Talk:Mario's Picross

Systemic bias

I'm adding {{globalize}} for two reasons.

Firstly, the introductory section talks about its release in Japan and North America, but not Europe or anywhere else.

Secondly, the "Gameplay" section describes edition-specific features. It doesn't even clarify which edition it's describing (either the platform or the geographical location). The Game Boy edition released in the UK, which I used to have, has a number of differences - see Talk:Paint by numbers#Mario's Picross.

Was the game released on any platform other than Game Boy anywhere other than Japan? -- Smjg 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some information at http://www.themushroomkingdom.net/games/mpicross I will see if I can find more and update the article, I am currently improving another. -- ReyBrujo 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. BTW why have you nowikied that URL? -- Smjg 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because inlining links help those sites to increase their Google Rank, as Wikipedia is a pretty high ranked site by itself. For some sites, like IGN, CNN, GameSpot, etc, it wouldn't really mind, since they are already well ranked. But for fan sites, it is just the same to add the link to the External links sections of the article or to the talk page "discussing" it. -- ReyBrujo 20:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean you're afraid the odd link, by pushing sites up the rankings, will push Wikipedia down? -- Smjg 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I just don't want to give them a boost if we are not going to use them. -- ReyBrujo 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging section from Nonogram

I oppose this idea. The section regarding Nintendo's picross on the general nonogram page is not merely about Mario's Picross. I find it unsurprising that it forms a large part of the page, since it was many people's first and main interaction with nonograms. I think it should be kept as it is. Tim (Xevious) 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marios Picross.jpg

Image:Marios Picross.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mario's Picross. 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/20100706103727/http://www.nindb.net/game/marios-picross.html to http://www.nindb.net/game/marios-picross.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706103727/http://www.nindb.net/game/marios-picross.html to http://www.nindb.net/game/marios-picross.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706103329/http://www.nindb.net/game/picross-2.html to http://www.nindb.net/game/picross-2.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) 22:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario's Picross/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 13:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up in a couple of days. Canadian Paul 13:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! ~ P*h3i (📨) 01:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Below are some of my concerns:

• I'm not sure that reference #9 ("Mario Secrets and Censorship") is considered a reliable source. Per WP:VG/RS, YouTube is generally considered unreliable, unless it's an account linked to a reliable source. If I'm missing something here, please let me know, otherwise it cannot be used.

 Done, I'm not sure how that ref got left in. It was meant to be temporary until I found a more reliable secondary source. I've used a primary source.

• Ref #10 is probably fine, since it's just a commercial, but it doesn't source the fact that "due to its nature as a slow-paced puzzle game, the game did not meet the Western market's trends and failed in that region". Therefore, the citation with the commercial should probably be placed immediately after "Upon the game's release, Nintendo marketed the game exceedingly through the use of television commercials". Same with ref #2 going immediately after "Nintendo Power".

 Done.

• Also, does the EGM review really demonstrate that "the game did not meet the Western market's trends and failed in that region"? It seems unlikely that a review magazine would be able to make such a strong statement within two months of the game's release.

 Done, removed.

• Still on that sentence, I don't think that the word "exceedingly" makes sense here... but I'm not sure what word you were looking for? "Aggressively" perhaps? In any case, it is a bit POV, so if it can't be sourced, then it should be removed.

 Done.

• Under "Gameplay", Paragraph 1: "Mario Picross is played in a similar fashion to how picross is traditionally played in real life;" I find this sentence to be a bit superfluous and it makes me anticipate that there will be some difference between "real life" picross and the game (since you use "in a similar fashion" instead of "the same way"). If there is a meaningful difference between the then it should be mentioned. If not, you should remove the sentence because it is a bit POVish and unnecessary, since you're just explaining how the game works anyways.

 Done, I've changed the wording to 'virtually', as real-life picross is conceptually different to the game, as you must use the Game Boy controls to input.

• Overall, I think that the gameplay could be made a bit clearer just by touching upon some of the basic things that aren't addressed. A better introductory sentence, for example, might be more basic, like: "In Mario's Picross, the player is presented with a puzzzle hidden within a grid that they must reveal by..." Another example might be that I think (?) you are using the terms "markable spaces" and "spaces to be chiseled" interchangeably, but it's not clear. While usually I recommend applying a thesaurus to Wikipedia entries, in this case sticking with a standard set of terminology would facilitate the reader's understanding. If I'm not making much sense in terms of what I mean by "basic", look at the Gameplay section of Super Mario Bros.: it mentions even simple gameplay concepts like moving left to right on each stage.

 Done, I've rewritten the paragraph to be a little bit clearer and I've changed the image caption to give a visual representation. I've also included a Main article link to Nonogram for more information.

• The Gameplay section should, at the very least, mention whether or not there is music in the game - this doesn't need an external citation since it is intrinsic to the gameplay. Of course, you later mention that one reviewer discussed the soundtrack, so they must have described it a little bit, which can be included in the article.

 Done.

• What is the difference between "Easy Picross", "Kinoko", and "Star" modes? Do they increase in difficulty or are they just different puzzles? This should be stated explicitly.

 Done.

• Under "Development and Release" (and in other places), you use the term "Western" markets a lot, but that term can be very vague. Maybe "North American, European, and Australian" or "English-speaking" would be better, particularly as your sources appear to be actually referring to that latter-term.

 Done, removed all uses of "Western" except one to not repeat words.

• "Development and Release" should mention explicitly which system(s) the game was released for initially and when it was released. This is mentioned in the infobox and the lead, but is not cited there, and should be in the body of the article.

 Done.

