Talk:Klonoa: Door to Phantomile

What happened?

It looks like someone either screwed up big time, or screwed up on redirects, I was looking for Klonoa (character) and got stuck here! Looking for Guntz was no big help either. If someone sees this, is there a way we can fix this?? 74.212.28.84 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) {Tails0600, not logged in}

They were redirected because they didn't provide any real-world information. I "fixed" Klonoa, but I'm afraid I can't do that for Guntz. --Teggles 08:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help on making the Worlds section appear PLEASE!

I need help, I've been trying to make it appear but nothing happens. It's on the edit page but not on the article! HELP ME PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueknightex (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok looks like someone already fixed it last year. Thank you Blueknightex (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wii game merger

Someone created a separate article for the Wii port of this game ( at Klonoa: Door to Phantomile (Wii)). In general, ports do not get separate pages since their gameplay and story change little from the original, and whatever development and reception details can usually fit into the main article without a problem. I don't see the Wii game getting a significant amount of "new" attention outside the usual reviews to require a separate page at this point (particularly if it doesn't come out stateside), and thus the new details there should be merged here. --MASEM 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article follows WP:NOTABILITY and all other guidelines and policies for inclusion. It already has enough new content to warrant a separate article. I see no valid reason to merge it. --Teggles (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it is not a "port" but an enhanced remake, which you will discover by following the articles. In general, enhanced remakes do get separate pages - see Final Fantasy Chronicles and Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) - especially when there is enough real-world content to warrant one. The sheer amount of information on development, promotion and reception exceeds what would be appropriate for the original article. I'm going to bed - please do not merge anything, as there is no guideline or policy that would suggest it to be necessary. --Teggles (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not a question here (That would be a reason to delete). In the case of the examples, FFChronicles is a product that bundles two previous games - from a standpoint of completeness on Wikipedia that product would need its own page, but you'll notice there's minimal discussion about the games themselves beyond the changes. The FFIV DS page is still being considered for a merger but its in question due to the size of the FFIV (non DS) page. If there was a size issue here, I would be all for a separate page, but both articles are short enough to not require that. Some other examples where the remake is kept on the original page is Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, Resident Evil 4, and Dead Rising. (and no, nothing's going to be merged immediately, that's the whole point of starting discussion) --MASEM 15:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The central idea for why I cited Final Fantasy Chronicles is because it contains a certain depth of real-world content that would not be appropriate for a merge. The bundling of two remakes plays almost no part in the article's existence. The only reason many remakes do not have their own articles is because they do not contain sufficient real-world content - they could, but they don't. I've played a pretty big part in merging fictional content (and leading efforts to do that), including articles very similar to this, and it was based on one thing... real-world content. This article contains enough real-world content, which will still be greatly expanded on, to warrant its separation. --Teggles (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, as a summary to that rant: it has enough real-world content to warrant a separate article (there's no policy or guideline supporting your case), and considering the article's content is the result of a day's work, there is much more content to be added. --Teggles (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I know there isn't any policy or the like that requires this to be merged, that's why it is a suggestion and open for discussion, not that it will be done. (By the way, be aware that "I put a lot of work into this" is not a rationale to keep a page). However, this is based on what is the status quo for such articles as part of the Video Games Wikiproject with some exceptions.

