Talk:Meta Knight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMeta Knight was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 14, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
July 31, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Opinion[edit]

meta knight unmasked? does anyone have a picture of meta knight unmasked?

http://e.1asphost.com/Dreamcat/Kirby's%20Palace/Images/Kss_Meta%20Knight%20Sprites.gif has sprites of Metaknight unmasked.

That link doesnt show up on my computer. Whats a question? 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riverstar the Helper: It shows on mine but its hard to see. The sprite is so small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.222.42 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSBB[edit]

Can Someone replace the Kirby air ride image of meta knight with the image of meta knight from Super Smash Bros Brawl? I don't know how to.

Meta Knight's name (Katakana/Romaji)[edit]

Why remove MK's name spelt out in katakana and romaji? A number of characters (such as Kirby and King Dedede) have the same thing entered in their profile, so why remove something that may be helpful to some individuals? Give a reason why it needs to be removed. NeoSeifer

Lolo similarites[edit]

"Fans of HAL Laboratory games might identify Meta Knight's hidden form as originating from the 1989 game The Adventures of Lolo. Earlier Kirby bosses Lololo and Lalala look identical and are presumably derived from the same game."

I removed that part. Other than both being blue balls, they look nothing alike. Meta knight has beady eyes while Lolo has large, more human-like ones. Meta knight has a small mouth whereas Lolo doesn't have one. Meta Knight has no arms and big fists and Lolo had arms and small hands.

If Metaknight's design originated from Lolo, then Kirby's design originated from Lala. Xubelox 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possession[edit]

The thing about Meta Knight being possessed by Dark Matter (or as someone said, Cloaked Nightmare, who can't even possess people) is nothing more than a fan theory. Unless someone can provide the so-called interview where Sakurai says so himself (and a google search gets nothing related), don't add it.

Good or Evil?[edit]

With more SSBB info coming out it's becoming more apparent that a ton of people either have no idea who MK is, or have hideously innacurate knowledge of him. (Such as thinking he and Kirby are father/son or something (what is this, Star Wars?), or that MK is really Lolo... XD Good god...)
But the main problem is people who automatically think he's evil- and his more menacing appearance in SSBB doesn't help. Considering MK has helped Kirby in more games than harmed him, I think it needs to be stressed that he is NOT a villain as Nightmare or Dark Matter are. Kirby's rival, sure, but they've often fought towards the same goals. He's probably even less of a 'bad guy' than Dedede, who has really only been on Kirby's side once in K64.
In Kirby's Adventure, MK appears briefly in some stages to aid you by giving you invincibility candy. In Amazing Mirror, he's the first one to try to save Dreamland there. In Kirakira Kizzu he does challenge you, but it's his usual 'testing Kirby's abilities' sort of thing. In the newest Squeak Squad game... uh I won't say anything because it'd be a spoiler but I'll say it supports my argument for now.
The KSS thing... Honestly there's so much confusion there. Why is it called 'REVENGE' of MK, anyway? What's he getting revenge for? Not against Kirby- he isn't after him at first, it's only after Kirby comes after HIM. MK wanted to take over Dreamland to 'end its lazy lifestyle', not destroy it- so he had good, if misguided reasoning behind it, correct? Then Kirby starts screwing everything up, so naturally he gets really mad.
So we can safely say he wasn't possessed or controlled- just... sort of idealistic and full of himself, but he had good intentions, really. =P
Uh, so any thoughts on this? Ivyna J. Spyder 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So true, so true. I mean, it's not like Dedede is actually doing anything for the good of the people, what with stealing food and picking on poor innocent puffballs. Meta-Knight probably thought that he could make a better ruler than Dedede, which, in turn, led to his actions in Super Star. Maetch 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Riverstar the Helper: I agree. Meta Knight is like Batman, a dark, yet good guy that sometimes doesn't understand and is confused by how the way people treat him. He may take it in a good matter, but most of the time, he thinks: "I'm doing this and NO ONE is going to stop me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.222.42 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If ya have a problem with a section...[edit]

