Talk:Mario Kart 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mario Kart 64 article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within Nintendo for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Mario Kart 64 was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}


Contents

[edit] Can computer players fire blue spiny shells?

I seem to recall that computer players can fire blue spiny shells (though, like the item itself, this is of course a rare event), but the article suggests computer players can't fire any kind of shell. 86.131.93.206 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not recall a CPU ever firing a spiny shell, and I still play the game relatively often. --DarkAdonis255 21:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Extra Class Difficulty

I was under the impression that in extra mode the difficulty setting was 150cc, but Alexpenev claims that this is not the case and that it is really 100cc. I requested verification as his talk page on 23 Dec 04 (since he claims it can be verified in his comment on his edit as well), but if anyone else knows where I might find this verification I'd appreciate hearing about it. Suppose that if we as a community don't find anything in a week or so then we set it back to 150cc as claimed by several FAQ writers at [Mario Kart 64's page on GameFAQ.com] in the interests of making Wikipedia the most accurate as possible?

-SocratesJedi 08:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In short, those FAQs are wrong (I'm yet to read an error-free FAQ @ GameFAQs, so you should never take what they say as a definitive answer, since they're just written by folks like you or I). 100cc, Extra Mode and Time Trials all use the 100cc engines. You can test it yourself, if you insist. Just pick any section of road and travel it in the different modes and time yourself. Or even simpler, just look at your speedometer - it's around 64 for TT/100/Extra and significantly over 65 in 150cc. You get around the same times in 100/TT/Extra (assuming you're a good player, you should be first by over half a lap so items don't come into play because you'll only get shells/bananas; only your engine speed will affect how you do), and 150cc is the only mode where it's easy to beat those times by a couple of few seconds. alexpenev 10:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heyas, thanks for your reply. I tested this claim independently (yeah, I know, no original research. Bah. This is merely confirmational work.) and found support for Alexpenev. I conducted 5 tests for each difficulty level (100cc, 150cc, Extra) and took time data. I recorded the amount of time it took from the moment of pressing go until impact against the first wall while traveling in a straight line on Banshee Boardwalk (which was selected because it had a flat wall to run into that was invarient whether the turn was left or right, unlike many other courses). My results are summarized as follows:

  • 100cc Avg Time: 3.392 seconds on standard deviation of .017204
  • 150cc Avg Time: 3.322 seconds on standard deviation of .027129
  • Extra Avg Time: 4.400 seconds on standard deviation of .03898

Given this is seems statistically likely that 100cc is the true difficulty and that alexpenev was correct. I withdraw my challenge to its legitimacy.

Thanks for replying about this, Alexpenev. I appreciate it. Happy Editing!

-SocratesJedi 03:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Those results look highly ridiculous to me. -anonymous.

I just added a shortcut section (not complete yet), and I accidentally deleted some stuff. I think I fixed it correctly, but it's my first time editing stuff on wikipedia so I'm not sure. Can someone who's a more experienced user check to make sure I didn't mess anything up?

-mjf314

Shortcuts belong on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. The- 21:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Differences

Actually, Bowser is the heaviest, Wario is the lightest of the heavyweights, and Donkey Kong is in the middle of the heavyweights compared to weight.

No, that's wrong. [1]

The- 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course that's not incorrect. Can't you tell, it's unofficial to say that Donkey Kong is the heaviest. Wario is NOT slightly lighter than Bowser. Even though it looks like Donkey Kong is heavier than Bowser, even though Donkey Kong does not weigh as much as Bowser. www.mariokart.ds.co/uk is a very UNOFFICIAL page, and contains some stuff that is NOT actually true. --ZachKudrna18@yahoo.com

Nor is there any evidence to say it's correct.

The- 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all of the lightweights / middleweights / heavyweights all shared the same attributes with regard to speed, acceleration, handling etc. I am curious about a citation for that claim. - 11 May 2006

That's because that's how it is - within the class, the characters are identical, other than cosmetic changes. That website is incorrect; fan sites are not good sources of information. DarkAdonis255 15:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

I think this page may need a cleanup.

The- 17:19 7 Sept 2005

I cleaned up 4 days ago; got rid of shortcuts (totally unencyclopedic); removed voice actors and their characters (not all that necessary); deleted controls (totally unencyclopedic.) Changed a bit in the items section too.

The- 15:48 16 Sept 2005

  • I re-deleted the voice actors. Tomsteele 05:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Position colour necessary?

Recently, a few setences were added to the Mario Grand Prix sub-section, describing the colour of a position. (Yellow for first, second, and third, yellow-orange for fourth, etc), but I do not think it is relevant to the article. What do other people think?
The- 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is removed now, if anyone thinks it is necessary please discuss here.
The- 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article has no references and large sections of unlinked text. --Pagrashtak 00:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some citations are needed for the characters section. It sounds like the opinion of just a few people.