Yes, you have real world content: that means it can be a separate article, but just because you have such content doesn't mean it has to be one, and the case I'm arguing is that because of the large amount of duplication of game and story content between the original and this means that this one falls into the case where you have a better article when they are merged. As another example, see Okami - the Wii section is quite detailed with real world information but because it is nearly an exact port beyond widescreen and waggle controls, there's no need to separate the article. All that real world info can still be contained in the merged article, and you only would then have to focus on the development and changes in the port, the story and gameplay remain the same, and the reception info can be its own section or combined with the PSX version.--MASEM 16:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the hostility, I tend to think differently at 4:30am. Merging the articles will result in two possible scenarios: a feeble attempt at bolstering the size of one article by undercovering the remake... or comprehensively covering both games, which means giving each section a subsection the same size of it (except for Plot and Gameplay). Ōkami is a very bad example because the Wii release is a simple port, not a complete remake, and the promotion and reception are very similar. It is still an example of the former case, where content is not covered comprehensively (where's the promotion information? the reception paragraph is very short, too). The Wii remake of Klonoa was released 11 years later than the original, and differs greatly, giving it a large amount of development information, completely different promotion information, and fairly different reception information. I do not think both games can be comprehensively covered in one article without disrupting the flow of it. I honestly cannot be bothered convincing every other person of my argument - the people who will not read this discussion and look at the issue superficially. If you insist on a merge despite my honest belief that the articles will benefit being separate, then keep the discussion open and I won't work on the article to its potential (in fear of the inevitable result of a content-killing merge). But I think it's obvious that I desire this discussion to end now with the articles being separate. --Teggles (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive coverage doesn't necessarily mean having articles of the same size - just that you should have development and reception for both titles, which there is. It is just that there is only 6 new paragraphs in the Wii article (7 if you include release dates) that add in the "comprehensive coverage", and that is barely enough to really warrant a new article, particularly when this article is on the short side. And note that I'm recommending a merge in lieu of any additional information. If this game comes Stateside, there may be a huge wealth of info to seek from to expand a merged section into its own article, but until that's the case, assuming there could be much growth on this title is crystal balling it. --MASEM 14:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, as I've said, this is the result of a day's work (meaning not much at all). There is still a wealth of information to be added (it's just in Japanese). That's what I'm trying to explain - do you really think the article is finished at this point? It's only just been released and I've barely worked on it. Give me a break. --Teggles (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil is a good example of this, I think. Originally a Playstation game, it was remade for the GameCube. Remake is a section of the game's article, which is probably enough unless the game has totally changed. If it had changed genre or something, so it was no longer basically the same game, I could see the point.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In its favour it's a retooled game which has jumped 2 console generations, but against that is that the extras described in the lead are just that, little nubbins, there's no indication that this is anything other than the same game brought up to date. It does, IMO, warrant a merge, but I sympathise with Teggles' view that too often these merges result in the later variant being the runt of the litter in some sort of reverse-recentism. If it was to be merged, the new game must be given enough space for reception and development information, not just a footnote, including the 'poochied' comparison image. The plot section here goes just up to or past the Rongo Lango boss-fight, I'm not seeing any difference in that respect, so both gameplay and plot are apparently duplication. So long as the other info is covered well a merge wouldn't hurt either and pave the way for a strong article. Someoneanother 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, we should create some sort of MoS for merging re-makes into another article. Just look at the travesty that is Kirby's Adventure right now; literally the re-make just sort of sits there without being integrated into the article (I'll probably be working on that soon). The point is though that re-makes really shouldn't have their own article, and though I sympathize with Teggles in this one, I can't agree with him. Re-makes are only slight changes from their originals, and text from the re-make can be integrated into the main article at any time. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I support a merge of the Wii article here. I just don't see that significant change from the PS version to warrant its own article. Notability and lots of effort are irrelevant to the discussion. Just because an article may pass for inclusion doesn't mean the end product will come out the best. The same has been argued a while back with the Final Fantasy Development article, which was basically a copy of all the development sections of all the Final Fantasy articles. Discussion ensued as to whether to keep this and face the possibility of many of the FF articles — most of them FAs/GAs — being demoted. A merge here I think would create a better end product with the game as more complete coverage is given. MuZemike (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know why effort came into this. I didn't put in effort. As for the merge, since so many want it to merged, it might as well happen. I'm no longer going to work on the article because so many people don't want it there. If anyone's willing to merge, go ahead, if not, I'll do it when I can be bothered. --Teggles (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just merged some of the content, but it's not a complete merge. --Teggles (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't Merge it. As was previously mentioned, though there isn't a lot of details now, it just came out recently in Japan, so we're working on getting more information from it. Remakes like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories don't contain enough differences to warrant an article. I do believe, however, that the Wii version is different than the original PS1 version, and being over 10 years old, is criticized differently.

In my opinion, though not to argue, I don't see why we should trash it when effort of any kind was put into it. The same happened to other articles that many of us worked on. If we put effort of any type into a page, and then it is merged, trashed, etc, then what's the point of any effort? I don't participate as much on Wikipedia because my efforts goto waste in some way, and I don't want to waste time on something that's going to be tossed later.

