Talk:Super Paper Mario/Archive 2

message: I just came from the mario rpg list and this game wan not included, being a noob I have no Idea how to change this so could some one add this to the list?Blue loonie 01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in the mairo RPG list. 

message: I just posted bside Red Flower that it was previously called a Fire Flower (for all Mario noobs.) I'm not sure if that affects the flow of the article though. What do you think?12.210.112.51 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think i should remove this info? 

message: In the items section, i added Thunder Rage on the Offensive Items and the Happy Flower in the Special Items that were from lots of videos i've seen lately.
After a while, i decided to join Wikipedia too add that new info to that page. :)
Anyways, im new here!
NintendoWiiOwner 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some items I added. 

message: The game isn't even out, but it's already turning into a guide: Super_Paper_Mario#Power-ups. A clear item guide, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. I would delete it, but I can imagine people will just re-add it (thinking it's fine, just because the game isn't out or whatever the case might be).zRobJ1981 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't freak out. It is a similar size to the articles for other games of its stature. Soon it will be out, but in terms of Nintendo's game plan on Wii it's a big sleeper hit. As long as it doesn't grow out of hand, we shouldn't trim it until we know what is most relevant. It's certainly nothing to freak out about. --Ira-welkin 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not freaking out, that comment wasn't needed. As per game guide policies/guidelines: item lists are rarely encyclopedic. Why let it exist now, and delete it later?  Delete it now, and end the item guide issue. Some are relevant, and some aren't: but that's not the issue. The issue is it's becoming an item guide. The use of items can be described in the plot, when the game comes out. But even then: a mass listing of them (or describing of alot of them) isn't notable for Wikipedia. It being a hit or not: doesn't mean item lists are allowed. RobJ1981 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is becoming a guide

message: Way is this game under main series when it is a RPGSonicrules2 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has just as many ties to the Super Mario Bros series as it does the RPG series'. It's both... sorta. The RPG elements were toned down and, obviously, the platforming elements were made more prominent. This isn't my reasoning, but a possible explanation to your quandary. --Thaddius 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's part RPG, part platformer... so it technically leans towards both the main series and RPG series. It's more platformer though, so main series seems to be the correct place for it. RobJ1981 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still doesn't really seem like a main Mario game, though that could change when I actually play it. Maybe the developer should be used as more of a benchmark? All the others, as far as I know, were developed by EAD and not a group like Intelligent Systems. Eusis 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the Paper Mario series is a spinoff. It's not part of the main Mario timeline. --Nintendorulez talk 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main series 

message: I just now found out this game came out today! Is this hard to find, or is it everywhere and easy to buy? --TheGreenLink 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place for this type of discussion. Discuss changes to the article: not the fact you can't find it. But anyway: to answer your question, most likely it will be out tomorrow everywhere. April 9 is technically the shipping date, as games come out on Tuesdays most of the time. Correct me if I'm wrong (and this game is an exception). RobJ1981 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob is correct. With most games, the release date is the date that the company ships the game. Some stores in the northwest (where Nintendo ships their games from) get it today, but most stores won't get it until tomorrow. TJ Spyke 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As the talkheader clearly states: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.  RobJ1981 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to Find? 

message: I've received two images from Nintendo of Canada over the last few weeks telling me that the game was to be released on the 11th. Now, the 9th was Easter Monday so no stores were open, but yesterday I picked up a copy from my local EB. Anyone else able to get it yesterday, or even Monday in Canada? --Thaddius 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the game on the ninth in Quebec. I got the game from Microplay. --70.48.111.92 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 11th for Canadians? 

message: When i put SPM in my Wii and went to play it it did a system update check or somthing to that matter... what was that about. If I din't have version 2 would it not play it or somthing?  --TheGreenLink 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The game comes with the firmware update to version 2.0U. I assume it was meant for systems that cannot connect to the internet, or some other matter; incidentally, the update to version 2.2U was made available two days after the U.S. release of Super Paper Mario, along with the introduction of the full version of the Internet Channel, thus making the firmware update that came with Super Paper Mario obsolete. Disaster Kirby 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the same issue that is causing imports to brick PAL and NTSC-J units, as an aside Jaymzjulian 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have the latest firmware (V 2.2U) and it did not check my system when I inserted the disc. HumanZoom 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Update 