Discuss it here and don't just remove it because you don't like it. I put sources and examples for the info I put, and it's all stuff that people constantly make mistakes about. (Such as MK being evil- though I provide examples of how he frequently aids Kirby him in order to show that perception is false. I actually have some more to add, but they're from the new game that isn't out here yet, so I didn't want to spoil it just yet.) Wikipedia is meant to give information, right? And to dispell misinformation. If you can think of ways to better word some of the stuff I'd love to see it though, mr. anonymous Ivyna J. Spyder 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here's why we can't have this:

-It's cruft (interesting to a very small portion of fans) -It's full of original research -It's unsourced (giving in-game examples are good sources) -It's not notable (no well known sources [THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE FAN SITES] have reported it)

Yes, Wikipedia is to give information, but that doesn't mean you can dump any inane nonsense you want on it because it's important to you. I highly suggest you read up on "What Wikipedia is not". Leave this crap to game forums. Thank you. 199.126.137.209 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man you're a party pooper. I did cite in-game info. I admit that the 'good vs evil' thing is vague, and I've been wanting to fix it, but how about you try to improve it instead of just deleting it all?
I mean the 'he's not Lololo' thing should remain at the very least, since I've seen people say that at three different sites. o_o Seriously, people are dumb so it needs to be pointed out somewhere.
If you can think of ways to say it better, just clearing up what kind of character he is (I mean he's not a clear-cut villain, but he's not a hero like Kirby either...) then I would be happy to hear any suggestions.
Ivyna J. Spyder 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

There needs to be a strong lead summary and yes there need to be ciations (manuals, sites, etc) where/when available for the appropriate sections. "Miscellaneous" and "trivia" need to be merged to more appropriate locations or at least be kept short, if it's not encyclopedic - delete it. Sections like Changes in fighting style and Games are fine, but in those and throughout the article get rid of "you" and replace with "the player" or reword it. Use other articles to your advantage - like check better character articles and try applying their article structure to this one, see what makes them "FA, "A" or "GA". Remember, you can get Meta Knight Peer reviewed too. -FullMetal Falcon 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I have some ideas I could work in... Ivyna J. Spyder 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star battle's patience[edit]

I figure that the reason that he would not wait forever unlike the other games could be seen as him not really wanting to wait for the ship to fall into the ocean with them both on it. The fact he was trying to take rule over Dreamland rather then simply preventing Kirby from unleashing another evil monster could come into play too, however. Ironically it's the "lazy lifestyle" that he was trying to get rid of that you'd be taking up if you simply stood there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.57.72 (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I assumed that too, that it was simply because of the time limit that isn't present in other games. Ivyna J. Spyder 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meta knight[edit]

meta knight is not evil dark meta knight is evil.nobody seems to under stand that.deos anyone else think meta knight has the same powers as kirby or had and thats why he"s training kirby?and why in the anime does he not have wings?i think nintendo and hal made meta knight look evil in the ssbb trailer on perpose.the only people who don"t know about mk are non-gamers light gamers and people who have never played a kirby game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr mario1992 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Sorry, half of us don't speak chatspeak here. Mumbles (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Riverstar the Helper: I do. They did not make him evil on purpose. He's not even evil in Adventure mode on super smash brothers brawl (ssbb). He is training Kirby because he's doing a good deed unlike other heros: making sure there is a back-up hero around. They made Meta Knight have wings in ssbb because they just fit in to the story and brawls. I guess they are batwings just because of his appearance (recall Batman). I hoped this helped you. ^_^' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.222.42 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Knight in Kirby's Funpak[edit]

If I remember correctly, Meta Knight was the last boss in the game Meta Knight's Revenge which was a part of Kirby's Funpak for the SNES. Also he was a enemy in the game The Arnena on the same modul.

Or is Kirby's Funpak the same like Kirby Super Star? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.136.239.91 (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Same game, different regional names. (Fun Pak is the European name, I think.) DisasterKirby 13:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Bros BRAWL Symbol[edit]

I don't recall the M on his shoulder being mentioned anywhere as his emblem. Can someone alter this? It's false information195.195.15.250 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss[reply]


Riverstar the Helper: Did he even have a emblem before? That could be the problem. It could stand for "Meta (Metal)" or "Master". use your imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.222.42 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MINOR Sword detail[edit]

A thought for you all. Maybe the reason that it's called 'Master' is because it's not the name of the sword, rather the ability to weild the sword or something? If it's the best ability in the game then maybe it's the "Master Ability" and not "The Mast Sword" - hey! a reference to Zelda? 195.195.15.250 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss[reply]

