Talk:Mario Is Missing!

message: "rather dull game" seems biased
while, it is dull, very, very dull.--JesseMueller 00:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Do NOT upper-case the letter "I" in "is" for "Mario Is Missing!", because "is" is a very common-type word. --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com
Capitalization Error: Mario Is Missing! --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com
Correct Capitalization: Mario is Missing! --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com
: When I came across the capitalization inconsistency, I found it difficult to verify the correct form because most instances of the title are in ALL CAPS. However, on the back of the box it is clearly printed Mario is Missing! with the 'i' in lowercase. I'm trying to resolve this issue, but I'm running into issues myself.
:Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Words 

message: I own the Macintosh version of this game, but I don't see it referenced on this article. Shouldn't it be included? Thunderforge 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Feel free to add any relavent information. I don't have the game, so I can't. Koweja 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it MRProgrammer 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macintosh Version 

message: The article claims that "The SNES version runs on a very heavily modified Super Mario World engine". By comparing the radically different physics of the two games, I can say that it's most likely not the case. I also took a look at Mario is Missing's RAM memory layout, and it wasn't even remotely similar to that of Super Mario World, making it very unlikely that it's based on SMW's code at all.
I get the feeling that whoever wrote that statement couldn't tell the difference between "game engine" and "graphics". (MiM does use some SMW graphics.)
My suggestion is to either find a source to back up the article's claim, or to remove it.
Smallhacker 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMW engine? 

message: Are the two games similar in any way shape and/or form?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.112.188 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the fact that both games contain Mario characters, no, not at all. --Smallhacker (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hotel Mario]] 

message: Should there be any reference to the fact that one quote ("You won't find adobe here in Nairobi!") and the Luigi sprite from the PC verison of the game have become popular internet memes? If so, I'm not sure where it would go.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman64 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to do it would be a 'reception' section that quotes some reviews, and basically says "terrible game, but remembered fondly for being so cheesy, and resulting in internet memes"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've decided to remove all references to Weegee. Why? Because in the last twenty edits, nearly all of them have been vandalism to the page related to "Weegee." Info about him has been removed several times by various members because it was unencyclopedic. The most recent edit, for instance, added the text "The belief of Weegee is that if you stare into his eyes, you will become Weegee and die." That's definitely vandalism to the whole article. So quite frankly, it seems like just removing everything about Weegee is the best way to prevent more vandalism because of it. I apologize if I seem a rather irate about this, but it's frustrating to continually revert vandalism about "Weegee" on an article about this game. If you disagree and have a better way to solve this problem, then please implement it. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Meme

message: Yesterday I rewrote the German Wikipedia article to Mario Is Missing! because it was quite lacking. The original version seemed to have copied the release dates, publishers and developers from the English Wikipedia without citing any sources. So I looked through this version here, but it seems that in this version the data on the release dates, publishers and developers aren′t quite right either. For my rewriting of the German version I primarily used these sources: , ,  (Note: These sources are cited in the English version as well). But these sources seem to contradict what is written in the section "Development and release" and the infobox. E.g.: The MS-DOS release was in 1992, not 1993; Mindscape published the console versions and Radical published the MS-DOS version.
I know that there are sources for the other claims made in the English version. Unfortunately, I couldn′t access every source and the sources I could access didn′t say anything about the contradictory statements.
Long story short, I think that the data on release dates, publishers and developers and therefore the section "Development and release" is only semi-right and that′s why I reassessed the article to C-Class. SeGiba (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment to C-Class