Talk:Kirby Wiki

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Main Page talk archives
Archive 1

Mage sisters as dream friends[edit]

Can someone put in the news section that the Three Mage-sisters are going to be dream friends in 4.0.0? reveal video at Pinkyoshifan (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, will get on that right away. --Fubaka (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't put this where I want to so I'm putting it here[edit]

I'm trying to create an account on FEW but whenever I try it comes up as an internal error-how do I get past this?Ghist (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

They likely have the same issue we had earlier this week. You will want to go to Grifkuba and tell them about this. --Fubaka (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
OK,where do I talk to them?(also thx)Ghist (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I am getting word that the issue over there has been fixed. Try making an account there again. --Fubaka (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch Online[edit]

Should we mention in the news that Kirby's Adventure was released on Nintendo Entertainment System - Nintendo Switch Online? The Mario Wiki mentions NES game rereleases on Nintendo Switch Online. Luigi1234 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo's news article about that was referenced on the game's article Kirby's Adventure under the attribute "Release Date(s)", though neither a reference for the version on, or an article NES Classic Edition yet exists as far as I'm aware. Either way, I think we're firstly needing a cleaning up of the wiki and improvements on the Help & Policy pages, many of these are pretty outdated and poor in comparison to other wikis', so until then, suggest/ask and/or implement whatever you think is valuable, and references before they're lost are always good to store somewhere even if there exists a better to-be-made place but you're not up to creating it, but just don't place references too far away from suitable locations. Of course, that should refer to situations where your way seems more suitable than the way the wiki's current policies suggest. --Viperision (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
If I may interject, this has nothing to do with the NES Classic Edition, nor should 'cleaning of the wiki' take priority over important coverage of recent events on the wiki. That said, I don't think this particular event is notable enough to warrant being placed on the News section, given how many times Kirby's Adventure has been re-released in the past. --Fubaka (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops.. didn't notice quite well that Luigi1234 asked about mentioning that in the News section of the main page - instead I thought he was asking about mentioning it generally. Since that was the case I thought, I then said it was mentioned on game's article already, then I also continued on commenting on what's actually not referenced yet (and that is/are Nintendo's news article(s) about NES Classic Edition). I think the rest is clear if you look it from my previous point of view that I described. Well, now that I understood the message correctly, I am not arguing that 'cleaning of the wiki' should take priority, it should not even interfere with the News section in way that blocks, well, the news. Thanks for understanding and I'm sorry for I misunderstood the original message. --Viperision (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Kirby's Extra Epic Yarn release[edit]

Kirby's Extra Epic Yarn has released in all regions that it is confirmed to be releasing in, but the home page thing still says that it has been released in most regions, which makes it seem that it will release in more regions at a later date. JRJ007 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I just updated the template, but it might take some time for the main page to update. Shouldn't take long, though. -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Kirby Wiki?[edit]

Why is the front page bearing the title "Kirby Wiki"? The wiki's name is WiKirby Results May Vary (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Because people don't search Google for 'WiKirby'. --Fubaka (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Main page link[edit]

On the Kirby Wiki page the Kirby 64 link in the 'Did you know' section doesn't work, so it should probably get fixed soon. -JRJ007 17:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Now fixed. Thanks for reporting it. --Fubaka (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Default Skin[edit]

For those of you who don't know me, I'm tacopill, one of the people who run things behind the scenes.

The current default skin has been with the wiki since the wiki's inception, but sadly, we have no one around to maintain it any more.

You see, it's a custom skin that doesn't get updated when MediaWiki has a new versions out, and therefore it needs to be maintained by volunteers outside of MediaWiki's main programers. They would help make sure any new bugs, inconsistencies, etc. that show up are taken care of.

With no one in grifkuba, or any of our hosted sites, affalites, etc. around to help do so, we are asking your community to discuss amongst yourselves what skin should be the default one?

The current one will still be available for anyone who doesn't want their personal preferences changed.

This is more about what the site determines is the default skin to show to regular viewers.

