From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

These are the current nominations for featured guides, oldest first. Please follow the steps on StrategyWiki:Featured guides to nominate a guide.

Eggerland Meikyuu no Fukkatsu[edit]

Eggerland Meikyuu no Fukkatsu
Nominated on 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC) (2/0/0)
  1. This guide was at completion stage four very early on when Procyon finished the guide. It has had ample revisions from multiple editors' for accuracy and the best strategies. The guide meets our standards for completeness, the required number of images is met, and it is fully complete. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Although it's one of the more obscure games in the Lolo series, it contains a lot of the same puzzles that would go on the grace the American releases. I think this guide came out pretty well. Thanks for the nomination NMH! Procyon 17:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. 2[edit]

Super Mario Bros. 2
Nominated on RodKimble (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC) (6/1/0)
  • --RAP (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Very completed walkthrough helped me out RodKimble (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm very glad that the guide was helpful. However, I wouldn't consider it feature-worthy until all of the additional content from the first Super Mario Advance was included in the guide. If there's enough support, I could always fast-track that one and get it done. Procyon 23:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Procyon: please do! It would knock Super Mario Advance off the list to be completed and get us a new featured guide simultaneously. I will help to clean it up. I see a lot of whitespace. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, the main pages are complete, for the most part. I just need to finish taking pictures of all 40 Yoshi eggs (I've got six to go), and the new page will be finished. I encourage everyone to pour over the existing pages and look for errors, or potential layout problems, or just any general improvements that you want to make. Even I have to admit that some of the headlines I used for certain points are a little cheesy... I'm bummed that it doesn't seem like the animated GIFs can be resized anymore. Procyon 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Wasn't a previous nomination of Super Mario Bros. rejected as we wanted to get a compilation title like Super Mario Bros. Deluxe featured in one go? Of course, I personally think this guide is good enough to be featured even without the SMA info, but if this nomination is successful I think we should re-nominate Super Mario Bros. as well. T.testLP(talk) 09:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
    • This is off-topic, but Super Mario Bros. Deluxe appears complete. SMB, Deluxe, and the related ToC and sub-pages need some cleanup, but they are close to being featured, too. That collection would be the biggest group of featured guides we could do in one swoop (~4 game catridges off our list). Anyways, with Super Mario Advance, I think postponing featured statuses because an additional, related title isn't featured is unproductive. It is better if we upgrade a guide that deserves it to featured, then if the compilation or shared ToC title also, eventually gets it, then the original featured front page blurb can be modified. I do not see any reason to hold back the game that has a good guide, as the compilation has nothing to do with the original release. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 17:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually I meant to state Super Mario All-Stars as one of the examples, so that it was more relevant to the current nomination. However, I do agree about what you've said about compilations. A high-quality guide should be featured even if other titles in the same compilation isn't complete. However, I think Super Mario Advance info is quite necessary in this case since it is a remake, with enough shared content with the original to warrant completing the Super Mario Advance guide as well. T.testLP(talk) 08:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, all 100 A-coin locations, and all 40 Yoshi Challenge eggs have been documented for Super Mario Advance. I still think the guide needs a once over by everybody just to make sure that the layouts are optimal, but I can feel better about supporting the nomination now. Thanks very much guys. Procyon 02:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have polished both the Yoshi's Challenge (SMA) section, and the Controls section. I personally want to reduce as much white space for the former section as possible, but I have to maintain parity on all available skins for the wiki (Monospace and Vector have more whitespace due to an stretchable length, Whale and Dolphin have less white space due to a fixed width). I have not voted because I haven't played the game yet to verify or attempt to polish the guide further. --RAP (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Taking a jab at critiquing the guide (even though I have not played the game at all):
    • The images in Warps section are too small; and checking the dates, it was uploaded in 2009. This is interesting considering that most of the game screenshots (excluding maps) in other pages are normal-sized images.
    • In the Enemies section, the Beezos entry has a grey colored background; is there a purpose?
      • The sprite does not have a border around the white section of its weapon so it blends into the background. Instead, all cells should have that color so it doesn't stand out (I know I removed the background, but that was before I saw the difference). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 23:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • In the Super Mario Advance article, there is a list of changes from the SNES version to the GBA version; wouldn't it be better to create a specific section? It would be named "Version Differences", and the section would be under the Supersection "Getting Started" or "Appendices" similar to how the The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past article handles it.
    • The last but biggest: No cross-promotion implementation with the Super Mario Wiki, similar with what ZeldaWiki and Bulbapedia. And if done so, links from the wiki to StrategyWiki should be linked as well to increase traffic.
