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

This page chronicles every unsuccessful nomination at a featured guide. Do not move pages in here yourself unless you are the Bureaucrat that has closed the nomination. Pages may be moved here for the following reasons:

  • There is great consensus not to nominate it (generally when the indicator is bright red).
  • The nomination has been sitting in the requests page for a while without any recent action on it consensus-wise (generally when the time bar is pure blue or beyond).

Super Mario Bros.[edit]

Super Mario Bros.
Nominated on 16:48, 16 August 2007 (CDT) (1/2/0)
Support
  1. --DukeRuckley 16:48, 16 August 2007 (CDT): Very thorough and complete guide with a lot of pictures. I've gone through and spell-checked it.
  2. Looks good, but still needs a few things before being promoted (see comments) --Skizzerz_Scissors.pngSafety Skizzerz Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM 17:17, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
Oppose
  1. OK, hear me out on this one guys. I don't feel that SMB is a good candidate for a featured guide. I would personally prefer to see a more comprehensive game such as Super Mario Bros. Deluxe or Super Mario All-Stars be brought to the level of "Featured Guide", so that not only do we get a fantastic guide, we also supply information for anywhere from two to five other titles in the process. If I were to work on SMB DX, then SMB1 and SMB2j could have a front page that simply points to the content in SMB DX. If I were to work on SMAS, then the same would be true for SMB1, SMB2j, SMB2u, SMB3 and SMB DX. (Although the location of the SMB DX red coins would have to be added to the SMAS maps.) Anyway, if you want to go ahead with just SMB1, that's cool, but I think there is a bigger opportunity here for us. Procyon (Talk) 18:23, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
  2. I've moved to oppose for the reasons that Procyon stated, as well as that it still needs work (plus I want to see how the red looks in the status bar). --Skizzerz_Scissors.pngSafety Skizzerz Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM 18:50, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
Undecided
Comments

This guide needs a few maintenance things before being promoted (at least we have a month or two!). One, all the AGN's have to become HN's> Two, the backs in the FN need to become prevs. Three, it needs a Spel Chek™. Other than that, it looks great ^_^ (besides MAYBE an image in the ToC). --Skizzerz_Scissors.pngSafety Skizzerz Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM 17:17, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I hadn't noticed the AGN's and backpages... That'll be taken care of shortly though... I did a spell check before I nominated it, but another spell/grammar check is probably a good idea anyway.--DukeRuckley 17:26, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Regarding Proc's comments above: When it comes to compilations, I feel that for a compilation to be featured, each of the guides it contains should be featured. In other words, if All-Stars (which is a compilation) is featured, then the games it links to should be as well. Unless you are talking about a completely full guide on the All-Star. (I'm not familiar with DX, so I don't know what to say about that). Maybe we should bring this up in CI?--DukeRuckley 18:32, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if the special tricks should be mentioned here (sorry, I'm new), although most of them can't be performed normally. To me some seem more or less important, like hitting flying koopas from below and walking through walls (I performed this myself, too, but it takes patience). Also, I updated the world record time (or where did you get that?). --Proto 12:28, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I was told it exists already (sorry again): Super Mario Bros./Secrets --Proto 12:46, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Dragon Warrior[edit]

Dragon Warrior
Nominated on 22:49, 13 January 2008 (CST) (4/0/3)
Support
  1. Procyon (Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (CST)
  2. It looks quite solid, Scott. Even with Ryan's objections, I have to say I back this. (I didn't notice the hardcoded html color codes and stuff--I'm sure you can fix it though if need be.) echelontalk 23:48, 21 January 2008 (CST)
  3. Very complete guide, I noticed a couple of grammar mistakes, but not enough to remove my vote of support. --MaestroFergus 09:22, 29 February 2008 (CST)
  4. I've fixed the two issues that I had with the guide, so I'm now ready to support. - Koweja 21:08, 6 March 2008 (CST)
  5. --Bmuig 09:47, 10 April 2008 (CDT) (talk)
  6. Didn't realize the game was that short! --DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 19:06, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
Oppose
Undecided
  1. Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 15:39, 14 January 2008 (CST)
  2. DrBob (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
  3. Procyon (Talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
Comments

