Talk:Mario Kart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon
This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 20 May 2013 for a period of one week.
WikiProject icon
 

3DS characters on chart[edit]

I have added Mario and Luigi as racers in the new 3DS section of the racers chart, as you see that they are shown as drivers in the video, "video game line-up" for the Nintendo 3DS official website!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.117.148 (talkcontribs)

Someone added shadow mario and a bunch of other fake B.S.ers on the chart. I will remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.117.148 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some uncomfermed characters on the chart, yet I can't seem to edit them out because I can't seem to edit anything in this article, which is strange because I can edit things in other articles.(68.109.117.148 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Never mind, I can strangly edit now(68.109.117.148 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

No characters have been confirmed officially, as there are no reliable sources by wikipedia standards confirming anybody. Until some are found, it should be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

MASSIVE VANDALISM[edit]

Apparently someone is doing the promo of his fan game on this page (the page is littered with references to some Mario Kart REAL), the multiple references to a concurrent game would lead to believe that it could a publicity stunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.239.162 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

vandalism purged unsigned comment added by 81.80.239.162 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Character table[edit]

All games have some prose about characters. Sometimes it doesn't fit in the article, so there are separate lists. Games like Mario side series, Super Smash Bros Brawl, or other Fighting games have tables because the character's information are listed in different places. I don't think the policies DKqwerty pointed out really affect this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This information, which violates WP:NOTGUIDE, is widely available on various gaming sites and is simply of no encyclopedic or historical value. DKqwerty (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it is a guide. It is valuable list of main characters. Like I said before, while other games have characters listed in prose, these games have character information elsewhere, and this is needed to direct the reader to them. Where does WP:NOTGUIDE say anything about character lists? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, might I add that you are the one who has no consensus to remove them. The tables were there for years, and you removed them. Therefor, you are the one going against "consensus". Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have brought this issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Character tables to gain a better consensus. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The result of that discussion was inconclusive, but I agree with Blake, and therefore have restored the table. Qwerty, you should have discussed your massive removal of content before BOLDly doing it Purplebackpack89 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, given the number of policy violations, there was no need to discuss before removing and given the continued violations, the only thing keeping me from removing it again is WP:3RR. This table violates WP:NOTGUIDE (in my opinion) and clearly violates WP:V (there is not one valid ref given), WP:LSC ("The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources"), WP:IINFO, and in its current state WP:CRYSTAL (speculative character list for future game Mario Kart 3DS). With the large number of policy violations (particularly with regard to reliable sourcing), I saw no need to discuss these issues before removing it. Furthermore, the table's footer makes zero sense and seems completely out of context (in addition to being unsourced). Also, if you refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Character tables, it's clear that most editors do not support such tables in the articles of series like Mario Kart or Mario Party. While it's clear that you do not share this view, you should probably defer to the collective wisdom on this one: character tables in an article like this one are useless and simply consume space. DKqwerty (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh shut up! the table has been there for years! i was using wiki to keep updated on the confirmed character in Mario Kart 3DS and now its gone? what the?... The table does nothing but inform ppl on what characters made it into the game. Nothing more. I think that every game series that updates their roster per game needs a character so incase anyone wanted to backtrack and buy an old game, they'd know what all character were in it.67.142.170.25 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It's a shame that the table has been removed because some jobsworth says it doesn't fit some policy. I was shocked at how empty this article is now compared to when I came on here before. I agree with cleaning up articles but the table was collapsed down and therefore wasn't intrusive on the article. Good luck trying to get it back though, it will be removed because the senior members have the power. I was hoping to find a list of confirmed characters for Mario Kart 7 but now I think I will just start my own table for my own reference, using the info from this table because you can still find it in the history. I'll also find a website which has such reference material since Wikipedia constantly wants to get rid of it.--Baker1000 (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Beta[edit]

