Talk:World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

Speedily deleted

The result was to keep. Taric25 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — hangon Taric25 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding to this article now. I should be done in a few hours. Taric25 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles such as Final Fantasy VII have lists of locations, and the story section has a {{plot}} tag, because it is too long. Taric25 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — hold your horses Anthony Appleyard 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

construction site Anthony Appleyard 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — remove speedy tag - article no longer empty Resolute 08:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — I don't agree with it being tagged for speedy deletion as this page adds value and information to the Super Mario RPG page. However it probably would have been best to have a rough draft set before the initial save. Boston2austin 10:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — This really doesn't need to exist. All of the locations are minor, even in-game; they are all easily covered by a general description within the settings section, and a more detailed description in the story section of the main article. Nemu 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, speedy deletion isn't a vote. It's just a two or three person ordeal My last comment was just that, a comment. TTN 14:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply refactored it to show we reached consensus more easliy to someone browsing the page. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Anyway, since we have reached consensus to keep the article, let us direct our attention to improve its quality. Taric25 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Someone placed a speedy deletion tag, you placed a hangon, and someone removed both. That signifies nothing beyond the fact that this doesn't qualify for SD. That is what those two "keep votes" that you added signify, not a consensus. I will place this up for deletion soon for being non-notable, and unreferenceable past the single game and a few trivial sources. TTN 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we have consensus that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, just like you said. That's the consensus we reached. If you want to delete the article (non–speedy), then you must reach a new consensus. Thus, hit the [+] at the top of this page and start a new discussion. Taric25 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the person who added the speedy deletion tag, Resolute, is the same person who removed it. Taric25 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What we should do is create one big article of all teh locations in the Mario series. Didn't there used to be one? General Guy 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can this be redirected now?

List of Final Fantasy VII locations, the only sourced example article, was merged with Gaia (Final Fantasy VII) a few days ago. Even if you did have any real hopes for this, you must know that a world article would be pretty impossible. A few Final Fantasy location lists still exist, but they'll probably be going pretty soon. TTN 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To what do you want to redirect this article? Taric25 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious, but it should be redirected to the settings section of the main article. TTN 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we're going to expand this article. Taric25 02:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what was the point of that question if your answer was no the whole time? Do you really think that this will turn into anything more than cruft? You don't even have any articles to fall back on. If Final Fantasy 7's locations (appearing in around six games and a movie) were deemed unimportant enough to be merged, what chances do the locations of a relatively popular game have? TTN 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not know the answer to your question. I do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If I ask you a question, it is because I would like you to give me an answer. Again, “Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion; even if an article is clearly mere cruft it's still better to argue for deletion on the basis of actual policies and/or guidelines rather than use a somewhat subjective shorthand.”^[1] I have wikified the article considerably and added many links to and from this article. Take a look at the Languages section I just added today, or Object Agent Verb. I wasn't even the first person who added that reference. In addition, you claim List of Final Fantasy VII locations was deemed unimportant enough to be merged, even though they appeared “in around six games and a movie”, but the World of Final Fantasy VIII you praised appears in… oh, wait, only one game. If you'll take a look at the way I've added sections to the article, you'll see it emulates the current sections of the Final Fantasy world articles, and I would be more than happy if you would contribute to them, which is the reason I asked you where you want to redirect this article is because I constantly assume good faith by thinking that “you are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time.”^[2] Taric25 06:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Usually, when one asks a question, they hope to take the answer, and put use to it. Your answer was obviously going to be no, so there was no need for the question (all you did was make me think that you were going to let this end). Why do you keep bringing that up? That was just being used in a personal question. And anyways, fancruft is just a term that encompasses many things like OR, game guide material, trivial information, and other things that don't belong. I have not stated that fancruft is the only reason to remove the article. If you notice, I'm fine with world articles, and I don't like separate lists of location. I was comparing the this with another list of locations article, using the notability of one to downplay the other. World of FF8 has nothing to do with this.

I am correct in my assumption of fancruft only. All but three sentences of the language section are OR. You can source the beginning, but you cannot source the outcome. An example is "A star agent sent by a higher authority, borrows the form of Gaz's doll, Geno. The evidence of the entity having a different language is his real name, ♥♪!?, which is hard to pronounce." You can source that his name is different, but how do you know that they don't just like weird names? The conclusion may be obvious, but it still isn't sourced. The rest of that is just useless. There is no need to analyze every minor detail (that is where OR comes from). You cannot compare this to world articles; they're actually using real information, not anything they can scrounge up. Even if this does become a world article, there is no need for separate locations, which was my point for bringing popular locations into this. If FF7 doesn't display its locations, obviously this one won't. TTN 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked where you want to redirect this article, because I hoped to take your answer and put it to good use, not stuffing beans up my nose. I was thinking you wanted to move it to something like Mushroom Planet (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars), The Mushroom Kingdom and its neighboring lands (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars), or World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars to match the world articles. After I asked it, I had no idea that you were either expecting me to “let this end” or assume bad faith if I didn't. I asked you because I was assuming good faith on your part that you wanted to contribute to the article rather than replace the page with a redirect that goes to the settings section of the main article that is empty. Next, no original research, avoid trivia sections in articles, and WikiProject Video games Article guidelines are policies and guidelines. Fancruft and Listcruft are not. You state want to convert the geography list to prose. So fix it! Tag the section with {{List to prose (section)}} and convert the headers to bold location names with correct # usage. For example, you can convert ==Marrymore== to '''Marrymore''' as long as List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Marrymore still redirects there. (I'm not 100% sure how to do this technically, but my idea is that it would work something like {{ent}}.) In addition, you may and cleanup sections according the policies and guidelines, such as spelling, grammar, and cleanup, as long as you do so with consensus. As far as original research goes, I'll add more information that is more obvious in the Japanese version to back that up. What are the two other sentances that are original research? Taric25 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to convert anything into prose; I want this whole thing to just be trashed. My statement was that separate locations are completely unneeded just in case this does end up staying in the end. If the single descriptions are removed, this has to fully shift to a world article, which will not work, as I will explain below. I have no desire to do anything to this article besides redirect it. It's bringing fancruft to a whole new level (again, I am not using this as the reason to redirect). Everything in the languages section is either OR or trivia. Taking away that leaves:

"Nearly every race speaks the same language as Mario and his allies and are able to communicate in English, in the North American version, or Japanese, in the Japanese version. The yoshis on Yo'sters Isle are the only race that speak a language Mario cannot understand. When the player attempts to communicate, the well–known yoshi sound plays, but no textbox appears. Yoshi is bilingual and able to translate for the yoshis whenever Mario rides him."

