Talk:Donkey Kong 64/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mysteries

"The most famous of the mysteries is a useless monkeyport linking to a pillar where a banana balloon was the only thing of use to be found."
This is the donkey kong 64 testing room. It was added in so rare developers can test to see sprite changes while playing in game. But I do not remember any monkeyport to it. Everytime I got in I had to go to Snide's hideout and press A and B at the same time in the mini-game select screen. Now I don't know if this "mystery" should be removed or left alone, because
1: It is wrong facts, but
2: It actually is HIDDEN in the game which might make it considered a mystery.
I don't know what to do with it, I think you guys should decide. Gliabrant 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cranky Kong is DK's father

That's a controversial claim to make, and lacks evidence. Although I think that's probably true, there are a lot of people who disagree. As there's little proof either way, perhaps it would be best not to assume.

DK Rap

Its only notable by being connected to this game. Therefore it should be included in this article rather than have a separate one. El cid the hero 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also included in Super Smash Brothers Melee --LuminousSpecter 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's related to the game, but also to Super Smash Melee as LuminousSpecter stated. Plus if the two articles were merged, the lyrics to the song would take up a considerable amount of space. Daniel Olsen 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OpposeThat's pretty long for the article, it's better off in it's own, especially since it's also in Super Smash Bros. Melee. Julz 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Something I just noticed in the article "The "DK Rap" was the first-ever incidence of the word "hell" being spoken aloud in a Nintendo game." In the NES game Rambo, one of the characters says "You have 48 hours to get in, complete your assignment and get the Hell out". Proof of this can be seen in the Angry Video Game Nerd's video on Rambo on gametrailers.com. Don't know if that changes much, but I just thought I'd let you guys know and have the appropriate people decide what should be done --The-elementalist (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot?

This could really do with a screen shot – they’re more informative than marketing pictures. -Ahruman 10:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

screenshots do help.

Re-release

Donkey Kong 64 needs to be rereleased so that there can be a modern Donkey Kong that doesn't use bongos.

A compilation would also be nice.

It seems however that Rare and/or Nintendo are not inclined to do a remake of Donkey Kong 64 to be on the Nintendo DS and/or Wii, although Donkey Kong 64 will by on the Virtual Console as a downloadable game. --PJ Pete

Please note that it is against Wikipedia policy to talk about the content of a wikipedia page here as described in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Anonywiki 14:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to be on VC, I think that Jetpac and the Arcade version of the game may be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.10.27 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jetpack would almost certainly be removed but I hope the original arcade game isn't removed. The only reason I could see is that the NES version of Donkey Kong is on the VC. This is a pity because the version in DK64 is the arcade version if I remember correctly and therefore has the level that was missed out of the NES version.eyeball226 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

what is this?

"Also, there is a very useful cheat in the game. If you go to the treehouse and simian slam the hammock 10 times, go to the outside of K Lumsy's house. An octopus will be there and asks you to be his friend. If you say yes, he go's away and never comes back, which ruins the cheat. If you say no, however, he gets angry and tries hitting you. He misses and breaks K Lumsy's house wall. K Lumsy gets so mad, he BREAKS THE CAGE HIMSELF and kills the octopus. Many people haven't believed this but it is real."

whether this is true or not, shouldn't this be under the mysteries section and changed to encyclopedia style wording

Well, then, why doesn't somebody prove it? Allyourbasearebelongtousomg (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Widescreen

Do you think it should be added that this game supports anamorphic widescreen? Just asking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.188.239 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

The screen actually is pressed from the sides. --PJ Pete

Strength and Speed of the Kongs

In this game, Chunky Kong is the strongest and Tiny Kong is the weakest. However, to order it, Donkey Kong is the second strongest Kong, Lanky Kong is the third strongest. Since the SNES Donkey Kong games, Diddy Kong lacks power with his hands like he carried something but was much weaker than Donkey Kong and Diddy's default attack in this game is his tail, which is much stronger than his hands. To order the speed, Diddy Kong is the fastest, Chunky Kong is the slowest, Tiny Kong is the third fastest, because of Donkey Kong described as "He's bigger, faster, and stronger, too". --PJ Pete

GameShark

Some GameShark Codes of this game, for Character Modifier, on the MAIN MENU, some other characters can replace Donkey Kong, e.g. Lanky Kong, Chunky Kong. --PJ Pete

