It also bears mentioning that, from a ROM size and hardware complexity standpoint, Gorf is FAR more complex than Donkey Kong, with the inclusion of a speech synthesizer. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the two sentences for grammatical clarity without changing the "biggest" terminology. What do you think? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. I'm going to combine it back into the paragraph before it to avoid a one-sentence paragraph, but that's about it. Thanks for the correction. — Brian (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Donkey King for the Dragon 32/TRS-80

1982/83 I had a Dragon 32 and my favorite game on it was Donkey King. The article doesn't seem to cover this platform. I figure from the article that this was a bootleg version and that Donkey Kong was never ported to the Motorola 6809 systems? Is this worth commenting on? __meco 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Screen 1: Crooked Girders

I noticed that the description of Screen 1, it doesn't mention that the girders are straight when DK climbs up the screen, then go crooked as he jumps across the top floor (not counting the floor Lady/Pauline is on). Should this be mentioned somewhere? --Powerlord 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is noteworthy, but it's already mentioned in the "Story and characters" section as an example of the game using cut scenes to tell the story. — Brian (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-main page version

This is mostly a note to self: The version of the article prior to its main page exposure was oldid=164583560. After the article leaves the main page, this is the version to check against for any missed vandalism or other unhelpful changes. — Brian (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it called Donkey Kong?

shouldnt it be called monkey kong? what does a donkey have to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.216.190 (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That information is covered in the article. Miyamoto thought that "donkey" was a synonym for "stubborn." — Brian (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS a synonym for stubborn! http://www.google.com/search?q=%22stubborn+as+a+donkey%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Animation?

"The programmers could not animate hair, so he got a cap." That sounds rather unlikely. They'd have just drawn some fixed hair back then, and made no attempt to animate it. Plenty of other games of the same era feature characters with unanimated hair (which would only be a few pixels on a fairly low-detail sprite). -Riedquat 21:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Nintendo strategy guide for Super Mario World, Miyamoto is quoted saying that hats were easier to show than hair at the time, presumably due to the black backgrounds. Kouban 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with game that was first to have levels

Contrary to this article, the history of video games article claims the first game with distinct levels was Ozma Wars... History of video games Ozma_Wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.20 (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed another pre-dating game that has levels: Phoenix (arcade game) 69.148.183.20 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Game Plot

"The carpenter mistreats the ape, so Donkey Kong escapes and kidnaps Jumpman/Mario's girlfriend, originally known as the Lady, but later named Pauline." I just have to know, is this really true? If that's the case, Mario wasn't always that great of a person (aside from DK Jr., of course). - 67.175.70.38 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cranky Kong

Regarding this and the corresponding edits of Recharge330, I agree with Amcaja that Cranky Kong should not be mentioned directly in this article: it describes the video game from 1981 — the further evolvement of the ape character is described in Donkey Kong (character), that article is already linked in the same sentence and mentions Cranky Kong. I have therefore rollbacked the entry again. Of course, we can discuss this here further. --Cyfal (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Famicom/NES version

For some reason, the Famicom and NES versions are mentioned seperately under the ports heading, despite being the same program. This should be rectified to streamline the article a little. Kouban (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