That's all I got from skimming the guide. Changing vote to "Opposed". --RAP (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Some thoughts:
    • I might not entirely understand how exactly Doki Doki Panic and SMA are to mesh with the SMB2 guide, but it seems to me that in the DDP and SMA pages, the "Continue to:" box should link to SMB2's Getting Started and Walkthrough sections, instead of being their current red links. After all, they share a table of contents...
    • The Super Mario Advance page has a lot of non-picture space, as opposed to Doki Doki, which has a few screenshots of differences to break it up.
    • Agree with RAP on the tiny warp images - not everybody has good eyes.
    • There seems to be slight disagreement between the characters' ratings here as compared to the mariowiki. Both of these differ from the Super Mario All-Stars guide I have, which I also wrote numbers in that are slightly different yet again (I don't recall why I wrote the numbers, but it might be what I found to be true in the game). -- Ceegers (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad people are talking about this, let's keep it up! This is an awesome classic whose guide should be refined. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 23:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow, too much to respond to, but I agree completely with NMH, this is a great discussion, not only with respect to this guide, but with respect to all guides on the site as a whole.
      1. I agree that the wall of text on the SMA page is not well formatted, and I like RAP's idea of having a separate "Versions" page, if for no other reason than to clear that front page up.
      2. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily want all of the DDP specific stuff on that versions page since DDP is the biggest departure from the collection of games, primarily due to not being a Mario game.
      3. I have to disagree with RAP on one point, however, as I do not feel that appropriate wiki cross-promotion should be a criterion upon which guides are considered feature worthy or not. I agree that it's a nice-to-have, but not relevant to this particular discussion.
      4. I'll try to get better warp images, I don't know where I got those original ones from, I think the thought process was, "people will just recognize when they find a screen that looks like this." Turns out, a Google image search yields virtually nothing... not even our own pics :~(
      5. NMH is right, the problem with Beezos is that the white wings have no contrast border, so I was afraid they'd blend in with the background and remain unseen. Having seen it without the background, it's not the end of the world. NMH is right, they should either all have it or none. Procyon 01:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      6. The character ratings are fairly subjective, and are really only there to say who's better than who at what. Coming up with actual numbers for them that everyone can agree with is near impossible.
  • I'll work on the "Version Differences" section if no one else wants to tackle it; I'm crafty on using as few words as possible for the maximum amount of info given to the end-user as I tried doing so in some parts of the Temple Run article. Assuming that all the differences is relevant (and if there are no more differences to be found), all the present will be worked on. I will attempt to research and verify these differences if possible in this circumstance. --RAP (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    • During research, I decided to tackle character ratings discussion; refer to the edit for details of verification. Ceegers (talk · contribs), it appears you wrote up the information incorrectly; which is now corrected; I'm curious on where you got the info before the correction was applied. :~p --RAP (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, first of all, Ceegers had nothing to do with the character writeup, that was all me and based solely on my experience. Just check the page history, Ceegers doesn't appear on it at all. Second, I started a discussion about the subjectiveness of Super Mario Advance's character ratings, particularly the Princess, here because my extensive experience playing the game suggests to me that the ratings provided in SMA aren't precisely accurate. They are just one more person's subjective take on the matter. SMA's ratings are, for the most part just +1 over what was there originally, with a few exceptions. I'll buy that the Princess' jump isn't as good as Luigi, but I wholesale reject that her jump is worse than Mario's. I think anyone who's played the game would agree. Procyon 04:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah, my apologies. I should've verified that before responding. When Ceegers (talk · contribs) said that the numbers are written in the manual, it didn't crossed my mind that the numbers are from the user's subjective thoughts on the characters abilities, not yours Procyon (talk · contribs). I have made a comment in the game's talk page. --RAP (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Figured out what my numbers are from - will go into details on talk page. -- Ceegers (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Done with the differences work. Took a ton of brain power to cross-examination (lots of confirming and some minor additional differences). In the Super Mario Advance page, the differences section is deleted and sent into a new section; a section where it's sorted in a series of tables, lots of cut fat, and proving a sharper comparsion in-between the three versions (with the GBA version being the most significant); it's now replaced with a link. Here it is: Version Differences. The problem is: How to put it under the "Appendices" section? I had a tricky time implementing the Table of Contents in the game page properly in Emerald Mine; had to do guesswork.
