Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle

Similar Game to Xbox Gladius 2003

Gameplay, weapons and abilities are very similar to Gladius Xbox game from 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:C1BB:F421:9FCD:EEDB (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Release area

Stating "world-wide" as release area is not exactly correct as the Japanese version is still in progress. Currently just planned to release sometime in 2018.

Per WP:VG/DATE, release dates in the infobox should be provided for primarily English-speaking regions, including North America, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. Since it won't be released in Japan until next year, nor was it made by a Japanese developer (it was fully developed by Ubisoft's studios), then by the guideline, a Japanese date shouldn't be added. However, one could argue that due to Mario and Nintendo's Japanese cultural influence, it could possibly be added as an exception. We did a similar thing for Pokemon Go last year, and we could do the same here if enough people agree on it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I would support this if enough people did as well, but until then, it should remain status quo and not include it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Opening paragraph contradicts itself: "The game was released worldwide on 29 August 2017 [...] Nintendo is publishing the game in Japan on January 18, 2018"81.149.182.210 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Obviously using the word "worldwide" doesn't make sense here. Removed WW template from infobox as well. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I disapprove of this. Nothing and I mean NOTHING has been changed because some pages have Japanese dates on them with a reliable source. Can we include a Japan source to back up this dilemma? Wikipedia needs a change! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Citations

Can we get some citations to back up what is currently in the infobox, please? I just had to revert some additions to it, for being questionable on being verifiable. GUtt01 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Publisher's website: "Developer(s): Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft Milan". The editor probably related to the game's credits, where they mistook: Ubisoft Montpellier (a secondary role) for a primary studio [it is given there in a way the implies the prior, and only minor Montpellier staff is present in the creits themselves]; Boido, Scambia and Breda as credible designers, although lead designer Moro was already listed; external producer Nonaka from Nintendo as internal producer. Crazybob's additions weren't de-facto wrong, but do not comply with our guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Published by Nintendo also

Link says it all

https://news.ubisoft.com/article/nintendo-publishing-mario-rabbids-japan-korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3AE0:4760:69F0:D928:161D:43C8 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead says "It was released in Europe and North America in August 2017, whilst Nintendo published the game for East Asian countries in January 2018." Lordtobi (✉) 06:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A sequel has been leaked.

A sequel has been leaked. It has been leaked on Nintendo's website and here is the link: https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/mario-plus-rabbids-sparks-of-hope-switch/ . 107.146.244.150 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, an article has already been made. However, if there isn't info from this E3 it will most likely be deleted. Panini!^🥪 19:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge Rabbid Peach into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I recognize the other article has a decent amount of reception, much of it seems to pertain more to the game or promotion of the game. There doesn't appear to be enough standalone information either to really warrant it being separate from this article. I'd suggest merging what reception can be into this article, as the Smash Bros. information is already covered in here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Sources that pertain more to the game or promotion of the game would be a cause of concern for being overly promotional if they are primary ones, and not a single source used in the article is of that nature. Besides the few reviews used in the reception, which one could argue does not focus on the character in terms of coverage, the articles by Kotaku, Polygon and Game Revolution specifically discuss the character in non-trivial detail, whether it's a reaction to her appearances in Kingdom Battle and use in other media or her popularity on social media. That's standalone information. The proposal for a merge into Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle also disregards the fact that a sequel is confirmed and the character still has the spotlight when it comes to its marketing, so there is potential scope for expansion as it's highly likely that more sources which discuss the character will emerge in due course especially after the sequel is released. I am not sure why Smash Bros. information is relevant to the coverage of this character, there is no correlation except for a single point about the character's cameo appearance in that series. Haleth (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The main problem is there doesn't seem to be enough to say about the character itself for the article without heavy overlap with this one. I would have no prejudice for restoring it if that changes in the future but for now it feels like an extension of this article specifically, and most of the reception can be applied here especially in regards to the selfie promotion aspect. You know this franchise more than I, do you think you can expand the other sections of the article without much overlap between it and this one?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I already added one additional Eurogamer source, and I found a few more sources like this, this, and this, this and this. Though I was not the primary author of the article, I certainly can reorganize and expand the reception section to a better standard by incorporating more opinions from other critics which are specifically about her. I also found a few reviews of the Donkey Kong DLC which discuss her role as the sole returning player character. For development, there's this interview (with most salient points transcribed into this Gamesradar article) and this this, but they will always be secondary in importance to reception since a lot of development-oriented content tend to be primary in nature. A section for promotion/merchandise can be created, combining the bit about the Instagram account and this faux interview here. I don't see why this article shouldn't be kept per WP:POTENTIAL. Haleth (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I agree that both development and reception is a bit lacking. Alternatively, a standalone article about the Raving Rabbids can be created and relevent information can be put there. OceanHok (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The character looks like is one of the breakout character that has sources like Polygon and Kotaku. 180.195.208.114 (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Rabbid Peach into Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The references are largely WP:REFBOMB'd with a lot of trivial coverage, but no significant coverage of the Rabbid Peach character that would show she is individually notable. It shows that most of the reception quotes are less than a single sentence. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. My position hasn't changed from the last discussion which closed two months ago. Article content does not determine notability, so the length of the reception quotes is irrelevant. The sources provided in the article and this talk page clearly establish the character as individually notable. Haleth (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Whether significant coverage can be seen in the sources does determine notability. Reliability of the source is not everything if you are only pulling sub-single-sentence quotes about the character. It's quality over quantity. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom --Torsodog^Talk 04:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my rationale in the last discussion. The sources used in the article seem to be discussing the marketing of the game, which features Rabbid Peach extensively, but they do not discuss the character in any significant manner. OceanHok (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Former article probably does not meet WP:GNG. 👨🏻‍💻 Rng0286 (☎️ talk) ✍️ conts ;) This user is watching you (☑️ rights) Kinopid'oh! 23:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pile-on support. This is a great model for how asides in a reliable source (i.e., trivia) do not somehow accrete into a coherent whole. Once the in-text attribution is removed, there is no substance with which to write an encyclopedia article. czar 04:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CactiStaccingCrane (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Panini!: Hello, and I will review this article as promptly as possible, feel free to ask me anything! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Uninvolved comment.) @CactiStaccingCrane: is it still your plan to review this article, and if so when do you expect to be able to do this? — Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Panini!:, @Bilorv!: I don't think I enjoy working in Wikipedia as I used to be. Sorry, but I don't think I can review this article anymore. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane:EDIT 2: Nevermind, I found the instructions page on the GAN Nominations page, Change status to Status= PerryPerryD (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I'm sorry to hear that. @PerryPerryD: thanks for your help in making sure this gets back in the queue in the right place, so Panini! is not kept waiting much further after this abandoned review. Checking the instructions you allude to (not sure I would have found them otherwise), I think you forgot to increment the |page parameter, as I did here. This is important as otherwise the bot goes "ah!, there already is a GA1 subpage, so that means someone has started a review". — Bilorv (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Everything looks good now! PerryPerryD (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PerryPerryD (talk · contribs) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I am PerryPerryD, I am the new reviewer for this article. Judging by what I can see, I do not have any immediate issues on this article. I will be analyzing this article thoroughly to the best of my ability, I do request the help of other editors to identify issues I may miss. Good Luck.

