Talk:Mario Party/Archive 1

Error in the Controversies section
There's an error in the article in the "Controversies" section, when referring to the word "spastic". The second to last sentence currently reads "Complaints were raised from consumers because the term is used to refer to an intellectually disabled person and is considered offensive in the United Kingdom." This should read "Complaints were raised from consumers because the term was formerly used to refer to sufferers of cerebral palsy and is now considered offensive in the United Kingdom."

Unfortunately the article is protected, so I can't simply make the correction myself. It requires someone with a Wikipedia account to do it. 193.128.100.81 (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The game was recalled because of the colloquial/slang use of the term, not the medical one, therefore I see no reason to change it. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Split?
This page could be split up into pages for the individual games. Just a thought. -TheCoffee 20:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've Split off Mario Party and Mario Party 2.

Should The Main Mario Party Series Page Be Removed or have links to the all 7 games pages instead of keeping all that information on there? --Nikachus01--
 * The page shouldn't be removed. I've removed the board maps as they are not too important to the series as a whole and can be or will be found at their individual articles. I think the rest of the information is good have as a general overview of the series. --TheDotGamer Talk 18:47, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thats actually a better idea, give an overview of each title and link it to the main page, better that way! (Nikachus01)

Mario Party 8 and DS
Give us proof Mario Party 8 has been announced by Nintendo themselves and then we will leave it! (Nikachus01)

Forget Mario Party 8 & Mario Party DS! RyanCahn

How is it possible that the release dates are known for Mario Party 8 and Mario Party DS, when they haven't been confirmed by Nintendo? I've been to the Nintendo homepage a few times today, and several other gaming websites, and I have not seen anything about a "Mario Party 8" or "Mario Party DS" game. Someone definitely made up those dates. - Cosmos 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Only 250 english hits on Google and none are from nintendo, i say we remove the info on mario party 8 --Iffy★Chat -- 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just removed the Unverifiable info, ie. all of the info on mario party 8. --Iffy★Chat -- 18:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed information about MPDS. 124.177.229.111 12:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, Mario Party 8 was released a while ago.

-Sega31098 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega31098 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and DS was too, but that talk was from 2006, if you look at the dates. -- ~*Angelstar*~ 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelstarstar (talk • contribs)

Mario Party DS/Advance spin-offs?
I know they're not on consoles, but on handhelds, but why does this make them spin-offs? For example Dragon Quest IX will be released for the DS but isn't considered a "spin-off". Same goes with Zelda. I thought I should ask before reverting in case I'm missing something LuGiADude 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party Wii...
There has been NO confirmation on this, so I'm going to delete it. Though it is expected, no one has said any thing about it.

Basically as of now, that game has been released years ago, although it is really Mario Party 8.trainfan01 talk 19:06, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party 8
This has been confirmed by Nintendo. Screenshots have been released at the nintendo press conference on september 3. Though Mario Party DS is most likely never going to happen.Wikipedian64 4:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Horrible
This article is by far the worst I've ever read. For example, the subtitle under Mario Party 1 only states "The game that started it all." Laziness... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.51.148 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, why didn't you change anything then? >_> Hardcore gamer 48 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. 69.121.96.140 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, please put up tags suggesting this article should be deleted. I'm fairly confident I know what the outcome will be. Hardcore gamer 48 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party 9???
Is there any proof thea mp9 has been confirmed and to be released in 2008? FrogTape 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The only relevant result in a google search was a site saying "Mario Party 9 is 100% unknown at this point." 68.100.175.120 00:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a listing of characters, specifically "four new ones"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.216.58 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowser Playable?
Who said Bowser and Koopa Troopas are playable in Mario Party DS. Give me proof or I will delete it.

That was completely false. They are always the supporting/enemy characters in the games (of course). trainfan01 talk 19:08, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Controversies?
'This game has been pulled from every English - speaking video game shelf in every PAL format country except Australia and New Zealand due to the relaxed nature of language and violence over in those countries.' - lacking evidence, if anything these two countries are less relaxed than many other english-speaking PAL format countries (see Manhunt, GTA, Postal) in terms of violence. Perhaps just cut it down to language? Squalorman (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Mario Party SS?
Why are there characters from Simpsons in here? -Sega31098 —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking at that section in History I can see, aside from your above characters, other ridiculous ones that are by far not gonna be in any of these Nintendo games (Mr. Sparkle, Barney, etc.). There is no way there will ever be a game will all that. trainfan01

Why??
If mp9 is not official why did someone put a page on that subject on there? And how does that person know if there will be:baby mario,monty mole,rosalina and noki? -_0. -shadow q.

