Template talk:Donkey Kong

This template 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

This template is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Donkey Kong Country Game

Jungle Beat is not a Donkey Kong Country game in any way shape or form as it uses no characters, locations, enemies nothing not a single refrence to these games so I removed it from the Donkey Kong Country section and moved it into other because it didn't belong anywhere else. 58.165.215.242 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

WP:FU lists the criteria used to determine if the use of a copyrighted work constitutes "fair use" (17 U.S.C. § 107)--

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Wikipedia is non-profit AFAIK, so the usage here of a screen shot from a videogame seems consistent with fair use.
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
The image in use is merely a screenshot of the title screen for the arcade game. Taken as a whole, this screen shot of the logo is but a small portion of the actual copyrighted work.
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Use of the screenshot does not affect the marketability or value of the Donkey Kong video game.

I don't believe there's a case to be made here that use of the logo in this context isn't consistent with fair use. -Locke Cole 05:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Purpose and character of the use" is more specific than "used on an encyclopedia". For Wikipedia, it needs to be considered on an article-by-article basis. For example, an album cover picturing a rose would not be fair use to illustrate the article Rose, even though it would be fair use for illustrating an article on the album itself.

Also, there's more than just the law to consider. There are also Wikipedia rules for fair use. In particular, this use violates the rules on "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose" and "The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages"

--Carnildo 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:FU is not official policy, ergo, it is not a set of "rules". They are suggestive guidelines and nothing more. I believe the use of the image qualifies as "fair use" in that it provides a snapshot of the series of games being discussed (a snapshot that, given how small it is in comparison to providing a copy of the entire playable game, makes it miniscule IMO).

The old saying is "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true. I believe a picture of the logo says more about the series than simply having "Donky Kong series". -Locke Cole 06:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say it says more about the series than simply having "Donkey Kong series" does. What do you think it says? To me, it says exactly two words: "Donkey Kong". --Carnildo 19:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at the old 80's design then or getting the sense of nostalgia from seeing the original Donkey Kong logo. Sure, taken literally all it says is "Donkey Kong", but I think it

I dont see how its against policy? If it directly relates to all the pages its on, shouldnt it be fair use? It's like putting the Coat of arms on every page that has a monarch in the House of Windsor. --larsinio 19:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it directly relates to all the pages its on, it should be in the article text itself, not in a template. The logo in question is a logo for Donkey Kong; many of the games listed on the templates have different logos, so this doesn't seem to relate well to all of the articles this template is used in. Your coat of arms example may be against our fair use guidelines as well. To reply to an above comment, claiming that Wikipedia is a nonprofit to justify the purpose and character of the use is probably not sufficient. Wikipedia is intended to be a free (as in freely redistributable) encyclopedia, and many of our reusers are not nonprofit organisations. We should endeavour to use "fair use" images in ways that will be more likely to be fair use for commercial reusers, and we can ensure that we do by following the fair use guidelines at WP:FU. JYolkowski // talk 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That I included it on the template is just a technicality in my mind. The template itself is included in every page it's used on. If we were looking at the template alone as an article, I'd agree with the arguments here, but that's just not the case. With regard to the purpose and character of the use, I believe the use here is consistent with fair use (be it for commercial or non-commercial use). -Locke Cole 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a "Donkey Kong" game

Any definition of "Donkey Kong game" that doesn't include the two games actually named "Donkey Kong" is not workable.

Think about this template not as a definition of "this game features Donkey Kong," but as a tool to navigate related games. Someone reading about the original Donkey Kong is very likely to be interested in the two sequels to that game, both DK Jr. and the 1994 Game Boy sequel. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DK '94 is a remake. It's the same plot, with the same levels and 100 levels added onto that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, somebody removed DK'94 and Mario vs DK from the template (coincidentally, ones I added) because they starred Mario and not DK himself. Well, I guess we should remove DK, DK Jr, DK III, DKC2, DKC3, DKL2, DKL3, and DK Jr Math. None of those games starred DK. --Zeromaru ^T ^C 14:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The somebody was User:A Link to the Past, and the above comment is my explanation for reverting this change. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least those games starred A Kong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you even start. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When i made this template originally it was just to navigate ALL kong games, like you would for mario or anything else. the image is causing too much drama so for now just keep it off. But it would make no sense to remove the DKC games or something and split the templates into smaller ones. Subcategory maybe, but not a split template --larsinio 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No drama man, I'll leave it off for the time being if it gets reverted again. It's just annoying having people drop in and be judge-jury-executioner as if they own this place. In so far as what games do or don't belong, I think the way it is now is fine. I certainly don't think the original DK should be excluded from the series. :P -Locke Cole 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd enjoy starting, AMIB. You are arguing that DK, DK Jr., DK3, DK '94 are all Donkey Kong games, but that is only on the basis that they use the Donkey Kong name. In Donkey Kong, '94 and 3, his role in the game is no more different from Bowser's, and DK '94 is a remake of DK. In THAT fact, the exposure argument just doesn't work - DK '94 lessened his exposure in the game greatly, and it essentially became the ideal version of DK. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metroids aren't the star character of the Metroid series, either, nor do they appear in every game or appear prominently in the games they're in. But any game starring Samus is still a Metroid game. Any game following the mould of the classic Donkey Kong is, similarly, in the Donkey Kong series. That's just the name of the series, the main character is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impossible (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in titles discussion