The fact it'sc alled "master" is already brought up on Master Sword, although the anime refers to the sword as "galaxius", as far as the video games go, "Master" is the only name for the sword we can go bu, thus it is the only name we can use. Vilerocks 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history page for the list of Kirby's powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kirby_powers&action=history) says that it was originally called the Master Sword in the Japanese version, and even supplies the original text. Just thought I'd mention that. 208.101.130.232 14:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those statements were false. The only in-game name in the Japanese version of KatAM for Master is "Master", as translated from the ability name. (And don't give me that unsourced "shortened name" bull. Show me where exactly in the game it says マスターソード in full and maybe I'll change my mind.) Disaster Kirby 14:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Sentance[edit]

"At one point when Dedede questioned his loyalty, Meta Knight insisted that he was his faithful servant- and then kicked him off a cliff." The excessive "his'" 'he's" and "him's" make this sentence confusing. Who kicked who off a cliff? --Is this fact...? 09:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it bugs you, then fix it. You don't have to bring everything up on the talk page.--Phantom Kirby 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw anything of the show so I still don't know who got kicked off the cliff by who. I don't want to risk giving false info. --Is this fact...? 06:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhereIsTheCite? (talk • contribs) [reply]

It's clear really if u look at it: "King Dedede questions Meta Kight's loyalty (to King Dedede), Meta Knight says that he (MK) is loyal to himself (MK) only. And Meta Knight kicks Dedede off the cliff." Get it? MK is not loyal to KD, but is a servant to himself and does what he (MK) wants to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.222.42 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd the Halberd go?[edit]

Why is it no longer mentioned in this article? It's relevant. --Is this fact...? 09:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC

I, too, was wondering this as well. Those of us with no knowledge of the Halberd need a link to some place where we can be educated on the ship's greatness. I do not currently know where or how to do so, so I ask someone who is able to do so for me. --Oxico (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. I disagree with this edit. Should someone revert it? --Is this fact...? 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a blow by blow plot synopsis of every minor object or character in the series, this isn't the site for you. If you want detailed information on it, find a Kirby or Nintendo wiki on Wikia. TTN (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a blow-by-blow. The Halberd isn't a minor object in the series, just as the Batmobile isn't minor to Batman and the Invisible Plane isn't minor to Wonder Woman. It's a main element in the Meta Knight part of the Kirby universe, and it's big enough in that respect to get a mention in this article.
I agree, though, that the Halberd's section was much too long, but it should have been cut down to a paragraph or two at most, not removed completely. --Is this fact...? 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. You should not delete a whole part of the article just because you think it's irrelevant. It's somewhat foolish to do so (no offense, you are human you can be wrong). The least you could do is to discuss it here. The discussion page is here for such things. Besides the Halberd being an important aspect of Meta Knight, it's now a stage in the much anticipated Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Somebody oughtta make a new Halberd section, with details on the ship itself (not a blow-by-blow) and some details on its appearance in Brawl.Nightmare77 (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Article[edit]

The Halberd is a fictional airship from the Kirby series. Within the series, its primary function is as a massive transport[citation needed] for the Meta-Knights and their army of soldiers, led by Meta Knight. It is all but indestructible from the outside[citation needed]. Its name is a reference to both a weapon and the company that created Kirby, HAL Laboratory (as the "HAL Bird").[citation needed]

In Kirby Super Star it is shown to have a small crew which includes Meta Knight himself, the bird-like Halberd Captain, a Waddle Dee in a sailor cap, Mace Knight and Axe Knight (also known as Meta Mace and Meta Axe).

In the anime, the Halberd first appears in the first of the final three episodes, "Takeoff! Battleship Halberd!", aired in the USA as "Cappy Town Down" (which also first aired in America as the direct-to-video film, Kirby: Fright to the Finish). According to Meta Knight, he had been building it by himself with Sword Knight and Blade Knight's help since he arrived in Dream Land, using plans saved from the Galaxy Soldier Army.

The Halberd makes an appearance as a level in Super Smash Bros Brawl as both a level and as a main theme in the Game's Adventure mode, the Subspace Emissary.