Reception

"However, Donkey Kong 64 is considered by many to be the best Donkey Kong game to date, at least in the Nintendo 64 era. It is also generally considered to be the best platform game on the N64." Who calls Donkey Kong 64 the best DK to date? I call it the worst game in the Donkey Kong Country series to date...Furthermore, it's the ONLY DK game for the N64, right? So saying it's the best DK game in the N64 era is rather misleading. Also, how is it considered the best platformer for the N64? Super Mario 64 and BOTH Banjo-Kazooies were not only more groundbreaking, they were flat-out better games. I've talked to other people about this and that seems to be the general consensus. Don't get me wrong, I like Donkey Kong 64, but it's nowhere near as good as the other N64 platformers I mentioned or the DKC games for the SNES (particularly the second). I'll leave the text in the article for a week or two, but I'm going to remove it later on unless someone can cite references. --pie4all88 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Diddy Kong Racing was also on the 64. It was considered to be the best DK game, because it took the whole storyline of donkey kong country, and explained it better, and added more game play. And I checked gamefaqs and it is rated number 10 on the top 10 best games for N64 but I don't know. I think it needs more references. But I for one agree it was the best Donkey Kong game (the last good donkey kong game, the rest sucked) Gliabrant 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Size of the back-up memory on the cartridge

How much data (in bytes, kilobytes, etc.) can the Donkey Kong 64 game pak hold on back-up RAM (you know, the memory where the data about all your progress in the game is)?--Mathsexpressions 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Game Alteration

Somehow, I managed to alter the game's information with a Controller Pak. How else can I hack DK64?--Mathsexpressions 00:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Controller Pak Support

Why doesn't Donkey Kong 64 support the Controller Pak? How can I delete all of the back-up data on my Donkey Kong 64 cartridge?--Mathsexpressions 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop in another game that does support the controller pak. Delte that way. Voila. Psst. Questions like this aren't meant to be in Wikipedia. www.gamefaqs.com has lots of info on lots of games. Lots42 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese language titles

For all articles on Donkey Kong games, you need to put in what they're called in Japan including the Japanese characters. --PJ Pete

How is the DK Rap a Copyvio?

People use it on websites all the time. How is this a Copy Violation?

Just because something is on a website doesn't mean it's public domain. There's copyright violations all over the internet. Pagrashtak 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And those websites say "(C) Nintendo".

So how does that make it a copyvio?

What the crap do you want me to do?

Ask Nintendo about it?

I can't believe you deleted info that was already decided to stay. Angry Sun 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"(C) Nintendo" is an indication that Nintendo owns the copyright (Although, it may actually be Rare). Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text. In fact, you may have seen the large "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." notice displayed on every page you edit. If you want to contact Nintendo or Rare and convince the copyright holder to release the text into the public domain or an acceptable free license, then you may be able to reinsert the text. Pagrashtak 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm which email would be correct...PR Contact? Angry Sun 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try if you want, but realistically that's not going to happen. Pagrashtak 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well than mister smart guy.

What Email should I contact? Angry Sun 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Chunky Kong's weight

In this article, it says he weighs 1800 but in the list of Donkey Kong characters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donkey_Kong_characters#Chunky_Kong, it says he weighs 2000. Someone might want to change one of them.--MunchableSandwich 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DS and VC

Is this true? No Vitual Console port soon? Please give me a source, just so I know.

Stating that It's rumoured a DS port will be created, then it shouldn't be here.Claycrow 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dk Rap says Hell?

I remember when I first got the game, I heard the "Dk Rap", I thought: "They just said Hell!?!" I later noticed in the subtitles that they didn't say hell, but heck, which is it? I'm pretty sure it's only heck.Claycrow 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...a Glitch section..?

Why? I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a speculative fan-site! --66.217.98.4 09:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dk64 jungle.jpg

Image:Dk64 jungle.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) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregg Mayles credit removed

I removed the big Gregg Mayles as Designer credit since he DIDN'T WORK ON THIS GAME. Unless the game's closing credits, GameFAQS.com, Mobygames.com, etc. are all lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.75.47 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Donkey Kong 64 Bosses:

This comment says the names of all the bosses in DK 64. (It also says what species they are). If this appeals to you, add it to a new section : The bosses are:

Jungle Japes boss: Armydillo (Some might remember him from DKC1): He attacks with fireball cannons and looks like a giant armadillo.

Angry Aztec boss: Dogadon: He attacks with fireball breath and looks like a giant dragonfly.

Frantic Factory boss: Mad Jack: He can attack with stomps, lasers, and fireballs. He looks like a Kremling-in-the-box and laughs a lot.

Gloomy Galleon boss: Puftoss: He sounds like a speed boat motor/engine, attacks with fireballs and shockwaves, and looks like a giant blowfish.

Fungi Forest boss: New-and-improved Dogadon: Not much to say, just same old dragonfly... with more attacks (i. e. firewall, and sinking the platform).

