Talk:King Dedede

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Fictional Centenarion?[edit]

Erm, is this true? I don't recall any games mentioning that, and don't see anything mentioning it on the page. Is this not true, or have I missed something? -64.139.226.226 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First picture - why Anime?[edit]

Shouldn't the first picture show a King Dedede artwork from the games? Both are Anime pictures. But he looks a bit different there. --Grandy02 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought after reading the page. Since this character is based of a video game, it would make sense if there was at least one picture from his appearance in the Kirby series. Are these the only “fair use images” would could get of King Dedede? Can someone find a better one? Master Strike 21:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel mutually. The best images of King Dedede are probably in Kirby Super Star, or any of the newer games. A screenshot will most likely suffice. (It's like this for a lot of the Kirby articles, actually. --ArrEmmDee 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
http://kirby.classicgaming.gamespy.com/games/superstar/maps/springbreeze20.PNG How's that one? DeathWeed 01:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree: this article needs a picture of the original Dedede. As for that link...it could be used...but not as a replacement to the anime Dedede picture. Also, there may be issues with the copyright of the image. Punkalicious 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I recall that most other video game character articles use the most recent art of that character?... Anyway, I've put the official art of Dedede from Kirby: Squeak Squad on the page as the replacement for the anime version image. - DisasterKirby 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that misleading? I mean, even in Squeak Squad, in the villains portrait, Dedede has his old school look, even though it looks like brand new art. I think that'd be more appropriate, since that is his traditional style anyway, and it's only in Nightmare in Dream Land, a remake deliberately styled after the anime, and in Squeak Squad (where most of the enemy sprites are borrowed) that he has a slight anime-ish look. 208.101.155.204 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Penguin?[edit]

Is the character supposed to be a penguin? A while back I heard that it was official information (although the person had no source to back this up), then I read that many fans THINK he is a penguin. My brother says that he's sure it's official, but I'm not.

Is he a penguin, and if so, shouldn't someone add it to the article? --Alice2 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's supposed to be a penguin. In Kirby's Dream Land 3, he resided in Iceberg, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.156.13 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not too sure. He can fly, after all. Darkskylash (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Smash Bros[edit]

I sense there will inevitably be controversy over my addition to the article regarding King Dedede's planned appearance in Super Smash Bros. Since my source is Japanese, I'll give the translation here:

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n01/n64/software/nus_p_nalj/smash/PostResult2.html

☆トップの方の、「クッパ」「デデデ」「ミュウツー」などは、 実はスマブラ開発中は登場予定だったのですが、 諸処の事情でカットになってしまいました・・・。

It says Dedede (among other characters) were planned to be included but had to be cut due to certain circumstances.

Just trying to avoid some edit wars. 75.153.231.20 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not use his Brawl picture?[edit]

Here's a couple of reasons:

1. It is closest to the old-school look, the one that most people are familiar with and grew up on. It is not directly based on the anime like in NiDL and Squeak Squad.

2. Super Smash Bros. Brawl does not qualify as a cameo. Assist Trophies and Pokeballs are cameos. Major playable characters (in a game that now has a story) are not cameos.

3. Sakurai supervises Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so he approves of this portrayal of King Dedede. This fact alone makes this the ideal modern image for King Dedede as it holds complete authenticity over Kirby: Squeak Squad.

1. That doesn't mean anything
2. It qualifies as a Cameo. This article is about King Dedede in the Kirby series. Smash Bros. Brawl is NOT part of the Kirby series. Kirby, Metaknight, and Dedede simply make appearances in Brawl (Or in Kirby's case, the series in general). But that does not mean they are official portrayals of the character. Simply the concept.
3. I came across this same argument on Metaknight, and my answer is still the same. Sakurai may have made this concept, but that doesn't matter. The image is for the Smash Bros. series, not the Kirby series, which, again, this article is about. DengardeComplaints 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable?[edit]

Is this page notable? Claycrow 13:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is basically Kirby's Bowser. He has been in all of the games, except one. Blood dripping on the ground 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

erm... Outdated much?[edit]

Sorry, but why are we using the Super Star Artwork to represent this character? Wouldn't his Squeak Squad or Smash Bros. Brawl look be more proper because they're more recent? Because that artwork is OLD.--66.225.179.117 22:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was agreed upon that the Super Smash Bros. Brawl artwork shouldn't be used, since it isn't actually a Kirby game (its a "cameo game"); I uploaded the Kirby Super Star image because it was a more recent mainstream game image then the Kirby's Adventure image that was here before; I guess Kirby Squeak Squad's art could be used, the only reason I didn't upload that was because it seemed to be based a lot off the anime version of the character instead of the video game version. Lord Crayak 22:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


It doesn't matter if it's based off of the anime, the fact remains that it's DeDeDe's most recent official look from a mainstream Kirby game. If they wanted to base him off of his anime look, what does it matter? It's still an official look from the most recent game.--Phantom Kirby 01:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am against the merge![edit]

King DeDeDe is too notable in my opinion. He has appeared in more games than Meta-knight, who has a page too. Blood dripping on the ground 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism[edit]

A user with the IP 96.228.22.134 has vandalized this article three times in the past 24 hours. Twice he's/she's changed the text under the first picture to say "King Dedede is a huge homo and you should feel bad for liking him.", and the third time a category was added called "Fictional Homosexuals".

