Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives


Contents

Archive 4

A 4th archive was made, the page was 73 KB long. Feel free to ressurect any dissucssions on the archived page.→041744 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of current discussions which were archived. I was going to put them back on the talk page, but I don't know what people exactly want. Drumpler (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If people want something they can dig it out themselves and copy that thread here, as with all talk pages and archives. JayKeaton (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone object to adding MiszaBot functionality? It's fairly easy to set up, and archiving tasks could be restricted to very old threads to ensure that active discussions aren't accidentally moved. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Promotional Coin

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

If there is is i couldn't find it. I doubt nintendo would post online. Besides that kind of iniformation does not really have a place in the article→041744 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is relevant. The coin was included with pre-orders of the game. It is very relevant. Drumpler (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View problem

The statements in regards to Ocarina of Time are unnecessary bias, and in light of such statements OoT is at 98% while Galaxy is at 97%. I highly suggest you remove any mention of OoT and GameRanking rank as it leads to unnecessary misinformation. Which it is at this point since Galaxy is not higher than OoT in the percent.

OoT's page http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/197771.asp

--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A bias I see is the unnessecary listing of every minor flaw Super Mario galaxy has. When people look at reception, people are looking for the general positive and negative impressions of gaming sites, not every little flaw that they can find and quoting it from a magazine. If you do that, it will be endless. Other top games like Oot, Soul calibur, don't have this treatment, why this game. Also, why is gamesTM quoted, how is that magazine more influential than the 25 others that aren't mentioned other than the fact it is the only site that gives it a 90.

--User:Tangeros 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that link if you look at the top 10 shows SMG being number 2... not one. However it is not bias to had cons, even small ones, it improves it through a neutral perspective. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's number two on both Game Rankings and Metacritic, contrary to the article. So remove that bit. --Jedravent (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception solution

Since reviews are still coming in (Edge and EGM gave it 10s which will boost the average back up), I suggest NOT constantly updating the article with decimal-point fluctuations; just leave it at 97%.

Instead, note that as stated by Nintendo in an official press release dated November 20, 2007, Mario Galaxy had the highest-ever metascore on GameRankings with 39 reviews vs. 31 (for Ocarina of Time).

Wikipedian06 (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried this, and it worked on other article where you don't give a rank to the game until its got atleast over 50 reviews... despite that here however articles were released abouts its number 1 rank yet here I see SMG at number 2. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Learn to read, please. As of 39 SMG reviews vs. 31 OoT reviews, SMG was ranked first. And Nintendo issued a press release about this. It doesn't matter what the current rank is. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm... so let me get this straight. While all the other game articles, including featured and good ones have to say their fixed rank while here we can say its number 1 despite not being the case? Theres probably plenty of games which have a higher score than OoT if you just filter out bad reviewa and others that did OoT. And press release? In general life theres been plnety of press releases that have to go back on what they said. While I love this game and think it is better than OoT, on wiki however this looks like bias. And since its not what GR and MC say then its a false statement/citation. And don't get cocky, I read what you said perfectly. Plus I know for a 110% fact you'll disagree because like most people including myself you like this game alot, but unlike me you'll probably want to make this game look as good as possible, that is not allowed here.
Plus your link doesn't support or claim what you've said as reasons to say its number 1 either. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Game Rankings has updated their pages for Super Mario Galaxy and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, listing them as 1st and 2nd, respectively. It's in the "RANKINGS" section above the "Screenshots" section of the pages. So Super Mario Galaxy has surpassed Ocarina of Time on Game Rankings. It seems they updated those pages without updating their top 10 or 20 lists. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please read the discussion here that I initiated when this problem came up a few days ago. It should be strongly noted that the "average" score on either site is not a true absolute average, it is only averaging the ratings of each site but does not consider differences in ratings scales. Given how much the ratings order is fluctuating, we can NPOV-y state that "SMG is one of the highest overall rated games based on aggregate sites GR and MC", but to argue whether it's #1 or #2 is pointless -- let the user design how much to value what the ranking at GR/MC states about the game, but because this is such a touchy issue, it is almost better we not include it. --MASEM 23:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that both pages says that Mario Galaxy is 1st and OoT is Second right? I mean Everyone can see this! Uchiha23 02:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, GR don't update each game page like their top 10, according to their top ten link, NOT SMG page, its 2... so both sources conflict. We should wait. Stabby Joe (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SMG has been out for almost a month now, I think enough time has past for those percentage scores to be just fine JayKeaton (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Luigi in the plot section