That is now trivial as well. Sourcing quotes will not automatically make the statement true or important. Any attempts on other sections will leave the same kind of information. This topic is just not wide enough for an article. The only real information can be found in a general description of the locations, and in a plot section. Neither of these will leave enough content. I can see that you're trying your best, but it is not anywhere near good enough to leave an article. TTN 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your latest attempt has done nothing but add even more trivia. Sections need to put together the most important information and let it flow, not take every minor example you can find an glorify them. Even if focusing on language isn't crufty enough, providing things like Bowyer's speech patterns or every detail of Geno's name is just piling it on. If you're going to continue to try with this, you really need to follow World of Final Fantasy VIII's example. Don't focus on minor things; stay as broad as you can while still being in-depth enough. You may think that you're adding encyclopedic information, but it is just OR (despite having sources, most of it isn't truly sourced) and cruft TTN 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to remove the original research was by adding a secondary source and an image, as you said. I applaud you for not reverting my edits and discussing them with me here, so I may improve them. I believe we can reach a consensus, and I would like to compromise with you. I remember you mentioned that we have things to accomplish if we ever hope to get the main article to featured status. What do you want the main article to do? What do you hope to accomplish? What are your goals? Taric25 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed the OR, but it is still trivial. Realistically, if there had been something to revert, I'd have done it. You really can't revert something when nothing has changed. To get the main article to featured status just requires it to mimic the writing styles and sections of FAs, and gain enough relevant information and sources. It doesn't require this article to exist in the least. TTN 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article currently mimics the sections of the Final Fantasy World articles. I copied them verbatim. What do you suggest to mimic the writing styles and sources to bring this article up to par with World of Final Fantasy VIII? Taric25 01:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This cannot hope to match the Final Fantasy articles. They are part of an overwhelmingly popular series that contains much more information than this game can possibly hope to see. They have things like the Ultimania to back them; this game has one decent strategy guide, and barely even itself. The game is a simple, straight forward RPG that doesn't dwell on plot points for more than a half hour. To try and wring out information well only lead to trivial points like in the language section. The information is much better presented in quick prose in the main article. TTN 01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to compromise, or is blanking the entire article and redirecting it to the plot section the only solution you will accept? Taric25 01:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you compromise when there are only two opposite solutions? The information either proves its worth or it is trashed. If you have an idea, please present it because I cannot possibly think of any sort of mid-ground. TTN 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, I try not to merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information, because it doesn't help establish its importance. I do my best to let the facts speak for themselves, because if it's worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts.

You suggest that Final Fantasy World articles “have things like the Ultimania to back them”. Per Wikipedia:Notability, “Wikipedians have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or infomation which would demonstrate notablility in an other manner.”^[1]

As I mentioned in the main article, I don't own the strategy guide. (I used to, but I lost it.) I do own a lot of Nintendo Power, since I subscribed to them for quite some time, hence why I cite them so often. You mentioned in the talk page of the main article, when I told you, “you can use the Nintendo Strategy Guide”, you replied, “Oh yeah, I do have that packed away somewhere. I'll take it out for a nostalgic(sort of) read sometime soon. I'll add anything if I find it.”^[2] In the discussion considering the article for deletion, you mentioned, “I don't… recall the game”^[3] I suggest you take it out and have a look, because I believe it'll kill two birds with one stone by giving you a chance to take a breather and let the facts speak for themselves. Taric25 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that you're trying, but, unfortunately, it isn't working. The version of the language section that I placed here is still better than the one in the article. I looked at my guide a while ago, and there was nothing that would have greatly helped. There might be a couple of minor points, but there is nothing that can pull this out of the hole. I have enough of an understanding of the game to edit regularly; it just isn't enough to completely overhaul the story section easily (I remember the main points, but I would probably miss some minor, but still decent ones.). TTN 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you looked at your guide a while ago, and that's why I'm asking that you currently take another and further look at it. I ask this of you, because I hope that you taking a look at the facts of a secondary source will help the facts present themselves. When I watched SNES Super Mario RPG (USA) in 2:40:26.17 by Spezzafer there were a lot of times I thought «Oh, yeah! I remember that.» I hope your honest effort to review these materials will assist you to contribute to the main article more effectively by refreshing your memory of the game and helping us reach a comprmimise, by bringing this article up to par with the Final Fantasy World articles. Taric25 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect a strategy guide to contain enough relevant info to make this into a much better article? I just looked through it again, and still, I found nothing useful. Everything is in-universe, so at most, I could get something that the game doesn't directly state. That isn't good enough for this. Once again, I realize that you're optimistic, and you're trying your best, but nothing will come out of this. The article needs to present the capability of becoming much better (a goal that the strategy guide will not help with), or it needs to be redirected. TTN 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do not expect a single source to make or break an article. You state the article needs to “present the capability of becoming much better” or “be redirected”. I believe we can work on the first. I can expand concept and creation with an out-of-universe perspective based on early Nintendo Power articles and various websites. Perhaps you can use the strategy guide to discuss the metaphysics of the game, such as Star Road. Taric25 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're acting as if it will. You have stated that if I refresh myself on the game, I will be able to somehow see where all of this information is going to come from. Nintendo Power isn't going to have much good information, certainly not enough to clarify an entire world of a game. As I show below, this information that you speak of is pointless. TTN 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add out-of-universe information to the concept and creation section from Nintendo Power that I believe will provide clarification. Taric25 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll be just as trivial as the others. TTN 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You were also sure that if the out–of–universe content can be found for Soma Cruz, it will pass for a good article. Why don't you have a look for yourself at what I just added? Taric25 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If that does happen, It will pass; I'm not really getting your point with that. The information that you placed would be fine if this was the main article. Like with the languages section, you seem to have no real track in mind. You're just throwing all of the information down as it comes. TTN 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the goal of the language section? Now you're listing completely trivial changes that really have nothing to do with the actual language of the game. This is what I'm talking about when I mention the scope of this article. You have provided trivial detail after trivial detail to make that section. Having a lot of information and sources doesn't automatically make anything a quality piece of writing. TTN 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufice'd to say, the goal of the Languages section is accomplished. The purpose of my last edit was to provide critical commentary. Taric25 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You have done nothing but bloat it up with unneeded information. You give "they speak English/Japanese" first; that's fine. Then you go into a bunch of meaningless translations and changes. This is just trivial information that has nothing to do with the language of the "world." It isn't outside enough to show any sort importance or real world relevance either. "Most Yoshis cannot speak to Mario" is fine, but some OR on how the Smithy Gang "miraciously" communicates is not. After that, you just have a bunch of pointless examples that add nothing to the section. Even if they were decent, you only need a general description, not every one of them. You have done nothing to make it flow well, or actually make any real sense in what the goal of the section is supposed to be. This isn't encyclopedic; it's fancruft.

