Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 4

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that Luigi is in the game?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.26.222 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luigi 

message: Should it be edited to include the "E" rating label?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.245.98 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Image 

message: When will the article make mention of Luma? The version in the kiosk (which I persume is the final build) already formally introduces them after meeting Rosalina.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.232.145 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luma 

message: Someone has been changing the name "Rosetta" to "Rosalina" in the plot section lately. Would someone mind fixing this?
Anon 16:55 20 October 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.73.251 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why couldn't you fix it? The page doesn't appear to be protected in any way...but I fixed it. -Sukecchi 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I've already asked for page protection, too much warring going on. Tyler Warren  (talk/contribs)  01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This dispute is fucking retarded. Obviously, the English name was changed. Seriously, why don't you idiots actually check the sources and do some research instead of going revert-happy like a complete fucktard? Besides, the source cited is Nintendo of Europe's OFFICIAL website, not some random unreliable third-party media site. No need to put both names -- just stick with the English version since this is the English Wikipedia. Unlock the page so I can keep on adding some more juicy content that's recently been revealed on the nintendo.jp website. Wikipedian06 03:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the precedent set by characters who have their names changed for the English version (e.g. Bowser), I've gone ahead and put in a small paranthetical note about Princess Rosalina's name.  I imagine she'll eventually get split off into her own article where it will just be mentioned in her introduction (thereby negating the need to mention it here), but until that happens it seems to me that simply recognizing both names for what they are is the best way to stave off a repeat of what happened before the protection. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. The page is locked until disputes are settled, and so far, they are far from settled. Also, watch your language. Tyler Warren  (talk/contribs)  03:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you wish to make an edit, please type the following  <what you want to be put into the article>   Tyler Warren  (talk/contribs)  04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what exactly is being disputed here? Wikipedian06 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're reading above. People can't seem to settle down and leave the page alone, so it's been protected. People kept changing Roselina to Rosetta, adding the UR MR GAY thing which by the way is not an easter egg, it's simply the way the designed the logo. So simply type in what I told you to earlier, and an admin may add in your edit, depending on whether or not it's valid and a good edit. Tyler Warren  (talk/contribs)  04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The twinkling letters in the title spell that out. It's completly ridiculous that people want it in here. It's total nonsense. -Sukecchi 09:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priness Rosalina?? 

message: Old: "The October 2007 issue of Nintendo Power confirmed the return of the Super Mushroom and Fire Flower power-ups"
New: "The October 2007 issue of Nintendo Power confirmed the return of the Super Mushroom  and Fire Flower power-ups"
Old: "New gameplay mechanics include Gravity Arrows, which make Mario gravitate in the direction that these arrows point"
New: "New gameplay mechanics include Gravity Arrows, which make Mario gravitate in the direction that these arrows point "
Old: "Star Shards, which can be grabbed simply by moving the cursor over them"
New: "Star Crystals, which can be grabbed using the Wiimote's sensors and then shot as a projectile "
--Is this fact...? 09:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube is not generally used as a reliable source. Tra (Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand, although they are gameplay videos, so they must have been taken from elsewhere, most likely online. Could someone find the original source and link the new links? --Is this fact...? 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: Discuss --Is this fact...? 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do; that would be very helpful in settling this question. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Game Footage: [[Luigi]] in Galaxy 

message: I was going to change the number of pre-orders amde but it's protected. May I put it in there, and how am I going to do it????   --Mr.Mario 192 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for this? And...is it really important to mention? It's sales that matter, buku... (And yes, I'm aware that pre-orders become sales). -Sukecchi 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500,000 sales in America, and 750,000 sales in Japan 

message: The first review for the game has been published, a 38/40 by Famitsu. Can this be added in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so far the only source is an unverifiable poster on a forum, but I've got to make a run to the grocery store so maybe I can pick up a copy and double-check to see if the poster is right.  Although I was kind of comfortable.... --jonny-mt(t)(c) 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I found a copy of the magazine (go figure; the bookstore in my neighborhood doesn't close until midnight) dated 11/2, but the only mention of Super Mario Galaxy in it is to talk about how much the editors are expecting from it.  So either the review was in the last issue, it was in their special Wii/DS issue (unlikely; I checked that as well), or the source is unreliable.  At any rate, I don't think this qualifies as verifiable until at least some scans of the review surface. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's in English. It's not the original source. show me an actual scan of the magazine and we'll talk. Wikipedian06 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First review published 

message: http://super-mario-galaxy.blogspot.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europebound2007 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt nintendo would actualy send out the game 3 weeks early to retailers, or if they did at least it would be mentioned some where besides just there. And also, in the future i wouldn't belive anything i saw on a blog unless there are other cridible rescourses that mention it.→041744 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This guy is violating Google AdSense terms of service by incentivizing his ads, not to mention breaking copyright laws by implying that he'll leak the game if he earns enough revenue. I've reported him to both Adsense and Nintendo, and recommend you guys to do the same. Don't fall for his scam. Wikipedian06 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's also directly linking to that boxart, it appears to be directly linked from Wikipedia. -Sukecchi 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been leaked.  I have no idea if he was involved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.152.126 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this guy for real? 

