Talk:Donkey Kong (character)/Archive 2

SSBB Image

How about changing the current DK photo to the new Smash Bros. Photo. It is much better in seeing DK curently than what he was back 2 to 3 years ago. Mr. Mario 192 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a primary image. Because I can't have Brawl Link for Link, I'm going to be exactly like the people who refused to have Brawl Link on the basis there are primary images out there. There are at least 3-4 new Donkey Kong games you can use.

I just change the image and if ppl dont like it, then they can change it back. Because really, that is the characters design. Its not like its a peice of fan art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blumonkeyboy (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question... Why do we have the Jungle Beat Image instead of DK Jungle Climber's Image of DK? Angry Sun 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I figure it makes more sense to use whatever his newest main platformer was as a basis for his image. It's more well rounded. if you could find a usable image from Jungle Climber, we could put it lower on the page next to the handheld section.76.27.215.219 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name

I have also heard the story that is included in the intro, that Miyamoto wanted to say "Stubborn Monkey" and this is what he found in the Japanese-to-English dictionary. However, the reference provided in this article tells a different story -- one that was in the lead for a day or two, but just got reverted. The reference provided here, purporting to be an interview with Miyamoto (and I see no reason to doubt this) tells that Miyamoto intentionally chose the word Kong because he liked the connotation, but that he was looking for something to mean more like "Stupid," so he was looking for like "Stupid Kong" and thought "Donkey" would work.

So which is it??? We can't put story A in the intro and link to a reference that repeats story B! --Jaysweet 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The interview was conducted with Miyamoto in E3 2001. It was conducted in Japanese. One translation: http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/051601.shtml (which is cited in the article). Another translation: http://www.quartertothree.com/features/e3_2001/miyamoto.shtml

One translation says he confused "donkey" with "stupid", another says he confused "donkey" with "ass". If you're really interested, look up the interview in the original Japanese and translate yourself.

The story about looking "Kong" in a dictionary seems ridiculous. Kong is not a word in English.

217.132.73.153 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese, but here it is: 訪談會正式開始之後，宮本茂先是聊到關於「大金剛」與「薩爾達傳說」的人物起源。根據宮本茂本人表示，在他製作第一款遊戲作品的時候，他想要創造出一個能夠與當時風行之哥吉拉一樣能夠反映人性愚蠢一面的名字。在這樣的前提之下，宮本茂想到金剛意欲攀爬與蠢樣，所以就很自然選擇牠做為主角人物，並且替牠取名為Donkey Kong。當他向Nintendo北美分公司提出這項構想之後，他很快就得知金剛一詞的意義並非他原來所想像那樣，但是由於這個名字實在是取得相當恰如其份，所以他就決定不顧一切堅持採用這個名字。另外一方面，薩爾達公主之所以會如此取名，那是因為宮本茂想要讓這名女性角色有著讓人感覺相當堅強的樣子，他才會覺得Zelda這個名字實在是相當適合她。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.73.153 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I also heard that he was trying to write "Monkey Kong" and simply mixed up the first word, but I assume that's apocryphal? Dave-ros (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In universe / Character

The Character segment is clearly in-universe. It presents the events as if they really happen. Looks life fanfiction, and I'd delete it, but I fear an editing war. AngrySun, how can you defend it as not in-universe? ----217.132.73.153 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they did happen... In the games. We don't need this stupid backstory when already everyone knows it. And the first part of your edit describes Cranky Kong... Angry Sun 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you understand what "in-universe" means? You can't describe events from the point of view of the fictional universe. And you can't voice your personal opinion, for example "playing bongo drums (which he seems to have quite a talent for)". Please don't decide what everyone knows or not, and don't call Donkey Kong from the original game Cranky Kong. In the Rare games he is, but for all purposes outside of the Rare game universe, the original Donkey Kong is the original Donkey Kong, as a character, as seen in the real world which we inhabit. I hope this settles it. I'm reverting the edit. Unless you can include significant details which are not in-universe (see example), please do not revert. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective ----217.132.73.153 08:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop this whole outside of the universed thing... It's the same universe. All the games have already put it all together. Angry Sun 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain again. Wikipedia encourages a neutral point of view, and discourages writing about fiction, such as viodegames, from the point of view of the fictional universe. An example would be writing about Donkey Kong as if he was a real creature living on an island and fighting monsters, etcetera. The Manual of Style says, "The in-universe perspective describes the fiction from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real. Many fan wikis and fan websites take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles." This has nothing to do if there's one game universe or two game universes. You have to write from the perspective of reality. You can't write from the perspective of a person inside the videogame. You can't describe fictional events as if they actually happened.

