Talk:Super Mario 64/Archive 2

message: The Nintendo DS is NOT a platform for this game, the Super Mario 64 DS is a different game and has many differences, this article is for the N64 game. please do NOT list the DS as a platform for this game.SuperWiki5 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nintendo DS, not a platform for this game

message: I removed the paragraph under the reception paragraph as a glaring example of Point of View problems. It was completely unsourced, unattributed and made a highly contentious point. Most of the rest of the article would seem to indicate that Mario 64 represented a bold new direction for the series, and was not much like previous games in the series at all. At best the article should attribute some sources and counterbalance it with an opposing view. Frogacuda 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your messages and put them at the bottom of the talk page. For what's it's worth, I have responded to this issue at User talk:Frogacuda. Andre (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted reception paragraph

message: If you have time why not help with writing a player's guide for Super Mario 64 on Wikibooks? Gerard Foley 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that book was deleted along with the rest of the videogame books. I have started to write my own guide from scratch in the Public Domain at WikiKnowledge if anyone wants to help with that instead. Gerard Foley 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks 

message: This should be incorporated: http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/kong/features/mario64/index.shtml - Fredrik | tc 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on development 

message: omg. look at google video there is a luigi is real thing there. Whoa 
Thats some bad grammar you got there. And its pretty easy to make a screen shot/video that streches mario out a little and makes him green... Wesz 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oooh 

message: The article Super Mario 64 includes:
#Limited references concerning the history and the development of the game. The references in the article are not formatted correctly.
#Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation? The "Rumors" and "Impact" section requires citations as well.
#Far too many fair use images.
#The "basic controls" section could do with some trimming.
#Is the "remakes and sequels" section necessary?
#The spoiler warning is quite lengthy.
—Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dealt with #2 #3 you threw out #5 and I dealt with #6.  Number 1 i'm working on, and #4 is not a valid issue. You should have posted a cleanup instead of doing a FARC Seraphim 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates|WP:FARC]]

message: The list of levels does not consist of "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag is used for.  While playing the game you are not suppossed to be surprised by any of the main levels. What would be considered a spoiler is explaining how to find Shifting Sand land, but since that is not mentioned, there are no spoilers that I can see. Seraphim 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the list of the levels featured in the game certainly adheres to the title of "spoiler warning". Perhaps one reading this article does not want to know that about the levels in the game? We cannot be careless and need to patch up all loose ends. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the game if you hit the start button you get a list of all the levels in the game.  It is not a spoiler, and there is no way you can consider a level list to be giving away "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag covers.Seraphim 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of spoilers tag 

message: I just removed the Rumors section.  Wikipedia is not a place for rumors or speculation, however, I realize that the rumors were posted to adknowledge that the rumors exist which does fall inline with wikipedia standards.  With that said, we cannot add unverifiable information to articles, and the rumors section definatly needs some references added.  I'll post the content of the section here, and whoever added the rumor can add in a reference, and then once it's all referenced we can add it back into the article.  Here it is:
:Because of Super Mario 64's great popularity, rumors spread like wildfire after its release.
:The most infamous rumor is that Mario's brother Luigi is an unlockable character in the game. This rumor was fueled by a blurry texture on the pedestal of a statue in the castle courtyard that some think reads "L is Real 2401" (or alternately, 2041), for which various speculative explanations have been proposed by fans. Others believe the text to read "Eternal Star," which makes sense since the texture appears on the pedestal of a star-shaped statue. The phrase "Eternal Star" has been used by Nintendo in other games, most notably as an unlockable board in the first Mario Party title. Luigi is a playable character in the Nintendo DS version of the game.
:Photoshopped pictures of Mario with a green tint have been presented as evidence of Luigi being playable, but no one has been able to accomplish this feat in the game.  Nintendo has consistently denied Luigi's playability, and never commented on the meaning of "L is Real 2401." However, in one Nintendo Power April Fool's issue, the table of contents said that this cryptic phrase would be discussed on a page whose number did not exist in the magazine.
:The suspicious texture also appears in Dodongo's Cavern in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, a game which recycled and revamped the graphics engine from Super Mario 64. The artists may simply have reused the texture as a joke, knowing the fuss it would create amongst keen-eyed fans. Several other out-of-the-way Mario references exist in that game.  
:Thanks Seraphim 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced Rumors 