This question is directed at A Link to the Past: Why is an entire paragraph warranted about quotes from Donkey Kong in Super Smash Bros. Brawl? It seems to me to be too much information, and poorly inserted to boot (an entire paragraph!). We should reduce the information to the minimum necessary, as this article is not about SSBB, it's about Donkey Kong. — Dulcem (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You give a reason for why it's poorly inserted by repeating the fact that it is an entire paragraph. There is a stage which is an exact replica of a stage from this game, a remix music composed by the original composer of this game, and a demo of this game's VC game. Being a paragraph doesn't make it poorly inserted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. So the game is quoted in SSBB. That's not worth an entire paragraph of material. It should be condensed to the least possible and inserted where it fits better (in the paragraph about sequels). It also incorrectly states that Tanaka composed DK's music, when it was Miyamoto who made the songs (per the "Development" section). I'll give it another go merging this info into the greater flow of the piece. — Dulcem (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, all the information is still there; I've just merged it so it doesn't get its own paragraph. I hope this will satisfy both of us. :) — Dulcem (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on Tanaka's page, it states he worked on DK's soundtrack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is corroborated in the credits on the Famicom 20th Anniversary OST, which lists Tanaka as composer for Donkey Kong. Kouban (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On his homepage, or on his Wikipedia page? (If he did work on the game, it's something we should correct in the article. I'll check my references to see where the bit about Miyamoto on the electronic keyboard came from.) — Dulcem (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To Kouban: Is that composer or arranger for the CD? — Dulcem (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Composer. The disc is entirely NES chiptunes. Kouban (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The information about Miyamoto being the composer seems to come from the book by Sheff, p. 48. I'll add a citation. — Dulcem (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambig change

I propose that, since many people know DK as a classic video game and not as a major character, people would expect to see the original DK rather than the character DK or the DK series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough call. The character by that name is now one of Nintendo's regular stable of stars, but the arcade game is probably one of the two or three '80s classics that practically anyone in a video-gaming country can name. I wonder if Google or some other site might give us an idea of what is generally meant when one sees the words "Donkey Kong" ? — Dulcem (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Google hits are for online versions of DK, and the DK VG article is more popular it would seem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way to tell whether one Wikipedia article is more popular than another? That would be a strong argument as to which article deserves the undisambuguated title. — Dulcem (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Avg Game Length

I removed the quote that the average length of a game of Donkey Kong lasts less than one minute. It referenced The King of Kong; however, in the movie, that statement itself is an unsourced statement by Billy Mitchell (not presented as an actual fact). If anyone disagrees or can find some substantive proof, please comment here. --Duke33 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell would be an expert, wouldn't he? Experts don't need sources. The statement should go back. — Dulcem (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the length of the average game is relevant to this article. Kouban (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's not! If that information is known and available, why wouldn't it belong? It speaks to the difficulty. — Dulcem (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do any other game articles mention the average length of a game? I'd say that's a fair metric of whether it's worth including. Kouban (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Most games don't have any sources to verify their length. This is notable for having a reliable source. Because it is so very linear, there's much less potential for the average length to deviate. For instance, with SMB, it has shortcuts, longcuts (for extra points), and is much more difficult to reach the final level than Donkey Kong is. As time goes on, there are many more ways that a player can deviate from the standard path in later games, but DK has nothing of the sort. The only thing that can cut seconds off of the average time are taking the few shortcuts, but obviously, these shortcuts are very few and cut only slight time off.

In summary, the player is more likely to hit the average time than he or she would be able to hit the average time for SMB, which means that the average time is far more notable than most other games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Can someone explain the references in this article? They seem to be nonsense.Asher196 (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty silly to say. They're clearly book references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would help if I actually scrolled farther down. Thanks....Asher196 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Peach

The girl in this game looks a lot like Peach. If it's not her, Peach is based on her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.71.97 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually Pauline, not Peach. It's possible that Peach was based on her, but we'd need to find a source to support that assertion. If we have one, that's probably a good fact to drop into the "Legacy" section of this article. :) — Dulcem (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Recently, an anonymous editor added this text to the article:

A popular bumper on the Howard Stern show has a nerdy guy asking audience members if they would like to watch a "Donkey Kong Kill Screen." If it is played coming in from the ads, the cast members of the show will often goof on the clip as they return from the commercials.