Hello? Is someone going to answer my question? --Shadow q. (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)




 * Keep in mind that one usually receives an answer to their querie in a day or two, not an hour. Mario Party 9 has not been confirmed (or even mentioned) by Nintendo, and thus the character list is false. Some people create pages based on false, unverified information to just annoy other users; it happens all the time. Hardcore gamer 48 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--70.157.98.106 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mario Party 9 redirects to this page even though it is not referenced (or hinted) anywhere (as of the above). This link needs to be fixed. trainfan01 18:14, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

And the game is now confirmed (as there are a few refs on this article and the game's article).trainfan01 talk 19:28, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party DS Lite
Is there really such a thing? 125.162.163.120 (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Marioparty1.jpg
The image Image:Marioparty1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Marioparty3.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
User:A Link to the Past/Mario Party‎ - I made this user article to see if it would work, and it kind of does. Because most of them lack sources and are mostly unrefined, the only thing that's not repeated is the development and reception, the former of which none of them really have (4 and 5 have sections, but it's just minor details slightly related, such as when it was announced). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, that is the same approach that got me to write Crazy Taxi (series) as it is now - the individual games could stand alone, but the overall series is covered well in one article --M ASEM 20:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I remember opposing that! Hohoho. But yeah, I think we should focus on making a better series article, and maybe some of us should work on improving the articles. I won't touch Mario Party 4 and 5 due to their GA status, but I'll have to do some work on 4 (never played 5). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why the others can't be developed into Good Articles, akin to Mario Party 4 and Mario Party 5. If the "only" thing that differs is the "Reception" and "Development", then that accounts for roughly half of the article, not counting the leading. I just do not feel it is necessary, as the proposition is based partially on the current quality of the articles as opposed to their potential or notability. As the gameplay fundamentals remain the same throughout, it's probably best to emphasise changes to the formula in "Gameplay" sections. Thanks. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  20:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate that there's going to be opposition, I think that there's a lot to prove in a lot of these articles. MP4 and 5 need far more development information than they provide - while it's a sizable section and makes the article look better, it's deceptive, as it doesn't discuss the circumstances of its development. I would like to see them expanded, but due to the redundancy of the gameplay between these games, it would take some serious work - serious content on development, reception section akin to 4 and 5's, etc. By the way, MP shouldn't have the controversy section, since that was controversy related to the Mario Party 64 games, and fits in the series article better. MP8's on a good start, what with the different mechanics (Wii Remote) and the controversy. MPDS and Advance as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Mario Party? I did not write that, and am unsure how that is related to this anyway. Anywho, I would like to see the "Development" sections expanded too&mdash;I could just not personally find that information to do so. A universal article only presents a convenient alternative by means of&mdash;as you said&mdash;less effort. I'm sure a series article would present itself as a neater and more useful alternative to what we have now. However, that is a testament to the current state of these articles and not what they're actually intended to do, which is a totally different matter. I personally doubt that this will entail the expanse of "Development" and "Reception" as I suspect such omissions will be veiled by unstructured sections detailing mainly gameplay. I suppose this may be a conflict of interest as I don't want to see two GAs that I helped to write go down the pan. Saying that, I opposed the Crazy Taxi merges too. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I see the general idea that's being aimed for here, I stand against such a merger as shown on the page above. The Mario Party article could have tons of sources for a Development section if someone took the time to write it (see IGN's coverage alone on the first two games before either came out -- Mario Party:, , , , , , , , , -- Mario Party 2: , , , , , , , ). Granted, those sources may not be the most comprehensive or Halo-esque coverage, but these are still games with enough coverage to be notable by themselves. This isn't a GT Cube we're talking about here; most likely with a little digging, especially for the earlier games in the series, one can find information about the development and the reception to the point that it warrants more than just a single list for all the games. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the "merge". What's the reasoning behind it, other than you put a handful of articles together in your user space?  These are articles on subjects that are notable enough to stand alone, the current series article is fine for navigation.  I'd much prefer the current map of articles over one very long one. - hahnch e n 19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the gameplay sections are, for the most part, redundant to the gameplay section of the series article. It's a matter of whether each game is notable as an individual game, or because it's in the MP series. Strong development and reception sections need to be written for each article (though 4 and 5 have strong reception sections already), and gameplay sections need to be trimmed to avoid being redundant to the series' gameplay section - it may reference the basic mechanics, but not to the point where we're just repeating the same thing over and over. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By the fact that most of these games have their own reviews and separate coverage in various reliable sources, we can infer that these games are notable by themselves. Simply because development and reception sections haven't been written for each article doesn't mean the material and sources to write them don't exist; it just means that people haven't taken the time to work on them. Just because these sections don't exist is no reason to merge all the articles into one series page. A note on Crazy Taxi (series); it appears that separate articles have been created for all the games in the series (Crazy Taxi, Crazy Taxi 2, Crazy Taxi 3: High Roller, etc.). -- Nomader (Talk) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then someone should work on them. If you have the information, feel free to implement it. I'd love to have more remarkably good articles. Many articles can survive without substantial reception or development sections, because these games have sustainable gameplay sections. With Mario Party, however, the biggest differences between the games are the mini-games and the maps, and each game may implement a new mechanic, but only the latter is worth mentioning in detail. Therefore, the MP articles have higher expectation to make up for that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are on notable subjects individually. They might need work, but I'd rather they be left as separate articles which require work rather than one mega-article which requires work. Users are probably less likely to contribute to a massive article than a group of smaller ones. - hahnch e n 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'd be enamored if these articles succeeded in becoming quality articles. But like I said, MP games have information that is largely redundant to each other, so it needs to have particularly strong development and reception sections. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If the games can be adequately covered in full detail within the main Mario Party (series) article, I support the merge. But if there is simply too much information about each game to fit into a small section of the main article, each game should have its own article; a summary of each game's article should comprise a section in the main Mario Party (series) article. User:Berney 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose any merger. While the articles are a little short, each game is unique and there is enough info to warrant seperate articles. If people were willing to put in the work, they could all be brought up to GA or even FA status.  TJ   Spyke   18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales
Sales information should be put in....IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Playable Characters
I'd like to change the table to the following; I think a table full of and  is a bit much:

Also, "Only available in specific areas of the game" needs to be either clarified or expanded upon, because it makes no sense to me. If this means they're not playable on the main board game, they should probably be put in another table or a prose paragraph. DKqwerty (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mario Party...what now...??
I was surprised to see a section on a "Mario Party i"...trust me, I'm addicted to these games, and when a new one is announced I go nuts...so I googled "Mario Party i" and got...absolutely nothing. Bumpkus. Naught. Does such a game even exist (yet) or is this just someone's idea of a joke?Black Yoshi (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably a WP:HOAX. I don't really understand what the "i" referred to. trainfan01 —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC).


 * The "i" meant the game would have been exclusively for the Nintendo DSi, either as DSiWare (a downloadable game a la Wii Virtual Console) and/or utilizing the DSi's cameras and other features you can't find on other DS's...and yeah, it was probably a hoax of some sort... Black Yoshi (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WAY too much vandalism...
Okay, this is getting crazy. The sheer amount of vandalism going on in this article is absolutely ridiculous. I've seen entire sections replaced with "boo is master troll"; I've seen crap added to the ends of sections such as "Until Stephanie hacks..."; and I've seen whole sections rewritten to look as if they belonged in Grand Theft Auto articles. Just now someone decided to suffix a section with "d**** r good"... This is getting absolutely ridiculous. This article was semi-protected at one time, but that expired within a few days. This article needs more than a few days' protection...quite simply, something needs to be done about this excessive vandalism... Black Yoshi (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of Mario Party 9
Seeing as Nintendo chose this year's E3 to finally confirm Mario Party 9, how shall we go about adding the info here/creating the game's article, etc.? I would do so myself, but the article is semi-protected for a reason... Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 23:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename Proposal
I am proposing to rename this Mario_Party_(Series) and renaming Mario Party (video game) Mario_Party, as that is what is normally done when a series and the first videogame in that series share a name. Is that something possible? Salvidrim (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * People have tried that in years past and had the page moved back to where it was...otherwise, I'd say go for it. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 04:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might try to open a discussion with WP:NIN in a few days, see if they agree and can reach a consensus on this issue. Salvidrim (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party: Mysterious Challenge World.
There has been another installment in the Mario Party series. The game is named Mario Party: Mysterious Challenge World and is for arcades specific to Japan. It was announced back at the end of January/early February. Could someone add this to the list? Thanks! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016
In the Main series table under Games, Mario Party 2 is also available on Wii Virtual Console. Not sure if this should be added to systems like "Nintendo 64/Wii Virtual Console" or just added in the notes section. Source is http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/1wWLs-g1b1KY6RIKDbgHZqGH1BCoxPXn.

24.218.19.85 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash;  Music1201  talk  03:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017
There's a random apostrophe in the reception table next to Mario Party 10's rating that needs to be removed. PowerMasterAlex (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Peach's Birthday Cake.png
File:Peach's Birthday Cake.png 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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)