This is another guide that I have put a lot of effort in to, in order to provide plenty of pictures per page, while keeping the spoilers to a minimum. The guide covers every point along the game and provides a step by step presentation of how to progress through the game. Procyon (Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Sorry Proc, but I'm neutral/undecided on this one until some of the styling issues in the guide get sorted out (e.g. no hardcoded color values for tables, and the spolier template needs some work with the images). Maybe after that happens I'll support, but even then perhaps not. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 15:39, 14 January 2008 (CST)
I haven't looked over the whole guide yet, but so far I'm impressed. Two things that I've noticed so far - a) you have a red link on the cover page, and you could probably convert the enemy and spell tables into a template. - Koweja 12:01, 2 March 2008 (CST)
  • Problems solved, so supporting now. - Koweja 21:08, 6 March 2008 (CST)
I will proof this guide over the next few days and get back to you all on this one.--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 19:48, 22 January 2008 (CST)

Yeah, I'll promote this one to featured status once I have enough free time to make the quip for the front page. --Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Sorry for my lateness. I've just proofread the entire guide and corrected a few small things. I'd be happy to support this as a featured guide, but not with the enemies page in the state it is. The whole right-hand side of the page is wasted whitespace, and I think the page would really benefit from complete tabulation. If you've got no problems with it Proc, I could do that and then promote the guide to l5? --DrBob (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Thank you for all the hard work you did in cleaning up my mess DrBob. As always, your eye for mistakes is impeccable. I took a stab at fixing the enemies page. It may or may not have been what you have in mind. While I think it looks better now, it has some major issues if you scrunch your browser too thin. Please feel free to correct it, or implement an entirely different layout if you like. Procyon (Talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Something went wrong with this guide, and I'm not sure what it is. I appreciate all of the support that everyone has given it so far, but given Skizzerz's and DrBob's hesitance, whose opinions I deeply respect, I need to reexamine the choices I made for this guide and really understand what worked and what didn't. It's difficult to write a guide for a not-so-linear RPG since a player is more free to make certain choices about the order in which to do things on his or her own. Still, I thought Dragon Warrior would be an easy RPG to start with. Anyway, thanks for the continued effort to help improve this guide. Procyon (Talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

1942[edit]

1942
Nominated on 23:57, 26 May 2008 (CDT) (1/2/1)
Support
  1. This guide looks complete and seems to have all the needed things to be featured. RobJ1981 23:57, 26 May 2008 (CDT)
Oppose
  1. It does not have screenshots in the walkthrough. While screenshots won't contribute much since it's a such a straightforward game ("shoot everything that isn't you") it's simply not acceptable for a featured guide. Once some suitable screenshots are included I would support its promotion. GarrettTalk 18:17, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
  2. Per Garrett. Also, this is very nit-picky, but it has redlinks on the guide's main page. --Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
Undecided
  1. Dukeruckley (talk · contribs)
Comments
  • There needs to be some pictures on the walkthrough page if at all possible. I figure it can be tough to find images for an arcade game. There's a bit of whitspace (at least on 1280x800 resolution) next to both tables on that page. Also, I wonder if it's possible to add a bit more information on the "home versions" page to clean up some of the white space there too? Otherwise the guide is very well written. I'll stick myself on undecided until I hear some other comments (mine are a bit nitpicky).--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 07:53, 27 May 2008 (CDT)
    • This game is supported by MAME, so taking screenshots is not a problem. GarrettTalk 18:17, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

Metroid Prime: Hunters[edit]