This edit has been reverted. It is constructive. Stuff that comes out before the game is actually released is considered beta. I play video games. I know how this stuff works. --ϐαςς ᴶαϟϟι20px 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Beta, by definition, means: "A beta test is a limited release of a product with a goal of finding bugs before the final release. Software testing is often referred to by the terms "alpha" and "beta.". Don't revert an edit and say it's vandalism if you don't know what it means. A screenshot from a game in early development is by definition, beta. --ϐαςς ᴶαϟϟι20px 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who changed it initially. But I didn't change it because I "[do] not know what beta is". I had to undo everything that happened in January because the article was reverted to a version from a year ago. I didn't even realize the caption had been changed. I don't think we can call it beta though. The source does not say that, in fact there is no source provided. All we know is that it is from some point in development. I actually think it should be removed or replaced with a more relevant image. That image depicts Mario Kart Wii in development, and this article contains absolutely no content about Mario Kart Wii's development. Let's use a more relevant image. Reach Out to the Truth 06:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No confirmation in the screenshot that this is from an Alpha or Beta release, or even from any release available for testing at all. Please do not assume that it is from a Beta release. A screenshot from the game is not by definition a Beta, not even remotely. The359 (Talk) 01:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Double Dash!!.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Double Dash!!.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 4 March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Double Dash!!.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

Why is it that there are 12 references, but the references listed in the "References" section only lists 9 of them? ZappaOMati 13:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some are the same I think. DarkToonLink (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Retro track table[edit]

Why is Super Circuit's Lightning Cup in the retro table when it's not a retro cup? Just because it has the name Lightning? ArtistScientist (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lightning Cup (Re: Retro track table)[edit]

This is due to Nintendo using the cup first, and exclusively, as a Standard Cup in the Super Circuit game. Afterwards, they repurposed Lightning so that it was now a Retro Cup counterpart to the Special Cup. There is text in both track sections explaining this. The table has been moved over to Mario Kart on Wikia, if you still wish to read it. Thanks! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Charts and Gamecruft[edit]

Resolved: Consensus has been determined that the course lists are a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT, and should be left out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:VG's, and to a looser extend Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:GAMECRUFT is something to be avoided. This includes excessive listings. Sometimes it can be argued as a crucial aspect of the game, like possibly the racers, so I'm not pushing against that aspect as much. My concern the excessive listing of all the cups/race tracks. Wikipedia is supposed to be written for general audiences who have no prior knowledge on the subject. As such, to anyone who hasn't played the games, the giant list of course names means absolutely nothing. Beyond that, I feel that they are large, cluttered, and overwhelming to the reader. Thoughts? Please leave your stance below.

  • Remove - per GAMECRUFT, explanation above. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - per GAMECRUFT, per Sergecross. Racers are ok, the course lists are near meaningless. -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - per GAMECRUFT and Sergecross's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per GAMECRUFT. I say we also remove the colour scheme as it looks confusing and overly bright; it doesn't really help the article either. Satellizer talk contribs 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove This is gonna be a broken record, but definitely GAMECRUFT. I know people mean well, but this is getting excessive. --McDoobAU93 23:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - Nice charts, but definitely a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. ZappaOMati 23:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - As much as I hate to say it, the chart doesn't really help the reader's understranding that much beyond the text already there. People can go to other specific sites for this information. DarkToonLink (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Characters list[edit]

In my opinion, the characters list looks too big and bloated at the moment. Of the 38 characters used in the nine Mario Kart games, only six appear in all of them while two others appear in all but Super. In my opinion, to read about this in a Main characters paragraph would be way easier than to have to sort the table in a certain order and waste screen space with checkmarks. There are also four Namco characters that appear only in the Arcade GP series, so it is pointless to list them in a table where they will automatically get seven Xes and only two check marks. Putting them in an Arcade GP exclusive characters would make more sense.

That leaves two types of characters remaining. The Retired characters section would consist of Donkey Kong Junior (only in Super and very unlikely to reappear), Paratroopa (only available in Double Dash!!), Petey Piranha (again, only in Double Dash!!) and R.O.B. (only available in DS). Unless these characters make a comeback, they should be considered retired for not appearing in Mario Kart during the eight and (except for R.O.B.) seventh generations of video games.

