Talk:Mario Party 8/Archive 2

Request for comment: Lists of mini-games
This dispute is about whether or not to include lists of mini-games into articles about Mario Party. This RFC extends to:
 * Mario Party, by definition, even though there hasn't been edit warring on it.
 * Mario Party 2
 * Mario Party 3
 * Mario Party 4
 * Mario Party 5
 * Mario Party 6
 * Mario Party 7
 * Mario Party 8, where the conflict started. The edit warring on that article appears to have stopped, at least in regards to the list of mini-games.

On these articles, User:Henchman 2000 had been including lists of mini-games, stating that without them, the articles are less complete. User:RobJ1981 and others have argued that the list is listcruft and does not warrant inclusion in the article. See above for the discussion that ensued after I had locked the article from editing. Since that dispute was resolved, lists have began to appear on other Mario Party-related articles. The dispute continued on to this point, where I had protected nearly all of them. I would like to see that this gets resolved as soon as possible. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the discussion above was rather conclusive. No lists, some prose.  Geoff B 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, however it appears he continues despite the consensus that he should stop inserting the lists. For the purposes of assuming good faith, I made a content RFC, however do you think this should be a behavioral RFC? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't it be both? :-)  Needless to say, if consensus has been reached, it should be adhered to.  Listcruft on game articles is endemic, and needs to be stopped.  I don't see any need for a list of minigames in this article, or any other game which has a multitude of modes.  A nice, neat paragraph will do the job.  Is it necessary to establish a consensus all over again?  Geoff B 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is this: similar to Geoff B, NO Lists; some prose would be acceptable. Such lists are not meant for wikipedia. However, on this note, other pages similar to this must also take a hint. By that I refer to: Crash Tag Team Racing, Rayman Raving Rabbids, Sonic Shuffle, Super Monkey Ball Banana Blitz (resolved but can be expanded on) and many other pages that feature mini-games. Knuckles sonic8 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with a prose (which is what Mario Party 8 has currently). A list of mini-games (even just some examples): isn't neutral point of view. When the list can be changed at anytime: that will lead to more conflicts. Henchman claims no one has changed it, and no one will: but it's pretty unreasonable just to assume. The games stated above by Knuckles (don't have mass mini-game lists or examples from what I've seen), so Mario Party should be no exception. If people want to read what games are in Mario Party: they can read a gaming site. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a mini-game guide in any way, except for a prose/description of games in general. RobJ1981 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with RobJ1981 on this, just chiming in with my $.02. The lists add nothing to the quality of the article, where a short paragraph of prose would do just as well if not better. And again, I'd like to see an essay in the style of WP:NOT making it (un)official policy that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT GAMEFAQS. And stuff Gene S. Poole  02:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat as RobJ1981 and Gene S. Poole on this one. A list with all the mini-games listed would just be redundant; why don't we just direct people to a FAQ or something? A short paragraph, IMHO, is more than enough. Hardcore gamer 48 05:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Wikipedia is GameFAQs, anyway, a few articles having mini game lists doesn't make wikipedia look like GameFAQs. I'm saying that a list is more appropriate content for these articles because it gives us more information about the game, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give detailed information. These examples are nothing worth fighting about and no matter what anyone says, RobJ will not listen, oh and why would anyone want to change the examples? Changing examples is the last thing that someone would think of doing, even to vandalise an article. I am not saying that I disagree with the paragraphs, after all, I wrote them. I am saying why couldn't you just leave the articles alone? NO one's ever seen anything wrong with them until recently. The articles were just as good with the mini game lists than they are without them. While I do agree with these paragraphs I would prefer the mini game lists as they give a more detailed account of the game, which is what an encyclopedia should do. Henchman 2000 15:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Henchman. First of all, it said that the articles required cleanup not mass blanking of all lists that were bigger than barely existent. RobJ just took the easy way out by deleting it immediately rather than trying to acheive consensus or shortening some of those really long descriptions. Secondly, hear are my answers to what it said on the listcruft page to these lists: Don't you think that it would have been deleted before now if this was the case? If someone saw RobJ's sentence of "There are a number of minigames in Mario Party Whatever" they would want to know what they were. If it was, it would have been on the talk pages before now Mini-games are a key part of Mario Parties and are verified. None of the articles were above the recommended size as explained by WP:SIZE. It could have a category/article, but RobJ won't let it happen. People would expect key elements of CVGs to be explained thourouly in an encyclopedia. And why are the pages protected? This is unnecessary as there is no edit wars going on in the articles. Bowsy 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
 * The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
 * The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable
 * The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
 * The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category
 * The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.


 * I feel moved to disagree. Lists do not give any detail or information about the game at all. They are often the first resort when it comes to game articles, instead of prose, which should not be the case. A good paragraph will give more insight into than if you listed all the minigames. Lists are also very easy to add to, so even a short list would quickly grow out of control, as various people browse by and decide to add their favourite mingame. And the very last thing we do on WP is 'leave the articles alone'. Even articles with good/featured status are added to, changed etc.

