Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 5

Archive 4
A 4th archive was made, the page was 73 KB long. Feel free to ressurect any dissucssions on the archived page.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of current discussions which were archived. I was going to put them back on the talk page, but I don't know what people exactly want. Drumpler (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If people want something they can dig it out themselves and copy that thread here, as with all talk pages and archives. JayKeaton (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to adding MiszaBot functionality? It's fairly easy to set up, and archiving tasks could be restricted to very old threads to ensure that active discussions aren't accidentally moved.  --jonny-mt(t)(c) I'm on editor review! 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Promotional Coin
Is there any indication as to how many of the promotional coins Nintendo minted? Drumpler (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is is i couldn't find it. I doubt nintendo would post online. Besides that kind of iniformation does not really have a place in the article→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant. The coin was included with pre-orders of the game. It is very relevant. Drumpler (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View problem
The statements in regards to Ocarina of Time are unnecessary bias, and in light of such statements OoT is at 98% while Galaxy is at 97%. I highly suggest you remove any mention of OoT and GameRanking rank as it leads to unnecessary misinformation. Which it is at this point since Galaxy is not higher than OoT in the percent.

OoT's page http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/197771.asp

--HeaveTheClay (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A bias I see is the unnessecary listing of every minor flaw Super Mario galaxy has. When people look at reception, people are looking for the general positive and negative impressions of gaming sites, not every little flaw that they can find and quoting it from a magazine. If you do that, it will be endless. Other top games like Oot, Soul calibur, don't have this treatment, why this game. Also, why is gamesTM quoted, how is that magazine more influential than the 25 others that aren't mentioned other than the fact it is the only site that gives it a 90.

--User:Tangeros 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that link if you look at the top 10 shows SMG being number 2... not one. However it is not bias to had cons, even small ones, it improves it through a neutral perspective. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's number two on both Game Rankings and Metacritic, contrary to the article. So remove that bit. --Jedravent (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception solution
Since reviews are still coming in (Edge and EGM gave it 10s which will boost the average back up), I suggest NOT constantly updating the article with decimal-point fluctuations; just leave it at 97%.

Instead, note that as stated by Nintendo in an official press release dated November 20, 2007, Mario Galaxy had the highest-ever metascore on GameRankings with 39 reviews vs. 31 (for Ocarina of Time).

Wikipedian06 (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried this, and it worked on other article where you don't give a rank to the game until its got atleast over 50 reviews... despite that here however articles were released abouts its number 1 rank yet here I see SMG at number 2. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Learn to read, please. As of 39 SMG reviews vs. 31 OoT reviews, SMG was ranked first. And Nintendo issued a press release about this. It doesn't matter what the current rank is. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm... so let me get this straight. While all the other game articles, including featured and good ones have to say their fixed rank while here we can say its number 1 despite not being the case? Theres probably plenty of games which have a higher score than OoT if you just filter out bad reviewa and others that did OoT. And press release? In general life theres been plnety of press releases that have to go back on what they said. While I love this game and think it is better than OoT, on wiki however this looks like bias. And since its not what GR and MC say then its a false statement/citation. And don't get cocky, I read what you said perfectly. Plus I know for a 110% fact you'll disagree because like most people including myself you like this game alot, but unlike me you'll probably want to make this game look as good as possible, that is not allowed here.


 * Plus your link doesn't support or claim what you've said as reasons to say its number 1 either. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Game Rankings has updated their pages for Super Mario Galaxy and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, listing them as 1st and 2nd, respectively. It's in the "RANKINGS" section above the "Screenshots" section of the pages. So Super Mario Galaxy has surpassed Ocarina of Time on Game Rankings. It seems they updated those pages without updating their top 10 or 20 lists. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please read the discussion here that I initiated when this problem came up a few days ago. It should be strongly noted that the "average" score on either site is not a true absolute average, it is only averaging the ratings of each site but does not consider differences in ratings scales. Given how much the ratings order is fluctuating, we can NPOV-y state that "SMG is one of the highest overall rated games based on aggregate sites GR and MC", but to argue whether it's #1 or #2 is pointless -- let the user design how much to value what the ranking at GR/MC states about the game, but because this is such a touchy issue, it is almost better we not include it. --M ASEM 23:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You do realize that both pages says that Mario Galaxy is 1st and OoT is Second right? I mean Everyone can see this! Uch  iha  23  02:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, GR don't update each game page like their top 10, according to their top ten link, NOT SMG page, its 2... so both sources conflict. We should wait. Stabby Joe (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SMG has been out for almost a month now, I think enough time has past for those percentage scores to be just fine JayKeaton (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Luigi in the plot section
Considering the fact that you can unlock Luigi has nothing to do with the actual storyline of the game, why exactly is it there? He's just an unlockable: it's as silly as say, for example, putting "When you collect all 3 green stars you unlock the trial galaxies" in the plot section. Yes, I know Luigi is a bit more important than the trial galaxies in terms of documentation but I still don't think it should be announced in the plot section. Jez MM (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it also helps because it's not really a massive game spoiler, but at the same time lets people know Luigi exists and is in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.201.250 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is just a sentane (well 2)! Luigi needs to be noted in the article, he fits bet in the plot only other place would be gameplay but that is mainly for how the game all works.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this be true
I am only curious because, since when we read that Super Mario 64 is the greatest launch game ever, and Twilight Princess 2nd, is it actually now that Super Mario Galaxy is now 2nd or perhaps first, because almost every review we read is them saying that Super Mario Galaxy is actually "the" greatest game ever made, and also said to be better then Twilight Princess also but from what I wanna get to is that is, Super Mario Galaxy now either the or the 2nd best launch game ever, because I would like to know if any of you guys have any information about that?

From Milos Warrior"


 * Super Mario Galaxy isn't a launch game, so no need to worry about that. -- POWERSLAVE  03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay all good then, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milos Warrior (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Condensing plot summary
This plot summary is way too long for something that really doesn't need a detailed plot summary in the first place. I really think this could be narrowed down to a paragraph, at most. Reading this article shouldn't be a replacement for playing the game and finding out for one's self. Anyone else agree? --iTocapa t 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I initially just threw up a plot summary in the hopes that it would be whittled down over time to the bare essentials. I would greatly appreciate it if someone did me the favor of gutting my work (although let's leave in the ending for the time being; there's already too much strife over that at WT:SPOILER). --jonny-mt(t)(c) I'm on editor review! 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one has gotten to your expaaaaaansive plot summary by tomorrowish or friday, I will tame it. (Nice to-do list by the way.) clicketyclick yaketyyak 08:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries often annoy me, as many of them are found to be in violation of WP:PLOT. Super Mario Galaxy isn't a plot-heavy game either. Drumpler (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some quick run-through edits of the Plot section. It's hard to cut down because it's very well-written and so I don't want to take anything out! I think I saved a lot of space with edits to the Gameplay section though, so the article as a whole isn't too long. Cut down the Plot section by 11 lines. More? clicketyclick yaketyyak 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you run the risk of making the article seem small or making no real sense, or quite frankly worse then what it was if you cut sections and areas? 86.128.77.137 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Me