Finally, the fourth type of characters are the Console and handheld characters. They do not appear in Super (except for Koopa Troopa), 64, Super Circuit, or the Arcade GP series (except for Waluigi, featured in Arcade GP 2). The majority are actually exclusive to Double Dash!! and Wii games, but others can only be found on Wii and/or 7. Some of the characters in any of these three games are also on DS. (Note that characters exclusive to either Double Dash!! or DS are considered retired.) This is why the table should only have four games, not nine.

With that in mind, i've created a streamlined version another streamlined version of the characters section to trim the bloat. This displays somewhat better on a mobile device, especially the Main and Arcade characters. One thing i forgot to do is make a footnote for Koopa Troopa. In the same way that Waluigi has a footnote marking his appearance in Arcade GP 2, Koopa should have a footnote for his Super appearance (and therefore, the Super section should be removed since only Koopa gets a checkmark). Before anyone mentions the Super Smash Bros. series as a justification for the older, bloated table, that series only has three games compared to nine for Mario Kart. i think we should have a discussion over which Characters section is a better fit for Wikipedia. Please let me know your opinion! Thanks, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not like this approach, as these classifications such as "main" or "retired" are subjective and original research. I don't see the problem with how it is now, as it sticks strictly to the facts. If excessive size is a concern, I feel like we could separate the Namco/Arcade games/characters out. Judging by the name Mario Kart 7, not Mario Kart 9, shows that those games are considered to be separate from the rest of the games. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
i agree with the "Retired" characters, that this is subjective. The Main ones, however, are not. They appear in all arcade, console and handheld games (again, except for DK and Wario which are absent from Super). Therefore, i find it adequate to keep the Main section. The Arcade GP exclusives can keep their own section, while any other character found only in some console/handheld games should be listed in their own section --15:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll also agree with him. We want the Main characters in the series. I also made a color chart for the installments so, if 7 is the most recent game, try finding a character in the indigo section. 22dragon22burn (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I still feel that it looks strange to separate out the most common characters... Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: 22dragon2burn's rainbow chart: i base it off the rainbow colours. i switched the 7 colour to Dark Violet with White text. The only problem is: what happens if/once there are more than seven games? The colour scheme was originally designed for the track list, to visually tell readers which retro tracks originated from which game, but since that was removed from Wikipedia, maintaining a colour list is a design matter more than anything else. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How can we reach a consensus? The number of games just keeps growing, and the table will look more and more crowded as new games and characters are added. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You can post a request for people to comment on it at WikiProject Video Games talk page for more input, although I don't think you're going to gather much support for your original research-based classification system there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
How is it original research? The fact is that eight characters appear in all games (with two Super exceptions), several only appear in console games, and others only in Arcade GP. i'll make a RfC, but this should have been solved beforehand. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You're making up labels and classifying them as such. Unless you can provide a source from Nintendo calling certain characters "retired" or "main", it's original research.
Beyond that, I think it looks awkward to remove the most common character and put them separate list. I think people's eyes are naturally drawn to a chart first, which makes it awkward when characters like "Mario" or "Peach" aren't in there. If you're concerned with size, I'd split out the arcade versions, considering the numbering conventions of the games, different development teams, and different platforms, it's pretty clear that Nintendo relegates them as separate entities. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They're not designed to be labels. "Retired" has been removed, but would have only served to list those characters which are absent in the latest generation games. The characters are merely sorted by which type of game (arcade, console or both) they appear in. The huge table makes it more complicated to find those who appear in both, because "Total appearances" needs to be sorted first. Big tables are also a nightmare on mobile devices.

