Talk:Pit (Kid Icarus)

Speculation (SSBB)

I removed this passage from the article: Most, if not all, of Pit's attacks and traits in Super Smash Bros. Brawl are based on his abilities in Kid Icarus and the legendary treasures he gains in each level which are used in the final level to greatly increase his power, such as the wings that allow him to fly.

While this is likely to be true there's no way of verifying this as the game is still being developed and has not yet been presented for anyone to play outside of the development studio. --Ryuukuro 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sequal speculation

I removed this part of the page "Also Pit might return in the Nintendo Wii rumored title Kid Icarus Wii, as the starring role."

He might also return in an upcoming Street fighter game, but that's not very varifiable either. I know Miyamoto has made comments on a possible revival, and I suppose that and that alone might be worth noting, but there is no such title, tentative or otherwise, called Kid Icarus Wii, as far as we know. It's just a rumour, and rumours are not the type of thing Wikipedia should be spreading. Xubelox 01:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article change

I think this article should be at Pit (Nintendo) because:

• In line with other articles like Toad (Nintendo) and Wart (Nintendo)
• No need to be so elaborate (such as the Kid Icarus name) - there is only one Pit. Wart (Nintendo) is named like so, instead of something like Wart (Super Mario Bros.)
• "Character" has long since been dropped from article titles; i.e. the game or franchise they cover is sufficient, such as Raiden (Metal Gear), or Persephone (The Matrix) instead of Persephone (Matrix character)

Thanks. Hbdragon88 04:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article would be better off as Pit (Kid Icarus) because:

• the charcter is often called "Kid Icarus"
• it is more precise than the generic "Nintendo" clarification
• it is in line with the naming of articles such as Link (Legend of Zelda) (a featured article, unlike Toad (Nintendo) and Wart (Nintendo))

Guermantes 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL @ your "a featured article" comment. As if naming convention had anything to do with whether a article got featured or not - it has absolutely no bearing. It just so happenst that Wikipedians did more work with citing references and the such on for that article as opposed to other articles. Hbdragon88 05:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I concede. I suppose "Pit" is vague enough to require more disambiguation just like Link (Legend of Zelda) did. I've asked for a speedy move to Pit (Kid Icarus); let's hope it happens, otherwise I'll ahve to submit it to WP:RM. Hbdragon88 18:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in N64 title?

• "Pit was planned to be included in Super Smash Bros. but because of the sucess of Pokemon he was replaced by Jigglypuff."

What is the source on this? Kflester 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a source on this information anyway. Best off to delete it. 124.182.156.211 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Far too many images

There are far too many fair use images in this article. One image to display what the character looks like is acceptable, and perhaps others to display their appearance within other games, but not this many. I am removing the gallery, and I urge other editors to have a think about which of these images are really needed in the article. J Milburn 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Left-Handed?

Yet he's holding the bow in his right? Pluvia 14:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when firing a bow, you hold it in your offhand, and pull the string with your main hand. Machee 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted

Is Pit copyrighted???? Mr. Mario 192 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it particularly matter? Treynate2 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pierrot

The reference to Pierrot hardly seems "obvious" as the article currently claims. The Pierrot article it links to provides no information that would support it. Unless this is clarified or validated by some reference, I would recommend removing it.Brinmat (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what this 'obvious' reference is. I support it's removal from the article. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

14

i herd that he is now 14 years old do you think its true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.96.255 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Snapshots

Please consider adding this gallery as a list of relevant photos about Pit RyanTMulligan (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Category suggestions

Fictional characters who can fly

Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Already covered here. Notice how Angel is set up? He only needed to be categorized as a Marvel Comics angel to be added there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Alright, since there is opposition, I'll ask - what reason exists for this article to be a separate article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Negative" reception

Um... the Dan Ryckert article that was cited as negative reception was clearly a joke. The first two entries on the linked page have him speculating on videogames starring The Riddler and John Madden. And the Wrench from Wrecking Crew is on the list for goodness sake. As for Pit he says this:

"Nintendo mined its archives when selecting characters for its fighting-game mashup, which made the inclusion of Pit even more puzzling. With decades of classic games to draw from, why did Nintendo choose to create one from scratch? If they had a hole in their roster, why not try to fill it with a third-party mascot like Chuck Rock or Bubsy? Is he supposed to be a flying gladiator? What’s with that bow? One thing’s for sure: Let’s hope Nintendo has learned its lesson from Super Smash Bros. Brawl’s lukewarm response and we never see Pit in a solo game."