@Bowsy - I don't think it was Robj who deleted the list. And why are the pages protected? This is unnecessary as there is no edit wars going on in the articles. - There most definitely would be an edit war going on if the pages were not protected. It's a wise decision which stimulated discussion. Geoff B 16:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that it would have been deleted before now if this was the case? - Flippant and rather specious reasoning, I think. Sometimes things are not noticed for a long time.
 * If someone saw RobJ's sentence of "There are a number of minigames in Mario Party Whatever" they would want to know what they were. - And they could very easily find out on another site. Check out  WP:NOT.
 * If it was, it would have been on the talk pages before now - It has been. A consensus was established and ignored.
 * Mini-games are a key part of Mario Parties and are verified. - But each minigame by itself is not notable.
 * It could have a category/article, but RobJ won't let it happen. - What could? Minigames?  Mario Party 8?  Lists of Mario Party minigames, what?
 * People would expect key elements of CVGs to be explained thourouly in an encyclopedia. - And they would be, by a paragraph. A list would fail totally at thoroughly explaining the key elements of a game.
 * (edit conflict) First, a warning to Bowsy and Henchman: Please reread the conclusion at Suspected sock puppets/Henchman 2000, specifically about meatpuppetry. Now, for my opinion: I agree with Knuckles, Gene S. Poole, RobJ, and Hardcore gamer on this: the lists add nothing to the article; a prose is better, for all those same reasons. –Llama man 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my opinion: a comprehensive article about Mario Party 8; heck, any Mario Party article, not only lists but describes the games through prose. The problem is, there's no reliable source that would list the myriad of the minigames (there are 70 new ones, and I'm assuming they're being added on to previous ones). &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant minigames when I said "they" could have a category/article. Bowsy 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, per WP:TRIV a list of every mini-game in every article is not warrented. A paragraph section on the mini-games in each title would be fine.--Isotope23 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:TRIV and it states nothing against a page on mini game lists. Henchman 2000 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic is I think, pretty definite. Geoff B 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Using the above statements
The good thing is that we have some beliefs about minigames-list-vs.-no-minigames-list, however it looks like we're on the road to nowhere here so we need to get something accomplished from this. How could we resolve this dispute? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could make a page on the minigames in the Mario Party series. Bowsy 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That would just be defying Wikipedia standards. I made the same mistake for making a page of mini-games for the Monkey Ball series and a page for all the cards found in Sonic Rivals. The same rules apply. Knuckles sonic8 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing that the only strict rules for pages are that content must be verifiable and not breaching copyright, which the lists comply with, isn't it? Bowsy 19:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There only seems to be two people for a list: Bowsy and Henchman. Since the majority agrees against lists: that's how the article should be, mini-game list free (No example lists, and no seperate articles on mini-games either). Wikipedia isn't a game guide, that type of content is not encyclopedic. This dispute should be over, considering only two people refuse to agree with everyone else. I see no compromise here either: mini-game lists aren't encyclopedic content suitable for Wikipedia, period. RobJ1981 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You will need a compromise if you ever want to get rid of me. Henchman 2000 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That being said, who would like to take a stab at doing proses? Knuckles sonic8 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph I wrote is a good start, however if we're going to be comprehensive (which is what I'm sure The Henchman wants), we'll need more. In order to develop more prose, we'll need more sources. Who can provide me (a) reliable source(s) for the minigames available in Mario Party 8? &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the majority that wins. It's the people with the strongest arguments and anyway, you hate me and would go against anything I ever said! We need a good, detailed guide. A paragraph can do this to some extent, but some examples help the paragraph. Henchman 2000 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a combination. Consensus is a major determining figure, and in this case, it is nearly unanimous that prose is better than a random sample list of games. Additionally, this is backed by pages such as Listcruft. While it does not happen often, the only time the minority rules is when the majority has such an utterly weak argument. In this situation, the arguments are about equally good (you backing your opinion by the idea that wikipedia should be comprehensive and the others backing their opinion with an essay). Since there are clearly more people advocating the prose than the lists, then it shows that there is a consensus. Consensus vs. Supermajority explains how consensus works like this.
 * If you think your argument is correct, you will have to work very hard to defend it because current practice dictates that written paragraphs are preferred over lists. Think of the film 12 Angry Men where one juror successfully persuades all the other jurors that his opinion is correct. If you think you're up to it, I'd like to see you try it.


 * Also, please refrain from accusing the enemy of hating you; there is no solid evidence of this and it doesn't help your argument (in fact, it weaks the arguer). &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Listcruft does not seem to give much backing to the statements against the list. It wasn't made for the sake of it and explains it thoroughly, without explaining too much so What Wikipedia is not does not help the argument, and a paragraph can only offer a brief summary while a list gives a full explanation without making the article too long as directed by WP:SIZE. Bowsy 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to help doing prose for the other articles. Oh, and do you think I did a good job with the current paragraphs? Henchman 2000 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think someone else needs to do the proses/paragraphs on mini-games. I can imagine an edit war will happen if Henchman's prose gets edited (he wont like someone changing it, and will revert it... I just know it: which is what happened with the mini-game examples and lists he put in the article). RobJ1981 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind people editing what I have written as long as they can justify it. You can't justify why you are removing the examples. Henchman 2000 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument is pretty much over but why don't you just put a link to some other website that has a list of minigames so if people want to see them, they can. DarthJango42 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a link probably wouldn't fly per the external link policies of Wikipedia. Metros232 16:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Henchman 2000 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I was thinking of that myself. Henchman 2000 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else can be done, this would do. However, our argument is backed by WikiProject Nintendo's aim to build a "comprehensive and detailed guide" and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Bowsy 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. That aim is for useful encyclopedic content: not listcruft. They aren't going to justify listcruft by saying it goes with their aim. Put it on a gaming site if you want it so badly. External links don't need to clutter articles, just because a few people want lists mentioned in some form. People know there is other websites out there, and they use them already. There is no reason to add an extra external link. RobJ1981 05:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