Spoiler Tags
Thanks, I now know about the 121 stars in Galaxy. Is it worth adding spoiler tags to the plot section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DogGunn (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How is knowing that the game has 121 stars spoiling? when you come to a reference page for a game you are bound to get spoiled - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.201.250 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (1)Wikipedia does not use spoiler tags (2)where it is obvios there will be spoilers (like the plot section). If you didn't want to get spoiled DON'T READ THE PLOT. (i might tell luigi is playable, but you would probaly disilike me with passion). So no spioler tags.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Konpeito
I just got the game today so I'm trying to avoid editing (and going beyond skimming) this article for now, but I noticed that the Star Bits are very likely based on konpeito, a type of Japanese confectionary. Right now I think this could be trivial, and possibly original research, but this may give more context on the game mechanic of using Star Bits. Does anyone with a Japanese version see what it has to say about it..? - Zero1328 Talk? 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They're referred to as スターピース ("star piece") in the Japanese version, and the in-game explanation is that they're hoshi kuzu (星くず), or "stardust". Although you're definitely right about the resemblance, there's no mention in the Japanese version of the game (at least not that I found) indicating a solid connection, which means that unless you can find a verifiable source noting that the star pieces were designed to resemble konpeito, it's original research.  Good eye, though! --jonny-mt(t)(c) I'm on editor review! 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bits of in-game text imply the connection in the English version. It being a type of food is the most obvious, but there is also a Toad at the game intro mentioning the resemblance to candy, and a mention in the storybook saying that it tastes like honey. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference to konpeito at News Feed Researcher, and if that's not notable enough, there's one at the San Francisco Chronicle, which is incontrovertibly notable because it has a wiki page. Let's stick it in! clicketyclick yaketyyak 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle is indeed reliable, but we have to be sure this little tidbit isn't given undue weight. If you're going to add it in, I would just suggest a small blurb somewhere mentioning it (ideally one tied to existing information about star pieces or what have you). --jonny-mt(t)(c) I'm on editor review! 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I got a bit carried away when I added it in and did some pretty extensive editing to the article up to the Plot section. Hopefully, I added in the konpeito business in an unobtrusive way. I stuck it in the Environmental Mechanics section (like Zero was talking about) when mentioning the ability to feed Star Bits to Hungry Lumas. Is this what you had in mind? clicketyclick yaketyyak 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks fine by me. It's a fairly minor piece of info, so I think that's enough. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jump Height
The article claims that Mario can jump higher in low gravity. I think this is inaccurate, I don't remember any case where the gravity clearly had an effect on the height of a jump (if you landed on the same planet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.150.56 (talk • contribs)

(1) sign your comments with [ ~ ]. (2) I belive that it ment that Mario could jump higher in this game than in SM64 and SMS, not becuase of the gravity, that's just how they designed it.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just realized I've created another topic on this same thing, I'll leave it I guess. 041744 I don't think that is right. It says that it varies between objects. It makes no reference to SM64. Ergzay 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I never really noticed any change in jump height (though i could be wrong) on any object. I was stating that mario can jump higher in this game than the other to 3D games.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Most power-ups?
"Super Mario Galaxy features the most power-ups and transformations of any 3D Mario game to date."

Not by my count:

SMB3

1. Super Mushroom

2. Fire Flower

3. Raccoon Suit

4. Tanooki Suit

5. Frog Suit

6. Hammer Bro. Suit

7. Star

8. P-Wing

SMG

1. Life Shroom

2. Fire Flower

3. Bee Suit

4. Red Star/Flying Mario

5. Boo Suit

6. Spring Mushroom

7. Ice Flower

Did I miss anything? I didn't want to remove it myself, because it does have a citation. 153.42.168.174 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You missed the invincibility star in SMG, which brings the count to 8. But you should also note that the passage you cited refers to 3D Mario games only (i.e. Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, and any derivatives), which means the cited statement is still correct. --jonny-mt(t)(c) I'm on editor review! 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article is correct as written despite the observation since Super Mario 3 was not a 3D game, and the article specifies that SMG has most power-ups of a 3D Mario game, which it does by virtue of having more effects than Mario 64 or Super Mario Sunshine. (64.198.88.126 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)).

Varrying Gravity
"The varying degrees of gravity also have an effect on Mario's ability to jump as he jumps higher in low gravity, which is similar to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and is used to pull Mario towards certain planetoids while in mid-flight." The article seems to claim that the gravity varies, which in my experience does not. All things pull equally and you can jump just as high on anything as anything else. Now because some objects are smaller you can begin to orbit them using a long jump or if there are multiple objects you can stay flying for a good 5 seconds or more by having yourself repeatedly grabbed by different objects, but there is no varying gravity. If no one says anything I'll be removing the references to gravity changes. Ergzay 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On some of the smaller planets and certainly on the black hole planets the gravity does indeed vary in degrees. JayKeaton 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Much About The Rosalina Second-Story
In the plot section, it has the second-story about how Rosalina became the Luma's mother. It tells the entire story, and I find it quite annoying because it is like when you are trying to look up reviews for a book, and you accidentally come across a site that tells you the ending, and then reading the book is no fun. It is the exact same case here. Some people are looking around for SMG reviews, and they check this article, and the entire second-story is given away. I know some people would say, "Nobody would accidentally do that," but it does happen sometimes. It has happened to me once or twice, and I find it extremely irritating. I just think it should tell the beginning, but not the ending. Is it really necessary to tell people that Rosalina's mother was actually telling Rosalina that she was dying, or that the comet that goes to Earth every hundred years is actually a Luma taking Princess Rosalina to see her mother's grave? I think shortening that section is a little change that will make the article much better, and it also shortens the plot section, which someone mentioned earlier. So, does anyone agree with me? Epass (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a sitewide disclaimer that specifically permits spoilers in the content. That being said, the issue of handling those spoilers is undergoing fairly active discussion at WT:SPOILER, which you're more than welcome to join (be warned, though, it's a long and involved discussion).  As such, there is no current consensus for the censoring of spoilers in articles, so the best bet for avoiding them is simply to not read the "Plot" sections of articles on topics you don't want spoiled. --jonny-mt(t)(c) I'm on editor review! 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kamella?? (Revived Discussion)
I just read the plot section, and it says that Mario is blasted when trying to save Peach by Kamella, 'a female counterpart of Kamek, who has been confirmed as a boss in the game'. I'm pretty sure that's false, seeing as how 'Kamella's' article links back to Kamek's character section...Well, I mean, Kamella's mentioned there, too, but I don't see any actual proof that Kamek is replaced by a girl in this game. And isn't Kamek's female counterpart Kammy, anyway?

Okay, nevermind. I found proof that Kamella does exist, but she's definetley not the one who blasts Mario in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.240.248 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Kamek who blasts Mario out into space, not Kamella, but he does not appear anywhere else in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.102.0 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he appears as a boss twice (so far). If you need the galaxy names, I'll be glad to dig them up for you. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont doubt you, i just want to know the names anyway, what are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.215.219 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why has the plot been changed to say that it was just a magikoopa who shot Mario out into Space? The Mario community has accepted that it was Kamek, so thats what it should say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamek1001 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Nintendo hasn't said it was Kamek. The "Mario communities" opinion in this regard is of little importance and isn't a reliable source. (although I'd like to believe it is Kamek, personally ;)). Drumpler (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the game has been released, so someone must know about it now. (I tried to revive this discussion, but I'm not sure if I did it right, so if it's wrong, sorry.) Anyway, so, does anyone know anything about this Kamek/Kamella/Kammy thing? Epass (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it's like this: Kamek isn't in the game (or isn't implied to be anyway), Magikoopas are in the game as common enemies as they were in Mario World, and a new female magikoopa called Kamella appears as a boss character with no plot relevance on two occasions. Jez MM (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the evidence there is nothing to say that it was Kamek at the start (There is no physical distinction, like a cape or something, and Nintendo has never said that it was Kamek), and Kamella is the boss magikoopa. Kamek1001 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Luigi's Luma
The current plot synopsis implies the Luma at the end of the extra ending is the one given to Luigi in the second story, but this seems to be purely speculation. Think about it: the remains of the mushroom ship are on the gateway galaxy planet in the ending, yet not in Luigi's story, AND the Princess has already magically been captured again, along with all the power stars in Luigi's story. I'm pretty sure Luigi's tale is supposed to simply be an "alternative" story rather than a new one. The Luma in the extra ending is clearly Mario's one, and his appearence is simply to signify that he also survived the black hole ordeal. Jez MM (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, at the end of Mario's game. Princess Rosalina says that the "cycle never repeats itself in quite the same way. So...you'll see." Saying that kinda shows that it was a retelling of the story, but with Luigi. Sonicxtreme (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, this is all speculation, not noteable is our own logic.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Game Rankings
There has currently been a number of changes regarding the game's current rank at Game Rankings. The list that is number 1 for 50 or more reviews is not important information since Game Rankings has an official reviewers mark which is 20 and every other single game article sticks to their official mark... it even shows this on its main page. While what has been said is true, its not the same info carried in all other articles or even by Game Rankings. Promotion of this claim and this claim alone is boarderlining clear bias promotion of the game itself which is not wiki marterial.

