Mario Adventure got deleted with a "clear consensus" (read: 7 of 21 said delete, I counted) of people against it.
Also a bad-faith nomination.
It seems like WP is quick to delete articles instead of just tagging them with "Needs verificioation" or "cleanup" or whatever...
(I will say, though, that this is making me want to become a vandal)
Oh, right. Didn't remember the name of that hack.
It doesn't seem to me like it's notable. seeing as it was the only article on List of NES ROM hacks, which is about to get deleted, it doesn't seem that any hack is currently notable enough for wikipedia.
It does, actually. It's a pretty important ROM hack. It has gained media attention, and this warrants encyclopedic inclusion.
It has gained media attention? I did not know that.
But how big is the media attention? I hope not too big.
Edit: So I checked again and it's not that big. But why does Mario Adventure deserve a page for itself? If Mario Adventure, why not Super Demo World TLC?
I would go further. I think no videogames/motherboard models/CD tracks belongs to Wikipedia. They should be on another Wiki related to videogames/hardware/music/etc.
No, it is an SMB3 hack. It is different from a Super Mario Bros. 3 hack. Just like there is a Nintendo Entertainment System and an NES (unless you really want to pronounce it "nes" instead of "en-ii-es").
I would go further. I think no videogames/motherboard models/CD tracks belongs to Wikipedia. They should be on another Wiki related to videogames/hardware/music/etc.
I don't think that's true. If a song is important / notable enough, why shouldn't it have an article? Obviously, not every track on every CD ever released deserves an entry, but if it's somehow notable...
Always keep in mind that Wikipedia Is Not Paper - there are no space constraints at all whatsoever (well, no practical ones, anyway), so every article can be judged on its own merit. :)
EDIT: Oh, and on a side note: it may be worth adding that deletion discussions are not polls; in other words, the mere fact that there were more "keep" than "delete" votes doesn't mean it automatically has to be kept, and this is doubly true when most of the "keep" votes came from anonymous contributors or recently-signed contributors without any (or with hardly any) other edits - that reeks of sock-/meat-puppetry.
If a song is important / notable enough, why shouldn't it have an article? Obviously, not every track on every CD ever released deserves an entry, but if it's somehow notable...
How or who decides what is notable enough to put on Wiki or not? This method is arbitrary.
It would be more logical to allow all well written and accurate articles about videogames/hardware/music/etc to be put up on the site, or to allow no articles on said topics and put them on a seperate Wiki all together as DrJones suggested. No one will ever agree on what is notable or not, so that system will only breed disputes.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
Kyrsimys wrote:
No, it is an SMB3 hack. It is different from a Super Mario Bros. 3 hack. Just like there is a Nintendo Entertainment System and an NES (unless you really want to pronounce it "nes" instead of "en-ii-es").
Do you seriously call SMB3 "Ess Emm Bee Three"? Also just for the record, I pronounce "NES" as "nes" and "snes" as "snes". Anyhting else seems absurd and wrong to me.
On topic: I don't see ANY reason why that article can't be there. Saying there should be a seperate wikipedia for stuff like that is wrong, wrong, WRONG. It would totally defeat the whole point of Wikipedia.
If there should be a seperate wiki for videogame stuff, then there should also be seperate wikis for science, religion, history, technology, cosmology, entertainment, culture, and basically everything. Yeah, it is a good point that Wikipedia is Not Paper so there are no space constraints at all.
As opposed to "Smuhb Three"?
If I see SMB3, I pronounce it in my head as "Ess Emm Bee Three". When I refer to it out loud, I usually say "Super Mario 3" and usually spell it that way as well.
And technically, "an SMB3 hack" is correct.
Man, where did you people go to grammar school?
Say this:
"Mario Adventure is a Super Mario Bros 3 hack."
Now this:
"Mario Adventure is an Super Mario Bros 3 hack."
Which sounds right and which doesn't?
If you said the right one was the 2nd one, GO BACK TO SCHOOL. ^^;;
Yes I do.