[edit] Character Rankings

I'm curious as to where the numerical rankings came from; if I'm not mistaken, they aren't anywhere in the game itself. Does anyone have a source for these, and if so, is it one that can be considered reliable? If not, I vote that we delete that section as it's not especially pertinent in any case. Imdwalrus 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Developer

Can anyone confirm Namcot (er, Namco) developed MK? I thought Nintendo makes the MK series in-house, Namco is a separate company altogether (a very big one, at that). They probably had something to do with MK-Arcade, because Namco makes arcade machines. I don't see how/why they would have made MK64 on Nintendo's behalf, considering it's a flagship title... According to Nintendo_EAD, EAD made it, not Namco... alexpenev 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm noticing this article is getting vandalized frequently. Someone changed "Projectiles" to "Goodies" and "Mushrooms" to "Bad Goodies". Is anyone thinking this article should be semi-protected for a while? --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

69.22.255.219 has been vandalising random articles including this one...

[edit] Copies Sold?

i am doing a speech on mario kart because it is probobly my favorite game ever, and i was wondering whether anybody knew how many copies it sold. Either in its opening week or really how many copies at all. i have looked all over and am unable to find it anywhere. Ever greatful if you know -Brian-

[edit] About Llama man's edits

Llama man has removed many sections because he thinks all of them are "cruft". I think these edits should be reverted, since lists of courses and so on is vital for the article. Does anyone else think Llama man's edits should be reverted? ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure that the edits were for the better. I am leaning towards not reverting them, however, because this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan site detailing how to play the game well. The Mario Kart DS article is probably the best Mario Kart article (it has many people working on it and has a fair number of references), and it does not list the items or the courses. Such information would be good in a fan site, but I don't think it would be good here.--DarkAdonis255 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parley to A Link To The Past

I have a swell idea. Rather than randomly amputate sections of this article like my gardener with a weed whacker, why don't we sit down like gentlemen and fix areas that need fixing? The article is by no means perfect as is, but the article needs cleaning up and some rewriting, not mass deletion of entire sections. And yes, content removal is vandalism - see the WP page thereof under the "blanking" section. MalikCarr 07:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I see you'd rather continue vandalizing the article, as opposed to helping make it a better entry as I suggested above, you've left me little choice in an appropriate course of action. MalikCarr 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you report me? I'd love to see what'd people have to say about you saying "Well, because he's making an edit I disagree with, he is damaging my article!"
And ironic that you use WP:VAND to support you assuming bad faith. "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." From the blanking section. Selective reading FTL. I "blanked" content for the reason that it is unnecessary and irrelevant trivia. I suggest you better educate yourself on Wikipedia policy before you go around making baseless accusations. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Accuse me of making a baseless accusation with one of your own? You aren't helping your argument here at all. Furthermore, at what point was this "my" article? I haven't written anything on it, yet, because you keep deleting sections you don't like. Why should I or anyone else be bothered to try and improve this if we have a vandal who blanks parts of the article for inane reasons? Perhaps if you'd give your "delete" key a rest and be more cool-headed about this business, we could work together on cleaning it up and getting it back on the good article list. Or would you prefer to remain adamant in personal attacks, ill-cited Wiki policies and general tomfoolery? MalikCarr 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Ill-cited? You have utterly failed to show how I am "intentionally doing damage to this article for the sole purpose of doing damage to it". And you aren't declaring ownership of this article? Yeah, you're not possessive. I mean, possessive isn't flaming anyone who makes an edit that dares goes against what you want the article to be and screaming that they are vandalism - not because any existing policy on Wikipedia agrees with you - but because you said so (and of course, you're so important to the process of Wikipedia).
Children such as yourself should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, especially since you are drastically uneducated of most policies - or at the very least, are uneducated of the fact that all of a policy matters, not just the parts that you like. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see - you came here four days ago. That explains your utter ignorance to Wikipedia policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good God, you accuse me of personal attacks on my talk page, incorrectly state how long I've been posting here, accuse me of being a "child" and "uneducated", say I shouldn't be allowed to edit, and somehow you think you're the intellectual superior in this debate? Tell you what, just delete the whole article. My intentions of making Wikipedia a better place aren't worth putting up with you. Good day, sir. MalikCarr 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I enjoy seeing you claim to be the intellectual superior in this debate, even though you were the one who was trying to insult your way to getting your way, and that you do not undestand most of Wikipedia's policies.
By the way, my apologies - you've been here for a little more than a month and ten days. Which obviously proves you to be the best Wikipedian in the universe, correct? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree about fixing the articles and not just whacking sections out. And A Link to the Past, you need to calm down and remain civil, please. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, because removing content is never fixing. How in the world is it "whacking sections out" by making a legitimate edit that removes content and sections from the article? The lists are gamecruft. We do not need guides on how items work. We don't even NEED the list of items. And talking about civility - the both of you are making accusations of vandalism and destroying this article - conveniently without explaining how my edits are vandalism. Explain to me how it is civil to make accusations that I am violating policy and not even backing up those statements.
And there is a TEMPLATE that is used when there is too much trivia. And friend, there is TOO MUCH TRIVIA. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is listcruft necessary?