Considering the fact that you can unlock Luigi has nothing to do with the actual storyline of the game, why exactly is it there? He's just an unlockable: it's as silly as say, for example, putting "When you collect all 3 green stars you unlock the trial galaxies" in the plot section. Yes, I know Luigi is a bit more important than the trial galaxies in terms of documentation but I still don't think it should be announced in the plot section. Jez MM (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it also helps because it's not really a massive game spoiler, but at the same time lets people know Luigi exists and is in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.201.250 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is just a sentane (well 2)! Luigi needs to be noted in the article, he fits bet in the plot only other place would be gameplay but that is mainly for how the game all works.→041744 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Would this be true

I am only curious because, since when we read that Super Mario 64 is the greatest launch game ever, and Twilight Princess 2nd, is it actually now that Super Mario Galaxy is now 2nd or perhaps first, because almost every review we read is them saying that Super Mario Galaxy is actually "the" greatest game ever made, and also said to be better then Twilight Princess also but from what I wanna get to is that is, Super Mario Galaxy now either the or the 2nd best launch game ever, because I would like to know if any of you guys have any information about that?

From Milos Warrior"

Super Mario Galaxy isn't a launch game, so no need to worry about that. -- POWERSLAVE 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay all good then, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milos Warrior (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Condensing plot summary

This plot summary is way too long for something that really doesn't need a detailed plot summary in the first place. I really think this could be narrowed down to a paragraph, at most. Reading this article shouldn't be a replacement for playing the game and finding out for one's self. Anyone else agree? --iTocapa t 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I initially just threw up a plot summary in the hopes that it would be whittled down over time to the bare essentials. I would greatly appreciate it if someone did me the favor of gutting my work (although let's leave in the ending for the time being; there's already too much strife over that at WT:SPOILER). --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If no one has gotten to your expaaaaaansive plot summary by tomorrowish or friday, I will tame it. (Nice to-do list by the way.) clicketyclickyaketyyak 08:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries often annoy me, as many of them are found to be in violation of WP:PLOT. Super Mario Galaxy isn't a plot-heavy game either. Drumpler (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I did some quick run-through edits of the Plot section. It's hard to cut down because it's very well-written and so I don't want to take anything out! I think I saved a lot of space with edits to the Gameplay section though, so the article as a whole isn't too long. Cut down the Plot section by 11 lines. More? clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you run the risk of making the article seem small or making no real sense, or quite frankly worse then what it was if you cut sections and areas? 86.128.77.137 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Me

Spoiler Tags

Thanks, I now know about the 121 stars in Galaxy. Is it worth adding spoiler tags to the plot section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DogGunn (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How is knowing that the game has 121 stars spoiling? when you come to a reference page for a game you are bound to get spoiled - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.201.250 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(1)Wikipedia does not use spoiler tags (2)where it is obvios there will be spoilers (like the plot section). If you didn't want to get spoiled DON'T READ THE PLOT. (i might tell luigi is playable, but you would probaly disilike me with passion). So no spioler tags.→041744 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Konpeito

I just got the game today so I'm trying to avoid editing (and going beyond skimming) this article for now, but I noticed that the Star Bits are very likely based on konpeito, a type of Japanese confectionary. Right now I think this could be trivial, and possibly original research, but this may give more context on the game mechanic of using Star Bits. Does anyone with a Japanese version see what it has to say about it..? - Zero1328 Talk? 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

