Talk:Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus, defaults to keep.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Main Website

Considering that the link to the main webpage is a .tk link that somes times bounces to adsites might it be better to link to http://blazefire.mooglecavern.com/sekrit/mween/ the sites full homepage address. Micrll 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a link to Blaze's website on a page I made for another of his games, Sonic: The Fated Hour. Assuming that it's still around, you can get it there. As for me, I ought to go to bed. --Luigifan 01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the website is www.blazefire.tk. Now you know! And, hey; check out his progress on Sonic: The Fated Hour while you're there!

[edit] Fangame?

Um, why is this fangame lumped with Nintendo's (and phillip's) other, real games? Should there be a separate section for fangames instead of putting it with the REAL, LICENSED Mario games?

Other fangames exist in templates for other game series. As I recall, Zelda Classic was listed with Zelda games, and Metroid Prime 2D was listed with the Metroid games. I do feel a bit selfish it being there, but Mario Forever was added to the template before my game, and my game was originally added to the template without my knowledge. BlazeHedgehog 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Where are the secret levels?

As Blaze kindly pointed out to me, you have to play on October 31st to get to Stages 8 and 9, December 25th to acess Stages 10 and 11, and April 1st to get to Stage 12. --Luigifan 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article contains some points that don't seem to be WP:NPOV. The game was created by aspiring game designer is an example. --Zeno McDohl 23:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

....do you know what "aspiring" means? 24.20.237.11 04:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've looked over most of this article and can't find anything that's NPOV. unless there are better examples, i say that the npov label should be removed from the article. Corbo 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I can't find anything that's NPOV. Can anyone give more specifics? I don't understand why "The game was created by aspiring game designer" could be considered NPOV. Is there controversy over who created the game? --Polkapunk 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is, it's the first I've heard of it. BlazeHedgehog 09:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the page still contains some POV statements, or perhaps WP:AWW. As I mentioned already, "aspiring" isn't needed. Also the statement about It is very rare for a fangame to be nominated for that award, and even rarer for one to win it seems to be a POV too. It's not even cited. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If the problems you have with the article are that small, why didn't you remove them instead of simply slapping a header on the page? BlazeHedgehog 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I want to reach a consensus, and not start a revert war. Simple. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the contested sentence (It is very rare for a fangame...). If anyone has a link that would prove it true, feel free to add it back in. I still don't understand what the problem is with the word Aspiring. Please explain your problem with it. Aspiring game designer literally means someone who is trying to become a game designer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polkapunk (talk • contribs).
I know what aspiring means. As I said, it can be considered either a POV or a weasel word. More likely a weasel word. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how aspiring is a weasel word. I honestly don't understand. --Polkapunk 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Zeno is yet to explain how aspiring is a weasel word, I'm just going to remove it. Since Blaze has already created a video game, he can validly be called a game designer, even if the game was not commercial. --Polkapunk 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Quote Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable is exactly how "aspiring" was used. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I know what a weasel word is. I do not understand how the word aspiring is a weasel word. Please explain how aspiring could possibly "give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable." How is it giving the illusion of authority? All the word aspiring was doing was saying that this guy wants to be a game developer. How does that assert authority? --Polkapunk 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Aspiring" implies "on the rise" as well. IE, it can also be asserting that he will do well, not necessarily that he wants to do well. --Wafulz 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing stages

Seeing as I'd prefer to avoid a revert war, I should explain why a list of stages doesn't belong. You've argued that lots of articles have lists of their stages. In short, they shouldn't have this- there's a fine line between creating an article about a game and creating a guide to the game, and listing stages falls into the "guide" area. You should take a look at the following articles as examples, seeing as they're the most appropriate:

Even non-Mario games don't list stages:

I hope you see my point here. --Wafulz 17:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Big hairy deal. I can cite just as many games that do infact list the stages. For example, nearly all of the Sonic the Hedgehog series. The Earthworm Jim series. Jazz Jackrabbit. And, even though not a part of the Mario 64 article, a listing of stages makes an appearance in the article for Super Mario Sunshine. BlazeHedgehog 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is that they should not be there. In particular, take a look at the list of example video game articles. If anything, you should be emulating articles that have made featured article/good article status, and not articles that haven't made that status. Even in the video game wikiproject, it says A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. People who do not play the game don't need to know the names and contents of every stage- it serves an incredibly trivial and non-educational purpose. --Wafulz 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And how does knowing what levels are in the game make it unsuitable for people who haven't played it, precisely? I mean, this is an encyclopedia, yes? Surely an encyclopedia (hypothetically, of course, because Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia in the world who would even dare think of including stuff like this) would include information about nearly ever aspect of a game, including, at the very least, what the game contains. You'll take notice that for a majority of the "Featured Articles" for specific videogames don't even have individual levels with actual names to reference. The only games that have featured articles WITH levels that have physical names assigned to them are Super Mario 64 and Doom. Everything else is either seperated by storyline chapters rather than level names (Halo, Half-Life 2), have simple numbers instead of names (Donkey Kong, 3D Monster Maze), or are physical locations in a consistent game world that are visited and re-visited repeatedly over time (almost everything else). Listing the stages for this article does not hurt anything as the stages are not over-numerous (unlike an article for say, Yoshi's Island, which would need to list roughly 48 stage names in all) and I find that there is no real reason for them to get removed. BlazeHedgehog 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually there are several other online encyclopedias for video games. Listing the stages just doesn't add anything to the article- it is analogous to adding the names of different chapters to an article about a novel, and is really just article fluff. I don't see why you're ignoring the fact that Super Mario 64 and Doom don't list their levels though. If they're the only available examples and they are featured as well, it's probably recommended to follow them. There are also other articles (with stages) that have reached good article status that can be used as examples, such as Super Mario Bros., Super Princess Peach, Star Fox 64. --Wafulz 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see what your point is. It's the old addage: If somebody jumped off a cliff, would you jump off with them? Even the good kids smoke cigarettes every once and a while; but I've never smoked in my life. I mean, dig how webster defines a encyclopedia: "a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." - And to me, listing stage names falls under that criteria. If that doesn't belong on wikipedia, then they should REALLY stop calling it an encyclopedia, don't you think? BlazeHedgehog 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You've made a really bad false analogy there, considering that the adage deals with blindly following someone as opposed to following a determined community concensus. Also, why are you using Webster's definition? Wikipedia has its own definitions and its own policies, which in this case say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and also not to list trivial information. --Wafulz 03:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but as I said when this was up for AFD, what's trivial to one person might not be trivial to another. "Community consensus" is still following something like a sheep. Seriously. It's a little bit of information. Relax a little bit! BlazeHedgehog 10:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually consensus is a pretty important guideline that all users should follow, as noted in Wikipedia:Consensus. This isn't being sheep- it's reaching a decision together as a group. As it stands, there is really no purpose to having a list of stages in the article. Right now, it only serves as article fluff to make it look like it has more content than it really does. This is not useful information for somebody that has not played the game, and any expansion on it would be in-universe, which would be better off in a gaming wiki. --Wafulz 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"This is not useful information for somebody that has not played the game". Personally, I find this kind of a silly reason. I mean... no article on Wikipedia whatsoever has any use to anyone not interested in the subject matter; so its use to people NOT playing the game isn't really in dispute, now is it? And yes, I know - what I just said is an easy way to basically either discredit the entirety of this site or to validate every single bit of info in it; relevant or not. But it's just how I feel on the matter. H Hog 12:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A good video game article doesn't need a list of stages. It should be about plot, gameplay, characters, reception and so on. RobJ1981 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RobJ1981 really has good points, Blaze. First of all, most the games that you mention that have stages listed actually have prose describing the stage, not just a list of stage titles. I can see how that kind of description could help a casual reader undertstand what the game is like, but a list of stages helps no one, and is not encyclopedic in tone. Second, several of those articles shouldn't have level descriptions anyway (Jazz Jackrabbit in particular) for the same reasons state here. RobJ is actually trying to help this article - articles like this with a lot of unencyclopedic content get deleted. The key here is trying to show with evidence how Blue Twilight is notable an important criteria to keep something on Wikipeda. Anyway, my opinion is to delete the list of stages. Sraan 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what? You guys are right. I totally forgot that the true spirit of Wikipedia is to make every article a dull, lifeless collection of similiar information for every single article. Passionionate writing has no place in the hallowed walls of the Wiki! Toss it. BlazeHedgehog 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that truly is a passionate list of stages. I'm sorry, but it has no place in the article. --PresN 20:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