To duplicate the main characters, so that they are listed in both the arcade and console sections, would be redundant. There would also be a lot of unneeded check marks and crosses, such as for the first three console games. Most people can read the subsections to find the characters they want. In my opinion, it actually makes it easier that way. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My two cents. First, I agree with Sergecross that breaking out the most-commonly appearing characters is very selective on our parts, and in a way would amount to original research, since we are making the declaration, not anyone else, that these are considered the main characters. That's to say nothing of being incorrect, since Donkey Kong does not appear in the first game in the series. If you're having to add qualifiers, then it would appear that your classification would need some work.
Next, removing the earliest games from the table gives the appearance that the series isn't as extensive as it is, and thus may be confusing to first-time readers. As to the size of the table, we need to assume that the vast majority of readers will be using standard desktop or laptop computers, if only to settle on a base. I appreciate your concern for mobile devices, but I believe for the VAST majority of mobile device users, it's not their primary source of access (it may be the most used, but it's still secondary).
--McDoobAU93 17:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Request For Comment[edit]

i am requesting comments of whether the Mario Kart article's Characters section should keep the all-inclusive but very large table it currently has, or use a proposed streamlined version separated in three sections: recurrent characters (who appear in all games, except for two characters absent from the Super game and one of these unconfirmed to appear in Arcade GP DX), console-only characters (only found in some, but not all, console games) and arcade-only characters. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - On a number of grounds. The criteria the user uses to separate characters out is original research, Nintendo does not classify characters out like that in any manner, they are his own creation. Furthermore, the proposal is far more confusing to follow. It's confusing to see certain characters separated out, or how there's now only 4 games listed in the chart now. If we need a chart, I'd far prefer the one that simply lays out all of the information, rather than the OR-based selections this user has proposed. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - OR concerns, like Sergecross. Chart does appear incomplete, but do agree that there are some concerns about table's size, but that can be worked on without crossing OR boundaries. --McDoobAU93 17:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOR. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and not just due to OR concerns (although that is a problem as well). I actually find the current version to be more "streamlined", and the proposed version more confusing. Sure, this current table is a bit large, but still I think it's a better option than the proposed alternative. ~satellizer~~talk~ 07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Separating characters seems like WP:OR, and IMO, the current table as more visually appropriate, and I kinda found the proposed one confusing as well. ZappaOMati 05:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I personally don't see how that would be any better; since I cannot find reliable sources using a similar classification system, that also falls in the realm of synthesis. :) ·Salvidrim!·  05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose' This is WP:OR, current version is much better! 142.214.160.27 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bar-style character sheet[edit]

From the above, it seems pretty clear and unanimous that splitting main and occasional characters is not the way to go. That's fine, and i like that Wikipedia allows for discussions like this. i'm also happy that the arcade and console characters are split. Nintendo makes it very clear that these two types of games are separate and do not share all characters. However, another idea has come to mind to make the tables (in my opinion) even better. It would be to use colspanned colour bars for characters instead of check marks and crosses. This is already happening for musical bands (see the Members/Album chart section in Newsboys' article as an example), and so i thought it would be appropriate to bring it to Mario Kart characters. In my draft, this is done for "Console and handheld characters" and although only the four more recent games show up in my table, adding the three older ones plus the "main" characters would be a breeze. One advantage is how easy it is to find a character's game, while a drawback would be a lot of flashy red and green colours. i would love to hear your feedback, whether in favour or in opposition of this type of character sheet. Thank you. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a good start, but should I presume that the finished product will still have all characters and all games represented, instead of the current separation that everyone appeared to be objecting to? --McDoobAU93 20:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yessir! That bar chart will look even better with all seven console games, rather than just the last four. Recurrent characters will also appear with a green bar - or a green lightsaber with a red handle. ;) The arcade will stay separated, as per consensus. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
My two cents' worth: take it easy on going all rainbow to differentiate. I get that we want to make it attractive, but not to the point where its distractive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally, don't really see the point in the change. It doesn't strike me as any better, and I think it's fine the way it is right now.... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The coloured bars could be replaced with check marks/crosses while maintaining the colspans. How does that sound? --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
They all seem to be very similar variations of the same thing. None strike me as any better than any others. Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally find the original to be better and more straightforward. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 10:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


I restored it to the original chart again. There was never consensus to change it, and it hasn't developed that way over the last week or so. (I see 2 people who outright oppose, and a couple general comments that didn't really support or oppose.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Folks, it's time to finally get rid of the character chart[edit]

