Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

Talk:Kirby for Nintendo GameCube

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search

Move to Kirby for Nintendo GameCube[edit]

Often throughout the Kirby series, the tentative titles go by "Kirby for (console)" or simply "Kirby (console)" - such as Kirby for Nintendo Switch, Kirby for Nintendo 3DS (actual name announced a week later), then Kirby Wii or Kirby GBA to name a few examples, and this is also true with Kirby for Nintendo GameCube according to the event section on Nintendo's website. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't been referred to with a name in any later material (and without in 20th Anniversary encyclopedia, here translation).

Colloquially among the fandom it's known as Kirby GCN, and such short alternatives are probably easier to use, but that has yet to be found to have been officially utilized. Calling it just Kirby when featured on Main Page seems bad to me. I also suppose everything goes in italics if we're treating tentative names as a whole. —Viperision (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Bump for this discussion, and I also think Kirby for Nintendo GameCube works better and looks like it was the only "official" name it got. I wonder if there are other places that referred to it as such or maybe something else, however, but for now this name seems to be the best bet. - Gigi (talkedits) 13:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's an official name from the official website and even if the current one is official too, the new one is better than using qualifiers. Should probably resolve this quickly since it's an FA. ---PinkYoshiFan 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Neutral. I think both names are equally valid, and I don't have preference over one another. Superbound (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Superbound. However, I prefer Kirby for Nintendo GameCube over the current title. -- Jellytost (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we go ahead and make the move then? ---PinkYoshiFan 16:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think solid consensus have been established yet, I would wait for more people opinions. Superbound (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I checked some more, and KRR is now back online - it gives a nice timeline summary here. Nintendo Power gave us the " Kirby* " in forecasts and mentions "details about its Kirby GCN adventure" in certain issues. Later down the line, KRR's tells us the tentative name transitioned to "Kirby Wii". Given at the wiki we're supposed to be operating with game names as a whole (and avoid e.g. Super Star, Dream Land, Squeak Squad), the original/official site is considered a better source(?) than magazines and third-parties - I think it should be preferred to current Kirby and inconvenient parentheses added by us. —Viperision (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the Nintendo Power source you list, it explicitly refers to the project as "Kirby GCN". Without any other sources, that might end up being the proper name to use for this article instead of "Kirby for Nintendo GameCube". --Samwell (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, should also mention something along the lines "(also referred to as Kirby for Nintendo GameCube)" and fill the External links section with appropriate links.
Viperision (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote to support for either Kirby GCN or Kirby for Nintendo GameCube per Nintendo Power sources. Superbound (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with either name; "Kirby for Nintendo GameCube" is more official due to coming from a Japanese source, but "Kirby GCN" is more succinct and comes from a reputable English source (not direct, but the closest to it). "Kirby GCN" would probably be easier to type out, anyway, so I lean toward that. You could argue that "its Kirby GCN adventure" in the source is in a more general sense (i.e. "its Kirby adventure for GCN"), though, so I see the merit of "Kirby for Nintendo GameCube" as well. StrawberryChan (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like the current options are:
  1. Keep as is
  2. Move to Kirby for Nintendo GameCube
  3. Move to Kirby GCN
I oppose keeping as is due to parentheses, but have no preference between the other two options. ---PinkYoshiFan 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Move to Kirby for Nintendo GameCube. It sounds better than "Kirby GCN" and is supported by official Japanese website (which is only a step better than third-party Nintendo Power, but still a step). Naming policy states, that in case of multiple names among booklets, websites etc., the most commonly one should be used. ("If there are multiple names used among these sources, those that are most distinctive and commonly used take priority."). I'm still quite new to the Kirby fandom, but from my personal experiences I think that's the one most commonly used. Superbound (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
After some thought, I think my current preference is Kirby for Nintendo GameCube as well. The Nintendo Power reference is a bit more unclear compared to the Japanese website. StrawberryChan (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with either the parentheses or "for Nintendo GameCube", but I oppose "Kirby GCN", as it sounds unprofessional. We could have it as a redirect though. pandakekok9 (poyo) 03:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I was originally against this move because I thought this was our naming pattern for similar games we made pages on before their formal title was announced. But you have brought up points that show that to not be the case...and as it stands the first sentence of this article sounds pretty stupid anyway. I'd support a move to Kirby for Nintendo GameCube, but I oppose Kirby GCN since that does sound a little unprofessional. --YFJ (talk · edits) 06:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
If it stays Kirby (Nintendo GameCube), its repeated usage should be someway standardized. I didn't have luck finding its name in Japanese magazines, and the original Japanese website specifically denotes its a tentative name. Kirbytraum fansite (External links) linked us two Nintendo AU pages in English with identical text (1, 2) named "Kirby" which - I'll assume - is given they didn't receive a tentative or official name just like NP forecast. As long as the decided name can be consistently used all over the wiki without confusion, I'm for either but prefer the original proposal. —Viperision (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
My original preference still stands. I do think we should move it to Kirby for Nintendo GameCube since Kirby GCN does sound unprofessional. -- Jellytost (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Bump. -- Jellytost (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we're all in agreement on this talk page and the Discord server to move this article to Kirby for Nintendo GameCube, so I'm going to go ahead and move it. -- Jellytost (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Split the three games in separate pages, or more explicitly in the same page[edit]

This first came to my mind when Vipz pointed something to me on my talk page, so I'd recommend checking that. This page collectively covers 3 projects which all preceded Return to Dream Land, with that game essentially being the fourth of those games, which ended up being released instead of getting lost. That way in which the games are being covered doesn't really makes sense to me; in the Iwata Asks it was said that there were "three lost Kirby games", and just the first one of them was shown at that E3, while in a Nintendo Dream interview, based on Gigi's translation, Kumazaki says that there were "three Kirby projects" in that 11 years spam. Thus, those three games were three separate projects, not the same project.