Crystal Caves boss: New-and-improved Armydillo: New attacks (this is the last and 2nd New-and-improved boss):Shockwave, rain of fireballs (like Puftoss), and homer missile.

Creepy Castle Boss: King Cut-Out: He looks like a carboard K. Rool (penultimate boss, this is), attacks with fakes and lasers (like Mad Jack), and Ghost Kritters.

Boxing Ring: final boss:King Krusha K. Rool: He's same old King, except saying "Thank You" to the audience Kremlings, has a boomerang punch, shockwaves, uppercuts, rope launching, dashing, and toe lunging. He has two Kritters for commentators, a talking microphone for a ref., and blue boxing gear, complete with a gold champion's belt

-C. J. D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.101.50 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

spin off characters

why is it mentioned that Tiny and Lanky appear only in spinoffs in the sequels section? it should be mentioned in their bios on list of donkey kong characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diddy kong country23 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative play

I don't recall any cooperative play in DK64. Should this article be removed from the category "Cooperative Video Games" ? 68.177.144.110 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no cooperative play, the only muiltiplayer mode is Kong Battle ONKN0WNUN1D3NT1F13D (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Japan?

Doesn't belong does it? Developer Rare is British, and the DKC games aren't in Wikiproject Japan either. Digifiend (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Music

I think it would be great if the composer(s) of the music for DK64 were listed. I see that the artist who performed the DK Rap is already there. Who composed the DK64 music?? Thanks. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

blatant racism

On that note, I think there should be a section devoted to the clear racism in DK64. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.241.77 (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Racism?! Could you please clarify? I don't recall there being racism in any Donkey Kong game--actual or implied...You must be joking, no? 24.10.181.254 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Moving on...

There's something new I'd like to bring up; the article says that this game was released on Nov. 24, 1999, but Nintendo and IGN say otherwise. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Console?

Why is Donkey kong 64 not on the Virtual Console? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokeyfire (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. I'd wager it's what Wikipedia says, due to emulation issues (which is odd as nearly every other major N64 game is on the VC). Unfortunately, I don't have citation on the emulation bit, so we'll have to see. 64.83.196.43 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

can I just state that its not on the VC because of emulation issues, there is no proof that nintendo is having problems with emulation, the only thing we can assume is that it is due to copyright of the game jetpac, if someone would restate the sentence or take it out completely that would be great, but I must again state this. maybe we should take out the VC part altogether because it is again irrelevant and false! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.53.240 (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that donkey kong 64 is not on VC due to copyright issues with the game jetpack, not the expansion pack because zelda MM needed the same pack and it is now on the VC, if anyone bothers to change it that would be great, but otherwise I will change it because the page is giving wrong information regarding the status of VC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.37.199.138 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a reliable source (ex. Nintendo or Rare) saying that's the reason? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source saying that that expansion pack is the reason? no, so this is wikipedia, not wikiguessida, I will remove it because the expansion pack is not relevant to why it is not on the VC, wikipedia pages are to give information, not guess's, like I said befor the second zelda 64 is on the wii vc, and it use's the same pack as this game, so this information is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.77.230 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added 7 sources to the article, some of which should clear up the VC discussion. I've also merged these topics into one as it's redundant. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not on the virtual console because it was developed by rare, and microsoft owns rare now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.19.207 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But Donkey Kong is owned by Nintendo, hence the releases of all 3 DKC games on the VC. groovygower (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

C-Class Review

• All appropriate sections are included in the article.
• Writing of Gameplay section is sloppy; consider removing terms like "only that specific character can get" and "of grave importance". The Multiplayer section is choppy and only three sentences. In its current state it doesn't need its own sub-section. No reliable sources.
• Plot section is too short to have its own section. Either expand or synthesise Characters and Plot together.
• Development and audio section also lacking in sources, but off to a good start.
• Reception section is coming along. All reviews have been cited correctly, but the section still needs expansion.
• Awards doesn't need to be a section, because it's already included in the scores table.
• Template:- should be used to avoid the scores table biting into the References.

 Passed as C, given that the groundwork is there for the article. Going forward the main problem with the article is the lack of citations in Gameplay and Development, not to mention most of the sections are too short. -- CR4ZE (t) 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps removing the "Virtual Console" re-release dates on Wikipedia Articles?

This is happening with a lot of games lately. The "Virtual Console" releases are being removed. It did say somewhere that "Virtual Console" ports don't count as re-releases but that's stupid. (216.252.30.100 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC))

Yes, it is stupid. That information is always going to be important to the reader. The change was decided here: Template_talk:Infobox_video_game#Platforms_doc_proposal_to_exclude_emulation Ozdarka (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donkey Kong 64. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rareware.com/extra/tepidseat/music/musicteam2.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}}).