  • Here's a cut down version of this that can be edited here before I request the Halberd section to be put back in the article. What changes should be made to this? --Is this fact...? 10:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Edit War[edit]

I had given up on this project per a personal lack of time, but, apparently, Meta Knight has been bought back and protected until a consciousness has been reached. The problem is that one party wants this to be merged with characters in the Kirby video game series, for it's irrelevant until it's proven as much by an out-of-game source. The other says that Meta Knight is too relevant to be downsized, that this can be proven in time, and that the traffic alone is evidence enough. I say that a time limit should be given for the out-of-game info to be added and that it should be kept for now due to WP:OWN. What do you vote on the matter? --Is this fact...? 10:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Meta-Knight should be merged. Meta-Knight is a bit too relevant. Thank you for your time. 71.164.253.253 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck do the PK droids from Star Wars Episode I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PK_Droid) deserve their own page if Metaknight doesn't. He has enough information to hsve his own article and is much more relevant to his series than a PK droid is to Star Wars, so I strongly protest merging.--Phantom Kirby (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing people need to realize is there are several cases where Wikipedia articles shouldn't be compared to each other. Believe me, that article will eventually be deleted or merged. It's maybe seven sentences long. It just hasn't happened yet.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Removal Request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please remove the this image of Meta Knight in Brawl (as well as the colon just before it) from the article. It brings nothing to the article and makes it look rather clunky. --Is this fact...? 08:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected the page. I hope that everyone will refrain from edit warring and resolve any disputes with discussion on the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

The page was redirect/merged w/o discussion. The intitial request for page protection was in to avoid continual redirects without prior discussion. Please unprotect and unredirect page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Protection is not a tool to protect your desired version. It's used to stop edit warring and encourage discussion. TTN (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. There was an edit war so full protection was applied to prevent anything from occurring further. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as I read the history page, Sesshomaru, and TTN, you were the ones provoking the edit war by reverting without discussion, against clear consensus both here at at the more general Kirby page. Please explain yourselves here and see if you have any support. DGG (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because the page was tagged with {{r from merge}}, see here. Where is the link that shows the outcome of the consensus? Because if it was "keep", then the tag shouldn't be there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This already went through three discussions. The first one was to merge with five to four being the result, (anons can be anyone, so they don't count). There were no actual arguments regarding improving the article, so those were pretty much null. The second discussion was placed on the video game project, and only a couple of people really commented there. The lack of response indicates that nobody really cared if the articles were merged (if they're against something, they'll comment). The Afd ended with a recommendation to merge because the closing admin did not seem to feel like discusounting the votes, though he clearly feels that they were not really relevant. The consensus is to merge.TTN (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are consensus based not votes, as such the arguements made my anon should count. I would encourage the editor to assume good faith. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merger Discussion[edit]