I know there will be plenty of die hard Mario fans, I'm really into this game aswell, who will disagree on the basis it isn't what they want but the fact of the matter is saying its number 1 is not correct. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem odd that someone added the over 50 thing to the article. I don't see why they need to, as it undeniably the highest rated game for the current and past generation, it is the highest rated game in 9 years and it is the second highest rated game of all time. Compared to all those things mentioning the over 50 thing seems trivial. You yourself have even said that once it reaches at least 50 reviews and 4 weeks after release it will be fine to make claim to those accolades, and it has well and truly been over 4 weeks and over 50 reviews counted. JayKeaton (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exaclly, we just need to watch that section more, it seems fine at the moment, but there are fanboys and trolls sometimes. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree 100 percent. SMG review and rankings speak for themselves, there is no need to get all fanboy on it to make it look better, but that wont stop the fanboys. Nothing will stop the fanboys. You might find [this] funny and relevant ^_^ I mean the quote in the video between 0:18 and 0:25, but you may as well just watch the first 30 seconds of it. It's honestly funny because it's honestly true ^,^ JayKeaton (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh no, you'd think that wouldn't you yet I've never lost a battle with fanboys, both of and on wiki... probably since the real wiki edittors have way to much reason and plausible arguments over them. Plus you can spot them from a mile away lol! HOWEVER there are also trolls who will want to make this game look bad or just plain vandalise so look out for them to. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not "trying to make it look better." Games from a decade ago can not be compared with games released today because games from a decade ago (1) were evaluated based on far lower standards, and (2) received far fewer reviews, period. (As the number of reviews increases, group polarization tends to occur, thus lowering score averages.) Sure enough, the DEFAULT cutoff on Gamerankings is 20, but that's kind of arbitrary. There are plenty of games with single reviews that make them rank above OoT. Other games, like Super Mario World, have very high scores (97%) based on only five reviews, because the Internet wasn't accessible to the masses in 1991 and very few sites review games retroactively.
 * For these reasons, I think keeping it at 50 is fair. That's pretty much typical these days, as every big-name title (Halo, Bioshock, A. Creed, Mass Effect, etc.) gets 50 or more reviews. I'm not trying to manipulate the stats to make them look better, but rather, trying to keep them as simple and straightforward as possible. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all for keeping its stats because they've passed the 50 marks, thats when they usually stick and don't move rank. However the notion that is 1 for games over 50 is trivial since the site has an official rankings which is 20+ and fan edittors need to realise that in the official rankings it is NOT number 1 and like all other game articles we must mention that one, to do other wise would be fishy to others since no other game article is doing what you're trying to do. These SET ranks, even these 5 reviewed game you mentioned aren't in them. Plus the way it is being written is incredibly samll and brief... 1 liner random snetance in a bulk of a section isn't wiki material to get this article the a higher level. I'm sorry but it does look like bias even if you're not since you say its to make it look straight forward, whats not straight forward about "first of wii and second of all time"? If you don't like it then take in up with Game Rankings, but until then we must use what they have given. I can see you're not a fanboy so I hope we can both agree on something, any ideas would be welcomed. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not really for us to decide. GameRankings is the number one source on game rankings and if a game is number one on their site or number two (or the best game released in a decade) then what GameRankings say should be taken at face value. GameRankings has a system and a policy, it isn't for us to decide what their policies should be to determine what game sits where. Anyone can add reviews to GameRankings, if you feel that Crash Bandicoot should have been number one and they they forgot to add all those perfect score reviews, you can submit those reviews yourself (though it is impossible for Crash to be number 1 because it has already received too many low scores). There is no hidden agenda, GameRankings just reports the facts, the cold hard reviews. And you can't really argue with the cold hard reviews that are out there. They are what they are, it's like arguing that the sky isn't blue. JayKeaton (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is my point exaclly. I'm not deciding for anyone, just saying that Game Rankings says its 2... not 1 like others are trying to. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Number one for reviews over 50 is ridiculous. Number one for this and the last generation before this is fact. It's not really bias at all, according to GameRankings.com it is absolute fact. JayKeaton (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, you've mentioned that already and I agreed with you then so I can easily see you're a big big fan of the game but luckily is hasn't affected your wiki edits which is a good thing. *claps* Stabby Joe (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand what the conflict is here. Is it about the over 50 thing or that it is the highest rated game, on any way you look at it, On GR released in over a decade. JayKeaton (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically some are trying to mention GR in this format and this format alone: that its the highest rated game for game with 50 or more revirews which not only ignores the OFFICIAL rankings which says its 2 whereas the previous statment tries to make it look like number 1 and their official rankings is what every other game article uses. But also it is just said in a brief and even random presentation within that section. No ones saying its not the highest rated game for this and last gen, its what YOU YOURSELF have agreed on before which is the over 50 thing is trivial. I've already said this Jay yet you keep coming back like if we're arguing when in fact we're on the exact same page. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But one thing, the ranks on Gamerankings are really unfair due to the fact that there are many missing reviews from games, such as Ocarina, Galaxy, and especially Super Mario 64, that could change their ranks. So, another thing that is wrong here.... --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you could say there are some things wrong with GR, for example the Orange Box takes up 2 spaces despite not actually being techincally a title. BUT thats GR's job and its not our choice here at wiki so we HAVE TO take their word for it. Seriously, even if you deny it, trying to pick hole in a system which is theirs, not ours and is used for every other game wiki article is a clear indication of bias. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also biased: SMG got a few 10/10s that could bring it back up to #1 and GameRankings doesn't count those reviews. (the non-bolded ones are the ones that don't count in the average) Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First off which reviews because secondly some reviews aren't added because they don't have a high enough profile... and why not blame Metacritic since most of the time GR has more game reviews? Plus to think its bias when all they do is stack up reviews... reviews that make it the second based rated game, how can that be against the game saying its that good? Seriously, regardless of what you think, it doesn't matter. We here at wiki are to present information from a neutral standpoint and whether or not you like the source is irrelevent since GR is a well known source that alot of people use as a refference and it is used in most well written game articles. Its not the number one rated game, get over it... I have and I like it better than OoT. Stabby Joe (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep coming back because I'm confused as to why we are still talking about this. Isn't it clear that the 50 thing should be removed, so why are we still discussing it? Does someone keep adding it back in? JayKeaton (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

One review that had to be included was the EGM review, which was a pure 10 out of 10 (overall the 3 reviews). And on Metacritic, it's also bias because when they had 51 reviews, it was a 97% but on GR it was a 98% (remember they have the same reviews). So I dislike the fact of people saying OoT is better. Even SM64 was better, but people base their opinions on public reviews (and I mean on GR_, so this may explain why SM64 was considered worse.   --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused aswell Jay, I mean it hasn't even been on the page in a while which is great, it just seems that Mr. Mario and Wiki6 are trying to pick holes in GR which is irrelevent since we at wiki arn't supposed to give our personally opinions about a well known and much used source, and I'm starting to think its only because its not number 1. As for Mr's complaint about EGM, I find it odd is hasn't been added yet... but they do usually add it at GR and considering it the game has over 50 reviews, it will most likely boost the score by 0.1% which isn't enough for it "smash" any record. And all that you've said about SM64 is completly irrelevent since many people have their opinions, whether its from reviews or not so now as Jay has said this discussion is now completly irrelevent to. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Mr. Mario and Wiki6 should probably contact the web master at GR themselves if they have a problem with GR's system, or if they have a problem with GR's use on Wikipedia they will need to post their claims on Wikipedias policy discussions, as the GameRankings article or any game article is not the right place to discuss Wikipedia policies JayKeaton (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is becoming way too much OR and POV for the article because it's just a matter of spinning the data to put SMG over OoT or the opposite. Remember, at the end of the day, the GR is only averaging "absolute ratings" of all the submitted reviews and does not account for adjusting them for relative differences (eg those review sites that tend to put average games at 7, while others that put average games at 5) - this difference is impossible to account for, so we're stuck with slightly skewed absolute averaging.

