Talk:Kirby Star Allies

Possible box art?

Look what I found in the Kirby Wiki. https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/kirby/images/9/90/KSA_Boxart.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180111154030&path-prefix=en I'll admit that the box art itself looks pretty cool, but if it's the real box art, should we add this in? HarmonyBunny (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the real boxart. I tried adding its Nintendo Switch icon form, but that somehow got pulled for reasons I don't understand. Something about copyrights and junk. Kind of annoying, honestly. -Sylverstone (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... have you tried adding a license before submitting the image? HarmonyBunny (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added the boxart with licensing info. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It means a lot. HarmonyBunny (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Void Termina

Is it just me? Or is Void Termina indirectly responsible for both Dark Matter and the Master Crown? While this isn't confirmed yet; I can however say that it may be linked to the Dark Matter trilogy and Kirby's Return to Dream Land. We just don't know for sure. What I do know is that its true form is an orb that has Kirby's face and can shapeshift into a Dark Matter, and it has what it appears to be the Master Crown. 46.161.233.223 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@46.161.233.223: Wikipedia tends to avoid fan theories unless they're notable, even if they're reliably sourced. If Nintendo or HAL hasn't acknowledged this, it's a hard no for an inclusion. Interesting theory, though. ~ P*h3i (📨) 02:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course. I think we should stop here. We'll have to wait for some proper reliable sources regarding the final boss and the many links to old Kirby lore. 46.161.247.248 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kirby Star Allies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Since you took the time to review Darius Gaiden, I felt as if I owed out one. Skimming through this, I'm worried about its comprehensiveness, but I'll give a thorough review later. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't sound good, but I'm open to make any changes. Le Panini ^Talk 03:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: It's been seven days, are you still interested in doing the review? Le Panini ^Talk 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini Apologies, I've been doing some off-site work for the past few days. I've skimmed through the page, and though I definitely have issues with it, it's certainly not an instant fail nor something that should take a lot of time. I'm still reading the page and looking through the sources, but I can at least leave you with these:

1. Lead needs some real expansion and rewriting. I don't see how the plot needs an entire paragraph for itself — if Final Fantasy articles don't have entire paragraphs in the lead about its plot, then Kirby shouldn't either. It also doesn't summarize its gameplay or development, nor does it need to mention the date it was announced.

•  Done. Re-arranged three paragraphs.

1. The gameplay section looks fine, but lots of stuff is missing citations. Almost half of that first paragraph doesn't have any sourcing.

• While I sourced some things, I could not find anything about lives, game over, or duration of elemental fusion from any sources. I believe the reason why is because its a gag throughout these games that they are so similar, all anyone really says about traditional gameplay is "yep, its another game". Granted, the game itself could be considered citation, so I don't think these parts are necessary to have references.

1. I really don't like how a lot of sentences in the Development section begin with "in an interview", "in another interview with [x]", etc. Obviously a lot of info from the designers/staff come from interviews, so having to specifically mention that feels unnecessary.

•  Done.

1. The reception is where my issue with comprehension lies. There's quite a few reviews here, yet it feels.....too short? I think merging the last two paragraphs, or even splitting that second one, would make it okay for now. It at least ties in review comments together into nicely-done sentences, which is always good to see.

•  Done. I decided upon merging the last two paragraphs. The first paragraph doesn't really have a split point from visuals to strategy. If the same critic had something to say for both, it had a combined section (ex. "Destructoid reviewer Chris Carter praised the "gorgeous rendered backgrounds", and stated how recruiting enemies to your team 'goes beyond an adorable gimmick.'")

There's still more for me to do. Hopefully these will keep you busy until I have more. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 05:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Namcokid47, I believe that should be it, unless you have anything else to add (as you mentioned). Le Panini ^Talk 22:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Namcokid47 As per the seven day rule, you have been officially bothered. Le Panini ^[🥪] 17:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: As per the fourteen day rule that I just made up, you have once again been bothered. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini A whole week after your ping, here I am. I read through the whole thing, so this should be all I have.

Lead

• I really don't like the way the lead is formatted. I've played a handful of Kirby games before and I certainly wouldn't think the story is so important that it needs to take up half a paragraph. Sales should not be in the beginning, that's for something in the third paragraph. The plot should be condensed into a single sentence and be part of that first paragraph. If you think there's not much dev info that can be summarized, consider merging it with the third paragraph.

   Done.

• What does "The game received average to mildly positive reviews" mean? It should be one or the other.

   Done.

• "However, reception was positive after the additional content was later added." I'd be careful about using words like "however" like this, per WP:WORDS. This sentence should be talking about why it was positive too. What did they like about the new content?

   Done.

Gameplay

• This list of Dream Friends should be cut. It feels like WP:GAMEGUIDE material that is better suited for fan wikis, and the source it uses seems very dubious.

