Talk:Super Mario Odyssey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Nineteenth? Fifteenth?

By what measure are we determining "It will be the fifteenth title overall"? According to the list provided in Super Mario, these are the possibilities:

  • 30th, counting all games in the list
  • 21st, counting original games only
  • 18th, counting original games without spinoffs, such as New SMB and Super Mario Maker
  • 13th, counting original games without spinoffs and handheld games.

I've seen the number edited to 19th and 15th but I don't know where these numbers are coming from. It seems best to only use the numbers for all games in the series or original games only. I think consensus on this is important given the variety of possibilities. In the meantime, I'm using the catch-all 30th. MichaelIvan 09:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I wish we'd remove the numbering altogether. It's not like it matters. There's no continuity. They don't name them Supee Mario 27 either, and it just leads to the questions and arguments like this... Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless reliable sources (or official sources) call it the nth game, us deciding how to number it is OR. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with both. The series has far too many games to objectively call it the *th game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This numbering convention doesn't add anything. It doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic. It doesn't matter to the general reader if a game is the 8th or the 9th. It's simpler to just say a game is part of the Super Mario series. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Games order

This is a highly debatable situation. As I was the one who started numbering them properly according to what Wikipedia considers a main Super Mario game, I determined it as the nineteenth installment, and I'll tell you how I did it. We should be aware of something, the numbering of these series is a huge mess, there are at least several variations according to various sources and can change according to the region. Let's see:

According to Nintendo's promotional materials, the order for North America and Europe would be this:

Extended content
  1. Super Mario Bros.
  2. Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA)
  3. Super Mario Land (excluded from the 25th anniversary)
  4. Super Mario Bros. 3
  5. Super Mario World
  6. Super Mario Land 2 (excluded from the 25th anniversary)
  7. Super Mario 64
  8. Super Mario Sunshine
  9. New Super Mario Bros.
  10. Super Mario Galaxy
  11. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
  12. Super Mario Galaxy 2
  13. Super Mario 3D Land
  14. New Super Mario Bros. 2
  15. New Super Mario Bros. U
  16. Super Mario 3D World
  17. Super Mario Odyssey

Taking in consideration the Super Mario Land games that were excluded in the 25 anniversary, Odyssey indeed becomes the fifteenth entry, but the 30th anniversary retconned that so it sticks as the seventeenth entry here. Also note how Nintendo never includes The Lost Levels in promotionals for North America and Europe but does on the Japanese ones, which changes the order to this:

Extended content
  1. Super Mario Bros.
  2. Super Mario Bros. 2 (The Lost Levels)
  3. Super Mario Bros. 3
  4. Super Mario Land (excluded from the 25th anniversary)
  5. Super Mario World
  6. Super Mario USA
  7. Super Mario Land 2 (excluded from the 25th anniversary)
  8. Super Mario 64
  9. Super Mario Sunshine
  10. New Super Mario Bros.
  11. Super Mario Galaxy
  12. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
  13. Super Mario Galaxy 2
  14. Super Mario 3D Land
  15. New Super Mario Bros. 2
  16. New Super Mario Bros. U
  17. Super Mario 3D World
  18. Super Mario Odyssey

Oh gosh! now it's the eighteenth entry.

Now, for the "Wikipedia order" that I determined for use on the pages, I merged all the listings above with games that are considered main games by the editors, which brings an entry that is not considered a main game by Nintendo but it does for Shigeru Miyamoto: Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. I should noted that the order has some minor changes according to the region but at some point the lists converge and become one after Super Mario 64.