  • I understand your point, although in previous discussion in regards to the removal of the Tracks table (which served no real information to the reader), people seemed to agree that it was Ok to keep the Characters table. I'd suggest it may be Ok to WP:IAR because characters are such an important part of the game and of interest and meaning to a reader. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 00:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Simply being of interest to readers isn't grounds for IAR. It's of no historical value, other than to prove who's been in the series the longest, which if deemed essential to this article can be stated in simple prose. DKqwerty (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not only because it's of interest to the reader, but because the characters form a core part of the series. A table listing all the karts would be pointless because it has no relevance beyond the game, but the Characters table shows the scope of characters throughout the series from other games. DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 04:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • True, but none of the characters in the Mario Kart series are from outside the Mario universe. DKqwerty (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • So what? No one said "universe". Just "other games". Sergecross73 msg me 04:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll go with keeping it! We need these characters! 22dragon22burn (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Trim. i've already tried doing this before, but it was virtually panned by everyone. See User:True Tech Talk Time/Mario Kart characters for an example. "Main" should be kept, while the rest can be summarized with a line or two.
  • See discussions on this a few sections above. Overwhelming consensus was that your approach was confusing and OR-violating. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapse or uncollapse characters table?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no consensus for collapsing the table at this time. Given that it would seem to be contrary to MOS:COLLAPSE#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content, there certainly isn't enough local consensus to override the global one on collapsing content in article space. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a point of hiding an encyclopedic table of characters other than size and navigation problems. Prose content doesn't mention characters currently, so why should navigation be the main reason to collapse the table? --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree, I'd rather keep it non-collapsed too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:VGSCOPE, WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTE, et al.: This is NOT encyclopedic information; rather, it is the very definition of indiscriminate info. If this information were truly encyclopedic, it could be and should be in prose (see Mortal Combat#Characters as an example. Neglecting that, it should be snow removed. Since this page has already seen the ignorant consensus to maintain these abominations, the next logical step without breaking consensus is to hide them from the average viewer until such time that they decide they would like to peruse. While not explicate rules, can anyone cite a policy that indicates these tables are merited in their current form? Because I've cited on this talk page at least a half-dozen that support their removal, yet we seem to be keeping them just because "they're nice" rather than as a matter of established policy. DKqwerty 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Also, sorry that I initially ignored WP:BRD; it was a faux pas on my part.
  • Keep/Don't collapse - As prior consensus has dictated, both here and at similar articles, at times chart/lists like this can be allowed, if its fundamental to the game's concept. (Like at Sonic Generations, for example.) Citing gamecruft isn't a reason for or against collapsing a table, and if you're interested in converting it to prose, go do it then. But you shouldn't be removing the chart until you've already added the prose to replace it first... Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless each and every check or cross is important, then they should be removed. Important times when a character is added or removed could be summarized in the prose, but on the whole their appearances are not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. We might just as well have a list of Star locations on Super Mario 64. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Collapse. I'm leaning toward collapse, but it really doesn't seem like a very important issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You are saying that a table of characters' appearances is distracting to general readers? --George Ho (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, quite possibly so. I think it might be a bit distracting and provide too much information all at once to casual readers who are not interested in that level of detail. But I could be wrong; maybe casual readers won't even read past the lead. Like I said, it's not a very important issue to me. I'll defer to any obvious consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - If anyone wants any change here, this will probably have to be redone. This confusing setup/wording is likely the reason why it's getting so little attention. There's too many variables. Keep or don't. Collapse or don't. Etc. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep expanded -- Randomly requested via RFC, I have to suggest that the information remain available an expanded so that it can be located and used. Generally I tend to suggest that editors should provide more information rather than less since providing (some times accurate) information is what Wikiepdia is supposed to be about. The information may be large or dense, however that's what page down is for. Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Consoles?[edit]

Consoles are non-portable video game systems, handhelds are portable ones. Should we change the uses of "Console Games" to "Video Games" due to Mario Kart games on both types? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Handhelds are really just a type of video game console. (Thus the name of the article we have on it, handheld game console.) Using just "video game" create would instead create a new problem, because arcade games, the main thing we're using to differentiate from, are also a kind of video games. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I thought there was a big difference. Thanks for clearing this up! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)