Please discuss at Talk:List of Kirby characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickmythril (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome at said discussion, this page cannot be redirected/unredirected until the injunction regarding characters has been lifted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Did I miss something? This is a video game character, not a tv character. --Jack Merridew 14:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be pedantic, he has been in a television show. But since the injunction should probably be interpreted broadly, and this has been edit warred over specifically, I think it would have been safe to say this article would fall under the injunction even if he hadn't been in an anime. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is interpreted to refer to similar situations, and I think it includes this one. Article reprotected in whatever may be the current form until subsequent discussion. DGG (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
at the request or Merridew and Seresin, I changed it to the form it was in at the time of the injunction. please make no further changes DGG (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has been resurrected without discussion; and I see that DGG endorsed the idea of discussion first. I'm going to restore the redirect and expect interested editors to discuss any desire to restore this prior to re-resurrecting it again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The separate article has 10 sources in total (not bad). But: 2 in the infobox, 2 for stating that his original body was black, 1 for stating what he did/how he looked in a trailer, 1 for how his bedroom looks, and 3 for stating that he is a playable character in an upcoming game. In the merged list, he has 8 sources, and the 30+ (usually unsourced) paragraphs got condensed to three (mostly sourced) paragraphs. Keep redirected until the section in the merged list gets too long with sourced content. – sgeureka t•c 09:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This case is another of TTN's crass mergers which was not supported by a consensus of the editors who work upon this article. Now that his actions and behaviour have been censured by Arbcom, the status quo ante is being restored as we clean up the damage that he did. I support the actions of the editors who have laboured hard upon this fine article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your rant about another editor is out of line; please address the article. You seem to be making a case for the view that your resurrection of this article is WP:POINTy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did address the article. I have looked at it and consider it better as a proper article than as a redirect to a list which simply restates the same material in a poorer format. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be glossing-over the notability issue. This article was based of fandom, not sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sgeureka's analysis of the article; the 'references' are lightweight and do not support all the fine fancruft that was this article. The merged bit in the list is sufficient. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack Merridew has been banned. I shall now revert his disruption. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I (and seresin) are not banned, so are you going to ignore us (and the policies and guidelines that suggest the current article is pretty bad, and which I figure is unlikely to be improved)? – sgeureka t•c 07:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jack Merridew seems to be the latest of several cases in which fanatical opposition to such material has led to disruptive behaviour which has then resulted in a block, ban or other sanction. Since such people have had a deleterious effect, it is appropriate to push back. Unfortunately, the natural editors of this material don't seem adept at the technical side of Wikipedia - apparently unable even to grasp the idea of registering an account. They therefore need some technical assistance and mentoring and I will do what I can to help them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • TTN was (probably) based for incivility, Jack was banned for sockpuppeting, neither one was banned for suggesting or performing policy- and guideline-based actions. This article is still a long cry away from being in line with several policies and guidelines, and demanding to keep it merged until this is no longer the case is not disruption, no matter how strong an inclusionist or deletionist one is. So I ask again: Are you going to ignore my previous input and policies and guidelines, or aren't you? If you just want a proper civil discussion without TTN and Jack, I can start an official merge7redirect discussion, wait one or two months to give interested editors time to improve the article to something that meets e.g. WP:FICT, and then carry out what's best per policy and guidelines. – sgeureka t•c 09:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We already seem to have a discussion on the matter and this is it. This discussion is no bar to working on the material and so I am likely to continue to do both. The main difficulty seems to be engaging the editors who prefer to work without logging in and who comment mainly in edit summaries. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We seem to be talking past each other. I am saying that despite a handful of seemingly reliable sources, the article doesn't pass WP:FICT (and WP:NOT#PLOT) by far (basically because there is no non-trivial real-world information), and thus should stay merged until the circumstances change significantly. The/my last note at Talk:List of Kirby characters redirects discussion here. Everybody can comment here (or there for that matter), logged in or not. If you wish to give this article some time to improve (as I said, this would be one or two months), just say so, and I'll leave it alone until then. If you want the demerge as a permanent solution, then no per policy and guideline. – sgeureka t•c 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since it is hard to work on the article when people keeping turning it into a redirect, I welcome your proposed breathing space. I am not an expert in this topic myself and so can't commit to specific improvements without some research and I am already engaged with immediatism/deletionism on several fronts as diverse as Back garden, Islamophilia, New age communities and Ealing Broadway Platform 9. The main difficulty in getting these articles improved to your high standards is that few editors seem to understand how to find and cite sources. When I focus upon a particular topic and bring some technical expertise to bear, I often find it easy to improve the articles. It's a fairly slow, painstaking process though and I perhaps indulge too much already. Anyway, perhaps this will help in understanding my position. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Got it. I'd still like you to cleanup-tag the article properly in the meantime to alert editors what the article needs and/or that work is (trying to be) done. (You can also get some general ideas from GA and FA videogame character articles as a start.) I hope you understand my position as well. Best, – sgeureka t•c 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, I haven't seen you doing any work on this article. Are you still collecting sources, or do you find yourself unable to commit to the cleanup job at this time? – sgeureka t•c 09:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO FAIR!!! It Meta Knight gets his own article, the King Dedede obviously should, too! I mean, he's been in every freaking Kirby game except one! - Smashman202 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warden? Does your not-working on the article imply that you're fine with merging the article back? – sgeureka t•c 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I've been watching your little discussion with TTN. Trying to do his work for him just because HE can't. Tell you what, how about you give us a week or so find verifiable information on Meta Knight, and if we can't find it, merge him back? Is that okay with you? -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to wait until approx. May 4 because that would make it a full month when Col Warden requested more time to satisfy NOT#PLOT etc. That TTN contacted me (which is out of my control) is besides the point since this renewed merger here was initiated without TTN's presense anyway. – sgeureka t•c 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess even time cannot fix this article. I merged the "Created by" bit into the main article, the rest of the information already appeared there from the initial merge. If someone really wants to have a separate article for this character, he will get an idea what kind of real-world info is necessary for such, at Kirby (character). It's probably best to work from the character list anyway than recreate this article immediately when someone has got a real-world fact to add. – sgeureka t•c 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with many fictional main characters;they're all being reduced to three or four paragraphs. Many have sufficient or many times even exceptional amounts of information, a so-so amount of sources and enough of a backstory. Patrick, Sandy, King DeDeDe, Meta Knight... Many more, actually. Sometimes they're replaced by less-needed articles from the same show or series. And other times the "List of characters from ----" page as a whole is very poorly formatted, or gives too few characters, or characters that have only appeared once or twice. (Look at list of chracter in Spongebob Squarepants, you'll see what I mean) Mumbles (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un merge[edit]