Compare: In-universe: "Although he previously spent his time pestering Mario in numerous ways, Donkey Kong has somewhat abandoned this mischievous lifestyle to become a hero in his own right"

Neutral perspective: "In the original series and the 'vs.' games, he usually rivals Mario"

One of these presents Donkey Kong as an actual person, while the other describes him as a videogame character.

-

I can't make it any clearer: The Wikipedia Manual of Style states you should not talk about fictional events as if they took place in reality. ----85.250.43.208 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

King of Kong / dictionary rumor

The section about King of Kong belongs in the article about the videogame. It has little to do with the character Donkey Kong. I'd also like to ask again not to insert the rumor about Miyamoto looking up "stupid" in a dictionary and finding "donkey", unless you can provide references. ----132.68.209.80 07:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

he said in an interview his friend figured the american's would get it.216.64.246.184 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

King Kong copyright issues

i'd like to bring up a section i just added about copyright issues beetween king kong and donkey kong and it got dealeated whats with that?

That's because it's WP:OR. Gscshoyru 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But they do exist, god it even has its OWN wikipedia article >_>

http://www.miniarcade.com/tandy/kingkonghh.htm http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24595815&union_id=276&print=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd. Balladofwindfishes 20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So it does!

The problem was that the anon IP used text that made it sound like WP:OR. I can't recall offhand, but it was something like, "It sounds like King Kong, so some people might confuse the two" (except with worse spelling and grammar, heh).

I agree a reference to the court case would be appropriate. I'll look for a place to add it. --Jaysweet 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually... it's already in the See Also section, and upon further consideration I think that is enough. It would clutter the article to mention it explicitly, I think. --Jaysweet 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

Pretty much the entire external links section is redundant. Objections against removing? ----82.166.180.182 11:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DK in Super Smash Bros.

I don't think there's a reference to Donkey Kong being in the original Super Smash Brothers and SSB Melee, only him being in Brawl, so it should be edited in somewhere.Blahmaster (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see the spinoff part, but it should be given more detail, at least. Blahmaster (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This page stagnates and it stinks

A useless sentence here, an external link to spam there, why is there no notable content on this page? 132.68.209.74 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He also, oddly, did not appear in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games

It's not odd it's not Mario,DK&Sonic at the Olympics I'm deleating that sentance BaconBoy914 (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

shut up.Madhatter9max (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

it's odd enough considering he's in all mario party and sports stuff. where've you been since Nintendo started?Madhatter9max (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to original poster - Wario has his own franchise, and is in M&S.

However, his non-appearance is not notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:250px-DonkeyKongMP7.jpg

Image:250px-DonkeyKongMP7.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Donkey Kong documentry

has any one else herd about this? I saw it on a movie show but it might be a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.94.251 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Donkey's Image

I think a better suiting image would be one that was up earlier for awhile but got removed for unfair use: from Jungle Beat where he's standing and smiling at the camera with his hand back in his hair. it's a more better rounded picture and is slightly better than the punch one he has. if you can find a fair version of the picture I mean, please upload it.76.27.215.219 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The other image got deleted because nobody had explained why it was fair use. I actually believe the other image would have qualified as fair use just as well as this one. However, Wikipedia has a serious problem with copyright violating images, so a deadline was set by which all images have to have the "fair use rationale" explained. In this case, all somebody had to do was write up a little statement affirming that the image was low resolution, that it depicted the same thing as the topic of the article (i.e. DK) and that there was no free alternative available -- but nobody did that before the deadline, so it got automatically zapped.

If you can dig the image back up, it can probably be included. Although, I don't understand what is wrong with the image that is there now... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

theres nothing specifically wrong with the current one, it just seems slightly more appropriate. I was the one who originally uploaded it, as one of my first images and didn't really know if it was fair use. I just got it from Google. so I can upload it again if someone can tell me how to justify it.:76.27.215.219 (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)