People would have taken these steps (ie. deleting the list) if it really was listcruft. These lists have been there for years and none have objected. Please also see the part of Talk:Mario Party 5 about minigames as on it another user says it seems like "perfectly reasonable content for an article". This has gotten out of hand and I am taking no further part in this. Just think about the following things:

Bowsy 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The lists have been there for years.
 * 2) On Talk:Mario Party 5 another user voted in favour of the lists.
 * 3) The tag said cleanup not mass blanking.
 * 4) "Listcruft" is easy to abuse. According to WP:LIST, Listcruft is "unreasonable" lists such as People who have ears.
 * Just drop it. The lists aren't coming back. Make a game site if you want the information listed so badly. RobJ1981 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that the lists aren't coming back? I could easily go and make a page on them right now and you would be powerless to stop me! Don't assume the lists aren't coming back just because it doesn't look likely at the moment. Henchman 2000 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC) And anyone cannot just create a game site. Henchman 2000 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The lists have been there for years.
 * That is not an excuse. Maybe not many editors visited it, or they didn't feel like cleaning up the list.
 * If they were truly dedicated wikipedians, they would've at least objected on the talk page. Henchman 2000 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But maybe no dedicated Wikipedians happened to be on the page. –Llama man 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On Talk:Mario Party 5 another user voted in favour of the lists.
 * First of all. this is a discussion, not a vote, and secondly, there is consensus on this talk page that minigame lists are unreasonable content.
 * Where? I have not agreed. Henchman 2000 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Knuckles, RobJ, Messedrocker, Geoff B, Hardcore gamer, Yankees76, Gene S. Poole, and I believe that a list of minigames is not good content for the article. You and Bowsy do. According to WP:CON: "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." I'm not saying that you are doing this, but if you continue to insist on these minigame lists, then you might be doing that. –Llama man 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify what he means here, he's saying that the majority of editors on this page who have stated an opinion believe that the list of minigames is not appropriate. Henchman and Bowsy think it is appropriate. That doesn't mean that the majority is right or wrong, but unless the minority can present good reasoning, and counters to the arguments of the majority, they should not be considered part of the group for a consensus. McKay 16:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag said cleanup not mass blanking.
 * Cleanup can mean removal of unencyclopedic lists, see cleanup-laundry.
 * But the tag DIDN'T say cleanup laundry. Henchman 2000 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * cleanup says: "Note: this generic template should only be used when a more specific tag is not suitable." This tag is often used when a more specific tag is suitable; either the editor is new or doesn't know of the more specific templates. –Llama man 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Listcruft" is easy to abuse. According to WP:LIST, Listcruft is "unreasonable" lists such as People who have ears.
 * This is just an example of listcruft. There are more-likely-to-occur lists that are listcruft. –Llama man 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Minigames are an important part of Mario Party 8
Remember that while a list of all them (there's a lot of them) would constitute listcruft, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are covered in a prose, talking about them in general works just fine. I've seen no one add mini-game lists except for Henchman (in the past), so this really isn't an issue except with a select few. I don't think we need to bend backwards to help just a few, that don't like how the articles are. Mario Party articles shouldn't be turned into complete mini-game guides, when there is more than enough gaming sites that describe each and every mini-game in every Mario Party game. RobJ1981 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I said I was dropping out of this but I think I'll just drop one more comment on this issue. A prose provides a very quick summary, half-hearted content for an encycopedia, really, while the list or even just some examples gives the reader a fair idea as to the minigames in the game. It's more encyclopedic for you to know everything because people buy encyclopedias because they contain everything in one place. Bowsy 09:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree messedrocker, mini games need covered. Apart from prose, how else do you think we can cover them, or should we just ignore RobJ, as he is only getting in the way of making a good article, and discuss this issue in private? Henchman 2000 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, and assume good faith. RobJ1981 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't class this as a personal attack. I was suggesting that Messedrocker and I discuss this in private as we are getting no -where trying to work with you. Sorry if you considered it a personal attack. Henchman 2000 13:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you don't consider that a personal attack, Henchman, let me just say I think we are getting nowhere trying to work with you, and you are the one who should be ignored. On a slightly more Wikipedian note, I think prose will do an excellent job, and it seems that again, we have established a consensus.  A single paragraph of prose will do what a list can not (even if that list included all the minigames), which is provide an overview of the gameplay, which is exactly what it is meant to do.  