Talk:Super Paper Mario/Archive 1

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 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

RPG Subseries?

Why is this in the RPG subseries category? It's clearly a platformer, done in the Paper Mario style.--Claude 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i wonder myself.

Well, it is both an RPG and a platformer.--~

The Nintendo press release explicitely says "2-D/3-D Sidescrolling Platformer with Role-Playing Elements". --Interiot 07:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo is starting to sound like Deng Xiaoping. --209.181.224.208 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

N-Sider reveals exclusive information.

N-Sider posted an exclusive preview of the game (found here: [1]), but I wasn't sure how to source it in the article considering the spectrum of information it revealed. Any ideas? --172.214.83.153 09:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

What needs cleanup is the prose of the article. Like, "Giant Mario, similar to New Super Mario Bros., except that it's the 8-bit Mario". It doesn't flow well to use except that it's the 8-bit Mario. A better line would be "Giant Mario, similar to Mega Mario in New Super Mario Bros.". - A Link to the Past (talk)

Yeah, agreed. I gave this article a wide berth on revisioning, however it So... Yeah. is much shorter now, leaving me to worry: did I abridge/take out too much content? --Stratadrake 01:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a horrible writer, but it looks great to me, for what it's worth. I'd like to see the "in the trailer" bits go away as soon as possible (I currently count 4). We have two solid sources at this point (E3 trailer and Nintendo press-release screenshots, and the N-sider article) that corroborate each other, so maybe somebody can figure out how to remove one or two sooner, and later we'll get more solid references. --Interiot 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I could not find anything on IGN about the story, so I removed the line that says IGN reported the story would be about Pure Hearts. Alex Dorman 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GA

You can't nominate an un-released game, the content isn't stable. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GameCube/Wii

Alright, this is for discussion as to whether the game is a GameCube title or a Wii title. The only source saying it is for Wii is Matt from IGN - every other source uses him as their source. Nintendo has not announced any changes regarding Super Paper Mario's release. I say keep it on GameCube until we get real confirmation. --Guess Who 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Gamecube only, and will probably be the last big Mario game on the system, since Wii isn't too far away. RobJ1981 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I checked Nintendo.com myself and they list it as Gamecube. If there was a change, I'm pretty sure it would be there first. Also, I don't know where this "Matt" is getting his info, but the main article about the game on IGN also says it's Gamecube. -SaturnYoshi 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, the way Matt replied that e-mail has a mix message, I can't tell if he is being a smart alec or being serious. Nothing personal to Matt from IGN, but the way responded to those e-mails was unprofessional, IMO. I think it is for the GC until an official statement. Nauto 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In what way was he vague? How do you get "it's still on GameCube and not on Wii" from "it's on Wii and not GameCube"? There was only one interpretation to what he said. We should not assume he's lying. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's just say that Matt has been wrong in the past, and all official sources(i.e. Nintendo) still say it's a GameCube game. TJ Spyke 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I got this from Gamefaqs[[2]], a member there post a link about this situation[[3]]. I think we should wait until TGS 2006 to see what happens. Nauto 21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo is not set to appear at TGS 2006. Their next press meeting is the 14th of September (Thursday). --Guess Who 21:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
My mistake... Anyway it seem there are some who still insist of the game is for the Wii. IMO, for now this article shoud be lock until the official statement is out. Nauto 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In an Article entitled Cubism in the August issue of Nintendo Power, it says that they had not forgotten about the Gamecube in all the buzz about Wii. Thats why they have a strong line-up of fall releases, including Super Paper Mario and Baten Kaitos Origins. -- 12:24, 9 September 2006
The issue was created before Matt made the announcement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, it need not be mentioned that Nintendo hasn't commented. Matt is reliable enough that he doesn't have to be second-guessed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Matt Cassamassina is about as far from "reliable" as you can get. Not that I'm suggesting this won't be a Wii title - it seems a likely possibility at this point - but citing Matt as a reliable source is not something I'd like ot see catch on. -al 05:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Matt's never right about anything. That's why IGN keeps him on a pay roll. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Matt's a good writer, but IGN in general gets things wrong on many occasions. They are still more reliable than sites like GoNintendo though. TJ Spyke 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm admittedly mostly just curious, I think it'd be a good idea to cite here instances where Matt, if not IGN on a whole, has been unreliable and flat out wrong, so it can be shown whether or not he can be cited as reliable without other sources. Eusis 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
IGN is never 100% accurate, maybe 99% tops. Here an example of an error IGN did: the two hidden figurines in Super Smash Bros. Melee, which is Cape Mario and Helmetless Samus was shown, someone in IGN said in order to get them, all you need is a data file of Super Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime, but of course that was false. I'm not saying that Matt is wrong, but at the same time it doesn't sound official, IMO. Nauto 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
IGN also announced that a game called "Star Wars: Rogue Squadron X" would come out for the Xbox. LucasArts never said anything about it and no other site ever mentioned it. TJ Spyke 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I still say we should wait for an official confirmation, as opposed to a little remark in a news bag on IGN. Every other site that has reported the news has used Matt as their source, and since Matt cannot cite his sources, it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia clearly states that anything that goes in to the article must have basis, and Matt's remark has no verifiable basis. --Guess Who 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Matt - like every reporter EVER - occasionally makes mistakes (both examples, IIRC, not even being examples of his inaccuracy) is not a claim that he is not a verifiable source. He has been right on many occasions. He is stating it as if it were as true as the sky being blue, and you are arguing that we should not trust him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Still though, IGN's been wrong on occassions, or at least twisted things to some degree (like the PSU 'beta' bit a few days ago), and it's hard to tell if he means that litterally or is just messing around with how he phrased that. He may be telling the truth, and that everyone else is just keeping quiet until the 14th, but I think it's perfectly fine to doubt him until other reliable sources confirm, espicially since there isn't even a proper IGN story. Eusis 08:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
To sum it up: If you're arguing that IGN is a bad source of information, the majority would disagree. And if you aren't, then this argument is pointless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I argue not that IGN is unreliable, but that we shouldn't trust everything Matt says in his mailbag. --Optichan 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How can we trust some of what he says? Will we just randomly decide that he's telling the truth some of the time and other times decide they're wrong or lying? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Simple: Point out what he's said, but make note he's the only one that's said it. When others are saying the same thing (aside from copying his words), then it's safe to say it's true. It's not a black and white 'trust him absolutely or call him a dirty dirty liar' thing. Eusis 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The argument is not whether IGN is reliable, but rather if something said by Matt with no official backing and no proof that he's right is reliable. Nintendo still acts like it is on GameCube, stores still have it for preorder for GameCube, and even IGN as well as GameSpot, GameSpy, and 1up still have gamepages for the game on GameCube. I would also like to say that contrary to what you think, ALttP, the word "ampersand" is awesome. --Guess Who 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to say, ignore Matt for the moment. Mostly because everyone and their mother, and most importantly Nintendo, contradicts him at the moment.--Claude 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
GameFAQs also says that ASH is 2006, while Famitsu says 2007. Famitsu must be wrong, because outdated information contradicts it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But Famitsu can back up their story, and can cite other sources, whereas Matt has done little more than mentioned it in a mailbag without a drop of evidence. Terrible analogy, sir. --Guess Who 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But Famitsu hasn't backed up their date. Logically, their date is incorrect by the fact that outdated information contradicts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Until Nintendo (the makers of the game) says it's on the Wii, it should not change. I mean, why would they still advertise the game as coming out in less than a month if production has shifted to a system that won't be out for another two and a half months?? -SaturnYoshi 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. So Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings doesn't exist because Famitsu isn't Nintendo, and because Nintendo's official web site doesn't say ASH = 2007, it's still 2006. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
SPM moving to the Wii was nothing more than a comment in a mailbag with no other sources backing up the claim, one that may've been made in jest to boot. That's uncomparable to pages of screenshots and assorted info as a full blown preview. However, regardless of that, it seems that SPM wasn't shown at the japanese Wii event - it may just have yet to be announced, but I'd think if they were moving it to the Wii, they'd want to show it with all the other titles too. We'll know absolutely for sure by TGS, I guess. Eusis 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems both 1up and IGN are listing Super Paper Mario as coming out for the Wii in 2007. That doesn't flat out say that it's cancelled, but given that Zelda's coming out earlier on the Wii than the GC now... Yeah. Eusis 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems it has been confirmed for the Wii now. It's not an announcement, but a list of upcoming Wii games in Japan.[4] --Optichan 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo's Wii games list http://wii.nintendo.com/games_list.html does NOT include SPM. Therefore, GCN. - Keithustus 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And Nintendo's DS game list does NOT include ASH. Are you gonna go delete that article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
On one hand, I'd consider a freshly released US game list to be more reliable than a random quip on a mailbag. On the other hand, I'd trust the list for the company's home country over either. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wii/software/lineup/index.html Translate that, or just throw it in Bable Fish, and it shows Super Paper Mario is down there. Eusis 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And it mentions ASH as well? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, that response has just... Left me genuinely baffled. But. No. It's a bloody Wii list, you won't be seeing DS games on it. Eusis 04:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, the japanese version lists the Nintendo-published Excite Truck as not being a launch game (whereas the English version says it is) and lists 3rd-party Call of Duty 3 as not being a launch game (and the English version says it is). So, erm, I'm confused. --Interiot 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The Japanese list is indicative of japanese titles - what may be a launch title here won't necessarily be one there, even if it comes out later. Seems odd, given that I can't imagine Excitetruck having enough dialog to warrant such a delay, but then making the Wii version of Zelda come out before the GC version doesn't make any sense outside of marketting anyway. I'd trust it, as it'd have to be one mother of a blunder if SPM really isn't going to be on the Wii. Eusis 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Japan will have 16 launch games, North America will have about 30. So of coarse there will be some launch games we have that they don't(and vice-versa). Also, it's Excite Truck(2 words). TJ Spyke 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I interpret this all to mean that Super Paper Mario is coming out for Wii in Japan by Mar 31, but we won't see it in the US until after that. Any takers? -Keithustus 13:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what I mean. Under your logic, Famitsu is spreading misinformation by saying that ASH = 2007, if Nintendo.co.jp doesn't concur. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't really trust it if it was a random, unexplained date change in Famitsu, any local magazine, or GameSpot/IGN/1up/wherevertheelse, unless several others were confirming too. Heck, I'd actually not fully trust Nintendo's site as I'd consider ASH's official site to be /the/ place to go for such information, or at least Mistwalker's. Admittedly, some sites just fail to stay up to date. Eusis 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

