# Talk:Kid Icarus

I wonder, were the translators working for Nintendo not given the Japanese-market pamphlets and other junk that would have accompanied the game in the box?  How did they screw up translating "パルテナ" (pa-ru-te-na) into "Palutena", when the name on the box was clearly written "Parthena" (presumably in romaji)? LOL. —Ryanaxp 19:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious about that too, especially since "Parthena" is a real Greek female first name... The Trashman 00:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As the official Super Smash Bros. Brawl website still lists her name as Palutena, and it seems to only ever been rendered as such in English, shouldn't Wikipedia refer to the character using this official name (rather than adopt a fan translation, even if it's a more accurate translation)? 67.165.72.229 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I have made note that "Palutena" is the official romanization (translation error, or not). I have kept "Parthena" as a note of an alternate English spelling (along with "Parutena").
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have the Japanese game for the famicom disk system and it clearly says in Japanese katakana PARUTENA. That's on the box, my friend.

Duh, that's how it'd be written in katakana, but it's a Greek name, and it's Parthena.
PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS.

No
"Palutena" has to be one of the worst translation errors I have ever seen. Are they actually going to call the character "Palutena" in Smash Brothers X? I know a Parthena in real life, and I seriously doubt she'd answer if someone called her "Palutena". Any chance Smash Brothers X's translators consult Wikipedia? Or will they keep recycling translations from the 80's? 85.75.185.18 08:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the developers meant Pallas Athena. --Stormwatch (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
As evidenced by Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Nintendo's official site, "Palutena" is the official name. Whether you think "Parthena" is a more precise translation or if "Palutena" is a failed translation has zero bearing on the matter; the official information is clear.
207.119.231.131 (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting that "Palutena" is the official information does not preclude the article noting that Nintendo mistranslated the word that should correctly be "Parthena". The English manual also mistranslates the second boss' name as "Hewdraw", even though anyone remotely familiar with Greek mythology knows that it's "Hydra".NewRisingSun (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Under the history section is a list of "good passwords" from the game.  I didn't delete it but I'm wondering if it is appropriate.CDiddles

i can't believe that when you look up kid icarus there is hardly any mention to greek mythology....its all about the video game.  what is the world coming too?!?  lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.203.47 (talk • contribs) 

There's a mention in Kid Icarus#Trivia, but other than that, I don't think we need anything else.  Do you?  --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked up passwords on Gamefaqs and even when I type them right, it says it's wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.46.20 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
That's because the VC version's passwords were changed from the original.

It's been editted. I poke around the video game parts of Wikipedia, and some moron added his comments while deleting the plot. Might as well put the plot back up and permentally lock it. It's not gonna change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.71.32.121 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

What's is the meaning of chaning back to 1986. Kid Icarus was made in 1981 not 1986. Those were the years Nintendo was computerized stickers from 1981-1985. Donkey Kong was computerized, so was Donkey Kong Jr., Mario and etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.196.178.200 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Except the NES didnt exist in 1981. You are dumb

TOSE was definitely involved as they leased contracted programmers to Nintendo often. The company did a lot of subcontracting work for Nintendo (and SEGA, Namco, etc). But the game was very much a Nintendo R&D1 game. 
(NOAWiki (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC))
TOSE's role in development is not well-known. I think they probably just ported the game to the Game Boy, I don't think they really had any role in developing the game itself. Andre (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
TOSE's involvement has been revealed through later code comparisons. They worked on the the original FDS release in some coding capacity at the least, even if uncredited. (98.14.112.115 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Why does this need a whole page dedicated to the series if there are only two games and a few cameos? Can't we just mash them all into one, like how the Vectorman article is set up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.77.245 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 

I think it is simpler this way. -User talk:mkalv
Personally, I think it would be better to have the page for the series seperate from the pages for individual games, simply to make it easier to edit in the future, and so that people know which page to go to for a certain piece of info. IMO the rationale that there are only a few games doesn't hold. Thomasdav (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

this was also released on the original GameBoy in 1992 i will look for the release schedules for the dates  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thh420 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 
why is there nothing about kid icarus wii?
it exists : http://wii.kombo.com/article.php?artid=11895  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.182.80 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 

In my travels, this game has a notorious reputation for being one of the most difficult games in video game history... even to this day. By comparison, Battletoads mentions it's reputation as a difficult game, but I've beaten it. I still cannot beat Kid Icarus. - tbone (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that.  It's the hardest of the 8 bit platformers that I've played.  I don't know how or why we could put that in the article, but I agree.  I've never beaten it either, although emulation should make that a fairly easy task these days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.8.21 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article introduces the main character as "Pit", but then all of a sudden starts referring to him interchangeably as "Finley" without any explanation or introduction. What's up with that? --HunterZ (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should probably link to putto, if the main character is one. My intuition says yes, but who knows.
--Easyas12c (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kid Icarus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Nice work!

