Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive for January 2008

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.

Contents

GameRankings is not a reliable source due to webmaster bias

1. Today, Mario Galaxy got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time once more. The averages for both games were at 97.6%, with ties broken by the total number of reviews. Since Mario Galaxy had 52 reviews vs. Ocarina's 31, Mario Galaxy came out on top. The webmaster then proceeded to expand the decimal precision to three decimal places to change the ranking. Pictorial evidence here

2. In addition, the webmaster also DEACTIVATED a 10/10 GameTap review so that Mario Galaxy wouldn't rank above Ocarina with the new three-digit decimal precision. Notice how it's no longer in bold on this page, meaning it's no longer counted into the composite score.

3. A few years ago, the default cutoff for minimum reviews was 10. Then, Metal Gear Solid (GBC) got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time. The webmaster then changed the default cutoff to 20.

Keep in mind that these kinds of ties are NOT new. For example, Tekken 3 and Resident Evil 4 had been tied at 95.8% for over two years. Previously, RE4 ranked higher because it has 104 reviews versus Tekken's 23. It seems more than coincidental that the webmaster would change the decimal precision just today, considering how many similar ties existed in the past. If he had truly been interested in establishing a more accurate ranking methodology, he would have done so the first time this occurred, not when another title is threatening to overtake the game that he personally believes to be #1.

Also, keep in mind how much freedom the webmaster has to bend the rankings to his personal likings:

  • which reviews to include (these are denoted in bold)
  • the ranking methodology
  • the default cutoff for a game to appear in the rankings
  • the decimal precision

and more.

I think the best way to resolve this would be to STOP citing GameRankings entirely in the reception sections. It's not reliable, since the webmaster has shown clear evidence of bending numbers and rankings to match his own bias. Plus, this isn't the first time in the site's history that something fishy like this has happened.

(You might argue that Mario Galaxy was once #1 on GameRankings, so why didn't the webmaster tweak the results back then? First, the difference was way too high at that point for him to tweak -- 98.3% vs. 97.6% -- and from big-name publications, too. Plus, as the webmaster, he'd know that as more reviews from amateur sites begin to pour in, group polarization starts to kick in and the averages go down. This has become increasingly true over the past half-decade or so due to the exploding popularity of the Internet. Nowadays, any random Joe can start his own review site.)

- Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Though I can see where you're coming from, it certainly seems like Gamerankings is trying to keep Galaxy out of the top spot, I do however think there needs to be som,e note about how amazing the reviews of been. I mean this is the best reviewed game on average in 9 years, and that's quite an accomplishment, that needs to be noted. So we need something to go by if not GameRankings, than maybe metacritic?. WIKI-GUY-16 5:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-GUY-16 (talk • contribs)
You're missing the point: it'd be the best reviewed game ever if it weren't for the GR webmaster's personal bias. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you be 110% honest with me here, do you really believe that or do you want to believe that since its NOT number 1? If you really want to not have GR that means you can't say its a top game since GR is the link to say that... and interestingly enough its not 1. Plus GR eventually get more reviews than Metacritic so you can't mention them either. And finally SMG is the first game on the Wii, second best of all time and first for this and last generation... doesn't look like they're making the game look bad. And no offense but this does look like some kind of backlash against your attempt to call it number 1. I mean you mention Metal Gear to support your theory but you yourself DON'T think it should be since you have mnetion previously that the more reviews, the more basis we have to say what rank it is so I can't take that point on board.
Plus you're going to have a hard time with most gmae articles about this since you need to show a universal bias and not just one DEBATABLE case since ties screw up the rankings making them hard to understand, this stretch looks rather plausible. It might seem like they're trying to keep it our from the top spot but if satistically its not, which your image shows then I need to ask for more reason not to add it. Also was GameTap bold before? Just because you don't think its right doesn't mean GR goes altother without say from others so don't remove it yet, you can once we've settled any debate and please lets make it a sensible debate for future refference, I'm open to not listing it. However I know for a fact you probably won't budge since you're a clear die hard fan. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem listing GR's summary score to zero decimal places (98% instead of 97.6% or whatever it is now) in both the review box, and stating that it's one of the best reviewed games at both GR and MC; people can go to both sites and judge the results for themselves if they need further evidence of how good the game has been reviewed. But the mess that the GR webmasters are doing to "fix" the results means that any statement of if this case is above or below OoT on the rankings is going to be unreliable, and thus it should not be mentioned. Link to the ratings page, that's fine, but let the reader decide if it is or isn't. --MASEM 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Gamerankings has been an acceptable citation for every "reaction/reception" section for games for a long time now. This is established; such a radical change in Wiki policy is going to require a serious discussion at higher levels than this talk page. I can see where it would be up for debate, but damn. If you prefer, you could also use Metacritic instead. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The previous issue over the rank was settled by not listing it at all. As Masem has said, let the reader decide for themselves. Leave GR and don't mention the rank. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? First of all, Stabby Joe, we are not saying that because Mario Galaxy is not number 1, but due to the fact of his bias. An example is that there are many 10s out of 10s (and some scores that are very close) that aren't listed. An example is EGM and Gamemaster's reviews, which were 29.5 out of 30, and I think it was a ten outof ten. But no. The webmaster is using pure bias by not putting there. This is the issue. We are requesting to not use gamerankings anymore for bias. Oh and I remember another thing. Before Mario Galaxy was ever launched, Super Mario 64 could have got up to 2nd place, or even 1st, if the webmaster added the numerous 10s out of 10s (like the huge Edge review). And Metacritic is another one with bias, because when Metacritic had 52 reviews (same as GR had some days ago), SMG had a 97%, while GR (which they had exactly the same reviews) had precisely 97.6, rounding up to 98%. So, I ask you guys if we maybe create some kind of policy about this GR. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've brought this issue up over at WP Video Games to get a wider consensus and to see if it should be included in the guideline, or least cautionary notes on how GR/MC should be used. --MASEM 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr Mario, I'm saying it looks like you are doing because its not number 1, if you're not then sorry however if GR and MC are both considered bias then what are you going to use as a good indication of overall critic response? GR's change is rating seems rather plausible as there will be no more ties and it was nothing but in the top 10. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that this needs a higher-level discussion. Stabby Joe, if you learned to read, you'd understand that this isn't another petty Mario Galaxy vs. OoT debate, but the fact that the GameRankings webmaster has shown clear evidence of manipulating the scores and rankings based on points (1)~(3) listed in my initial post. Due to this, his site can not be taken as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Wikipedian06 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with putting the MC/GR metascores on Wikipedia (even if we don't mention the ranks) is that when people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher metascore than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case for reasons discussed above. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If GR were the only link we included to describe a game's reception, I would agree that's a problem. However, because we also include single review scores from reliable major game review sources, this provides another measurement stick for the reader. --MASEM 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We do list all the individual scores from major publications in the industry (EGM, IGN, Famitsu, etc.) The bulk of the reviews on GR are from amateur websites (and weighted equally as the big names, I might add); after all, the only thing you need to be listed on GR is a media site with at least 100 reviews. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki6, I already know that, I'm saying some are giving that impression though, we're past that part yet briniging it up again with an attitude and persoanlly insulting me isn't helping. Now on topic I must question why GR listing not so high profile reviews is a bad thing? If people just look a 3 or 4 reviews and thats it then they won't get a god indication of who positive the game was recieved on an almost universal level hence why we mention the major but have alink for the others. Now might I ask this: If we aren't listing the ranking then whats the problem with GR and MC? Lets say they add your example of GameTap... most likely it will still be 98%. So since we've already said the rank WILL NOT be listed on wiki and want to give a good indication of the overall response then what is the issue? If we don't say its 1 or 2 at all then theres nothing unrealible to say. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"why GR listing not so high profile reviews is a bad thing?"