These games aren't covered in Return to Dream Land's page because that game is a fourth separate game/project that succeeded the previous three, and thus it wouldn't make sense covering four different games in one page. But then why are these three merged here? This also may be misleading because all three are covered under "Kirby for Nintendo GameCube", even though that title has only ever been referred to the first one, the one shown at E3, plus that the majority of the page is focusing on that one while mentioning the later two as a secondary thing, instead of treating all three equally. We don't know if the other two ones were for the GameCube, and the third one even seemed to be for the Wii. The only reason that I could see for the later two to be merged with the first one is that the later two have just a little amount of info. The first one has a tentative name, a clean trailer, some other non-clean trailers, a bunch of screenshots, and even a page dedicated to concept art of it in 20th Anniversary Kirby Pupupu Encyclopedia, while the later two only have one screenshot each and are barely mentioned in one interview, and kinda acknowledged to exist in another one (this interview also barely mentions the second one). But still, even if they have almost no information of them, there is enough to draw a line and be clear that they are two different games between themselves, and between the only one that has been called Kirby for Nintendo GameCube.

If not, another way in which I could see these games being covered is if all of them are in the same page, but instead with the page being called "Three lost Kirby games", with each one of them being covered under a Level 2 header, and with the first lost Kirby game being noted as being the only one called "Kirby for Nintendo GameCube". That would be a better way to cover them than how they are being covered right now. If I were to choose between having them in separate pages or with them being in the same one like that, I would prefer having them split in separate pages, because they were three different games at the end. Plus, if these games are covered separately from Return to Dream Land, and if Kirby's Air Ride (Nintendo 64) is being covered separately from Kirby Ball 64, then why not cover these three separately too? -Zolerian (talk | contribs) 15:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, while I do understand where you're coming from, I heavily disagree with splitting this page.
So first let me clear up something you mentioned from a translation I made. First the correct original link for that part is this one (you linked the fourth part). The original quote from Kumazaki reads "そのとき世に出なかった『カービィ』の企画が3本あったのですが、そのひとつ目の企画に、難航したヘルパーシステムを使って遊ぶゲームがあったんです。" The word that matters here is 企画, and it means "plan", "project" etc. I wouldn't really focus much on semantics here with the word Kumazaki used, mostly when in the Iwata Asks interview they call them more "three games" than "three projects".
Anyway, I feel splitting up this page would be similar to splitting Lololo & Lalala just because once Lololo was a midboss. While, yes, there were three games, most of the info we have is from the first, and key thing here, the other two games were never officially revealed during their development. This means that not only do the other two games barely have any info about them (which means that we don't have enough content to justify pages for them anyway), it also means that everyone from outside of HAL saw those 11 years before RtDL was revealed and released as pretty much one thing. My point is, these three games are strongly connected to each other, more than any other unreleased Kirby games, because we were left in the dark of what was going on at HAL at the time, and later they only gave us a tl;dr, and to this day the line is very blurry between them. There are many, many content from these three games that we know came from them, but we don't know which project they come from. Things like assets, music, and even enemy designs, people theorize and infer from game data that they came from "Kirby GCN", but we don't know which one the three projects most of the time. Thus, splitting up the page into the three games, when we don't even know many times which thing came from which game other than like one screenshot each for the second and third, would have us rely on speculation for many things of the "legacy" section, plus more, which I'm not comfortable with. As an example, we are almost sure that "The Adventure Begins" from RtDL was originally from one of the three lost games (see this tweet for more info), but we have no clue of knowing for which game for sure. Moreover, while we know that "Road to Victory" was from the first game, as it was in the trailer, and we know Sky Tower was composed around the same time thanks to this comment from the sound staff, but in the files Sky Tower has two versions; were they all for the first game? And if not, does this mean the leitmotif carried to other projects? Well, we know that at least they carried to RtDL... Which further shows my point that, at core, these three games plus even RtDL were one single "project". But out of these four games, only one was completed and released. (And to add to that, I went to check the booklet of Kirby's Dream Collection Special Edition, and they said RtDL was "a title we've been working on for the past 11 years", which again further shows my point).
So I'm against splitting. What about the name and content of the page then? Well, I feel both are fine as is as well. First, "the three lost Kirby games" is really just the name of a section of the Iwata asks interview. I've never seen it used before any other time these games were mentioned, so I'm not confident with considering it an official name for a page (and actually I don't like how the wiki page right now also considers it official, I may remove that). People in the fandom also call these three games "Kirby GCN" all the time, and it's easily understandable, even though the third game appears to have been for the Wii (although it could have started in the GCN... again, we don't know for sure). Finally, the content. Again, the first one has the most content out of the three, so I feel it would be weird if the other two, that we barely know about, got equal treatment to the other in the page. We would have like 80% of the page be a section about one game, then 10% and 10% for another of the same size... Doesn't feel right to me.
So yeah, I feel this page is fine, and I am strongly opposed to splitting up the page. - Gigi (talkedits) 12:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Gigi on the other two not having enough info to justify their own pages. As for the differentiating within the same page part, while I can see Gigi's point on how the section sizes might look a bit unusual, I wouldn't be opposed to it (so neutral on the split within the same page). ---PinkYoshiFan 15:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)