{{sourcecheck}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting the last paragraph of the Development section

The last paragraph of the Development section is very poorly written and lacks citation:

"Also, the developers implemented an anti cheating feature that would corrupt your cartridge permanently if unlicensed Gameshark devices were used to cheat; the auto-saving system corrupts the data and the lack of an "erase all" option leaves the game in an unplayable state. Breaking textures, models and mechanics, the glitches would not go even after turning off or taking the game out, nor reseting the console and restarting the game. Though a few people managed to restore their cartridges using Gameshark codes the solutions seems to be completely random and the success rate pretty low."

I feel it should be rewritten or removed entirely 24.125.25.50 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Donkey Kong 64. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grantkirkhope.com/donkeykong64.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630012536/http://www.grantkirkhope.com:80/donkeykong64.html to http://grantkirkhope.com/donkeykong64.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=18829&tab=review
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/n64/games/reviews/3418.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/2009/06/donkey_kong_64_retro

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

{{sourcecheck}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation verification

For those looking to verify the offline magazine citations:

• "Donkey Kong 64". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 127. February 2000. p. 178.
• Chido, Norman (December 1999). "Donkey Kong 64". Next Generation. Vol. 1, no. 4. p. 106.
• "The 10 Most Overrated Games". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 190. May 2005. p. 50.

Here are some sources that I thought were not worth including, though they may be of interest in the future:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20011108213728/http://www.nintendojo.com/interviews/view_item.php?988644354
• http://www.ign.com/articles/1999/12/01/dk-card-game-announced

czar 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Donkey Kong 64/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look over this shortly. JAGUAR  10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• " "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre,"" - unlink Super Mario 64 here as it's already been linked. Also, isn't the comma meant to be after the quote?
• "their sights to the Sega Dreamcast and Sony PlayStation 2" - no need for 'Sony'. I would say 'Sega' seems redundant here too, but I think it's sort of a personal preference for me

Agreed, they are redundant, but I think this is the kind of redundancy that is helpful to a general audience (who may not know what those systems are, but may not need to look them up if understood that they're from Sega/Sony.

• "Reviewers criticized the game's opening DK Rap.[22]" - why only one citation here? Do all of the reviewers criticising the DK Rap need to be there as it's a summary sentence? I'm still getting to grips with writing reception sections in this style myself!

This citation is the holy grail: a source that makes a summative declaration ("Most, though, criticised it for being a rubbish song."), so no need to stack sources to support the claim. I think the hardest part of losing the X-said-Y Reception format is deciding when a review's statement can stand without needing to attribute the thought to X magazine as a qualifier. czar 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The developer, Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) charged" - this should possibly be rephrased as it makes it sound like EGM is the developer
• "and came from the Banjo-Tooie team when the Banjo project ended" - does this mean to say that the development of Banjo-Tooie ended when DK64 was being developed?

Yeah, some timeline issues here... (BT was completed after DK64 but the source said that BT dev staff worked on DK64)—rephrased czar 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since all of the issues have been addressed in the previous review, and the fact that it already meets the GA criteria, I may as well pass this now. The above points are only minor nitpicks and doesn't affect the outcome of the review in any way. This is looking very FA-worthy as it stands. JAGUAR  10:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, J—appreciate the review and good suggestions, as always! czar 16:37, 3 March 2017 (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.

Use of the US dating system

I propose that this article should change date formats to DMY from MDY. The MDY format (magenta) is only used by the US and this game has no strong national connection or tie to the US. The developer (Rare) is a British company and the publisher Nintendo, Japanese, neither country of which uses MDY. The vast majority of the world (including the developers country Britain) uses the DMY format and Wikipedia is an international platform, so I don't see any reason why the article should use the date format of one country that has no connection with the game. Date format by country. Helper201 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Already went over this on your talk page, but the topic has no strong national tie to any region (if anything, it was sold and marketed primarily in the United States), meaning that the original date/English variation is retained. The MDY format is perfectly acceptable on WP. If you want to restrict WP to DMY-only, you've started a discussion in the wrong place. czar 22:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-cheat

@Caristizabalm, this information is trivia, based on how it's presented and the source used as reference. If the anti-cheat system is important, it will have been covered by a reliable, secondary source—not a user-generated wiki like TVTropes—and the mention would be much shorter, given due weight in the article. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for a general audience and that enthusiast info best belongs on another wiki. czar 10:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