He's clearly feigning ignorance of Kid Icarus, calling Pit an "original character." Then he goes on to humorously suggest Chuck Rock or Bubsy be included instead. If he knew about both those characters, then of course he knows about Pit. It's obvious that he's satirizing the fact that Nintendo has not made a Kid Icarus game in twenty years. Yet the article is cited as serious criticism, when it is exactly the opposite. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, where does he call Pit an original character? It seems to me he's criticising his design, and "Let’s hope Nintendo has learned its lesson from Super Smash Bros. Brawl’s lukewarm response and we never see Pit in a solo game." is hardly jokey. There's a difference between being sarcastic and joking around. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I get the original character bit. Yeah, he's being sarcastic about the fact they totally had to redesign him and stuff. It's irony, it's still valid negative reception. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not referring to the redesign. He's alluding to the fact that Nintendo hasn't used the character in ages, so people might not know who he is. At any rate, since he's joking, there's no way to take him seriously. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, sarcarsm is still reception. For instance: "Oh yes, I just love how that bully punches me in the face." As that statement makes clear, he obviously doesn't like being punched in the face by a bully. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely different example. We don't know if this guy Ryckert likes the character or not from the context, especially since he's joking. So, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article as reception. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but we don't know if he's joking either. The basic fact is, he listed him as one of the characters who don't deserve their own games. That, in itself, is genuine reception. Rewriting the sentence wouldn't be out of the question, though. Harry Blue5 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting is a good idea. I'm all for including it, if it is mentioned that the list also includes John Madden and the Wrench from Wrecking Crew. Maybe it could be paraphrased. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

pree

you r invidi to jeremiah pree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.212.214 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pit (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/20100716223425/http://www.ugo.com/the-goods/the-best-archers-list to http://www.ugo.com/the-goods/the-best-archers-list

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) 20:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE problem in Critical Reception

I figure a detailed discussion of the Critical Reception section is better-placed on the talk page than the latest AfD discussion. I think the Critical Reception section is trying too hard to prove that Pit is extremely notable and definitely deserves his own page on Wikipedia, and here's why.

• Ars Technica review, ref 22: 99% about Kid Icarus: Uprising as a game, two sentences about Pit specifically that are quoted in this page.
• Odyssey article, ref 23: I'm dubious of the argument that Odyssey is a reliable source, and Savannah's article specifically seems halfway to a fannish blog post.
• The Goomba Stomp, ref 24: article seems fine. Mostly about Uprising, but it has at least a paragraph about Pit specifically.
• Digital Spy, ref 25: article is 99% about Uprising with one sentence about Pit as a character that's quoted in this page.
• IGN, ref 26: article is literally just about Uprising's gameplay, nothing about Pit as separate from how he feels to control while playing Uprising.
• Game Informer, ref 27: 99% about Uprising, one sentence about Pit that's summarized on this page.
• Nintendojo, ref 28: Not actually about Pit as a character. Also, I think whoever wrote this sentence on our page misinterpreted the article; Andy Hoover seems to be calling the world and art style of Uprising colorful and lively, not Pit's design specifically.
• The Fwoosh, ref 29: Seems fine based on content? Somebody gushing about getting a Pit figurine specifically, that's coverage of Pit as opposed to coverage of Uprising.
• GamesRadar+, ref 5: 99% speculation about Uprising. Also the quality of this article isn't great? It's just consistently dropped possessive apostrophes, but it is consistently dropped possessive apostrophes.
• Nintendo Blast, ref 30: I think this one's good. Pit's important enough to be put on the front cover of something, that's neat.
• Wired, ref 31: 99% about Uprising, only a sentence about Pit that's also really about Uprising.
• Shacknews, ref 32: 99% about Uprising, only two sentences specifically about Pit that are summarized on this page.
• GameZone, ref 33: 99% about Uprising's controls, one sentence about Pit that's quoted in this page.
• Gamereactor, ref 34: 99% about Uprising, one sentence about Pit. Also why is the quote relegated to the refs section? It feels like it should either be quoted or summarized in the main article, like the other quotes I've discussed here.
• Jeuxvideo.com, ref 35: I can't evaluate this one. Despite being Canadian I am tragically monolingual.

In summary: I think there are at most three things in the Critical Reception section that can actually be said to speak to Pit's notability, as opposed to Kid Icarus: Uprising's notability. Maybe four, if the French article doesn't follow the trend of "99% about Uprising, max 2-3 sentences about Pit's personality", but I suspect it does. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Despite of me not speaking French, I can kinda tell what the french article about which it's a review for Kid Icarus Uprising and with a translator, it seems to be mostly have the plot, gameplay and everything you probably expected on a video game review however, there was no mentions of Pit that could sum up this notability. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I expected given the pattern from the rest of the cites. So that makes the critical reception's "actually about Pit as opposed to Uprising" cites:

• The Goomba Stomp, ref 24
• The Fwoosh, ref 29
• Nintendo Blast, ref 30

Under the auspices of WP:BOLD I'm going to take a scythe to this overgrown section so it's just the "actually about Pit" cites. –LilacMouse (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Do note that Goomba Stomp and the Fwoosh are unreliable to my knowledge. Can't speak on Nintendo Blast but I think that says a lot. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh, okay. What makes those two unreliable? I'm new to all this, and don't really know how to evaluate a source on a site level as opposed to an individual article level. –LilacMouse (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Fwoosh seems to be a blog, just from a glance. I forget Goomba Stomp's rationale but I remember it being listed as unreliable for a while. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)