1. It enables the GR webmaster to easily tweak the results to his liking (as has already happened), by including or excluding certain reviews that may impact the averages.
2. Any average Joe can write those reviews. Many of the amateur reviews are only 300 words long and not up to professional standards. Look at IGN's 3-page review versus The Onion's. They are nowhere near the same level of detail and quality, yet they account for the same weight in the critic average.
3. It doesn't make sense for amateur reviews to be weighted the same as professional ones written by hired staff in offices.
4. Many of these average-Joe amateur websites do not review every game, but rather, only the games Joe himself is interested in (to award high scores to) or UNinterested in (to hurt their averages with low scores). IGN has adequate staff to review every game that's released to the market, and generally assign staff based on their genre preferences to cut down on bias. (For example, have staff writers who are genuinely interested in shooters review shooting games.)
5. Given all these reasons, why does it matter what the amateurs think? While we're at it, why not include the GameFAQs reader review average under the reception section? In fact, most of the "detailed reviews" I've been reading on GameFAQs, such as this one, are at least of comparable quality to the amateur ones on GR. The amateur reviewers are only one step above the GameFAQs reviewers in that they know how to create their own websites. That's it! Many of them have no formal, professional writing experience as is required to get into IGN or any other gaming media company.
Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As for listing the percentages without the ranks, please see
"The problem with putting the MC/GR metascores on Wikipedia (even if we don't mention the ranks) is that when people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher metascore than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case for reasons discussed above. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"
While you do have some valid points which I am willing to take on board I do have this issue still, isn't that kind of imposing your will actually like saying "what they say is the truth everyone else is wrong because they're not as funded or as heard of". True there are some who I find odd to be on the list, I'll agree with you there but then again I'm confused since you have previously complained about them NOT listing certain reviews to change the ranks (ranks we don't mention anymore), so which is it? However I do have to also ask this: If you think just high profile reviews should be mentioned to prevent people from thinking one game is better than another then you are aware some of these like Gamespot and IGN do think OoT is better than SMG? You seem to not like the idea that some people do like OoT better than SMG.
Plus Gamespot have came under fire recently over certain reviews and IGN have their share of just plain bad ones. And of course many seem to hold the belief that magazines usually sway towards and from certain systems and genres... If a reader just wants to hear from the high profile reviews he will just look at them, but not everyone does. And finally you'll want to take this up for the film project to since they like MC and Rotton Tomatoes. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki6, once again all there is to say is that if you have a problem with Wikipedia using GameRankings or a problem with GameRankings system you need to email the GR webmaster yourself or you need to take it up on the Wikipedia policy discussion sections. The talk page of articles is not the correct place to discuss Wikipedia policy. JayKeaton (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this means anything to anyone, but there was a < 90% on Super Mario Galaxy's GR page too, it was about 86%, but for some reason it's been taken off. I'm not sure if the reviewer changed their initial score or anything, but all I know is that there was an 80s-something% rating for Mario Galaxy that was taken off. This was a few weeks ago. Just thought this ought to be known. 194.80.134.133 (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If true that would controdict the netire point of the webmaster being biased AGAINST SMG. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason the conspiracy notionists can't get their stories straight is because there is no conspiracy. It's like someone said here that they've been accused of being a Sony fanboy, a Ninty fanboy, and a Microsoft fanboy (on separate occasions)... which goes to show how neutral they actually are! And it's quite true. That GR is being accused of being anti-SMG and pro-SMG just shows that they are neither because the actions the site takes can be interpreted either way and are therefore not conclusive proof of bias in either direction. There is no reason not to include GR/MC averages, and on the same grounds, no reason not to include GR rankings. clicketyclickyaketyyak 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It was GameAlmighty (originally 8.7/10), and they changed their score. It had nothing to do with Gamerankings Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 *blinks* Did you have a change of heart or something? clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem here. What we're citing from GR is opinion, not fact. The only purpose is to demonstrate the level of praise the game has received. It's GR's perogative how they want to calculate their rankings, all we can do is cite it. I'm not sure we can call someone's opinion unreliable because by definition it isn't expected to have any basis in fact, it's just a subjective assessment of the game. The truth is, GR is a respected barometer of general reception and I don't think the omission of their data improves the article. Bleeding Blue 14:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a solution. It does take effort so don't complain and ask for a shorter solution without a legitimate reason why this solution sux except for the fact that it takes a while.