   Done.

Plot

• This "Post-game modes" sub-section feels unnecessary. It's weirdly divided up, and I'm not sure DLC storylines are even allowed in plot sections since they're not part of the main game.

   Done. Straight up ditched it.

Development

• Like the Post-game modes subsection, this is weirdly divided up and I don't know why that is. These smaller paragraphs should be merged into one large one instead of being chopped up like this.

   Done.

• "When discussing the lack of other popular characters from the franchise, he said that there were certain characters he wanted to appear, such as "Drawcia [Canvas Curse], Elline [Rainbow Curse], Shadow Kirby [Amazing Mirror], Galacta Knight [Super Star Ultra]". They created a development rule, where they would only select one character from each game to represent the main series." Same thing here as Gameplay, this seems unnecessary. Having one or two can be fine to help provide context, but this long and uninteresting list isn't. This also doesn't need to be a quote and the games should have article links to them. Titles also should not be in brackets like that.

   Done.

• "They swayed to making the screen more spread out without consequence, as they could make Kirby smaller but still retain shape. With the wider imagery, it helped the player from getting lost, as they could see more on-screen at one time." What does this mean, exactly? Is it saying they tilted the console to make the map look bigger or something? I don't feel I understand what this is saying, so it needs clarification.

   Done.

• "The developers explained the design process of the additional content after launch. The idea of the new content was to add more attention to past games, and the series as a whole; the developers rather focused on creating a new experience with the characters rather than focusing on a narrative. HAL Laboratory developer Shinya Kumazaki noted ow if they were to rather focus on an intricate story, it would ruin the fun of the adventure." Why is this paragraph towards the beginning? This is relating to DLC which came out after the game, so it's awkwardly jumping ahead. Since the Release section already talks about the DLC, I'd probably move this paragraph there instead since this happened after the game already came out.

   Done.

Reception

• "Edge game the game a nine out of ten." This can be tossed. It doesn't explain anything, and we don't allow review scores in the text anyway.

   Done.

• Some of the publications listed in the box to the right aren't in the text, like Shacknews and Venturebeat. All of these should be in the writing in some way. If all they provide is the same spiel as other reviews, it's best to just cut them.

  Were you able to find any reviews from Famitsu? It's a Japanese video game, so naturally this section should have reviews from Japanese publications too.

• There's a lot of repetition here, and some of it needs rewriting. An example I have is this: "Polygon reviewer Jeremy Parrish called the game predictable and familiar, and wrote how the game "plays things incredibly safe", compared to recent titles such as Kirby: Planet Robobot." We don't need to use "game" twice since it's already established in the beginning of this that this is for this game. If Parrish also used the words "predictable" and "familiar", shouldn't those be in quotes? It would be fine if the text said "Parrish felt the game was predictable in design, believing it "plays things incredibly safe" compared to previous installments such as Kirby: Planet Robobot". Something like that is a lot better, and cuts down on the repetition. There's a lot of this throughout, which needs fixing.

   Done.

  I learned how to write a proper reception section from czar during Paper Mario: The Origami King. This came before that, so I know this looks sloppy in comparison; I'll get to this soon.

• You don't need to mention the game's title twice in the first two sentences for "Sales". It's unnecessary since the reader already knows that the sales are for this game in particular.

   Done. I think that was just an accident.

Miscellaneous

• Most references are missing the "publisher" tag. Though I think for GAs this isn't a requirement, I'd still add them if you plan on taking this article further. You can find a list of publishers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.

   Done.

And there's the review. I do get a sense that this was rushed, since its writing is awkward in spots and its structure is confusing. My main issues stem from the Development and Reception sections, since they contain the most problems out of anything else here and require some further work. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Namcokid47, Yes, I've furthered my knowledge on the GA process and I know this one was rushed. Sorry about that; I'll get to addressing these soon. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Namcokid47, Were you planning on putting this review on hold? If so, you never changed the info on the talk page. I think I also covered all of your issues, but might need another pair of eyes on the reception section once again. You know, if you see anything I don't. Le Panini ^[🥪] 05:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Le Panini It looks like the original reviewer doesn't want to review the GA anymore. I can help you complete the review and get it the GA if you want? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Not at all true. I've just never received any kind of response since I posted the second set of issues. I will finish the review myself. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Namcokid47, I just found it would be annoying if I pinged you every seven days. Take your time. Panini^🥪 11:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Did some tidy work, I think it looks fine now. Passing. Thank you for your patience. Namcokid47 01:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Namcokid47, Ah, no worries, I've kept myself busy. Panini^🥪 01:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Chumbrella" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chumbrella has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 6 § Chumbrella until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sir Kibble" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sir Kibble has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 21 § Sir Kibble until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)