Talk:Baby Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2026. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | Baby Park was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
Source
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:Baby Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Captain Galaxy (talk · contribs) 12:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 16:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll get this one, expect comments in the coming days or so.
Good Article review progress box
|
6 GA criteria
- Prose:
Vice's Kate Gray wrote about how she believed Baby Park to be the series' one true track thanks to its chaos and tight turns requiring a good understanding of drifting
.- What does "one true track" mean?
- "Thanks to" is a word to watch, so I'd reword.
The Shacknews staff ranked Baby Park as their least favourite track in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and asked why it even returned, ascribing the negative placement to its lack of reason and strategy with items and calling its layout boring
. This seems clunky, I'd reword.Game Rant's Kirsten Moreton shared similar sentiments
. Phrasing feels off here. I won't require this to be changed for GA since it's minor and still gets the point across, but if I were writing this I'd just say she agreed.
- Verifiability:
- Broadness:
Pass. Baby Park is a simple track, and I wouldn't expect much more to be discussed than what's already there. For more complicated tracks like Rainbow Road I would have expected there to be more coverage in terms of the differences between iterations, but this is not the case for Baby Park. There are no special obstacles to look out for that are part of the track, nor are there any particularly tricky parts to it that are part of the course itself. - Neutrality: Pass, mostly. There are a few wording issues in the reception section, but these are minor and don't affect the tone of the article too much.
- Stability: Obvious Pass. Up until a few days ago, the article had not been edited since September 29.
- Images: The skate track image should be removed as not strictly relevant to the subject, but the rest look good. See below.
- I disagree with getting rid of the image as it ties into the design inspirations of the track, in being an Olympic Short-track Speed Skating Track. The image is free, and isn't even displayed at the Short-track Speed Skating article, so readers can't even go to that article to get an idea. CaptainGalaxy 19:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Images
- Not quite sure the mock-up of the map is needed given how simple the map is. You can see almost all of it in the image in the infobox, but I suppose it could still help people to visualize it. I'll leave the decision on whether to keep it up to you though.
- The short-track speed skating track image is not related to Baby Park. And it's also not needed IMO because of the map mock-up.
Source spot check
Looks pretty good, just needs a few touch-ups. Once those are done, I'll do a source spot check. Gommeh 📖 🎮 16:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Gommeh: I have gone ahead and added the changes that I think apply. Thank you for reviewing the article. CaptainGalaxy 19:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sources check out after a random spot check. Read through the article one more time and couldn't find anything more that I think needed to be changed, so I'm happy passing this for now. (Fitting that one of the shortest race tracks in the game also got one of my shortest GA reviews, lol.) Gommeh 📖 🎮 13:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
"Baby Park RX"
"A remixed version of the track, called 'Baby Park RX', was later added to the game 'New Year Tour' later the same year"
In Mario Kart Tour, the RX variants of tracks in Japanese are named as R/T variants in English. The Japanese source referring to ベビィパークRX (Baby Park RX) in Japanese is the track named Baby Park R/T in English. This can be verified with these two gameplay videos showing the same track being played: "ベビィパークRX", "Baby Park R/T".
Additionally, while it is correct a remixed variant named Baby Park R/T was added to Mario Kart Tour, this isn't particularly notable within the game. 134 of the 136 race courses in the game have received a R/T variant through updates, so almost all of them with few exceptions. The R/T variant is one of three remixes of Baby Park in the game too, with the others being Baby Park R and Baby Park T (R = Reverse, T = Trick). So while it is a true statement and mentioned in a source, it's either not notable enough for this page, or all variants should be similarly mentioned in all of Mario Kart Tour's tracks with a page (which includes Coconut Mall, Rainbow Road, and Waluigi Pinball). --Meester Tweester (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Baby Park
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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Yes, this fails the stability criteria because a consensus to merge this to another article was reached at AFD. Shame, but this has to be done. (Note: I am the GA reviewer for this article - normally I'd leave this for someone else to do, but since there was a consensus to merge as discussed at AFD, I don't think this will be a problem. I'm open to discussion if anyone objects to this.) In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 15:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Because this article is being merged, it no longer meets the good article citeria. Monathephantom (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)