DKC series

As I said in my edit summary, you must cite a reliable, secondary source for your claim that DK64 is part of a Donkey Kong Country series. From having paraphrased the refs in the article, I can tell you that the claim has little backing. czar 22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As said before you need undeniable proof that it isn’t, it has always been seen as part of the series and was developed and advertised as a continuation of the Donkey Kong Country series.217.43.203.61 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound hostile to anyone, as I have no dog in this race, but the onus is on the editor to prove the connection. Though personal recollection is one thing, I'm curious if there are any sources that back you up, either of you, @Czar and 217.43.203.61:? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

1. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You need a citation for any new claim that you're making, as the burden is on you as the claimant. No one else has an obligation to refute the claim.
2. When your proposed edit is challenged, it goes up for discussion—full stop. Any attempt to add it back is edit warring. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, though I doubt that you're new to this based on how you invoke "3RR" in your edit summaries.
3. The ref for the Development section's opening sentence literally quotes:

   Although quite a few games were released in the Donkey Kong franchise after DKC3, none of them were in the same vein (or series) as Donkey Kong Country. Donkey Kong 64, a pseudo-sequel to the SNES games, delivered a Super Mario 64 style 3D platformer with plenty of collectables ...

   czar 22:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Czar. I didn't mean to impugn your honor or your sourcing, and I'm not really up to date on this subject, so thank you for the reference. Do you have anything to refute that, @217.43.203.61:? — Javert2113 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you bother to do any research yourself you will learn that the game was always developed as a sequel to DKC 3, and the 3D exploration was added to attracted more sales with more modern game play, they never took it our the series. The burden stays with you to prove it not part of the series as said before as it has always been seen a part of it, my edits aren’t controversial at all, the removal of it is. I was no the one to start this issue, but will defend my edits, The source for that above just says that alterations were made, not that they ever took it out the series.217.43.203.61 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Now, I don't much mind doing research, but I'm an disinterested and uninterested party; and I'm afraid I don't know where to start. Would you happen to have any papers, or reviews, or anything, really, even in Japanese, if you want, to back up your claim? (N.B. I should also note that you were the one who added the DK64 back into the DKC series, right?) — Javert2113 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• We've politely invited you multiple times to provide a source for your claim and you haven't.

  If you bother to do any research yourself

  (I wrote the article...)

  The burden stays with you to prove it

  Read WP:BURDEN. I directly quoted from it.

  I was no the one to start this issue

  That's not what the edit history says. Then who did?

  my edits arent controversial at all, the removal of it is

  Did you read anything I linked? czar 23:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Retro Gamer did some stuff on this, i'll go through their site now and again in the morning to double check, i'll also see if I can find the issue number with the articles on it , they do lists every year with best games for Nintendo, Sony ect and DKC is always there and DK64 is always list as part of it if in some ways disconnected217.43.203.61 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hold on, Czar. I've looked into this (a bit more than I ever wanted to, truth be told), and it's murky, at best. Some individuals note that the settings are the same, but don't ever really make a distinction between DK64 and the DKC series, while others, well, I'll just let this quotation speak for itself:

References

• • "How Nintendo ever let this game slide is a mystery, but even more baffling is why anyone remembers it fondly. If you ever get the itch to bust that old yellow cartridge out and play it again do yourself a favor and play the Donkey Kong Country series instead. The original trilogy has aged incredibly well, and the new games on Wii and Wii U are a far better tribute to Donkey's glory days than the rotten banana known as Donkey Kong 64."
• So, ultimately, I don't know if it is or isn't, but I'm inclined to say that the burden of proof lies on the person that requests the change. I just would like a snatch, a word, a phrase from 217.43.203.61 that might be able to settle this issue. I hesitate to ask again, but do you have that proof, 217.43.203.61? — Javert2113 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No politeness from you Cazr, just I’m right your wrong and you don’t seem to respond politely at all when some one challenges your response agian I did not request any controversial change I just set it back to how it had been for years without any issue and will defend those edits, there’s need no reliable sources from antone else only OR..217.43.203.61

• As of right now, (I'm really sorry about the delay) I believe the article should return to status quo ante until and unless 217.43.203.61 comes up with the sources requested, as at which point we may decide further. — Javert2113 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I just set it back to how it had been for years