So, like i said, Keep it. There's enough for it to have its own page. Tails0600 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it's been about three years, I'd suggest a merge since, bar some of the Wii's extra features, the contents are pretty much exactly the same. Wonchop (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the merge 10 years later

I think the games should be split back onto separate pages. Sure the gameplay is nearly identical, but each game has its own development, release history and reception. It's dumb to have a "Wii remake" subsection to each major section on this page. If no one opposes, I'll make the change in a couple days. TarkusAB^talk 11:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Reception

I know this is rather pointless, but these people should realize this game is for children, so it shouldn't matter if it's childish. I grew up with this game and I still like it a lot. I'm 18.

It seems a bit much that the remake is E10+, but it does seem rather dark in some ways, and even dramatic.

Besides, aren't there some people who purposely go for something super cute and childish in nature? Some people are into that, a lot, despite their age.

I just think some people shouldn't judge things for such absurd reasons.

- TetsujinSaiki 12:25 PM, U.S. Central Time

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Klonoa: Door to Phantomile. 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/20071215222353/http://namco-ch.net/klonoa/index.php to http://namco-ch.net/klonoa/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130325081224/http://ps2.gamespy.com/articles/649/649048p22.html to http://ps2.gamespy.com/articles/649/649048p22.html

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) 02:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Klonoa: Door to Phantomile/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rapunzel-bellflower (talk · contribs) 22:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very minor points to correct: "Yoshizawa established the dream concept because he was interested in exploring the quickly the idea of where dreams go when they are forgotten." in development. For "The game was revealed at the 1997 E3 trade fair with a trailer video," I'm not sure if it's just a trailer or something more unique. Probably because I'm not familiar with the game, I'm having a little bit of difficulty figuring out what a "young boy creature" is. "One of Ghadius' henchmen eavesdrops into the conversation" should be "onto the conversation," I believe.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, it follows the manual of style's guidelines quite nicely.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I'd like to see ref 42 fully formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes, the citations are from video game magazines, notable and reliable sites, and video game criticism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	as far as I can tell, it does not have original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is some minor wording that I'd like either changed or clearly marked as quotes. The copyvio tools found some similarities with the Game Revolution review.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, it addresses the main points well and concisely.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, it is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems very stable from the edit history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The rationale for the screenshot is a bit bare bones, and I'd definitely like to see it expanded a bit more.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and used appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a very strong, nicely done article, and I feel that there are only very minor changes to be made before it fully meets all the criteria. Please let me know when you have made those changes! Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rapunzel-bellflower: OK I think I addressed all points. Regarding "young boy creature", I changed it to just "boy", but am open to suggestions. It's never stated in the game (or any related media) what type of creature or animal he is. All we can say is he's a furry anthropomorphic mammal. TarkusAB^talk 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You've made a lot of progress. I have unintentionally led you astray in my suggested correction for the eavesdrop problem: it seems that the correct preposition that goes with it is actually "on", not "onto". Sorry about that! Furry anthropomorphic animal works quite nicely if you still would like to change it; boy works as well. Reading through a second time, I caught the very minor "IGN wrote agreed that[...]" and "It was postponed so it could be upgraded it to". I would also like an accessdate for ref 42. As for the too-similar wording, I was concerned about the phrase "inflated like a balloon" that appears in the Game Revolution review and the gameplay section. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rapunzel-bellflower: Fixed, although I don't think "inflated like a balloon" constituted plagiarism. All other ways to say this are needlessly wordy. It is the simplest phrase to express this idea so not plagiarism. TarkusAB^talk 15:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi! That's definitely possible that "inflated like a balloon" may meet common use. I'm very happy with all the changes made, and I believe that it now meets all the GA criteria. Keep up the great work! Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this plot length to long?

I wrote a plot expanding upon the original and as a result it's longer (Below). Would this be appropriate to publish?

The game is set in Phantomile, a land fueled by dream energy. A furry anthropomorphic animal named Klonoa living in the village Breezegale dreams about a meteor crashing into a hill. He awakens and soon after a meteor crashes into Bell Hill nearby. Klonoa and his friend, the "ring spirit" Huepow, decide to investigate. They find Ghadius and Joka, along with the unconscious Lephise. As Ghadius notices Klonoa and Huepow he leaves Joka behind to deal with them and find the Moon Pendant so he can turn Phantomile into a world of nightmares. Klonoa ventures back to town where his grandfather tells him that Granny should know something about the Moon Pendant.