My suggestion is that we simply change the line to read "SMG is one of the top 2 highest rated games of all time at GR/MC." and leave it at that - that covers whether you want to say its first or second while still showing how well the game was received in the press. --M ASEM 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree except for the "one of the top 2" comment since it clearly states on its defualt OFFICIAL rankings that its 2. If you wanted to be the most neutral you could just say "one of the top" which could be anyway between 1 and 10 but of course fans would edit that in a second. What we've got now is fine and there seems to be little to no justification for any controversy since all the other game articles use what I've been supporting. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. guys, I'm really sorry for this. I was just trying to say the things that could be wrong in the system. And about the Gamemaster, I don't think I'll have time enough for this... Well, I'm sorry, I just tried to help. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do also think it has some flaws int he system but I can't apply what I persoanlly feel to what is basically the best source for what needs to be said. Sorry if I accused you of bias but the whole debate did seem rather... well... pointless. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think the UR MR GAY (on the cover, they're stars on some of the letters in "super mario galaxy" which together create URMRGAY)should be mentioned in the article. I don't know how one could make it look serious though. :)

Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

it should be included; many gaming sites have cited this, making referencing it possible. its huge in pop culture.24.109.218.172 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not sure UR MR GAY is suitable for mention in the article, I don't think throwing around unofficial warning labels as if they're policy is the way I'd go. I personally think the banner is harsh and ignores the fact that consensus can change. I'm not sure UR MR GAY violates any official policy (WP:N is a guidline) so I'm not a fan of that language either. It's fine to keep it out of the article until we agree otherwise but we shouldn't shoot down any attempt at discussion. Bleeding Blue (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I put the banner up simply because it kept popping up over and over and the discussion pertaining to its notability had since been archived. It was not intended to be any sort of official statement, just a notice to new editors that the issue had already been brought up and discussed.  Feel free to remove it if you don't think we need it, although in my completely unscientific opinion it seems to have reduced the number of mentions (and thus the workload involved in cleaning it up) considerably.


 * That being said, I appreciate that someone has toned it down a little from the original version (I was a little hasty in including the talk page) and am aware that consensus might change, but given that the meme would have to not only notable and verifiable but also be presented in a way that doesn't grant it undue weight in the article, it would take a good bit to change the current consensus. As for your concern about the word "policy" being in the banner, that's just an old habit I'm trying to break and you're more than welcome to change it--the word "policy" simply seemed a bit smoother.


 * Of course, two of the WP pages I cited above are policies rather than guidelines, but that's just splitting hairs ;) -- jonny - m t  14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I'm not advocating the inclusion of the meme. I read the prior discussion and it seemed like it was decided that adding it was vandalism that required a block, which seems a little much. I think a simple revert and referral to the archived discussion is appropriate. If anyone attempts to establish notibility, verifyability, etc., we shouldn't simply tell them it's already been decided, especially since the presence of the archived discussion isn't very obvious. And I hope we all realize the childish/immature angle, however accurate it may be, is not legitimate reason to exclude anything from any article, if it otherwise passes policy and guidelines (again, I'm not arguing that this does). Thanks, Bleeding Blue (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you certainly have a point. I really started working on this article after this discussion happened, although the issue of the meme has come up multiple times since. I certainly don't agree with Wikipedian06's assessment that anyone adding the meme should be blocked, but neither do I like spending my time reverting additions of the meme by an endless number of unique editors, particularly when the person adding it goes the extra step of deleting the inline warning before they do so.


 * Since I think the warning at the top is useful as a preemptive way of dealing with this, let's edit the text a little.


 * It's not as compact as the current warning, but I think this should cover most of the common issues we run into when someone adds the meme while still allowing for discussion. Any comments? -- jonny - m  t  02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This change resolves all of the issues I had with the message. I appreciate the work and cooperation. Bleeding Blue (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Likewise :) Up it goes! -- jonny - m  t  04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The UR MR GAY meme will die eventually like every other. It is not notable, just an excuse for childish laughs. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a "meme." It's something that's evident on the cover, although apparently it won't last; if Nintendo holds true to their threats to reprint the cover without the "sparkles," then it will surely become notable information.  For right now, though, I don't think it's quite notable enough to be relevant to the publication of the game.  I can see how it's right on the line, though - lots of places have picked up the revelation of what the stars spell out.  --Bishop2 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The "ur mr gay" thing is: 1. Something retards do to feel cool. 2. A coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.224.196 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all three of you are right: it is a meme, it won't last, and it is a coincidence. Unless anything else happens, we should just let it go.--CM (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Sales
I am really finding it hard to get my head round the relatively low sales due to the fact that it's practically impossible to pick up a copy of the game in London (Amazon UK and Play are both sold out). Was there a low print run of the game, low orders? There must be something on this somewhere? Ajmayhew (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception expansion
Putting aside one sentance that is taking up all our time I should also clarifiy to improve the reception section we should list what aspect certain reviewers liked as opposed to just "best mario/wii game". We still can include those but that would be part of a conclusion yet in most articles, the bulk is about differing aspects. This goes for both pros and cons. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are saying we put in something like "Many reveiwers feel the game was X" and then provide like 5 refs I would support that, just find sevral reliable rescources and corrosponding statements.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well in the best cases, it goes like this: "Upon release X recieved favourably/postive etc etc... Many reviewers completmented the gameplay with Y noting etc etc" and then there being like 1 or 2 different sources and multiple aspects in the same way, both pros and cons. Check Age of Mythology and Shadow of the Colossus for good examples. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 5
A 5th archive was made when the page was 51 KB long. Feel free to resurrect any discussions on the archived page. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, one of the threads archived was just finished a few hours ago. Unless there are any objections, I'm adding MiszaBot functionality for automatic archiving of threads older than 15 days so we can avoid this in the future. -- jonny - m  t  06:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that there have been no objections, I've added MiszaBot functionality for automatic archiving. Old talk threads will now be archived 15 days after the last comment has been made--the format for the new archive pages is " Archive for [Month] [Year]" -- jonny - m  t  11:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New Pic
This game has been out for a month and I still see a rating of RP. It's really not that important to the article but some one needs to put the finished box art with the rating on it on the page. I'd do it myself but im no good with computers, hell I don't even know if im signing this proproly.Zabbethx (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)zabbethx-zabbethx 10:57 am 12-18-07
 * [[Image:Tick_green_modern_2.svg‎|35px]] Done. clicketyclick yaketyyak 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GameRankings is not a reliable source due to webmaster bias
1. Today, Mario Galaxy got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time once more. The averages for both games were at 97.6%, with ties broken by the total number of reviews. Since Mario Galaxy had 52 reviews vs. Ocarina's 31, Mario Galaxy came out on top. The webmaster then proceeded to expand the decimal precision to three decimal places to change the ranking. Pictorial evidence here

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

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

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

Also, keep in mind how much freedom the webmaster has to bend the rankings to his personal likings: and more.
 * which reviews to include (these are denoted in bold)
 * the ranking methodology
 * the default cutoff for a game to appear in the rankings
 * the decimal precision