Metroid Prime: Hunters
Nominated on 18:03, 5 May 2008 (CDT) (2/4/0)
Support
  1. This is very comprehensive and doesn't seem to have errors in it. The Main page and the ToC is well-written and updated. Totlmstr 18:03, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
  2. I put everything into this guide, I definitely want to see it promoted.Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (CDT)
Oppose
  1. There are no images in the walkthrough whatsoever, which is a requirement for a featured guide. Also, looking through the walkthrough I could understand it, but it needs to go more in-depth in all the areas, and optional expansions should go into a {{sidebar}} entry to denote that it is optional and also make it stand out a bit more. A few other things I noticed is that it makes no use of the control images in the walkthrough (the control selector template can allow them to toggle to their preferred method of playing) and that there is no special marking of rare scans that you cannot come back later and get. I could probably find a few more things, but that covers it pretty well for the moment. --Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
  2. In addition to all of Skizzerz comments, which I agree with, there are a number of pages that need to be merged into one page. Specifically, most of the pages at the bottom of the TOC should be merged into one page named according to the header of that column. Procyon (Talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
  3. I'm very impressed with the guide! However, I have to agree with the above two, especially about the images. --DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 21:31, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
  4. Yeah it's an awesome guide, and it's also been blogged about! It just needs some merging (seems to be the current focus), and what I've seen, minor revisions (proof reading from as many people as possible plus things like footer navs). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyhandle (talkcontribs) .
Undecided
Comments
  • So, instead of having X list here and there, there should be one good list, such as the Weapons? So, it's still young for it to be a featured guide. After reading, you can delete. Totlmstr 21:56, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
    • Yes, keep one good list all in one location. You can link to it from elsewhere, but having one list is not only easier to update, but it requires less load time and searching for the reader. --Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
      • About the images...what am I supposed to do for this and other DS guides? Theres no realistic way to get screens for the walkthrough. Wouldn't that mean that no DS game can realistically become a featured guide?:-P Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (CDT)

The Legend of Zelda[edit]

The Legend of Zelda
Nominated on 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (2/2/3)
Support
  1. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. --Naturally :) Thanks NMH. Procyon 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Sigma 7 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. najzereT 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Undecided
  1. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 08:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. --DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 17:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. --|Superpowered Mario(Talk | Contribs) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments
  • The guide is complete, and I've personally used it to complete the first run of the game. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Had a quick look through the guide, and I noticed one thing in particular. On the featured guide page (the one which tells you about what featured guides need or whatever) it says that each page must have 2+ images. All of the "section" areas that I've looked through only have one map at the top. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this, but I guess some image galleries at the bottom of the pages to show some of the quests might work. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 08:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm... that's actually a good point :/ I suppose screenshots of boss fights would suffice for the dungeons. Not sure about the overworld sections though... Procyon 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Before I leave for my vacation, I thought I'd jump in here... Procyon, I think you're right that the dungeon pages could use a screenshot of the boss battle or maybe a sprite of the boss. Another possibility is to have a screenshot of Link grabbing the triforce or special item (boomerang, etc). This could go for the overworld as well. An image showing Link opening a special cave or stairwell could be helpful to show exactly where something is. It's a very interesting layout! The only other thing is I'm not too keen on the bullet point dungeon walkthroughs; I tend to prefer prose. In this case, though, it seems to work, especially because of the simplicity of the game. I'll put myself under undecided because of this and the images. I give permission to anyone to move me to support once the images are uploaded, since I won't be here to do it myself.--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 17:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The guide looks complete, but I haven't verified the contents since the second quest is a bit more difficult. --Sigma 7 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I did a deeper check, and found some specific problems with the guide as it stands. These are now included on the todo list at Talk:The Legend of Zelda. --Sigma 7 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Some parts of the guide, such as missing footer navs and no control images make me automatically oppose this nomination. Also, much of the way the guide is laid out is questionable, as featured guides also serve as an example for how to make guides in the future. As mentioned before, using table cells as headers for on-image rows and columns is not a good idea. The current style for room-by-room walkthroughs is to have separate sections for each room with a screenshot, as in Eggerland or Hinotori Houou Hen. Additionally, I don't think the use of lists for walkthroughs should be encouraged. There is also an inconsistency in the format of certain pages like items and enemies, where one is in a table, and one is in a list. All the information seems to be there, so if the layout is updated I'd be more likely to support. - najzereT 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a lot of Najzere's points are well taken. However, I don't think the room-by-room screenshot approach would work very well in this case. Most of the rooms are wide open combat arenas that can be cleared in a matter of seconds, so there's no reason to hold the reader's hand too tightly. The list approach should probably be replaced in favor of a more paragraph friendly format, just as was done with The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. In fact, that is probably the best model of all for this guide. But I'm plowing ahead with newer guides, so I'd prefer to leave the revamping up to others. Procyon 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The guide is properly set up, but it is a little shaky to follow. Text alone isn't much of a guide unless it is backed up with a good image. If you look at the guide, it's only got images up to a point. The rest is text, and you can't exactly tell where or what the guide refers to without a screenshot. If the guide looked more like LTTP, that would make it perfect. --|Superpowered Mario(Talk | Contribs) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I have to strongly disagree; LTTP looks like a jumbled mess with all those images. Of course pictures are great for helping readers understand a guide, but only in moderation. It can be overdone, especially as it has been noted above that even one screenshot per room on this guide would be too much. I think we're all aware that you like to see lots and lots of images on guide pages, to the point where you've been asked to stop, but a featured guide shouldn't have images just for images' sake – they should be used to show complicated or obscure things from the game that would be otherwise hard to explain with just written text. - najzereT 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
          • You have a very good point there. They should mark the important things needed to progress. I'm staying neutral for now (and I'll cut back on the useless images). --|Superpowered Mario(Talk | Contribs) 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, Naj, you think LTTP is too cluttered? I didn't know you felt that way. You might be the first person I've heard express that opinion, not that I have any problem with that. I tried to be as selective as I possibly could with the pictures that were uploaded to that guide. What changes to LTTP would you propose? Procyon 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • None, to be honest. I'm fine with legacy guides being featured or guides that have consensus I don't agree with. On the LTTP guide there are images floated to the side by themselves, thumbnails with no size set and thumbnails with all sorts of different sizes. There are also many images overlapping headings and running into lower images, pushing them over. A lot of the images are exactly the type of thing a guide needs, such as maps and spots showing secret locations. Others are unnecessary like ones captioned with "Link faces an angry guard." and such. The guide was approved during its nomination, so I have absolutely no issue with it being featured. I would just like to lend my opinion on images to future nominations. - najzereT 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Jr.[edit]

