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

message: The result was to keep. Taric25 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding to this article now. I should be done in a few hours. Taric25 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles such as Final Fantasy VII have lists of locations, and the story section has a  tag, because it is too long. Taric25 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Uh, speedy deletion isn't a vote. It's just a two or three person ordeal My last comment was just that, a comment. TTN 14:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply refactored it to show we reached consensus more easliy to someone browsing the page. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Anyway, since we have reached consensus to keep the article, let us direct our attention to improve its quality. Taric25 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus. Someone placed a speedy deletion tag, you placed a hangon, and someone removed both. That signifies nothing beyond the fact that this doesn't qualify for SD. That is what those two "keep votes" that you added signify, not a consensus. I will place this up for deletion soon for being non-notable, and unreferenceable past the single game and a few trivial sources. TTN 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have consensus that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, just like you said. That's the consensus we reached. If you want to delete the article (non–speedy), then you must reach a new consensus. Thus, hit the [+] at the top of this page and start a new discussion. Taric25 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This article bleeds OR and cruft and apart from verifiability issues, throws a load of of information at the reader that is just not notable enough to be mentioned in a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. This page should either be reduced to a much shorter, well-bodied article on the game's world in general, or merged into the Super Mario RPG article altogether. - Cyrus XIII 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In reply to the WP:30 request

