Talk:Kefka Palazzo

That picture was taken on an emulator (or video mode) that doesn't support color add/subtract... How could I retake the picture and replace the existing one? I'm new to Wikipedia...

-- Myria 23:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kefka is not a clown

His clothing is similar to costumes worn by French nobility during the later part of the 17th century.

See 17th Century French Nobility

Compare that to: Kefka In-game sprite (Boss Battle) Kefka Original Art

Link to Discussion:Is Kefka Really a Clown?

Moving to the 32bit era, etc.

I think those last two paragraphs would be better off in the Final Fantasy VI article, they really serve no purpose here. --Paul Soth 06:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. - Chardish 08:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image

Isn't that screenshot a little spoilish? I mean, that's the final battle, so it does spoil things for people who intend to play the game. In my opinion, a pic showing Kefka on his normal form would be more suitable.--Kaonashi 16:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • agreed. I'll capture one that is less spoilish in a few days. right now i have exams to worry about. But i'll take care of it, promise. --ZeWrestler 1:14pm 15 Feb 2005 (EST)

Seeing as how this guy hasn't done anything, I went ahead and swapped it, I hope there are no objections. --Trypa Party 18:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

No objections. Sorry, real life and college kind of got in the way. Good picture choice. --ZeWrestler 19:00 March 21, 2005 (EST)

The new screenshot is hilarious. Good choice! Redquark 22:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you think we should have one of his non combat form (his sprite)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.242.239 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fancruft"

So, a discussion about his comedic quotes and possible censorship in relation to them is considered to be the dreaded fancruft, yet a paragraph speculating about his names origin (of which his last is never even mentioned ingame), is not? Personally, I thought the added information was interesting, though in need of a bit of cleaning up. --Tyrath 12:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's just that the quotes are on wikiquotes and it's the good place for them to be. – DarkEvil 14:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That would be a far more reasonable explanation, and I could agree with that. Except that the part I found most interesting, the censorship bit, would not be appropriate over there. --Tyrath 15:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm currently busy with other FF articles, but if you think some censorship bits should be mentioned in this article, you should try to organize them so someone won't take this for fancruft. – DarkEvil 16:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Possible religious symbolism?

I remember reading that Kefka's "other forms" (the goddess bosses) were based on old religious Rennaisance paintings. If this is true, does anyone know what they were?

• The final one may be the Pieta. It's also possible the whole thing is a riff on Dante's The Divine Comedy, with the first form being a demon in Hell, the second being humans on Earth/Purgatory, the third being angels in Heaven, and Kefka himself as God. Thanos6 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging?

I don't understand why this article keeps getting merged into List of Final Fantasy VI characters. I personally think that Kefka deserves his own article, being one of the series' most popular villains and whatnot, and I'm quite sure he's more well known than say, Umaro.

Because "popularity" is a relative thing. Being "one of the series' most popular villains" (itself a questionable statement, given the massive increase of the series' public profile after FFVII) does not mean that he's notable enough to warrant a seperate article, and it's difficult to justify it under WP:FICT guidelines. I, personally, would argue that Umaro doesn't deserve a seperate article, either, and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy is leading towards the eventual trimming of all but the most significant character articles, and possibly moving them to more appropriate venues (like Wikibooks or the Final Fantasy wikicity, but major changes like this are, by neccessity, a gradual process. A consensus to merge this particular article, however, was reached months ago. I invite you to contribute to the discussion, but please refrain from repopulating this article without further discussion. – Seancdaug 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I agree with Umaro. Kefka should have his own page. Magemirlen 2:42, 20 January 2006 (EST)