Donkey Kong Jr.
Nominated on 13:41, 29 May, 2009 (UTC) (2/1/2)
Support
  1. It looked very much like Donkey Kong (which was a featured guide) --Chalkwriter 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Procyon 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Undecided
  1. Sigma 7 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. najzereT 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. --DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments
  • I must say, the guide looks OK as far as layout goes. I haven't read through much of the text or anything though. I also spotted that IE Wikipedia template problem on the front page but so far that's the only problem I spotted. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure on this one... A few things seem to be missing, for example, scoring inforormation or details on some of the versions. Speaking of which, I'm not sure that the Donkey Kong guide qualified as featured either, but it's already tagged as such; it was also missing information about scoring, as well as details on when levels appear and the kill stage (two of which have just been added.) --Sigma 7 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Surprisingly, I'm opposing this for two reasons. 1) We already have a classic arcade gaming era game on the featured list (namely Donkey Kong), so having a second Donkey Kong arcade game on the featured list might be redundant, and 2) If we were going to add another classic arcade game to the list, I would rather see Pac-Man get the nod, as it features much more technical information about the game, including a break-down of the ghost AI. Procyon 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Proc, I don't think we should limit our Featured Guides because of other guides that are already there as long as it meets the requirements. If that means we have an over-representation of arcade games, so be it. Now, I don't like bullet lists for walkthroughs, so until that's changed, I'm under undecided.--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The guide looks pretty good, and I'd support if the walkthrough went away from a list format and there was more depth to the version differences on some of the systems. Just from looking at the screenshots, some of the games don't look quite the same, so I'd like to know if there are any gameplay differences. If the walkthrough can't be used for all the alternate versions, that should be noted. If there are no differences, just let me know, because it's basically my only concern. - najzereT 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a rationale for the bulleted approach (or at least, I have a rationale, although maybe not everyone will agree with me.) To me, one of the biggest problems with text FAQs and walkthroughs is when the information is compiled into a large paragraph. It forces you to scan every sentence in the paragraph in order to locate the piece of information that you're seeking. By breaking that information up into bite sized segments, you can quickly scan the first sentence of each bullet, and determine if that is in fact the piece of information you're looking for, or if it would be quicker to simply move on to the next bullet. That's just my thoughts. I am in no way married to the format of that Walkthrough. And I still think that there are better candidates for a featured guide. Procyon 17:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Following that rationale, at least use numbered lists so people can keep track of what step number they are on (its also easier to communicate to others which part of the guide is being discussed). But I agree, things should be expanded where possible (this requires peer review). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dogz and Catz[edit]