Meta is a main character in the series. If we have pages of Zelda and Link, we should have pages about MK. It was redirected for no reason. Mr. Anon515 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do we have any new clearer images of unmasked meta knight?[edit]

sorry if this is pointless but the current image looks abit grainy (especially the eyes) I think we need a new image if one exists. is he unmasked in games after kirbysuperstarultra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.214.100 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Meta Knight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll review this article and be posting my concerns in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

This is a well-written article. Thank you for your work on it and for placing it on the Good Article nominations. Below are some of my concerns that need to be addressed before the article passes. They aren't major problems, but I thought I'll post them here and see how we can work things through. This is the first part of the review. I'll be reviewing sources individually for accuracy shortly. Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is exemplified when he gives Kirby a sword with which to fight – Does it say in which videogame? Readers unfamiliar with MK might get the impression that he gives a sword to Kirby every time they fight. Is that true?
  • where he fights Kirby to keep him from taking a piece of the Star Rod and keep it out of Nightmare's hands – Though grammatically correct, the word keep is used twice; may I suggest writing stop him?
  • In Kirby & the Amazing Mirror (2004) – Please link the game. It has an article.
  • Meta Knight also appears in Kirby's Return to Dream Land (2011) – Ditto.
  • as one of the main protagonists (with Kirby, King Dedede, and Waddle Dee) – Please link King Dedede.
  • The latter is the first time his name is revealed – Rewrite: In the latter, his name was revealed for the first time.
  • In Kirby: Right Back at Ya! he is a main character – Year needed.
  • They are warriors who rebelled against Nightmare – Please link Nightmare from the List of Kirby characters.
  • IGN described him as "one of the most enigmatic characters in the Kirby series" – Replace him with Meta Knight because him is used later.
  • He is the 18th-best Nintendo character of all time, according to GameDaily – Link GameDaily.
  • that placed him third on a list of Nintendo characters – Rewrite to: on their list of Nintendo characters.
  • he was listed in the top-five five characters – Remove the repeated five.
  • UGO Networks called Meta Knight is … - Remove the is.
Thank you for your excelent review! According to ScrewAttack "He's also an extremely honorable swordsman, only fighting those who can fight back (as seen in the Kirby games where he always gives Kirby a sword so they can duel)", so I assume it's true (even I can't remember if it's). Is any further clarification needed? I've done all your suggestions except for the links you recommended (actually I linked GameDaily). WP:OVERLINK states that "a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Kirby & the Amazing Mirror, Kirby's Return to Dream Land, King Dedede, Nightmare, and Super Smash Bros. (series) are all linked before the parts you've cited. It's a personal preference on my part but if you think it's helpful for readers I'll not oppose it. I'll start to work in the second part now. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, sounds good to me. I thought (for some odd reason) that they could be linked twice (once at the lead, if permissible, and on their first occurrence in the paragraphs). Thanks for clarifying. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2[edit]