There is currently a discussion re: italics in titles at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italic_in_templates. Anyone with an interest in this should participate in the discussion there. Thanks! —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 06:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Color contrast

Wow, seriously consider changing the color scheme of this template. I can see that you're trying to go for the DK-themed color but the contrast between the blue and the brown makes the template's title absolutely impossible to see. Kindly consider a lighter or more discernable color, thanks. Axem Titanium 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aieeeee. I've changed that, yeah. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Games

Technically, it should be refered to as the Rare Series and not the main one, since Rare isn't making DK games any more (Except Didy Kong Racing, But that's a different series) but Nintendo is.-GEM036 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter - the Rare-made DK games being made by Rare doesn't mean they're not main titles (and on top of that, all titles made after DKC are based on DKC and later Rare-made titles). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Console/handheld distinction

In the spirit of not starting an editing war, I would like to discuss if there is a better way to organize the games than using the console/handheld categories. It seems increasingly illogical to organize them by console/handheld, which was at one point perhaps a sort of useful distinction, but now seems a little arbitrary, even in retrospect. A look at many other series suggests there's not really a guideline on organizing them this way or not, some series do and some don't. It's also worth noting that this has been attempted before, and this template actually had this format for 6 months before being reverted back, so I don't think I'm the first person to propose this nor will I probably be the last. ArmosNights (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what the issue is here. Donkey Kong '94 and the Land games were exclusive to handhelds. The rest were released in arcade or on consoles. I don't see how that distinction is confusing. The Switch is primarily treated as a home console on Wikipedia, and even then, the only Switch Donkey Kong game is Tropical Freeze, which was originally released for the Wii U. JOE BRO 64 07:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not overly confusing, but I don’t see how it’s superior to the other way of organizing them. What’s the concern with organizing it the other way we proposed? ArmosNights (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's easier to read and more accurate? Not to mention, Donkey Kong '94 is not an arcade game. You're trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. JOE BRO 64 12:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if I fully agree that it’s easier to read, but I can respect we will probably not agree so it’s fine. I appreciate your explanation. ArmosNights (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, very late to the discussion but I categorised the main series titles into original arcade series, Donkey Kong Country series, and "other" a couple of months ago and it remained untouched until just the other day. Now I've gone about starting a discussion here about it as well. User:TheJoebro64 who edited it back claimed that "There's been consensus for this for a while, not sure why people can't get that through their heads", but there doesn't seem much to be much consensus in how to handle this issue really. I agree with what User:ArmosNights said, and from what I can tell based on the history of the page User:(Oinkers42) feels similarly as well. I believe that the way I managed to categorise the titles avoids the whole console/handheld issue and is more clear and convenient to the majority of readers anyway. But this is just what I think, I'm willing to hear what others think as well. Cheers TehRYNOL (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my logic for retaining the console/handheld separation:

The console/handheld distinction is historically significant. Donkey Kong, as a franchise, has had separate histories across different formats. The series took different paths across all three formats and, to me, it makes sense to reflect this. Sources never judged the Land games on the same level/as part of the Country series, for instance.
The Switch existing doesn't really change anything. Nintendo has outright stated they consider it a home console foremost and Wikipedia follows suit. You wouldn't call a PC game a "handheld game" because you can play it on Steam Deck. Not to mention, it falls under crystal ball territory because there isn't even an exclusive Donkey Kong on Switch.
The template has been using the console/handheld distinction since 2019, and longer if you factor in before the Country (series) article was merged into the parent Donkey Kong article. If we've been using this exact distinction for so long with no issue, why do we suddenly now need to change it?

I could list more reasons, but those are my main issues. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 21:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the distinction between the original arcade series, the DKC series, and everything else is more historically significant than whether the games appeared on a home console or handheld console first. Donkey Kong Land is objectively more similar to Donkey Kong Country than the 1994 Game Boy Donkey Kong game. Regarding the Switch, stating that it's foremost a home console implies that it's not fully one, i.e. a hybrid console and should be treated as such. Onto your last point, whether something has been using a stable distinction in the past doesn't mean it can't be improved. I really don't understand why you are so incredibly opposed to having any other distinction than by arcade/console/handheld. TehRYNOL (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I feel strongly about handheld/TV game distinction in particular, but I think it looks messier interspersing the smaller Land games in between the bigger Country games. And I think it's weird to pull 64 out from the rest too. So I don't support the change, I don't think it's an improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! That's fair though. One idea could be placing the Land games in the other category as well? I think considering them as not part of the Country subseries is more or less equally valid. I still don't like the implication that 64 and Jungle Beat play even remotely similarly to the Country subseries and that DK 1994 plays similar to the Land games, lol. TehRYNOL (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]