According to The Wiire, the game is for the Wii only. The Wiire does not cite "Matt from IGN" as a source, and The Wiire is almost always correct. http://thewiire.com/news/471/1/Super_Paper_Mario_DK_Bongo_Blast_Moved

Well, according to Nintendo it is still officially a GameCube game. TJ Spyke 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
TJ Spyke speaks the truth.-Mega Man 5
Since when? When did they say it's officially a GameCube game? Some ignorant customer service later telling someone it is doesn't count. WhiteMinority 01:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I say that unless it's official word from Nintendo, it should remain as a GameCube game. I have a Nintendo Power suscription, and as of the January 2007 issue, I haven't seen anything saying it's going to come for the Wii. Moronicles 01:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Moronicles. That is a good official source of info. We can just wait. Encyclopedias aren't speculatory messageboards and good one's aren't written by people on the basis of how 'ignorant' an official statement is lol ;) --Ira-welkin 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but Nintendo Power also doesn't have it listed as a GCN game either. As said below, it should just say "TBA". WhiteMinority 21:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we just agree on something non-committal for the infobox until nintendo.co.jp and nintendo.com agree, just so we can get this thing unprotected? Is there a chance "TBA" would be agreeable to all? --Interiot 21:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Haven't we all agreed to TBA a hundred times and then someone comes in thinking they know more and start up the argument, then eventually agree to TBA. TBA! --Ira-welkin 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, me again. I can confirm that Super Paper Mario is coming out for the Wii (no word on a GameCube release) as of the March 2007 issue of Nintendo Power.Moronicles 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo has been e-mailed, and they said it was officially announced for the GameCube in the U.S. and the Wii in Japan. WhiteMinority has officially been PWN'D. -Mega Man 5 06 December 2006 (UTC)

It is cancelled

this game, sorry to say is cancelled is says so right here.....

[5]

if you don't speak french it says clearly: project abandone meaning they abbandoned this game

you could even see that "super paper mario" is even crossed out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.194.167 (talk • contribs)

What makes that website reliable? A list produced by Nintendo YESTERDAY had the game on it. TJ Spyke 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Okay, so what's the deal here? The Nintendo weblink for Super Paper Mario says the game is being released in October for GameCube. Why does this page then say it is for Wii? --myselfalso 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo's Japanese site recently updated to show 101 games in development for the Wii, and Super Paper Mario was one of them. TJ Spyke 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that until there's an official announcement from NoA, or at the very least until the October 9th date is removed, the article should not assume one way or the other, but should say something along the lines of "recent developments [blah blah blah explain recent developments- Matt, etc] point to a Wii release for the game, but Nintendo of America still officially lists it as a Gamecube game with an October release, and no official announcement regarding the cancellation of the Gamecube version has been made." Perhaps someone should drop an e-mail to Nintendo CS? --llamapalooza87 03:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's justification to not totally rule out a GC release. But if Nintendo has it /on their own site/ (NoJ>NoA here), a Wii version is guaranteed at the least. Eusis 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why would Nintendo.com still list the game as being released on October 9, 2006 for GameCube? Wouldn't one think that they would have changed this by now? --myselfalso 06:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
They don't always update the release schedule on time. TJ Spyke 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but it isn't even their release schedule. It's the official American page for Super Paper Mario. --myselfalso 06:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Japanese release schedule overrides the American one in my book unless it's an American specific game, like Metroid Prime. And 2. That list doesn't have Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In fact, there's only 9 first party games. Does that mean that it doesn't exist, simply because it's not on the American list? The most that can be argued in the GC's defense at this point is that, maybe, it should be marked as /both/ a GC and Wii title until the GC version is confirmed canned. But I think it's pretty likely that it has been at this point. Eusis 04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What about a simple "The platform the game is being developed for is currently unknown. It was originally announced as a Gamecube title, which is shown on Nintendo of America's official page for the game, but recent developments point to a Wii release of the game- most notably, the game appears on a Nintendo of Japan list of games in development." Of course, adding links, sources, and just generally tightening up my writing would be good, but as a general idea, that's my suggestion. Though I suggest most of this won't matter anyway on October 9th when the game either does or doesn't come out...llamapalooza87 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it is official that Super Paper Mario is going to the Wii. [6] Nauto 04:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Except it's not unclear at all, SPM /will/ be on the Wii. The GC status is unclear, but the Wii is crystal clear, as /Nintendo's game list/ has pointed out clear as day, and even highlighted in the response above mine. Eusis 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's just innacurate to say the game has been officially cancelled on Gamecube as this CLEARLY is not the case. I'm not saying that it actually will come out on GC, but there has been no OFFICIAL announcement to the contrary, so the GC game is "in limbo."--llamapalooza87 19:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

lots of games get cancelled without official announcements, just remember the times of the N64, the N64DD and the Gamecube. It happens a lot, only that sometimes no one cares about the game, so nobody realizes. 201.143.122.70

It's Official

The thing is STILL a GameCube title. --Guess Who, not logged in

Also Nintendo changed the release date to "Announced" and further confirms that it is still a 'Cube title. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, GameStop, EBGames, Toys "R" Us, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Amazon and Target also say Super Paper Mario is for the GAMECUBE, not the Nintendo Wii. -Mega Man 5

1-Up and GamePro also list SPM has a GameCube title.-Stuffman411

I wouldn't consider those sources to necessarily be up to date (including the ones in the post above), though en masse it makes it seem more plausible. Nevertheless, there's already been confirmation, apparantly, on it still having a GC release, so it's really just beating a dead horse at this point. Eusis 10:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am "reader Popple" who sent the e-mail to Nintendo (STILL a GameCube title). So, I am still going to believe what the e-mail said. Many other sites still list it as a GC game. I think it should be changed in the main article and also in this list. --Popplenrookie 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Except the entry was changed to list it as both a GC and Wii title after that bit came out, so there's no need to change it. Just because it will come out for the GC still doesn't mean it absolutely can't on the Wii. Eusis 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe so, Eusis, but they still say it's for GameCube and I thought they were worth posting/pointing out.-Stuffman411

My word this is an interesting situation. I wonder how long until this all clears up. This hotly anticipated game seems to be causing contention! --Ira-welkin 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit late, but it is worth noting that GameSpot and IGN both list it as a Wii title rather than GC, and while 1up didn't change it, they have acknowledged the japanese list. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3153628 I still think both should remain listed though until Nintendo finally make a clear announcement beyond putting it on a release list. Eusis 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
While it did appear on the list of Wii games at the conferance, Nintendo has not actually called it a Wii game and still list it as a GameCube game. TJ Spyke 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not an entirely accurate source but To the Game also says Super Paper Mario is coming to GameCube.-Mega Man 5

What system super paper mario will be released for?

I just emailed nintendo about what system super paper mario will be for and if there will be a mario golf wii, mario tennis wii and a mario kart wii and mario paint wii. I asked how many mario games will be released for the virtual console. I will tell you what they said tomorrow thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJ (talk • contribs)

They will just give you a typical PR response. Officially the game is still for the GameCube, although it did appear on the japanese list of Wii games. TJ Spyke 01:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what they said from the email: Message(#6851-000523-3691\5233691)

Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,

Super Paper Mario is scheduled for release on the GameCube, in the fourth quarter (Q4), October, November or December of this year. DanJ 3:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like I thought. They gave you a typical PR response. TJ Spyke 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone just changed the Mario game list. SPM is now listed as both a GC title for 2006 and a Wii title for 2007. I'm guessing it was you, DanJ.-Mega Man 5

I thought SPM was changed from a GCN release to a Wii one. --Evildevil 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So far, we just have Matt's word on IGN and Nintendo's Japanese Wii title list from the Sept 14th conference. However, sites seem to be conflicted in where to put it, with some moving it over to the Wii, and some keeping it for the GC. Nintendo's American site still lists it at as a GC game, but using the search engine on their front page, I failed to find a Wii Twilight Princess entry, just the GC one, so that can indicate Nintendo is in no great rush to set up normal Wii pages for their games. Eusis 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
GameSpot, IGN and Nintendo of Japan are the only ones that say it's for Wii. All other sources say it's a GameCube title, including Nintendo of America.-Mega Man 5
I think a lot of people here are having a hard time understanding how a large multi-national corporation works and how decisions like this get made and also how the various sources of your information are informed and how often and in what way they are updated. I am also surprisedd that somebody from Nintendo or at least Intelegent hasn't tried to clear this up. I think the reason why not is clear though: they aren't sure either. Only time will tell. I am thinking March 2007 release on Wii with a great likeliehood of a less promoted gamecube version. But that is a guess based on evidence, and doesn't really matter in the long run. Unless it's right. In which case, awesome! --Ira-welkin 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo and Intelligent Systems have a Non-disclosure Agreement. So, don't expect too much more info before the game is released. Also, because of this, we might not find out what system Super Paper Mario is for until the last minute.-Mega Man 5

it is for gamecube—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.24.135 (talk • contribs)

I hope so.-Mega Man 5—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.60.60 (talk • contribs)

release date

I tried changing the release date of the US Version for the GC and then a mod changed it and warned me, the date is Jan 1st 2007, according to EBGAMES.COM..I pwned you..now let me change it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick2cool (talk • contribs)

That is a PLACEHOLDER date, stores use them all the time when they don't know the real date. Leave it alone unless you have a more reliable source. TJ Spyke 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit Taking the GCN release out.