Extended content

North American/European order:

  1. Super Mario Bros.
  2. Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA)
  3. Super Mario Land
  4. Super Mario Bros. 3
  5. Super Mario World
  6. Super Mario Land 2
  7. Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels (as part of Super Mario All-Stars original release)
  8. Yoshi's Island
  9. Super Mario 64
  10. Super Mario Sunshine
  11. New Super Mario Bros.
  12. Super Mario Galaxy
  13. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
  14. Super Mario Galaxy 2
  15. Super Mario 3D Land
  16. New Super Mario Bros. 2
  17. New Super Mario Bros. U
  18. Super Mario 3D World
  19. Super Mario Odyssey

Japanese order:

  1. Super Mario Bros.
  2. Super Mario Bros. 2 (The Lost Levels)
  3. Super Mario Bros. 3
  4. Super Mario Land
  5. Super Mario World
  6. Super Mario USA
  7. Super Mario Land 2
  8. Yoshi's Island
  9. Super Mario 64
  10. Super Mario Sunshine
  11. New Super Mario Bros.
  12. Super Mario Galaxy
  13. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
  14. Super Mario Galaxy 2
  15. Super Mario 3D Land
  16. New Super Mario Bros. 2
  17. New Super Mario Bros. U
  18. Super Mario 3D World
  19. Super Mario Odyssey

See? in those last two listings, Odyssey ended up as the nineteenth entry. If this results in an even more complicated situation, I think I kinda agree with removing the numbers to avoid further confusion. To finalize, Nintendo doesn't not consider the New Super Mario Bros. games spin-offs, so excluding them would be a huge mistake.

--Byll the Wyll (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the other editors. The numbering is unnecessary. Taking your work into consideration, the continuity of the series is too convoluted and variable, and serves little informational use as a result of that. MichaelIvan 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Your very premise is flawed. "what Wikipedia considers" = WP:OR, thus inadmissible. Go with sources or don't do it at all. You/we can't "decide" to number them. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if all of this is 100% accurate (still debatable), how does it help the majority of readers on the article? An objective list of all Super Mario games listed in order of release date is easy to find, if it ever needs to be known. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Cappy

Can we make a page for him or add him to the disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Probabally the latter for now, per WP:DABRELATED, as "Cappy" lacks independent notability from Super Mario Odyssey. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Zelda shrines clarification

The power moons in the game were compared in one source to the shrines in Breath of the Wild, with no statement of what this actually means. Knowing what kind of gameplay concept is being referenced with "shrines" assumes that the reader of this article has played Breath of the Wild. We do not assume the reader's knowledge. I'm re-adding the clarification tag. Ozdarka (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. As someone who hasn't played Breath of the Wild yet, I agree, I don't entirely understand what the statement is getting at exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Simply adding "the game's version of a dungeon" would fix that, wouldn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If you mean the moons are considered equivalent to objectives located in BotW dungeons (I haven't played either game, I don't know), then you could have added that in instead of removing the request for clarification. Ozdarka (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe? I don't really know enough about either game to confirm or deny. I can only confirm my confusion on the sentence as is. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Well I assumed that if people didn't know what they were, they'd simply check the source for the actual wording. I haven't played BOTW myself either, but I wasn't confused by the statement. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

New "Donk" City

Is "Donk" a reference from Donkey Kong? I would say so because Pauline (from Donkey Kong) is in there. And if it is a reference, should we add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:3977:F1AE:53E1:12C4 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We can only add it if we find an interview or something where Nintendo confirms that it's a reference to DK.--IDVtalk 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and even if they did, I don't know if really needs a whole "The 'Donk' in 'New Donk City' is a reference to 'Donkey Kong' statement in there. I think it's fine how it's currently handled, where it states the bare facts and lets the reader decide if there is a connection:
They wanted a familiar aspect from the series to anchor players in the novel setting, and so chose Pauline, a character who first appeared alongside Mario in Donkey Kong, to be the mayor of the world known as New Donk City.
That seems good enough to me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So what now? Can someone ask them or something? Maybe look it up? 2602:306:374A:8F70:3977:F1AE:53E1:12C4 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That depends on whether or not there is a consensus on whether it is necessary to add. If there is support to add it, it'd be up to you, or whoever wants to add it to the article. Feel free to look for a reliable source that verifies your information. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I mean, isn't it obvious that it is? Street names reference various characters from the DK series, and there is a section of the level that directly references the first DK game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Dissident93, This is true. Additionally, graffiti is sprawled around based on the original artwork of the game. During the "Odyssey, ya see" part of Jump Up Superstar!, the music is a direct reference to the song 25m from the original game. Pauline also does a dance during this part of the song that correlates to her animation in the original game. Le Panini Talk 01:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Rating