We should come to an agreement about which non-amatuer reviewers we have to and can only use. Then, gather the reviews from the chosen reviewers for the game and put them in a table. At the bottom of the table put the average of the reviews. For information in the text, simply state how many of the reviews were good and how many reviews were bad out of the total amount of reviews. To distinguish which reviews were bad and which were good use this formula; (bad)<60%<(good). 60% would be considered bad. If 60%< is too low a standard for good reviews we could change the standard to 70%<(good), BUT 70% would be considered good.

You can ignore or respond to this solution, I really don't care. If you do respond to this solution, please leave a message on my talk page(or wherever you can leave me a message) and present this solution to a higher authority in Wikipedia that dictates the guidelines and procedures so my solution can be judged. Also, I'm up for suggestions to help my solution become more reasonable or less confusing(I'm sorry if my solution is confusing). [[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]] 00:43, 2 January 2008

Actually, high 50% to high 60% would be considered "mixed". However on the topic at hand, I think most agree that sites like GR and MC should be listed but none of ranks mentioned. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a good idea, in that (not for SMG) it may be that the selected reviews for a specific game may all praise it, but a non-amateur review may point out key flaws with the game that the other reviews did not consider. Per WP:NPOV, this review should be included to give weight to all critical reception points.
As Stabby Joe states, we can include the GR/MC average and link to them, but we should allow the user to interpret what that number means for themselves, including its ranking to other games and if its a good or bad game. --MASEM 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Error?

"Some obstacles, when halted long enough by the second player, are automatically destroyed"

I used to think this, until I realized that the obstacles weren't being automatically destroyed, they were destroyed only when another (moving) obstacle or enemy crashed into them (which often releases a LOT of star bits). I play as 2nd player quite often with my wife as Mario, and I can't recall experiencing a situation where one was automatically destroyed without being crashed into, like this claims.

Corfe83 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My younger brother and I are always switching to each other's files and helping each other out, whoever's file it wasn't would be 2P and would hold enemies off and collect star bits while P1 would ficus on the game. And no matter how long either of us would hold the enemy, it wouldn't be destroyed unless 1) P1 destroyed it, or 2) Something else destroyed it.--Shroopliss T/C\U 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now fixed this in the main article. Speak up if someone disagrees. Or, fix up the sentence if you can think of a better way to write it than I did :) Corfe83 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence looks fine to me :)--Shroopliss T/C\U 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Covers?

In the article, the cover of SMG is shown with Mario sailing through space with planetoids below him. But the version I know has Mario doing a flip on the cover. Which cover is the proper cover? And if they are both, why is only the first one shown in the article? Personally, I think you should state which cover it is, and tell about the alternate cover somewhere in the article. Thanks, Epass (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if anybody wants to know, I saw a picture of this alternate cover in ToysRUs' Hottest Toys of the Season catalog, so if anyone still has it, (It was the November one) take a look at the back page and see what I mean. Thanks again, Epass (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The one shown is the proper cover--as for the other cover, my Japanese version of the game uses that as the cover for the instruction manual. --jonny-mt 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the one where he's upside down is the cover of my game box. but it might be different for othr copies. the one thats up now is the collectible poster. but if the upside down pic is for all the box covers we should go with that 76.27.215.219 (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The one that's up now is the U.S. Cover. Nearly every single Wikipedia game article uses the U.S. cover as the one shown in the article. There's no need to change it. Knowitall (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying I'm from the U.S. and the upside down one is the cover I got. thats why I asked —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhatter9max (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to me it seems like the upside down cover is the Canada and U.S. cover, and the one shown is just the Japanese one, or that both covers were sold in the U.S. and Canada, so either way, I'm pretty sure that the upside down cover ought to be mentioned somewhere. Knowitall, you just said that the U.S. cover is the one that is supposed to be shown, so I think if both are U.S. covers, both should be shown. And if no one feels like adding a picture, just one sentence about it would be nice. Something like, 'There is also an alternate cover showing Mario doing a flip in space.' Thanks, Epass (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The upside down one isn't supposed to be sold in the U.S. though...I haven't seen anyone in the U.S. say they got it except for the people on this page. Knowitall (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on what state you live in.... Epass (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The covers are very simular and by wiki standards we should post the one relevent to its origin... HOWEVER being it from Japan, we need English instead so the one we have now is fine. In other cases however games made in Canada or the UK should have the Canadian or British covers, just like certain methods of spelling are applied to these topics. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Awards link?