Geoff B 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. I have just read the NPA policy and what I put does qualify as a personal attack, so sorry RobJ, but you, Geoff B also tried to leave me out so you have personally attacked me, you will find a warning on your talk page. Oh, and we have not established a consensus as ALL must agree, Bowsy and I don't. We are getting somewhere working with me and I WILL NOT be ignored! Henchman 2000 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you haven't understood what's been said, but according to WP:CON you can be ignored and still a consensus will remain unless you WP:AGF, and show policy that says that each of the minigames should be included. The others think the policy is clear on this issue, and the onus lies with you. (see more below) McKay 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Henchman, I insist that you focus on the issue on hand, and not how Robj is a jerk. That matter is irrelevant and we will not get anywhere if you keep saying users are this and that. In any case, this is what I need: reliable sources that document the mini-games in Mario Party 8. Let's go out and find them! &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I have found these: . I'd get to work, but I need to attend to other matters. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and find some more. Henchman 2000 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Messedrocker has says that he requests "reliable sources that document the mini-games in Mario Party 8." While this is a start, there is another criterion that also needs to be met, "non-trivial". It could be argued that those two articles are non-trivial, because none of the games gets a direct treatment. Personally, what I think may be best is a brief discussion about the minigames in general with a  hat at the beginning of the section. That way, the game gets the brief overview that it deserves. Minigames *are* an important part of the article, but each individual minigame is not. Then the minigames go in a seperate article, which has to stand the bar of notability, which I think it can. McKay 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per a past AFD: list pages for mini-games are cruft. I'm pretty sure both Rayman and Super Monkey Ball have had mini-game list articles: and have been turned into redirects or just been deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide to every little detail. Mini-games are important: but when a game has 40 (or more) mini-games, it's not notable to list and describe each and every one of them. It reads like a game guide, if a list article would exist. People can easily go to a gaming site and read more in-depth about the mini-games. This is exactly why item lists and other crufty lists aren't suitable for Wikipedia. Many item lists and so on have been deleted, a mini-game list is no different. RobJ1981 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to WP:NOT, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The distinguishing difference is that of encyclopedic content. With regards to video game guides, they fall under the "instruction manual" category. This means that such a page should not be a how-to guide, but should be a collection of the minigames and information about them in an encyclopedic manner. I'm not sure why the minigames in other games didn't survive the AfD block, but maybe because they weren't notable. I think that the minigames in WP8 *are* notable, as I think that the minigames have several direct treatments in multiple reliable independant sources. McKay 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're ringht McKay, this is what I have been trying to tell RobJ all along about this list. It has many sources and can be written in an encyclopedic manner, as can the other lists. WE should start the article as there are some more mini games in some of the external links which may have gone unnoticed. Henchman 2000 09:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a second... that means my first idea was viable all along, doesn't it? And we have wasted so much time edit warring when we could have stuck to my idea from the beginning. I should get to work, shouldn't I? --Bowsy (review me!) 09:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ther we are. All done. Speedily delete it if your still so biased against it. Bowsy (review me!) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Let's put it this way; the minigames are notable, and so they should get coverage. Each individual minigame is not notable, so a list would be giving them too much coverage. A written overview of how the minigames work would be perfect for giving information about the minigames, and a list would be perfect for giving information about each individual minigame. It's better that we write about the minigames. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, this edit war looks like it is well and truly over. Thanks Bowsy and Messedrocker for really helping out. Henchman 2000 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RobJ, if you want this edit war over, get an admin to speedy keep the pages conserned with this unnecesary Afd. If you don't, once again, we will be getting no-where. Henchman 2000 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't work like that. You cannot simply threaten to continue to edit war in the hope of using that as leverage in order to prevent an article from being deleted.  We have a consensus here, as was established before, that there will be no lists of minigames included in this article.  Whether a separate article listing the minigames remains on WP or is deleted is a separate issue (it may very well survive the AfD process!).  It is no reason to ignore consensus, no reason to ignore WP guidelines and no reason to threaten other editors with edit warring.  I can't help but admire your determination, Henchman, but you must follow consensus (which has been explained to you repeatedly), like the rest of us.  Geoff B 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What treat are you talking about? If it's about RobJ's talk page, I couldn't see any clear evidence of a consensus against a sentence of examples, only a list of mini games. Henchman 2000 09:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