I removed the paragraph, as it seems both trivial and to be more of a reference to The King of Kong rather than to Donkey Kong itself. Even if it's a reference to DK, I fail to see how this warrants inclusion. We simply can't list every mention of DK everywhere, as that leads us down the path to trivia and cruft. User:RanmaSuper apparently disagrees and reverted my removal. Hence, I would like to hear other opinions. What say you all? — Dulcem (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Geographic references

I'm a little confused by references in the article to Redmond, Washington. In David Sheff's book Game Over, Nintendo of America was originally established in the New York City area. Since Donkey Kong was initially a conversion of NOA's firsst arcade release Radarscope, I would assume it was imported into an east coast port rather than west coast. At this time, I cannot locate my copy of Game Over to see if I am right or wrong here. Can anyone help? Sir Smedley (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my copy at hand, either, but the move to Redmond seemingly occurred during this period. This article says 1982. — Dulcem (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ikegami Tsushinki

What about this information? Shouldn't it be a part of the main article?

"Yamauchi assigned a young Shigeru Miyamoto with designing a new game using the Radar Scope hardware. What Miyamoto came up with was Donkey Kong. Nintendo decided to work with Ikegami, which had the technology to program it. Ikegami wrote all the code and sold Nintendo 8,000-20,000 PCBs (Nintendo copied 80,000 without permission). Since there was no contract between Ikegami and Nintendo, Nintendo did not have the source code. But Nintendo wanted a sequel, so DK was disassembled and reverse engineered (through subcontractor Iwasaki Giken) and soon came Donkey Kong Junior (noted as being the first Nintendo game developed entirely in-house). In 1983, an angered Ikegami sued Nintendo for ¥580,000,000 for copyright infringement, claiming it owned the original DK code. In 1990, the two companies settled out of court. The details of that were not released to the public. In another trial that year, it was determined that Nintendo did not hold the copyright to the DK code."

source: http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Ikegami_Tsushinki

Yes, it should. The official Nintendo corporate history attempts to "delete" Ikegami Tsushinki's involvement in the project, which IMHO is fairly notable (and well documented!). See also this change[5], which was reverted unfairly. Can somebody rewrite all this in a way that is acceptable to all parties? 85.77.195.154 (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this information? Wikis are not reliable for information. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the edit and Wikipedia's own page on Ikegami Tsushinki say, the fact is mentioned in a book called Sore ha Pong kara Hajimatta (It started from Pong): Arcade TV Game no Naritachi, Masumi Akagi, Amusement Tsuushinsha, 2005.9, ISBN 4990251202. The book is available in Japanese only, but it is written by an industry insider and considered a detailed and accurate treatise on the early days of arcade games in Japan. Additional weight is given to this claim by Ikegami Tsushinki's involvement in numerous other early arcade games by Nintendo and Sega, not to mention the fact that they included a hidden message in the Donkey Kong ROMs. Now, while Shigeru Miyamoto and co. designed the game (the setting, characters, gameplay), the actual programming (=development) of the game was done by Ikegami Tsushinki. The article should be amended to note this. 85.77.195.154 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me copy the relevant section from Donkey Kong's Japanese Wikipedia article here and translate it as well:

池上通信機裁判

アーケード版『ドンキーコング』のプログラミングを委託された池上通信機は、1983年、著作権侵害を理由に任天堂に対する賠償請求を東京地方裁判所に申し立てた。池上通信機に無断での、任天堂によるドンキーコング基板の複製に対する契約不履行が、著作権侵害の理由であった。

ゲームデザイン本体は任天堂社員によるものである事と、契約履行後の池上通信機の請求権不在を理由に、任天堂はこの請求を斥けた。 この裁判は判決が下されないまま、両者の和解で決着した。

任天堂に引き渡されたROMデータの中には池上通信機の社名・電話番号などが隠されている。ソースリストは任天堂に渡されていなかった為、続編のドンキーコングJrを開発する際には任天堂自身で逆アセンブルなどの解析を行うはめになった。

Ikegami Tsushinki trial

In 1983, Ikegami Tsushinki, who had been entrusted with the programming of the arcade version of Donkey Kong, sued Nintendo for damages in the Tokyo District Court for copyright infringement. The reason given was that Nintendo had duplicated Donkey Kong boards without permission from Ikegami Tsushinki, in a breach of their contract.