Is there any link that lists every award SMG has got? Like their official site? Because the table is already to big and doesn't look particularly presentable or organised. Of course it will after the reception text has been expanded but the table is fine at this point. We've listed pretty much the basic important sources. If you look at the page for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, you'll see it has a link for its awards because of course you can't list everyone is gets on a single page, let alone table. The refference can go by the statments about GotY awards in the intro. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-Op Mode?

So around January 3 I went and removed some false information about a supposed cooperative mode you apparently unlock when beating the game with 120 stars using both characters. This doesn't happen, and the cooperative mode is never locked to begin with. This was reverted pretty quickly with a comment accusing me of "vandalism". Now, of course, the information is gone (because it's false, and it's no more or less false than when I removed it the first time) Why, then, was it "vandalism" when I removed it? Are only certain users allowed to correct inaccuracies on this page? 71.179.249.210 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, since you had a perfectly good reason to remove it. It's most likely that the person was using a bot. Since you did not state a reason for deleting the text, the bot interpreted your edit as vandalism, which apparently is what people usually do when they delete text. Another possibility (though unlikely) was that the person was bought by the SMG DS hoax that states that co-op play is possible after beating the game twice. So, it has nothing to do with your status: all users are privileged to correct things they find inaccurate, as that is what Wikipedia is about or something. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

UR MR GAY meme discussion, continued

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)

It is not a meme. It is not something to make "retards feel cool". It is not just on the cover art, it is also in the game. Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't realize it, but by talking about it, we are making it a meme. By mentioning it, arguing about it, and discussing it, we pass on the fad and spread it. By denying its existence, we are validating it, hence a meme. That's why we should just drop it.--CM (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't realise it, but denying somethings existence does not make it a meme, it's certainly not how Dawkins defined a meme anyhow. Nor does dropping it make it go away. It is a part of history now and I believe it should be mentioned in the encyclopaedia. Coincidence or not, meme or not, it is there. I'm not really understanding the defensive stance that is being applied here. Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The naming of the Wii has been shown to have some significant controversy; this has not. Noone here has yet provided any evidence that Nintendo has even acknowledged this, nor that this has had any affect on things such as sales or overall opinions of the game. As you indicated when you added the information, this is trivia. There is no plausible context in which this information can be presented as important. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIV for more information. Dancter (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, point well made.Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just mentioning, for your delectation; the black star Luma is called Polari. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Polari, and I still don't understand it's definition. And why is the "U R MR Gay" thing an issue? We're arguing about it, so obviously this 'joke' has made its way around to many people. I say it's not notable even if it has gained attention, because no official game or Nintendo source has responded to this. And if an official source has responded then Wikipedia needs a source. Also, if you're going to say "retards do it to feel cool" then I will never side with your argument because that reason is based on opinion. I'm not retarded or any slang term related to it's usage but I find this coincidence funny. Because people are ripping on something you like doesn't mean you should feel insulted. All in all, let's see how long this disscusion lasts and then we can ,once-and-for-all, decide if the meme lasted or not.[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]] 23:11, 1 January 2008

Look, here's how it works. When the new cover comes out, add to the article "The cover of the game was changed due to an inadvertently humorous grouping of stars that singled out the letters "UR MR GAY" "

Lots of other articles have it JUST LIKE THAT for their packaging mistakes or naughty slipups. That the cover is changed MAKES it notable. Things-happening is as important as people-talking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody bloody read anymore? Barring reliable sources showing genuine attention by Nintendo, this, like SIHULM to its list, can't be placed in the article. Further, a cover reissue can be for any number of reasons; we cannot assume (iff it gets changed) that the cover was changed because of the sparkles. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody heck

I'm reading this conversation, and I am getting SIHULM Sickness all over again. So, I am simply going to reiterate what I have said in regard to that meme on Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) - it applies just as well to this one.

No reliable sources - Nobody, anon or registered, has appeared with reliable sources. [...]4chan, other wikis, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. are not reliable sources for Wikipedia because they are anonymous (making it impossible to trace a statement made there to its source), they do not engage in content reviewing to make sure only truth is in there, and items there are prone to rapid change. -Quote from Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260)/Archive01#SIHULM; originally posted by User:Jéské Couriano on Talk:LoP (241-260)at 6:53 PM 10/23/2007 (UTC)

Show evidence that Nintendo has received and acknowledged information that it exists or that there is an actual controversy going on over this alleged message, or stop bringing it up, please. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot error?

