MarioWiki:Featured articles/N3/Super Mario 3D World

Super Mario 3D World

Support

1. Supermariofan67 (talk) - This article is very well-written, has no red links, and has a lot of info.
2. pikante (talk) I support 3D World's nomination because I do NOT have the game but I wish I did because it sounds epic and has so many awesome enemies!

Oppose

1. Baby Luigi (talk) The list of enemies, bosses, and objects irk me. I strongly believe that enemies here may need visual representations of themselves, because the average viewer may not know what a Splounder or a Flopter looks like because the enemy is never named in game and it forces viewers to click on a lot of articles until they finally get a visual picture of the character from clicking on the correct article or a name-guess. Besides, other featured articles list their enemies and objects, namely the Donkey Kong Country series articles, an example being Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest. Addutionally, the reception section is half-assed, with no table, no Metacritic score, and some weasel-worded like criticisms, like its second, unsourced paragraph. Also, the gameplay paragraph can be rewritten. Having some enemies from Super Mario World, for example, does not exactly constitute as "elements from Super Mario World making a return". The gameplay section goes to great lengths explaining what makes a return from what previous game, when its priority is to first explain the general gameplay of how Mario functions; there's always first time viewers who may not know prior Mario information so this confuses potential first time readers and forces them to jump all over the wiki to know the full context of games. Therefore, that general gameplay should be talked about first, how the game plays, how Mario works, THEN it should list if those said elements of this game originate from a previous Mario game.
2. TheFlameChomp (talk) I agree with Baby Luigi.
3. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Per both. Other than those major issues, everything else on the article is written nicely. It's just that those major sections are causing me to oppose.
4. Boo4761 (talk) Large amounts of the article are lists. If we change those to what Baby Luigi said, maybe it could be worthy of featured status.
5. Alex95 (talk) The whole article seems very overdone. The enemy list is expansive; other articles just have a simple list of the enemies. And it feels like there are two lists of usable power-ups, with both the transformations and items listing the same power-ups. The article has a lot of information, yes, but there is such a thing as too much information. In other words, per Baby Luigi.
6. PinkYoshiFan (talk) My new oppose is that the tables make it super long, which is annoying and per Baby Luigi
7. Pikante (talk) Although this game sounds cool, its goomba mask and chargin' chucks are lame so it shouldn't win.

Comments

1. When making a table of the enemies and the items (Baseball, Goomba Mask, Propeller Box etc), should we only list the first level they appear in? I'm thinking of making a table or two during next week. A51 Trooper (talk)

We don't necessarily need to list the level at all, but if we gotta list the level, then yes, only the first level appearance is required. Ray Trace^(T|C) 16:18, 5 March 2017 (EST)

I just made tables for bosses and supporting cast. They can be seen in my sandbox. Do they look correct? If so, I will put it in the article. --Super Mario Fan ⁶⁷ (T•C•S) 23:12, 9 March 2017 (EST)

@PinkYoshiFan (talk) The construction template was added after this feature nomination started. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

Technically, articles shouldn't even have to be under construction when it is nominated to be featured so he does have a point. Ray Trace^(T|C) 13:40, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

Now that you put it like that, I understand how he does have a point. I originally thought that he was opposing because he thought that the template was there before the article was nominated. However, does his vote mean anything anymore now that the template has been removed? --TheFlameChomp (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

The template appears to have been added when a user was in the process of making a table. Now that the table is no longer under construction, there is no reason for the template. --Super Mario Fan ⁶⁷ (T•C•S) 21:31, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Oh, OK, that makes more sense now. I think that is what I believed the template was added for when I added the comment in the first place. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

The template was removed so I removed the oppose PinkYoshiFan (talk)

Your new oppose, aside from perring me, is very ridiculous. So what if the tables make the article super long? If they're informative, comprehensive, and useful, then who cares? Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:06, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

Oh, and same thing with you Alex. I don't see what's wrong with including a table. This isn't the most comprehensive page on the wiki, not by far, and what's wrong with the table aside from what you think is "too much information". Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:07, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

Compare SM3DW's article with ones Super Mario 64's or Super Mario 3D Land's. The enemies are listed by bullets. There isn't any need to go into this much info with 3D World's when everything else uses the simple bullets. Sure, tables look nice, but being consistent is nice, too. Unless there's a bestiary in game that describes what each enemy is an I don't know about it, the table isn't needed. 18:13, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

But compare that to games that are currently featured like Yoshi's Island DS, or Donkey Kong Country, where information like that is in tables. The reason they're in tables is so the reader can easily identify what the enemy is, rather than just playing pot luck by clicking randomly until they get to the desired page. Yoshi876 (talk)

What do you think of this? I was able to make the tables take up less space. I also removed the duplicate table for power ups. --Super Mario Fan ⁶⁷ (T•C•S) 20:39, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

@Pikante (talk) I don't think you can support and oppose at the same time. Also, your reasons are about the game itself and not the article. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (EDT)