Explain this.

A user made it seem as if stuff like what I was doing was why the article stopped being a good article. How so? Could it have been that it was removed BECAUSE of the lists?

And tell me, what do you think they would say if you kept lists and indepth descriptions of how items work on the FAC? "Oh, long lists rock!"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that a list of items is completely unnecessary in the article, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a fan site detailing how to do well in the game. I think the notable changes from Super Mario Kart should be maintained, however, and given their own section. It allows a better understanding of the game and the progress it sought to make over its predecessor. We could put the list back up temporarily, though it would be better if some sentences of overall description and explanation were given, as description is preferred over lists when possible, if I understand correctly. Articles such as that of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, a featured article, note the differences in a specific section. Also, I think the bit of trivia about the reference to Super Mario 64 in Royal Raceway is relevant, as it clearly involves another notable game.--DarkAdonis255 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not care about there being a differences section, but it should not be every single minuscule difference made into a list. It should be the most relevant examples written in a paragraph. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should Virtual Console blocks be added to "Media"?

It seems to be a relevant media, the game uses 129 blocks. If this is done, should it be done to all virtual console games? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeymad2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I think that would be appropriate. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Who Destroyed this Article?

I remember working on this article long ago and it was turning into a great resource. I come today to view it and I don't know who came in here and cleaned house, and then after deleting basically everything adds a bunch of banners saying "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.", its ridiculous. Sure some things weren't "encyclopedic" in style, but that doesn't mean you should just go ballistic and remove entire sections etc. This article is a mere speck of the great resource it once was...

Why did you bother posting this if you yourself admitted that the content wasn't encyclopedic? That fact alone warrants its deletion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And I think we've found our culprit...I apologize, I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an internet website and is edited by users of the internet, not something that is classified as the be all and end all resource to get definitive information on such "important" subjects such as a video game. Yes, lets make sure to delete all non-encyclopedic items.(Otherwise known as interesting information people really want to know about). There were some interesting things in this article that I never knew about the game being a fan, things that have since been deleted, if you take a look at any other typical Nintendo/Video Game Article there are plenty of sections showing things like Trivia(an example of a large section that was completely deleted here), I guess we have plenty of work to do in finishing our quest to make everything encyclopedic and follow such strict guidelines, I am sorry for expressing my frustration of delete-button-trigger-happy elitists, continue your work, get those delete buttons going overtime....I think I was reading an article the other day about Super Mario Bros. 2, some trivia was mentioned about it being a remake of some Japanese game, I found it quite interesting as I did not know that, you can start deleting there if you are looking for things to do...
Right. So let's compare:
I - don't take a stance when it comes to discussing with you.
You - Talk down to "deletionists".
So obviously, I am the elitist.
I hope you won't call me elitist again when I tell you that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Console update in America?

Was the update for the bug in the Virtual Console's Mario Kart 64 available in the North American Wii Shop Channel? I didn't see an update anywhere.

[edit] items dependent on position

It is obvious to anyone playing the game that the items you can obtain are dependent on your position. You can't obtain a spiny shell in first place, for instance. So why is there a "Citation Needed" tag? It's not so much the probability of changes but rather the set of items obtainable, but it is true that the further behind you are, the better the items you will get. 74.69.245.119 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, someone who has played the game would find this to be quite obvious. However, the article is intended for anyone who wants information on Mario Kart 64, not just people who have played it. --DarkAdonis255 12:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But it looks to me like a measureable chunk of this information actually comes from playing the game (Which I guess is considered orginal research) and not from external sources. Of course, a lot of C/VG pages seem to be like that however. 74.69.245.119 16:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Courses?

I was thinking about putting a list of courses with some description here, but thought I should ask the talk page first. What do y'all think?  DangerousNerd  talk 00:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A table like that of the Mario Kart DS article might be useful. --DarkAdonis255 17:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get on that.  DangerousNerd  talk 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother. It is game guide information. A general "The tracks are... They contain..." is all that we need. TTN 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Console

Switched the ordering of regional release dates of Mario Kart 64's VC release; as was not chronological (North America was written before Europe, despite the alleged earlier release date in Europe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.19.23 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small expansion of Tracks section

Hi, I've added a bit more info into the tracks section. Hope it makes sense. Wasn't sure whether to include the last two sentances (about mirror tracks and tracks featured in other games) if you feel this constitutes guff or guide content please remove it.

Also, should we mention the fact coins are removed from this game? It does kinda made a big impact on the gameplay dynamic (seeing as your coin total influenced your speed). Darrek Attilla (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)