User:Results May Vary has made Kirby-fied versions of Monobook and Timeless, so you can test out when you have a moment.

Please make sure, when testing them out, to also include testing them in different browsers, on mobile and desktop, and more.

Thank you, Tacopill (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I like Monobook more than Timeless, but I do think the general style is an improvement over the existing design. The pink colors and star pattern feel more fitting for a Kirby wiki than solid blue. Scrooge200 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Monobook is my preferred design interface. It just screams "Kirby" information in one easy to access and convenient place! – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I prefer Monobook over Timeless as well, but if Tacopill makes Timeless the default skin, i don't mind. Otherwise i prefer monobook Results May Vary (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Like the others, I prefer Monobook over Timeless, mainly due to the cleaner look of the main page with Monobook active. Feel free to use timeless if it's easier though. --Fubaka (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
How long should it be until the final decision is made? In 1-2 weeks' time? Results May Vary (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably one week, like the proposals on Mario Wiki. --Obsessive Mario Fan 01:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Like everyone else, I like Monobook the most. It's the style I mainly use. --Obsessive Mario Fan 21:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
While MonoBook is my favorite, this wiki's layout isn't very friendly to my device at all, and as such Vector is the skin I use most. I don't really care too much for Vector, but it's the only one my device can tolerate. -YFJ (talk · edits) 01:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to go with "until consensus is established", but one week does sound reasonable.
And there's been requests on I've gotten from various people for WiKirby-fied Vector and Nimbus skins (the latter of which was requested by a person from Halopedia).
If I remember correctly: Monobook was one of the original skins built for the MediaWiki software, and was their default for years. It was eventually replaced as the default with Vector, due to Vector having more accessibility built in from the start, instead of being added on later. But similar to Monobook, it wasn't designed with something in mind that later skins were; that being natively designed for Mobile devices, which as of 2017 represented 50% or more of all internet traffic in the world and as of July 2019 Google's new prefrence in determining search rankings.
Fire Emblem Wiki switched over to Timeless since it is built with mobile in mind, and we then installed it on all the wikis we host that didn't have it. Sometime later, I saw RMV working on Monobook and then asked him to do Timeless due to the aforementioned outdatedness of the WiKirby skin. It not being designed for mobile hasn't helped much either, but hopefully switching will help the wiki improve its rankings.
Now that everyone has had a chance to express an opinion, Monobook seems to be the most popular option for the default skin. I've given some new information on things, should anyone want to change their mind, now is their chance. You have until 03:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC) to voice opposition if you have them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacopill (talkcontribs) 12:07, 3 August 2019. Please always sign your comments by typing ~~~~!
Monobook is optimized for mobile starting with versions 1.32. You can see Triforce Wiki to see what i mean (it looks good on mobile), so similar could be adapted for here Results May Vary (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
If my input should matter and be valid, I'd stay with WikirbyClassic, but I do like Monobook minus minor issues (like "excessive pink" in literal, as in my thoughts it could be better with light blue or other cool color) and content layout leftovers or otherwise bad formatting itself. There you go, half a vote for the classic and other half for MonoBook, though'd be better if the classic could be improved 'cos I like some things other skins don't provide same way. —Viperision (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally prefer Monobook, but just because it's what I'm used to. Pinkyoshifan (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I also prefer Monobook. --Raltseye prata med mej 15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The change has been implemented. Thanks for all who voiced their opinions. Tacopill (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome thank you for allowing the community to voice their opinions & accommodating for the editors :) Results May Vary (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Allowing IP edits[edit]

With all these forthcoming changes finally coming to WiKirby, I have another proposal. How about around the same time we change to Monobook, we can open up editing to IP addresses. While IPs can make unconstructive edits like removing text, they can also help with making minor fixes on articles. In my opinion, they are often casual readers who read the articles and make minor corrections to them. If they are allowed to edit, we should make them answer the captcha questions to better protect against automated spam. Super Mario Wiki allows IP addresses to edit. Results May Vary (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