Spot-checked 2014 and 2015 and the article has not made your claim, nevertheless for years, nevertheless cited. There's nothing to discuss here until you provide sources. czar 00:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, 3rd party here, never played any DK games so I don't have a horse in the race. 217.43.203.61: You're claiming that DK64 is part of the DKC series. Okay. 2 other people disagree, and have asked for a source from you that states that DK64 is part of the DKC series. They have provided a few sources that say that it is not part of the DKC series (1 is a bit unclear, but is not directly stating that it is in that series). You have not provided any sources. You have stated that you are simply reverting to what the article used to say; regardless of the strength of that arguement (it's not strong) it's also not true, as noted by Czar. So, at this point if you're unwilling to provide a source, then your arguement is just "I’m right your wrong", as you put it. Unfortunately, that's not going to be enough to change things; sorry if you think that's not polite. Again, if you want to convince people that you are correct, please provide a source (from a reliable source, not a forum post, please). --PresN 03:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Czar and Javert2113: I have an obligation to step in here. When 217.43.203.61 says that they "reverted it back to how it was for years", I believe they are referring to Donkey Kong Country (series) and Donkey Kong. I removed Donkey Kong 64 from the DKC series sections of those articles a few months ago. I do not believe that changes the above discussion significantly, at least how sources are concerned, but I did want to clarify a possible misunderstanding. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Czar: Looks like you didn't like many of my recent edits. I'll respond to the rationale in the edit summary point by point.

• "later"s used to show temporal difference; This is redundant when the chronology is obvious. For example: The game was later released on Nintendo's Wii U Virtual Console in 2015. Readers know that 2015 is later than 1999.

• yes, it is a platform game IMO, in the lead sentence, a single genre is sufficient - I would be fine with either adventure game or platform game, whichever is best supported by sources, but both is bloat. (As an aside, the film MOS has one-genre policy about this for film articles and I wish we had one for games.)

• "the title" is not WP:ELEVAR The WP:ELEVAR essay has a section explaining the problem with "title".

• no, "universal acclaim" does not imply complete unanimity, and is the exact phrase used by the source; Seems like you and I disagree on what "universal" means, at least in the concept of an encyclopaedia. Let's put that aside for a sec. Main problem is it's contradictory: the game didn't get universal acclaim, and the sources, as the article explains, demonstrate that. Quoting the source ("indicating "universal acclaim'") would be fine, but why state such a grandiose and dubious claim directly?

• promotion is part of development—there is no clear divide Video game development and video game marketing are separate processes almost always handled by separate divisions. What does a commercial played in a movie theater have to do with development? Or a truck driving across the USA, or a tie-in promotion with Dr Pepper? If it were just one or two points, sure, shove it in the Development section, but there's extensive coverage of marketing in the article, enough to justify a separate section.

• As for the points about writing "platform video game" or "Nintendo 64 video game console", I made my argument about these on the project talk page a while ago. I believe you were one of those who disagreed with me then, so let's not hash that out again. Popcornduff (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• It is jarring to read a new paragraph, expecting it to be a continuation of the previous thought, only to discover that it's set in the future. Alternatively, could start the sentence with "in 2015" but that form is overused on WP. I agree, in general, with paring down unnecessary words, but by the same token, I avoid spartan terseness if the words have a clear use.
• Games are commonly listed as having multiple genres. It's part of how the medium is covered by reliable sources.
• The only use I see in the WP:ELEVAR essay is discouragement of fancy words for their own sake, especially where they introduce ambiguity. I don't see how uses of "the title" in this article met any of those essay's concerns apart from sharing the same example word ("title"). "The title" is a common synonym for "the game" in reliable sources and converting all instances of the former to the latter introduces even more distracting prose. When used as a means to drop the game as the subject from the sentence altogether, as done in the edit, many of the sentences became harder, not easier, to follow.
• Is it contested that the game had complete acclaim at its release? Is the cited source in doubt? If the argument is that no source can argue an all-encompassing survey of all professional opinions, then sure, agreed, but then what to do about the generalization? Is "wide acclaim" then more accurate than "universal/complete acclaim" if a single source withholds its "acclaim"? I think it's reasonable to give the summative source some leeway for variance. The sentiment still holds.
• Marketing and release are part of the product development cycle. It doesn't make sense to split the single paragraph on marketing (the movie theater, the truck, the soda contest) to its own section, and it isn't better justified by also moving the sentences on public demos and release events.

czar 10:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than failing to persuade you with a tedious breakdown of my every thought, I'll just respond to a couple these that are close to my heart.

• "Games are commonly listed as having multiple genres. It's part of how the medium is covered by reliable sources." I'm not doubting the sources - it's about crafting concise, readable prose. I'm going to talk about this matter in a broader sense on the MOS talk page next as I think it touches on a few issues that concern me about game articles on Wiki generally.
• "discouragement of fancy words for their own sake" - this is exactly the problem with "title". It is, as WP:ELEVAR says, a journalistic tic. This is an encyclopaedia - be clear and direct - call a game a game and a title a title. I am frankly baffled by your arguments here - referring to a game as a game is "distracting prose"? How? "used as a means to drop the game as the subject from the sentence altogether, as done in the edit" - what are you talking about here? Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, I disagree that "title" is a journalistic tic. It's the first definition of the term. It's disingenuous to defer to ELEVAR as authority because it's an essay that you wrote and codifies your personal preference (as you put it, close to your heart). I see no loss in meaning by using "title" in this edit so I'm reverting it. The distracting prose was in replacing "title"/"game" with "it" or nothing, leaving the subject to be implied. I prefer not to leave the subject to guesswork, which is preferable for a general audience over plain concision. czar 13:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing dictionary definitions. edit: and even then, the first definition of "title", which you link to here, is ": the distinguishing name of a written, printed, or filmed production". How does this help your case?