SirVG: No one is claiming that "an Super Mario bros. 3 hack" is correct. Of course it is "a Super Mario bros. 3 hack". But if you spell it SMB3, then it is an SMB3 hack, because there really is only one way of saying SMB3, and that's "Ess Emm Bee Three" as many people have said.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
When out loud, SMB3 = Super Mario Bros. 3
Because it's no slower than "es em be three".
When in my head, SMB3 = SMB3.
Because it's faster than "Es Em Bee Three". I don't say "smb3" out loud for two reasons. One, it's impossible, two, and it wouldn't make any sense.
Can we get back on the topic now please?
Even the Wikipedia is not supposed to be all things to all people.
Being a highly strange person, I enjoy the Muppet Show. There are articles about most of the popular muppets on Wikipedia, but you would also find a link to a Wiki devoted to muppets. It has every single muppet that ever appeared in any episode, and lists everyone who ever voiced or controlled that muppet. It has information about every song, every episode, every everything. It's not necessary to have that much information in an encyclopedia for the general public. Since most of the muppets are named after places, things, or other people, to create pages for every single one of them in Wikipedia would require an enormous number of disambiguation pages. If you care that much about muppets, go to a muppet wiki.
Fans of a genre will always compile more information on a given subject than the general public would ever care to see. Information overload is a legitimate reason not to go into as much detail on the Wikipedia as one might go into in a dedicated wiki. There isn't enough interest in getting DOS games to work on modern computers to merit a series of articles on the Wikipedia, so I created the DOS Games Compatibility Wiki and mostly people other than me have created more than 150 articles already. Every page would be labelled a "stub" on Wikipedia because every page contains only one thing: instructions on making a DOS game play on a modern computer. Rather than stubbify the Wikipedia, if you want to make articles about NES hacks, why not make your own Hackipedia?
Oh, and it's "an SMB3" because "Ess" starts with a vowel.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
I don't see why all that information about the muppets doesn't belong on wikipedia. The latter is supposed to be a collection of all human knowledge. This is why you have subpages, and disambiguation pages are not a problem.
The thing about dos games, on the other hand, might belong on wikibooks.
I don't think it's supposed to be a repository for all human knowledge. That would require far too much information to be listed on each page. Encyclopedic entries are supposed to be topical and informative, but brief. If you need more extensive information on a topic, you buy a book or find a website devoted to that topic.
The same would be true of the topic of muppets. It's fine to devote individual articles to muppets who have considerable cultural or media significance, but there are hundreds of muppets that were used only once, and the only thing that can be said about them is the date their episode aired, who created them, and who voiced them. The options are: you can make an enormous page for lesser known muppets with 200+ sections, or you can write 200+ stubs. The first option isn't very encyclopedic because the page would be too large, and the second option isn't very encyclopedic because the pages would be too small. If there isn't a reasonable amount of information that you can write about a topic, it doesn't need to have an entry. The best option is to write a general overview of muppets in general, and let a dedicated book/website/wiki go into more detail.
Edit: I don't want to create an entirely new debate, but I just thought of another reason why Wikipedia can't be a repository of all human knowledge: pornography.
Encyclopedic articles should be appropriate for all ages. Discussions of sexuality should be clinical, describing only the mechanics or nature of the act. As one of the largest industries in the world, one could easily create a wiki devoted to pornography, describing the sexual activity, and what the viewer gets to see, in great detail. Wikipedia articles about porn stars briefly describe their background and career, but contain no adult content or pornography. They would, for instance, give a porn star's measurements, but they wouldn't contain any pictures of the porn star engaged in sexual acts. They have articles for pornographic movies that were popular enough to enter popular culture, but they wouldn't describe the scenes in graphic detail. An encyclopedia is a quick reference for just-the-facts. If you want to help someone make buying decisions, including all the vulgar details, you need to make an adult-oriented wiki.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
There many articles listing minor characters. Also, wikipedia is not censored.
Wikipedia has criteria for allowing articles on minor characters [1] and criteria for censorship [2][3].
Wikipedia also beats you all on the off-topic grammar discussion.
