Talk:Kirby's Dream Land

From WiKirby
Jump to: navigation, search

Extra Mode enemy articles

Is it worth creating separate articles for each of the Extra Mode replacement enemies, or can they just be mentioned in sections of the base enemies' articles? Most of them really aren't that different, differing only in movement pattern and maybe damage, so it seems like a lot of effort to essentially re-write every article with an alteration here and there, as opposed to just pointing out the differences from the base enemy if it were already on that enemy's article. Obvious exceptions would be things like Tookey, which appear in another game as their own distinct enemy. Jimbo Jambo 00:48, 22 October 2010 (CDT)

I don't see your reasoning here; you state that they "aren't that different", yet point out that they differ "in movement pattern and maybe damage", and they most certainly differ in looks and names. These are the exact same aspects that make every other enemy unique, so how are they less "different" than the rest of them?--Vellidragon 09:39, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
If every enemy just replaced every other enemy in successive playthroughs of games then it would be exactly the same, but that's obviously not true. Most of the Extra Mode enemies only appear there, in the exact same spots as the enemies they replace, and differ only slightly - greatly in appearance, yes, but the behavior is not unique at all, essentially the same as the base enemies with upgraded speed or power. By splitting them up you either have pairs of articles saying the same thing with minor variations, or articles which consist of not much more than "X is like a Y but with Z. It appears in the Extra Mode." Neither is very interesting and leads to lots of very short articles. Jimbo Jambo 10:24, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
You could say the same for all other enemies that act similarly to others; we'd have to cover Floaty the Drifter in the Parasol article, etc. Besides, writing styles allow for a lot of freedom in order to make either article interesting even if the enemies behave similarly, and the description of their appearane would always be entirely different. I currenlty don't see why they wouldn't deserve an article - just because they're similar to something else? That's what the "similar enemies" attribute in the infobox is for. They have unique appearances, behaviour, names and official artwork, and they're listed entirely seperately in the game's ending. There's no reason to treat them differently from other enemies, not to mention the inconsistencies and confusion it would create if certain Extra Game enemies are treated as if they were part of a different one while others (the ones that reappear in later games) are not.--Vellidragon 12:34, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
Once again, it's not just because of the similarity, it's the fact that they replace other enemies after completion of a relatively short game. If Floaty had the sole role of replacing Kirby's parasol in a single game, then it might apply, but there is no real analogy.
The reason I'm suggesting this is for ease of navigation and to keep relevant information together. If someone searches for...Wizzer, the beam-firing scallop enemy, chances are they also want to know about Peezer, the crab enemy that replaces it, and about how they differ. It doesn't make sense to me to force them to jump to another page just to find out that the crab fires beams faster than the scallop. I don't see how anyone benefits from being fed redundant information covered up with creative writing and flavor text. Not trying to shove it down your throat, but do you at least see where I'm coming from? Jimbo Jambo 18:27, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
I do see where you're coming from, but I don't think it should be done mainly for consistency reasons in the way articles are dealt with. As you stated yourself, enemies like Tookey would still need a seperate article, and I think it would just be confusing for half of the enemies to have their own articles while the rest don't for no immediately apparent reason. Also, you can't assume that everyone who looks up an enemy wants to know about its Extra Game equivalent, especially with enemies like Bronto Burt that appear in multiple games, and if they do want to know about them, that's what links are for. Based on assumptions like that, we could as well get rid of links entirely and put the information from all otherwise linked to articles into a single one as there's a chance that people will want to read about those subjects as well.
Furthermore, if we, for instance, cover Peezer in the Wizzer article, that also brings up the question how Wizzer is apparently more important than Peezer, seeing how it gets its own article while Peezer does not (but Tookey, for example, does). It doesn't seem like anything that would immediately be evident & make sense to the average reader coming here with no pre-knowledge, so it doesn't seem a very good idea from an organisational point of view.--Vellidragon 18:49, 22 October 2010 (CDT)
I'm a little confused about what you mean by "unimportant." I could argue that because so few Extra Game enemies actually got roles in other games - in fact, I think Tookey is the only one, compared to the seven Normal Game enemies that did - that they are less important in the eyes of Nintendo, not much more than an afterthought. But even if the reader were to draw that conclusion, what exactly does that mean to them? It's not like we're saying "Please just disregard these enemies, they aren't important enough."
With that being said, since there is really only like one enemy that would actually get its own article, I really don't see how it could be that confusing.
Also please don't take my argument out of context. Like I said, this is a unique case, there is no precedence on this wiki (that I know of). I'm suggesting an article that would be two paragraphs long for enemies that are barely distinct; a master article for every single subject does not follow the same logic. Jimbo Jambo 09:21, 26 October 2010 (CDT)
I don't remember using the word "unimportant". If you mean that Peezer/Wizzer paragraph, well, one of those would obviously get to have their own article, which appears in the Enemies category and all, while the other would not, implying that we regard one of them as less an enemy than the other, while they should be considered equally important especially if they are similar. As for reappearances, I'm fairly certain Cawcun and Flotzo reappear in Kirby Super Star Ultra, and Mr. P. Umpkin appears in the anime pilot, so it's not just Tookey. I wasn't trying to take your argument "out of context", and am not sure how exactly you are implying that I did, I'm just saying we need consistency among how we handle these things and this doesn't seem like it's going to achieve any.--Vellidragon 09:33, 26 October 2010 (CDT)
I'll ask again what the assumption of one more being more important than the other, even if the reader does draw that conclusion, actually means to them or us. We're displaying it, they're reading it, sure as they would be if they had searched for it expecting a separate article.
You took my argument out of context by applying it, or rather a select part of it, to a different subject. In this case you took my point about relevance and applied it to every other article on the wiki, just as before where you applied my point about behavioral similarities to Floaty the Drifter and parasols. But again, there are several reasons why I put forth this idea, and no other situation fits them all. However...
When you mentioned that some enemies appeared in KSSU I looked it up (not owning a DS myself), and I was not actually aware that Spring Breeze had what appears to be its own Extra Game in the form of Revenge of the King. A remake of a remake of a remake of a game which has another remake upon which the remake in question was based off of but not directly modeled after. I would apply my argument to that was well were it not for the fact that a few of the same enemies do in fact appear, which makes how they would be organized in the articles a little more complicated, making separate articles seem to be the best option for them (thus - depending on how much value you place on consistency, which I think is important but not key - the best option for the others as well).
So while I think the rest of my arguments still apply, I'm not going to pursue this too far. What I'd really like at this point for at least one other person to voice their opinion. Jimbo Jambo 10:35, 29 October 2010 (CDT)