Is there something that can be done about this? I'm rather new to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jermcclure (talkcontribs) 11:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not notable outside of context, support merge[edit]

The subject of this article hasn't achieved notability outside of the context of the games in which he appears. Therefore, I support merging. If this character achieves enough coverage outside of that context, then we should revisit an article at a later time. This content belongs somewhere, but not in it's own article in an encyclopedia. Please find it a better home. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that this should reach more of an agreement on it before performing the merge, especially because the images on the article might be lost. --Is this fact...? 11:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. Keep in mind though, nothing is really lost on Wikipedia anymore. Even images are only "hidden" when they are deleted these days. WP:BOLD is much more effective than discussion alone also. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By now, I really think that Dedede should have his own article. He has been in many games, and is actually a playable character in Brawl. Besides; what is wrong with having another article? Wikipedia is not paper. Deadlymethane2 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, King DeDeDe redirects to a list of Kirby characters. I'm no expert on the Kirby series, but I think this should be noted here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dedede Deserves an article as much as any other character. Restore to a full page, WikiNazis.Nintenfreak (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is odd, if we have an article about Hitlers dog why is the notability of the most recurring antagonist of an entire video game franchise even being debated? Oh the stupidity of this Wiki never ceases to amaze me..... --Gheb (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Discussion[edit]

Please discuss at Talk:List of Kirby characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickmythril (talkcontribs) 14:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It seems clear that there was no consensus to merge this article. TTN has been punished by Arbcom for his actions and now we undo the havoc that he wrought. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Please comment on the content issue and avoid giving the impression that your goal here is undo the merge because of an issue you have with another editor. The case caution editors to avoid inflaming the situation; a caution you should take note of. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    It is normal practise to seek out the work of disruptive editors in order to undo it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    noted; I will keep an eye out for further disruption from you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was merged because there appears to be nothing of substances cited. Can you point out any 'ref' that is anything other than a trivial in-universe mention? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge (or keep redirected, depending on the current article state). Not a single reliable source except this official one, which is even worse than the fansites and fanwikis. No creation section, no reception section, a lot of original research (or at least no research backed up by reliable sources). The appearances can be mentioned within a few paragraphs in the list article, and in fact, it already is. – sgeureka tc 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

Given the IP's insistence that he will continually edit-war to restore this article, I have fully protected the redirect. I unprotected the first time so as not to give the impression that I am protecting a preferred version, but we're going to go round in circles forever if this continues. If, of course, there is consensus to restore the article, I will of course remove the protection. Black Kite 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing (at least I support it). Improving the section in the character list so much that this character can hold his own article is what is aimed for. Persistantly revert-warring (without discussion) to keep versions around that clearly violate several policies and guidelines is to be discouraged. – sgeureka tc 07:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
speakeing of reverting without discussion... Black Kite - I made an edit earlier, adding this redirect to Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters. This addition is completely within the scope of guidelines at WP:CAT-RD so i'd like to ask you restore it; as you gave no reason for the reversion, and did not feel compelled to change the other 10 or so redirects categorized similarly (i feel this was a knee-jerk reaction to preserve the current version of the redirect - brought on by having to edit-war about the status of the Dedede article). If you have any concerns, please feel free to bring them up with me on my talk page, prior to a mass reversion - these edits are essentially stable. Happy editing :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

adding Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters[edit]

{{edit protected}} I'm asking that this redirect be added to Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters, following suit with the other 44 playable characters in the series. This redirect qualifies as a legitimate target according to WP:CAT-RD when pertaining to redirects to subsections within lists. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Seems perfectly valid. Huntster (t@c) 09:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing category:Super Smash Bros. fighters[edit]

No disrespect to Hunster, but redirects should not have such categories. Otherwise, this category acts in the same capacity as the List of fighters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion of this should be made to further get a consensus. It could be made at WT:CAT-RD, and have discussion links on Category talk:Super Smash Bros. fighters and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There's really no point. A category should be for articles, not redirects; otherwise, categories are given artificial weight. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects? There is some point in discussing it. It was a hot topic apparently in 2007/08 when the articles got merged, and it ended up keeping the category on the redirects. Now out of the blue, you want to remove them. This doesn't really fit with consensus, so if you want it done, we need to reestablish consensus. I think they should be kept, but won't throw a fit if they aren't. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of an age-old consensus, there is really no valid reason from the guideline that you linked to. The category itself is already a tumultuous one, for the same reason why the characters were removed from the template in the first place, for a lack of a strong connection between the lot of them due to them being from different series. It becomes that much more tumultuous when you insert something as iffy as categories for redirects. We don't do this with Mario characters, Zelda characters, Final Fantasy characters; why should we do it for this one, other than to act as a substitute for the list in the series article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
While the consensus may be old, you can't just go against it and remove it from all of them. I am going to ask at the guideline's page for a confirmation on whether that would be acceptable. There hasn't been a real discussion about this that has involved a large agreement, and it was more of just an argument between a few editors, and a few short agreements between two editors. I think getting a real consensus so we have a definite answer would be good. The guideline's wording is tricky to decipher for this exact situation. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Join the discussion here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Image[edit]

Shouldn't the page image be one from the actual Kirby games rather than Smash Bros? --CaptainCharlie (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure. Since Smash Bros. was his latest appearance, I think that we should stick with it for now. Darkskylash (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King Dedede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King Dedede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)