uhh im not sure where to put this or how to or watever, but its a minigames game!!!! the first thing you look at is the minigames, not the storyline, not the new items, not the chars...the minigames!!!! you dont buy a minigames game without looking at the minigames to get a idea of if its any good, though previews do it better then writing its still good to have a list, like with some minigames games were they just have countless of the near same minigame ie catch 1 catch 2 catch 3 catch 4 catch 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.151.198 (talk • contribs)

This threat:'''RobJ, if you want this edit war over, get an admin to speedy keep the pages conserned with this unnecesary Afd. If you don't, once again, we will be getting no-where.''' Consensus has been established. Like the consensus that was established before, which you also ignored, it is for the minigames to receive a treatment in prose, not a list. A sentence of examples is a list, just laid out like a sentence. There is a clear consensus for this article, and it's been explained to you many times. Please don't threaten to continue an edit war on this article because another article is up for deletion. Please don't ignore consensus. Geoff B 16:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly: stop ignoring the consenus. No one agreed on mini-game lists or mini-game examples (except for two, possibly three: one person seemed to only post on a talk page of another Mario Party). Especially when an admin (MessedRocker) says this on Henchman's talk page: I strongly advise that you stop re-adding lists of examples of mini-games because it's becoming more and more apparent that there is a consensus against them. Almost a week later: I get another threat by Henchman to re-add the lists. Making a list page just to make someone happy (so they stop threatening and so on): isn't how Wikipedia works. Imagine if that actually worked for everyone: Wikipedia would be flooded with lots of cruft that only a few users want. The whole speedy keep nonsense doesn't help things either. RobJ1981 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not understanding what's wrong with an encyclopedic list of minigames. Also, I don't see what's wrong with lists taht only a few people care about. WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. McKay 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we need to establish a consensus on this again? For the third time?  And I don't think how many WP editors care about the issue is relevant, is it?  I'm quite confused now.  Geoff B 22:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two seperate issues:
 * Should we have a list of minigames in the MP8 article? No. This is clear, the policy is clear on the matter, and there is consensus (this does not mean that there shouldn't be information about the minigames, just not a list of all of them)
 * Should we have an article with the list of minigames? This is what the AfD is all about, but I personally haven't yet heard a good argument:
 * Few people care? No. Tons of people care, but even if that weren't the case, that's not reason enough to not include it. That would be a limitation of a Paper encyclopedia.
 * Non-encyclopedic? No. While the older lists might not be appropriately encyclopedic. They *can* be encyclopedic, and that's what the AfD's question is. If it could be, then vote keep. That's the policy.McKay 05:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Geoff B, on this talk page, I think we have established a clear consensus for the mini games. Bowsy, McKay, perhaps Messedrocker and I all agree that the mnin games should be here and have strong arguments to back us up. You and RobJ, however, are in a minority and have very weak arguments. Henchman 2000 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Quite frankly, I have no response to that, other than "You must be joking." You think you can just ignore consensus, Hell, not just ignore it but reverse it?  You, my friend, are in for a shock, because, once more, Wikipedia doesn't work like that.  One person cannot just decide to reverse consensus.  Sorry.  :-)  Geoff B 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you will be in for a shock. I am not trying to reverse a consensus. I am using evidence to make a new one. Obviously, this discussion says there is a consensus for the mini games. You and RobJ are outvoted and outmatched. I have had to accept the cosensus against the mini games, it is your turn to accept a consensus for the mini games. Henchman 2000 11:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're 100% right, you will be sorry. Ignoring consensus twice in a row will most likely land you in deep shit with an admin.  A consensus was established for no minigames, you ignored it.  We established a consensus again, and here you are ignoring it again.  Geoff B 12:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I'm understanding what either of you're saying. I think Henchmen is saying that there is consensus for more information about minigames (not a list) being in the article. I do not think that a list of minigames should be in the article. A link to the list is appropriate, and generic information about the minigames should be in the article. I think consensus supports this kind of information. Geoff is throwing warnings (almost threats) around, but is also saying that Henchman is right? I think both parties need to be more clear about what they're saying they're trying to include or exclude from the articles. Just saying "minigames" is not specific enough. McKay 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the consensus we came to is that there will be info about the minigames in this article, in the form of prose. That's what I'm supporting.  Geoff B 16:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a few examples (which are above in the RFC): Now, for my opinion: I agree with Knuckles, Gene S. Poole, RobJ, and Hardcore gamer on this: the lists add nothing to the article; a prose is better, for all those same reasons. –Llama man 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC). And then there is IMO, per WP:TRIV a list of every mini-game in every article is not warrented. A paragraph section on the mini-games in each title would be fine.--Isotope23 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC). Henchman, read the previous section right here: Talk:Mario_Party_8. Clearly ignoring what people have said isn't going to work. A prose has been agreed on: which isn't a list or examples, period. Saying we have "weak" arguements isn't helping things either. Comment about content, not contributors. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and calling something you don't agree with "weak" isn't needed one bit. RobJ1981 17:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