Nintendo HAS NOT officially said it was canceled for the GCN AS OF YET. In fact, I had emailed Nintendo a month ago, and they said it was still slated for a Cube release this year. Now I am not going to use that as fact for the Wiki, but my point is the NOA website still shows it as being a GCN game, so the Wiki should reflect that as it is as official as you can get. I am not disputing that it won't be for Wii. I am just tired of Link To the Past trying to make it say that it will be Wii only, the reason I finally decided to sign up and get a screen name on here. Proto Dude 05:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean like how when IGN said it was headed to Wii, Nintendo.com didn't? I'm pretty sure that completely proves that what Nintendo.com says or doesn't say doesn't invalidate what IGN says. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Or like how IGN posts rumors and stuff that doesn't happen, like every other gaming website? TJ Spyke 03:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
And guess what? IGN and "every other gaming website" are considered reliable sources. They were right about it being on Wii, and said so more than a week before Nintendo.com updated their site. So why is it that it should be assumed that they are a bad source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that next to no one doubts that it's coming out for the Wii (I'd say no one, but I've been surprised), it's just that the GC version has yet to be officially cancelled, outside of GameSpot and IGN marking that version as such. Personally, I think the chances of a GC release are very, very slim now, but just because I think it's unlikely doesn't change the fact it still hasn't had an official cancellation, and Zelda proves it /is/ possible. Until then, I think being marked as for both the Wii and the GC is fine. Eusis 08:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Eusis. We know very little about this game with -certainty-, except that it was originally created to be a Gamecube game. This aspect of its 'heritage' if you will ought to remain in the article until official word of its cancellation on that platform has been made. There aren't very many people who will be confused by this or even wonder about it: I fear that no matter what the number of people in our boat who are eagerly anticipating new word of this exciting upcoming game every day, questioning in our hearts as to the system that will prove the game's final destination, there is nothing we can do but wait for new facts patiently and in the meantime just present what we definitively know. Anyone who is truly interested in what system the game will be coming out for will bother to read this debate and know what is going on as much as we do with regards to the highly ambiguous nature of the game's future. Anybody with only a moderate interest will see what it says about both systems, read the articles first paragraph, and understand that the future is unknown. Many rumours, even rumours placed on wikipedia, turn out to be false, and I would rather just claim, honestly, to not be sure, than to trust something that, for all goodwill, may be just a rumour, for reasons no more dishonest than a changed schedule. Zelda Twighlight Princess coming soon E3 2004 anybody? That's not even a rumour, it's a presentation. And it's Nov 2006, less than two weeks to the game's release! So let's just sit back, keep our eyes open for new information, and stop trying to be the first kid on the block to get the new scoop by forgetting that this 'release date' and platform is probably as up in the air as Lakitu! --Ira-welkin 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Eusis. I myself don't doubt that it's coming out for Wii. What I am trying to say is, quit trying to say that it's not coming out to the GCN when we don't know that yet OFFICIALLY. Proto Dude 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Eusis as well. I do think its coming out on just the Wii, but it's not official yet. Who knows, they might release it for both systems. TJ Spyke 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[7] According to this, Polarium Advance has no release date, but GameFAQs, Amazon.com, Atlus, and others disagree. Atlus and GFAQs say November, while Amazon says soon. This fact indicates that Nintendo.com is not always correct. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Atlus is publishing it in North America, so they ARE an official source in this case. TJ Spyke 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo owns the Polarium copyright. Regardless, no matter who is making this, this shows that Nintendo.com is not always correct. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That is totally irrelevant. In fact most of your arguments are irrelevant. The point is, there has been no official statement from Nintendo themselves that the GCN version has been canceled. Plus it is still on their website. So until you can find an article that actually proves that it's canceled on GCN, or until Nintendo decides to actually update their site, LEAVE THE ARTICLE BE PLEASE! Proto Dude 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the idea that a source may be wrong is no reason in itself to take out the GCN reference. --Ira-welkin 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant. If Nintendo.com is an all-knowing site, then they should know that Polarium Advance came out yesterday. The fact that they didn't say the GameCube version was canceled does not cancel out what IGN says. I've shown that Nintendo.com is NOT always up-to-date on everything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, so the fact that I can still pre-order Super Paper Mario for the GameCube at the major retail stores should say something considering that they pretty much update their site more often than Nintendo. Either way, we don't really CARE that Nintendo doesn't update their site as much as they should. They are still the defining source, and therefore the GameCube references should stay. Proto Dude 11:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we aren't trying to be jerks: you just have to take into account that the thing is still very much up in the air anyway, like no official release date, ambiguous conflicting statements from multiple sources. All our point is is that while things are so ambiguous, there is no grounds to change anything. If various sources say different things, we have to present all those things until we know what is actually going on. I have no doubt of the Wii release and who knows there probably won't be a GCN release now but there is no final verdict for now. Can't we just agree that until the game's release platform and date is formally announced that we will leave things as they are? I mean, the star cursor looks so clearly to me like a Wii implement and if that's part of the game, then it is. But that is speculation and I know it. Speculation isn't bad, but it has lead to errors on wikipedia in the past, needless errors that result from unfinalized information. This is a fairly clear idea. I think Proto Dude's point of about pre-ordering the gamecube game version is very enlightening. By that logic, it might still be a gamecube game to use your arguing style lol. Only this has something to do with SPM. --Ira-welkin 13:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, you could preorder GTAIV, too. Not VC, but the official sequel to GTAIII. Then that was canceled (and eventually redone on PS3/360).
And I have proved that Nintendo.com is not the end-all source or even the defining source. I have showed that they could be incorrect. That just because they still say Super Paper Mario is still on GameCube does not mean that the latest news is that it's a GameCube game, but rather that they may have not updated it. The fact that IGN and GS say it's canceled is good enough evidence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe when the GCN pre-orders of Super Paper Mario are refunded. --Ira-welkin 14:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Which are only being accepted because Nintendo has not even formally announced it. But as I said - IGN, reliable, GameSpot, reliable, Nintendo.com, reliable. I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that NONE of these sites cancel the other out. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And it's that formal announcement we're all waiting on. Stranger things have happened, and it's better to leave GC there until Nintendo themselves proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that, no, there is no GC version. Though to be fair, Nintendo's site has no individual pages for Wii games like that SPM page, so when they actually add those might show what the heck's going on. Eusis 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a Wii game, as far as Nintendo.co.jp is concerned. The simple fact that they do not list it as a Wii game shows how accurate they are when they say it's still a GameCube game. Tell me - where's the GameCube page for Super Paper Mario on Nintendo.co.jp? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I don't speak Japanese so it's difficult to navigate their Japanese site. TJ Spyke 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Super Paper Mario is no small game. While it acknowledges the existence of Super Paper Mario on the Wii (see [8], with the name in English), it does not do so for the GameCube version. IGN says it's canceled and on Wii, GameSpot says it's canceled and on Wii, and Nintendo's Japanese division does not acknowledge the GameCube version's existence but lists it as a Wii game. The only one who does none of these is Nintendo.com. The fact that what they say contradicts the Japanese division's site shows that we do not need them to back up IGN. We already have Nintendo.co.jp. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone with Japanese knowledge would need to navigate more into the site, but... That list is only a Wii title list. Of course the GC version wouldn't be on it. If you can give a link to the japanese Super Paper Mario site itself, then I'd like to see it. Eusis 07:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point of the argument: Nintendo.com's entry of Super Paper Mario is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, out-of-date. There is no GameCube entry to speak of for SPM on Nintendo.co.jp, but a mention of it as a Wii game. The simple fact that Nintendo.com doesn't list Wii shows that they do NOT contradict what IGN says. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked at Nintendo.co.jp's site again, and used Google to find any SPM pages... And really, there's not much of anything for SPM aside from the Wii game list, and the E3 pages. As well, the all games schedule goes up until the end of this year, and searching for Mario after Babelfishing it turned up nothing. So really, I don't think it's as good of proof for no GC release as you think. Eusis 11:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, none of it really means much of anything. You want us to understand your perspective, but when we make a valid point you say 'you're not seeing the point.' The point as you see it is all fine and good, but still no reason to be certain of the status of the game. Hence our position. It's really not that hard to understand. This isn't supposed to be a message board or blogging arena and by trying to be overly predictive the chances for error creeping into this encyclopedia are vast. Who really cares potentially six months before the game comes out to the point where its worth arguing? Maybe Nintendo and IS don't even know yet so why should we pretend we do? --Ira-welkin 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I say you aren't seeing hte point because you aren't seeing the point. We should assume Nintendo.co.jp's statement that it's a Wii game now is true. Yet, Nintendo.com says nothing about it being a Wii game. You argue that because they haven't said that the GCN version was canceled on the English page, it isn't canceled. But the most likely scenario based on the fact that they are not consistent with Nintendo.co.jp on what system it is on. Ie, they are out of date on Super Paper Mario's information, just like they are on Polarium GBA's information, while IGN and GS, which update their information more, are not out of date. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not assume that it is not completely finalized and move on with your life until it IS completely finalized! --Ira-welkin 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
And why don't you just let this information go up? There is no good reason to leave it down now that I have shown that Nintendo.com is NOT always right. IGN themselves beat Nintendo to the punch in announcing it was a Wii game, so can you explain to me why they are untrustworthy again? When they said it was a Wii game, everyone said "No, IGN sux, they never right", and then they turn out to be right. And a gain, when they said it wasn't coming to GC, everyone said "No, IGN sux, they never right". How many times do they have to be correct for them to be a trustworthy site? Nintendo.com is wrong. There is literally no evidence to show that Nintendo.com is right about this. The simple fact that they haven't changed it to a Wii game says that the page is out of date. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