In the Development section, you refer to the "best American ending" and one of the Japanese endings being "worse." Unless you have a source that states these things are "best" or "worse," you should not use weasel words. Will continue the review when these are addressed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 15:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Okay, now I'd like you to take a look at WP:LEDE and make your lede conform to those guidelines. There shouldn't be anything mentioned in the lede that is not in the article, and vice versa. Also, the lede should also touch on every section in the article. There's lots more on this at WP:LEDE. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done...I Belive. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Lastly, if you think Kid Icarus had an impact on later games/game development, you should include a "Legacy" section. If you can add that, and it looks good, I'll pass it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Put in legacy, put some info and put that in the lead. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Congrats, this article passes.

There are two things that one might think of when they think of this - the video game and the band [which is far less significant]. The series page, while it exists, is really redundant to this. The NES game is the root of all the series' influence; no one remembers Of Myths and Monsters, so it seems silly to suggest that as a brand, it's more well-known than the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
About the series it those exist and many pepole have played it, just kike metroid 2, and the latest interview with nintendo gives ideas that there planing to make a wii sequel. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That there is an incredibly less well-known sequel and a rumoured Wii sequel does not warrant the existence of a series page. The series page is, basically, this page rewritten. Hell, the Reception section is nothing BUT content related to the original game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Kid Icarus (series)" currently redirects here. While it has made sense before, I believe the announcement of a third Kid Icarus game is enough to warrant Kid Icarus as big enough a franchise to deserve an article dedicated to the series as a whole. I believe such an article should be made and 'Kid Icarus (series)' should no longer redirect here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan7077 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 
I agree with you. An article about the series would be good to write about recurring elements, history, etc. RocketWobbuffet (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Recurring elements could be covered here. We need reception and development information that isn't redundant to this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Nintendo is gonna run with Kid Icarus, like DK, Mario, Link, Kirby, Samus, Pikachu, etc.
I'd be nice to see him more than 6(KI,KI:MoM,KI GB,SSBM,SSBB,KI:U) times over the course of 24 years.

*sigh* Pit, your alright. Uprising is so amazing, it makes you in the 80's look like a piece of crap(that kinda hurt me).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.217.224 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 

FYI I removed "and will receive a kiss of gratitude from Palutena" after "...teenager" in plot because if you watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYsNpQmQ7sk you see that it clearly doesn't happen. It this vitally important work? No. Is it good to be accurate? Yes. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a merger of Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters to Kid Icarus would be appropriate, as there is not enough unique feature material and coverage in reliable third-party sources. I checked all possible magazine scans from that time, and there seem to be no actual reviews on the game. Beyond that, the gameplay is almost identical to that of Kid Icarus. All unique information on the game is included in the first paragraph of the legacy section, but the chances of a standalone article getting even just to "good article" status are extremely low, given the lack of coverage on development and reception. Prime Blue (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But what if it becomes ported to the Nintendo 3DS' Virtual Console and cause more reviews to pop up? Parrothead1983 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can still be split if this happens (preferably with some development information), but at the moment, there is not much that sets it apart from the original game. Prime Blue (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I congratulate you on your massive expansion/cleanup of the article. I don't know how it was considered a Good Article before, but it definitely meets it now. Although, I have revived the sequel's article with some references. Tomorrow I may flesh them out and look for a few more. I really don't think it should be merged. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Consider me excited about that expansion. Prime Blue (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What with Kid Icarus: Uprising coming out soon, and nintendo's plans to make Kid Icarus a more "Recognizable" brand, I think a page for the whole Kid Icarus series would be appropriate.206.248.167.220 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I got an e-mail from Club Nintendo memberships that they said:
"Pre-order Kid Icarus: Uprising at select retailers and receive a bonus download code for the 3D Classics: Kid Icarus game upon final purchase."- Nintendo email
And the consumers who pre-order at GameSpot, Best Buy, or Amazon will receive a bonus download code for the 3D Classics: Kid Icarus game and the download code will be delivered with the purchase of Kid Icarus: Uprising. A deposit may be required for pre-order. Offer good at US retailers only.
Here's this link that they gave from the email:

http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/leoRNk4z_ui0yblzMlCVz6Wy9jGb5qSq
Should we consider adding it to the page and maybe add it to Kid Icarus: Uprising and add the Note on the List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America)  also?
DigiPen92 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If there are some pages for the three Kid Icarus games and Pit, shouldn't we consider a page for the characters that appear in the Kid Icarus franchise? Rtkat3 (talk) 8:39, April 14 2012 (UTC)