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

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

- Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I can see where you're coming from, it certainly seems like Gamerankings is trying to keep Galaxy out of the top spot, I do however think there needs to be som,e note about how amazing the reviews of been. I mean this is the best reviewed game on average in 9 years, and that's quite an accomplishment, that needs to be noted. So we need something to go by if not GameRankings, than maybe metacritic?. WIKI-GUY-16 5:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-GUY-16 (talk • contribs)


 * You're missing the point: it'd be the best reviewed game ever if it weren't for the GR webmaster's personal bias. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you be 110% honest with me here, do you really believe that or do you want to believe that since its NOT number 1? If you really want to not have GR that means you can't say its a top game since GR is the link to say that... and interestingly enough its not 1. Plus GR eventually get more reviews than Metacritic so you can't mention them either. And finally SMG is the first game on the Wii, second best of all time and first for this and last generation... doesn't look like they're making the game look bad. And no offense but this does look like some kind of backlash against your attempt to call it number 1. I mean you mention Metal Gear to support your theory but you yourself DON'T think it should be since you have mnetion previously that the more reviews, the more basis we have to say what rank it is so I can't take that point on board.


 * Plus you're going to have a hard time with most gmae articles about this since you need to show a universal bias and not just one DEBATABLE case since ties screw up the rankings making them hard to understand, this stretch looks rather plausible. It might seem like they're trying to keep it our from the top spot but if satistically its not, which your image shows then I need to ask for more reason not to add it. Also was GameTap bold before? Just because you don't think its right doesn't mean GR goes altother without say from others so don't remove it yet, you can once we've settled any debate and please lets make it a sensible debate for future refference, I'm open to not listing it. However I know for a fact you probably won't budge since you're a clear die hard fan. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem listing GR's summary score to zero decimal places (98% instead of 97.6% or whatever it is now) in both the review box, and stating that it's one of the best reviewed games at both GR and MC; people can go to both sites and judge the results for themselves if they need further evidence of how good the game has been reviewed. But the mess that the GR webmasters are doing to "fix" the results means that any statement of if this case is above or below OoT on the rankings is going to be unreliable, and thus it should not be mentioned.  Link to the ratings page, that's fine, but let the reader decide if it is or isn't.  --M ASEM  14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Gamerankings has been an acceptable citation for every "reaction/reception" section for games for a long time now. This is established; such a radical change in Wiki policy is going to require a serious discussion at higher levels than this talk page.  I can see where it would be up for debate, but damn.  If you prefer, you could also use Metacritic instead. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous issue over the rank was settled by not listing it at all. As Masem has said, let the reader decide for themselves. Leave GR and don't mention the rank. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I've brought this issue up over at WP Video Games to get a wider consensus and to see if it should be included in the guideline, or least cautionary notes on how GR/MC should be used. --M ASEM 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Mario, I'm saying it looks like you are doing because its not number 1, if you're not then sorry however if GR and MC are both considered bias then what are you going to use as a good indication of overall critic response? GR's change is rating seems rather plausible as there will be no more ties and it was nothing but in the top 10. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that this needs a higher-level discussion. Stabby Joe, if you learned to read, you'd understand that this isn't another petty Mario Galaxy vs. OoT debate, but the fact that the GameRankings webmaster has shown clear evidence of manipulating the scores and rankings based on points (1)~(3) listed in my initial post. Due to this, his site can not be taken as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Wikipedian06 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with putting the MC/GR metascores on Wikipedia (even if we don't mention the ranks) is that when people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher metascore than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case for reasons discussed above. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If GR were the only link we included to describe a game's reception, I would agree that's a problem. However, because we also include single review scores from reliable major game review sources, this provides another measurement stick for the reader.  --M ASEM  20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We do list all the individual scores from major publications in the industry (EGM, IGN, Famitsu, etc.) The bulk of the reviews on GR are from amateur websites (and weighted equally as the big names, I might add); after all, the only thing you need to be listed on GR is a media site with at least 100 reviews. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki6, I already know that, I'm saying some are giving that impression though, we're past that part yet briniging it up again with an attitude and persoanlly insulting me isn't helping. Now on topic I must question why GR listing not so high profile reviews is a bad thing? If people just look a 3 or 4 reviews and thats it then they won't get a god indication of who positive the game was recieved on an almost universal level hence why we mention the major but have alink for the others. Now might I ask this: If we aren't listing the ranking then whats the problem with GR and MC? Lets say they add your example of GameTap... most likely it will still be 98%. So since we've already said the rank WILL NOT be listed on wiki and want to give a good indication of the overall response then what is the issue? If we don't say its 1 or 2 at all then theres nothing unrealible to say. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "why GR listing not so high profile reviews is a bad thing?"


 * 1. It enables the GR webmaster to easily tweak the results to his liking (as has already happened), by including or excluding certain reviews that may impact the averages.


 * 2. Any average Joe can write those reviews. Many of the amateur reviews are only 300 words long and not up to professional standards. Look at IGN's 3-page review versus The Onion's. They are nowhere near the same level of detail and quality, yet they account for the same weight in the critic average.


 * 3. It doesn't make sense for amateur reviews to be weighted the same as professional ones written by hired staff in offices.


 * 4. Many of these average-Joe amateur websites do not review every game, but rather, only the games Joe himself is interested in (to award high scores to) or UNinterested in (to hurt their averages with low scores). IGN has adequate staff to review every game that's released to the market, and generally assign staff based on their genre preferences to cut down on bias. (For example, have staff writers who are genuinely interested in shooters review shooting games.)


 * 5. Given all these reasons, why does it matter what the amateurs think? While we're at it, why not include the GameFAQs reader review average under the reception section? In fact, most of the "detailed reviews" I've been reading on GameFAQs, such as this one, are at least of comparable quality to the amateur ones on GR. The amateur reviewers are only one step above the GameFAQs reviewers in that they know how to create their own websites. That's it! Many of them have no formal, professional writing experience as is required to get into IGN or any other gaming media company.


 * Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As for listing the percentages without the ranks, please see


 * "The problem with putting the MC/GR metascores on Wikipedia (even if we don't mention the ranks) is that when people compare across two different articles and see that one game has a higher metascore than the other, they might be inclined to believe that it is better. However, this may not actually be the case for reasons discussed above. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"


 * While you do have some valid points which I am willing to take on board I do have this issue still, isn't that kind of imposing your will actually like saying "what they say is the truth everyone else is wrong because they're not as funded or as heard of". True there are some who I find odd to be on the list, I'll agree with you there but then again I'm confused since you have previously complained about them NOT listing certain reviews to change the ranks (ranks we don't mention anymore), so which is it? However I do have to also ask this: If you think just high profile reviews should be mentioned to prevent people from thinking one game is better than another then you are aware some of these like Gamespot and IGN do think OoT is better than SMG? You seem to not like the idea that some people do like OoT better than SMG.


