Talk:Giant Donkey Kong

Merge with Donkey Kong, please. We didn't keep the Giant Kirby article, so we can't keep this... I think. My Bloody Valentine

I think we should keep it. Giant DK is a boss, not a simple effect of the Super Mushroom, like Giant Link or Giant Roy. About the Giant Kirby article, it should also be written since he's a boss as well. --Xeze 07:15, 6 February 2008 (EST)

As Xeze said, he's a boss. Even though this is a different form of DK, I think it should stay separate because of the distinctiveness of the subject in discussion. — Stooben Rooben But that's just my opinion.

Per SR. HyperToad

We should keep it, however, we will be forced to recreate the Giant Kirby article too. ^Plumber 22:18, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Should we mention the Giant DK in DK '94? The article for Giant Bowser mentions other appearances in games aside from Smash. --The Qu 03:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge Giant Donkey Kong to Donkey Kong

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

merge 15-0
Using same reasoning as in Giant Kirby and for plain consistency, plus pering the above discussion, I make this suggestion to merge these two articles.

Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Deadline: 2 April 2011 23:59 (GMT)

Merge

1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Consistency is one of my priorities when making decisions.
2. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) Per BLOF!
4. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per proposal.
5. M&SG (talk) - I agree.
6. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) - Unlike Giga Bowser, Giant Donkey Kong is just basically Donkey Kong in his giant form.
7. Reddragon19k (talk) - Per all because merging is awesome!
8. SWFlash (talk) Per Kaptain K. Rool.
9. Bowser's luma (talk) We merged Giant Kirby, didn't we?
10. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
11. Bop1996 (talk) Per Zero.
12. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per Kaptain King Rool.
13. Magikrazy51 (talk) According to Pirate Goomba's Theory of Consistency, Giant Donkey Kong is a Giant version of Donkey Kong. For all we know, it's just Donkey Kong who ate a Super Mushroom before the fight. Plus, we don't have Giant Mario in a separate page from Mario. Per Kaptain K. Rool.
14. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
15. Ultrahammer5365 (talk) Per all. Have to stay consistent.

Comments

One question. What should we do, in terms of Bowser and Giant Bowser. If Donkey Kong and Giant Donkey Kong are merged, shouldn't Bowser and Giant Bowser be too? Obviously this would require a new proposal. M&SG (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2011 (EDT)

Reddragon19k: It isn't about because merging is awesome. It is about fixing the article by merging it into another article that will lessen the article count, but that isn't important. The real thing is that you must only merge pages when necessary. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)

I don't think you should take that seriously. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

What she said. I once said in a proposal to delete Gallery talk:Karts "I like deleting stuff!", but I was just joking. Cut Reddragon some slack. Magikrazy51 (talk)

so if Giant Donkey kong and donkey kong are the same than shouldnt we merge all the mario forms since there just mario powered up like giant donkey kong might be? Iggykoopa (talk)

Prominence is key. Giant Donkey Kong only appeared in two games that weren't technically even Mario games. Magikrazy51 (talk)

Besides, Mario not only gets more vitality, he also gets the ability to shoot fireballs out. This new ability means a lot more than simply growing big and appearing in only one stage in one game. And the Fire Flower does NOT only pertain to Mario. Ray Trace^(T|C)

Yeah but giant form doesn't pertain to only Donkey kong and what does prominence have to do with this it sounds to me like your picking and choosing when to follow your own rules all the forms are one in the same there still the same characters and there not the same character since you could fight it as donkey kong Iggykoopa (talk)

I had to read through your comment TWICE to understand what point you are trying to deliver. And I am definitely NOT picking and choosing to follow "my own rules", I am simply trying to apply reasoning and logic to this situation. Your first point? If it doesn't only pertain to Donkey Kong, why do we need a page on Giant Donkey Kong? Prominence has EVERYTHING to do with reasons I am choosing to split this article. I don't see why we need a separate article describing one character who appeared in one match in one game, whereas Fire form as appeared in a multitude of games. Your last point? Super Smash Bros is a game where you can fight any playable character as any playable character....wait, that last point sounds contradictory, I do not know what you are trying to say.

Why are you giving me an attitude? I really do not appreciate how you say to me "your picking and choosing when to follow your own rules". Instead of trying to infuriate me, why can't we be reasonable and logical? Ray Trace^(T|C)

im sorry it's just i get confused because people on this wiki are constantly using different logic on proposals than using the total opposite of that in a different proposal that has the same sort of flow Iggykoopa (talk)

Should this be restored?

With Jigglypuff's route in SSBU being a callback to the original SSB and having Giant Donkey Kong as the final boss (thus making it a deliberate recurring entity) I was wondering if this page should be restored. Especially considering a "giant Donkey Kong" was the final boss of the Game Boy Donkey Kong, and "Donkey Kong in a robot" from the sequel getting its own page (this would also match up with how we handle Super Bowser). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:04, April 9, 2019 (EDT)

I think that a counterproposal is required. -- FanOfYoshi 10:18, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

And even then, Giant Donkey Kong in the original Super Smash Bros. was distinct, because there were no items that allowed playable fighters to grow bigger or shrink smaller. The one in Ultimate is literally just Donkey Kong with a permanent Super Mushroom (which is a pretty neat callback like the rest of Jigglypuff's Classic Mode). Even the game acknowledges this, only showing Donkey Kong on the VS screen before the fight, without the "Giant" moniker at the start. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 11:06, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

But there's still the question of the GBDK details. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:31, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

And, i also think this should be restored. -- FanOfYoshi 02:45, April 19, 2019 (EDT)

I'd be in favor only if we include the Game Boy Donkey Kong final boss, as bigness is relative; otherwise, Giant Donkey Kong is effectively just Donkey Kong under the effect of a Super Mushroom, much like Giant Bowser and others. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:52, May 7, 2020 (EDT)

Recreate this page

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit any of the sections in the proposal. If you wish to discuss the article, do so in a new header below the proposal.

create 4-1
When this article was deleted, it was solely about the Smash 64 fight. Thing is, a giant DK is also the final boss of the Game Boy Donkey Kong, and he additionally appeared in other Smash Bros. games. I feel there's enough information, mainline and otherwise, for this to be an article.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: April 25, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) - Agreed. Side note, let's do Mega Baby Bowser and Big Dry Bowser next, those ones have been bugging me for a while.
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
4. ShootingStar7X (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) This would be inconsistent with all the other powered-up Smash Bros. characters as bosses that we don't split, like Giant Kirby for example. I'd be fine with it if it only covered the non-Smash appearances, but otherwise I'll oppose.

Comments

@Hewer: I see it as with this proposal - we have an existing equivalent in the series that can use its own article, so why not? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:45, April 11, 2022 (EDT)

I see it more like this proposal or this proposal, where some but not all information is split-worthy so we only split the information that needs it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:55, April 11, 2022 (EDT)