A good comparison to this is Soma Cruz. The article has a bunch of sources, and a lot of information, so it should be good, right? No, it is very bloated, and it doesn't provide enough real information. That is what you are doing here. You are taking bits of information, glorifing them, and acting as if they really clear up the article's downfalls. TTN 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In Talk:Soma Cruz, regarding its failed good article nomination, you said, “If the OOU content can be found, and this is slightly compacted and rearranged, I'm sure it will pass next time.” I believe we can work on the same here. I will begin to add out–of–universe information by expanding the concept and creation section. Taric25 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to be the point. This already has out of universe information; it's just that the information is trivial, so there is no way to properly create the article. You seem to be drawing the conclusion that as long as you have information and sources, you have a good article. Soma Cruz was to show that it clearly isn't the case. There is a pretty big line for which games need world articles, and which don't need them. This game falls in with other notable games that wouldn't have enough information to create an article. It is like creating one for EarthBound, Breath of Fire II, or Secret of Mana; they have various locations and a bit of information, but they will never require articles. You could chuck every single piece of information you have into one, and end up with a fairly large article, but it still won't be good. TTN 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you intended the article Soma Cruz to show that information and sources do not mean you have a good article, then why did you say that it'll pass with the modifications you suggested? Also, the articles for Secret of Mana and Breath of Fire II are very long and should split the content into subarticles of an article series, per what it says right in their mainspaces. I understand you are trying to convey a point, but the examples you give seem to contradict it. Taric25 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't a good article unless that happens. At this point, it is no more than fancruft, but if outside info is added, and it's cleaned up, it'll be fine. It's just means "just because you have sourced information, it doesn't always mean it is a good article." What does being too long have to do with anything? The quality of the main articles doesn't matter. I just picked a few SNES RPGs of similar standards. Chrono Cross is just as good as an example as those. TTN 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, so I have asked for a third opinion. TTN 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You should probably cut the location by location information, and rename this as a world article. You may have hope for the information in general, but there is still the fact that there are no longer any decent lists of locations. You should combine the information into a general description. TTN 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the WP:30 request

This article bleeds OR and cruft and apart from verifiability issues, throws a load of of information at the reader that is just not notable enough to be mentioned in a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. This page should either be reduced to a much shorter, well-bodied article on the game's world in general, or merged into the Super Mario RPG article altogether. - Cyrus XIII 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page. I'm rating this article as Start-class, No-importance. Here are a few tips to improve it!

Right, so, even with 28 refs, i'm only giving this article Start-class. It's a very long list of locations with seemingly no order to them, but then the article also trys to be a general "world of SMRPG:LotSS" article, which is what it should be. A straight list of locations is non-notable, which is why it was almost deleted a few times. However, until the sections that a "world of" article needs are more than stub tags, this article can only be a weak start class. --PresN 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please find a scope for this article

Aside from still needing to switch it over to a world style article (removing the locations), this article really needs to find a scope. Information is just being shoved everywhere, regardless of what it is about. Creation and reception are bloated with information that really has nothing to do with the world of the game. They're also just plain bloated. Most of the information is too trivial to be encyclopedic. It needs to be an overview, not every specific example. Language is still riddled with OR and trivia. "Metaphysics" is just another plot summary. Most of this information is sourced, but it really doesn't make it notable or truly sourced in some cases (Sourcing that the Smithy Gang are aliens doesn't mean you need to point out that they don't use a translator, as that is OR. They may; they may not; we don't know.). Please just figure it out because this is beginning to look fairly ridiculous. TTN 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

References

The References section is becoming very quickly encumbered. Per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles § Standard appendices and descriptions I'm going to split it into two sections: Notes and References. Taric25 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You should probably wait until you trim this. Trust me, half of those won't be staying. TTN 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There were 66 notes, and now there are 44. I made all the citations short and to the point by condensing them together, using the same ref names, and only giving the author, title, date, page/level, and quote. I reduced redundancy by moving the rest of the information and condensing it into the References portion, organized by media and author's name. That one edit literally took me days, but it was worth it! Taric25 06:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Loads of irrelevant text

I think this article is filled with a lot of sections that either isn't even started at all or does not belong in this list. Pretty much all text not actually referring the geography seems to be better of in the article about the game it self.--Henke37 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please retype what you just said? I think you meant to say some of the sections are empty, and the text that refers to the game in general belongs in the main article. As far as any sections that “isn't even started at all”, those sections are marked for expansion, and they mirror the World of Final Fantasy video game articles exactly. As far as “text not actually referring [to] the geography”, we need to write about more than just the game's geography, because that is not as notable alone. In addition, the development and reception sections only discuss the game's setting, such as the graphics of its landscapes. I did not include things such as general replay value, which does belong in the main article. Taric25 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be saying the same thing that I have been saying - most of this content is useless or it belongs in the main article (although cut down). You give the whole development of the game rather than how they choose to develop the world and other stuff like that. You don't even supply real information. You just combine certain bits, which really doesn't work well. Really, you are just jamming every piece of information regardless of how trivial it is. You don't want every minor bit of reception. You want general views backed by specific comments. TTN 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not give the whole development of the game. If you read the issues of Nintendo Power I cited, you will see there's a whole lot of development I did not cover. I took the majority of what I wrote from “The Setting” subsection of “Special Features” in volume 77. In addition, I have tried my best to not give the reception of the entire game but rather only relevant topics related to the world, such as the world's landscapes and physics (movement). If you read the reviews I cited, you will again notice there's a lot I did not cover, however, I did intentionally balance negative comments with positive ones, in order to give a NPOV. Taric25 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That really isn't the point. This article is just fluff, not encyclopedic. I would try to edit it to show you, but that would leave a sixteenth of the article. I guess I'll try a rundown of the sections.