After fulfilling the terms of the contract, Nintendo was able to avoid the court case because Ikegami had no grounds for their demands and also because the game design itself was created by Nintendo employees. The two parties settled before a court decision was given.

The company name and phone number for Ikegami Tsushinki was hidden inside the Donkey Kong ROM data given to Nintendo. Because the source code listings were not handed over, the sequel Donkey Kong Jr. had to be developed using reverse engineering (disassembly).

No source is given, but I presume it is the same book. 85.77.195.154 (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. Well, it'd be best to have a direct translation of the source material really, or, preferably, according to WP:RSUE, a reliably-sourced translation. I'm not entirely familiar with dealing with foreign sources, though (there doesn't seem to be a lot of info on the matter). It might be a good idea to message Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Video games about this, there are likely people there who about this sort of thing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 08:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSUE seems to allow the usage of non-English source material assuming the original text is copied as a footnote. I don't have the book yet but I'm planning on purchasing it and transcribing the relevant text passage. We can probably work on the wording in advance, though. Thanks for your input! 85.77.195.154 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, here's an image we can use: 54px (This is the Ikegami Tsushinki logo hidden in the Donkey Kong ROMs). Also, here's the exact message as it appears in the ROM c_5k_b.bin of the Japanese version, starting at 0x0F00:

CONGRATULATION !IF YOU ANALYSE DIFFICULT THIS PROGRAM,WE WOULD TEACH YOU.*****TEL.TOKYO-JAPAN 044(244)2151    EXTENTION 304   SYSTEM DESIGN   IKEGAMI CO. LIM.

In the US version, the text starts at "PROGRAM,WE WOULD" as the beginning of the message is overwritten by additional code. 85.77.195.154 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the image seems pretty pointless to me. It does little to depict what can easily be described in words, and is little more than words itself. Images should only be used on Wikipedia to depict significant things or ideas where it would be difficult to do so otherwise. Seeing as that image is fair use, it should be put up for deletion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Other platforms

Why aren't the other platforms and release dates listed in the infobox, but get categories anyway? --(trogga) 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a common question, as has been answered best by User:Wgungfu on his talk page, which I will quote here. Asher196 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"The design of the infobox is in regards to the main platform, hence the inclusion of information such as mode, input method, cabinet, display, CPU, etc. etc. in the infobox template. This goes for all sub-templates as well. If a game was released on multiple platforms at launch (such how a modern game might see launch releases on PS3, Wii, Xbox360 and PC), then of course the multiple launch releases belong in the list (hence the plural). "Staggered releases" can still be considered ports however, unless its documented that the other platforms were being worked on at the same time and not as an after launch. Also, the issue here is unruly long lists of ports that have developed in the Platform line of the infobox, which Wikipedia does have policies against - prose is always preferred over lists. The idea of including all platforms it was available for is what the standard Ports section of the video game related articles is for, and the prose format these sections use are more inline with policy than a long list. If there's an article that section doesn't exist in, feel free to create it."

Jumpman/Mario

Should we really have it like this? It seems not very aesthetically pleasing this way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be "Jumpman"? Haipa Doragon • (contributions) 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Page

Whenever I click on a Donkey Kong Classics it alway links to this article this article. Shouldn't there be a seperate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.219.12 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where are you finding the link you are referring to? Asher196 (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He means redirect. Kouban (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, its most likely Donkey Kong Classics isn't notable enough on its own to have its own article, and any small amount of content it had was merged here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

File:Coleco Donkey Kong.png

File:Coleco Donkey Kong.png has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_9#Coleco_Donkey_Kong.png. This image has been used on this article. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikegami Tsushinki

The Ikegami Tsushinki article (see middle of page) claims that this game was developed by Ikegami Tsushinki, who sued Nintendo about it in 1983. Here is the relevant external link : http://d.hatena.ne.jp/bn2islander/20080817/1218980061 (in Japanese) Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so far this qualifies as a fringe theory. I'm going to edit the articles accordingly. Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to avoid foreign language sources? You have to be able to read Japanese for that to be of any use. The only English sources I could find were was bloggish/fansitish. But this one is the best: http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Ikegami_Tsushinki