God dammit, we're not saying they can't be right, we're saying there's a chance they might not be. And I can see making a formal decision pending on Zelda's GCN/Wii success or something. If anything, what should be put there is a notice that Nintendo's site might not be up to date. Eusis 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Well, we don't work like that. If we did, no source would be good because they may be incorrect. And don't say it doesn't - we are to trust that a reliable source isn't lying. We don't wait and see. And yes, you were saying they can't be right because Nintendo.com says otherwise. But Nintendo.com is wrong. They are a good source when they are actually up-to-date. And IGN is a good source when they are up-to-date. IGN says it's on Wii, Nintendo.com disagrees - but Nintendo.co.jp agrees with IGN. The only reason this is disputed is because Nintendo.com says it's still on GameCube, even though their page on the game is out-of-date. Now that we've shown that this does not contradict IGN, IGN's link can be posted. I can't imagine what can be disputed - a source can be wrong, but we can't assume a source may be wrong "just because" - because if we do, we have to do it with all sources, making Wikipedia completely unstable and unverifiable. IGN is a reliable site and we should assume that they are correct. We shouldn't make an incomplete page because the site just might be wrong for some unknown reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying 'I have shown' as though your argument is a geometry proof. It's fair to say that it is unknown whether this will be a dual platform game. Until there is an official announcement not a hint from a journalist (who may be right about what he heard at the time which was more than a month ago now but wrong about any future changes). Letting it say both as it does now and discuss the unfinalized aspect of the game's status is far better and more honest than to PRETEND that there is some final arrangment for this game because of something a favorite journalist personality put, no matter what the track record. Just chill out! The page isn't incomplete because there is something in it you want out, and because it doesn't try to predict corporate moves months in advance.
You say, Link, the following above: "The only reason this is disputed is because Nintendo.com says it's still on GameCube, even though their page on the game is out-of-date." Not True. It is only disputed because nothing like a formal or official announcement has been made. Japanese releases are FREQUENTLY different, so you can't cite that as a meaningful annoucement. The IGN thing was seriously like a blog of someone who may or may not have inside information. He may be right, but seriously stop making this into a big deal. I bet we won't even find out anything more about this game to put on this page until the announcement comes. I come here to check on the status of the game, not to argue about wiki-policy. It could SO EASILY be a placeholding page with what info we know, not a 'courtroom drama' with you as a hot young lawyer outwitting the world and everyone else as annoyed wikipedia users trying to regain some stablity to a page that is already marked 'Incredibly Low Priority.' --Ira-welkin 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
And? There is no policy that says there needs to be a formal announcement for us to add info, not IGN or GS.
And marked incredibly low priority? It is an unreleased game - DUH that it's of low priority (I don't know where you got "incredibly low" from). The game's info changes rapidly and it's more important to work on established games instead of future games.
It is a big deal - you still have not given one single solitary reason why this information is not good to be included on Wikipedia. WHy is this to be the first and only game article that requires that Nintendo be the only reliable source? You say that there needs to be a formal announcement - why? Have IGN and GS suddenly become completely unreliable? They have always been trustworthy as sources for information, and logically - they are to be trusted now. How you decided that Nintendo is the only good source is beyond me. And do not say that's not what you're saying. You are declaring that without a formal announcement from Nintendo, GS and IGN cannot be used as a source that it's been canceled for the GameCube. The fact is that a source commonly used to source information on Wikipedia has said this, and we are not going to just decide that they magically became untrustworthy overnight. They were trusted, they are to be trusted, and they will be trusted. Either you think they are right or you think they are wrong. We aren't supposed to be cautious for the sake of being cautious. If we worked like that, everything not from the horse's mouth would be unusable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You yourself just said: ' The game's info changes rapidly and it's more important to work on established games instead of future games.' So you obviously admit it. --Ira-welkin 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So you say that the best thing is just to not edit it at all, rather than be up-to-date. Are you implying that because the game's info changes rapidly, that we should not try to keep up with it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The GC version being "canceled" is not official yet. Fact. 'Nuff said.-Mega Man 5
You seem to be confused. Allow me to help; see, "Mega Man 5", IGN and GameSpot are considered by many of the Wikipedians to be a highly reliable source of information. In the absence of an official statement, they are still trusted. At many times, an official statement is not made for various information of an unreleased game. If we are to trust only an official statement or a video/screenshot of said game in action, then much of the information for many game pages on Wikipedia will have to be removed. Therefore, we cannot create precedence to make Wikipedia incomplete for the sake of caution. We have no reason for IGN to be distrusted. The fact that nothing Nintendo has said, other than an English game page that has been proven to be out-of-date gives no reason to exclude IGN. In fact, simply because no GameCube page can be shown to exist on Nintendo.co.jp supports the usage of IGN. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not confused at all. I just simply believe what's official, not unofficial.-Mega Man 5
No crap, the House of Congress is a reputable source, but gossip overheard there doesn't become official. There are different kinds of information, and we are just waiting until official word is given. It could well be that the release is different in Japan. The article was locked for a reason, and it will not be unlocked until an official announcement is made. Reflect on that: this argument is just to try to get you to chill, not to change anything. It will be closed until it is official. --64.198.46.28 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was locked because of edit warring, and will be unlocked as soon as the involved parties agree to discuss rather than revert. In situations like this, I think it's common practice to present both explanations in the article... eg. "rumors say X, the rumors are backed up by Y people. However, the official story remains Z". Since all that can't be fit into the infobox that was being warred over, can the infobox say something like "Wii and/or Gamecube (see article)" ? --Interiot 22:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It used to say something like that, I don't know who changed it. TJ Spyke 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to point fingers at anyone. If there can be agreement on this compromise version (or agreement on another version), then that's progress, and we may be able to unprotect the article. --Interiot 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what you said Interiot (the whole X Y Z thing) is already kind of in the article itself. Right now the current article has "The game will combine side-scrolling 2D gameplay with free roaming 3D graphics and to a somewhat lesser extent, RPG elements (unlike the RPG-style gameplay of previous Paper Mario games.) [1]. The gaming web site IGN claimed that Super Paper Mario has been moved to the Wii. [1] (last response on page) This has been further confirmed by Nintendo in its list of upcoming Wii titles, put up during the September 14 event. The list also says the Wii release would not be out until 2007 [2][3], although Nintendo's North American site still has it as a GameCube title. Super Paper Mario at Nintendo.com" As for the info box, I would be in agreement if it said "GameCube and/or Wii(see article)" Proto Dude 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe it's on GameCube. Nothing on Nintendo.co.jp supports it, both IGN and GameSpot say it is canceled, and the only one disagreeing is Nintendo.com, whose Super Paper Mario page has been proven to be out-of-date. We have nothing to show that it is still on GameCube other than the possibility that GameSpot and IGN may be incorrect. But to leave out information on the chance that a site is wrong with no reason to believe they are wrong is just inane. Need I remind you - Wikipedia is not censored. While this is not censorship in how Wikipedia describes it, the information is being exed out under the logic of "better safe than sorry". - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"But to leave out information on the chance that a site is wrong with no reason to believe they are wrong is just inane." Would you get it through your head! WE ARE NOT SAYING TO LEAVE THE Wii INFO OUT. What we are saying is to just leave the GameCube info in until we have an actual confirmation from Nintendo themselves! How hard is that? Like I said before, I agree with Interiot, that a perfect compromise would be for the info box to say "GameCube and/or Wii (see article)" or vice versa. What is wrong with that? Why can't we just leave it with that and let it alone?
Well, see, because there's no reason! The only reason to exclude it is because of a contradiction or that the site is not reliable enough to trust by itself! We have NO contradictions, and IGN is trusted as a source on Wikipedia. Nothing - LITERALLY nothing - not one single thing in this entire universe indicates that they may be wrong and to be cautious about posting it. There is no policy or guideline that says that the source must prove that they are telling the truth. The fact that they are reliable gives us reason to include it, and there is absolutely nothing that shows that this may be wrong. Can you show me a policy that even suggests we should wait until an official announcement supports it? We don't need it, buuuut... Nintendo.co.jp has no trace of a GC section for SPM. And if SPM were still a GCN game, Nintendo.co.jp would still have it on the main GameCube page. However, it is no longer there, and no traces of a GCN version can be found on there. Super Paper Mario is a big name game, and Nintendo.co.jp wouldn't simply tuck it away in an obscure location. The fact that the site owned by the direct owners of Mario no longer acknowledges that a GCN version exists is confirmation enough.
On my side of the fence is IGN, GameSpot, and Nintendo.co.jp's exclusion of Super Paper Mario from the GameCube section. On yours is that Nintendo has not issued a press conference about the cancelation of it, or however specific of a confirmation you want. Riddle me this: Would GameSpot or IGN add it with no reason to? We have no reason to believe it's still on GameCube, based on the circumstances. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand wikipedia man and you are over your head. Stop the STUPID argument you are just looking like a pompous fool. If you ever understand what we are trying to say and think back to this you will feel embarassed. I am for having to have this argument for over a month. Come on. We are all going to get in trouble for being angry! --Ira-welkin 05:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you seem to not think that IGN, a highly reliable site, is somehow not reliable enough for this case.
And I do not care if I am sounding pompous. That is my intention. Acting pompous towards people does not warrant a block, but calling people a fool and referring to their argument as stupid does, so I would suggest that you cease your senseless name calling. Only two questions need be asked. One, are IGN and GameSpot reliable sources? The obvious answer is "yes". Now, the $64,000 question. Is there anything to indicate that they are wrong in this case and cannot be used as a source? That is a question you must answer - not with a yes or no, but rather an example of such an indication. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hurray for lag, boobies, and nerds arguing about which system Super Paper Mario is on at Wikipedia! :D Seriously, everyone shut up and wait for the fucking game to come out. Then you'll know what console it's on! :-)