https://mynintendonews.com/2017/08/01/super-mario-odyssey-becomes-first-mario-game-to-get-e10-rating/ Is this enough to add a rating to it now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • We don't normally add ratings to any other article. I don't think this is notable enough to be an exception either, it's not like it was rated Teen or Mature or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we don't usually document ratings. I could potentially see adding it down the line, if there's some commentary on from journalists, and maybe some details on what in particular changed it. But without knowing any details, I don't see it being worth making an exception for it either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • MyNintendoNews isn't a reliable source, anyway. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also true. I've seen it be reported from RS's though, so I do think its verifiable though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not according to this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374A:8F70:450B:826:8EF5:F3A1 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I think the reason is important is because since it's rated, we know it's done being programmed. do u get what i mean? Ramesty (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not much of a new development. They mentioned it was almost done as far back as last January. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The important thing is that we know they have two months. One month for producing millions of copies; the next? It's for shipping and preparing for the world wide release of it. Ramesty (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We already knew the game was almost done last January, and we already knew of the game's October 27th release date last June, so the ESRB rating surfacing in August doesn't really tell us anything new here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Cover art

Per this edit, the user meant that the cover art here is technically not what Nintendo is using anymore. This can be seen here, and we should probably update it before release. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. (They must be bending over backwards to not offend anyone?) Yeah we should remove the old one and get the new one in then. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Are u guys going to do it? Ramesty (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I would if I could find (or somebody else link to it here) a clean image of the new art. The one I linked to above is just a picture of the game's retail box itself, which would look cheap here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What about this? Ramesty (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ramesty: It’s good (I just replaced the older cover), but It needs to be smaller. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. my computer wouldn't let me trim it right. Ramesty (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ramesty and Yoshiman6464: I've uploaded a version of the new artwork without labelling at the old file name. It is discouraged in the first place to create new files for images, so if you want to update an image, simply go to the page of the existing file and click "Upload a new version of this file" under the "File history" section of the page, next time. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo's response to leaked footage

I recently heard that there was a Hong Kong YouTuber who got hit with a 3-month ban after streaming the game early. I don't know much about the details, but considering Wikipedia is often interested in news about controversies and such, I have a source here for anyone interested in adding it to this article. I can't do it myself because the article is protected, but I'm pretty sure it's noteworthy enough to be on this article somewhere. 2001:44B8:31BE:2C00:B448:185E:99A8:E9A5 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I mean, it has little to do with the actual game itself. It sounds more related to Nintendo's handling of Youtube culture or something, which I don't know if there's a better article for that or what. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs here. This is more about Nintendo's video policies than anything to do with this game in particular. Is mynintendonews even a reliable source? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It's definitely not, but I think I've seen reliable sources cover it too, so that's probably less of an issue. But yes, if it were to be included, we'd need a different source. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Content regarding Nintendo's unique behavior towards protecting their intellectual property would probably best be included in the Nintendo article anyway, if enough reliable sources can be found. BruzerFox 22:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary

I realized that this article doesn't have a plot summary. Is it necessary to add one now that the game has been released? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not "necessary", but they are encouraged. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably something brief, like at FA Super Mario Galaxy. Its not a story-driven game, but its good to have a brief premise/outline. Surely the coming months will also involve trimming down ridiculously overly detail novelizations of the game's every story point though, that seems unavoidable on popular video game articles on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sonic '06 is also a good example of a simple plot summary. JOEBRO64 19:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I highly doubt this game has enough narrative to fill more than two full paragraphs. The game is centered around finding power moons, not plot. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I know Crash is a GA, but personally, I feel like the 3 sectioned story layout is a bit excessive for such a plot-light game. I think either of the Mario or Sonic titles linked above are a better approach. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

Odyssey is spelled "Odyseey" after the article talks about what games are more superior than Super Mario Odyssey. Thenummygummy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Jump Up, Super Star!

