Talk:Donkey Kong

Franchise template

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.

---

@WanakoDX: please stop edit warring and discuss this. Edit warring is strictly prohibited, even if you think you're right. Here's my rationale for changing the infobox from Template:Infobox video game series to Template:Infobox media franchise:

1. The template is massively bloated with information that's provided in List of Donkey Kong video games, such as:

   Developers who only worked on a single Donkey Kong game

   Genres that only describe a single Donkey Kong game

   Platforms that only had a single Donkey Kong game

2. The template being bloated results in things getting lost. You have to scroll really far down to see information like Shigeru Miyamoto being the creator and Nintendo being the publisher. Things like this are far more important than every single platform that has housed a Donkey Kong game at some point.
3. Like Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog, Donkey Kong is substantially more than just video games; there are TV shows, comics, LCD games, a movie, and a theme park attraction. It's more useful to use the franchise template in scenarios like this where it encompasses more.

Basically, the franchise template is more concise, far less bloated, and gives a much better overview of the franchise. The video game template can easily go to List of Donkey Kong games, where all the developer/platform information actually fits. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the franchise template, especially since the first sentence of this article says this: "Donkey Kong is a video game franchise created by Shigeru Miyamoto and owned by Nintendo." It says that it's a franchise so we should use that template. Splitting and creating a DK media franchise article can be handled later and may not be appropriate since the franchise might not be notable enough for its own article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. (Also this is the Donkey Kong franchise article so I don't see why we'd split it :V) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, then why couldn't split and create a DK media franchise page in the first place WanakoDX (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the DK games template is desorganized unlike listing all developers, including secondary ones, and all platforms the series was present. WanakoDX (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just based on length and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the media template is a better option. There's simply too much trying to be crammed into the game template as of this revision that what should be the important hierarchical information is lost in a sea of links and text. The media infobox might be too spare in some respects, but it supports the article much better by giving examples of multimedia and its duration and rights holders rather than telling us about that rhythm game that one time as one of the first things in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The long version looks terrible. It's massive and hard to read. You've got to think about things beyond just cramming every little thing in there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The media template is miles better for this purpose. The games template is so crammed with stuff that its of no use at all. Wikipedia is for the average person, the video game template in this case has strayed well past that. - X201 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Not to WP:SNOW this conversation, but I also agree on the media template being the better option. I was the original writer of a lot of the content for List of Donkey Kong video games back in the day, and it's worth mentioning that the developer information for each individual game is also included in the notes section for all of the games -- it should be comprehensive coverage. Nomader (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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