• Concept and creation - This is described as more of a general overview of the game's creation rather than the world of the game. It mentions nothing of why the world was created the way it was, but rather every minor detail as to how it was created. Even then, it's still made up of trivial facts with some "The graphics are ... Mario does this..." rather than "They used the graphics to their advantage to create a detailed representation..." It is just fluff.
• Geography - I have no idea why you haven't cut it yet because it has been pointed out various times that it need to be a general description.
• Languages - Again, as pointed out, it is full of trivial information and OR. You need to go with a general overview, not specifics.
• Metaphysics - This section really makes no sense at all. You're just retelling part of the story again and just filling it with some fluff.
• Reception - Only three points of it actually have to do with the world. The rest focus on the game in general or just the graphics (which don't automatically pertain to the world).

This is not a well written article. It may have a lot of sources and text, but when taking an actual look into it, it has no substance. The only way for you to actually expand upon this is to fill it with useless information and trivia. I get that you're trying to make a good article, but filling it with sources doesn't make it close to good. TTN 02:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, you got that. Never mind the first part. TTN 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I reply, what is the first part? Taric25 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Describing what he meant. TTN 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF

My first impression. I have no idea what's going on here, but this is madness. The "Concept and creation" looks like it should be in the main article (which is itself a nightmare). The "Geography" section (which seems to be the real subject of this article) is bad. The "Languages" section.... wtf. The reception section is great - again, why is this not in the main article?

Honestly, redirect this to the main article. In fact, redirect all these sub-articles to the main one. Start working on getting that one up to FA. --- RockMFR 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up what I have been saying. Feel free to try to redirect it. The only real opposer (the creator) hasn't bothered with it for a while. I'd do it, but I feel too involved. TTN 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the sections of this article link from the main article, so it is inappropriate to redirect this entire article. True, the Geography section needs to be overhauled, so fix it. Again, the concept and creation only talks about the development of the world: landscapes, physics, etc. It doesn't discuss development not related to the world: music, sound effects, in–depth character development (although there is one Chrono Trigger reference to Chrono).

If you like, look in the references section and click the link to the Nintendo Power issue from which I took most of that information as well as my talk page for the other magazine Mitaphane was so generous to scan for me: Next Generation Magazine. You could also get them from your local library by folowing the OCLC links I have in the referenes section. If you feel there is room for improvement, there is plenty of information with which to improve it. Don't ditch the entire article. Taric25 09:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

Hello, I'm from the newly formed Video game Clean up department. A request to clean up this article was placed on the department page. If there are any editors that are familiar with the topic of this article I was hoping they could provide assistance in the form of information about the game itself, and possibly help sorting through the sources used and finding additional sources.

I understand that there has been discussion of merging this article to its main game article. I would like to clarify that I'm mainly here to help this article comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia and the VG Project. Whether it will be merged or not will probably depend on how much applicable real world content can be salvaged from (or added to) the article and how much fictional content can be trimmed. I believe this can be done, but assistance from an editor more familiar with the subject would help the process. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Per Wikipedia:Article size, it is not currently possible to merge this article into the main article, because Geography of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars is now merged into this article, and this article now is over 100 kilobytes long. Thus, I have changed the request to remove regions' qualitative descriptions that are original research and replace them with descriptions from published sources. We are very fortunate to have so many reliable sources and have them so neatly organized in the article, especially for a game from the 16-bit era. The only thing is, as also indicated in WikiProject Video games/Magazines, with nearly all games from this era, many of the citations are from print sources, such as magazines, so that may make it difficult for someone who does not own them to contribute citations from them, however, I do own all the magazines listed and can help with verification and sources. User:Guyinblack25, if you would like to become more familiar with the topic, why not browse the references section take a look at some of the websites? Also, some of the magazines have scans available online, linked in the references section. In addition, there is a scan from Next Generation Magazine available as a link from my talk page. Plus, I have the players guide, scanned from the print version, available in a Flash file, so feel free to contact me for references from it. Taric25 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Taric, first off let me say "nice number". Secondly, I've been reading and re-reading the content to get familiar with it as well as going through the references for a better handle on the information. But given the size and the amount of content it has been a slow process when combined with my other daily activities. If you could provide some of the paper sources that I do not have access to that would be great. I'll have to ask you for them another time though.
Though I still have some more researching to do, I do have some suggestions and would like to try copy editing a few sections. As you've already mentioned, the "Geography" section will need to be trimmed down. But I would like to start with the "Reception" section first and then move on to either the "Geography" or "Metaphysics" section.
As I've tried to express to TNN, I'm not really sure what will come of all of this, but I feel that cleaning up the article will help people see the appropriate course that will need to be taken. I hope we can get this all squared away in a manner that will make everyone happy. You may have also noticed that the article is up for deletion again here. I've already voiced my opinion about it there and will try to keep a deletion away until the article can be properly clean up and then people can decide an appropriate course after that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

Did some clean up on the "Reception" section. I tried focus it more on how the setting and appearance of the setting was received. I removed any mention of the gameplay as that applies more to the game itself. I also tried to copy edit the sentences to flow together a bit more with the use of quotes. While it is shorter than it was before, it is certainly not short by the VG article standards. It could use another pair of eyes to copy edit it though. I'm thinking of going over the "Geography" section next to organize it and make it more concise. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

Great job! I love how you made everything flow together so smoothly, and the comments you included are much more relevant to the game’s setting rather than the game as a whole. I made some minor grammar and punctuation edits, but your overall revision is very good. One question: why did you decide to use the horizontal citation format rather than the vertical format?

The reason I included comments that did not directly pertain to the setting was because it was rather difficult for me to find negative comments related to the setting, so I included what negative comments I could find in order to write from neutral point of view. I've also struggled to find a picture for this that is not simply decorative but qualifies for fair use. I think I've found a way to kill two birds with one stone. According to the NAViGaTR (National Academy of Video Game Testers & Reviewers Corp.),

“Some games really tick you off from time to time. Super Mario RPG is one of them. In one section of the game, you have to climb vines to reach Nimbus Land, which is floating high in the sky. Our game guy, Tom Allen, was so mad, he almost broke his controller in half. The play control in this area is awful. Especially this jump right here. He’s still trying to make this jump without falling.”[1]

I think it would be a great idea to include a screenshot of that area of Land’s End along with that quote (or part of it) in the image caption, in order to illustrate this 3D problem. Do you think such an image would qualify as fair use? Thanks! Taric25 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as including negative reception content, we put it what is available. If most of the reviewers like that setting then the reception should reflect that. Just because we can't find an equal amount of criticism doesn't mean the section fails NPOV. I like including the info about that area, though I don't think any screen shot or image is needed for a reception section. That and I don't think a screen shot of that will accurately illustrate the 3D problem as well as the video did. It should be fine without it. Also, if you can find a video link on their site instead of google video, that would be much better to cite.