I have no idea why you think the game is still coming out on the gamecube. During that Nintendo event it September it was announced that the game was moved from the GCN to the Wii. WhiteMinority 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No they didn't. All that happened was that the game appeared on a list of Wii games in development. They never said it was moved from the GC to Wii, for all you know they might be making 2 versions (like they are with Zelda). TJ Spyke 19:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
But they aren't. It would have already came out on October 9th, like originally planned. But you know what? It didn't. You know why? Because it was moved from GCN to Wii. WhiteMinority 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You know what happens when you ASSuME? If you paid attention to news of the game, you would have known that Nintendo had pushed back the GC release date. I do think the GC version will end up being cancelled, but as of now it's officially being released on both systems. TJ Spyke 19:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm telling fact, you're making assumptions. And I know all about the news of the GCN release being pushed back... it was pushed back to the Wii. WhiteMinority 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolve this

This debate has gone on for far too long, and it seems neither (none?) of you are going to agree to the other's way of having the article. Therefore, couldn't you agree to have the article read "Gamecube and/or Wii", GameCube coming first purely because for alphabetical reasons, until more solid information is to be had? I think this would be best for everyone, and it would be for the best as to allow edits to resume on this article. - ZakuSage 07:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it can also be noted that Nintendo's site may not be accurate. However, since LttP seems to want proof that IGN/GameSpot may not be reliable, fine. When Phantasy Star Universe came out in Japan, they reported it was getting an expansion. http://ps2.ign.com/articles/729/729671p1.html However, while I can't provide solid proof in english, it was later shown that the page/picture were in fact for the online mode's line of story quests. http://boards2.sega.com/psu_board/viewtopic.php?p=86044#86044 If you find the Japanese page, you can find updates showing pictures from the story mode, which shows the character in the image. http://www.phantasystaruniverse.jp/news/wis/?mode=view&id=102 While not running a story on the 'expansion' like IGN did, GameSpot DID add it as a game. There's probably better examples, but if nothing else I think this shows that GameSpot and IGN may be jumping the gun, and true or not, there simply isn't any hard evidence that the GC version is canned, with the closest being IGN/GS quietly marking the pages as 'cancelled' and Nintendo.co.jp being pretty quiet about the game period. Eusis 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I already said I can agree to this. =\ Proto Dude 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
All I am 'arguing' is that that is what it should say. --Ira-welkin 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It should say that because there is no reason to believe there is still a GameCube version, we should not say that the GameCube version is still in development.
Additionally, I choose to void this evidence. It was once argued that Polarium Advance's lack of a release date on Nintendo.com was irrelevant, and so, I say this is.
And the biggest problem is that Polarium Advance helps my case, and yet Phantasy Star Universe does nothing for yours. If this is evidence of IGN/GS being unreliable, then logic would state that it could never be used as a source for information on Wikipedia, period. All you have proven is the fallibility of IGN and GS. This does not show them to be wrong in this instance. I wanted proof that they are mistaken in saying the GameCube version is cancelled, not that they are not omnipotent. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, policy states that verifiability is more important than truth. Whether or not it is true can be debated - however, according to two very verifiable sources, it is true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And accordign the a verifiable source its still coming out on GameCube. Just list both versions, IF the GameCube version ends up getting cancelled later then it can be removed. TJ Spyke 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! I see nothing wrong with that.Proto Dude 02:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You do? Oh, right, Nintendo.com's out of date page on Super Paper Mario said so. See, the fact that the page is out-of-date shows it to be verifiable. GameStop and other sites list it because they haven't gotten word of its cancellation. But at no point have you shown that IGN or GS is lying or misinformed in saying that it's not coming to GameCube. So why should we assume that they are? The only thing you have is a page from a site that I have proven is surprisingly out-of-date (lack of any mention of WII Super Paper Mario and no release date for Polarium Advance). See, THAT is an unverifiable statement. We can prove that Polarium Advance has a release date by the fact that it has been released in all of the three main regions. I am flabbergasted that you people are still claiming that IGN and GameSpot are not verifiable in this one page, but are verifiable everywhere else.
I ask - ONCE AGAIN - what shows IGN and GameSpot's statements that SPM is cancelled for GameCube wrong? Nintendo.co.jp doesn't acknowledge a GameCube version's existence, Nintendo.com's Super Paper Mario page is out-of-date, and IGN/GS are verifiable. Absolutely no good information shows IGN/GS to be wrong, so the idea that we shouldn't state that it is no longer for GameCube is ludicrous. At no point has Wikipedia ever had a policy that states we should remove good information just in case it might be false. You have provided inadequate reasoning as to why IGN/GS' statements shouldn't be used as evidence, so I suggest you stop arguing until you can provide something that actually supports your case.
And I have a big deal with withholding information for such a terrible reasoning. Yes, IGN and GS may be wrong. But since that logic applies to all knowledge, we should thusly remove everything from Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice how you take my example in extremes: It can either be fully trusted, or not at all. I used my example to point out that IGN/GS have just as much potential to be wrong as Nintendo and that, if it appears to make enough sense, they'll jump the gun: Heck, that at least got a /story/, which SPM's GC cancellation never got. The closest it got beyond Matt's mailbag was a news story later on the list given on the Sept 14th event, where the writer merely said it /hinted/ at the fate of the GC version. http://wii.ign.com/articles/732/732678p1.html Speaking of that event, Nintendo did in fact update that page after it happened. They first changed the date to Q4 2006, then to announced. Strongly hints that it's cancelled, but it shows that they are paying attention to that page, and that either they're indecisive, or even NoA themselves doesn't know. And Nintendo.co.jp... I thought I said this already, but they've got next to nothing on their site period about the game, unless every other mention is in katakana or something. Use Google to search nintendo.co.jp with the exact phrase Super Paper Mario, and you see a grand total of 3 results: Two E3 2006 GC pages, and the one Wii list.
I fail to see why you have to keep fighting this so much though: you are the only one who sees it as strong enough evidence to flat out remove that it could be on the GC, and everyone else just wants it left on until there's official confirmation from Nintendo's mouths, or at least an actual story from one of the sites. I think putting down that 'Major sites like GameSpot and IGN have it marked as cancelled' should be enough until that happens, or it's too blatantly obvious it won't come out. Eusis 05:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
So even though every single verifiable piece of information tells us it's not on GCN, we should merely include a footnote that says "GameSpot and IGN say GameCube version's canceled, but Nintendo.com's out-of-date page for this game disagrees". The only reason to include such a note is if we have a very good reason to not say that what they said is true. The problem is that you are theorizing why Nintendo.com's SPM page is not up-to-date. We have reason to believe that Nintendo.com saying it's a GameCube game doesn't hold water on the basis that it's out-of-date. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo.co.jp does not acknowledge Super Paper Mario (but they acknowledge all of these other GameCube games), GameSpot says it was cancelled for GameCube, and IGN says it's cancelled for GameCube. There is no guideline or policy that even suggests we should not state this as fact even when we have no reason to not state it as fact. I have shown Nintendo.com to be of questionable accuracy - they were wrong on Polarium Advance, and they didn't acknowledge SPM as a Wii game. What IGN did with Phantasy Star Universe was report on what they heard. They did not simply make it up. They put it up for a good reason. Same with that Super Paper Mario is cancelled for GameCube. We have nothing to show that they are wrong in saying it. Hell, we have something to say they aren't wrong - the fact that, like GameSpot, there is no GameCube page for Super Paper Mario on Nintendo.co.jp. I grow tired of this debate - I will not allow good information be kept from an article for such a silly reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
ALTTP, it seems like want everything to be your way and aren't willing to budge. Just add in to the article something like "IGN and GameSpot have reported that the GameCube version has been cancelled, but this has yet to be confirmed by Nintendo". This tells people what IGN/GameSpot have said whilte stating the truth, that Nintendo has not announced it as being cancelled. TJ Spyke 06:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo.co.jp doesn't have a Wii page either. It's closer to having a GC page if anything thanks to the E3 stuff. Regardless of my theories, there is the /FACT/ that after the official list showing it to be on the Wii at the Sept 14th event, Nintendo has updated their SPM page, just only date changes and nothing about the Wii version, showing that they are paying attention and technically not 'out of date'. And PSU... I'll note though that he said Sega made no official announcement, but that 'they heard' it was an expansion, and apparently ran with it with the headline. Shouldn't continue that example for much longer, however. Eusis 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We have added sources without Nintendo supporting them. That is the one and only fact that needs to be looked at. We've got nothing to contradict it. And yes, Nintendo.com's page is out of date. When they don't add that it's on another system, it is out-of-date. It's not something minor like "Luigi am playable!". And Nintendo.co.jp does not have it closer to a GameCube page than a Wii page. They said it was a GCN game when it was first announced, and now no longer say it is and now say it is a Wii game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How many times do we have to tell you... NOBODY IS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION. In fact, if anyone is, it's YOU because your withholding information that it's possible that it's still on the GameCube.Proto Dude 11:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The lack of information is still information. Yes, it is possible that it's still for GameCube. But we do not act on possibilities. We act on verifiability. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. We can verify that IGN and GameSpot are good sources, so whether or not it may be true is a non-issue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd post this below, but I'd rather not have that turn out like this did. I took another look on Nintendo's page, and they keep the Wii and GC pages of Zelda separate: Thus, Nintendo would either flat out change the GC page to a Wii one, or add a seperate Wii page later. The fact the SPM page doesn't mention the Wii shouldn't be taken as evidence that that page is out of date enough to be discredited, especially when they are still updating it. Eusis 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, try to come to a resolution, and stop ARGUING