They're referred to as スターピース ("star piece") in the Japanese version, and the in-game explanation is that they're hoshi kuzu (星くず?), or "stardust". Although you're definitely right about the resemblance, there's no mention in the Japanese version of the game (at least not that I found) indicating a solid connection, which means that unless you can find a verifiable source noting that the star pieces were designed to resemble konpeito, it's original research. Good eye, though! --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bits of in-game text imply the connection in the English version. It being a type of food is the most obvious, but there is also a Toad at the game intro mentioning the resemblance to candy, and a mention in the storybook saying that it tastes like honey. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference to konpeito at News Feed Researcher, and if that's not notable enough, there's one at the San Francisco Chronicle, which is incontrovertibly notable because it has a wiki page. Let's stick it in! clicketyclickyaketyyak 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chronicle is indeed reliable, but we have to be sure this little tidbit isn't given undue weight. If you're going to add it in, I would just suggest a small blurb somewhere mentioning it (ideally one tied to existing information about star pieces or what have you). --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I got a bit carried away when I added it in and did some pretty extensive editing to the article up to the Plot section. Hopefully, I added in the konpeito business in an unobtrusive way. I stuck it in the Environmental Mechanics section (like Zero was talking about) when mentioning the ability to feed Star Bits to Hungry Lumas. Is this what you had in mind? clicketyclickyaketyyak 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That looks fine by me. It's a fairly minor piece of info, so I think that's enough. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Jump Height

The article claims that Mario can jump higher in low gravity. I think this is inaccurate, I don't remember any case where the gravity clearly had an effect on the height of a jump (if you landed on the same planet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.150.56 (talk • contribs)

(1) sign your comments with [~~~~]. (2) I belive that it ment that Mario could jump higher in this game than in SM64 and SMS, not becuase of the gravity, that's just how they designed it.→041744 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized I've created another topic on this same thing, I'll leave it I guess. 041744 I don't think that is right. It says that it varies between objects. It makes no reference to SM64. Ergzay 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I never really noticed any change in jump height (though i could be wrong) on any object. I was stating that mario can jump higher in this game than the other to 3D games.→041744 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most power-ups?

"Super Mario Galaxy features the most power-ups and transformations of any 3D Mario game to date."

Not by my count:

SMB3

1. Super Mushroom

2. Fire Flower

3. Raccoon Suit

4. Tanooki Suit

5. Frog Suit

6. Hammer Bro. Suit

7. Star

8. P-Wing

SMG

1. Life Shroom

2. Fire Flower

3. Bee Suit

4. Red Star/Flying Mario

5. Boo Suit

6. Spring Mushroom

7. Ice Flower

Did I miss anything? I didn't want to remove it myself, because it does have a citation. 153.42.168.174 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You missed the invincibility star in SMG, which brings the count to 8. But you should also note that the passage you cited refers to 3D Mario games only (i.e. Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, and any derivatives), which means the cited statement is still correct. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the article is correct as written despite the observation since Super Mario 3 was not a 3D game, and the article specifies that SMG has most power-ups of a 3D Mario game, which it does by virtue of having more effects than Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine. (64.198.88.126 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)).

Varrying Gravity

"The varying degrees of gravity also have an effect on Mario's ability to jump as he jumps higher in low gravity, which is similar to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and is used to pull Mario towards certain planetoids while in mid-flight." The article seems to claim that the gravity varies, which in my experience does not. All things pull equally and you can jump just as high on anything as anything else. Now because some objects are smaller you can begin to orbit them using a long jump or if there are multiple objects you can stay flying for a good 5 seconds or more by having yourself repeatedly grabbed by different objects, but there is no varying gravity. If no one says anything I'll be removing the references to gravity changes. Ergzay 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On some of the smaller planets and certainly on the black hole planets the gravity does indeed vary in degrees. JayKeaton 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Much About The Rosalina Second-Story