If Seymour Guado and Kuja both get their own pages, Kefka definitely should have one. Kuja and Seymour aren't very popular (in fact, more people HATE them than like them). And Kefka has his legions of fans and popularity. Why? Because he's different than most villains. Instead of having an actual motive and objective to what he's doing (Sephiroth says he's doing "what the planet desires."), Kefka acts out of pure hatred alone. This alone doesn't only make him notable, it makes him a primere face in the Final Fantasy series. As far as villains go, only Chaos, Exdeath, and Sephiroth (and even those are subject to opinion) can be considered more notable and popular. And Seancdaug, I don't understand why pre-Playstation FFs should be given less Wikipedia publicity than the post-FFVI ones. Crazyswordsman 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Popularity" isn't really the question. Notability is. Demonstrably more people have played Final Fantasy IX and Final Fantasy X than Final Fantasy VI (which sold, at best, half the total copies of either of the other games). And, to be honest, if Exdeath can be considered more popular than Kefka, that's just about the most compelling reason I can think of not to have this article, given that Final Fantasy V is arguably the second most obscure Final Fantasy game outside of Japan (and I say this as someone who loves it to death). Once more, we are not crafting a fansite, we're writing an encyclopedia. Kefka is a character who appears in one game as a notable character. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that major characters appearing in a single work "should be covered within the article on that work of fiction" unless it makes the article too long. The relevant article here (List of Final Fantasy VI characters) has been essentially stable for months. This does not suggest that there is so much information about our dear General Palazzo that we desperately need to create a new article. Until such a time that the information in that list expands such that it becomes unmanagable in its current state, and the consensus is reached that the expanded information belongs in a general reference work like Wikipedia, this conversation really should be a non-starter. – Seancdaug 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• And this is why I'm an Inclusionist. I hope one day for every single person in history, both fictional and real, to have their own page. Thanos6 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  And, speaking as a librarian and information specialist, I fully understand why current guidelines do not reflect the inclusionist attitude. There is a threshold of too much information: after that threshold is passed, it becomes effectively impossible for the casual researcher to extract the kind of information they need from the reams of extraneous data. Such information has its place, and I'm all for providing relevant connections to more detailed material (be it on Wikibooks or the Final Fantasy Wiki), but it is the job of a general interest encyclopedia to "convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject," not to convey every bit of available knowledge on every given subject. Doing so ultimately serves no one's needs. – Seancdaug 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a "general interest encyclopedia." Every encyc' should try and contain as many facts and as much knowledge as possible. Thanos6 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  Well, suffice it to say that I've spent several years in study and in practice in the field of library and information science, and I can promise you that no successful encyclopedia project aspires to that goal, and no encyclopedia project has ever attained it. Human beings simply do not retrieve information in such a way that a project of that type would have much value. – Seancdaug 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, I can't offer a good stance on the subject. I believe he is, indeed, quite a notable villian due to his unique characteristics. He is quite unlike major villians, and it is what partly makes him such an enduring character. Additionally, there are various pieces of information on him not readily included in the character list page, like cultural references that are made in the final battle. However, like it was pointed out, Kefka is not as well known as say Sephiroth or Mithos Yggdrasil (From Tales of series), who both have their own articles. To those who wish for Kefka to get his own article, I'd wait it out. As it stands, Final Fantasy VI has been released twice already (as FFIII in the US and FFAnthology), and with the port for the Gameboy Advance coming, I'm sure Kefka will gain the notability he needs. MidnightWolf 09:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected per request

As this has become an edit war, I have protected. I do not have an opinion on whether this character deserves their own article; but this needs to be worked out in Talk, not as an edit war. Come to a consensus and if an individual article is merited, make a request for unprotection. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit request.

To the admin who notices this: Now that the software allows redirects to anchors, please change the redirect to look like this, so it will kick right down to the entry on the list:

#REDIRECT [[List of Final Fantasy VI characters#Kefka Palazzo]] {{R with possibilities}} [[Category:Fictional mass murderers]] [[Category:Final Fantasy villains]]

(Ugh, it's ignoring brs in a nowiki. Guess you'll have to edit this to see it spaced properly). I grabbed the categories from the Kefka redirect page. Once they're stuck on this redirect, I will remove them from that redirect.

Thank you. SnowFire 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The breaks aren't strictly necessary. Edit made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In-universe perspective?

I disagree with this, as the paragraph uses phrases such as "in the course of the game," which clearly indicates that we're talking about a work of fiction from a real world perspective, and not from an "in-universe" perspective. 24.27.113.154 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Games and Wikis

As with articles from other games and films ect, would it make sense to link to the Wiki accociated with the character in question (or whatever the article is about)? As they are more specific, their information would be a little more 'concentrated'. Any thoughts on this?

Kefka-Magic (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Implaled?

The article describes Kefka (during the final battle) as a tower of flesh on top of which he is impaled. As far as I can tell, the tower (or rather, the creatures that compose it) are simply more of his servants. It's not like he was stuck on top of the tower and suddenly took on a godlike form. Alex.liu064 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Move to Kefka

I don't think "Kefka Palazzo" is official. It's either Kefka, Cefca or Cefca Palazzo. What do you think? Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is without question the dumbest decision I've ever seen made on Wikipedia. The name is indeed official. The Clawed One (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you re-read your comment calmly I'm sure you'll notice it's insulting and pointless. You are proving nothing. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)