A source was added by user Deltasim regarding the remake and I had removed it as I feel it does not meet Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria (mainly because a reliable source must have multiple authors, level’s or review, and several differing points of view). They added the source back and in good faith I have not reverted the edit so as to avoid an edit war. Let’s get a consensus on this please.
This is the source in question: http://vgmaps.com/Reviews/Editorial-didFlipIndustriesReallyCreateSuperKidIcarus.htm
Fattestalbert (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish that page has well meet Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria. Firstly there are multiple sources mentioned within the webpage article itself, which includes the wayback machine and the other archive links. The Verifiability issues mentions nothing about multiple authors. And differing points of view doesn't count, correction neutral points of view are viable, or did you forget what you said earlier "It is not up to opinion"? I won't challenge the valid point added and allow other Wikipedians to be the judge of that. Deltasim (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Please be respectful, and I pulled these sentences directly from the reliability section for news "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." and "While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include verifiable information. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
I am still adamant that the original source, and the source you just added are not reliable based on Wikipedia reliability guidelines.
Again in good faith, I have not reverted the edits so as to avoid an editing war, however did add a verify tag to the sentence to stimulate a conversation.
Fattestalbert (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read the wikipedia regulations carefully before you lecture someone about them. I have just erased an unreliable source which deviates from one of the many guidelines that news blogs are not mainly reliable, because Wikipedia is as you just said "not the place for passing along gossip and rumors". Deltasim (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Coming over from 3O. The source is reliable for the purpose of verifying that this claim has been made, but using it to state a definite fact is inappropriate. In this case inclusion of the source and related material should be guided by WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV. Now, there does seem to be a dispute about whether the material about the fan game should be included at all, but if it does get included the above would apply.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So removing this has apparently caused some dissatisfaction, so I guess we better discuss on the talk page.  Right now there is a fan made, and therefore in violation of Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks, Kid Icarus game listed in the legacy section.  The paragraph on the game reads as an advertisement, hyping its changes to the difficulty with language tinged with sales puffery.  Games that violate international copyright laws should really not be included on a page like this, which gives them a misleading air of officialness. If the game were actually notable, then a place would need to be found for it somewhere regardless, but all that is here currently are a few announcements that the game exists from several video game blogs and similar sites.  This does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources" as required by wikipedia.  This is a page abut a Nintendo game with a section on the legacy of this Nintendo franchise. An illegally-made fan game with little coverage in reliable sources does not belong here in my opinion. It should further be noted that a separate article on the game was deleted due to the concerns I have listed here, especially for failing WP:RS and that the user that keeps adding this information here has no other edits and may have a bias in this matter. Indrian (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Similar guidelines may also apply in WP:FAN Deltasim (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied from WP:RS/N#Kid Icarus discussion by Izno.
As for the inclusion of the fan-game in that article:  I would point out that (1) the test for notability of a paragraph/sentence within an article is much lower than the WP:Notability test for an entire article (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article); and (2) The Talk page discussion on this disputed material needs to focus on the sources that discuss the fan-game.  List the sources;  present quotes from the sources;  discuss the prominence of the sources;  compare with other WP articles that include mentions of fan-games.  The mere fact that the fan-game may be distasteful or even illegal is no reason to exclude it.  Also, the fact that the initial version of the fan-game material was poorly written is not a reason for removing it: see WP:IMPROVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.    --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
1) This is true. 2) This is also true. But such sources likely do not exist; see comment by Indrian about lack of RS resulting in a page on the topic being deleted from Wikipedia. 3) Distasteful/illegal can fall afoul of WP:ELNO with respect to primary sourcing of the site. As for IMPROVE: There are enough other concerns that IMPROVE is probably an issue which should be addressed by the person seeking to include the material on Wikipedia rather than other users who are wary of WP:SPAM and such guidelines. On top of that, inclusion is not necessary, even if RSs are provided which deal on the topic; WP is not an indiscriminate hosting of information. We are allowed to exercise editorial judgement about content within a topic of information. In other words, WP:WEIGHT applies and is one of the primary concerns here, though that is not what has been used to argue against inclusion. --Izno (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