The other thing is that I'm questioning whether to cover all differences of level design with the "Level Changes" section. I mentioned in the edit that gameplay differences should be incorporated into the walkthrough, and taking a quick glance after finishing it, it has been done. I'm wondering we should even need that (since I got all the info from the Super Mario Advance page). Before moving on, I would also put that I cannot find any info on special baskets and rolling balls in the GBA version that can be verified. My source video is this: [1] (User:cubex55); perhaps I haven't looked hard enough or these things are found only in specific levels, much to my annoyance.
The main event is: "More jabbing the to-be-featured guide in the hopes that it will be improved to the highest caliber!"
  • In the Items section: there's no coverage for the Super POW Block or the 1-Up Mushroom in a bubble (I do not know about the official name for the latter), or the supposed special basket and spiked ball. (EDIT: And Heart Radishes and Super Vegetables).
  • In the Bosses section: all the entries on the bosses seem to be taking on "wall of text" levels of dizzy. Can it be smoothened out with fewer words or break up into paragraphs (while maintaining skin parity)?
  • In the Enemies section: there are no images of certain enemies' palettes that were changed in the GBA version from the SNES version. While I can understand that the GBA version is just a SNES skin brightened up due to a lack of brightness screen at the time of the console's release, I feel it would be incomplete without those changes being shown.
  • During the Walkthrough section, the NES/SNES info is mixed with GBA version info. I do not think having "Advance" or any variation would be helpful for someone who is skimming for info. By the time they figured out that piece of info applies for the GBA version, those few seconds are already wasted. It would be off-putting for someone who didn't play the NES or SNES version; why not apply a special colored box to indicate a distinct difference from the NES and SNES versions? It would also further indicate the changes applied in the GBA version.
  • Associated pages that don't reach the minimum image requirement per feature guide rules: Super Mario Advance, and Super Mario Bros. 2/Walkthrough.
  • Can someone investigate the possibility that there are level changes from the original game, Doki Doki Panic? I'm saying this because the game article has all the articles relating to Super Mario Bros. 2. This might be off-topic, but I question this stance: Would a game, as Super Mario Bros. 2, a dolled-up installment of an previous existing game, can retrieve coverage due to it's popularity, and put Doki Doki Panic into the closet as a follower than a leader? Is it a case-by-case basis? What if the games are equally popular, or have more than two of the same games, like say the Crazy Castle series?
  • EDIT: There is no mention of Scores or Points, or a "Score" section, which is implemented in the GBA version.
Well, it's been fun. Gotta snooze. --RAP (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The one thing that concerns me here is that you seem to be simultaneously advocating for more information and less information at the same time. I agree with you that walls of text and combined version information with no differentiation can be off-putting and less helpful to the reader. On the other hand, if we added all the minutia of version changes and palette swaps, I'm afraid that that would only lend to the difficulty of parsing out the useful information. I was hoping to strike a balance between "all relevant information possible," and "only the pertinent information necessary" so that the average reader isn't bowled over by the sheer amount of information. I would argue that, were such suggestions taken to their fullest realization, the guide would not really be a feature candidate anymore. Procyon 12:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that all the info in the "Level Changes" section was transferred from the Super Mario Advance page (along with some minor notable tidbits from me). I am just questioning whether to expand the comparison content (like "Level Changes" section) into the specific page, or integrate it to the walkthrough. I personally think we should not cover all the trivial tidbits, since we're not a comparison wiki or the Super Mario Wiki. Since this wiki's purpose is to give appropriate info on the user regarding potential level changes in the GBA version as they play through the levels (more hearts, vases, additional enemies, 1UP Mushroom placement changes, etc.); it would also be appropriate to disregard smaller minute info that is not of importance in the same area as gameplay and level changes that distract the player from being helped. Once again, my task on simply transferring all the info into the new page is done (tons and tons of research and verification). --RAP (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I would like to pose an important question: has anyone really compared Doki Doki Panic to Super Mario Bros. 2? Are they identical in game mechanics (e.g. gravity and movement speeds), maps, etc. and is really just a sprite-changed port? Perhaps we should just have a separate guide for Doki Doki Panic? --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

To check the difference on Maps check these out:
The result of that the true Super Mario Bros. 2 in Japan got replaced in USA with Doki Doki Panic with some tweaks that got pointed out: "1987 release in Japan on the Famicom Disk System - 1988 modified to be Super Mario Bros. 2 and released in the USA". Paco (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly scientific, but I did briefly watch the beginning of a guy playing through it on youtube. Looks the same control-wise. -- Ceegers (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The only actual difference of gameplay I can pick out between the two games is that Doki Doki Panic doesn't feature a run button; and as mentioned in the page, Phantos are harder to escape from when carrying the key with the lack of running. --RAP (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have personally played all the way through DDP (took all four characters through all 20 levels to get the good ending too...) All of the gameplay alterations have been mentioned here (specifically, the lack of running), the rest of the changes are purely cosmetic, and I would hazard a guess that 95% of all enemy placement and map details are identical. For all intent purposes, DDP and the original NES SMB2 are practically the same game under the hood. Procyon 01:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so then I would say that Doki will be upgraded to featured at the same time as SM2 (not lost levels SM2, of course). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of trying to talk about the importance of it's connection, in the Doki Doki Panic page, in the "Audio and Visual" subsection under the "Alterations to Super Mario Bros. 2" section, I polished up the table considerably partially incase this page is connected with Super Mario Bros. 2 and subsequent pages. The only problem is the Hawkface image is blank due to being a GIF upon shrinking, and I don't have an official name for the Hawkface for the Doki Doki Panic version. --RAP (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Gifs are broken on SW, so don't upload any new ones. gif is also inferior to png (in terms of compression and thumbnail generation), so please do not use gif anymore when uploading images. Also note that you can make png animations like you can with gifs. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Can I say a little thing about the use of an English word? The guide says repeatedly "map" where I would rather say "area". If someone leaves home (e.g. Mario), he's not on the "map of of his city", he's in the city, in some area of it, not on a map, unless he lives inside a geographical atlas. The maps are the images on this website that represent areas of the game, but when actually playing the game on the television/computer, I'd refer to areas. It's just a detail, I know. If you approve this, I can quickly go through the guide and change "map" to "area". --Abacos (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Cite a specific example. Procyon 14:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
For example, Super_Mario_Bros._2/World_1-2#Part_2 reads: "Once you exit map B"; the character does not exit from a map, he exits from an area in the game (represented by a map on this website); I'd write "Once you exit Area B". That is, a map is a representation of something (an area of a game, in this instance), but the character moves in the real game, not in its representation. Same applies to almost every instance of "map" in the guide. --Abacos (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Abacos is correct in regards to the written portion helping the reader move through the game, however you have to be very careful, when enforcing this type of specificity, to not get confused when the writer is actually referencing the article's map of the area, which the majority of the images, since they are scaled and often labeled with a standard format (like a key or legend). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Abacos' assertion. As he stated, the maps represent areas. Therefore, if an area is represented in the Walkthrough as "Map B," and they leave that area, then for the purposes of the walkthrough, they are exiting from Map B. Yes, I realize they are not actively or physically exiting from a map, but in order to change the phrase to "exit Area B," it would first be necessary to establish in writing that Map B refers to Area B (which is largely automatically understood by the reading audience) and would therefore require statements be added throughout the guide, which would largely be considered redundant, that the map represents an area. Instead, it is simply sufficient to refer to an area by it's map name, and no one is confused by the matter. Additionally, this "mistake" occurs throughout the site, and unless there was a groundswell of consensus, I hardly see this as a matter worth undertaking. Procyon 17:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Finalizing this nomination

  • Remaining todo: please move all collaboration discussions to Talk:Super Mario Bros. 2. The todo should be updated with remaining tasks. I added the warps image task that RAP reported.
  • The result of the nomination of this featured guide will occur after the remaining work has been finalized over on that talk page. When that has been completed, new comments and objections to this nomination should occur under this header as there is too much content above to keep track of. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out a concern that I have about this process, and the results that it's having. There is such a thing as a guide with too much information. Information about a game can essentially be divided into two categories:
  1. Information that is useful and relevant to players of all experience levels, and
  2. Information that is only useful to expert players and/or of "academic interest."
While there is definitely a home for the second category on this site, I worry about the presentation of it being mixed in with the first, creating some confusion among some readers. Furthermore, I feel that escalation to featured status should not be contingent on providing 100% of information belonging to the second category, only the first. The point of a featured guide is to say, "This is the level of quality one should strive for when creating their guides." If the second category of information is included in this measurement, technically no guide (not even our existing featured guides) will ever realistically reach that goal. Nor would I argue that this would be particularly beneficial to our audience. Our audience isn't necessarily us. We're experts. We know many video games inside out. That's what makes us qualified to write guides about them. But most readers just want to know what they need to know. The more "extra" we throw at them, the harder it becomes for the readers to learn what they came to find out. And then they may stop considering this site as a useful resource. Procyon 23:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Nominated on 17:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC) (1/0/0)
  1. Guide looks very complete, with lots of pictures, maps and useful walkthrough information--The Retro Gamer 17:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)