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

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

message: The References section is becoming very quickly encumbered. Per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles § Standard appendices and descriptions I'm going to split it into two sections: Notes and References. Taric25 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably wait until you trim this. Trust me, half of those won't be staying. TTN 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. There were 66 notes, and now there are 44. I made all the citations short and to the point by condensing them together, using the same ref names, and only giving the author, title, date, page/level, and quote. I reduced redundancy by moving the rest of the information and condensing it into the References portion, organized by media and author's name. That one edit literally took me days, but it was worth it! Taric25 06:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*World of.... - I favor this move as it is pretty standard among articles of this kind, and because of the multitude of locations, including some outside the Mushroom Kingdom, this general name is probably most appropriate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Ok, I've got a rough draft on my sandbox of what I think the finished product should look like. I tried to be as concise as I could to improve its chances of passing GA. Because I'm not that familiar with the game, I'm not entirely confident with the "Races" and "Geography" sections. Hopefully we can edit the content while keeping it concise or even trim it further. There are also no citations, mainly because I thought editing the text would be easier without them. If this looks acceptable I'll go through draft, add citations, and copy it over to the actual article. Any input would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that a necessary article? If you cut the geography section down to a little less than half the current section and incorporate any relevant creation and reception information, it easily fits into the main article. That's essentially the definition of undue weight. TTN (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to sound like an a-hole, but it could be argued that every VG article, along with every entertainment based article, is not an necessary article on Wikipedia. It could probably be argued that technology or art articles are not necessary either. Something like that can be very subjective and I don't believe is a valid reason for exclusion. Honestly, I don't care whether it gets merged or not, but this article needs something done with it. Given the amount of sources available on the setting, I'd say it satisfies the notability requirement and could stand on its own. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You went a little too far with that example to have any real point with it. We're talking about merging "sub-topics" to main articles, not merging fully developed games to lists or something. Articles like this really need to step it up or it's just a pointless split only done to make the main article seem more important (though, a quality main article is much more important). The current conception information is half relevant information that would fit in development and half filler and the reception section talks mostly about the graphics (while the graphics are part of the topic, they do not carry the topic). We definitely need information more comparable to World of Final Fantasy VIII. It's not perfect, but it shows what the topic actually needs. TTN (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but could you better clarify what is relevant and what is filler? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Filler is the information just present to add context and the relevant information actually provides true substance. In this case, the relevant information is the technical information, while who produced the games, the list of locations, and the information about the directions (that's more relevant to gameplay than anything else) is filler. Even if we disagree on that point, all of the information could still be split into the main article. TTN (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether it gets merged or not, lets work through this draft, which greatly reduces the amount of text and strips down to more of the important information, like concept and creation and reception information. If it looks like it is still shallow, we should merge, but lets finish trimming this then decide. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess that works for now. Though, I imagine that Taric will put up a tiff unless he has completely changed in regards to his view of this article. TTN (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. If the draft can't be made viable, then I won't oppose a merger. And let's  please not go down that slope; "putting up a tiff" could be said about a lot of us. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this whole notability war that is currently going on is bothersome, and I can't wait till its over. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, any ideas to improve the draft? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would kill the races section and combine anything important with geography. The basic premise should be covered within the character section of the main article (that list really needs to be redirected too). Other than that, sources. TTN (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I'll see what I can do. As I've mention before, I'm not familiar with the game, so I may not combine them that well. Once the text is cleaned up enough, I'll add the sources back in. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Races" section has been integrated into the "Geography" section. Let me know what other ideas you guys have. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks much better, much more streamlined, could be a GA like World of Final Fantasy VIII. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think it could use a good copy edit from someone who played the game. Some parts of it don't flow that well and I'm still a bit unsure of how accurate my descriptions of the geography were. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Any ideas you guys have, go ahead make the changes directly in my sandbox. Aside from citations, I think I've taken it as far as I can. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, the geography section should be about two paragraphs, and give an overview rather than a explanation of it. Though, it works for getting   rid of the current mess. This really still is just giving unnecessary weight to a minor topic. If we take the two paragraphs that should be there, apply them to the main article, and merge the rest of the minor stuff, it fits in just fine. TTN (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, sometimes I look at it and think it can stand on it's own. But other times, I think merging the content could get the game article to FA. I'm still on the fence, but would like to get the copy editing of the draft finished first before deciding. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Was bold and added the draft. I must say it's starting to look like acceptable material. The Prince (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I guess we should try to add the citations back in. I'm a bit busy with work, and FACs for Wii Sports and Mana (series) right now. So if someone wants to start that I'll help out as soon as I can. Any other copy edit ideas are of course still welcome and requested. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help out. But I'd like to say one thing about adding the citations back in: we should try to cut as many of the large quotes that came with them as possible. It will look a lot neater without them, and to be honest, I they were quite redundant. PS: Good luck on the FACs. The Prince (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have seen the reception sections true size, it's pretty damn small without the "best graphics" references, I think that would lean this strongly toward a merger, yes? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer to the consensus here. This is starting to become a white whale of obsession for me. :-P I've spent a lot of time and effort on this article and want to make it work, but if doesn't then it doesn't. At this point, the article has got my head spinning in such circles that I feel I have no clear idea what to do with it. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just thinking at this point that if we put this article and the other Mario RPG sub articles into the main article, we could make an expansive high quality FA and not a few articles that have to really stretch to meet the requirements. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: So what's the final decision? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could vote or something; I applaud your work on this Guy, and I think that this should be merged to the main Super Mario RPG article and use it to polish the main article for FA. I think the other Mario RPG sub articles should probably be merged too, but that's a somewhat separate point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we don't get more feedback from others we might as well merge. TTN was calling for a merger a long time ago and I'm sure would still have that stance. You're in favor of merging, and I'm on the fence. Though I can't argue that merging it into the main article could easily get it up FA. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that User:Taric25 would probably object if he were still around. FightingStreet (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's finish this up

message: The 1UP and the two EGM links seem to be broken. They lead to the same page on 1UP.com and the quoted sentences appear nowhere there. FightingStreet (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? FightingStreet (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was because this was formatted a different way than other VG articles. Because it has gone through a lot of copy editing the citations got a little funky. Though the point doesn't matter much because it looks like this will be merged into Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (Guyinblack25 talk 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1UP and EGM links 

message: This GA was failed because:
*There's a lack of inline cites throughout most of the article.
*The lead isn't in compliance with WP:LEAD
*There are several redundancies you may want to remove.
The main thing is the inline cites. When you've corrected these, you can resubmit at WP:GAN. If you feel this review was in error, you can bring it to WP:GAR. Cheers, Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failed

message: This article didn't manage to reach Good Article status. Doesn't this show that it should be merged into the main Super Mario RPG article? Kariteh (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was failed because, after a very necessary full rewrite and trim, the references for the article were not added back in, and no one has put them back to this point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Judge points out, according to the GAN above it did not fail because it was a poor article, only poorly written (redundancies and incomplete lead) and poorly cited. I should have some time this week to tackle the citations, but honestly, I'm still on the fence about whether it should be merged. I guess see if it can pass GA after I'm done with it (which is months overdue). (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The status of this article