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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)