I recently did a Google search of the song "Jump Up Super Star" and I saw it has gotten a decent amount of coverage by various reliable sources. The song was also released as a single and it charted on iTunes. As of this writing, Jump Up, Super Star! is a redirect to this article, but does anyone think the song should have its own article? 72.90.141.137 (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • No, because what could be written about it that wouldn't just fit here? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the song fits in this article at all. It has been featured in 2 trailers for this game, it has charted on the iTunes charts (not on the Billboard charts though), and as I said, it has been covered by several reliable sources. A song and a video game are 2 completely different things (and yes, I know this song was recorded for the game), so I think it needs its own article. 72.90.141.137 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide some sources? It could be possible to do an article, but it would hinge strongly on the sources. Did Rolling Stone do an article on it? Or is it Frank Johnsons Amateur Blog on Music Wordpress, which would not be a reliable source at all... Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The video is what was covered mostly, not the song itself. And outside of that, the fact it debuted as a best seller on iTunes isn't enough to warrant it's own article. You'd need more than that, such as development history of the song and cultural impact outside of sales. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my brief search had a couple RS hits, but it was just a few short "this video exists" articles, not really anything you could write an article around... Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Here are a few sources I found. These are probably enough for an article about the song.

Development - [1] (this source is in Japanese), [2] (this one is in English)

Charting on iTunes - [3], [4]

Localization - [5]

Also, I checked Rolling Stone's website and they never did any reports on it. I hope these sources are still enough for a standalone article. 72.90.141.137 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IGN, Eurogamer, and Famitsu are all definitely reliable sources, and they do go into decent detail about the song too. The iTunes chart, in a general sense, usually isn't used, because per WP:BADCHARTS, we don't usually track single-retailer chart performance. That being said, I think it's rather rare for a song like this to even chart on single-retail charts, so there could be an argument for inclusion there too. Yeah, maybe there could be a good argument for this having its own article... Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd work the content in here first, then see if it merits a split. JOEBRO64 20:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, or in a WP:DRAFT. If someone just ends up writing a sentence or two in an article and plasters those resumes at the end, it'll still be targeted for deletion pretty quickly. It'd be best to flesh it out all the way as a rough draft first. Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll see how much I could expand it if somebody got started on a draft. The song was also performed live at the Game Awards, so that's another source that would be used. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@72.90.141.137, Sergecross73, and TheJoebro64: Coming back to this, but I've created a draft for the song here. I know Serge works with music-related articles too, so feel free to make adjust anything based on WP:MUSIC guidelines. I think when finished, it would have enough on it to remain as a stub at least. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, looks good so far. Additionally, it looks like the song is getting an official release on the game's soundtrack as well. That's not particularly an argument towards WP:NMUSIC or WP:NSONGS or anything, but it could lead to more overall coverage, and could help the overall perception of the song - that its a notable release, and not just someone making an article for a trivial "Tropical Island track 2" type song. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I added it to the article. The full soundtrack info also belongs on this article too, which I will add. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Change of events, for now I've created a new music subsection, and added most of the info that was going to go on the article there. It's probably best this way, as it's small enough that it doesn't need to be split off. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the recent change of events. The Mario Wiki has a well-written article about this song, so we can probably take whatever information is considered useful from there, put it in our own words and move the draft to the namespace. Does this sound good? 72.90.141.137 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really. The article would just be a stub about why they wrote it, with no information that's not already here and no meaningful reception. JOEBRO64 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe an extra sentence or two can be added, but nothing about the lyrics and where it plays in the game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's something worth adding to the draft. The song was recorded with 17 musicians and it's the first vocal track in the Mario series. 72.90.141.137 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The fact it was the first vocal theme in the series is already in the article. And I'm not sure how helpful listing the number of musicians involved is, but I don't think it hurts either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