message: I edited the "Plot" Section on the page (I added the Luigi info from the new issue of Nintendo Power) and it got erased. Now, its locked from editing until November 6th. I don't think this makes since.
Futurekid000 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Lock? 

message: I just wanted to note here that under Wikipedia guidelines, YouTube videos cannot be used as reliable sources.  As such, I've gone through and replaced all YouTube links in the article with  templates.
On a quasi-related note, I couldn't find any specific guidelines on verifiability as it relates to video games released in one region but not another.  Now that it's out in Japan, some editors (myself included) have direct access to the final product, which means that we can directly verify issues related to gameplay, plot, etc. before it is released in the States.  This has been done before with no objections, but given that this is a very high-profile release, I just wanted to make sure that I didn't miss something in the policies preventing me from adding this information. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability and YouTube videos 

message: I noticed there has been a little bit of back-and-forth today between whether or not to include the Japanese title of the game.  I personally come down on the side of including it, but when I looked around a little more I realized there's no clear consensus on their usage.  I've put my thoughts down on the talk page of the video game style guide in the hopes of settling this question, and so I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone with an opinion on this matter add their comments there.  Thanks! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a Japanese game after all JayKeaton 09:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Japanese titles 

message: I know a lot of people are constantly searching all the new secrets posted on the internet and want to share, but PLEASE WARN OF SPOILERS.  Confirming that the game does have Luigi as playable character while predictable is a huge spoiler and shouldn't be placed without warning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.15.164 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not put spoiler warnings in sections where it is obvious there will be spoilers. Geoff B 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does.Where else does it go? <BR>Blindman shady 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia only uses spoilers in sections that WOULD NOT normally be thought to contain plot elements. Areas labeled "Plot" or "Story" are obviously going to contain elements of the plot or story, and therefore obviously contain spoilers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game site. DurinsBane87 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warnings 

message: See www.smgalaxy.com for said rumor. This galaxy has constantly been brought up on 2ch and other prominent Japanese discussion forums, though no pictorial or video evidence has surfaced so far. Is this real or is it a hoax? Wikipedian06 08:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me, but the original Japanese includes a phrase (「と思われる」) that indicates the poster is not sure themselves.  Sounds more like a rumor of a rumor to me.... --jonny-mt(t)(c) 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added it back in due to footage from NicoVideo that confirms it. Wikipedian06 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Finale Galaxy 

message: I just read the plot section, and it says that Mario is blasted when trying to save Peach by Kamella, 'a female counterpart of Kamek, who has been confirmed as a boss in the game'.  I'm pretty sure that's false, seeing as how 'Kamella's' article links back to Kamek's character section...Well, I mean, Kamella's mentioned there, too, but I don't see any actual proof that Kamek is replaced by a girl in this game.  And isn't Kamek's female counterpart Kammy, anyway?
Okay, nevermind.  I found proof that Kamella does exist, but she's definetley not the one who blasts Mario in the intro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.240.248 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he appears as a boss twice (so far).  If you need the galaxy names, I'll be glad to dig them up for you. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because Nintendo hasn't said it was Kamek. The "Mario communities" opinion in this regard is of little importance and isn't a reliable source. (although I'd like to believe it is Kamek, personally ;)). Drumpler (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamella? 

message: Please, what is the problem in putting this review up? This is the only game that passed perfection. Just leave the biggest review (110% from ONM Italy) and the worst (90%), so there would be an even balance. Also, there should be something mentioning that Mario Galaxy is the first game to ever pass perfection on any review to date.  --Mr.Mario 192 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Half Life 2 (and more, who knows? you didn't) got an 11/10 from a source (Maximum PC?) and like that source with this one is they don't count to review average. Also this article is editted mostly by those in the west which is what the english wiki is for hence the reason Italy isn't required. ONM Italy haven't been mentioned in a single english game article nor are listed for round up sites like Game Rankings. Also like the HL2 11/10 people didn't think much of it nor the review because to claim a game in more than perfect is well... not the case... ever... in everything... in history... And finally it seems that the only people who want to add it are those who want to give total praise 9I mean even though I don't mean to offend or acusse, your name with "Mario" in it is a dead give away to someone who LOVES the franchise) IE people who just want to promote the game they like, which is not good for article development. We've got the most well known reviews up now and guess what, they're all positive, so any more isn't required. Stabby Joe 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still smacks of original research, no matter how you look at it. GameRankings, which gives an average of several reviews, would probably be the most reliable source to indicate the game's rank, not random reviews picked and chosen by anyone. Perhaps you could maybe mention the top 3 or 5 that game rankings has on its list (not the top 3 or 5 highest, but the ones ranked 1-5). Drumpler (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was the comment aimed at because if it was me what are you on about? I never said not using Game Rankings, it is as you sid a more realiable source. "Random" reviews as you've put it are usually listed from the more popular/well known sources in English. Although I find the Japanese one odd since thats got to be the only non English reviewer mentioned in most game articles. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ONM Italy Review 