From the Plot section- "She then departs, although the Luma who traveled with Mario is shown to be alive and he is hiding in one of the Toads ships."

The luma is hiding in the young girl's ship, not the toads'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 33LB (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can be either one, since the toads have the same shaped ships, though i never really thought of it. Maybe just make it "hiding in a crashed spaceship."... 86.88.117.225 (talk)

Insanity

It's obvious that we don't want UR MR GAY in the article. There is clear consensus for that. But labeling any addition (even with a reference!) as vandalism and blocking those who repeatedly add it without telling them what they're doing wrong is rediculous. (This is probably the first time I've ever seen "vandalism" sourced.) Not everyone (especially IPs) reads the talk page. It may just be that they come to this article to learn about this particular bit of trivia, see it isn't mentioned, and decide to put it in themselves. Is it so bad to leave a note on their talk page or in the edit summary that there's consensus against it's inclusion and if they disagree, come discuss it? The blocked IP is irate and I can't say I blame them. Please tell me this isn't going to become the norm. I apoligize for ranting but this really got on my nerves. Bleeding Blue 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they deserve what they're getting. I've seen too many posts on gaming message boards about the MR. GAY "subliminal message." Every one of them was made by a badly-disguised troll who quite clearly had the full intention of annoying people. I vote to continue the zero-tolerance policy. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mario's last words

We currently have his dialogue at the end of the game listed as "Welcome, welcome new galaxy!"... but when I listen to it, it sounds to me like he says "galaxies." Plural. Anyone care to argue the point? I'm tempted to change it but would like to know if someone feels otherwise. I know Kotaku recently linked to a "Mario Galaxy Spoilers" video that shows the line, and you can also find it on YouTube if you need to double-check without fighting Bowser again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop2 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you start watching this video from 9:53, it's pretty clear that he is saying the singular. That being said, he sounds really dumb and maybe we should go into denial by removing any reference to him speaking from the article. He really needs to take some pointers from Link about being the strong, silent hero type. clicketyclickyaketyyak 07:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
For whatever reason, it still sounds like he says "Galaxiiiiiies!" to me. It's still a very awkwardly worded non-sentence either way, but I like hearing Mario talk more rather than less. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with clicketyclick (about the article; I could care less about whether he wants to make Ness look more like him). Dialogue in a game is not notable unless it explodes out beyond the game ("You spoony bard!", "All your base are belong to us"). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My favs are "You cocky boxes of bolts! You'll never get away with this!" and "butterfly, butterfly, I want to masticate you with my teeth to a mushy pulp and sprinkle you in my cereal". Okay so I may have paraphrased the latter one. To make some semblance of being on-topic, I would say just remove the Mario quotation. It's not really a major plot point. clicketyclickyaketyyak 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is actually a plot point, since it shows that a new Galaxy was created(somehow). 86.88.117.225 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
... which can be stated without quotation (i.e. "The scene then cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser waking up back in the Mushroom Kingdom during a fireworks display after a new Galaxy was created", or, "A new Galaxy is created and then the scene cuts..." etc.) clicketyclickyaketyyak 11:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I can understand where you are going, but the creation isnt that obvious. Its everyone waking up, and suddenly, Mario sees a new Galaxy, so to me it seems that is is a relevant plot point and that it is important enough to be quoted. 86.88.117.225 (talk)
You don't need to directly quote everything in order to establish that it happened. If the scene right before they wake up was not enough to suggest that the original galaxy has been replaced, then an allusion to the line without actually quoting it is enough. Writing the words "new Galaxy" is enough of an allusion to the line to be an acceptable paraphrasementizationthat'snotaword. clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember, it was a new Universe that was created. The black hole sucked in the entire universe. Which makes sense, since at the end alot of things were mixed up. SUch as the queen Bee being at the mushroom kingdom, and several planets native to other galaxies being around the mushroom Kingdom. Like Rosalina said, they never quite live in the same way, so the Universe was destroyed in the big Bang, an the new Universe is similar to the old one, but mixed together and different. 24.205.92.204 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the Plot ending, make a new article in the discussion. In my opinion, the qoute should be qouted, since they are Mario's only words (except for some "Huh's" and "Ya's"). And i don't really see any difference between qouting him, or make it a sentence. 86.88.117.225 (talk)
I'm pretty sure that it's "Galaxies". If you notice, absolutely everything got sucked into one area. Not just one galaxy was sucked in, all of them were. He is welcoming ALL the galaxies that are now with their galaxy, not just one of the galaxies.--Shroopliss T/C\U 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of having large, elaborate plot summaries as is. Nonetheless, if you're going to state the ending, I think its original research to omit the quote because of its grammatical awkwardness. Drumpler (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research would be including it and assuming we understand it to be correct. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Edge and Eurogamer