Manual of Style

This article does not use words that only video game savvy people can understand, therefor I believe that this article can be understood by a broad audience. All terms that may be perceived as confusing are hyperlinked to other articles.

1. Words to Watch. After carefully reviewing the article, I cannot find any words that need to be replaced. All words seem to show equal bias.

2.Fiction. Analyzing this article, All sections that involve Fiction (Such as Plot) do not tie in with real world events or make them seem like real world events. Therefor, This article is good on Fiction.

3.Lead section. The lead section contains 3 equally long paragraphs that describe the game, publisher, games reception, and unveiling without making it too long for the reader. Capitalization and formatting appears to be correct.

4.Layout. The layout appears to match the manual of style perfectly, With everything in the proper order as far as I can tell. 1 Side note however, I would recommend adding a "See also" section that links the reader to rabbids or rayman for example.

5.Lists. This article does not contain any lists. therefor this section is not necessary.

Citations and Sources

Looking through this article, Each claim is cited with an appropriate source and I cannot see any evidence that original research was done here. As for the sources in question, I will be looking through them carefully. But as of right now, The names attached to them appear to be verifiable and all have Wikipedia articles of their own. I will continue to analyze each source carefully. ((This might take a while, Please be patient)).

• 1 Citation removed due to it not mentioning the detail it was citing. (previously citation 6.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing the citations, Other than the one stated above, They all come from reliable sources and none of the work appears to be plagerized. If possible, however, I would advise citing contents of the "Plot" section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 

Coverage

This article gives great detail on the plot, gameplay, reception, awards, and legacy, All of which are similarly weighted in terms of length, while at the same time, not going too off topic. (the most off topic thing i could find was the beyonce mention in Legacy, however that was 1 sentence and because it was in the Legacy section, does not apply to off topic).

Neutrality

In the head itself we can see a mention of the game having initial poor reception, but it also immediately mentions that it was revered later. This trend continued throughout the article until the reception section, Which is not applicable to neutrality as the reception quotes are sourced and cited. The author(s) of the article do not express any of their own opinions on the game itself in the specific article in question. (>:( Thanks panini)

Eh, it was alright. Panini! • 🥪 00:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Stability

According to the history tab, As of this current time, this article has not been the victim of any edit warring. The edits appear to be made in collaboration and good faith. I see no sign of instability.