message: Please discuss your removals before doing them unilaterally. Do not remove sections - find references, don't kill the entire section. Andre (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, feel that it has not been established that we have too many screenshots on this page. Though the line about Desert Land and the rumors section need references, they should not be removed out of hand. We will locate references for them. Andre (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Um.... Look up 1 section on the talk page called "Unreferenced Rumors".  Right now someone is trying to get the page's Featured Article status removed.  All issues need to be dealt with immediatly so people don't post Remove decisions and then never check back again.  Seraphim 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Andrevan here, that the first choice should be fixing text, not removing it. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100% that the first choice should be fixing text not removing it.  However the first choice should also have been posting a cleanup tag on the article, not creating a nomination to remove this as a featured article.  But Eternal_Equinox did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates. One of his reasons was alot of uncited text, specifically the rumors section.  Since no part of the rumors section had any references that is an extremely valid point, and people would have to vote for removal of the article's featured status.  Most people don't go back to re-check their votes a few days later, I removed it to here to prevent people that view the FARC's only once from voting Remove.  There has been too much work put in this article, for it to loose featured status.  Once the FARC is over i'll gladly put the rumors section back in and tag it with references needed, however right now this was needed since one of the biggest reasons for removing featured article status is that they have tags all over them. I also suggest you all vote on the FARC nomination, since it's "your" article that will be loosing it's star.Seraphim 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eternal Equinox doesn't have authority. He's just a user, and at the moment there's little risk of this article losing FA status. Please stop removing the text, and let's discuss how to fix it. Andre (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *You are also a user so I don't follow your message. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it up for now. But if the FA vote gets another remove vote (becomes tied) I will have to remove it again.  There is a much greater risk then you believe. There is a FARC vote going on, that right now is 3-2 for keep, that is not "little risk".  I'll tag the section as needing references. Seraphim 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What I meant by that message was, your criticisms and the FARC nomination are not necessarily important. Any user can make them, and doing so does not necessitate authority. Because of Seraphim's reaction, I was unsure if he was aware of this. Andre (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand understand what the FARC nomination is.  If that passes, this page looses it's FA status. It doesn't matter who nominates the page. Seraphim 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Uch, so much talking on such a minor topic. Nevertheless, I agree with Andre. But who is this Andre? Bcem2 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals 

message: What is the current article status? Is is a featured article still or not? And where is the star if it is? User:Judgesurreal777 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.166.217 (talk • contribs) .
:Yes, it's still featured. The templates at the top of this page explain it. I still see the star. Pagrashtak 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Status?

message: There flying mushrooms in this game, like the outside the castle in 3rd tree from the waterfall. Why do these mushrooms chase you? Why did the programmers design the mushrooms to chase you?
:So you wouldn't have to go through all the trouble of chasing them. The Legend of Miyamoto 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? That makes me laugh! Zman42 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: flying 1-up mushrooms

message: Hi all - as you know, this article is currently undergoing a minor Featured article review to tighten up the language. (I want to emphasize that this is NOT a nomination for the removal of featured article status.) One issue that's come up is the list of levels - is it too crufty? Is it too long? Should it be spun off into its own article? Should it be converted into prose, and if so, how? Input from people who regularly edit this page would be absolutely wonderful; you can comment here. Cheers! The Disco King 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of levels and FAR

message: An anon added a long list of SM64 glitches to the article, but I've removed it. This is exactly the type of cruft the FAR listed above is meant to address. The section was also unsourced. -- Amcaja 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glitches

message: I've counted 13 fair use images in this article, which seems a little excessive to me (especially since this is meant to be a featured article). It would be good if someone could sort through the screenshots and take out the ones that are least useful.--Kingston Jr. 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've reverted to the version where you removed some of them. Each image in this article needs to be directly related to something in the text. I can buy that seven or eight images do this, but not 13. Also, the reversion to the article before your cuts also deleted a bunch of  requests for source citations, so I've put those back, too. — Amcaja 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If the screenshots were free images then there wouldn't be a problem, but since they're not we should follow the policy for fair use images set out in WP:FU, which states that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Given that this is supposed to be a featured article I believe the article should follow this policy to the letter. Aside from that and some minor unsourced info here and there, it's a pretty good article.--Kingston Jr. 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: According to the article, Bowser was voiced by an uncredited Issac Marshall. However, according to an issue of the The Mushroom Kingdom Mailbag (the second "the" is deliberate in this case), the user "Stealth Yoshi" proves (via an audio sample) that Bowser's low-pitched growl is the same as the shrill laugh of a Boo, only slowed down by a factor of about 8. (It is important to note that both sound bytes originated in this game.) Does this mean that he also provided the voice for Boo, or has the article simply been misinformed? --Ppk01 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowser's voice? 