All this aside, what is the advantage of calling a game a title? Popcornduff (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The advantage is variety in the best interest of clarity and engaging prose. czar 09:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's the fallacy of elegant variation. The prose is perfectly natural without "title". You're imagining it.

"Title" is jargon. It is inherited from media journalism and press releases, which use it to refer to games, DVDs and magazines, but never, for example, paintings, records, or poems, even though these things are all works with titles just like games. The word as you want to use it doesn't even appear in the very dictionary entry you link.

This is an encyclopaedia. It's not the place for euphemism, innuendo, or metaphor. Use the correct word. Be literal. A game is a game and a spade is a spade. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

GWR

Just came across an article from The Ringer that mentions that this game holds the GWR for most collectibles in a video game. Might not be worth mentioning, I just thought it was interesting. JOEBRO64 22:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Nice find! I wonder how they validate that. "Most collectibles in a video game" smells like a dubious accolade, having been compiled for Guinness's gamer edition and since it'd be fairly easy to invalidate. But! could be used as a reference for the game's famous number of collectibles. Looks like The Ringer sources the stat to Know Your Meme, which pulled from a screenshot from Video Games Blogger (both unreliable). The latter quotes the 2008 GWR gamer edition, so the superlative/record itself could potentially be out of date. czar 04:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Holiday season

"Holiday season" is a phrase that not everyone understands. Does anyone know if the game was Nintendo's top seller for all of 1999, or at least for the last quarter of 1999? - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

More to the point, it is an (almost)exclusively US term, and so leads one to wonder whether the leading sales position is restricted to the US. It is highly inappropriate to place such a one nation claim on a worldwide encyclopaedia without qualification to make that clear. The claim is further thrown into confusion by the fact that the only source cited for the claim states that the game was released on 31 December 1999. That would appear to be erroneous, but it thereby brings into doubt the status of that publication as a reliable source in the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Our "holiday season" article doesn't make such a distinction by region and that was the one article I had found with sales information. It doesn't specify the time period apart from "holiday season". czar 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to get back to bed so maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks like all we have is one poll of retailers. That's not unusual ... the companies can't be counted on to release sales figures ... but given the other problems, I expect a fight when this gets to the Main Page, so I'm going to pull it from the blurb. If new sources pop up, please ping me. (It's certainly plausible that sales figures were high in 1999, and you make a good case for plausibility in the article; we just don't have room for all that in the blurb.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Okay, the blurb is long enough without that claim, and we still have "By 2004, 2.3 million units had been sold", which is in line with previous video game blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Improvement on the proposed blurb, but... That article is entirely unclear about where those 2.3 million units were sold: US, North America, worldwide? Who knows? Kevin McE (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not my call. Thoughts, Czar? - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The chart says "Life-to-Date Sales" so I'd assume cumulative but also don't know the NPD Group's practices. I think how it's phrased in the blurb works. Thanks, all! czar 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I don't believe that the reason given, "Donkey Kong 64 requires an expansion pack...," fulfills any reason for the page to be deleted, speedily or slowly. Webbsledge (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I second Webbsledge’s idea. This was a huge game and will likely be recreated in case of page deletion. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Webbsledge and E Super Maker: The page was never seriously considered for deletion. A vandal just slapped a deletion template on the page, and you happened to view the page before it was removed. In general, if you see a speedy deletion template that is obviously incorrect or placed in bad faith, you can just remove it yourself without bothering to contest it. But if you're not totally sure, it's probably best to wait for a more experienced user. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm The joys of being on the front page. Thanks to all who reverted vandalism! czar 00:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hbomberguy stream

In January of 2019, YouTube personality Hbomberguy raised over $300,000 by playing Donkey Kong 64 for the charity Mermaids in response to the actions of television personality Graham Linehan putting their funding from the National Lottery Fund in jeopardy.