Please, stop looking out for the best interests of your own beliefs. It would be for the best for the article and Wikipedia to have this article open to edits, and the only people preventing it are yourselves. In that vein, perhaps it would be best to put it as "Unknown Nintendo platform", with a new section added on the confusion surrounding the verifiability of the platforms, with sources applicable for each one. This should remain until more definite news is available on the topic, perhaps a press release by Nintendo. Can everyone agree on this? Remember, this is supposed in the best interests of Wikipedia and its userbase, not your own views on whether or not it's coming out on GameCube or Wii. - ZakuSage 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Leaving in both sets of information, or expressing that is unknown, is what everyone besides a link to the past wants to do. He alone wants it to say that it is definitely coming out only on Wii. Which I'll admit even I think it is: only coming out on the Wii. But there's no reason to be sure. A guess, however educated, by a magazine he respects. And, again, I agree that if I were to wager, I would bet only Wii and no Gamecube. But I recognize that I can't put a guess like that in. Having someone who doesn't work for the people making the game make a statement about it months ago points towards something, which we can mention. But IGN are not making SPM so they aren't giving the official status, just telling what they heard to be true in the past. I think saying it isn't official but rumor points to a Wii version, while the GC version's status is 'officially uncanceled but uncertain' is fine. I can live with it: that's what it pretty much already says. I think the problem is all down to ALTTP because we all agree and have already done the things suggested to find a compromise. I would like the page to be editable. --Ira-welkin 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no denying that keeping it as a GameCube game is being cautious for caution's sake. Your only evidence is that Nintendo.com still says it, and I have discredited Nintendo.com, that they cannot be used to cancel out what IGN and GS have said. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
ZakuSage I agree 100% with you. I was also in agreement with your last bid for a compromise.Proto Dude 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We can all agree it will be out on the Wii, and there's hard proof for that, so I'm fine with what was originally suggested. Eusis 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
ALTTP, you did not discredit Nintendo. I can find many cases where IGN and GameSpot have been wrong. I think it's pretty clear that ALTTP is the only one not willing to compromise because he doesn't want to admit that he could be wrong. TJ Spyke 21:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, our 'argument' has two sides in that everybody but ALTTP wants to do what you suggest, and indeed it was the compromise which you suggested which led to this conflict. That's what it -said- before ALTTP got all fussy. lol. Caution for Caution's Sake and pretending that IGN are making SPM are different things. --Ira-welkin 22:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there exists a possibility that because they are not all-knowing and all-seeing, they just might be wrong. You showed that IGN and GS have been wrong in the past. That would make them not suitable to discredit another verifiable web site. However, this logic applies to Nintendo.com as well. The fact that they have been wrong shows the distinct possibility that they are wrong in this instance, especially when their info does not match the info of the Japanese web site, while IGN and GameSpot's pages do. It'll be a cold day in Hell before IGN and GameSpot are not considered verifiable sources, so the fact that they have been wrong matters not. However, in this case, the information of it being a Wii game originated from IGN, which everyone was insisting that IGN cannot be used as a source because Nintendo didn't back them up. Turns out that Nintendo did eventually back them up - the Japanese Nintendo, at least. Nintendo.com did not. Ever since then, Nintendo.co.jp's only acknowledgement of a GameCube version of Super Paper Mario is in E3 reports before the idea of a Wii version ever existed. I have shown a very good reason why Nintendo.com may be wrong, while you have not provided a reason why IGN and GS may be wrong outside of questionable evidence from Nintendo.com. Without anything contradicting it, the question of truth is thrown out the window. All that matters is whether or not IGN and GameSpot are verifiable sources. And, by the way, you did not discredit IGN or GS with the PSU argument. They reported news, and it turned out wrong. Few reporters can claim they have never done that - at least, few major reporters.
And, how am I saying "IGN is making SPM"? Did "IGN is reliable enough to be trusted" suddenly become that over night? There is nothing in any policy on Wikipedia that says we need to get the information from the horse's mouth, or at least from a horse that heard it from that source. If another horse is trustworthy enough and says something, he is to be trusted. You are trying to spin this faster than the Earth. So why is it that IGN can be a source for everything they say but that the GameCube version of this game was cancelled? Because Nintendo didn't say so? Well, have fun showing precedence that Nintendo is needed in this case, that a verifiable source isn't enough (although that's kind of funny, since all we need is a verifiable source's word that isn't contradicted by anything remotely concrete). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree nintendo.com is probably wrong, but I still think nintendo.com's information should be briefly mentioned in the article's text because most people will consider it to be a reliable source. We can explain why this specific information is likely wrong (that nintendo.co.jp is to be considered more authoritative, that all other sites disagree with it, etc.), we can put it in tiny text at the bottom referenced by an asterisk. But in the end, I don't think it is for us to say that nintendo.com isn't often a reliable source. --Interiot 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We have reason to not believe Nintendo.com, while we have little reason to not believe IGN or GameSpot. In any case, the only thing I would compromise to is labelling it as a Wii game in the infobox and not a GameCube game and create a section about its transition to the Wii. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
At a minumum, the infobox could be "Wii (see article)", and the article text has to explain that Nintendo.com says one thing, but that it's possibly/probably wrong (and explain why). Nintendo.com is the second most authoritative source when it comes to the game. To completely disregard their information would be original research. --Interiot 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just say it is the best selling Mario game ever too and also that it has already become a party-favorite. Listen to ALTTP: 'the only thing I would compromise to is labelling it as a Wii game in the infobox.' LOL Glad this discussion is so fruitful. Thank god you aren't a leader of a country. --Ira-welkin 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because someone like you would make a great President, yes? Then again, George Bush already ignores trustworthy sources and focuses on questionable data. Now, instead of flopping around trying to keep your inane argument alive by trolling, actually focus on the facts. Now, let's see - who's more authorative? Nintendo.com or Nintendo.co.jp? I'll give you a hint: the most they'll do is localize Super Paper Mario. The fact that Nintendo.com contradicts what Nintendo.co.jp (the more authorative site) says is not original research, it is fact. That makes what they say questionable. The fact of the matter is that IGN and GameSpot's Super Paper Mario pages contradict the less authoritative page, but sync up with the more authoritatvie page. The only reliable source that contradicts IGN and GS also contradicts a more reliable source. You can't say that IGN's info is contradictory because it contradicts a contradiction. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nintendo.co.jp not saying a thing about the GC version is not the same as saying it's cancelled. It's one thing if they had a fullblown SPM page without mention of GC, and/or a schedule for all systems that covered 2007, but they don't. The GC page only seems to pay attention to what is out or in the immediate future, and their schedule doesn't go beyond the end of 2006. Nintendo on a whole is being awfully quiet about SPM. Another compromise I suggest is listing it as "GameCube (reported cancelled), Wii" and cover what the sources say in the main article. Eusis 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the point everybody else is trying to make but you is that its silly to pretend to be sure. We just want to present that it is uncertain. I have no idea whatsoever what you are finding so offensive about everybody else's idea for the page. --Ira-welkin 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no coverage of games in 2007 for the GCN because there are no 2007 GCN games. The fact that Nintendo.com doesn't acknowledge a Wii version makes Nintendo.com questionable for an argument why IGN and GameSpot are incorrect in this, or why we should be cautious.
The fact that THQ announced a GameCube version of Ratatouille for summer 2007 seems to disagree with you. [9] TJ Spyke 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We can never be sure about whether or not information is correct. We've got good reason to believe it's cancelled, because two highly verifiable sources in this field have said as such. I'll compromise to the possibility of a GameCube version still in development, but only a possibility. A possibility is not enough to label it as a GameCube game in the infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's still officially a GameCube game as well. TJ Spyke 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I actually meant Nintendo.co.jp's overall schedule for all systems, not just the GC. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/schedule/index.html Eusis 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
By the fact that Nintendo has not come out and said "it is not a GameCube game anymore", yes, it is not "officially" cancelled. However, IGN and GS have stated that Super Paper Mario is cancelled. We do not need Nintendo to back them up to be able to say that this is probably correct. Nintendo.com's lack of any mention of a Wii version of SPM (and yes, I checked, there was no separate page for it) throws the likelihood that the SPM page is up-to-date enough to show IGN and GS are wrong. IGN and GS are verifiable sources and the evidence against their usage has been thrown into question. I repeat: I shall compromise by allowing the possibility of it still being a GameCube game in the article, but NOT in the infobox. We've seen enough to not only make the idea of a GameCube version HIGHLY questionable, but we have enough to remove mention of it being a GameCube version. Saying that there is a possibility that it is still a GameCube game is the most this article should say. The fact that Nintendo.com has been shown that they may be incorrect in stating it is a GameCube game is enough to make it inadequate to trump IGN and GameSpot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
ALTTP: 'We do not need Nintendo to back them up to be able to say that this is probably correct.' Ok, finally the p-word is being used. I think I could stand for the compromise you suggest, but couldn't the infobox say 'Wii/Gamecube (GC Version Pending Probable Cancellation)' ? --Ira-welkin 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... like Ira said, I could go with THAT compromise. I will laugh so hard though if it actually turns out that it's NOT canceled. :P Proto Dude 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I say probably correct because there is no way to determine the validity of IGN and GS' statements outside of their verifiability. And I would rather that the infobox not make the statement that it's coming out to GameCube; the infobox is for definitive information.
Additionally, why would you laugh so hard if it turns out that it was not cancelled? I was pushing for a verifiable source to be used to say that it was. Whether or not it's cancelled is a non-issue; the issue is how much proof can be provided for its cancellation. If it turns out to not be cancelled, it won't be that Nintendo.com was right, just that Nintendo.com's lack of updates for some lesser games proved to be a good idea in this case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Atari is releasing Backyard Basketball 2007 (you can see the GC version behind the pics of the other 2 BY games) for GameCube in January. So, there will be at least one GameCube game released in 2007.-Mega Man 5

That's different. Nintendo.co.jp doesn't cover it because it's not a game that's coming to Japan. (or, it has no plans to do so). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There's usually some odd game that comes out on a major console past it's successor's launch - the only exception I can think of to this is the Sega Saturn, and I think that still held true in Japan. Like said though, whether or not there'll be GC games from anyone in 2007 in Japan is kinda irrelevant given that the full schedule for all systems doesn't go into 2007 yet. Eusis 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what was said is "There is no coverage of games in 2007 for the GCN because there are no 2007 GCN games.". When that is said, that means there's no GC games being released in 2007 anywhere. I have proved that that is wrong, because Atari is releasing a GC game in January.-Mega Man 5

The article should read "It is disputed whether this title will be released for Gamecube, Wii, or both systems." As for the RPG elements, it would make more sense to say it takes place in the Paper Mario universe and has some RPG elements, but plays more like a 2D sidescroller such as Super Mario Bros.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.72.70 (talk • contribs)

Okay, IGN, Gamespot and Gamespy (3 of the most reliable gaming sites on the web) all report that it has been moved to the Wii, what's not to get. It's not coming out GCN, just Wii. WhiteMinority 19:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