March 5th vs Q2
The page was protected over this issue

This time, the edit war is over the release date! To streamline it, I'm going to divide the conversation into two parts: March 5 and To Be Announced, where you can discuss the validity of each date. Feel free to add subsections for third options, fourth options, etc. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't personally have a preference, but seeing as March 5 isn't that far away, (2 and half weeks I believe).. we will see if that's right or not by then. I would assume the edit war should end by then, but you never can be sure about these things. RobJ1981 11:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Nintendo have announced that it will be released in Q2, 2007. And they'd know.  How can anyone provide a more specific date than the people developing and publishing the game?  Geoff B 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire thing is absurd. Nintendo have announced it as Q2, not TBA. If you look on the official nintendo MP8 page it now says Q2 2007 instead of March 5th. It was only very recently delayed. This is not a debate. In fact, an entirely rational user got banned for a month while trying to ensure that the page would not revert to March 5th. --12.206.4.89 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing may be, though, is that the release date is Q2 2007 in the US and TBA for the rest of the world, or something like that. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the point is the article has been locked by people who obviously (read the above entries) know nothing about this situation because others who knew nothing took it upon themselves to ignore the sources cited in the original article. This needs to be unprotected NOW so the inaccurate release date can be changed. --12.206.4.89 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think MessedRocker locked it, and he knows the situation, having been involved in it for quite a while. Making demands, by the way, will probably get you nowhere. At the moment, the prose states Q2, and the infobox says March 5th. Geoff B 17:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as it stands, the article is full of what seems to be contradictory nonsense. If he knows the situation, he would surely not be doing what he is, so I doubt any of this makes sense. I am demanding only that wikipedia not be treated like a voting booth. There was no reason for anyone to lock it when it contained false information. Let's put it this way: the people changing it have unsigned comments and no sources but erase information with several sources, when the arguments FOR even those sources have been presented meaningfully here for some time (since jan 24th) what is the reason for locking while it contains information that has been proven false by sources from Nintendo, the makers of the game themselves? I really reject and detest the 'let's vote on it and see' attitude taken here by people who are unwilling to investigate the presented sources in the article. Good day. --12.206.4.89 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, what? The article was locked to prevent an edit war.  And good day to you too.  :-)  Geoff B 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, locked to prevent an edit war in which verified information was being replaced with inaccurate information (the 'march 5th' fallacy that is now 'trapped' in the infobox). My gripe is just that there was no need for this discussion as the NA Q2 date is heavily verified and all the information explaining how the confusion about the date came about is addressed in the article. What is confusing about this? --12.206.4.89 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. I believe this was instigated because it's WP's policy (IIRC) to communicate about such disagreements in the hope of coming to an understanding instead of just reverting back and forth continually. There are, obviously, some editors who feel that March 5th is the correct release date, and this would be the ideal place to present their sources and arguments. Geoff B 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet people had obviously gone to great lengths to present sourced material explaining why there may be some confusion about the date right there in the article when the new announcement of Q2 was made, as it was only very recently changed from march 5th. Have you heard of 'wikiality?' It just seems that debating an untruth doesn't make it right. --12.206.4.89 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To be announced
Amazon is now giving a date of 30 Jun :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.244.215.51 (talk • contribs)
 * This entire thing is absurd. Nintendo have announced it as Q2, not TBA. If you look on the official nintendo MP8 page it now says Q2 2007 instead of March 5th. It was only very recently delayed. This is not a debate. In fact, an entirely rational user got banned for a month while trying to ensure that the page would not revert to March 5th. --12.206.4.89 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ALSO, I've officially received an email from Nintendo telling me personally the official date is Q2 2007, after asking them. I apologize for earlier on thinking it was March fifth. If proof need be shown, I can do that.King Gamer28 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's March 5th....
http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=WnjIJm5FSwjb8m39oUzkZvIqkRXZ6F-I

Clearly, they state it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.227.225 (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The very link you give says "Q2 2007". &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the link, it does say March 5 2007. Maybe it was changed after you saw it Messedrocker. RobJ1981 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it says "Q2 2007" for me, too... –Llama man 02:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd, I just checked and it now says Q2 2007. Maybe Nintendo is having problems, because I know it said March 5 before. Either way, the whole edit war over a release date is a bit silly and lame. RobJ1981 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I guess I contributed to the edit war, but unknowingly. I was curious as to when Mario Party 8 was going to be released, so I went to my trusty wikipedia. I saw Q2 in the infobox, with a "" link on it. So I clicked on the link, saw that the page said "3.5.2007" (like it does as of 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)), and thought "oh, They must have announced the release date, and earlier than planned" so I was WP:BOLD and made the change. IMO, the reason for the edit war is that Nintendo changed the release date. To make matters worse, they didn't apply the change universally across their own site (apparently, new information is at "". Now the world is in confusion. Because Wikipedia is based on Verifiablity and not truth, and we have conflicting sources.


 * So, lets get this resolved. Straw poll? McKay 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think some of you may have been viewing cached pages. --12.206.4.89 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No way! Now it's showing "March 5, 2007" for me as well! I think we should find a more, *ahem*, stable source. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * More stable than the company the game is licensed from? Bassgoonist 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as is shown on this page, Nintendo has two different release dates posted on their website. Reports are also that dates in some of those places are changing. Obviously Nintendo's site isn't as "stable" as would be desired (expected?) McKay 06:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this: Wii.Nintendo.com - Mario Party 8? MadScientistVX 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's one of the places we linked to as showing "Nintendo can't keep their release dates straight" see elsewhere in this discussion. McKay 07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The game will be released on March 5, 2007. Both sites the guy above gave(http://wii.nintendo.com/software_mp8.jsp and http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=WnjIJm5FSwjb8m39oUzkZvIqkRXZ6F-I) said March 5 along with my latest issue of Nintendo Power (March 2007). It had a full length article on Mario Party 8, discussing the many aspects of the game. Nickm717 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. It appears as if both of the pages that were previously listed as conflicting now show 5 March (or is that the Third of May?). I can't verify the fact that the Nintendo power says it, but I believe you. That still leaves two problems. But I still don't think that this resolves this issue. Wasn't there a press release saying that it was pushed back to Q2? Where did I go wrong in my statement showing the confusion. The fact that it was pushed back to Q2 is actually WP:VERIFYable, so we kinda have to stick with that until we get a couple of WP:RS stating 5 March, even though it may not be the truth. McKay 05:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I could probably get a picture of the date in Nintendo Power. I remember the press release that had a list of game and MP8 was in W2. But then they just recently changed it to a March 5th release date. It is too close now to bump it back again after stating the day March 5th on their official site. I guess we could just wait for an official MP8 Press Release, which is bound to come.
 * Nickm717 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, an official press release is bound to come. We don't have any great sources at the momement, because the Nintendo.com site keeps changing. Referenceing another random nintendo publication (nintendo power) doesn't really help us. I think that until we get external sources saying otherwise, we need to stick with Q2. McKay 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, It's March 4th and the above sites still conflict... guess we just have to wait and see tomorrow. (btw, shouldn't stores know by now; if they haven't gotten the shipment yet, its probably not coming by tomorrow.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadScientistVX (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * They have changed the date!!!! Go look on the site at Nintendo!! It definitly says March 5th, 2007. --Jak 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just called my EB Games, and they said that it was pushed back to June. But on the website it still says March 5th. Do now we need a legit website that says it is Q2. --Jak 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, some debate over the release date will be over tomorrow (which is March 5). I highly doubt the game is coming out tomorrow or anytime soon. June or so sounds more accurate, but until something official is named: quarter 2 should remain. RobJ1981 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Best Buy's Website originally said March 5 but it is now April 23, 2007. We will have to wait and see what it really is...71.176.150.229 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Q2

