Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mario role-playing games/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Mario role-playing games

List of Mario role-playing games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Mario role-playing games/archive1

Nominator(s): Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Mario franchise capitalized on the success of the role-playing video game genre in the 1990s, releasing Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and Paper Mario. Both series received critical acclaim, so why not keep going? Paper Mario proceeded to receive two more releases, with a new series, Mario & Luigi, being started for Nintendo's handheld consoles. However, these two series met a decline in the 2010s; Paper Mario started evolving to the action-adventure genre, and everybody hated it; the recent Mario & Luigi games saw less positive reception, and the developers, AlphaDream, went bankrupt in 2019.

Despite this, I'm still attempting to promote this list to FL; I recently had a peer review and further guidance from Alexandra IDV. Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Gerald Waldo Luis

I am supporting this! Not many problems, as I can see. No duplicate links, which is always an awesome thing. I do have some comments though; I think I missed these on the PR.

• "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though newer installments in the series, since Sticker Star, also incorporate action-adventure elements." Errr. Maybe change it to "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though installments in the series since Sticker Star also incorporate action-adventure elements."
• "...but changes to gameplay has received mixed reception between games, such as in combat and use of gimmicks." --> "...but changes to gameplay, such as in combat and use of gimmicks, has received mixed reception."

GeraldWL 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both have been fixed. Thanks for your support! Panini^🥪 16:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts from Guerillero

• At 1.6 k, the leade is a bit short. Can you flesh it out some more.
• I'm not a fan of how much information is thrust into each cell.
  • Release years by system should be its own sortable column
  • Title should be sortable as well
• Visually, this looks like a bear for screen readers. Is {{Video game titles}} WP:ACESS compliant?
• "iQue Ltd" is not the page title
• You sometimes translate and sometimes don't translate article titles into English
• I don't see any quality problems with the sourcing

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is not my nomination, but responding to the points about the formatting and accessibility (not the content)-- this is the standard format for this type of list, which the FLC delegate PresN brought up in his "How to Write Featured Lists of Video Games" as accessibility-compliant. PresN, can you give input on this?--Alexandra^IDV 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did write that guide almost 6 years ago, but yeah. To the best of my knowledge, this template format is ACCESS-compliant (feel free to double-check with them though!); it's just a wikitable behind the scenes, with col/row-scopes. I know the template format isn't every editor's favorite, but I've personally used it in... looks like 10 FLs? Latest was promoted in April 2019? And there are several by other people as well who've used it. Sortability is not a requirement for FL tables where it doesn't give benefit to the reader, and in lists like this it's not at all needed: each table is a video game subseries, presented in the order they were created (and not too long). There's no benefit to the reader to give the option to sort by alphabetical title instead of production order, any more than there would be in a table of television show episodes. --PresN 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(All ref numbers as of this permalink. Also some comments not specifically about sources.) How can I know that this list is exhaustive—is there some source that lists them all? I notice Template:Mario role-playing games includes Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but this list doesn't. "Immediately received negative reception following its announcement" – I'm not happy with an article written so soon after the trailer being the only basis for the claim here (I know there's more at Paper Mario: Color Splash). At least add another reference or two, but I might change it to "Despite negative fan reaction prior to release, the game received mostly positive critical reception" or otherwise rewrite the point to explain what specifically about the pre-release fan reaction was unprecedented (they petitioned for it to be cancelled?). Rewritten and added another source. "Believed to have taken inspiration from Paper Mario" – Believed by whom? This would need attribution at the least (e.g. "Some critics found...") but I don't think the sources are good enough. #59 is a fan-made walkthrough, it looks like, so not reliable (see WP:UGC). #60 doesn't say that, so far as I can see. And then we've got "The battle engine is very, very similar to Paper Mario" in #61, which is not the same thing. I simply removed this claim altogether, and I plan to remove similar claims like it. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is missing an NA release date. Added, don't know how I missed that. If the Mario and Luigi logo is public domain (not original enough) then surely Paper Mario is too? I think it's plausible both are PD but it could be neither—maybe somebody else can speak to which is the case. If you look real close, the Paper Mario logo has a paper texture which I believe is enough to make it complex. Who knows? Ref #6: Cubed3 and RPGamer look like fan blogs or amateur review sites at first glance. Is that right? In the Cubed3 case you might be better citing Famitsu directly, but I'm not actually sure how either Famitsu or RPGamer support the claim that critics found later games gimmicky. Removed the claim altogether. Sometimes we benefit by forgetting. Ref #3 needs the second work (GameSpy) to be named. Same with ref #79 (GameSpot). Lots of small reference formatting inconsistencies—take a look from top to bottom. Examples include Metacritic (inconsistent in whether to use italics; I think it shouldn't); GameSpot.com occurring rather than GameSpot; and works/publishers being inconsistently linked/unlinked (do either on every occurrence or the first occurrence only). Not clear what the difference is between things like nintendo.co.jp vs Joystiq. More often than not I think the things not in italics should be. Spotchecks: refs 2, 13, 28, 51, 54, 65, 66, 74, 86, 89. #28 doesn't say The Origami King's JP release date. Can't see that #51 says [Color Splash was] First Paper Mario game in high definition. #54 doesn't mention coronavirus delaying the game. A nice read, but still some tidying up to do. — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Added Famitsu source. Changed the source. Removed the claim.