 * Plus Gamespot have came under fire recently over certain reviews and IGN have their share of just plain bad ones. And of course many seem to hold the belief that magazines usually sway towards and from certain systems and genres... If a reader just wants to hear from the high profile reviews he will just look at them, but not everyone does. And finally you'll want to take this up for the film project to since they like MC and Rotton Tomatoes. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki6, once again all there is to say is that if you have a problem with Wikipedia using GameRankings or a problem with GameRankings system you need to email the GR webmaster yourself or you need to take it up on the Wikipedia policy discussion sections. The talk page of articles is not the correct place to discuss Wikipedia policy. JayKeaton (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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


 * If true that would controdict the netire point of the webmaster being biased AGAINST SMG. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason the conspiracy notionists can't get their stories straight is because there is no conspiracy. It's like someone said here that they've been accused of being a Sony fanboy, a Ninty fanboy, and a Microsoft fanboy (on separate occasions)... which goes to show how neutral they actually are! And it's quite true. That GR is being accused of being anti-SMG and pro-SMG just shows that they are neither because the actions the site takes can be interpreted either way and are therefore not conclusive proof of bias in either direction. There is no reason not to include GR/MC averages, and on the same grounds, no reason not to include GR rankings. clicketyclick yaketyyak 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was GameAlmighty (originally 8.7/10), and they changed their score. It had nothing to do with Gamerankings Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


 * Actually, high 50% to high 60% would be considered "mixed". However on the topic at hand, I think most agree that sites like GR and MC should be listed but none of ranks mentioned. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a good idea, in that (not for SMG) it may be that the selected reviews for a specific game may all praise it, but a non-amateur review may point out key flaws with the game that the other reviews did not consider. Per WP:NPOV, this review should be included to give weight to all critical reception points.
 * As Stabby Joe states, we can include the GR/MC average and link to them, but we should allow the user to interpret what that number means for themselves, including its ranking to other games and if its a good or bad game. --M ASEM 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

UR MR GAY meme discussion, continued
The UR MR GAY meme will die eventually like every other. It is not notable, just an excuse for childish laughs. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a "meme." It's something that's evident on the cover, although apparently it won't last; if Nintendo holds true to their threats to reprint the cover without the "sparkles," then it will surely become notable information.  For right now, though, I don't think it's quite notable enough to be relevant to the publication of the game.  I can see how it's right on the line, though - lots of places have picked up the revelation of what the stars spell out.  --Bishop2 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The "ur mr gay" thing is: 1. Something retards do to feel cool. 2. A coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.12.224.196 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all three of you are right: it is a meme, it won't last, and it is a coincidence. Unless anything else happens, we should just let it go.--CM (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a meme. It is not something to make "retards feel cool". It is not just on the cover art, it is also in the game. Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't realize it, but by talking about it, we are making it a meme. By mentioning it, arguing about it, and discussing it, we pass on the fad and spread it. By denying its existence, we are validating it, hence a meme. That's why we should just drop it.--CM (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't realise it, but denying somethings existence does not make it a meme, it's certainly not how Dawkins defined a meme anyhow. Nor does dropping it make it go away. It is a part of history now and I believe it should be mentioned in the encyclopaedia. Coincidence or not, meme or not, it is there. I'm not really understanding the defensive stance that is being applied here. Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The naming of the Wii has been shown to have some significant controversy; this has not. Noone here has yet provided any evidence that Nintendo has even acknowledged this, nor that this has had any affect on things such as sales or overall opinions of the game. As you indicated when you added the information, this is trivia. There is no plausible context in which this information can be presented as important. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIV for more information. Dancter (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, point well made.Wikiqueenwiki (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Lots of other articles have it JUST LIKE THAT for their packaging mistakes or naughty slipups. That the cover is changed MAKES it notable. Things-happening is as important as people-talking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anybody bloody read anymore? Barring reliable sources showing genuine attention by Nintendo, this, like SIHULM to its list, can't be placed in the article.  Further, a cover reissue can be for any number of reasons; we cannot assume (iff it gets changed) that the cover was changed because of the sparkles. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody heck
I'm reading this conversation, and I am getting SIHULM Sickness all over again. So, I am simply going to reiterate what I have said in regard to that meme on Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) - it applies just as well to this one. "No reliable sources - Nobody, anon or registered, has appeared with reliable sources. [...]4chan, other wikis, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. are not reliable sources for Wikipedia because they are anonymous (making it impossible to trace a statement made there to its source), they do not engage in content reviewing to make sure only truth is in there, and items there are prone to rapid change. -Quote from Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260)/Archive01; originally posted by User:Jéské Couriano on Talk:LoP (241-260)at 6:53 PM 10/23/2007 (UTC)" Show evidence that Nintendo has received and acknowledged information that it exists or that there is an actual controversy going on over this alleged message, or stop bringing it up, please. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Mario's last words
We currently have his dialogue at the end of the game listed as "Welcome, welcome new galaxy!"... but when I listen to it, it sounds to me like he says "galaxies." Plural. Anyone care to argue the point? I'm tempted to change it but would like to know if someone feels otherwise. I know Kotaku recently linked to a "Mario Galaxy Spoilers" video that shows the line, and you can also find it on YouTube if you need to double-check without fighting Bowser again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishop2 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you start watching this video from 9:53, it's pretty clear that he is saying the singular. That being said, he sounds really dumb and maybe we should go into denial by removing any reference to him speaking from the article. He really needs to take some pointers from Link about being the strong, silent hero type. clicketyclick yaketyyak 07:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, it still sounds like he says "Galaxiiiiiies!" to me. It's still a very awkwardly worded non-sentence either way, but I like hearing Mario talk more rather than less. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with clicketyclick (about the article; I could care less about whether he wants to make Ness look more like him). Dialogue in a game is not notable unless it explodes out beyond the game ("You spoony bard!", "All your base are belong to us"). -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My favs are "You cocky boxes of bolts! You'll never get away with this!" and "butterfly, butterfly, I want to masticate you with my teeth to a mushy pulp and sprinkle you in my cereal". Okay so I may have paraphrased the latter one. To make some semblance of being on-topic, I would say just remove the Mario quotation. It's not really a major plot point. clicketyclick yaketyyak 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is actually a plot point, since it shows that a new Galaxy was created(somehow). 86.88.117.225 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ... which can be stated without quotation (i.e. "The scene then cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser waking up back in the Mushroom Kingdom during a fireworks display after a new Galaxy was created", or, "A new Galaxy is created and then the scene cuts..." etc.) clicketyclick yaketyyak 11:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand where you are going, but the creation isnt that obvious. Its everyone waking up, and suddenly, Mario sees a new Galaxy, so to me it seems that is is a relevant plot point and that it is important enough to be quoted. 86.88.117.225 (talk)
 * You don't need to directly quote everything in order to establish that it happened. If the scene right before they wake up was not enough to suggest that the original galaxy has been replaced, then an allusion to the line without actually quoting it is enough. Writing the words "new Galaxy" is enough of an allusion to the line to be an acceptable paraphrasementizationthat'snotaword. clicketyclick yaketyyak 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, it was a new Universe that was created. The black hole sucked in the entire universe.  Which makes sense, since  at the end alot of things were mixed up.  SUch as the queen Bee being at the mushroom kingdom, and several planets native to other galaxies being around the mushroom Kingdom.  Like Rosalina said, they never quite live in the same way, so the Universe was destroyed in the big Bang, an the new Universe is similar to the old one, but mixed together and different. 24.205.92.204 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss the Plot ending, make a new article in the discussion. In my opinion, the qoute should be qouted, since they are Mario's only words (except for some "Huh's" and "Ya's"). And i don't really see any difference between qouting him, or make it a sentence. 86.88.117.225 (talk)


 * I'm pretty sure that it's "Galaxies". If you notice, absolutely everything got sucked into one area.  Not just one galaxy was sucked in, all of them were.  He is welcoming ALL the galaxies that are now with their galaxy, not just one of the galaxies.--  Shroopliss  T/C\U 03:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

There are my reasons, now I want to see why were SHOULD mention them. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Super Mario Sunshine is one example. I think it's notable that a game gets a perfect score, as this the the best score a game can get. I also added this because it fits well into the lead. I want to make this a GA like SMS and SM64 (which hopefully soon will become an FA). In order to achieve this status, the article needs a lead which summarises the text. The Prince (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Acutally alot of the time to summerise reception, Game Rankings and Metacritic are used alot and no offense but you're making it seem like its rare for any game to get a 10/10... LOTS OF GAMES get 10/10. I perfectly understand what you're getting at but I'd use the review round up sites if I were you since thts a better indication than just 2 of 60+(?) reviews. And of course we have a rough list later in the article. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, no single publication these days is notable enough for a top-of-the-page mention. It used to be Famitsu until Kotaku exposed its shenanigans and people stopped taking it seriously. The "extremely positive reviews from the collective gaming press" sentence stands well enough on its own, I think. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "LOTS OF GAMES get 10/10" Not for publications that set quotas to prevent too many titles from getting perfect or near-perfect scores (which in turn, creates the false perception that they are "harsh" critics). I still stand by my above comment. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Woah! Multiple responses:


 * Wiki6 - Thats perfectly fine. I would rather leave it as just "postives reviews", the GR ref was just to see if that could be a substiute for the other current issue at hand.