As far as the citation style, that's just my preference. It may be a bit harder to skim through the wiki code but it takes up less space and slightly decreases file size. There's no guideline or rule that says you have to do one way or the other.

I've begun to trim the "Geography" section. Since I've never played the game before, I may trim too much. But at the same time we can't leave in excessive detail about the fictional details of the game. The more the entire article leans towards real world content the better. Hopefully between the two of us we can find an appropriate middle ground. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

You can see Gaming in the Clinton Years for the link. As you can see, the title for Super Mario RPG on their site directly links to their Google Video, but don't worry, because I can cite it using {{cite web}} for the website and {{cite video}} for the video, just like I did with the Nintendo Power scans from Qeomash's website with {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. I think you'll be pleased. Before I do that, I was thinking since believe the video does a better job of expaling the 3D problem than the picture, why not include a short (less than 30s) clip from the video in the article? Since we're using it to demonstrate specific feedback about the game, I think that qualifies for fair use.

If you like to use prefer to use the horizontal style, because it slightly decreases article size, then I support that, however, it makes the page source less newbie friendly; I think that for now, we should focus our efforts on decreasing the article size, and we can worry about how easy it is to edit later.

Speaking of citations, I like how you've chopped down a lot of the article, but I'm mildly disapointed, because I haven't really seen you replacing much with citations. I think I may be able to help you out.

Here are scans from Nintendo Power

"Mario RPG Breaks New Ground", Special Features, retrieved 2006-05-13 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help).

And here are some from Next Generation Magazine.

"Previews", Features, no. 12, 1995-12 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).

Game Reviews, no. 18, 1996-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help).

Here's the instruction booklet

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Instruction Booklet (PDF), 1996-05-13 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Here's the Player's Guide

Super Mario RPG : Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide (SWF), 1996 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

Also, why did you remove the section headers and ID tags? Other articles link to specific sections, so do you think we could find a middle ground by reintegrating them and still lowering the article size?

Overall, very good job. I'm glad to see the article looking a lot better. Taric25 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(← un-indent)Ok, that should work for the citation of that video, as long as it's clear that it is their video they uploaded to Google video. I'm not sure about adding in a video though. To be honest, I'm not sure what restrictions Wikipedia has about such videos. I've tried finding info on it, but haven't found the necessary info. Personally, I try to error on the side of caution, so I wouldn't add it. I think the article will be find without it.
Per WP:VG/C, referencing and adding citations is technically not part of the clean up process, but I'll see what I can do.
With regard to the section headers and ID tags, though wiki markup can handle html, it's not really needed. That's why the id tags were removed. The headers were removed in part to reduced the overall page length as well as the shrink the Table of Contents. They were mainly removed because after the content had been trimmed down, the resulting smaller paragraph was not long enough to warrant its own section heading. We've done similar things in character articles and other setting articles. It would be ideal to have their own section headings, but it's not that practical when describing fictional elements. For links we normally just linked to the section the original sub-heading was under.
After I finish up the "Geography" section, I'll see about the doing the "Metaphysics" section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Alright, I'll ask and see. I hope we can get clarification on the issue.

Also, since you say you've never played the game before, this should really help you out. ☺ I think it'll help you from unknowlingly including stuff like, “The game begins in the "Mushroom Kingdom".” I laughed when I first read that, because the game starts at Bowser’s Keep, not the Mushroom Kingdom, but I know since you haven’t played the game it wasn’t an unverified claim; it was just because you didn’t know, which is totally understandable.

If you want to remove the ID tags, that's fine, but that means you have to change the links in all the articles that link to those specific sections. It's a lot more work, but we have to do it if we're removing the ID tags. Do you think we should start on that?

Also, when you clean up the sections, please be careful of removing sources. You caused cite error 8 twice already, and it seems I have to cleanup your cleanup. No biggie, just be sure to keep a lookout. ☺ Taric25 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Update — I overhauled more than half of the geography section and replaced its unsourced content with citations from published, reliable sources. I am very happy with all of it up to this sentance, “In the Moleville mines, the player will control a speeding mine trolley, flashing through side-scrolling and Mode 7 areas, one of the bonus activities.” Almost everything beyond that sentance in the Geography section starting with “Booster Tower belongs to Booster and features a gallery of his ancestors.” needs to be cited from a published, reliable source, such as the player’s guide. This is mostly because almost all the citations are from Nintendo Power. I did this on purpose, because not many Wikipedians subscribed to Nintendo Power during the 16-bit era, so I provided all of the citations from that first, so we could all have access to the information. Now that we have that, everyone can finish cleaning up the section with sources, because all the sources are available. Taric25 (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we make a to-do box? I am so lost as to what to do to help this article, there are so many things to do! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Taric25 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We have permission to use the video and User:Megapixie confirmed it qualifies for fair use at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Review video, so and I included it in the article. Taric25 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've finally got some more available time and can try to finish up the article. I've tried looking over the info again and as it stands, I don't think a simple clean up will provide the help needed to have the article stand on it's own. Without a complete rewrite I think the article will have to eventually be merged into the main game article. To be honest, I think the combined info could easily take the game article to FA. A complete rewrite could possibly get this article to GA and at the very least a very good B-class article that wouldn't need to be deleted. Anyway, I'll leave that decision to you guys as to which direction you'd prefer to go, but I'll help out either way. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Well the most logical course should be rewrite it and see if it then stands on its own, and then if it doesn't, we can be unified in a merger to the main article. Otherwise, perhaps it can stand on its own, and material from it can help support at Featured RPG main article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

To do list

Ok, let's get that sorted out. I've tried keeping a mental list, but have been busy with other things as of late and in the process have forgotten some of it. Any suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

1. Concept and creation obviously needs to be cut down.
2. Geography still needs to be cut down by at least half. It doesn't need that much weight.
3. Languages should be completely cut. Anything analyzing the languages of the game is original research, and the rest is just trivial information talking about the localization of the game.
4. Metaphysics is a rehash of the main plot. It is just unneeded.
5. Flowers is trivial information mixed in with some game guide material; it should go.
6. The first couple sentences of Reception are good, but the rest is pretty much just a mishmash of quotes, instead of a section detailing the reception. You could easily do the same thing with a few other aspects of the game, which obviously wouldn't warrant an article. It also doesn't help that close to half of those are from fairly trivial sites. TTN (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if we can build consensus on these items.

