Talk:Mario Party 7

Removed

I have removed the following from the bottom of the article since it was not working: [[Category:2005 computer and <a href="video%20games" onmouseover="window.status='video games'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=; return true;">video games</a>]] Answerthis 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

42KB?

Someone needs to take an axe to every crufty description...like omg...do we need a descritpion of every mode and every game? Hbdragon88 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Crufty sections

The "Boards", "Orbs", "Unlockables", and "Duty-free shop" and "Spaces" all are pretty cruftish (or whatever you want to call it). Which sections could simply use cleanup, and which should just be deleted entirely? –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mnigames and objectives, too, because someone just added that back. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh

Dear

God.

This article is enormous! I can understand why noone's wanted to tackle it, it's too daunting!

I'd say the New Features section to start; there doesn't need to be several paragraphs, or even one paragraph for each addition. A sentence or two would suffice.

Example: for "8 Player", everything after "R Button and C-Stick." should go.

The Unique Bowser Time Events should be summarized under Bowser Time, there doesn't need to be this much detail.

The section on Orbs could be summarized in a single paragraph, too much detail nailing them all down. Seriously, this looks like a guide from Gamefaqs

As far as the minigames section goes, maybe just needs something about how the minigames are the usual fare for a Mario Party, and summarize what games have been added through the addition of the Mic. Or perhaps denote some distinctively different minigames...

The souvenir unlockables don't need to be itemized, and for the secret souvenir unlockables, it's actually a spoiler, isn't it? I'd delete that entirely.

Maybe this is too harsh; we might end up with a hollow shell of an article through all of these changes, but as it stands now it seems that all of that is unnecessary...

Gene S. Poole 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as that Llama guy saw fit to jump to one of my suggestions, I cleaned up a few more. the only other one left is the (extremely daunting) minigame section, which I haven't tackled because I'm not sure exactly what should be salvaged and what should be punted. Obviously most of it, but there should be something to replace it; ie a paragraph describing...something. Ideas? Gene S. Poole 05:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a paragraph describing some/all the different types of minigames? (4-player, team, Bowser, etc.) In any case, the descriptions of minigames should probably be deleted. Also, the "Duty-free shop" section only describes the different parts of it; perhaps that section could be deleted and useful info about the shop could be added into the "New features" section? –Llama man^{sign here} 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll delete the mini-game objectives and replace it with a new paragraph now. –Llama man^{sign here} 14:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

...and now I'll do the same thing for the duty-free shop. –Llama man^{sign here} 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am re-adding the mini - game list + descriptions. It has been that way in every other Mario Party article and it WILL be the same in this one! Henchman 2000 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

see, that's the point...we're planning on cleaning up the other ones as well...it's unnecessary cruft, and contributes nothing to the article. it reads like a gamefaqs guide.

But thank you, very much, for discussing it before changing it back. it's nice to get into an edit war now and then. Gene S. Poole 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you guys see wrong with the existence of that list. It isn't harming anything in any way. I am going to continue to add the list until I get my way! Henchman 2000 19:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I came here to see what prompted the attempt to delete the WP:FANCRUFT essay. "I am going to continue to add the list until I get my way"? C'mon, that's not how we get along here. An enormous undigested list does hurt an article, by making it unreadable--you should show more respect for a video game than giving it an article like this. Nareek 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mabe we should just put a mini game list without any descriptions. Oh, and a mini game list does not make an article unreadable, it just adds in relevant information. Henchman 2000 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember, an Encyclopedia is is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. A list is not very comprehensive, or informative. Simply saying "these are the minigames in Mario Party 7" doesn't tell you anything; as Llama Man mentioned, someone who hasn't played the game has no interest in knowing the names of all the games, and someone who has probably doesn't need to know this; even if they do, there are other venues.

Gene S. Poole 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, could you three PLEASE stop your edit war? This is getting nowhere so could you just come to a conclusion so you can get on with more important things? Bowsy 09:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone knows about That site and not everyone who knows about it uses it(like me). So therefore we should have a list and not a breif paragraph. If we must have a paragraph I should write it and include a lot more info than the current one does. Henchman 2000 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But not everyone knows about Wikipedia, right? Most people would probably Google search whatever "Whatever game cheats", or something, instead of using Wikipedia, and plenty of gaming sites would appear (IGN, GameFAQs, Gamespot, Cheatscodesguides, at least five more). –Llama man^{sign here} 16:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I am here asking for a consensus to KEEP the mini-game descriptions. Here are my main reasons:

• The edits to it are not constructive edits but instead are blanking.
• The replacement paragraph is too brief and doesn't explain anything.
• No-one thought that anything was wrong with it until very recently. This tells us that there are few people with objections and that many people, if they were to view the page again, would take my side.

so can I get a consensus to keep the list? Bowsy 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm the person who keeps reverting the changes, I'm obviously going to oppose this. To quote Nareek in a recent reversion (that a word?) to this article: "An encyclopedia is organized, summarized information--this list does not qualify." A few comments:

• While I agree the paragraph I wrote in place isn't the best paragraph ever, anyone can edit it, right? So it can be improved.
• What "constructive edits" can be made besides replacing the lengthy list with a single summary paragraph? Just shortening the list would be pretty pointless, since it would be incomplete and still irrelevant to an encyclopedia.
• Just because the list wasn't removed until a few weeks ago doesn't mean a small amount of editors share my opinion; this page is probably visited more often by readers rather than editors. Even when editors do come by, it just seems really, really daunting to clean up the article. –Llama man^{sign here} 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree here. simply adding it all back in is not exactly helpful. edits have been made in order to improve the page, please assume good faith and let's try and find some middle ground here short of listing every single aspect of the game; this is an encyclopedia, not...umm...

Not something that lists every single aspect of..umm...a game! Hah!

Gene S. Poole 01:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Board Countries

Is there a source saying that these boards are actually in these countries? I think it might be better to say that the boards may be inspired by certain countries or cultures. Anyone have a problem with me changing this? - Second crimson 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that myself. Not a problem with me. –Llama man 23:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. I guess if someone has a problem about the change, they can always change it back, or preferrably talk about it here. - Second crimson 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but where else could, for instance, Pyramid Park or Grand Canal be? FrogTape 03:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, thus it's original research. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party articles RFC

CROSSPOST

Please see Talk:Mario Party 8#Request for comment: Lists of mini-games. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

END CROSSPOST. DO NOT POST IN THIS SECTION.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mario Party 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160601155256/http://www.1up.com/reviews/mario-party-7 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/mario-party-7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario Party 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Green Star Collector (talk · contribs) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: QuicoleJR (talk · contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll claim this one. Ping me in a few days if I haven't reviewed it yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I read through the article. It is overall very well-written, but I have a few concerns. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping. @The Green Star Collector: I have reviewed the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence in the second paragraph makes it sound like most games in the Mario Party series use the microphone, when I don't think many of them did.
• Mario Party 7 features characters of the Mario franchise This sounds weird to me. Also, maybe link the character list?

Gameplay

• An orb's effects can be self-inflicted, such as allowing the player to roll more than one die in a single turn, or directed toward a rival, such as deducting coins, orbs, or a Star, which may be given to the player who used the orb. This is a bit of a run-on sentence.
• Both Rare minigames must be purchased in-game to be unlocked. Just to be clear, Rare refers to the company, right?

Plot

• The first paragraph has sources, but the other two don't. It should be consistent, and since plot sections aren't required to have sources I'd recommend just removing them from the first paragraph.

Reception

• The reception section has quite a few quotes. Could you please try to paraphrase some of them?
• The fifth paragraph seems to be about the game’s presentation. Maybe you could make that a bit more clear? Starting every other paragraph with the topic and this one with the name of one of the reviewers is a bit strange.

Overall

• The article has been refbombed a bit. Typically you don't need more than one or two references for a statement, and more than three references are only needed if something is controversial or opinion-based. I'm going to wait on the spotcheck until this is addressed.

Thank you very much for your feedback, @QuicoleJR:

• I've rephrased part of the lead to (hopefully) make it clearer that the minigame add-on is only implemented in Mario Party 6 and Mario Party 7.
• Changed characters of the Mario franchise to characters from the Mario franchise and added the appropriate link to List of Mario franchise characters.
• Split the run-on sentence in the gameplay section into two sentences to try to make the orbs' effects on opponents clearer.
• Just to be clear, Rare refers to the company, right? It does not, actually. "Rare" is one of the nine categories of minigames. Perhaps quotation marks could be added to make that clearer?
• Removed all citations from the plot section.
• Paraphrased several parts of the reception section and restructured the fifth paragraph to make it clearer that it is about the game's presentation.
• Cut all citation bundles down to three or fewer, except for one or two statements I've seen disagreement or confusion about. (From now on, I'll keep it to this limit—five was my initial cap in almost all cases.) Please let me know if this can be improved further. Otherwise, I welcome the spotcheck. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @The Green Star Collector: I have looked through the article again. I saw no more issues with the prose, and it passed the spotcheck. I will now be closing this review as successful. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2024 (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.