References

Brewis started his stream on Twitch on Jan. 18. In a YouTube video announcing the stream, he said he’d never beaten Donkey Kong 64 as a kid. His old save file purportedly shows 59-plus hours of playtime, but just 69 percent completion. Brewis’ goal for the charity stream was to beat the N64 game 100 percent.
— https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/20/18191023/hbomberguy-donkey-kong-64-twitch-stream-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-john-romero-chelsea-manning

I haven't found a source that describes DK64's role in this stream as any more than trivia. I could see mentioning it on the streamer's page as a high-profile event for him, but what does a general audience interested in the game itself need to know about this event? If DK64 became associated with trans rights, would be a different story. czar 13:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• The game is making international news almost 20 years past its release because of its selection for the charity fundraising. I felt that was significant enough to include it here, compared to just a normal Let's Play which would be otherwise unimportant. Also, the Polygon article (thanks for the source!) points out the game was selected because of how difficult 100% completion of the title would be. A consistent theme in this page's discussion of the game appears to be the immense amount of collectibles and the increasingly negative impression it's left of the game since its release. Rebochan (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The streamer and his guests made news, not the game. The game is not associated with any record or movement, right? If collecting 100% of the collectibles is a feat (as inferred), I would think the sources would make a point of saying so, and even then, we would note that it's regarded as a feat, not the other details of the stream, as those aren't relevant to this article. The blockquoted sentence above has no immediate use to a general reader wanting to know about the game because the choice of game was incidental to the event. There are plenty of other places to cover the event on WP, though. czar 19:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

But the game's selection is a notable event for its history after decades of inactivity. That's what a "legacy" section would cover in any other game's article. In addition, if you google "Donkey Kong 64" right now, most of the hits are about the charity event - so it's going to look very strange to a casual reader that comes to this page off the front page of google and not seeing the most newsworthy event in the game's existence included on the page. If you want a more direct tie-in, references to the game and trans-rights became viral in the aftermath as well - which Kotaku Australia picked up on when they used one of the *many* trans-rights Donkey Kong images to head the article. A "Legacy" section isn't simply the mechanics of the game and its content, but documenting its place in history even when its not entirely because of the game itself. The lack of any mention of its selection in such a high profile event is a very curious omission that readers of the article are clearly noticing given the other good-faith attempts to add the information in. Rebochan (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

the game's selection is a notable event for its history after decades of inactivity

I haven't seen a single source mention the stream as important to DK64's legacy, nor have I seen a source name the choice of DK64 as intrinsically important to the event's message (not even the kotaku.com.au piece). Open to seeing other reliable sources.

Lots of game articles include all kinds of trivia but when they're cleaned up and featured, WP editors discuss (as we're doing right now) whether elements are incidental to the subject or noteworthy. As for the Google searchers, if the game has any lasting connection to the stream, a source will mention the importance of the connection and we will cite it. czar 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I (mostly a Wikipedia user rather than editor; So a beginner to its rules) came here expecting a passage or at least a sentence mentioning this. I almost made another good-faith edit to it before remembering that talk pages exist. Karland90 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A little while ago I made an edit mentioning the stream which has since been deleted, with the reason given being that "[the reverter doesn't] think the hbomberguy stream is notable enough to be listed here, it's more about the YouTuber himself and hasn't had any meaningful impact on the legacy of the game". The stream has multiple articles, during and after its completion, stating that the game was played, giving it media attention over 10 years past its original release and the Nintendo64's life-cycle. To say that the stream isn't notable is just untrue. A recent article mentioned the stream that wasn't even about the game itself. This stream should be mentioned on the page, even if it's just a line or two. Jwarlock (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't address how it's impacted the game's legacy. It hasn't at all. It's just trivia to list it here. As czar said above, it was a high-profile event for the streamer, but not for the game. It's not notable in regards to the game, so it shouldn't be mentioned. JOEBRO64 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If the selection of the game wasn't notable, wouldn't the articles mentioning the stream exclude the game itself and soley mention that the stream existed? Take a minute to read the article I linked and you'll see that he game was mentioned explicitly. If I was someone who knew nothing of the game who wanted to know its history, its role in a charity livestream would definitely be significant. The streamer isn't relevant to this article, yes. But the choice of game is. Jwarlock (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No known source asserts that the choice of game was anything more than incidental or trivia. No known source asserts the stream's impact on the game's legacy. PinkNews (RSP entry) is generally unreliable. If you have other sources that assert otherwise, we can discuss them this seems pretty clear cut. Readers who want to know about the stream are going to the streamer's article, not this one. czar 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The devs on the game's development

Nintendo Life posted a Feature article on DK64 in light of its 20th anniversary November 22, 2019. Mark Stevenson, Chris Sutherland and Gregg Mayles also added some in details on the game's development that may be good information to add to the article.92.244.24.162 (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)