Dogz and Catz
Nominated on 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (1/1/2)
Support
  1. Guide is pretty much finished with plenty of images and... um... stuff. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. najzereT 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Undecided
  1. The focus on one version over the other seems skewed. --Zaiqukaj 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. I haven't proofread it all yet. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 07:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments
  • The guide does look like it covers everything it can but 2 things seem missing. It would be nice to have a page listing/displaying the different breeds. Do different breeds have different stats or personalities (I could not tell if personality was random or based on breed)? Some basic advice for each personality/breed may be helpful and the only thing I can find missing for the walkthrough aspect. If the Catz version is similar enough to be the same guide then it needs some attention. Are we 100% sure both versions have the same tricks and items? The earlier Catz and Dogz games (puffy ball versions) were basically the same games with swapped out graphics (dog gets a bone and cat gets a fish). If we can clarify what the differences are then I would probably convert towards support. --Zaiqukaj 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can probably find out what the breeds in Catz are but I cannot find the game, so I won't be able to find out differences with personalities or anything. Infact, all personalities really mean in the game anyway is if some are easier to train or don't get dirty so fast. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well if we define the little note you told me somewhere then that sould be enough. I'll see if I can find any copies of Catz at my local stores. The petz games tend to be on sale. --Zaiqukaj 13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I've added the breeds (not entirely sure about the Burmese) and it says briefly about personality on the game page, though I'm not sure this is enough. I'd take a gander that Maine Coons get dirty quickly if that's any use. --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The biggest issues I have with this guide are the overuse of images and the informal writing style. Not every single action taken in the game needs an image, and having them artificially lengthens the pages, creating large amounts of whitespace throughout the guide. By informal writing, I mean slang and overuse of exclamation marks. These two things give the guide a "sloppy" appearance that I wouldn't approve of showing up on the main page. Other things are the use of many non-standard colors in table headers, gratuitous bolding of some words (and not even consistently throughout the guide), headings and pages not in sentence case and plenty of spelling/grammar issues. I don't have a problem with the images being only of dogs, since it appears both games are the same. (Of course mixing in some cats would be great.) - najzereT 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What exactly do you mean by "slang"? --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 07:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've read through four of the pages and I see nothing wrong with the writing style. Everything looks fine to me, although the sparseness of the text is a little daunting at first when I'm trying to judge this as a featured guide. However, given the nature of the game and how I've never played it, perhaps it is as simplistic as the guide makes it out to be. I can see that the images illustrate key points (great for those of us who don't own the game), and additional ones use the gallery to minimize spacing issues. I use a 1440x900 resolution and although there is a lot of white space, I don't think that's an issue because the layout is completed. Great job Melon. Hopefully I can be of some help. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 07:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • By slang I meant informal, drivel-ish wording, however I got this impression from the top of the first page I looked at ("give your pet that modern look!"), and having read through the entire walkthrough now, I see there are only a couple isolated places where that happens. I can live with that, as bits of flair make the guide more interesting, but the 5+ exclamation marks per page is excessive in my opinion. - najzereT 18:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The 7th Guest[edit]