• In fact, per WP:LEAD the lead should not introduce material that is not present in the body of the article, but some of what is in the lead is not present elsewhere: the sentence about Mario as an archaeologist and what he does (this would be a good sentence to begin the Gameplay section) and the release dates and locations.

 Done, removed archaeologist from lead and added releases to Development and release.

• Under "Reception", first paragraph, it is written that "Mario's Picross received mixed to positive reviews upon its release.", but the next review is entirely negative. I would either highlight something positive that that review said about the game, or just say that Picross received "mixed reviews upon its release".

 Done, changed "mixed to positive" to "mixed" as upon its initial release the game was panned. Also added a sentence preceding the 3DS reviews to give context.

• Under "Legacy", paragraph 1: "These games were largely similar to Mario's Picross." I find this sentence a bit superfluous because, if you were to keep it, it would need to be fleshed out a bit (what significant differences were there etc.), which would begin to stray too far from the focus of the article. I would just remove it. If people want to know about similarities and differences, they can click the Wikipedia links for those games.

 Done.

• Same section, paragraph 2: "Picross DS was very well received and sold well, with the Western region specifically seeing a dramatic increase in sales in comparison with the results of Mario's Picross." This sentence reads rather POV to me (what, objectively, is a "dramatic" increase, for example?) and a good place that could be expanded with a few extra details via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. State the sales facts and reception figures and let the reader decide if it was well-received, sold well, and had a dramatic increase in sales.

 Done, removed sales statement.

There are a few more small things (and I went through and cleaned some of them myself), but I think that the above needs to be addressed before I can see what else might need to be fixed. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 12:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to your suggestions. ~ P*h3i (📨) 06:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ph*h3i. First of all, in the future please preserve the integrity of the original review. Aside from the fact that you've placed large "done" check marks next to items that still require work, you have also removed the numbering of my concerns, which makes it more difficult for me to discuss your changes. I'm going to use the numbering that was present in my original review, and you can use the previous version as a point of reference.

Regarding #1, material regarding localization cannot be sourced to a primary source; see WP:ABOUTSELF as linked from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games under "Gameplay": material cited by primary sources cannot "involve claims about third parties" (in this case, whoever did the localization) or "involve claims about events not directly related to the source". Regarding #2, now all you've done is left this material uncited, which is no good, since a claim that it failed and a reason why it failed is absolutely a controversial statement and requires a citation. Also, when you moved around the references, you placed them before the comma, but references go after punctuation. Regarding #3, the source doesn't really back up the fact that nothing was released until the DS version "[d]ue to the failure of this game in the West" (the source you use does not make this claim). Regarding #4, all you did was change the word but, as I suggested in my review above, the sources do not support that POV word. Regarding #5, you changed the word, but did not address the more substantial portion of my commentary, which is that the sentence is superficial and does not provide meaningful (and sourced) information on the differences.

Regarding #9, there are still four instances of the word "west" or "western" in the article, including two in the same sentence. Regarding #10, I don't see where in the source it states the release dates for the original versions (the source is pretty busy though, so it's possible that I missed them). Regarding #13, you changed the "mixed to positive" here, but not in the lead.

Finally, in regards to GA criteria 1a, prose, note that WP:PARAGRAPHS states that "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly" and MOS:BODY states that "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text". In order to satisfy 1a, therefore, there should be no one-sentence paragraphs unless it would be very unnatural to merge them into other paragraphs. I corrected this myself when I first reviewed the article (since I don't believe on commenting on things that would be easier to just fix myself) but, since you undid those changes without explanation, the one-sentence paragraphs need to be re-integrated into other paragraphs, as I don't see any convincing reason why they should be standalone.

I'll keep this on hold and, once you have addressed the concerns above, I will re-read the article to raise some of the smaller things that need to be dealt with. Canadian Paul 08:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I usually like to separate each point and I expected you to reply below each individual point under my reply. I also changed the list to bulleted because the replies separated the numbered list (also my name is P*h3i). I will instead list responses below.

Regarding #1, the reference supplied isn't meant to reference the localization process, but is supposed to say "compare the Japanese version and the English version", which is why the language parameter is "Japanese". Is there a better means of doing this?

Regarding #2, I've supplied a reference to support the claims made and changed the reference's placement to succeed the comma.

Regarding #3, I've supplied a reference to support the claim that the game failed in the West.

Regarding #4, I've removed the word altogether.

Regarding #5, I've removed the part of the statement that states this.

Regarding #9, I've removed all uses of the word.

Regarding #10, the best actual release dates I could find were from the Complex list reference. I think the dates were present before I started improving the article and I just took them for granted. All GB dates have been listed properly.

Regarding #13, I've replaced "mixed to positive" with "mixed".

I've also integrated the two remaining single-sentence paragraphs. I accidentally reverted your edit and have since undone the revert.

Please notify me when you have more points of contention with the article. Thanks. ~ P*h3i (📨) 02:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: Going to leave this ping here. ~ P*h3i (📨) 03:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding #1, my point is that you cannot source this material just by saying "look and compare" for the reasons stated above. It has to come from a secondary source, because just looking at the differences does not tell the reader that "many puzzles were altered in order to avoid references to alcohol and Japanese culture" (i.e. it shows "what" changed, but not "why" it changed). So it needs better sourcing or to be removed (if something can't be sourced properly, it's perfectly fine, especially for GA criteria, to just leave it out). I made a few little fixes to the article, but otherwise, once this point is taken care of, this should be good to go. Canadian Paul 11:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed information. ~ P*h3i (📨) 00:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: Going to leave this ping here. ~ P*h3i (📨) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to go now, so I will be passing it. Congratulations and thank you for all your work. Canadian Paul 11:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a great review. The article is much better for it! ~ P*h3i (📨) 13:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)