In the plot section, it has the second-story about how Rosalina became the Luma's mother. It tells the entire story, and I find it quite annoying because it is like when you are trying to look up reviews for a book, and you accidentally come across a site that tells you the ending, and then reading the book is no fun. It is the exact same case here. Some people are looking around for SMG reviews, and they check this article, and the entire second-story is given away. I know some people would say, "Nobody would accidentally do that," but it does happen sometimes. It has happened to me once or twice, and I find it extremely irritating. I just think it should tell the beginning, but not the ending. Is it really necessary to tell people that Rosalina's mother was actually telling Rosalina that she was dying, or that the comet that goes to Earth every hundred years is actually a Luma taking Princess Rosalina to see her mother's grave? I think shortening that section is a little change that will make the article much better, and it also shortens the plot section, which someone mentioned earlier. So, does anyone agree with me? Epass (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a sitewide disclaimer that specifically permits spoilers in the content. That being said, the issue of handling those spoilers is undergoing fairly active discussion at WT:SPOILER, which you're more than welcome to join (be warned, though, it's a long and involved discussion). As such, there is no current consensus for the censoring of spoilers in articles, so the best bet for avoiding them is simply to not read the "Plot" sections of articles on topics you don't want spoiled. --jonny-mt(t)(c)I'm on editor review! 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kamella?? (Revived Discussion)

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)

It's Kamek who blasts Mario out into space, not Kamella, but he does not appear anywhere else in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.102.0 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I dont doubt you, i just want to know the names anyway, what are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.215.219 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why has the plot been changed to say that it was just a magikoopa who shot Mario out into Space? The Mario community has accepted that it was Kamek, so thats what it should say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamek1001 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, the game has been released, so someone must know about it now. (I tried to revive this discussion, but I'm not sure if I did it right, so if it's wrong, sorry.) Anyway, so, does anyone know anything about this Kamek/Kamella/Kammy thing? Epass (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it's like this: Kamek isn't in the game (or isn't implied to be anyway), Magikoopas are in the game as common enemies as they were in Mario World, and a new female magikoopa called Kamella appears as a boss character with no plot relevance on two occasions. Jez MM (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the evidence there is nothing to say that it was Kamek at the start (There is no physical distinction, like a cape or something, and Nintendo has never said that it was Kamek), and Kamella is the boss magikoopa. Kamek1001 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Luigi's Luma

The current plot synopsis implies the Luma at the end of the extra ending is the one given to Luigi in the second story, but this seems to be purely speculation. Think about it: the remains of the mushroom ship are on the gateway galaxy planet in the ending, yet not in Luigi's story, AND the Princess has already magically been captured again, along with all the power stars in Luigi's story. I'm pretty sure Luigi's tale is supposed to simply be an "alternative" story rather than a new one. The Luma in the extra ending is clearly Mario's one, and his appearence is simply to signify that he also survived the black hole ordeal. Jez MM (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the end of Mario's game. Princess Rosalina says that the "cycle never repeats itself in quite the same way. So...you'll see." Saying that kinda shows that it was a retelling of the story, but with Luigi. Sonicxtreme (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, this is all speculation, not noteable is our own logic.→041744 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Game Rankings

There has currently been a number of changes regarding the game's current rank at Game Rankings. The list that is number 1 for 50 or more reviews is not important information since Game Rankings has an official reviewers mark which is 20 and every other single game article sticks to their official mark... it even shows this on its main page. While what has been said is true, its not the same info carried in all other articles or even by Game Rankings. Promotion of this claim and this claim alone is boarderlining clear bias promotion of the game itself which is not wiki marterial.