They are assuming that based on it appearing on a list of Wii games. It's still officially coming to GameCube as well. TJ Spyke 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you're assuming it's coming on GCN when all major video game publications disagree with you. WhiteMinority 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and that Nintendo.com page of Super Paper Mario hasn't been updated since June. WhiteMinority 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The game was officially moved from the GCN to the Wii meaning it will no longer be on the former because it was moved from it. You know, like how Eternal Darkness was moved from N64 to GCN, StarFox Adventures was moved from N64 to GCN, etc. This happens all the time with games that would have been released at the end of one systems lifespan and at the birth of another. The only reason Zelda:TP is, is because they announced the game 3 years ago and GCN owners have been eargerly antcipating it and if they cancelled the Cube version there would be a huge backlash, but they can easily do it to a game that has one has a couple videos, a few screenshots, next to no info on it and announced 6 months ago. WhiteMinority 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It was NEVER officially moved. "Officially moved" would mean Nintendo saying they moved it to the Wii, and that has NOT happended. Yes they have announced a Wii version, but the GameCube version is still officially in development too. Please learn the difference between "officially" and "speculated". TJ Spyke 19:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You realize you're just speculating then to that it is still in development for GCN. Where do you find this info that it is still "officially" in development for the GCN? WhiteMinority 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that NINTENDO said as recently as last month that it wa still coming out on GameCube. You speculate, I use reliable and official sources. TJ Spyke 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Link? WhiteMinority 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If you can't provide a link then I have reason to believe one doesn't exist and this article should be unblocked and stated that the game will not be released for GCN and only Wii. WhiteMinority 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't find it at the moment, but I know they said that. And they NEVER said the GameCube version was cancelled or moved to the Wii. Announcing a Wii version is not the same as cancelling the GC version. Saying that the GC version is cancelled when it's NOT is misinformation and hurts the article. TJ Spyke 21:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok, since you know they said it, then it must true, right? I stand by the statement. If the link can't be found, there is reason to believe it exists. I'll you give 24 hours to find before I make a request. WhiteMinority 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It won't be unblocked untilthe dispute is resolved. The GameCube version is still officially in development snd so the article should say that. TJ Spyke 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but if you can't find the link you have NO PROOF to back it up. You have no proof, there is no dispute, article is unblocked and states that the game was cancelled for GCN.WhiteMinority 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess you just ignored everything on this talk page? It IS disputed. The game has NOT been officially cancelled, Nintendo has never said it's been cancelled and has never said it's been moved. Yes there is a Wii version, but there is officially a GameCube version as well. The current version of the article is correct, saying that IGN is reporting it as cancelled but the game still officially in development for the GC. It should stay that way until Nintendo makes it official one way or the other. TJ Spyke 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, why should I believe you if you have nothing to back up that statment?WhiteMinority 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not the best source: http://gonintendo.com/?p=6256. Even if you don't count that though, you have no proof the GameCube version is cancelled. Sites like IGN are ASSUMING it won't come out on GC. The game is still officially coming out on GameCube, why can't you just accept that? You are the reason the page is still locked. TJ Spyke 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Because some ignorant customer service lady reading info off of nitendo's webpage that hasn't been updated for such a long time is more reliable then every major video game publisher on the web, right? And first, I just got here today and had nothing to do with the article being blocked and second, it's your fault the article is still blocked, just accept that the game isn't coming out on GCN and move on. WhiteMinority 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing had happened in awhie, then you had to start up this arguement. Why don't you just accept that the game is still officially in development for the GC? Read the current version of the article, that is EXCATLEY what it should say. TJ Spyke 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Every single release list on every single video game publication site has it listed as coming out on the Wii in 2007. Nintendo considers the GCN a failure. Why would they put a big hit game like this on a dead system instead of a brand new system? That link was not a vaild source, unless you can provide one there is no evidence saying it will be released on the GCN. WhiteMinority 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Where has Nintendo EVER said the GameCube was a failure? Especially since they made a profit on the hardware (something Microsoft never did with the Xbox and took Sony several years to do with PS2). I have provided an official source saying it's still on GC, all you have done is provided websites which SPECULATE that it's not. You are wrong and you know it, now admit it so the page can be unlocked. Although the current version of the page is correct. TJ Spyke 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You posted a link to a website that talked to some ignorant customer service lady. I want a valid link. And they said it was a failure due to its lackluster sales. And the GCN never really helped them finacially. WhiteMinority 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
They never said it was a failure. Never helped them? So that fact that they made a profit on every system sold (something MS never did with the Xbobx and something that Sony several years to do with the PS2), and made a lot of money on the system doesn't matter. You are just mad because you know i'm right, it's still a GC game as well. TJ Spyke 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What would I be made about? I'm not wrong, you'll see when the game never comes out on GCN but does on Wii. It was failure in the eyes of Nintendo because they expected it to regain some ground they once had with the NES. WhiteMinority 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop saying they think it was a failure, you mean you think that. I don't recall them ever saying that (although they might think that). 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I loved the GCN it sports most of my favorite games from last gen. It's just that's what they think because of the lackluster sales it had. WhiteMinority 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Gosh you fellows are odd. It doesn't matter if it comes out on Wii or not in terms of the article. I think it is coming out on Wii but I understand that until it is officially announced, it isn't official. Magazines speculate, they may be right, but you can't just go with it. Chill out and stop being so smug. It's an ugly attribute. Nobody knows when or how it is coming out yet for sure, and we will when some kind of official announcement is made. Until then, there are a group of people brave enough and honest enough to admit they don't know and a group who believes that their fanboy impulses entitle them to take their conjecture as proof positive. I think it is coming out on Wii, but so far that's just following the clues. Let's not pretend that we think that because of hard facts. --Ira-welkin 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with with what User:Aramjm said. Just put TBA under what console it will be released on. WhiteMinority 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I could accept that, Nintendo has to eventually announce it one way or another. TJ Spyke 03:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oui, oui: TBA. Too true, that's the best thing to put! --Ira-welkin 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

In lieu of the article being unlocked, and in an attempt to summarize the discussion above, here's a list of sources mentioned so far, generally more reliable sources at the top. Feel free to edit it. --Interiot 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/933012.asp

and nintendo world report: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/gameArt.cfm?artid=11445 metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/superpapermario?q=super%20paper%20mario CNET: http://reviews.cnet.com/Super_Paper_Mario_Wii/4505-9583_7-31878937.html

All of which say it is coming out for the Wii and not GCN. WhiteMinority 01:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the CNET one... But as I said, feel free to edit the box. Though I don't know whether many people would consider GameRankings/Metacritic to be particularly reliable (for the most part, they're just a list of more reliable sources). (not that the retailers are at all reliable either, but whichever) --Interiot 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wii ソフトウェアラインナップ (Wii software lineup). Nintendo.co.jp.
    Lists SuperPaperMario as coming out on the Wii. The GameCube version of the page (link?) doesn't list SuperPaperMario
  • Super Paper Mario. Nintendo.com.
    Lists SuperPaperMario under the GameCube section. However, there's suspicion that the site hasn't been updated for some time.
  • Nintendo Japan opens up 101-game Wii catalog. GameSpot.com (2006-09-14).
    "Super Paper Mario (working title) is listed among the Wii games. Originally announced as a GameCube game, Super Paper Mario takes the aesthetic of Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario and places it in a platform game. Nintendo has not yet returned GameSpot's request for a status update on the GameCube version of the game."
  • GameCube: Super Paper Mario. IGN.com.
    Says that both the US and Nintendo releases are canceled, while the Wii version of the page lists SPM as being scheduled to be released in the US.

Note: page has been updated with the release date saying "TBA" (To Be Announced). IGN's unsure if it will be released for GameCube or not.

7 say GC, 5 say Wii. Let's just put down TBA on the consolesAramjm 02:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's actually 9 say Wii and 7 say GCN (but I don't think the retailer ones should count) Although I agree completely with what you say that it should just say TBA. WhiteMinority 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the more reliable sources say Wii. Though most readers are likely to consider Nintendo.com to be typically reliable (so it's important for us to explain why this specific info might be inaccurate). And I don't know about 1UP, since they practically admit their classification is based on rumor. --Interiot 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added 2 sources saying it's for GameCube. --Mega Man 5 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So all we really have stating the game is for the Wii is Matt from IGN saying it in a mailbag and the list of upcoming Wii games from NCL. Neither sources ever made an official announcement. GameSpot and others are basing it off of Nintendo's list and it doesn't seem any of them have received an official word from NOA or NCL. --Optichan 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
IGN posted a new article the other day talking about upcoming Wii games and talks about Super Paper Mario as one of them. WhiteMinority 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
IGN is actually unsure if the game has been canceled for the GC or not.--Mega Man 5 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pure Speculation But Interesting

Now that Fils-Aime has claimed Super Mario Galaxy could be released any time between 04-07 and 12-07, I can see why SPM may have been pulled off the GCN and moved to the Wii (which for the record I have always believed that it has been, I just am waiting for an official word before 'knowing' it lol), to fill in the potential gap with a Mario-based game, particularly in light of the huge success of 'The New Super Mario Bros' (4 million sold, isn't it?) a Wii-enabled highly-stylized 2d Mario adventure with a twist might be just as interesting to the masses as it has been to us ever since we heard about it. I hope that this game is done right and catches on with people in a big way, and that its everything we look forward to. --Ira-welkin 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope it's released for GameCube. It should be, and might be. --Mega Man 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A GameCube release seems doubtful now that the Wii is out... -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? There are still GameCubes scheduled to come out until at least next summer (the game based on Pixar's next movie "Ratatoullie" releases next summer and has been announced for the GameCube). I agree it's unlikely, but it is possible. TJ Spyke 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I work at EB Games, and our systems have a release date and SKU for Gamecube, but not Wii. I can print that out and scan it if you like. (Providing I remember =P) ♠PMC♠ 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

New Potential

Dunno if everyone saw this yet but IGN released a section looking at games for the Wii coming out for the 07 year. (This topic doesn't discuss the GC/Wii discussion, BTW) It can be found here [10]. But anyway, find Super Paper Mario and, notice, the page says it's 1-2 Players, claiming it (may be) multiplayer for up to two people. Has this been revealed before; is it just me? Knuckles sonic8 22:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Story

One thing I think is that the caption to that wedding pic should be changed from 'the enigmatic marriage ceremony' because that sort of assumes knowledge of a plot. Either some details about the plot have surfaced that allow the captioner to say that or they are just guessing. --Ira-welkin 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Well.. not really. It's obviously a marriage, given the content of the picture, but no plot details have been released, hence its labelling as 'enigmatic' 84.68.216.140 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 12.210.112.51 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's Not Do This Again