 * Prince - Actually I didn't so much as revert/undo but changed it to GR which seems more plausbile than just 2 random reviews. But fair enough, I'll check to make sure the refs are still there. But ref or no ref, I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to be required to mention those. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it myself. Just remember to do it the next time. The Prince (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't see any problem with the way the plot is described now, since it only contains obvious moments thagt can be traced back to the game's scenes itself. &#91;&#91;User:Moccamonster&#124;Moccamonster&#93;&#93; (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The plot is way too long the way you want it. Mario 3D games aren't known for their plot, but their innovative gameplay. That's why it got trimmed down to one paragraph. For examples, see Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario 64, and please don't bring the original plot back. The Prince (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosalina's description of the Luma's, their lifestyle and other related things regarding the Luma's is much more than the plot from any previous Mario game. both Bowsers plot and Rosalina's story are described in the game. The plot section is fine the way it is now. &#91;&#91;User:Moccamonster&#124;Moccamonster&#93;&#93; (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's excessive, and we need to follow Wikipedias guidelines (WP:PLOT). If you continue reverting, I'll get an admin to block you. Please cooperate. The Prince (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole Rosalina/Luma side-story is not of interest to the main story. What Rosalina did as a child is not relevant to Mario saving the princess, or any of the game play for that matter. Afterall, several reviewers thought that subplot was out of place to begin with. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting the plot?
The "new" version of the plot section is terrible and has no detail. It sounds like something that Nintendo would put on the back of the box of the game. I'm reverting to back to the old version. Knowitall (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See for my reason. The Prince (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The plot section is meant for telling the basic story of the game, not transliterating every event that occurs (i.e. Mario must play hide and seek with the rabbits; the scene cuts to Mario, Peach, and Bowser). If the basic idea can be told so that a person unknowing of the game can understand it, then a completely detailed synopsis is unneeded. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. Games like FFVII and FFX are known for having a detailed plot, and therefore they have bigger plot sections. It's as simple as that. The Prince (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we at least say how it ends and stuff, instead of it being like a "Back of the game box" description? It seems so lazy this way, like its a newly created aricle and it still needs to be expanded. Why is Wikipedia so insistent on REMOVING information recently? Anyway, make it like the Sunshine story section (with another quick paragraph discussing what actually happens in the game) and I can accept that. I cannot however accept a teaser paragraph that does not even say how the game ends or what happens at any point beyond the very beginning of the game. Knowitall (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough. Keep it concise, though. The Prince (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Knowitall. We can make the plot shorter like Prince described, as long as it doesn't become a trailer/teaser like description. As long as the key elements are described, it will probably be fine. Moccamonster (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make a short plot section while still showing the most important elements. Of course, it can probably be shortened, so any shortening and criticism (in a good, polite way) is welcome. Moccamonster (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was too long, so I reverted your edits. Please attemt to keep it concise. The Prince (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I put in my version of the ending description, making it as brief as possible. Rosalina's subplot is not needed to tell the main story (plus people unfamiliar with the game wouldn't be able to make sense of it). --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice plot you made. Seems like a pretty much perfect version to me. Everyone agrees? Great work on the gameplay section too. Moccamonster (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nice work on the gameplay section as well, Thomas. The Prince (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work Thomas, I like the new plot section and good work with the gameplay section. Knowitall (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection?
Seeing the vandalism on this article, should we consider asking for protection of this article? Moccamonster (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I'm getting tired of reverting all these IP addresses. The Prince (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nausea?
Should the article talk about how this game has caused nausea in some players?

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks_vol1_page2.jsp http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/987007468831/p/3 http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=245668&page=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.234.39 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, not notable enough. The last two links are forums, which can't be used as sources. The Prince (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And besides, it's either a joke (which i think it is) in the first link or personal issues like in the latter two. Moccamonster (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Won

 * Amazon.com (merchant; not really notable)
 * Edge
 * GAME (UK) (merchant)
 * (GameFAQs) (readers' poll; doesn't really matter)
 * Gamespot
 * Gametrailers
 * IGN
 * Kotaku
 * Nextgen
 * Nintendo Power
 * PALGN
 * Yahoo! Games

Didn't Win

 * 1UP.com (Bioshock)
 * EGM (Bioshock)
 * Eurogamer (Portal)
 * Gamepro (Call of Duty 4)
 * Game Informer (Call of Duty 4)
 * Game Developers Choice Awards (Portal/Orange Box)
 * Interactive Achievement Awards (Call of Duty 4)
 * Spike TV (Halo 3)
 * X-Play (Bioshock)
 * TOTALS: CoD4-3; Bioshock-3; OB/Portal-2; Halo 3-1

Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * We can't list all of them, the more notable sites like IGN, GameSpot etc are already there so we shouldn't have much of a problem. What we need is a link that has all it won like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nor is it worth mentioning what it didn't win or hasn't been mentioned yet... Stabby Joe (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted this purely for information because someone else had been wondering. I agree that only the big ones should be mentioned in the article, though none of these are exactly trivial, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link with most, if not all of them? Because that way we can post it next to the statments that say it won awards. No way in hell can we mention al the above, just like we don't mention all the reviews. Plus, an award from Nintendo Power wouldn't be game of the year since they arelimited to one company, mor elike Nintendo game of the year. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This list makes it rather clear that it has won the most GOTY awards. I'm adding the line "The game has received extremely positive reviews from the gaming press and won more game of the year awards than any other 2007 release." back into the article. Knowitall (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can add that up but we will need a citation that does list them all. Alot of the time its on their offical site. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need a citation that lists them all if we have links to all of the individual GOTY awards it has won. It has clearly won more GOTY awards then any game this year. Knowitall (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I can get several citations but they're all blogs I think. Knowitall (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my point is we don't list them all. If we do it will take up way to much space and will make the page unpresentable. Every page I've come across always does this but ends up mentioning the awards from the most notable sources with a link for all of them, we can't mention everyone. Its not hard, most of the time you can find its official game or publisher's website. I don't know why you're making a fuss over something so reasonable that other game articles do. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find a page listing that though, besides blogs. If we know that it has won the most GOTY awards, why do we need a source? Also, this is the best thing I could find. Knowitall (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be better for a link because it its such a bold claim and only people here who are most likely SMG fans know how many it won but everyone else will be skeptical because theres no way we can list them all... we know how many it won but this article isn't for us if you get my point. But I've just thought of something, first off do these blogs have links of their own? And secondly awards season isn't over yet so maybe we can get something after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabby Joe (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Development Section
The Development section is extremely sparse, as it mostly covers the release date log of the game, rather than the actual development itself. I suggest that more info regarding the ideas around the game should be added. Two things I can think of are how the spherical world concept originated in Super Mario 128, and how the first proto-type came to be-- Miyamoto trying out different versions of the game, commenting on how "spicy" or "delicious" different versions felt. The Iwata Asks interview goes into detail about the development very much, I suggest that this be a very good source of info for later edits. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's all sourced, i don't see any problems with expanding it, as long as it won't become extremely long. 86.88.117.225 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thomas. Why is it bad that the development section becomes long? That's what is needed; more real-world content, and less in-universe content. The Prince (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with long. I said "extremely long". With that, i mean like 2 pages covering the every bit of detail(and with that i mean EVERY bit). 86.88.117.225 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Small cleanup. First sentence contradicted article and was not sourced. First sentence stated that Galaxy was not 128, but then went on to talk about a 2000 demo. That 2000 demo was a part of the Mario 128 "experiments". Sheeeeeeep (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

