| 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 :~(
- 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)
- 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)
|