message: to note that you can unlock Luigi under the "Plot" section?Dude902 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really necessary... 

message: I'd say this scrapes into the B-class zone, now, though there's still work to do before nominating it for GA. Here are some ideas to get you there:
*Get more citations. This is currently the main thing holding you back. See WP:CITE. You might also want to convert the citations to use the cite web template where appropriate: WP:CITET.
*Lead needs expansion per WP:LS. Summarise the entire article in three or four paragraphs.
*Try and make the gameplay section a little shorter if possible. If there are any details listed which aren't useful to those who don't play the game, don't list them.
*Plot section seems a bit light, but if there isn't much of a plot then it's understandable.
*Reception section needs expansion. Have a look at some articles listed here to get an idea of what to include.
*Supermariogalaxydemo1.JPG doesn't have an adequate fair use rationale.
Have a look at WP:GA? for further ideas. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 07:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be working on this article alot from now on.. Oh and supermariogalaxydemo1.JPG has the fair use rationale now.. It's fixed. The plot is just fine.. I don't think it needs anything new or deleted. Other than that Me and other members will work on the rest. You don't mind it we use your comment as a checklist right? Cause i'll be striking through some of the things on the list. Feel free to correct me on any of the things I striked through Please. Uchiha23 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just finished adding all citations for the Citation Needed tags.. Crossing off first comment. Uchiha23 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article Summarized I don't think it needs 3-4 Paragraphs for this article it's summarized just fine in 1 paragraph. Crossing out 2nd comment. Please feel free to correct me.. It's what Wikipedia is all about. Uchiha23 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just expanded the lead to include information on the basic plot of the game and other gameplay elements.  I may go back and tweak it a little more, possibly expanding it to multiple paragraphs (i.e. one paragraph for the market impact and reception, another for the plot and gameplay). --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well actually all the citations are in the table.. So you could just read them.. So I'll cross it off again oh and cross off plot. Two more thing left to do for GA Status! I've been working in this for a while.. So corrections will be wonderful. Uchiha23 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovin' the enthusiasm (not to mention the hard work!), but I uncrossed the citations item.  Not all of the reviews have web citations yet, and I have a nagging feeling there's more to cite yet in the body.  I'd also like to go through at some point and change the citations over to  templates to ensure a more uniform look in the references section.  To be honest, given the importance of verifiability when compared to the other points UnaLaguna brought up, I think citations should be the very last thing we cross off this list. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the Gameplay Section can be any shorter... So i'll cross it out for now. Uchiha23 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that this article has reached Good Article status.. Uchiha23 03:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:VG]] assessment 

message: Maybe there needs to be more on the plot. Most Wikipedia articles that I've seen tell what happens with the storyline in the beginning, middle and end, albeit in short detail. --Is this fact...? 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beat the game last night, so I suppose I can write up a quick summary that we can work from. I'll do that later tonight unless someone beats me to the punch. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The preliminary plot expansion is done.  Now if someone would take a look at it, tighten it up, and wikify it I'd be most appreciative. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Expansion? 

message: Tell me, good folks, does this game contain any firmware update for the Wii? Maybe version 3.1? My internet has been down since October so I don't have the latest version yet. 216.166.78.9 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NA version also has a firmware update, but I haven't checked what version exactly; all I know is that it does have an update. -- VederJuda (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Japanese version has a firmware update as well.  Don't really think this is notable enough to go in the article, though.... --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firmware Update? 

message: Certain GAME stores in the UK and Ireland are offering SMG a day early. This link here shows for Oxford Street, and many major cities such as Belfast, Dublin, Cardiff etc also are doing the same thing. Is it notable to add this somewhere in the article or are theyre many of this kind of promotion going on? Leemorrison 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day-early release- is it notable? 