However, those Japanese sites are of the same ilk, are they not? Belasted (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Game Developer Research Institute (GDRI), officially established on August 26, 2006, is dedicated to finding out more information about the companies and the people that developed video games. Our specialty is researching contract developers that worked for larger publishers, but were not usually given proper credit." http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Help:About#Contributors By definition, most of what that site says are fringe theories. On Wikipedia they should be presented as fringe theories. Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. This is nothing like the fringe (or conspiracy) theories presented on that page. The information is verifiable, even though it's mostly in Japanese. However, the Ikegami message written in English, hidden in the Donkey Kong ROMs is 100% verifiable to everybody. 89.27.11.236 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, are you implying we all have access to Donkey Kong's source code? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he (or she?) is suggesting we download the ROM (illegally) and dig around with a hex editor. But really, if the evidence is so compelling, why don't you tell the American press about it? Seems like big news to me! Nintendo are liars and cheats who take credit for others' work! It's the biggest story since the whole TOSE thing. Then we could refer to MAINSTREAM ENGLISH SOURCES, instead of one or two fringe sources presenting their personal theories, and some non-English sources. That is by definition a fringe theory on ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. I don't care how mainstream you FEEL it is in JAPAN. If you can't give us better sources than that, it's a fringe theory. It's up to YOU to do so, not us. Sorry, that's how it works. Speaking for myself, I don't care if you like it or not. Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was too much English for 89.27.11.236 to handle. Sigh. It seems that a lot of this Ikegami Tsushinki stuff comes from about 3 guys on Japanese Wikipedia. Unfortunately I can't read it, and they probably don't know much English. Doctorx0079 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ikegami Tsushinki stuff should be mentioned, as there was an actual court case in Japan where that company sued Nintendo over their claimed involvement in the project. There's a very good Japanese-language video game history book that could be used as a source: それは「ポン」から始まった-アーケードTVゲームの成り立ち (It All Started with Pong or something like that). But we'll need to find someone able to translate it or willing to read through and take notes. I own the book, but my Japanese is not up to the task. Here's the book in question. — Dulcem (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Translate the relevant info and put it on YOUR OWN SITE IN ENGLISH. It's very easy to get your own website or blog these days. Once you have done this you might want to tell 1up.com or some other gaming press site about it - I bet they would be interested. Also can you find online documentation from the Japanese court that tried the case? Citing one book all by itself is not really enough.Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Can you tell me what part of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines it would violate to cite a mainstream Japanese book as a source for this information? I'm quite perplexed. — Dulcem (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think this is a mainstream book?Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, other than "I know this one Japanese guy, and everything he posts on the intarwebs is reliable."Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is really a famous court case in Japan, like O.J., or say, Apple vs. Microsoft or something, there should be official court documents, stories in Mainichi Shimbun, things like that. Not just one book that for all we know is a fan publication written by some crazed otaku. And if you personally have seen the evidence in the ROM file (and you can somehow prove it isn't hacked), start documenting it on your own web site and telling people about it. Nothing personal, I'm just saying. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I run GDRI, I should disclose, and noticed this discussion because of my tracker. It encouraged me to go searching, and I found this. It's a judgement handed down by Judge Hashimoto from the Osaka District Court. Ikegami is not mentioned by name, and the Ikegami name has been redacted from the text string mentioned earlier. It's a wall of Japanese, so it may be of no use here. Crv1 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Masumi Akagi, the man who wrote the book mentioned before, is a noted historian and journalist who has been covering the industry for decades. Steven L. Kent did an interview with him about five years ago. [6] Crv1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone still following this, here is the relevant section of the guidelines: Undue Weight under Neutral Point of View.