message: "Super Mario 64 was considered so revolutionary that many consider it the benchmark for all later 3D platformer games and 3D games in general"
The source provided for this sentence () does not mention anything about the game being considered a benchmark. Its very weasel worded anyway, but I've removed the source and tagged it with 'citation needed' instead of taking it out completely.--58.169.31.200 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nintendo basically set the standards for how 3D space would be navigated within video games with Super Mario 64." That seems pretty clear to me, but just to make it crystal I've changed the wording to "set the standard." Andre (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems totally wrong. There are a lot of different control types. I.e. Croc or Crash Bandicoot use totally different navigation types. 84.178.73.248 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be changed. "Many" is not composed of a single gamespot article. And besides, Jumping Flash! did this a year before mario 64.--58.169.0.94 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about that -- it's about setting the standard, influencing and inspiring other games, as diverse as GoldenEye. Control schemes are not the issue. Andre (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been changed a while ago, but I just wanted to comment here on the reasoning. Saying that something "set a new standard for how 3D space is navigated in a game" is a very different thought that saying it "Set the standard for all 3D games." The latter implies it's a standing benchmark of quality which is NOT what the article was trying to say. The article was more discussing about the way analog movement was used in conjunction with a dynamic, intelligent camera, something which HAS been important to the development of 3D gaming (perhaps not all 3D gaming, but a large portion, all the same). The point made in the article was articulate and accurate, so I changed the wording to more reflect that feeling. Frogacuda 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A benchmark for all 3D games 

message: The quote I'm referring to is the "Headless Snowman 64" game article. It's not exactly a rumour, but a joke about Luigi not being in SM64. Is it worth keeping it there? 143.238.194.33 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours quote -- is it unnecessary? 

message: How did this happen without the removal discussion being advertised? Andre (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA status was removed because according to what Deckiller said in the FFXII article's talk page, it lacked inline citations and had serious lead and POV issues, and little work was done to fix those issues in the 1+ month given. Sjones23 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status removed? 

message: Geez guys, you've got reviews from every country except Japan. Get this worldwide view straight. Famitsu gave the game a 39/40, which is an impressive feat. I can't just add that though, as someone still has to find a source for it (and I don't want to help as I rather want to review the article).--SeizureDog 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Famitsu review 

message: Can we see about getting this page put on semi-protection for a while?  The GameFAQs crowd seem to have learned how to escape from their cages as of late and are determined to junk up pages related to video games here.  None of the offenders have made edits while being logged in, though, so preventing anonymous edits for a while should clear the issue up.  erhudy 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection? 

message: Should there be anything on how Super Mario Galaxy is considered the true sequel by some fans?
:Notice what you said. It is considered to be a sequal by fans. Not Nintendo. The fans. This makes the statement original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. So no, there shouldn't be anything about it unless Nintendo makes a statement saying that it is. --pIrish 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remakes and sequels 

message: The trivia recently removed needs incorporating into the article body if possible.  I'm a fan of tagging the trivia section for incorporation, rather than zapping the lot, but here's the points removed :-
* The golden rabbit, Mips, is named after the Nintendo 64's MIPS processor. 	 
* Speeding up Bowser's maniacal laughter results in the high-pitched laugh of a Boo. 	 
* Several things change when Mario collects all the stars. Bowser's final battle speech is different, Yoshi appears on the castle roof and grants Mario a new triple jump, the beach cannon is unlocked, and the Big Penguin in Cool Cool Mountain gains weight. 	 
* Without using coin-duplication glitches, there are 2092 coins in the 15 worlds. Two particular coins (Snowman's Land's narrow wooden path leading to the snowman's head, and near Tiny Huge Island's cannonball hole using big Mario) are each members of a 'coin line', but they were accidentally embedded inside walls. They can be seen by manipulating the camera to view inside the wall.
--Oscarthecat 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MIPS fact was previously incorporated, but removed for some reason. Andre (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I think there should be a list of enemies added to this article, or at least a link to this page: Mario series enemies 209.103.228.155 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of enemies 

message: 31.890625 should be rounded to 32. Then take 32 x 64 (super mario 64) you get 2048. Then add 2+0+4+1 you get 7. Now, subtract 7 from 2048 you would get 2041. 76.110.82.251 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Respond to 2041?

message: Im just curious but instead of saying ' one of the greatest' it's actually THE greatest, couldn't I just change that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milos Warrior (talk • contribs) 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Popularity 

message: Look, I know everybody keep saying that Ocarina of Time is the best, but this is it because they've putted in honor to Twilight Princess. On this page and the greatest game of all time page, Mario 64 is not recognized, putting less awards, vandalism, and poor source of showing awards.Mr. Mario 192 1 May, 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. This is as tragic as 9/11 for sure. Especially since everyone KNOWS that LoZ:OoT is the best, and because there are no other opinions out there. Yes I'm being sarcastic. If Super Mario 64 is your choice then lets all applaud. Don't get frustrated over nothing. There's probably some idiot that thinks E.T. for the Atari kicked ass. The 'Greatest Game of All Time Page' is just the most obvious choice IMPORTANT sources picked. 
And be for real, Ocarina of Time was the shitz.
--SxeFluff 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Greatest Game of all Time 

message: I think this should be removed as it does not say anything close to what the statue in SM64 says.
I did a close up on it and the one in Luigi's Mansion says "The Skeleton lies here" Angry Sun 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blurry Image in Luigi's Mansion 

