Talk:Donkey Kong (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Donkey Kong (video game) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 15, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 22, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
February 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Ikegami Tsushinki[edit]

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 : (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:

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." 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. (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, are you implying we all have access to Donkey Kong's source code? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 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 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 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. [1] 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)

File:Coleco Donkey Kong.png[edit]

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. (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


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[edit]

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"[edit]

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 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Coleco Adam port of Donkey Kong[edit]

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)

Gamesutra article[edit]

Gamasutra just published an article on Donkey Kong's development: [2] --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)

Mario = Jumpman?[edit]

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. (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source on the Jumpman>Mario rename -- Salvidrim (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nes Cover?[edit]

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)

Photo of Arcade is a miniture![edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Completely Incorrect[edit]

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)


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, here's the citation (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?[edit]

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. - (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

20.000 lines of code?[edit]

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 (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)


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, 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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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