Of particular interest: "From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Composer

I don't know where Sheff got the information that Miyamoto composed the music for the game himself, but all soundtrack CDs and the Super Smash Bros. Brawl site claim that Yukio Kaneoka was in charge of the whole soundtrack and not only the "Title BGM" added to the Famicom and NES ports. The arrangement in Brawl titled "Donkey Kong" contains "Radar BGM", "25M (Level 1) BGM", "Game Start", but not the "Title BGM" that was composed by Kaneoka after the initial release – so the additional track from the port is not the reason they listed Kaneoka as composer. Prime Blue (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jumpman and Lady

Is there a special reason to use the initial Japanese names Jumpman and Lady rather than the English (and now worldwide) names Mario and Pauline? In the article Super Mario Bros., Bowser is also not called Koopa/Kuppa. --Grandy02 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Miyamoto "first-time game designer"

In the second paragraph of this article, it claims that Donkey Kong is the first game Shigeru Miyamoto's designed. This is false, seeming that he worked on Radar Scope beforehand (see Shigeru Miyamoto#Nintendo). I haven't corrected this, just in case there is a disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.68.132 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Coleco Adam port of Donkey Kong

Who really believes that Coleco never was to sell the Adam version of Donkey Kong? There actually was a port of DK for the Adam computer add-on, via a digital data pack, in 1984. Get the facts straight. WikiPro1981X (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mario = Jumpman?

Unless I'm missing it, there doesn't appear to be any mention of the fact that Jumpman was later renamed Mario (the character most associated with Nintendo). Yet this article comes up in a list of "Mario games", and in the Legacy section, future Mario games are mentioned. I may add a small note. 99.98.221.223 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source on the Jumpman>Mario rename -- http://games.ign.com/articles/833/833615p1.html Salvidrim (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamesutra article

Gamasutra just published an article on Donkey Kong's development: [7] --Mika1h (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now Gamasutra has published about Ikegami on the web. Do they qualify as a reliable source? I'm not sure. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

By complete chance, I just found a source dating back to 1985 that addresses the issue about Ikegami Tsushinki. I've just added it to the article in the "Development and release" section. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nes Cover?

How come no one can find a shot of the original Arcade Cabinet to use there? why use the NES cover when it was just one of many ports? Use an image of the original game cabinet instead... Colliric (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've found a better picture and changed it to the original cabinet... why it had a picture of the cover for the NES port is beyond me. Colliric (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely Incorrect

The "Pie Factory" or just "Factory" level was not present in the original arcade version, nor were the levels given height measurements. This page states the four "original levels" and their height measurements, when there were only originally three levels in the original basic version, the "pie factory" and the cute little measuring thing was added much, much later, in the SNES version which had both Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Junior on one kart, and continues to stack with each successive level completed (125, 150, 175, and so on) in the remakes in which it is present. Having been told this by my parents, who played the original arcade version when they were dating, and owning the original NES version of the game, which also does not contain this, confirms this, but I won't make changes to the section without permission as it is a BIG error and would be a BIG change to make without permission of an admin.Nokota (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, that screenshot can't be from the original, the colors are wrong (brighter than they were) and the scoring system seems to be placed differently, though I could be wrong about that. Nokota (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please present your reliable source for these facts. Salvidrim! 21:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The proof is the game I have sitting in my living room and the fact that my parents, who played only the original, never heard of the "pie level". I could download the ROM illegally and take screenshots, but how could I then prove that I did not simply exclude it when submitting the pictures as a source? Nokota (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your personal findings and experience with the subject of the article is considered original research; facts not found in reliable sources cannot be considered verifiable. :) Salvidrim! 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get something from the official nintendo website, but all it has is games that are currently for sale. I get the impression the information just isn't out there since so few alive today played the original and none of the remakes ever specify that the factory level is new. >.< Nokota (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The pie level and how high measurement screens were indeed in both the US and Japan arcade version, and the arcade roms are readily seen played on youtube. Likewise, the strategy for the level has been more than discussed via twingalaxies competitors (the coin-op record keeping organization around since the 80's), shown in competition in films like King of Kong, etc. Where your confusion appears to be is that the level did not appear in home ports until the SNES. Both the Atari 260, Colecovision, and NES versions did not include the level because of size constraints. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Arcade is a miniture!