message: the article says there are three star doors (8, 30 & 50) and behind each one is a bowser level.  i could be mistaken, but aren't there four doors (8, 30, 50, 70) and behind all but the third is a bowser level?  if this is the case, what's the best way to rephrase it so it's still readable? Djchallis 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  star doors 

message: Last time I played Mario 64 (in which was in like 1 year), I was on the final battle against Bowser. After I defeated him, suddenly he appeared again in the Giga Bowser form. I know it's strange but I swear I haven't used any Gameshark or any other cheat codes. It just popped up. Maybe you guys know. I say that on Melee, Giga Bowser's symbol is the Smash Bros. symbol. But it should be the Mario series symbol. I don't know but if it's true should we include in the article.  Mr. Mario 192  19:59, 4 August 2007  (UTC)
:Please stop posting this. It's not pertinent to the article, verifiable, or sourced. Andre (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giga Bowser 

message: What are the priorities and ratings of this article, shouldn't we include it??      Mr. Mario 192  14:10, 9 August 2007  (UTC)
:They're up at the top of this page. Andre (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority and Rating 

message: I think we should expand the reception section. Put a table with the scores, with a brief information of all reviews beside the table (just like in the Ocarina of Time article). It's too much disorganized. There are lots of scores that do not appear on Wikipedia or Gamerankings and Metacritic (which is the reason they gave SM64 a 94% due to the lack of search of scores.  --Mr.Mario 192 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. That along with an additional amount of sources and this article will be ready for FA again. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Er, ignore my edit summary - I edited this article, thinking I was editing Halo 3's talk page. But SM64 still should be top importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment edit summary

message: Considering the game hasn't been released yet, I think it's a good idea to either take out the sentence in the Rumor section regarding Luigi being unlockable in Mario 64, or label the section with a spoiler warning.
209.136.181.131 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, those are not reason enough to remove that content because Wikipedia is not censored. However, given the information and lack of citation/source, it has been removed based on being speculation/original research. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luigi/Mario Galaxy Spoiler 

message: WTF is 'Eternal Star'? And what does it have to do with L is Real 2041. [[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that phrase is explained above in another discussion. See Unreferenced Rumors. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal Star 

message: Are we ready to request this???     --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it's pretty close, but it could probably go up as it is and do alright. Just trying to find some more stuff to beef it up more to improve its chances. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done about all I can to beef up/clean up the article. If someone wants to give it a quick read to catch any errors or areas for improve go for it. Then we can go for FA. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Review 

message: There was a huge article about SMG and about the impact, legacy, and success of SM64 on Games tm and I thought there were excellent stuff to put on the article (including an overview on the "Mystery of Super Mario 128"). Could we do this, this may help a lot????? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, even if it doesn't provide any new content, the additional citations it could provide would certainly help. Do you have that issue? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you know what issue it is. If it's a recent release I can maybe see if it was brought over to the US at my local bookstore. The only other option I think is to check the VG Magazine archive. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'll check it out. I may not have any luck because I only see European game magazines where I am rather sporadically. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games tm 

message: i notice that it says super mario 64 is only on the nintendo 64 and ique player, but i know it can be played on the wii u virtual console Justwannahelp1234 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019 

message: In 2019, fans decompiled the original ROM image into C source code, allowing the game to be unofficially ported to any system and run natively, rather than through emulation. The following year saw the creation of an unofficial Windows port, with support for widescreen displays and 4K visuals.[108] Nintendo subsequently enlisted a lawfirm to remove videos of the ported game and its listings from various websites.  
change to:  
Fans decompiled the original ROM image into its source code which was publicized in 2019.
Removed unsubstantiated claims and original content. This was so poorly written it should never have been published in this state.
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_available_source_code for sources.
"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
2001:56A:F043:4600:810A:AAE8:2452:B841 (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia pages cannot be used as references on other Wikipedia pages. — Tartan357  (Talk) 15:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you forgot to read my suggested edit. My point is that the entire paragraph is completely unverifiable and its sources are not legitimate. I found one legitimate source on the page I linked to. Please alter or remove the unverifiable content from the paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F043:4600:8C1B:C139:8D9:8145 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020 

message: In the section noting that the game was "decompiled," the article currently links to the page for "Decompiler." This is a bit misleading, however, because no real program to decompile was used. Rather, this was manual work. I don't know if there is a better page available to attribute there, but I don't think the current link is correct.
71.61.5.228 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the link to "decompiler" 

message: Just to let you all know, I have begun recording this article over the next few weeks. I have a script prepared (which my recent edit reflects), and I will be checking back over the next few days to see if any other sections of the article chnges. So, if there's an edit you've been itching to make, I would get on that. Thanks.
Jwarlock (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is being recorded.