1. 1. When I wrote this section, I only took information relevant to concept and creation, however, seeing the superb job Guyinblack25 did with the reception section, I would warmly welcome the same pair of eyes to look over concept and creation.
   2. I agree that we still need to cleanup about half of the Geography section. Specifically, everything after Moleville. We should replace a lot of the descriptions with citations from published, relaible sources.
   3. I totally disagree, because original research means information not attributed to a published source. Everything in that entire section is cited, with the exception of two things:
      1. The Yoshis speak a different language. No one disputes this, but we don't have a citaton for this.
      2. The Smithy Gang speaks Mario's language. The two citations we can provide for this are when they are talking among themselves (and it would not be detremental if a native from Mario's world knew what they were discussing) in the Forest Maze when Mario and Mallow are spying on them and in Seaside Town when they are waiting for Blade. If we remove the idea that they may or may not use a universal translator, that's fine, and we should use those citations I just mentioned instead. I just don't know how to phrase it correctly.
   4. I agree Metaphysics can use some cleanup, because we should focus more on Star Road and Flowers rather than Mario's battles & adventures and how to play the game.
   5. See above.
   6. I disagree entirely, and I think Guyinblack25 did a wonderful job with the reception section. The only thing about which we still have a question is how to include the citation from the NAViGaTR.

Alright. Anyone else? Taric25 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I was wondering if this still needs to be called a list, as it appears to be much less a list than a big article on the topic.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And also you both make a lot of good points we should move on, specifically trimming, as there are still many uncited statements among the many references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, based on what this article has become, it should be renamed "World of Super Mario blah blah blah", because its not really a list, and its about way more than just locations now. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Should we rename it now, or after we finish cleanup? Taric25 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Guess it doesn't matter, we could just do it now, and after its cleaned up, this would be a good GA candidate :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll list it and link back here ASAP. Taric25 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done See Requested move. Taric25 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars --Lox (t,c) 12:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

---

• World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars → ? — This is no longer a list of locations. — Taric25 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is no longer a list of locations, what should we rename this article?

1. Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)
2. World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
3. Mushroom Kingdom and its neighboring lands (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)
4. Mushroom Planet (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)

Notice:

1. Mushroom Kingdom may be too limiting, since there are other kingdoms in this game, and it is the regional name for only one map area, however, page 51 of the December 1995 issue of Nintendo Power states, “When a giant sword falls from the heavens and shatters the star road, Mario, Princess Toadstool and Bowser are blown far apart in the Kingdom,” the Kingdom being the Mushroom Kingdom, however, Toadstool falls into Booster's Tower, which is in the Moleville region, not the region specifically named Mushroom Kingdom, so the whole world could be considered all part of the Mushroom Kingdom. Compare to Gaia (Final Fantasy VII).
2. This follows suit with games with unnamed worlds. We should only use this if we cannot identify the name of Mario's world. Compare to World of Final Fantasy VIII.
3. Nintendo Power also calls Mario's world “The Mushroom Kingdom and its neighboring lands”.
4. This name is entirely conjectural and Nintendo has never used this in cannon, however, websites such as the Super Mario Wiki use this name for Mario's world.

Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• World of.... - I favor this move as it is pretty standard among articles of this kind, and because of the multitude of locations, including some outside the Mushroom Kingdom, this general name is probably most appropriate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars — Nintendo Power has called Mario's world the Mushroom Kingdom, and it has also called the map Mario receives from the Chancellor a map of the World (with a capital “W”). Taric25 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• World of... - While I think the renaming is a bit premature, the current state does not represent a list and is more in line with an article. Also given the lack of official name from the developers, the generic term "world" seems to fit. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
• World of or Mush King (SMRPG), per Taric. Not sure which one I prefer. If it can be shown that the Mushroom Kingdom takes up less than 50% of the explorable areas in the game, I would go with World of. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• World of. I hate to be so cynical, but if you want an article title that is unlikely to be sent back to afd, pick that one. Ignoring that... Mushroom Kingdom is too specific, and the others are a bit odd (or unofficial). --- RockMFR 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, when in Rome, do as the Romans, right? I don't have any burning desire to see this back at AfD, so I'd be happy with a title on which we can all agree. Taric25 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• World of - least verbose, and per precedent with other articles (World of Final Fantasy VIII, Universe of Kingdom Hearts, etc.). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I don't support Mushroom Planet at all, because no reliable source uses the name, and a Wiki is not a reliable source. Also, although Nintendo Power also calls Mario's world the Mushroom Kingdom and its neighboring lands, many games have this and we do not identify their worlds as such. For example, should we rename World of Final Fantasy VIII as Planet and moon of Final Fantasy VIII because it involves the moon? No, of course not. Many games' characters visit areas besides their own world, just as Mario visits Smithy's domain, but we should name the articles about them, with the occasional exception, based on the game's main setting. Taric25 (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think "Legend of the Seven Stars" is totally unneeded. Putting the game's title is enough; the subtitle is superfluous (it's very long and serves no disambiguation purpose). FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comment! ☺ Actually, it does, because this article is about the World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, not the World of the Mario RPG series. Also, List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars follows the same naming scheme. Does that make sense? Taric25 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revise Super Mario RPG & World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

"Reception" and "Concept and Creation" have no relevance to the article because those discuss the commercial and development aspects of the game, instead of describing what areas and worlds are featured in the game. So yeah I'm going to start shortening "Reception" and "Concept and Creation" and merge them to Super Mario RPG. Then I'm shorten SMRPG as well. Its gonna take a while though. Keiji Dragon (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The reception is no more. It has been moved to the Super Mario RPG. You know I've noticed that half this entire article is full of references.Keiji Dragon (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this article has undergone a lot of changes. I don't think the entire "Reception" section should be removed, as a good chunk of it dealt with the reception as it related to the setting. If you don't mind, I'd like too restore the "Reception" section. While the "Concept and Creation" section currently has little to do with the setting, there are plans to focus it towards that. But the past content would probably serve the main game article best. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

This article is about the landscapes and areas of the game. Commercial opinions from the gaming press don't mean anything to the article. While the praise does have some relevance as it describes critical acclaim the detail has received, its really just adds "filler", if you will, to the article. EDIT: Let me be more frank about this, we don't need a reception because there's one that already exists in the main article Super Mario RPG. Adding "reception" to this article is unnecessary. Keiji Dragon (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has seen heavy discussion and work, and to unilaterally remove whole sections is not ok, please discuss major changes and reach consensus. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You Lare correct in that this article is about the setting and that there is overlap between this article and the main game article. However, to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, we have to include real-world content about the subject.

Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

So while this article is in need of fixing up, we still need content about the development and reception of the setting. Many other video games articles of Featured Article and Good Article status also follow a similar pattern of including development and reception content focused on either the characters or setting. Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VIII. Kingdom Hearts (series), Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and Universe of Kingdom Hearts. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

See then. Alright then, how about if I include minimized versions of the Reception & Concept and Development? Keiji Dragon (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Include them where, here or the main game article? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Here. I don't agree with it, but could I/we at least shorten them so that there isn't so much information. Keiji Dragon (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) The "Development" section will definitely be shortened and rewritten to be more focused on the setting rather than just the game. The "Reception" section may end up being tweaked and shortened some more during the rewrite of the article. Sound reasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Sure. I'll start the modifications right now. Keiji Dragon (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give a friendly reminder to please not remove content with no consensus and to discuss it on the talk page first, especially not to remove fair use media now that BetaCommandBot has gone into overdrive. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, when removing content such as links, please discuss it on the talk page first. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In regard to email links, I don't believe it is good practice to have external links email addresses. Though I don't believe there is any official policy or guideline regarding the subject, a few reasons come to mind why they should be excluded.

1. The email address may no longer be active.
2. The account holder may not want their email address posted on Wikipedia.
3. Contact with the original author of a cited article is not necessary for referencing purpose.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Let's finish this up

Ok, I've got a rough draft on my sandbox of what I think the finished product should look like. I tried to be as concise as I could to improve its chances of passing GA. Because I'm not that familiar with the game, I'm not entirely confident with the "Races" and "Geography" sections. Hopefully we can edit the content while keeping it concise or even trim it further. There are also no citations, mainly because I thought editing the text would be easier without them. If this looks acceptable I'll go through draft, add citations, and copy it over to the actual article. Any input would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

How is that a necessary article? If you cut the geography section down to a little less than half the current section and incorporate any relevant creation and reception information, it easily fits into the main article. That's essentially the definition of undue weight. TTN (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like an a-hole, but it could be argued that every VG article, along with every entertainment based article, is not an necessary article on Wikipedia. It could probably be argued that technology or art articles are not necessary either. Something like that can be very subjective and I don't believe is a valid reason for exclusion. Honestly, I don't care whether it gets merged or not, but this article needs something done with it. Given the amount of sources available on the setting, I'd say it satisfies the notability requirement and could stand on its own. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

You went a little too far with that example to have any real point with it. We're talking about merging "sub-topics" to main articles, not merging fully developed games to lists or something. Articles like this really need to step it up or it's just a pointless split only done to make the main article seem more important (though, a quality main article is much more important). The current conception information is half relevant information that would fit in development and half filler and the reception section talks mostly about the graphics (while the graphics are part of the topic, they do not carry the topic). We definitely need information more comparable to World of Final Fantasy VIII. It's not perfect, but it shows what the topic actually needs. TTN (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but could you better clarify what is relevant and what is filler? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Filler is the information just present to add context and the relevant information actually provides true substance. In this case, the relevant information is the technical information, while who produced the games, the list of locations, and the information about the directions (that's more relevant to gameplay than anything else) is filler. Even if we disagree on that point, all of the information could still be split into the main article. TTN (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it gets merged or not, lets work through this draft, which greatly reduces the amount of text and strips down to more of the important information, like concept and creation and reception information. If it looks like it is still shallow, we should merge, but lets finish trimming this then decide. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that works for now. Though, I imagine that Taric will put up a tiff unless he has completely changed in regards to his view of this article. TTN (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If the draft can't be made viable, then I won't oppose a merger. And let's please not go down that slope; "putting up a tiff" could be said about a lot of us. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

I agree, this whole notability war that is currently going on is bothersome, and I can't wait till its over. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, any ideas to improve the draft? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

I would kill the races section and combine anything important with geography. The basic premise should be covered within the character section of the main article (that list really needs to be redirected too). Other than that, sources. TTN (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see what I can do. As I've mention before, I'm not familiar with the game, so I may not combine them that well. Once the text is cleaned up enough, I'll add the sources back in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

The "Races" section has been integrated into the "Geography" section. Let me know what other ideas you guys have. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

I think it looks much better, much more streamlined, could be a GA like World of Final Fantasy VIII. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it could use a good copy edit from someone who played the game. Some parts of it don't flow that well and I'm still a bit unsure of how accurate my descriptions of the geography were. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Great work Guyinblack25. I think this version should be replaced with the current one. The Prince (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any ideas you guys have, go ahead make the changes directly in my sandbox. Aside from citations, I think I've taken it as far as I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Realistically, the geography section should be about two paragraphs, and give an overview rather than a explanation of it. Though, it works for getting rid of the current mess. This really still is just giving unnecessary weight to a minor topic. If we take the two paragraphs that should be there, apply them to the main article, and merge the rest of the minor stuff, it fits in just fine. TTN (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, sometimes I look at it and think it can stand on it's own. But other times, I think merging the content could get the game article to FA. I'm still on the fence, but would like to get the copy editing of the draft finished first before deciding. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Let's see how the World article goes first before doing any merging. I'd like to help improve it, and my first advice is to clean up the ref work. It looks quite messy. The Prince (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Was bold and added the draft. I must say it's starting to look like acceptable material. The Prince (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I guess we should try to add the citations back in. I'm a bit busy with work, and FACs for Wii Sports and Mana (series) right now. So if someone wants to start that I'll help out as soon as I can. Any other copy edit ideas are of course still welcome and requested. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