Just want to inform you that the photo of the arcade shown here is not the real arcade but a miniature version. If you look closely the buttons are very big on the control panel and there are many more details standing out. When you see the original photo it has been cut out from you clearly see its a small cabinet. Shouldnt the biggest most popular Nintendo Arcade game get a real photo of the arcade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcldude (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, now that I see it I cannot un-see it and it looks terrible. Surely there's a better picture out there somewhere... SQGibbon (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

POPEYE

I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the article but it should be mentioned that the game was originally intended to be a Popeye game, http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/13484/donkey-kong-was-originally-a-popeye-game/ here's the citation 24.94.251.19 (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. What you should do is add your reference to the article. Then list the reference by name at the end of the sentence that mentions it in the Development section. Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

New Ground?

The statement at the introduction states that Donkey Kong "broke new ground" with respect to cut-scenes, stages, etc... in fact, this was not new ground, as Pac-Man already included these features. This should stay, but be reworded to remove "broke new ground", perhaps mentioning that this was a new trend in game design, but this was not the first game with any of these individual features, nor was it the first to combine them. -24.130.65.122 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

20.000 lines of code?

I disagree, the rom relies on 24 Kilo Bytes, 24576bytes, I think that 80% of that are graphics, it's impossible that there where 20.000 lines of code to program the game, perhaps in the development of the game, tests, errors, and more, the team maybe had to program 20.000 lines, buts it's ridiculous, if there 20.000 lines of code in the source code they had to be 1 byte each line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.14.247.130 (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

At this anonymous insistence, I just checked the cited book. It is absolutely correct to have had this doubt. The book says, "created by a five-man team and contained approximately 20K of code". I just fixed it in the article, assuming that figure is reasonably accurate. I don't know because it's not an exact analysis but rather just stated to compare the proportion to the later games, stating that they wrote 8 megabytes of code for Donkey Kong 64, which is probably a wildly inaccurate hyperbole meaning that the game has an 8MB ROM size. I'm not sure whether the article should be changed to say that it yielded a 24K ROM size (which is objectively measurable from the outside) but I doubt that we have a reliable source on exactly how much program code is in it. I guess that's possible though, after it's separated out. By a reliable source. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donkey Kong (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615221817/http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-3 to http://www.gamesradar.com/f/gamings-most-important-evolutions/a-20101008102331322035/p-3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312011921/http://www.smashbros.com:80/en_us/music/music15.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/music/music15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donkey Kong (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702082511/http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/051601.shtml to http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/051601.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308182327/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/stages/stage30.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/stages/stage30.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm an inexperienced editor, but I noticed a [citation needed] for this game being the third most popular arcade game of all time. The citation internal to Wikipedia is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_arcade_video_games#List_of_best-selling_arcade_games Shava23 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

FAR?

This article is in need of a massive overhaul to be compliant with the FA criteria. Most notably, Story and characters doesn't really need to exist outside Gameplay; it's just an almost promotional narrative about Donkey Kong's significance in the game industry (and I don't know what the heck is up with "The Lady is instantly recognized as female from her pink dress and long hair"), and the sections after Development contain kind of an odd organization scheme. There are also a number of unreliable-looking sources (e.g. Donkey Blog, Dadhacker, Don Hodges, Twin Galaxies) and, less importantly, widespread inconsistent and incomplete citation formatting. Tezero (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I, and others, have already heavily edited unbelievable amounts of junk out earlier this month. I have been astonished. Thanks for prompting another pass. Anyway. I would submit that donhodges.com, dadhacker, and Donkey Blog are situationally reliable sources because the site content is mostly expertly devout to the subject, is not user-generated content, and those articles are directly relevant to this one. That's my opinion, and that subject is discussed in WP:VG/OFFICIAL. I don't know how Twin Galaxies isn't on the reliable sources list. I just requested it to be listed. Twin Galaxies exists to be the utmost reliable source in video game record-setting, and is as famous as Guinness just for video games, but I guess you haven't heard of it somehow. I don't know what you think doesn't need to exist, about text that defines the subject's significance. I just don't even know how to respond to that! That's as far as I've gotten so far. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, further work is needed. I was unable to find the material currently tagged as dubious in the citation given for that sentence, and am not able to read Japanese and so cannot address the page needed tag. The paragraphs in the Legacy section are disconnected from each other and are split into too many short sections. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: I just noticed this, you gonna follow through and sling it up at FAR? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This really should go to FAR. In addition to already mentioned issues, the development stuff is badly inaccurate in places based on newer sources that have come to light. Indrian (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it then. I am an FAR coordinator so can't really wear two hats...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Donkey Kong programmers