Bilorv, I believe I fixed these concerns. Do you spot any other formatting inconsistencies that I didn't? Additionally, although I've considered adding Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but it's more of a compilation game with more rather than a unique game. I believe it's part of the navbox because it is still an RPG will Mario elements in it. Nintendo did not develop the game, they only blended their property. Panini^🥪 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll double check now if the rest of the fixes are good but there's still the first point left to reply to. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Explained myself above. Panini^🥪 12:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see how Puzzle & Dragons Z doesn't fit the scope of the list as established by the first sentence: The Mario franchise, which originated as platform games, has inspired a variety of role-playing video games (RPGs) released on multiple Nintendo video game consoles. Nintendo console, has RPG elements and features Mario, right? Two more things: I didn't mean that you have to link every work always, just works which have articles (I see that this was ambiguous), so Nintendo World Report, RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online and Video Game Music Database can be unlinked, or kept as redlinks if you think they're notable; and I'm not seeing that "First Paper Mario game in high definition" is verified by the new source either. Rest of the changes look good. — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Added it in, fixed the changes, left Nintendo World Report linked as it has a chance of being notable. 13:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright great, happy to support now that these have been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "which originated as platform games," this just doesn't seem right to me, perhaps "originated as a series of platform games" or "had its origins in platform games"?

• Changed.

• You abbreviate RPG and then don't use it.

• Removed.

• Is there a decent link for "crossover"?

  Linked.

• "Most games in the series ..." the links really only reflect a handful of those in the entire list so saying "most" here is a stretch with the current referencing.

  Changed.

• "two characters that have grown a cult following." unreferenced.

• Looks like somebody added that in when I wasn't looking. Removed.

• "a two disk soundtrack" hyphenate two-disk.

• Done.

• Check that all online refs have access dates (to be consistent) e.g. 22, 23, 55.

  Should be done.

• "after licensing rights were revealed" is "revealed" correct here? Do you mean "arranged" or "organised" or something?

• I don't think so, Nintendo later showed the public when the lawsuit began that the rights exist.

• "for the GBA" what's that?

• Fixed.

• Ref 14, 16, both have spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.

  Fixed.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I have addressed your concerns. Panini^🥪 01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, probably missed my last ping so just checking to make sure. Panini^🥪 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follows" => "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follow" (subject is plural)

  Fixed

• "the first game being Paper Mario and was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000" => "the first game being Paper Mario which was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000"

  Changed

• "The Paper Mario series is developed......The Mario & Luigi series was developed" - any reason for the difference in tense?

  Yes, actually; the Paper Mario series is healthy and still kicking, while the Mario & Luigi series was developed by AlphaDream which went bankrupt in 2019.

  That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The series has generally received critical acclaim,[6] being praised for their writing" - singular/plural disagreement

  Fixed

• Notes like "Developed by Square." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops (looks like this applies to almost all the notes, in fact)
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude, that should take care of it. Panini^🥪 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.