  • I would like for you to expand the introduction. If you will, please make sure to include his first video game appearance, how he was "nameless" and later got his name, how he fights honorably, plays the role of the rival, and occasionally fights alongside Kirby. Most importantly, however, make sure to include his role in SSBB. I think most people know MK because of that game—oh, and don't forget to include that he's OP (overpowered)!
  • this is exemplified when he gives Kirby a sword with which to fight – According to source 2, MK only fights those who can fight. Consider adding that too b/c that exemplifies his honorable swordsman legacy.
  • He is always seen in a silver mask; beneath it he looks similar to Kirby – This is not found in source 4. Please add a new source that contains this information.
  • (although in Kirby's Return to Dream Land, the wings grow directly from his body) – Not in source 4 and 5.
  • known as the Galaxia Sword – Source does not mention the name of the sword. The closest was Galaxia Darkness, but that is his final smash.
  • (although he has a "Master Sword" (マスターソード Masutā Sōdo?) in Kirby & the Amazing Mirror) – Not in the sources 4 and 5.
  • he has benign intentions – Sources states his aims. Please do so, too. I am sure readers would be curious to read about his good acts.
  • This attitude has led to debate about his allegiances – None of the three sources talk about the supposed debate on MK’s allegiances. The first one only says: Is he a bad guy? Is he a good guy? He's Meta Knight. I would not call that a debate. Consider removing this or finding sources that back this up. I would prefer for you to look for some sources b/c I am sure is some disagreement among video game experts on MK's mysterious role.
  • Dark Meta Knight (an evil-mirror-world version of Meta Knight) – That name is not mentioned in the source. Source says MK was the one that shattered Kirby into pieces.
  • Refs from 24 to 30 are in Japanese, so this needs to be indicated in the source. Please put | language = Japanese to it.
  • They are warriors who rebelled against Nightmare; Meta Knight works for King Dedede to help Kirby and watch over the activities of Nightmare Enterprises. – I translated source 30 (which is in Japanese), and as far as I know, it talks only about the SSBM trophies, not about Nightmare or the stuff mentioned above.

Finishing the review. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added what was missing in the lead. In this case someone who can fight back is someone who has a sword, and if his adversary has not a sword he gives one to him fight with it. The "He is always seen in a silver mask; beneath it he looks similar to Kirby" is in the source; to check it you need to click in "Biography" which is below "About This Character". The information is in the third paragraph: "Though most of him is hidden under his stylish cape [...] albeit done up in slightly less friendly colors. Aren't "aim" and "intentions" synonymous? I put "|language=Japanese" in the sources you've mentioned. About his allegiance it's stated in the "Biography" section of IGN profile: "Meta Knight is Kirby’s rival, is how Nintendo usually puts it. He’s not necessarily a bad guy, although he often shows up in the company of King Dedede and the other less savory inhabitants of Dream Land" and "His loyalties seem just as confusing in his Super Smash Bros. appearance as they are in the Kirby adventures"; ScrewAttack says "All the time playing, I couldn’t tell if he was a friend or a foe"; beyond what you have already cited but if necessary I can search for other sources. I replaced the source for "Dark Meta Knight", and it calls him "One shattered mirror and a dark version of Meta Knight". The other sentences you pointed are WP:FILMPLOT so they are "acceptable without reference to an outside source." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Article passes. Congratulations. I'm glad to see an important video game character make it through in GA! Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

This article could use a good copyedit. There are several small but noticeable grammar and punctuation errors as well as some dubious stylistic choices by the writer. For example, in the lead in, first paragraph, the sentence reads "The character also appears in several Kirby comic books, in the 2001 anime series and in the Super Smash Bros. series." This is a good example of why the serial (or Oxford) comma should be applied. It lists where Kirby has appeared, offsetting the first with a comma, and then leaving the following two separated by only "and."

In the second paragraph, "He has also been regarded to be worthy of its own game, and popular among fans." "He" is first used to describe the character but the writer turns around to mention "its own" game. Not sure why the pronoun is switched mid-sentence. Also, a comma plus conjunction should only be used to separate two independent clauses. Since "popular among fans" is a dependent clause, the comma prior to "and" is incorrect.