I know there will be plenty of die hard Mario fans, I'm really into this game aswell, who will disagree on the basis it isn't what they want but the fact of the matter is saying its number 1 is not correct. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem odd that someone added the over 50 thing to the article. I don't see why they need to, as it undeniably the highest rated game for the current and past generation, it is the highest rated game in 9 years and it is the second highest rated game of all time. Compared to all those things mentioning the over 50 thing seems trivial. You yourself have even said that once it reaches at least 50 reviews and 4 weeks after release it will be fine to make claim to those accolades, and it has well and truly been over 4 weeks and over 50 reviews counted. JayKeaton (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Exaclly, we just need to watch that section more, it seems fine at the moment, but there are fanboys and trolls sometimes. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree 100 percent. SMG review and rankings speak for themselves, there is no need to get all fanboy on it to make it look better, but that wont stop the fanboys. Nothing will stop the fanboys. You might find [this] funny and relevant ^_^ I mean the quote in the video between 0:18 and 0:25, but you may as well just watch the first 30 seconds of it. It's honestly funny because it's honestly true ^,^ JayKeaton (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, you'd think that wouldn't you yet I've never lost a battle with fanboys, both of and on wiki... probably since the real wiki edittors have way to much reason and plausible arguments over them. Plus you can spot them from a mile away lol! HOWEVER there are also trolls who will want to make this game look bad or just plain vandalise so look out for them to. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not "trying to make it look better." Games from a decade ago can not be compared with games released today because games from a decade ago (1) were evaluated based on far lower standards, and (2) received far fewer reviews, period. (As the number of reviews increases, group polarization tends to occur, thus lowering score averages.) Sure enough, the DEFAULT cutoff on Gamerankings is 20, but that's kind of arbitrary. There are plenty of games with single reviews that make them rank above OoT. Other games, like Super Mario World, have very high scores (97%) based on only five reviews, because the Internet wasn't accessible to the masses in 1991 and very few sites review games retroactively.
For these reasons, I think keeping it at 50 is fair. That's pretty much typical these days, as every big-name title (Halo, Bioshock, A. Creed, Mass Effect, etc.) gets 50 or more reviews. I'm not trying to manipulate the stats to make them look better, but rather, trying to keep them as simple and straightforward as possible. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for keeping its stats because they've passed the 50 marks, thats when they usually stick and don't move rank. However the notion that is 1 for games over 50 is trivial since the site has an official rankings which is 20+ and fan edittors need to realise that in the official rankings it is NOT number 1 and like all other game articles we must mention that one, to do other wise would be fishy to others since no other game article is doing what you're trying to do. These SET ranks, even these 5 reviewed game you mentioned aren't in them. Plus the way it is being written is incredibly samll and brief... 1 liner random snetance in a bulk of a section isn't wiki material to get this article the a higher level. I'm sorry but it does look like bias even if you're not since you say its to make it look straight forward, whats not straight forward about "first of wii and second of all time"? If you don't like it then take in up with Game Rankings, but until then we must use what they have given. I can see you're not a fanboy so I hope we can both agree on something, any ideas would be welcomed. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not really for us to decide. GameRankings is the number one source on game rankings and if a game is number one on their site or number two (or the best game released in a decade) then what GameRankings say should be taken at face value. GameRankings has a system and a policy, it isn't for us to decide what their policies should be to determine what game sits where. Anyone can add reviews to GameRankings, if you feel that Crash Bandicoot should have been number one and they they forgot to add all those perfect score reviews, you can submit those reviews yourself (though it is impossible for Crash to be number 1 because it has already received too many low scores). There is no hidden agenda, GameRankings just reports the facts, the cold hard reviews. And you can't really argue with the cold hard reviews that are out there. They are what they are, it's like arguing that the sky isn't blue. JayKeaton (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That is my point exaclly. I'm not deciding for anyone, just saying that Game Rankings says its 2... not 1 like others are trying to. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Number one for reviews over 50 is ridiculous. Number one for this and the last generation before this is fact. It's not really bias at all, according to GameRankings.com it is absolute fact. JayKeaton (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I know, you've mentioned that already and I agreed with you then so I can easily see you're a big big fan of the game but luckily is hasn't affected your wiki edits which is a good thing. *claps* Stabby Joe (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand what the conflict is here. Is it about the over 50 thing or that it is the highest rated game, on any way you look at it, On GR released in over a decade. JayKeaton (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically some are trying to mention GR in this format and this format alone: that its the highest rated game for game with 50 or more revirews which not only ignores the OFFICIAL rankings which says its 2 whereas the previous statment tries to make it look like number 1 and their official rankings is what every other game article uses. But also it is just said in a brief and even random presentation within that section. No ones saying its not the highest rated game for this and last gen, its what YOU YOURSELF have agreed on before which is the over 50 thing is trivial. I've already said this Jay yet you keep coming back like if we're arguing when in fact we're on the exact same page. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But one thing, the ranks on Gamerankings are really unfair due to the fact that there are many missing reviews from games, such as Ocarina, Galaxy, and especially Super Mario 64, that could change their ranks. So, another thing that is wrong here.... --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you could say there are some things wrong with GR, for example the Orange Box takes up 2 spaces despite not actually being techincally a title. BUT thats GR's job and its not our choice here at wiki so we HAVE TO take their word for it. Seriously, even if you deny it, trying to pick hole in a system which is theirs, not ours and is used for every other game wiki article is a clear indication of bias. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also biased: SMG got a few 10/10s that could bring it back up to #1 and GameRankings doesn't count those reviews. (the non-bolded ones are the ones that don't count in the average) Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
First off which reviews because secondly some reviews aren't added because they don't have a high enough profile... and why not blame Metacritic since most of the time GR has more game reviews? Plus to think its bias when all they do is stack up reviews... reviews that make it the second based rated game, how can that be against the game saying its that good? Seriously, regardless of what you think, it doesn't matter. We here at wiki are to present information from a neutral standpoint and whether or not you like the source is irrelevent since GR is a well known source that alot of people use as a refference and it is used in most well written game articles. Its not the number one rated game, get over it... I have and I like it better than OoT. Stabby Joe (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I keep coming back because I'm confused as to why we are still talking about this. Isn't it clear that the 50 thing should be removed, so why are we still discussing it? Does someone keep adding it back in? JayKeaton (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One review that had to be included was the EGM review, which was a pure 10 out of 10 (overall the 3 reviews). And on Metacritic, it's also bias because when they had 51 reviews, it was a 97% but on GR it was a 98% (remember they have the same reviews). So I dislike the fact of people saying OoT is better. Even SM64 was better, but people base their opinions on public reviews (and I mean on GR_, so this may explain why SM64 was considered worse. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused aswell Jay, I mean it hasn't even been on the page in a while which is great, it just seems that Mr. Mario and Wiki6 are trying to pick holes in GR which is irrelevent since we at wiki arn't supposed to give our personally opinions about a well known and much used source, and I'm starting to think its only because its not number 1. As for Mr's complaint about EGM, I find it odd is hasn't been added yet... but they do usually add it at GR and considering it the game has over 50 reviews, it will most likely boost the score by 0.1% which isn't enough for it "smash" any record. And all that you've said about SM64 is completly irrelevent since many people have their opinions, whether its from reviews or not so now as Jay has said this discussion is now completly irrelevent to. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Mr. Mario and Wiki6 should probably contact the web master at GR themselves if they have a problem with GR's system, or if they have a problem with GR's use on Wikipedia they will need to post their claims on Wikipedias policy discussions, as the GameRankings article or any game article is not the right place to discuss Wikipedia policies JayKeaton (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is becoming way too much OR and POV for the article because it's just a matter of spinning the data to put SMG over OoT or the opposite. Remember, at the end of the day, the GR is only averaging "absolute ratings" of all the submitted reviews and does not account for adjusting them for relative differences (eg those review sites that tend to put average games at 7, while others that put average games at 5) - this difference is impossible to account for, so we're stuck with slightly skewed absolute averaging.

