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  ( &#9993; ) 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  ( &#9993; ) 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
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)

Proposed merge of Rabbid Peach into Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle
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 -- T orsodo g 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)