 * Q2 McKay 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

proposed text feel free to edit this section

|released=🇺🇸 Q2 2007 2007

I didn't put a source in because I couldn't find a reliable one, but I didn't look very hard. Feel free to add it. I feel somewhat responsible as the page was protected after I made the change, this text would have deterred me (I'm not sure about everyone else) McKay 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do any of you people have proof this game's release is in Q2. On Nintendo's website it says March 5, 2007. SuperMarioGamer 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See this. I think the date is continuously changing on the site. –Llama man 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's March 30 for UK at least
I went down to my local GAME store to check and they had it in their upcoming games book as March 30. Bowsy 14:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gamestores are not a reliable source. Nintendo of Europe says TBA 2007, and if it's coming out in one month, they would have at least had a releasedate. JackSparrow Ninja 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Summer 2007
http://wii.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=9075 Pretty reliable source. Feel free to change back if you don't see suited but most of us can guess that it is Summer. Nickm717 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary
Okay, here's how I see the issue: Questions? If you want, I can present a plethora of sources that support my conclusion. Saying that "some store" says that it will be released on 5 March is WP:OR and is probably using older informataion. I also can show stores that show it being released Q2 (or give an estimated date near the beginning or the end of Q2, like Amazon, EB, Gamestop...), so it will take more information than that. McKay 06:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometime before the end of November 2006 Nintendo announces the release of a Mario Party, Mario Party 8, on the Wii.
 * Mid November 2006 Nintendo announces the release date of 5 March 2007
 * Mid January 2007 Nintendo delayed the release to add in features like WiFi... this pushed it back to Q2
 * In the interim, they didn't update all of their pages as now they present conflicting information. Nintendo's site doesn't even corroborate with iteself. Parts say Q2Parts say 5 March
 * In the interim, Us Wikipedians are having a hard time, and the game stores are having a hard time too. Some may have missed something (or still see bad data) and still think it's coming out on 5 March, others have the new information. As a result, so-called "reliable sources" do not corroborate, as information has changed.

10th Game?
I don't understand, why does it say that it will be the tenth game in the series and the eleventh in Japan. Obviously Mario Party 8 is the 8th game everywhere in the world! 74.112.91.185 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mario Party series - perhaps you should have done a little research first. Geoff B 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see, There were 2 Mario Party games for the GBA and E-Reader and a Japanese only Mario Party game. WikiLoco 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But those other two games are just spinoffs and not really part of the Mario Party Series 74.112.91.185 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but while they are not part of the main series, they should be considered Mario Party games because they bear "Mario Party" in their titles and I believe that they had the same developers and publishers. –Llama mantalkcontribs 00:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that Arcade one was developed by Capcom, but it still doesn't really matter. They're all apart of the Mario Party series. Hardcore gamer 48 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How to be a squid
The blooper is a squid, how do you play as a squid when everyone else is a human. Besides, don't bloopers only have 2 limbs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pikazilla (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Bloopers have WAY more than two limbs, and if you really want to know, ask Nintendo, they'll know because I doubt you'll find an answer on Wikipedia. Bowsy (review me!) 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoshi isn't human. Toad isn't human. Boo isn't human; and it only has two limbs. It's entirely possible to make Blooper a playable character if you can make Boo one. Blooper could use two of it's tentacles for arms if need be. Hardcore gamer 48 09:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not unheard of. Bowsy (review me!) 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Toad is human like mario and others,don't you see the skin of toad (To Hardcore gamer 48) Wfmp time, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; what? Toad isn't human. I don't understand what you're talking about when you say the "skin of toad". Are you saying Toad (and Toadette, and Toadsworth, and the whole other lot of Toad-people >_>) are human because they have a similar skin colour to the human characters? Hardcore gamer 48 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, and in Super Mario 64 DS a toad says, "It's enough to drive a fungus insane.", so that obviously means he isn't a human. Henchman 2000 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's rephrase it, How do you play as a non humoniod character?Pikazilla 11:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussion of the article, not the game. &mdash; MalcolmUse the schwartz! 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming out in australia?
is Mario Party8 going to come out in australia? they've removed australia from the main page so i was just wondering —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.151.198 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry, I'm positive it will. I honestly have no idea why Australia was removed from the page; I'm going to re-add it now. Also, a question: any confirmation that MP8 will be rated "G" from the OFLC? I'd have thought it would be "PG"... Hardcore gamer 48 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think G. Usually Mario Party games just have "comic mischief" I believe. That certainly shouldn't be PG (unless the other games were rated that). RobJ1981 11:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, while G is likely, it shouldn't be added to the game until the rating has been announced, as that would be entirely speculation (unless a reliable source speculates on that, because then it would be verifiable speculation) McKay 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I went an checked out the Australian Mario Marty games for gamecube on my shelf and 4-6 were the old 'G8+' while 7 was PG for 'Mild Gambling References' which is a common trend with Mario games (Including 'New Super Mario Bros.' on the DS). I also went and looked at the OFLC website and found out that it is actually rated G after all .Stozball 01:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mario Party 8 NA Release date.
It has come to my attention that the official date of release for Mario Party 8 is infact June 1st. I have done a lot of reserch through GameSpot and Nintendo Power. Im going to change it from Q2 to the date of June 1st. And also can some one help me with user boxes for my page I know this is un-related but i need help!