A link to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_Mario_franchise_enemies#Bullet_Bill should be added to the mention of the bullet bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.186.119 (talk • contribs) 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only; not the type of edit that semi-protection is meant to prevent. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

GameRankings score

Would it be worth including the GameRankings score for Super Mario Odyssey here? I know WP:VGAGG says we're not supposed to use it for newer games unless it adds value atop Metacritic, but it is the highest-rated game on the site there. JOEBRO64 01:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't give it an exception just because it happens to be #1 on the site by a number of decimal points. Does any third-party source remark on this feat? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm pretty sure Guinness World Records will, since they seem to prefer GameRankings over Metacritic. JOEBRO64 11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Well until they do, it shouldn't be added. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Why is Metacritic more reliable than Gameranking? That doesn't make a bit of sense.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
      • See WP:VGAGG. There were many discussions on it. Basically, MC is the industry standard - analysts and companies place much more value on it - and GR is usually redundant to MC anyways, so little is lost. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

Dunkeys #2 most anticipated game, right next to Mario Odyssey 2 Laggaj (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

i want

TO ADD TO THIS PAGE!!!!! --GG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzelion (talk • contribs) 19:35, November 9, 2017 (UTC)

This page is protected to prevent vandalism and disruptive editing. You can place an edit request here as the edit notice you received when adding this post instructed. Please make sure your edits are in the form of "Please change "X" to "Y". Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Source for Reception Section

Should this review go in the Reception section? It's a bit of an outlier compared to the ones we have now: https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/8/16846618/super-mario-odyssey-year-in-review-ian-dallas Centibyte (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Luigi’s balloon world

Can you edit my changes after I add info to the item??? Woothero (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • It was removed as you added badly written and unsourced content. Balloon World info is already in the article too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes for GA reviewer