Lets not start yet another edit war. Articles with those never get promoted.

Well I find little reason to mention a 10/10 from Edge and Eurogamer due to the following:

  • There is nothing notable or high profile about either, if we mention them then why not GameSpy, Play Magazine or X-Play?
  • Eurogamer have given out plenty of 10/10s and Edge gave out 3 last years (Halo 3 and Orange Box).
  • Can't find anyother articles that have an intro that mentions a 10/10 score.

There are my reasons, now I want to see why were SHOULD mention them. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario Sunshine is one example. I think it's notable that a game gets a perfect score, as this the the best score a game can get. I also added this because it fits well into the lead. I want to make this a GA like SMS and SM64 (which hopefully soon will become an FA). In order to achieve this status, the article needs a lead which summarises the text. The Prince (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Acutally alot of the time to summerise reception, Game Rankings and Metacritic are used alot and no offense but you're making it seem like its rare for any game to get a 10/10... LOTS OF GAMES get 10/10. I perfectly understand what you're getting at but I'd use the review round up sites if I were you since thts a better indication than just 2 of 60+(?) reviews. And of course we have a rough list later in the article. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, no single publication these days is notable enough for a top-of-the-page mention. It used to be Famitsu until Kotaku exposed its shenanigans and people stopped taking it seriously. The "extremely positive reviews from the collective gaming press" sentence stands well enough on its own, I think. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"LOTS OF GAMES get 10/10" Not for publications that set quotas to prevent too many titles from getting perfect or near-perfect scores (which in turn, creates the false perception that they are "harsh" critics). I still stand by my above comment. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to keep reverting me, then please reorganise the refs. You have now broken two of the refs. Please be aware of this the next time you're editing articles. The Prince (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Multiple responses:
Wiki6 - Thats perfectly fine. I would rather leave it as just "postives reviews", the GR ref was just to see if that could be a substiute for the other current issue at hand.
Prince - Actually I didn't so much as revert/undo but changed it to GR which seems more plausbile than just 2 random reviews. But fair enough, I'll check to make sure the refs are still there. But ref or no ref, I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to be required to mention those. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it myself. Just remember to do it the next time. The Prince (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot description of ending

People are attempting to add in interpretation of what the ending means. Please realize that unless this can be cited through a reliable source, discussion of the various interpretation of the endings is considered original research and must not be included. --MASEM 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the way the plot is described now, since it only contains obvious moments thagt can be traced back to the game's scenes itself. [[User:Moccamonster|Moccamonster]] (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot is way too long the way you want it. Mario 3D games aren't known for their plot, but their innovative gameplay. That's why it got trimmed down to one paragraph. For examples, see Super Mario Sunshine#Story and Super Mario 64#Story, and please don't bring the original plot back. The Prince (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosalina's description of the Luma's, their lifestyle and other related things regarding the Luma's is much more than the plot from any previous Mario game. both Bowsers plot and Rosalina's story are described in the game. The plot section is fine the way it is now. [[User:Moccamonster|Moccamonster]] (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's excessive, and we need to follow Wikipedias guidelines (WP:PLOT). If you continue reverting, I'll get an admin to block you. Please cooperate. The Prince (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole Rosalina/Luma side-story is not of interest to the main story. What Rosalina did as a child is not relevant to Mario saving the princess, or any of the game play for that matter. Afterall, several reviewers thought that subplot was out of place to begin with. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)