My suggestion is that we simply change the line to read "SMG is one of the top 2 highest rated games of all time at GR/MC." and leave it at that - that covers whether you want to say its first or second while still showing how well the game was received in the press. --MASEM 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree except for the "one of the top 2" comment since it clearly states on its defualt OFFICIAL rankings that its 2. If you wanted to be the most neutral you could just say "one of the top" which could be anyway between 1 and 10 but of course fans would edit that in a second. What we've got now is fine and there seems to be little to no justification for any controversy since all the other game articles use what I've been supporting. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. guys, I'm really sorry for this. I was just trying to say the things that could be wrong in the system. And about the Gamemaster, I don't think I'll have time enough for this... Well, I'm sorry, I just tried to help. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I do also think it has some flaws int he system but I can't apply what I persoanlly feel to what is basically the best source for what needs to be said. Sorry if I accused you of bias but the whole debate did seem rather... well... pointless. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think the UR MR GAY (on the cover, they're stars on some of the letters in "super mario galaxy" which together create URMRGAY)should be mentioned in the article. I don't know how one could make it look serious though. :)

Please note that the UR MR GAY meme is not notable per discussion and Wikipedia policy. As such, it has no place in the article, and any mention of it will be deleted on sight.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

it should be included; many gaming sites have cited this, making referencing it possible. its huge in pop culture.24.109.218.172 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure UR MR GAY is suitable for mention in the article, I don't think throwing around unofficial warning labels as if they're policy is the way I'd go. I personally think the banner is harsh and ignores the fact that consensus can change. I'm not sure UR MR GAY violates any official policy (WP:N is a guidline) so I'm not a fan of that language either. It's fine to keep it out of the article until we agree otherwise but we shouldn't shoot down any attempt at discussion. Bleeding Blue (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I put the banner up simply because it kept popping up over and over and the discussion pertaining to its notability had since been archived. It was not intended to be any sort of official statement, just a notice to new editors that the issue had already been brought up and discussed. Feel free to remove it if you don't think we need it, although in my completely unscientific opinion it seems to have reduced the number of mentions (and thus the workload involved in cleaning it up) considerably.
That being said, I appreciate that someone has toned it down a little from the original version (I was a little hasty in including the talk page) and am aware that consensus might change, but given that the meme would have to not only notable and verifiable but also be presented in a way that doesn't grant it undue weight in the article, it would take a good bit to change the current consensus. As for your concern about the word "policy" being in the banner, that's just an old habit I'm trying to break and you're more than welcome to change it--the word "policy" simply seemed a bit smoother.
Of course, two of the WP pages I cited above are policies rather than guidelines, but that's just splitting hairs ;) --jonny-mt 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating the inclusion of the meme. I read the prior discussion and it seemed like it was decided that adding it was vandalism that required a block, which seems a little much. I think a simple revert and referral to the archived discussion is appropriate. If anyone attempts to establish notibility, verifyability, etc., we shouldn't simply tell them it's already been decided, especially since the presence of the archived discussion isn't very obvious. And I hope we all realize the childish/immature angle, however accurate it may be, is not legitimate reason to exclude anything from any article, if it otherwise passes policy and guidelines (again, I'm not arguing that this does). Thanks, Bleeding Blue (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you certainly have a point. I really started working on this article after this discussion happened, although the issue of the meme has come up multiple times since. I certainly don't agree with Wikipedian06's assessment that anyone adding the meme should be blocked, but neither do I like spending my time reverting additions of the meme by an endless number of unique editors, particularly when the person adding it goes the extra step of deleting the inline warning before they do so.
Since I think the warning at the top is useful as a preemptive way of dealing with this, let's edit the text a little.
Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that the UR MR GAY meme is not notable enough for inclusion in this article, and any additions of the meme without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to propose the addition of the meme on this talk page, please ensure that your proposal is accompanied by external citations and adheres to Wikipedia's policies on original research and undue weight/neutral point of view.
It's not as compact as the current warning, but I think this should cover most of the common issues we run into when someone adds the meme while still allowing for discussion. Any comments? --jonny-mt 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This change resolves all of the issues I had with the message. I appreciate the work and cooperation. Bleeding Blue (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise :) Up it goes! --jonny-mt 04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The UR MR GAY meme will die eventually like every other. It is not notable, just an excuse for childish laughs. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "meme." It's something that's evident on the cover, although apparently it won't last; if Nintendo holds true to their threats to reprint the cover without the "sparkles," then it will surely become notable information. For right now, though, I don't think it's quite notable enough to be relevant to the publication of the game. I can see how it's right on the line, though - lots of places have picked up the revelation of what the stars spell out. --Bishop2 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


The "ur mr gay" thing is: 1. Something retards do to feel cool. 2. A coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.224.196 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think all three of you are right: it is a meme, it won't last, and it is a coincidence. Unless anything else happens, we should just let it go.--CM (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)