message: I am sure we have all heard about Sony's aim to dilute Super Mario Glaxay's high scores, but does it warrant an addition to the article? Here's the link anyway [] JayKeaton 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the Sony logo at the top just looked like paid advertisements, the same that show up on every website. Regardless of the review quality, there's no real proof that he was paid by SONY, and I personally think it's bullshit. DurinsBane87 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, but proof and your opinion are not prerequisites for addition to Wikipedia. It just has to be notable and have sources from established websites, which it has both. It doesn't even need to be fact, it just needs to be reported on, so thank you for your opinion but sadly it is not needed here. JayKeaton 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would need to be reported by something more than a blog. DurinsBane87 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You have a point Jay that opinion isn't something required on wiki BUT what you and the site have is likewise. I'd go for this conspiricy if there was more sources to back it up. That site looks like pure unoffical opinion to, and the review isn't totally negative anyway. Stabby Joe 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the 20 minute (and counting) database lag will do to this post, but here goes anyway...: The review isn't totally negative, but so far compared to any other review in the known internet it is uniquely negative for a review from an established site. As for other sources, it is a breaking story so it will take between 1 second and 24 hours for the websites to report it, if they are willing to report it at all. It is already well into Friday for most of the world, so there is a big chance that most gaming sites will not be updated until Monday in any case JayKeaton 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case we'll just have to wait and see. Stabby Joe 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This review is just stupid! It's more like he's criticizing the system than the game itself!Frankyboy5 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh. Variety has responded to themselves about the Sony thing, on the same link here . They even changed the title of the review in reply to all the attention it has been getting. EDIT: No, I seem to have gotten myself confused. I meant to originally link to the ACTUAL review, but accidentally linked to the nsider article. But the author of the original article has asked that the nsider article change the title, which is a response from Variety and Mr Fritz JayKeaton 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, am I correct in understanding that you are saying that Nsider2 made changes to its blog article upon request from the author of the review, and not that the author changed the review content in any way? Dancter 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. The author of the original Variety review contacted Nsider and requested that they change the title of the Nsider post which was about the Variety review. Phew, I had to read that back a couple of times to make sure it made sense. It's like 40 degrees Celsius here today (and no aircon!), dulls the mind =D Sorry about any mix up JayKeaton 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think about it, this [] original page that highlights the controversy looks like an NsiderNews article, not an Nsider forum or blog post.  It comes under the Nsidernews.com domain and this news article is linked to a lot if you google it (not to mention the Diggs and Digg traffic). I know Nsider does not have it's own article on Wikipedia, or it did but it was deleted, but does that still not qualify it as notable? JayKeaton 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not even worth a mention. Looks like a typical Sony fanboy going bawwwwwwwww and whoring for attention. Just ignore. Wikipedian06 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please be more polite? Wikipedia is not for personal attacks. ---- Jedravent (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, well Kotaku commented on Variety's review. Kotaku do not usually comment on other sites reviews, in fact besides Famitsu they have never posted a news article about another sites review. JayKeaton (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kotaku also didn't make any mention whatsoever of any ulterior motives or potential Sony involvement in the substance of the review. It's worth including perspectives outside of traditional video gaming media (something N'Gai Croal touched upon in his most recent blog entry), so I'm not saying mention of this review shouldn't be considered, but Nsider2 has no strong basis for its claims, which is probably why it agreed to remove all direct accusations of "a possible Sony conspiracy". As it stands right now, there's no adequate reason to add what you're proposing. Dancter (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never claimed that they did mention alterer motives, just that it was rare for them to comment on it. I don't really think it has enough merit to be added to the article either, but I just want to be sure of that first. JayKeaton (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sony sponsored negative reviews?

message: Is there any indication as to how many of the promotional coins Nintendo minted? Drumpler (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Coin 

message: I didn't know where to put this discussion, so if I misplaced it, pardon me. So, how could Ocarina of Time getting #1 spot for years, if they unfairly putted the Mario 64 reviews. In other words, they forgot to put a lot of other reviews, such as the 10/10 on Edge, or the Gold Award on EGM??? So, if we put all the reviews together and SM64 pass OoT, can we change the part in the article that says that OoT holded #1 spot for 10 years? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No, look. The site had OoT at the number 1 spot for 10 years. How they got that figure is irrelevant; you don't get to say "well, they should have had [some other game] at the #1 spot for [reason], that's not encyclopedic.66.24.104.37 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There re many things wrong with GR, for one the Orange Box technically isn't a game yet it hogs 2 spaces with less reviews than newer games. But its not are place in wiki to judge. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zelda has been unmovable for all this time, yes. There is a system in place to stop games with only a few reviews added from being added to the rankings, you can see this with games like Robo Aleste, which has a 100 percent score but only 2 reviews, so it does not enter the proper rankings. As for missing reviews, you can add reviews yourself (well not right this second, the site is still completely locked up while the web master allegedly updates the system), but usually you can add more reviews if you join the site. When the site is unlocked I suggest you join and try and submit those missing Mario 64 reviews, but if the system wont let you for some reason then you should email the web master and ask that they be added. JayKeaton (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank in Gamerankings