Numerous other inconsistencies within the article that could be fixed. While they don't severely detract from the the content, the haphazard application of grammar and especially punctuation don't serve to give it an encyclopedic tone. Patrick of J (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Meta Knight. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Artwork[edit]

New artwork for Meta Knight was recently uploaded online and also used in the current latest game, Kirby Fighters 2. I'm not able to upload files here, but I think it would be good to use that render since it represents his current main series design. SuperCP99 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Male video game heroes"[edit]

Is the category "Male video game heroes" existing for categorization of Meta Knight? It might need fixing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Meta Knight[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: This has been open for two weeks. The nominator's primary concern was "a lack of significant coverage" which is not part of the GA criteria. There is a consensus here that the article generally meets the GA criteria and should not be delisted, though the sourcing is not ideal in some places. AfD (or proposing a merge) is the venue for notability concerns, not GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is no longer up to Good Article standards if it was to begin with. While I am not sure what the standards were 10 years ago, the reviewed version would currently be a quick-fail due to a lack of significant coverage. Reception is almost entirely sourced to trivial lists. Even if its notability can be salvaged, it would need a full reassessment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep So, matters of WP:AFD are not the responsibility of GA Reassessment. If you believe that it lacks WP:SIGCOV and should be deleted, then use that venue. It isn't GA's place to determine if an article warrants its own page and GAs can still be deleted without being delisted (e.g. Daily Dozen Doughnut Company). At worst, some of the chaff could be cut from the reception section, but the sources are WP:RELIABLE and presented in a factual manner that doesn't get to the point of being WP:UNDUE. This is also splitting hairs on what is and isn't trivial coverage.
The WP:TRIVIAL essay specifies that "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." The lists in question generally present about a paragraph's worth of content in each. It then goes on to say "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections...", which I believe qualifies here for the lists in question. The Gamespot citations do worry me a bit but that only reflects 2 sources. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was non-notable from the point it was approved for GA. That would make it violate one of the rules for GA assessments and call into question if it was done properly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what your concerns are then. Are you saying that the article should be deleted, that it fails a GA criteria, or that the original GA review was improper (or a mix of both)? Even if a GA review was done incorrectly, reassessment looks at the current state of the article, and I believe it meets criteria. The original review is littered with citation errors but these seem to have been resolved (or are an artifact of an older citation template). The original reviewer @Morogris and nominator @Gabriel Yuji are both still active, sending a customary ping.
If you're saying it fails a criteria, please specify what it is, because WP:SIGCOV/non-notable topic isn't a GA criteria. We specifically avoid matters of AFD/AFC, hence why they aren't in the criteria. We don't assume every GA is notable, rather WP:GA is unconcerned with notability requirements. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly saying the original review was improper; #3 in the quick fail criteria states, "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid." Even at the time, it needed a notability tag, and therefore was ineligible for review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Etriusus. If you think the subject is not notable, you should nominate it for deletion (WP:AFD) or for merging (WP:PAM). There's no need to get it delisted at GAR first, and it wouldn't be the first GA-class article about a video game character deleted or merged for lack of notability (see e.g. Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 2#Notability). GAR is more for analyzing the quality of the article's content, rather than the inclusion of the subject itself. Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid rationale has been provided for delisting. Some of the sources could be better, but they do not appear to be unreliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The recent GAR[edit]

@Greenish Pickle!: I would like to question the close of the recent GAR. I was not the only person who did not agree that there were problems worth delisting over. Also, you never transcluded the GAR onto this talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Also, question is different than a problem. You think an article without development section and with a flimsy reception sec is a "good article"? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The development section might be impossible, and that should not be held against the article. Besides, I believe the reception section is fine. What is wrong with it? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without development, its not a detailed article. Its probably because you're a Kirby fan. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa now, assume good faith. He's right to question this. An article sometimes just isn't going to have a development section, the only thing one can do is cite whatever they can in the best way possible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't question someone's judgment solely based on whether they enjoy something or not. Further, if the article is as detailed as is possible, then it is a detailed article. Lacking a development section is only a problem because they are typical sections, not because they are mandatory. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it as a joke; Apologize, if it went too far. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 07:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this discussion ended some time ago, I recently went over the GAR myself, and there really was no reason to delist this article, @Greenish Pickle!. Both people who participated in it besides you as the nominator were openly against the GAR in the first place, and it was closed without any reasoning or rationale. I'd really appreciate some form of explanation about that. From what I can tell, you seemed to be against its GA status because of the fact that it had no development section, but those sources simply do not exist. Denying an article GA status for missing sources that physically don't exist isn't something that should roll around here. Apologies if I seem to be coming off a tad pushy here, but you essentially delisted the article for no reason. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This delist seems completely irregular, but apparently we can only contest GAR closures the first 7 days after it occurred... oh well. Skyshifter talk 01:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meta_Knight&oldid=1219217488"