At Forlock Forest they find that the Ferry Tree has withered because the water from the Water Kingdom, Jugpot has stopped flowing. Upon investigating they find that it is actually flowing in reverse. They eventually make there way to the castle, freeing Karal along the way. They battle with King Seadoph and Pamela (Karal's mother) who have been put under the control of Ghadius. After defeating the pair King Seadoph sends water back to Forlock Forest to revive the Ferry Tree. Karal takes the pair back and they renew there search for Granny.

As they make there way through Forlock Forest they come across a guard who explains that Granny has been kidnapped and they have been kicked out of her home. Klonoa and Huepow find Granny being interrogated by Joka for the location of the Moon Pendant but decides to retreat leaving behind Gelg Bolm to deal with them. After the battle Granny explains that the ancient lore is coming true and that the Moon Pendant must be kept safe. Klonoa mentions that his Grandpa is holding onto it at which point Joka reveals himself from hiding and flies off to Breezegale. They make for a shortcut through the Ruins of the Wind Kingdom.

After fighting their way through the Ruins, they finally reach home. They watch as Joka vaporizes his home along with his Grandpa, before leaving with the Moon Pendant. After battle Baladium, Grandpa reveals that Klonoa's destiny is to stop Ghadius as the Child of the Wind. Pamela then appears and flies them to the Temple of Sun.

Here they meet the priests Solaire and Soliel who explain that Ghadius and Joka have already infiltrated and taken over the Temple. Their ultimate objective is to release the Moon Kingdom using the Moon Pendant which would allow them to infuse Phantomile with nightmare energy. They then recover the Orbs and reactivate the elevator leading to the Sanctuary above but not before learning for Ngapoko that has noticed an Eclipse. This signals that the seal is about to be broken. After speaking with High Priest Moire they make their way to the Altar where they battle Joka. After his defeat they watch as the seal breaks and the Moon Kingdom rises into the air spreading nightmare energy across Phantomile. Pamela flies near and they ride her to the Moon Kingdom to face off against Ghadius.

As they reach the peak of the Cress, the Moon Kingdom they speak to the Queen who reveals that Ghadius has complete control. Huepow is revealed to not be a ring spirit but Prince Huepow of the Moon Kingdom. He promises to explain why he has been hiding his true self once the battle is over. They rush to the Prism Corridor where Ghadius wonders aloud about a strange uncorruptable dream as Klonoa and Huepow teleport in. Ghadius reveals that once Nahatomb has received enough nightmare energy it will awaken. Huepow explains that Ghadius will be erased if Nahatomb awakens but he doesn't care, all he seeks is his revenge. Ghadius absorbs Klonoa and Huepow into his dimension, the Wheel of Woe to finish them off.

After his defeat the five tribe leaders: Balue, King Seadoph, Granny, High Priest Moire and Queen appear along with Pamela and Karal. Unfortunately, Ghadius reveals that Nahatomb has received enough energy to awaken and that it'll hunt the strange dream which is revealed to be Klonoa and destroy it. Queen rushes with the other leaders to arm themselves with ancient weapons against Nahatomb. Klonoa, along with the leaders severely weaken Nahatomb enough that a Wind Bullet, powered by Huepow is used to finish it off once and for all. With Nahatomb's death, the Diva Lephise is freed.

As everyone returns to their lands Klonoa and Huepow return to Breezegale. Huepow reveals to Klonoa that he is an existence that doesn't truly exist in Phantomile. Huepow pulled Klonoa from his world and planted memories of their childhood in his mind. And once the Song of Rebirth is sun, he will be forced out of Phantomile and returned to his world. Lephise then begins the Song of Rebirth and a vortex appears in the sky pulling at Klonoa. Huepow, tries to keep Klonoa from being exiled but fails. With Klonoa sent back to his world, Phantomile is restored and the nightmares finally end.

Ryan A Velasco (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is too long. Klonoa is a platform game, not an RPG or adventure game where the story is more prominent. The sources we use in the article do not go to this level of detail discussing events or characters in the story, so neither should we. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep type of game and references in mind doing this again.

Ryan A Velasco (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"his grandmother"

Granny is never implied to be related to Klonoa, is of a completely different species, and is just called "Chieftess" in the Wiimake. I'm not sure if that was a mistake or speculation, but should it be changed? cogsan (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Changed it anyway. cogsan (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)