The 7th Guest
Nominated on 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (2/0/2)
Support
  1. Trevman 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. najzereT 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Undecided
  1. Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Sigma 7 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments
  • The guide details everything to walk a player through installing to completion. Puzzles are documented with solutions shown on in-game screenshots where possible, otherwise the moves a player needs to make are documented. --Trevman 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks pretty damn good, but the first thing I'd do is reduce the sizes of the pictures, if possible. You may want to consider uploading them as PNGs too, as they're the best compression-to-quality types aside from SVGs (which can't be made using Paint). Aside from that though, it meets all criteria for a featured guide. Aside from the whole "at least two pictures per page" kind of thing but I understand that rule is sometimes broken, as is the case with my BSM weapons page. --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I had mentioned the "1 picture per page" and "picture size" in the talk page http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_7th_Guest - Trevman 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not reupload as PNG. The images are in the optimal file format as they are. — najzereT 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the guide, but I do have comments:
    • The 7th Guest/Telescope Puzzle will look better if the path was traced using a vector image editor, such as Inkscape. Alternatively, you could run a flood fill on the path after blocking off the ends with a color.
    • The 7th Guest/Floor Puzzle doesn't seem to be described right. If I follow the image, it doesn't look like that I'm stepping on a purple tile every third step, even if it is the correct solution. In addition, I think I see a shorter route but can't be sure myself since I don't have the game.
    • The 7th Guest/Microscope Puzzle is dependent on the Ataxx guide. There is a strategy for that game, but it doesn't seem to be written down in the same detail as Chess; but for that game, it's not likely that a complex guide is necessary; just general tricks that work against AI players.
    • The 7th Guest/Painting Puzzle is a variation of the Lights out puzzle. Some of the tricky problems that may crop up are ones where there is a single bad cell; as such, it could use solutions involving changing one cell without disrupting others. I found three situations so far, which cover the most situations.
    • In all the pages, the images seem to be a little too large; it seems too large even on a browser size of 1280x960. In particular, you could crop the sides of some of them to give a square shape rather than rectangular. You can't do much with some of them. \ (For reference, my current screen resolution is 2048x1152, and I prefer having two separate windows side-by-side.)
  • In any case, it's almost there. --Sigma 7 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As mentioned by others, something needs to be done with the large images. Thumbnails are our standard, though they preclude an easy, "one look" for a solution, as they would need to be clicked for the full image. If hints were added, the smaller pictures would be anti-spoiler though, which would be nice. The whole format of the guide (one puzzle per page) may need to be changed once the images are figured out. Side note: if puzzles were combined on pages, you'd have your "two images per page" criterion met! :P — najzereT 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • An alternate format which puts the images into thumbnails can be seen here. Although there are many sections on the page, it's still not all that long, so what do you guys think of using it as a single walkthrough page? — najzereT 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I like the single page walkthrough better, especially given how little text is needed for most of the puzzles. I'm not sure how people playing the game would feel about loading up one page that has all of the solutions on it, though. --~Vizeroth · (c)~-- 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think a big page is much of an issue. Theres a ToC which allows you to find what you need, the pics are thumbnails so take little if any loading (even 56k could cope with the page) and the thumbnails make it easy to identify the puzzle your looking for (and occasionally prove as a hint - before being expanded to show the full solution). It is also not much difference in length when compared to pages in MapleStory - Trevman 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I wasn't referring to the size of the page so much as the fact that the solution to every puzzle in the game was on it.--~Vizeroth · (c)~-- 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the above points seem to have been addressed, and I've gone through the guide from a copyedit/wikification standpoint, so I'd say it looks pretty good now. — najzereT 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Simon the Sorcerer[edit]

Simon the Sorcerer
Nominated on 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (1/1/0)
Support
  1. Trevman 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. najzereT 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Undecided
Comments

