Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames/old


 * comment on my following comments Two comments follow. I've lost detailed posts 4 times tonight, and I don't particularly want to do this again. It's past my bedtime, I really want to be asleep now, but I'm doing this again because I think it's important. Please read this with an objective mind. There are two topics being discussed here, and I think they are the crux of this issue. We've been throwing around topics of children of wikipedia's future, and sockpuppetry, but this is the real meat of the issue. I've really tried to take a step back, and try to see things from the other side's perspective. McKay 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I hate deletionists, I think that far too often valuable content gets thrown away. This isn't to say that all deletions are inappropriate. On the contrary a lot of crap gets deleted all the time. Neologisms, Soapboxes, personal attacks. they all get removed and they should, but because editors get in the "delete" mode, they don't really think about the issue until it's too late. Their vote has already been recorded, the mediocre article gets thrown out, when it should probably be kept and improved. McKay 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Re:Notable Are there any Reliable sources that are about the minigames in Mario Party 8? No, not directly. As far as I'm aware, no one has written an article about those minigames. They have included talk about the minigames in their articles about MP8 (how can one not?) Does that mean that the list should disappear? I think that wikipedia policy says that the list should remain. Why do I say that. I think that everyone should take a look at Category:Harry Potter. There are hundreds of pages that would fall by the same wayside as this article if the same rules were to be applied as those saying this should be deleted. Take Minor Slytherins for example. I could have chosen from dozens of others, but I think that this proves my point rather well. Has anyone ever written a book about "Minor Slytherins"? Written an article? I'd presume that the phrase would be all but extinct if the WP article had never been written with that title. But we have an article on minor slytherins. Why? Because it's a neat place to put all the information about all of them without cluttering up the article on Harry Potter with information that "most" people don't want to read about when they search for "Harry Potter". Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There are technical limitations (or were) when an article was over 32k, and we can't say everything that we want to about HP in 32k. So, the challenge goes out, Can anyone give a reason why Minor Slytherins should stay but this article shouldn't? I could give a bunch of reasons why Minor slytherins is actually less valuable, but I'm not going to bring them up just to prove a point. McKay 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Re:Encyclopedic So when I tried to take a step back and see why people were fighting this issue, I came up with this: Hmm, saying that the wiimote is being used as a lasso is kinda saying "how" to play. The page is filled with stuff like this. How did I miss it? Can the article be rewritten without such "how"s and still remain encyclopedic? the answer to the second question is: probably not, but the first question is much more important. A simple answer to the first question is well, other people appear to have missed it too, because no one has ever said that this article is a "how" article While that's a decent answer, it doesn't really explain "why" it was missed so many times. Then it hit me. The real answer is the "how"s were missed in the article because the "how"s in this case are encyclopedic. Why? Because the Wii is so novel. The Wii developers are able to do things that haven't really been possible before. "what? People can move the wiimote around like a Lasso, and the characters onscreen can mimic their movement?" This information is notable, because it's the first time this has happened (Now I understand that saying "first" in this case may not be backable by reliable sources, but saying that it's used as a lasso can be, and because it's unique, it's encyclopedic, because it's a piece of the history of video games.) This means that How-to guides (instruction manuals) can be encyclopedic as long as it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, I think that Wikipedia backs me up on this case too:
 * the Michelson–Morley experiment shows "how" those two scientists performed their experiment (and therefore how one could duplicate their results), but it is obviously encyclopedic, because their experiement was the first of its kind. It's encyclopedic, because it changed how we as a people thought.
 * SpongeBob SquarePants (partially because I wanted to grab a random example with something I'm not familiar with, but didn't know where to start. Then I remembered that henchmen and bowsy might read this, and quickly thought of this example) tells "how" the show was conceived and "how" it became popular (Broad appeal, Merchandising and Marketing). These are encyclopedic, because they're the history of the show.
 * So, How to play a game is not an indiscriminate collection of information if the information is itself encyclopedic. How to beat Bowser in Super Mario 64 is probably not encyclopedic, but one of the strange ways to beat NetHack might be (notable because it's strange and interesting to readers even if they haven't played the game, because it's part of the adage "The DevTeam Thinks of Everything") McKay 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)