Robert Coombs 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Coombs (February, 27th 2007)
 * This sounds a lot like original research. Care to show us your results? June 1st isn't published anywhere, so we can't add it to the page. Gamespot's official date is 5 Mar, so where are you getting June 1st from? McKay 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well when was the last time you serched it up on gamespot? and can someone help me with making ONE custom User box?
 * I was there this morning 5 March. McKay 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazon says June 30th, http://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-Mario-Party-8/dp/B000LSJKAM/sr=8-1/qid=1172765864/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3844519-2886329?ie=UTF8&s=videogames Nintendo.com says Q2, http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=WnjIJm5FSwjb8m39oUzkZvIqkRXZ6F-I I say stick with Q2 Bassgoonist 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Best Buy says April 23, 2007. (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8212677&st=Mario+Party+8&type=product&id=1166235821933). Which is it?! 71.176.150.229 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Characters
With so many more playable characters being added, in a few more games in the series, there probably won't there not be enough non-playable characters to be featured in the minigames and on the board. If blooper is a character, most likely soon shy guys, goombas, koopas, cheepcheeps etc., will be soon as well and they'll have to do weird things like how they made all non-playable boos pink. Anyquestions 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed the release date, because on Nintendo's website, it says that the release date is March 5th, 2007.

Thanks. Anyquestions (UTC)

It says May 28 2007 on GameSpot Wfmp Time, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The great Mario Party War is about to end!
As of tomorrow (March 5th) we will all finnaly know exactly when its coming out! of course by now i hope you all agree that March 5th cant be the real date. but hopefully this will end the war and give some more reason as to why most realese dates are inaccurate. Miked54321 10:06, March 4 2007 (EST)
 * The lady at gamestop said June 1 :-( Bassgoonist 04:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Release date
Nintendo.com changed the release date to Q2. http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=WnjIJm5FSwjb8m39oUzkZvIqkRXZ6F-I Thusly, the article should be changed to say Q2 and that the game has not been released yet. 71.176.150.229 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The release date has been corrected, once again, to the date officially provided by Nintendo USA. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just change the date back to "TBA 2007"? Every source seems to have a different date/quarter/season. –Llama mantalkcontribs 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That won't fix the problem of people changing it to some random date they found on the Internet.
 * Q2 is verifiable. McKay 14:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

May 28 2007 is now the date of Mario Party 8 which is like Q2 but this site says May 29 2007 which is not.MAY 29 2007. Wfmp Time, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo has sent a message to Kotaku saying May 29 for Mario Party 8, wooo!: http://kotaku.com/gaming/wii/horror-story-wii-ds-release-schedule-242474.php 154.5.85.250 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nintendo website still says Q2. Should the date of the letter be used or the company's official website's date? 71.176.152.167 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My local EB games says theyre getting shipments today, and are putting it on sale either tomorrow or late tonight.

European Release Date
I have reverted the date back from April 2007 to TBA 2007 as nintendo.com does not verify this and says TBA. The following is the Spain Nintendo website: http://www.nintendo-europe.com/NOE/es/ES/games/gamepage.do?ElementId=TJ-A3_rZnDkql-iIuGhXpaKTnbTy7xrl. Iamtall47 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism with Japanese, European and Australia release dates
First of all, they're all from the same link: Australian IGN. 2nd of all IGN only cares about the american release dates. They give 12/31 release dates to Japan, Australia and Europe. Please get rid of the December 31 release dates for Japan, Europe and Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperNESPlayer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Finally New Info!
How long did THAT take? Anyway, new screens for all of you to enjoy revealing new mini-games. http://media.wii.ign.com/media/853/853824/imgs_1.html

That boo game works just like Mansion Patrol from Super Paper Mario. Knuckles sonic8 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any info on Australia or European Realease date?
Has anyone found any info on the Australia or European Realease dates yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.81.132 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Is it okay if
I redirect "MP8" here? It's doesn't redirect to any article when I tried it out. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the gasme
YEs, I purchased it yesterday, so I will be more thsn hsppy to update things (Talk)15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists
This article seems to be suffering from having too many lists. I've removed the unencyclopedic list of team names, I think the candy list should go to. The board list is pushing it. All of this seems non-encyclopedic. Any thoughts? McKay 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. All contributions are appreciated, but we don't want to get too bogged down in details here. I think the earlier Mario Party articles can be a good guide for how this should look. -- MisterHand 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed the candy list, it's listcruft. Removed thel ist of characters, because they are already listed in the previous section anyway.  This article has a bit of an issue with listcruft.  Geoff B 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)