I'll help out. But I'd like to say one thing about adding the citations back in: we should try to cut as many of the large quotes that came with them as possible. It will look a lot neater without them, and to be honest, I they were quite redundant. PS: Good luck on the FACs. The Prince (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have seen the reception sections true size, it's pretty damn small without the "best graphics" references, I think that would lean this strongly toward a merger, yes? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to the consensus here. This is starting to become a white whale of obsession for me. :-P I've spent a lot of time and effort on this article and want to make it work, but if doesn't then it doesn't. At this point, the article has got my head spinning in such circles that I feel I have no clear idea what to do with it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

I am just thinking at this point that if we put this article and the other Mario RPG sub articles into the main article, we could make an expansive high quality FA and not a few articles that have to really stretch to meet the requirements. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's the final decision? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps we could vote or something; I applaud your work on this Guy, and I think that this should be merged to the main Super Mario RPG article and use it to polish the main article for FA. I think the other Mario RPG sub articles should probably be merged too, but that's a somewhat separate point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we don't get more feedback from others we might as well merge. TTN was calling for a merger a long time ago and I'm sure would still have that stance. You're in favor of merging, and I'm on the fence. Though I can't argue that merging it into the main article could easily get it up FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Note that User:Taric25 would probably object if he were still around. FightingStreet (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Reception

I fail to understand the relevance of reception that's of the visuals, and does not discuss the world of SMRPG at all. What relevance to the world of SMRPG exists here? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I understand how you would see it that way. Though the comments do not directly describe the setting, the visual graphics are a component of the game's setting and thus are related. Do you have any suggestions to better integrate the info or copy edit the content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm not familiar with the game, and not that much with the article, either. But simply removing a large amount of content like you did without giving a proper explanation is quite off, IMO. Like Guy said, the visuals are in a way related to the setting, and I see no harm in having that information there. You are more than welcome to improve what is already there, though. The Prince (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than welcome to remove information as well. "Be Bold" demands that I have the right to do so.

Visuals are only related to the World of SMRPG because the setting of SMRPG uses pixels to design it. The visuals could be mentioned in Characters of SMRPG as well, since they discuss the characters as much. This content belongs in the SMRPG article, not this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, though I feel there is still an indirect link to the subject of the article. That may not be enough to keep it here though. If you don't mind, perhaps you could weigh in on the topic above. There is talk of merging the whole article into the main game article and more view points would be appreciated. Hope it would be alright to keep the content in the article for the time being, so it can easily moved to the SMRPG article should a merger occur. Is that reasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Honestly, very little outside of the Reception section should be merged. It would make the main article to unwieldy, and it's somewhat in-universe anyway. However, it can be noted that if the article were to stay, most of the Reception section shouldn't. If it doesn't discuss the world of SMRPG, it's not reception for the world of SMRPG. They could be discussing the character designs, special effects, icons, menu designs, bosses, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if there is a merger, the fictional content—mainly the "Geography" section—would be significantly trimmed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

1UP and EGM links

The 1UP and the two EGM links seem to be broken. They lead to the same page on 1UP.com and the quoted sentences appear nowhere there. FightingStreet (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? FightingStreet (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That was because this was formatted a different way than other VG articles. Because it has gone through a lot of copy editing the citations got a little funky. Though the point doesn't matter much because it looks like this will be merged into Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

GA Failed

This GA was failed because:

• There's a lack of inline cites throughout most of the article.
• The lead isn't in compliance with WP:LEAD
• There are several redundancies you may want to remove.

The main thing is the inline cites. When you've corrected these, you can resubmit at WP:GAN. If you feel this review was in error, you can bring it to WP:GAR. Cheers, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The status of this article

This article didn't manage to reach Good Article status. Doesn't this show that it should be merged into the main Super Mario RPG article? Kariteh (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was failed because, after a very necessary full rewrite and trim, the references for the article were not added back in, and no one has put them back to this point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As Judge points out, according to the GAN above it did not fail because it was a poor article, only poorly written (redundancies and incomplete lead) and poorly cited. I should have some time this week to tackle the citations, but honestly, I'm still on the fence about whether it should be merged. I guess see if it can pass GA after I'm done with it (which is months overdue). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Reception.

Seriously? The reception section is almost all about the graphics, with almost nothing related to the quality of the world. There's only two mentions in the entire section of the world at all, and only one congratulating the design, with the other merely saying that the graphics make the world look good. Seriously, if there isn't anything better than that, I can't help but propose an AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the existence of this article hurt you? Voretus (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Link, I think taking this to AfD is a bit extreme and would mainly eat up resources there. I think discussing a merger would be a more fitting path to take. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Voretus, no, it does not. It does, however, not establish any notability whatsoever. And Guyinblack, there's much content that should be removed - most of the creation, and most of the reception, for one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I too have doubts about the notability of this topic, and have been on the fence about what to do for a long time. However, if anything should be done, I believe a merger is the best course of action. All the information is relevant to its parent article, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and could be used to expand it further. The only information that I think should be trimmed further is the large chunk of geography content and some of the reception content related solely to graphics. Everything else relates directly to the topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Graphics ARE the world. How is reception relating to the graphics not relating to the world? Voretus (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Magic attacks? Character designs? The design of buildings? Menu designs? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not waste any time at AFD, shall we? Let's just get a consensus to merge, and take anything useful here and transfer it to the main Mario RPG article so that it can get to Featured status. Who is with me? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I believe we should merge everything we can, which would exclude the concept & creation section (which is pretty much unsourced content that sounds like game development than "concept and creation") and reception. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll vouch for the "Concept and creation" content. I rewrote what was previously there from the sources listed in the article. I was working on it in my sandbox and hadn't added in citations when it was moved over to the article. That's why it's unsourced.

I guess I'm just not understanding why you don't want to include the development and reception content. It is real world information relevant to the game itself and it currently not in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Like you said, information about the graphics pertain to the visual aspects of the entire game, not just the setting. If anything I would assume the fictional content about geography would be the one left behind. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm proposing merging Concept and creation and Reception and axing the rest. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good. Though I think the very basic info about the world should be carried over as the "Setting" section is blank. Not a lot, but enough to explain the setting to a layman. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

If your going to merge, and I agree you should, incorporate anything, not just from the sections you mentioned, but anything from the whole article that would bolster the main one; once RPG is finally merged to one article, we can build it up for FA :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the concept and creation section hidden in my statement. If you can, you should try to find a good spot for it in the SMRPG article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)