Guide complete with more than 2 pics per page, easy to follow layout and compatible with different resolutions. - Trevman 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Some of the red links on the front page should be fixed, such as the series category, and the dev/publisher. The ToC also needs a minor cleanup (no appendices). -- Prod (Talk) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The guide is complete in that it gives the walthrough, but featured guides need to go above and beyond. The level descriptions don't seem comprehensive, as there is no discussion of alternative methods or other actions that don't necessarily pertain to moving forward in the game. There is also little information on the overall context of the actions to the main story. Additionally, there is an empty Appendices section in the table of contents and none of the images are marked up in any way showing where the player should go or what item they should interact with. This is definitely a level four guide, but I don't think it's been fleshed out enough to attain featured status. — najzereT 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Luigi's Mansion[edit]

Luigi's Mansion
Nominated on 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (4/2/1)
Support
  1. --Moydow T · C · Boxes 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. --Imjon 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. --E-123Wario54The Temple of TalkFFI black mage (8-bit).gif 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. Trevman 18:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 01:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. DrBob (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Undecided
  1. Skizzerz 06:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments

Well, I think it's done, but if anyone can suggest any changes, go ahead. Moydow T · C · Boxes 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  • It looks complete to me! Great job, Moydow. :) -- Imjon 15:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The guide looks great. I still never finished Luigi's Mansion, and as all those hallways and doors are so confusing, this guide explains it all perfectly. Nice work. =D --E-123Wario54The Temple of TalkFFI black mage (8-bit).gif 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am opposing this until some miscellaneous additions are added. Don't get me wrong, the walkthrough is complete; it just looks empty. I think the Getting Started section needs info on how to suck up ghosts, in case people don't learn the tutorial or skip it (if possible) or continue playing the game a couple of months after they start it, etc. The walkthrough could use maps, and additional pictures (especially of the bosses). Although I enjoy supporting to-be featured guides, those who support this should begin a critical analysis of the walkthrough from a gamer's point of view, rather than an editor. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 01:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Duly noted. While it's not possible to skip the tutorial, I suppose that's the purpose of a Getting Started page. Maps are hard to come by, the most I could do there is try to draw some on some type of photo editor. I'll see what I can do. Moydow T · C · Boxes 01:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Remember to check online in case someone already has one. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 02:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
        • If you don't find any that are suitable, I can create some and upload them. Just let me know on my talk page. Placing myself as undecided until I get a chance to read over the entire thing to search for confusing bits. --Skizzerz 06:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm with NMH here. The walkthrough needs more images and maps. I see some of the ghost images are missing. The infobox says the game's in the Mario series, but it's missing the {{Mario}} box (and is missing from the {{Mario}} box). It's a good, complete guide, but I think it needs more pizazz in the pages to be featured. :-) (I'm not back yet; I've got exams, and I'm just passing through.). --DrBob (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added the {{Mario}} template. Hopefully, Skizzerz can do those maps. Meanwhile, I'm looking out for any good images I can use to add to the guide. I'll do as much as possible to improve the guide and implement any other suggestions. Moydow T · C · Boxes 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the walkthrough needs to include notes about the Hidden Mansion. I can see that Chauncey's strategy lacks the note about the PAL version's zig zagging rocking horses. Perhaps there are other things to be noted. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Centipede[edit]

Centipede
Nominated on 07:53, 7 December 2010 (CST) (1/0/1)
Support
  1. Amazing guide with detailed strategies from top players and accompanying images.T.testLP 07:53, 7 December 2010 (CST)
Oppose
Undecided
  1. Moydow T · C 10:35, 7 December 2010 (CST)
Comments

Can anything more be added to Centipede/Home version comparisons? It feels a lot emptier than the rest of the guide. The guide is definitely complete everywhere else though. Moydow T · C 10:35, 7 December 2010 (CST)

Can't really help with that. There isn't much to say about this except significant change in gameplay.T.testLP 06:34, 8 December 2010 (CST)

Super Mario Bros. 2[edit]

Super Mario Bros. 2
Nominated on RodKimble (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC) (6/1/0)
Support
Oppose
  • --RAP (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Undecided
Comments
  • 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)

Castlevania[edit]

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