Not sure where to put this, so... This is just a thought, but what if we had a newspaper on the WiKirby, something like The Mario Wiki's 'Shroom? I just think it would be neat to have something like that. Magolor04726 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Magolor04726

Considering the current activity on this wiki, we might be able to make a small version of that, but nothing quite as big as the 'Shroom. But if there's enough demand and enough people willing to write it, then it's absolutely possible. I like the idea personally, and I'd definitely be willing to help with that. -YFJ (talk · edits) 01:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I actually write for the 'Shroom, and if we get our own version here, I could either put the story I'm working on here as well, or maybe even make a spin-off series. Check that, I just had a brilliant idea for a spin-off series, and now I really want a newspaper here. I'd definitely be willing to help as much as I can. Should we bring up a proposal for this? Magolor04726 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Magolor04726
Mmm, I think it'd take a lot more than a proposal. I think a lot of planning would be necessary for something like this. I'd like to see what Fubaka thinks of this idea; he might be able to make a special interest form for this, or something along those lines. (BTW, I actually used to write for the 'Shroom, too, if you've ever seen YFJ's Tips and Tricks in the Strategy Wing.) -YFJ (talk · edits) 02:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I had no idea I was talking with a veteran writer. So what are we going to do at the moment? Magolor04726 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Magolor04726
For now, we'll just wait for more people to respond. I'll go ahead and forward this discussion to staff chat. -YFJ (talk · edits) 02:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
So, What's the status on this? Magolor04726 (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Magolor04726
As it stands, I don't know if the wiki is active enough for that to be a continuous project, unless you are willing to helm it more-or-less by yourself. If you still want to do it, I would recommend starting small, so you don't overwork yourself. One other thing I would suggest is getting on the Discord server so you can chat with us more directly. --Fubaka (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have access to the discord. Also, despite corona, my life has pretty much stayed the same, so I can't really take the helm for something like that. Magolor04726 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Magolor04726

People keep saying the traffic isn't high enough for a paper. Out of curiosity, is there any place I can view the traffic info, or is it restricted? Magolor04726 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Magolor04726

I don't know if such a thing is viewable except to the site owner. Point is that there just aren't enough active contributors for this to become something big. While I have bigger fish to fry right now, I am definitely planning on hosting a community poll for this soon enough, to see if we have enough interested writers to make something. -YFJ (talk · edits) 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent Changes[edit]

This is about Special:RecentChanges and is not a proposal that concerns the wiki's coverage as a whole. By default it has this for an interface (, known as the "recent changes filter". A friend complained to me about it, so I felt I should bring it up with WiKirby just to see what your input is of it. At the time of writing this, WiKirby is running on MediaWiki 1.32. In the Recent Changes section of Special:Preferences, you can click "Hide the improved version of Recent Changes" to change the look back to this ( However, the option to tick that option is not in MediaWiki 1.33. My biggest issue with the new recent changes filter is that it hides MediaWiki:Recentchangestext by default & the webpage takes longer to load with rc filter. It works for Wikipedia, but in my opinion, it does not work as well for WiKirby.

This is why I am thinking of a compromise. On Super Mario Wiki, if you look at the Recent Changes, it has an Auto-Refresh tickbox, with the older recent changes layout being enabled globally. The main new feature of the rcfilter is the ability to refresh automatically. Several users here are from Super Mario Wiki and are used to its recent changes (see here for Super Mario Wiki's recent changes). This is primarily why I am wondering what everyone's opinion on this is:

Should we disable the current recent changes design and switch to that of Super Mario Wiki (with its AutoRefresh gadget) or leave the recent changes as it is? Seeing as I frequently patrol Wikirby to see how it's progressing along, I'd vote in favor for Super Mario Wiki's recent changes to be brought over to WiKirby. Results May Vary (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Would switching to Super Mario Wiki's implementation also make consecutive edits more visible on Recent Changes by default? I don't really like how multiple edits for the same page on WiKirby are "combined" so that it takes more clicks than necessary to view the history individually. Super Mario Wiki doesn't do that, at least by default, which makes it easier and faster to read for me (I know it can be toggled off as a preference on WiKirby, but I'd rather have the same setup when signed in and off because it trips me up otherwise). If not, it still sounds like it's more efficient overall than the current design, so count me in as a yes. AdieuLain (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
To enable the "show all changes individually", someone with server access would have to add $wgDefaultUserOptions['usenewrc'] = 0; to the localsettings. Results May Vary (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree to replacing to the Super Mario Wiki layout (and personally like grouping preference) with the auto-refresh checkbox. New one doesn't bring much, feels rather sloppy (for some displays) and seemingly takes longer to reload. Not sure if Tag filtering could also have a dropdown list of default tags (instead of having to type Special:Tags manually)? —Viperision (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the change. The old design is just...better. It loads faster, too. -YFJ (talk · edits) 01:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Same here. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok so this is only a backend issue but looks like $wgDefaultUserOptions['rcenhancedfilters-disable'] = 1; actually disables the rcfilter. The code i previously posted just doesnt automatically collapse everything under (2 changes) or (3 changes) or under an upload log if an action is done more than once. The previous code is just here for reference. The proposal has passed, and rcfilters have been disabled for the WiKirby community. Results May Vary (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


H E L L O K I R B I E S I R E Q U I R E A S S I S T A N C E Can anyone help me with the Top (anime) page? It’s really messy and needs improvement. T H A N K S I N A D V A N C E — The Parallel Marx (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)The_Parallel_Marx

User talk[edit]

I dunno if this is the right place to ask, but is it possible to restrict not-autoconfirmed users from creating pages in "User talk" namespace? If think such change should be made. There's not much takeback if they don't have it, as these pages are automatically created by Kirbot (and are only deleted if user is permabanned, which means there is no reason to recreate them) and would prevent that vandal from vandalizing further. If this change is too big, I can make a proposal. Superbound (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand why we would want to do this, but then they'll just target mainspace, which is arguably worse. ---PinkYoshiFan 13:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
You two both have good points. While I think we could possibly also restrict creating user talk pages even further, vandals will just always find new ways to do vandalism. I'm curious about what others think, however. - Gigi (talkedits) 13:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, if thing's eventually look dicey, we could just prevent anonymous users from editing outright for some time as a last resort. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pinkyoshifan Yea, you're right
@Owen It this particular case, it wouldn't stop him/her, because he/she would be still able to create account, which would stop nothing. I don't disabling account creation outright is a good idea - look at Golden Sun Universe, it's a desert due to lack of new users.
Also, can some answer "is it possible to restrict not-autoconfirmed users from creating pages in "User talk" namespace" from my original comment? Superbound (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, now with the way things are headed, restricting anonymous users' editing capabilities won't help that much. But I was thinking recently that, as an actual last resort option, we could either disable account creation or protect every page for autoconfirmed users and higher only for a few days and see what happens. – Owencrazyboy17 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Vandals have moved to mainspace now, so my original request is now outdated.
@Owen I agree that restricting account creation should be last resort possibility, but what can we now to stop it or at least slow down.
"[...] we could either disable account creation or protect every page for autoconfirmed users and higher only for a few days and see what happens."
What is the difference between first and second option? Both seem to achieve the same result, option 2 just seems more complicated?
...Anyway, I need more people input on this. Superbound (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The first option would still allow ips to edit mainspace, but not make new accounts (and therefore make user talk pages). The second option essentially locks the wiki unless you had an account before it happened (although instead of protecting every page, it would likely be easier to just revoke edit rights from all users and give them to autoconfirmed). Personally, I don't think it's too big of an issue since an admin ping in the discord usually takes care of the problem quickly, but I can see how it would annoy the admins themselves, so I'm not sure what we should do, if anything a this point. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I know it's not an issue, but it's getting quite annoying. I'm not sure myself if we can do anything with exception of the "last resort protection", which I don't think we should use now. Still waiting for more feedback. Superbound (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)