As stated by Noleander we are to discuss the sources only, so as I originally stated on Indrian's talk page on May 23rd 2012, I was able to establish notability through 3 seperate reliable 3rd party sources that are typically used to establish notability of video games and were even the same sources used to establish the notability of the entire Kid Icarus article. specifically the sources I used were Joystiq, Siliconera and Screwattack, however there are many more which mention the game in detail. Further, I used direct quotes from the sources in the paragraph. Not sure what else there is to discuss.
PeterAmbrosia (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The only thing those sources prove is the existence, not the notability of the game, especially since they contain the discussions and opinions of members. The only thing that could possibly dedicate the game as notable is awards, something my research has found none given to it. Deltasim (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no we can talk about anything we darn well please and Noleander is just offering a few opinions just like everyone else here.  No one is dictating what can and cannot be discussed.  Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources."  A news blog merely stating that something exists is not providing significant coverage.  This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to promote this game.  The fact that you, PeterAmbrosia, have never edited wikipedia except in relation to this game makes this even more likely.  There are many more concerns than WP:RS, though those concerns alone are more than enough to remove this content, which has already been deleted when it existed in separate article form. This appears to be an end run to keep content about this game on the site by sneaking it into another article, but the lack of coverage creates an undue weight issue as well. Indrian (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
What's this nonsense about the fan game not having coverage? There's coverage from Games Radar (reliable per WP:VG/S) as well. Now, it definitely doesn't deserve the amount of space that was given to it before, but it does deserve a sentence in the legacy section. SilverserenC 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This presumed coverage is nothing less than a blog. Therefore it cannot be used as a source. Deltasim (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hardly. GamesRadar has a consensus at WP:VG/S as being a reliable source (and you're welcome to contend that there). That said, I believe Rabbit is edit warring at this point, and I suspect Rabbit has a conflict of interest. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In addition Rabbit is repeatedly erasing the vital point that I included with the fan game legacy and predictably he gives no valid reason to its removal. What do you say to that attitude? Deltasim (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sadly the sources I used to cite the plagarism of the fan game were not applicable. Mind you the Self-Published source of http://vgmaps.com/Reviews/Editorial-DidFlipIndustriesReallyCreateSuperKidIcarus.htm states that the Wayback Machine as a definite proof to whose idea came first. I honestly don't see any difference between the GoNintendo page and the GamesRadar page. If anyone has any viable sources to cite about the plagarism, please add them. I am moving on and no longer wasting my time with any sock puppets concerned with this article. Deltasim (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Kid Icarus has three games, all of which sold relatively well, and Pit has appeared in outside media (See: Captain N, SSBB). I feel Kid Icarus deserves a franchise page akin to Punch Out!! and Animal Crossing. I'd do it myself but I'm still a novice at Wikipedia, plus I'd probably mess it up somehow. Umbreon00 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kid Icarus. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesradar.com/fan-made-super-kid-icarus-imagines-pit-snes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Kid Icarus. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131421345100/http://www.metropulse.com/news/2012/apr/25/kid-icarus-uprising-shows-what-3ds-can-really-do-f/ to http://www.metropulse.com/news/2012/apr/25/kid-icarus-uprising-shows-what-3ds-can-really-do-f/
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/vc/vc_pk/vc_pk_04.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/vc/vc_pk/vc_pk_05.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/nes/icarus.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/vc/vc_pk/vc_pk_02.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerandvideogames.com/281070/features/time-machine-kid-icarus/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/kidicarus/similar.html?mode=versions
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/vc/vc_pk/vc_pk_03.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/retro-roundup-nestravaganza
Corrected formatting/usage for http://retro.ign.com/articles/884/884530p1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/top-100-nes-games/20.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://top100.ign.com/2003/81-90.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221005937/http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/gameslist/manuals/completeoldgameslist.pdf to https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/gameslist/manuals/completeoldgameslist.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.creators-station.jp/interview2/index.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://kotaku.com/5585249/the-new-kid-icarus-may-explore-another-dimension-multiplayer
Corrected formatting/usage for http://games.ign.com/articles/995/995409p2.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.factor5.de/index.php?page=chome
Corrected formatting/usage for http://kotaku.com/5491419/nintendo-would-happily-make-kid-icarus-wii
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/06/16/project_sora_kid_icarus/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/making-kid-icarus-uprising
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave a quick heads up to this news article about a sealed copy that is expected to fetch around $10,000 at auction. Depending on the final price, it might be something to add to the article (or not). The auction closes later today according to the source. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)