I'd like to state my preference for any potential GA reviewer for this article to use {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, or any colour or formatting templates extensively when jotting down their points in the review. This way, my replies to those points, and replies to my replies, can be clearly distinguished between the main point and other main points of the review. I would also like to request that each point be numbered from start to finish in order, with the numbering scheme continuing contiguously through all the sections of the review. This way, I can cite in my edit summaries, in the revision history of the article, which edits pertain to which points of the review. Thanks for your understanding! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 04:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think this is GA ready. The plot and reception sections are a mess. It also seems bizarre that you're nominating with not really being a major contributor. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I anticipate that whoever does the GA review will decide on what needs fixing in the article, and I'll address those points one-by-one. I think it's a bit cynical to say something is not GA worthy before the review itself even begins, let alone before any points in the review are addressed. I'm not sure why it's bizarre for an editor to want to help contribute to making an article better, especially if it's one on a game that they particularly love at the moment. If you have any actual doubts about my capability as an editor, you're welcome to raise them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 16:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It wasnt meant to be taken personally, I have no doubts about your capability as an editor. My point about it being bizarre was merely that usually the primary contributors of writing an article do the nominations, that's all. You haven't done that much with the article, and it doesn't look GA ready - I consider this sort of situation to be out of the ordinary is all. But anyways, if you'd rather randomly decide to reject my concerns in favor of listening to a random to-be-decided reviewer, so be it I guess? Be told now or be told later I suppose, it's up to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Are you criticising the entire GA review process? Because ”listening to a random to-be-decided reviewer“ is literally what GA reviews are, are they not? I’m not the one who made the rules surrounding GA reviews, so I think it’s unfair that I’m taking criticism for it; and it is criticism. You wouldn’t be pointing out in a negative way the fact that I haven’t been a major contributor to the article if you didn’t have a problem with it, and I find it confusing that you say you don’t have a problem with it, but want to explicitly point it out, using “bizzare” to describe it. It’d be best if you made your intentions a bit clearer next time, methinks. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 00:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to have an involved editor be the nominator, but I can see how it would be preferable. PhilipTerryGraham, I think you're overreacting. BruzerFox 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, pretty much this. The degree that you're taking this personally is baffling. This article you haven't even worked on much isn't GA level. No reason for hurt feelings. Yikes. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Serge. A GA review should be used when the nominator feels that article is GA quality or is extremely close to it, and wants the opinion of one or two others to verify that. It should not be used to make someone else list everything that's wrong with it. Quick-failing a GA nomination using a cursory glance is not cynicism. Personally, I would quick-fail this nomination-- there's a lot of obvious issues in the article that can be fixed much faster than someone doing a GA review would have to list out. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to add what the instructions for GA nomination say: "it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources"; It's not just a matter of having the game and really liking it. It is preferred that you be a regular contributor to the subject, not just familiar with it IRL, because the content of the article matters equally. "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." The fact that you asked nobody who regularly contributes to this article before you nominated is in very poor taste. BruzerFox 04:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine, if you're so opposed to me wanting to contribute, I'll back out. Putting words into my mouth and saying that I'm taking it personally, when I don't feel that I'm taking it personally and openly discussing with you the concerns you have about my nomination of this article, is enough to scare me off. Saying that I'm over-reacting, that I have poor taste, and taunting me by saying "no reason for hurt feelings" is absolutely not welcome language in my opinion. I said nothing to attack anybody here, and have done my best to reply and counter criticisms, but if we're gonna descend into this kind of language, I'm opting-out. Have somebody else do the review. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. if this article isn't GA review-ready, why on Earth is it rated B then? Might want to fix that. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we were out-of-line. You're free to contribute however you want; That right on this site doesn't protect you from other editors taking issue with your choices. If other editors feel like you've done wrong, and they're not going out of their way to offend you, immediately deflecting and ignoring their input is just not the right thing to do. We were only trying to help, but rather than engage with us meaningfully, you tried to spin it into a heated argument and assumed bad faith on our part. (Also, just to clarify, plenty of B-class articles are a long distance from being GA-ready; There's usually a big difference between B and GA.) BruzerFox 12:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head exactly again. Exactly all of this. Thomas's comments are spoilt on as well. Phillip, no one said that they didn't want your help. The only objection was that it was too early for a GA nom. That's it. A very simple, basic observation about the articles quality. You're the one that spiraled it out into all this other stuff. I don't understand how your response wasn't closer to "Hm, yeah there are some shortcomings. Lets fix them first." Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Plot length?

@Sergecross73: You tagged the plot section for length problems, but comparing it against the articles of other Mario games of similar significance, such as Super Mario Galaxy, it seems to me like the plot's at about the right length. Is there something I'm missing about this? BruzerFox 17:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not about the length, it's the content. Half of the plot section is focused on the climax of the game and it's fallen into the "plot equals describe cut scenes in minute detail" trap. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup, it was this that I was getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the game (I've played through it), the main plot points are only at the start and the end, and there's no development between those; these two areas of the game are going to get the most weight. I know it might seem that it is overly focused on the end, but given that we're talking about 2-3 levels and the cutscenes around that that involve the moon setting, I think what's there is perfectly fine. --Masem (t) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah there's really no way to even it out across the game without a small chunk of it boiling down to "Mario goes to this kingdom, defeats a boss, then goes to this other kingdom and defeats another boss". I have to agree with Masem here. BruzerFox 19:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there a separate tag for just general improvement for plots then - the prose reads awful. Characters like "Broodals" are mentioned without context or purpose. And there's too much of this "and then Cappy said this" or "and then Peach was grateful. My point is as that stuff like this needed some tightening up... Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I addressed some of those issues; I had originally written the summary last year, and those were not part of what I wrote then. --Masem (t) 20:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_Odyssey/Archive_1&oldid=1137211364"