Let's not get the page locked again! For all we know, it could be a special Wii game on a small disc that could fit in a gamecube and there will be one release for both formats. One 'greater' source says BLAH BLAH BLAH none of what you are saying is new. We don't know the final fate of the game. It's WHAT YOU AGREED TO. Everything was fine for weeks. What is the deal! This is a source of information, and only could be if it was unlocked, so that when finally some ACTUAL NEWS comes out, we will all be able to see. If you keep trying to put in information from september its going to get locked and we are all going to suffer when some new info comes out, thanks to your stupid ego-trip. WHATEVER. I don't care if you are right or anybody, I have my own views but I accept what is COMPLETELY CONFIRMABLE, and that is TBA: It could be any combination of Wii and Gamecube, even the aforementioned hypothetical dual-disc. So calm down and remember why we agreed to TBA in the first place. --Ira-welkin 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I thought this nonsense was over. LTP, we did all agree that it was best to leave the game status as TBA. Please don't try and stir the pot again. Proto Dude 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, please don't fight over this again. The article text already does a decent job of discussing all available reliable information. The infobox doesn't have enough room to present the conflicting information or the reliability of its sources, and it's obvious the infobox has been a source of edit warring in the past, so please just leave the infobox at TBA until there's no longer conflicting information between our most reliable sources. Fight over the article text if you must, at least we can present more nuanced information there. --Interiot 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Translation: Lie. TBA literally means to be announced. To tell people that there has been no system announced is no short of lying to their faces.
To say it is TBA is as truthful as to say that Tingle is the main character of Zelda TP. We can verify that it is on Wii, and there is nothing to prove such a thing wrong.
Would anyone enjoy explaining why it is not a lie to tell people something we know is completely false? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think TBD (to be determined) would be more accurate than TBA. TJ Spyke 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I am fine with TBD, I agree that it is more accurate. Proto Dude 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't a small wii disk an equilvelent to a GC disk, which is compatible with a GC and Wii? Still, TBA is more known than TBD. leave at TBA as of now, until we can find out officially what system its for. Do not change without talking about it. Thank youAramjm 01:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just meant it could be a small Wii disc that would let a gamecube only version be played on a gamecube, but would also have a wii version with allowances for the controller: essentially it would be like releasing only one product that would have both versions, as merely a gamecube version of the game could have no Wii-mote functionality. Purely hypothetical, but you can see it is quite possibly an option. --Ira-welkin 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I do think Wii needs to be listed, since NoJ's 9/14 Wii list flat out listed it, but I kept quiet just because I was tired of the arguing and while TBA wasn't the best thing to put there, it was as close to a compromise as we were apparently going to get until Nintendo flat out made a concrete, irrefutable statement. But ALttP is hellbent on making sure it's only Wii listed there, that anything else /is not acceptable/, so... Bleh. I still think it should read Wii, Gamecube (reported cancelled) or something along those lines. Also, I seriously doubt there'll be any dual Wii/GC discs, and there have yet to be any shown. Eusis 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I also see TBD's been put there now. Whichever works, heh. Eusis 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking, maybe it should say "TBC" (To be confirmed). TJ Spyke 00:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No point in saying "to be confirmed" if we're not mentioning what our guess to be confirmed is (which will lead to edit warring). How about "See article"? Whichever, as long as we're not edit warring over it, I'm happy. --Interiot 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

TBC or TBD. Choose, and LEAVE IT ALONE. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramjm (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes one of those is fine, since NOJ's Wii list lists it as a Wii game while NOA's list flat out lists it for the GameCube.-Mega Man 5 7 January 2007 (UTC)

wii only

in the latest issue of "nintendo: the official magazine" in the uk, they claim this game is now wii exclusive. in there "in a word" section of their letters page someone asked "is paper mario still coming out for the gamecube? i haven't got a wii yet!". they replied "no.".Mattyatty 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts, but I will check that issue when I see it. TJ Spyke 02:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would you have doubts? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
After Mother 3, who the hell knows? It does make it more legitimate at any rate, assuming that really is reported in the magazine. Eusis 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive scaned the page to show you it: http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6679/scan8eg.jpg. The question is towards the botom right corner in the "In a word" section. I put a red box around the question. Mattyatty 10:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally buy this, this is the kind of official confirmation we wanted right? It was always totally reasonable and likely that this would happen, and Nintendo runs the magazine, so I think its safe to change platform to 'Wii' now. And if someone could provide a scan of the page where it says that the game will be released in April in the US (Mattyatty, I'm thinking of you here if you could) then we can put that in too. The date of course may change, but if that's what they've announced via their magazine, we can at least put it down as announced for April 2007. Woo hoo! --Ira-welkin 16:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I havent got any US magazines that claim the release is in april, just the UK one that just says it is for wii and not gamecube. Mattyatty 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, sorry I'm so dense. People who got an early look at both UK and US mags found out lots of little details, and I didn't really know which were from what. At any rate, I will have a US mag sometime in the next few weeks but the quicker we get this thing settled the better. Anyway, I am changing platform to 'Wii.' When that scan of the now current US Nintendo Power gets up here, we can put 'April' for release date. --Ira-welkin 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait, it's the UK mag that says Wii only? They aren't reliable, especially after they said Europe would get Mother 3. TJ Spyke 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation is in NP, Codename Revolution has a summary of it, and other info here 64.252.7.211 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke are you serious? It's not coming out on GCN and those two mags prove it. Get over it. WhiteMinority 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the Official Nintendo Magazine is an unreliable source, is the same as saying CNN is an unreliable source because it features on the List of premature obituaries. Which is flatout ridiculous. It sure kicks the shit out of blogs and fansites. 172.159.42.101 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
ONM is not generally reliable due to how often they are wrong (with the Mother 3 announcement being one example). Hell, even Edge magazine gets more stuff right. TJ Spyke 01:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
EGM also recently claimed in its rumor mill that Mother Compilation would be coming to DS. It may be a rumor mill, but far more often than not, there is some truth to what Quarterman says. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I take it you're not suggesting that Edge is an unreliable source, being that they're generally held to be one of the better magazines out there, although that is probably more for their review scores and feature writing than the "breaking news OMG" type. There was the recent thing about Crysis on x360 from 1UP, it doesn't mean that they're unreliable either. 172.159.42.101 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's clearly something that is being said in more than one official nintendo magazine. Both sides of the 'pond' are reporting the same thing. And with the details about how the wii-mote is used, it becomes even harder to not accept. I for one am PUMPED! --Ira-welkin 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Random IP, I was just saying thankshat even though ONM is an official magazine (of the inane idiots of NOE) it is still less reliable that an independent magazine. TJ Spyke 04:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The GameCube version being canceled still hasn't been confirmed in the U.S.-Mega Man 5 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And the idea that it is on GameCube is not supported anymore. We have ONM do show that it's not, and we have nothing recent to show that it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Super Paper Mario is coming to the Wii. But face the facts: the GameCube IS still supported. Not being supported anymore means zero games are planned and zero games are in development. The GC has 4 games, 2 of which a lot of people care about, confirmed to be released this year and 2 games that are not confirmed but could still be released for the system.-Mega Man 5 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you are stretching this situation as far as possible. So because other games will be developed for it, there must exist a possibility that this one will be? It is speculation to say that it "may still be in development for the GameCube", especially when an official magazine specifically stated it's not, a major website updated their page on the game to say it's cancelled, that another major web site did the same, and that the most recent Nintendo Power article didn't give a GameCube version any mention. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of sources either being quiet or flat out saying no, I think it's safe to remove the GC version now, then just put it back in the unlikely event there really truly is a GC version still. Eusis 01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I 100% agree. --Ira-welkin 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, Nintendo Power and Official Nintendo Magazine aren't written by Nintendo. Their word is no more reliable than IGN's. - ZakuSage 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely being official magazines would mean that the magazines staff would be employed by nintendo?? Even if this is not so, they must have much closer links to nintendo than IGN or any other gaming website (except nintendo websites, obviously) Mattyatty 16:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Official Nintendo Magazine is published by another company, but Nintendo Power is published by Nintendo of America. -- VederJuda 16:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past, what the hell is wrong with you? I'm no longer saying SPM is for the GC, I'm aware that it's been moved to the Wii. But the fact that the GC still has support, is still available, and still sells means it is not dead yet.-Mega Man 5 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the cube is going to have a renaissance as more and more people who never had one, like myself, suddenly through the purchase of a wii find themselves in possession of one and access to all those unplayed games. It's not dead. A lot of the Zelda TWP sales were of the GCN version, not most or anything but a healthy chunk. It's all good. --Ira-welkin 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
So to translate: "My statement has nothing to do with the discussion at hand". - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your translation is TOTALLY irrelevant, containing nothing about the subject at all. Assuming good faith is everybody's role. And minimizing conflict is a job that should be shared, not just by everyone BUT you, ALTTP, but by EVERYONE. Random ip's that say Wii sucks are fair game to tell to die though, sir. ;) --Ira-welkin 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about him. I think we can all agree that its on the Wii now cause it's in NP, so no more bitter discussion, ok? --Thaddius 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So I should assume that something that is factually irrelevant is not? AGF doesn't say "ignore all reason to not AGF, just AGF". My translate is totally relevant, so stifle. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Only you would start up a stupid argument again almost a month later. Who cares? I am not even going to bother to look up what 'AGF' is. I came by this page to see what new SPM news there was, and was excited to see a release date. Do you even care? All you seem to care about is logic chopping, hack-debate hair-splitting PLUS being a pompous jerk. If this silly argument (consisting of you being an ass and other people talking at least loosely about the subject) is so important to you that you are willing to be so uncivil for no good reason except to make yourself feel better, then why don't you come by more often? If not, why start it up again? You seem to be a haughty and unfriendly person. --12.206.1.97 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole end of this argument is that you think that we are being pukes for making the point that the gamecube is still a format. You have just been deliberately not understanding what Mega Man was saying. Or you do understand, you just are being a jerk. Either way, 'stifle.' What are you, 17? Or 29 and wishing you were 17? Lol. --12.206.1.97 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to be civil and not make personal attacks. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)