Talk:Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleSuper Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
April 21, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
June 24, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
April 16, 2015Good article nomineeListed
June 24, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 21, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Nintendo deemed the original Super Mario Bros. 2 too difficult for Americans, who instead received a repurposed version of an unrelated game as their Super Mario Bros. 2?
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

DYK nomination[edit]

{{Did you know nominations/Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels}} czar  00:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

IGN list[edit]

The Lost Levels was on IGN's list of top 125 Nintendo games. This is notable and should be mentioned in the article, but it's in the lead, which I disagree with because:

  1. We normally don't say what lists games are on in leads. An example: Sonic Rush was named a "Cheer" in IGN's "Cheers and Tears" list for DS games, that's not and should not be in the lead there.
  2. It's sort of redundant; The Lost Levels has been on several lists like these in the past (like this one).

~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoeBro64: I can agree with something like this. It's a little bit weird having something like that in the lead. We can shove it in the Legacy section. Manfred (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • is not a reliable source... Show me what other vetted video game sources list Lost Levels as a similar top game and I'd be fine with generalizing the statement. Otherwise the statement on its own, given IGN's stature, gives the reader important information about the legacy of the title. In general, plenty of WP articles mention such "top list" information in the lede when it gives a summative/definitive summary on the game's legacy, and list of top releases for a platform is completely incomparable to a "cheers and tears" list. This WP article already had a GA review with the sentence as it was—do not remove it until you have a wider consensus. czar 15:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC) ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that Donkey Kong Country returns was placed towards the bottom of Game Informer's top Wii games list; that's not mentioned in the lead there. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where you're getting these WP article examples—why would DKCR be an analog? It hasn't been seriously edited in half a decade, doesn't have a legacy section, and whatever Game Informer list you're citing isn't even in the article? The point is easier on articles that have been included in multiple lists of top games for the console so we can say... the game was listed in multiple lists of top games for the console. Your other edits have been reverted per BRD—again, do not restore them until you have consensus for the change czar 18:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Well, this is only one of the few games on IGN's top 125 that are labelled with the lead like that... IGN does a list-kind-of-thing all the time, to the point where it gets redundant. I believe putting the bit in Legacy is the better option, but wherever it goes, the main thing is that it should be in the article somewhere. Manfred (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to summarize the article—every claim it makes is sourced in the rest of the article (at least it is in this article, as I wrote it—as for other articles, it's only in theory). I highlighted that factoid from the Legacy section because it tells the reader about the game's legacy in a sentence: that apart from its famous difficulty, it is at least recognized in another major source as a defining game of the console, but not one of the most important (bottom of the 125). The point is less about IGN itself or the importance of that singular list, but the context of how the game is remembered. This was the only list I found. I'd be fine with writing something else along these lines, but cannot generalize the sentence without more examples (i.e., similar lists). If either of you want more feedback on this, feel free to request outside feedback at WT:VG. czar 02:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)