They're the most passionate list of stages you'll ever see! BlazeHedgehog 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Darn it, PresN, I wanted to make that exact same joke. Sraan 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, hello? Blaze was being sarcastic. He's done that before... haven't you seen him on AFD's? --Luigifan 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, should I have? Anyway, I like sarcasm, and usually pick up on it when it's done well. Sraan 01:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It says on BlazeHedgehog's userpage that he was the one that actually created this game (or played a major role in its creation), doesn't everything that he writes about it therefore qualify as self promotion? Also considering that the article barely scraped through AFD with help from a lot of comments by said user. But yeh, that list of stages needs to go in a big way, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this definitely violates that. Timkovski 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A-HEM... you completely missed the point. Blaze is the one who created the game, which is why it's mentioned on his userpage. So, it's not "self-promotion," it's telling the truth, and giving credit where credit is due. Just because it goes to himself doesn't mean he's not worthy of it. Geez... >_< --Luigifan 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we are all missing each other's point, but what does it matter? We've removed the list of stages. Now those of us who know actual citable facts about the game (of which I am not one) should contribute to the article to prevent it from being nominated as an AFD in the future. It really doesn't matter who made the game as long as the facts can be documented. Sraan 01:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that I did not create this article, but I was notified by the person who did. He asked me to fill in whatever blanks he missed, and I did. BlazeHedgehog 01:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but you're the one who created the game... --Luigifan 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
A list of stages would fail Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability: there exist no reliable, published secondary sources for a list of stages in this game, or virtually any game for that matter. The fangame itself has barely gotten enough attention to constitute an article. --Tristam 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No offense to you personally, Tristam, but posts like that are why I'm really getting tired of Wikipedia. I'm all for rules and guidelines, but the Tome of Wikipedia Guidelines are absolutely insane and completely frusterating for any normal human being to comprehend or be expected to follow. - BlazeHedgehog 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The rule is simple: if multiple reliable, published secondary sources for some subject don't exist, the subject should not have an article. To do otherwise violates Wikipedia's official policy on original research. Original research includes direct observation of the game by the editor, and listings of stages invariably constitute original research. If you don't feel you can abide by official Wikipedia policies, perhaps you would better enjoy GameFAQs or similar websites. However, the rules are in no way unreasonable; I would encourage you to edit articles that operate under official Wikipedia policies and established guidelines. Super Mario World, for example, looks like it could use some help. If you would like a template to work off of, Donkey Kong (video game) is one of the better featured articles at WP:CVG. --Tristam 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Blaze, it's quite simple. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia and not end up having to defend your edits all the time, then stick to the Policies and Guidelines. If you don't like that, then the door is over there. The Kinslayer 12:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa, let's back this short bus up here for a moment. "defend my edits all the time"? In my... what? Year? Two? On Wikipedia - this is the second time I've ever had to "defend" any edits I've made (AFDs aren't really defending edits, they're defending articles), and the last time I had to do this, it was agreed by "the consensus" that the guy I was arguing with was making bad edits and he was banned from editing Wikipedia. I would very much appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth, so to speak. - BlazeHedgehog 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Read what I said again, then read it once more. I said if you don't want to end up having to defend your edits, not that you spend a lot of time defending edits. I think YOU need to stop putting words in MY mouth. The Kinslayer 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Calm down both of you before someone says or does something stupid. This discussion isn't necessary anymore. --Wafulz 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, time to step in. On one hand, people wish to see the stages being described. On the other side, there are people that think a plain list of stages is "teh suck" and has to go. So... I've made a bit of an edit. See the article. Is this a possible solution both parties can agree on? H Hog 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work, H Hog. I did a little work on it myself. Hopefully this is acceptable for everyone. Sraan 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. Slightly reworded the bit about the bosses; after all, as mentioned in my edit comment, the hidden bosses aren't by any means "original creations". H Hog 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I would like to incorporate more references into this article as per its AfD. Andre (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuper_Mario%7E_Blue_Twilight_DX_4f01.html"