Illustration

This article contains several contextual images. Some being from the game, The games cover art, or A person or people involved with the project. ALl images appear to be under fair use according to their Wikimedia tags with the exception of a photo of Shigeru Miyamoto which is tagged with CC By 4.0. The images are not out of place and align with the context of the specific sections of the article. All images are captioned with the captions being descriptive and professional.

Conclusion

After reviewing the citations, Along with the other things stated above. I see absolutely no reason to deny this article. 2 things of interest however. Im not one to jump the gun, so I'll wait for these to get fixed first. 1. Lack of citation in "Plot", This entire section does not have any citation on its contents or information. If possible, Please cite. 2. Inconsistency. Please determine if the name is "Beep-0" or "Beep-O". Thank you.

Although I'm not stopping you (source reviews are always lovely), you can do something instead called a "spotcheck"; instead of looking at all of the sources, you can review a percentage of them picked at random, say, 10 to 25 percent. If the majority of them check out and are valid to sourcing the claim, it gives a good assumption that the sources are reliable. If not, the process is repeated until it does. Panini! • 🥪 00:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfect timing, Thats exactly what I did PerryPerryD (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Panini for your quick response and fixes. With all of the issues I provided now fixed, I now see absolutely no reason to deny this article. Review Concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that David Soliani, creator of Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, became an internet meme for crying on stage? Source: [1][2]
  • ALT1: ... that composer Grant Kirkhope was left speechless after being requested to compose music for Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle? Source: [3]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/750 Seventh Avenue
  • Comment: There's a couple of nuggets in this article for good hooks, but these two were the easiest to phrase into a hook style. If neither strike your fancy, I'll take another lookthrough.

Improved to Good Article status by Panini! (talk). Self-nominated at 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Fine for DYK. I admit to seeing many grammar issues that make me wonder about its GA status, though, as that's a much higher bar. Examples:

• Singular/plural disagreements, multiple cases:
  • "In the game, the player control" - controls, surely?
  • "Gameplay follow Mario" - follows?
• Puzzling choice of voice: "and a battle will engage"
• "revered", several uses - (for example, " Although the game was met with poor reception when it was leaked, it was revered at the official revealing"; "The game's simplified combat system and structure were revered") - reverence (emotion) is "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration" - for a brand new video game? Doubtful.
• Strange word choices: "The level is completed if all enemies are defeated or the fixed objective is justified, or lose a battle when all characters run out of health"- objective is justified? or lose a battle?
• player/character confusion
  • "players have the choice to alter their current selection of players" - what?
  • * " each character can ... use a weapon, and have two choices of attack that vary per player; " - per character, surely?
• a selection of 8 characters with a limit of three - strange word choice and MOS:NUMERAL
• Uncertain antecedent: "Levels are divided into chapters, and each chapter usually contains three levels. When a chapter is completed, they receive coins and "Skill Orbs", - they? The chapter receives coins?
• "while also encountering allies both old and Rabbid"? Rabbid is an adjective of allies, as opposed to old?
• " the group celebrate by presenting a large statue of Rabbid Peach." - presenting to whom?
• "he requested him to sign a copy" - he requested Miyamoto sign a copy?
• "After a long run of Rabbids video games developed by Ubisoft meanwhile, Xavier Manzanares, a Ubisoft brand producer, began to think ahead about the future" - remove "meanwhile", and "ahead", both redundant?
• "Manzanares began to conceptualize games that weren't the typical genre they were familiar with. - whom does "they" refer to?
• "and lost morale, which caused Soliani to further emphasize a unique experience because of it. " - what does "further emphasize a unique experience" mean? I know what each of those words mean individually, but together they seem to turn into meaningless marketing jargon.
• the companies morale was greatly boosted - put an apostrophe somewhere, depending on whether singular or plural was meant
• According to Soliani, the initial plan was to release about 1–2 hours of additional content. After the praise of the game after its reveal, Soliani decided to add as much content as possible, with cutscenes, worlds, and gameplay totaling about half of the base game in all. - this seems to be an error in type; how can worlds take up half the time of a game? Surely file size is meant?
• "Soliani wanted the new content to be completely offset from the original game" - completely different from?
• "PCMag considered this to be due to the lack of complex statistics and probability, and rather favored simplistic "coin-flip" chances" - what? The game favored coin flips, or PCMag appreciated that it did or ... what?
• Kirkhope was initially skeptical on the purpose of this offer - of the purpose?

This is just from a single pass, I worry I did not get them all. Any chance you can ask for a grammar review, maybe from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? GRuban (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, GRuban! Despite doing this for the sake of a quid pro quo, I'm glad you checked the prose thoroughly. I don't blame the GA reviewer for this, as this is slight stuff I could've easily taken care of prior to nominating the article. I'll give it another readthrough and ping you here when I finish. Panini! • 🥪 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)