Can this be considered a reliable source?

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134790/the_secret_history_of_donkey_kong.php

The latest theory holds that Donkey Kong Jr. does appear to be a hack of the Donkey Kong code, more or less, with lots of strange bugs. Not unlike how Ms. Pac-Man is a hack of Pac-Man. Apparently Ikegami Tsushinki wrote the code for Donkey Kong when Nintendo hardly had any programmers, and then Nintendo got some more programmers and hacked it into Donkey Kong Jr. I feel dumb about trying to keep this out of the article in the past, but it's been hard to line up good reliable sources for this and I'm still looking. I do know of expert programmers who can confirm that DK Jr. seems to be a hack of DK. It even has the same kill screen. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Gamasutra is a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No Emulated Releases in the Infobox

Resolved

 – Confirmed that the infobox shouldn't included emulated platforms, per Template:Infobox video game#Syntax guide. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 12:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

TarkusAB, is that the case for all video games? So I should delete the info if I see it somewhere else? Or just this Donkey Kong page since the infobox would be too wordy? Thanks. --Bchill53 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bchill53: I think the consensus is to omit emulated re-releases form the infobox on all VG articles. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 02:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bchill53: @Arkhandar: Yes it applies to all video games, per the template documentation. You should delete it elsewhere if you see it. See Template:Infobox video game under "Platform" in the syntax guide. TarkusAB^talk 02:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: @Arkhandar: Will do, thanks for the heads up. I believe I've seen this elsewhere. I may ask for both of your input if I get some heat in the future about it. "WHY YOU DELETE THIS?" "Sorry..." (Points at Tarkus <----) --Bchill53 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bchill53: :) Yes it's prevalent on lesser viewed / unmaintained pages because most editors aren't involved with the VG project and don't know the policy. And you don't need to point at me, point at the policy. I don't make the rules. TarkusAB^talk 02:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bchill53: Hahaha don't worry, if anything happens just do like User:TarkusAB said: leave a link to the rule you're following in your edit summary. Cheers! ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 12:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TI-84 Donkey Kong.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Donkey Kong (arcade game). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Donkey Kong (video game) → Donkey Kong (arcade game) – or Donkey Kong (1981 video game). The current title is insufficiently precise to clearly identify what it is about. The whole Donkey Kong franchise is a video game franchise, and it includes various video games that are branded as Donkey Kong games, so having "(video game)" in the title provides very little disambiguation from the other topics. See also Donkey Kong (about the video game franchise), Donkey Kong (disambiguation), List of Donkey Kong video games, Donkey Kong (Game & Watch), Donkey Kong (1994 video game), etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Only two games are solely titled Donkey Kong, and the 1994 game is a loose remake of this one. O.N.R. ^(talk) 05:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support The original rationale for the move in 2006 was that this was a series article of a sort, which is no longer true. There is now a Donkey Kong article. This one is just about the arcade game. It should be disambiguated that way and moved back to its original disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for clarity; there is absolutely no reason to tolerate any ambiguity in a disambiguator, especially when an unambiguous one is available. Red Slash 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to Donkey Kong (arcade game) - the article comments about how the game is played on arcade controls. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.