message: Super Paper Mario is in the Paper Mario series not in the main series even if it is part platformer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.35.55 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the bad grammer but here's what I have to say. Super Paper Mario doesn't belong in the main series because of how it is presented (example: art style). also its has Paper Mario in its name meaning it belong in the Paper Mario series. and finally it is a RPG based game. 67.164.35.55 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess not.--Claude 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that was a really bad way of saying it, I think he's right. The inside jokes and references are mostly from the other two paper mario games, such as Merlon and all the items in Fort Francis, and the general story style fits better with the other two games. Most importantly, it's called Super Paper Mario. Sadly, I have no "official" sources to confirm this, but few of the Mario games have any storyline continuation between them in the first place. JDub90 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is obvious that this is a different Merlon. The Mushroom Kingdom has its own Merlon, Merluvlee, Merlee, etc. Rogueport also has its own "Mer-" people. The Merlon in SPM is obviously the Merlon from Flipside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.54.248.120 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the point still stands. Okay, think of it this way. Zelda 2 was totally different that the other 2D Zelda games. It was a jumping side-scroller, whereas other Zelda games had overhead action. Yet it's still part of the series (and chronologically, most likely a possible conclusion to the series). So why take Super Paper Mario away even if it's a little different?
I have a proposition that could help clear away the confusion. Since we all admit that the Mario series has no real coherent "canon" to speak of, and Wikipedia assumes that only the platform adventures are mainstream, how about we rename this Mario series template to "Mario platform games"? That way, no one needs to fight over it, and it fits perfectly as well.208.101.136.230 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper Mario not main 

message: This article is pretty sloppy. I'm going to go ahead and rewrite parts of it, but feel free to change anything I edit as you like if it goes against Wikipedia's guidelines or whatever. 24.78.106.111 03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the game yet (or the strategy guide), so I don't know enough about the game to write an article. That's why I haven't done much. TJ Spyke 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for one, the Easter Eggs section needs removed outright. Practically none of the information in that section is really needed in the article; it's basically a list of fanservice bits. (I'm sure there are several people who would agree on this.) Disaster Kirby 04:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that; I'd leave a placeholder that there are many references to the past "Paper Mario" series as well as other Nintendo games, but cite no examples or the like. --Masem 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (EDIT CONFLICT) As much as I like knowing about all the little easter eggs in a game, I agree, it is really unnecessary to the article. The whole thing can just be scrapped, although I think I'll save it to Notepad before it gets deleted (for later reading, not to repost it somewhere else in Wikipedia). --LuigiManiac 04:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those easter eggs can stay (like the one character having Nintendo systems in his room and the I AM ERROR thing, for example). TJ Spyke 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two problems with leaving any reference like that in: 1) you leave one in, people are bound to want to add others ad infinitium.  2) it's still speculation.  If you can find a source that says that the developers included a Zelda easter egg in the game, great, we can add it, but every one of these is speculation otherwise.   Basically: they all should go, even if it is a cool or interesting one. --Masem 04:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole easter eggs section either needs to go, or be seriously condensed...then watched. I own Super Paper Mario: and I realize it has many references to Nintendo games/previous Paper Mario games. But that certainly doesn't mean we need a list of them all (which is what the section seems to be leaning towards). RobJ1981 05:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also vote that the easter eggs section should be removed altogether.  If there is a website that provides a list of Nintendo references in the game, we can add a link to that in the external links section. TheyCallMeGeorge 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the easter egg section should go. There's nothing important there, and looking at the history, all it had was in-jokes, and not any real easter eggs. JDub90 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Easter Eggs has been removed, but a just as useless trivia section has been added. Especially considering how widespread I AM ERROR is, I'm just going to delete it. JDub90 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I see that there's a List of Characters in SPM, which is reasonably fine (a few guide-ish type statement but not excess yet).  I think if that article exists (and as it borrows a lot from the main page), that we should get rid of the character on the main page, EXCEPT for the 4 playable ones, and then on the List page, get rid of the playable characters section, such that that page is ONLY the character new to SPM.  It'll help keep this article on the shorter side. --Masem 14:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Masem, O'Chunks should be believed to be fairly flatulent..Haven't you seen the way he 'rockets' off after you chunk him? -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing that suggests its flatulent related in the official documentation or dialog (no one talked of odors or the like), and if it were, it seems outside of the usual "cleanness" that Nintendo goes for (outside of Wario, of course).  I'm not saying that it can't be, but adding it in is purely speculation unless a primary source says otherwise. --Masem 05:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Characters 

message: We have a List of characters in Super Paper Mario article in which to offload the characters, we do not need to include "optional pixls" and other subcharacters in the main article.  It'd actually be better if we had a strong Plot section explaining the storyline and characters involved, and no specific character list at all.  I'd remove some of the less important characters myself, but being unfamiliar with the game, I'd rather leave it to people who were. - hahnchen 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list on the main page duplicates some of the info on the list page, and as such, is an unnecessary list.  I've cut it out, leaving a blurb more related to gameplay about the characters, but left the Main Article wikilink right there. --Masem 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please cut down the List of Characters

message: For those of you that have played through at least Chapter Three, you'll know Francis mention a "digibutter.nerr forums". (Screenshot at "www.digibutter.net")
I found it. Well, others have, but I haven't seen it mentioned here and wanted to bring it to attention. I'm not sure if it's fan made or by Nintendo. Anyone care to check it out? Link. IrishmanDX 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Find