Talk:Mario Party 3

Cleanup

The introduction to the article was pretty messy, so I cleaned it up some. It needs more work, the gameplay section is still very vague and nobody would be able to get any idea of what gameplay is like from the current description. I'll try to fix it later myself, I just can't think well right now. Some guy 06:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I added two screenshots to this article, so I removed the suggestion for more photos. CJ 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Action Time

Why isn't there a part in this arcitle (spelling) about the Action times in each board? They're unique to this game, so I think they should be in it. What do you guys think? 66.168.207.105 18:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Minigames

This section is really crufty, and I think it should be removed. Any objections? –The Great Llama^{sign here} 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I really see no reason to object, so I guess I'll be bold and remove it now. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 00:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re added the list. If you want, you can remove the descriptions. Henchman 2000 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be listed. Mario Party is a well written article, and has no mini-games list. It's not notable to list all the games. RobJ1981 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there are 71 games, but the box only says 70, what do you think is the missing game?

Neutrality

In the minigame list, everything is from the point of view of the player, not the neutral point of view. –Llama man^{sign here} 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As per the Mario Party article, the game list doesn't need to exist. I don't see why people keep re-adding it. RobJ1981 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party articles RFC

CROSSPOST

Please see Talk:Mario Party 8#Request for comment: Lists of mini-games. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

END CROSSPOST. DO NOT POST IN THIS SECTION.

Fair use rationale for Image:Marioparty3.jpg

Image:Marioparty3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console

Over the past week, a IP user going by 166.147.112.254 / 166.147.120.33 / 166.147.120.19 / 166.147.120.18 has, on four separate occassions, added false information about a Virtual Console release. A search for sources turns up nothing -- if he has a source, he needs to add it, though it doesn't seem to be a "real" claim. I have left notices on his talk page(s), to no avail. I doubt constantly reverting him is the way to go -- what else can I do? Salvidrim (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Salvidrim asked me to take a look at this, as I've spent a lot of time at Virtual Console. OK, first of all, you're correct in saying that if there's no reliable proof of the game's release on Virtual Console, then it doesn't belong. That includes both statements of an impending release date and addition of inappropriate categories. All you can do, unfortunately, is revert the edits and notify the user of the situation. I've gone into the user contributions of one of the IPs and found similar edits on other articles, such as Beetle Adventure Racing; I've reverted it and added a user warning tag to at least that one. I'll check the others shortly, so at least I can get something on the talk page that (a) the user(s) will see and hopefully read and (b) other editors will know they've been warned at least once if they catch the IPs doing this again.

If things get heated, with numerous changes in a short period of time, consider semi-protecting the article for a few days and see if the IPs get the message then. Or, just as Salvidrim did, ask for help. I'll start following Mario Party 3 and will provide whatever assistance I can. --McDoobAU93 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quick reply! The problem(s) include addition of release info (as "TBA"), addition of a console in the Infobox, addition of a category, etc. I've left messages on the user's talk for the last two revert and will keep doing so if need be. I doubt the user(s) checks talk pages but the warning thing you mentioned sounds like a good start -- what template is it? As for a semi-prot request, if he starts more than once every few days I'll look at how that's done, otherwise... would reverting the user's edits 4-5 times per week be something I could be warned/punished for? I know about the 3RR rule, but over a longer span of time I'm not sure if it would qualify as edit warring or something, despite his (so far) lack of discussion. Salvidrim (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The editor has struck again, so I've asked for temporary semi-protection to see if the inability to edit will prompt him/her to go do something else instead of making our jobs harder. --McDoobAU93 01:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly this is not the only page he was vandalising, so I have a nagging feeling he'll just find others. But hey, that's life. :) Salvidrim (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, that's not all ... the admin who semi'ed the article also issued a cross-IP warning to the editor to all the IPs found editing this particular article that match up (which is maybe half of the ones I've listed). I've sent them a separate message saying I have more IPs I can send them and other articles that are affected, but haven't heard back yet. --McDoobAU93 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, since I had posted warnings on a number of them, thus auto-watched. ;) Salvidrim (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

NA Release date

Conflicting sources. Some are more reliable than others, but I'd still like a second opinion.

• May 6, 2011:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/mario-party-3

http://www.giantbomb.com/mario-party-3/61-12447/releases/

http://www.gamefaqs.com/n64/374848-mario-party-3/data

• May 7, 2011:

http://ign64.ign.com/objects/015/015245.html

http://www.nindb.net/game/mario-party-3.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279947/

http://www.kotakgame.com/review/index.php?c=4&g=592

http://www.apluscheats.com/cheats/Mario-Party-3_3975_Nintendo-64

http://www.gamepro.com/games/hub/n64/all/months/all/popular/1/ (sidebar on the right)

http://www.videogamevalue.com/nintendo64/marioparty3_045496870898.html

http://www.metacritic.org/games/platforms/n64/marioparty3

It would seem that 7-May-2001 is the correct date, both from sheer numbers and from reliability (GamePro, Metacritic, IGN being generally reliable, and MobyGames, GiantBomb being of doubtful reliability, while GameFAQs is generally not even considered). Unless there is a different idea, I'll change it back to 7-May and use the Metacritic source. Salvidrim (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo's official website also lists May 7. AJFU (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot

With the Story Mode's theme of trying to figure out who should own the Millennium Star, a summary would go nicely here. 2603:6010:8B45:FA00:2077:C477:CB7F:492D (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The story is already covered in the gameplay section. We don't need a dedicated summary section. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)