According to issue 234 of Gamepro, Super Mario Galaxy is the highest rated game in history
"Nintendo's moustached mascot dethroned Ocarina of Time as the highest rated game of all time, averaging an astonishing 97.8 percent across 35 different review scores" Still though, that is only 35, I don't kno whow many critics rated OOT. Radiohumor (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true. Mario Galaxy did surpass OoT at 31 reviews vs. 31 reviews (in fact, all the way up to 52 vs. 31), but due to alleged data manipulation by the GameRankings editor, this is no longer the case. Because of these concerns, we (the editors of WikiProject Video Games) have come to a consensus to stop citing rankings entirely. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well actually it was just you who thought there was a conspiricy, DON'T try and pass off what was widely discredited as fact to users who don't know why. What we did agree on however is mention of rankings is considered BIASED in wiki pages. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

242 Stars
There seems to be a disagreement on the number of Power Stars available in the game. I personally argue that the game offers 242 to collect, total. First Mario gets all 120 stars, and then Luigi gets all 120, making 240. Then, for each brother, a new star is opened, giving 242. I would consider Luigi's star collecting to be slightly different due to the increased difficulty. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the last star count for both brothers? In that case, it would be 242. Moccamonster (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is generally accepted that there are 121 stars that all can be gotten twice.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Nom
This article looks great, and the game has been out for a long time. I used to edit the article before it came out, and the article has come a long way since then. So, I nominated it for ga status. Epass (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was inappropriate. The article still needs a lot of work on the development and reception sections. You should have discussed this first. The Prince (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The game has been out for over 3 months. All major problems have been addressed. It doesn't have to be super-mega-perfect, it's just GA, not FA. It isn't under heavy editing anymore, so if there is something that needs fixing, it should be fixed, not just talked about. Epass (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read this you'll probably understand that it's not ready yet. The "Sales performance" section also needs to be trimmed. And why are you implying that GA doesn't need to fulfill certain criteria? Before the things I mentioned are improved, this article is not GA material. The Prince (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant that I don't think the article is good enough for FA, but it is for GA. I suggest you add a template to the sales performance section. If there had been a template I would have not nominated it. I will withdraw my nomination and add said template to the article if you would like. I don't enjoy being in arguments. Epass (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. It is getting close to GA though, and when the things I mentioned are done, the article can be re-nominated. The Prince (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the two templates that I found describe the problem best. If anyone can find better ones, don't hesitate in changing them. Epass (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd approve it if the article didn't include guide content as it does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is fine. I don't really see any game guide content in the article, at all. It's just information about the gameplay of the game, which is a good thing. Game guide content is "To get this star you must blah blah jump on the goomba blah blah" Knowitall (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "To get this end-game bonus, you must collect all of the stars". How many featured articles discuss end-game bonuses, and for the ones that do, how many have more notable ones than this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm insane, but I think that's fine to say what the SECOND CHARACTER YOU CAN PLAY AS IN THE GAME IS. Perhaps you can remove how to unlock him, but I really don't see it as game guide content. Knowitall (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a secret character, it's not like we're presenting two equal characters, like we would if we were writing of the original Super Mario Bros. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends upon the interpretation of how significant it is. Personally, I feel that it's needless to say how to get it, like" you must collect all of the stars". However, in omitting any reference to Luigi, the article may not be comprehensive. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could say Luigi becomes playable if certain conditions are met or something like that. I agree that Luigi should be mentioned somewhere. Epass (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation?
I know Zero Punctuation did a review on this game, but I wanted to see if it fit into your Reception section. People are divided on reviews being part of a Wiki, so I wanted to ask first. If you want to see the video prior to posting (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/2768-Zero-Punctuation-Super-Mario-Galaxy) If you think it will add to the Wiki, I'll be happy to set the link. JPalumbo (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need more reviews since that part of the article is pretty messy, but i don't know what other people think of this. 217.166.85.2 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say not to add it, as Zero Punctuation is by no means an official review; it's more a Windows Movie Maker version of It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine). -  Jéské  ( v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That is the exact reason I wanted to ask first. Have a great day guys and excellent wiki page! JPalumbo (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers
Okay, let's discuss. What's your reason, besides "you cannot censor me" to add spoilers, as well as game guide content, to a section that the reader would have no expectation of any being in said section? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please show me a guideline that backs up you statement. If you can't find one, it's just your opinion on how things should be done. And if you're saying that I was the one who said that quote, you're wrong. I said that "Wikipedia is not censored". There's a difference. The Prince (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, fun idea, you know how Wikipedia also requires rationale? Well, see, since you don't provide rationale for making a spoiler in a section that never at any point implies that there will be a single spoiler in it, and since there's absolutely no rationale for even mentioning the spoiler, why can't I remove it? I actually provide an argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article he linked? "On Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." There, that will end this.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically, if I merge plot into gameplay, you cannot revert it, because that would be censorship. Don't link to guidelines and say "it may not be a good reason, but this is my reason! Read it plox". So, c/p the entry that explains why it's necessary to mention it in the article at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "On Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail." This good of an entry? Moccamonster (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to include anything that can be said about Mario Galaxy, not this particular detail. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with The Prince. Articles SHOULD include the full plot in detail. There are many reason for doing this. One reason would be that, for example, two friends are in an argument over an aspect of the game, for example, does bowser die? One should be able to go to wikipedia, and check that. Another reason, and probably a better one, is for research and hypothesis. If someone was to write a paper on the predictability of video game endings, they don't want to have to buy the game, play it, then figure out how to make it into a hard copy for their paper, they should just be able to go on Wikipedia, and look up the information they need. The storyline, ending, and other important details and plot SHOULD be included in the article, with an Spoiler disclaimer visible at the very top, of course. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Music
In the Music section, the quote "A normal MIDI style is used during the fight, but when Bowser becomes vulnerable, a chorus style of the song is used." is technically incorrect. it is not a "MIDI" style.

i have ripped the streams from the mario disc and the boss music is actually two orchestral pieces which line up exactly, when the boss is vulnerable a choral piece is used. during normal gameplay the percussion score is used. the wii simply jumps to the same point in the different tracks to create the effect, but is isn't a 'midi' track which would imply the music was being generated by the wii's sound chip 'live'. it's just not true. i will make the edit if you want, but i thought i'd add it to the discussion incase anybody thinks it's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.190.234 (talk • contribs)
 * Go ahead. It's a good thing you brought it up on the talk page first. The Prince (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, good arguments have been delivered, so as far as i can see there are no problems with changing it. 86.88.117.225 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed something else in the Music section; it refers to one of the bosses as King Bone. Now, I know that the name of the music in the soundtrack is 'King Bone', but in the game (US and Europe versions anyway) he is called Kingfin. 1: Is this even edit-worthy? 2: Can anyone back this up or provide a credible citation? If not, don't worry about it; it isn't particularly vital to the article. 82.32.90.49 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the album is Japan-exclusive, the tracks are translated directly from the original track names, thus retaining the transliterated Japanese names, like King Bone, so it should be kept as it is. Interestingly, when the English track names are attained online (at least through iTunes), it actually does provide the localized American name next to the Japanese one (e.g. "Ota King (King Kaliente)", "Boss Kamek (Boss Kamella)", and so forth), so the English track titles in the article are the official English titles to those tracks anyhow. I was lucky enough to get my hands on a copy so I can verify this. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I'm a bit of a newbie, as you can see. 82.32.90.49 (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the music section, is there really any need of including the platinum cover image? I think it's redundant as it's almost identical to the other one, and therefore doesn't really add anything to the article. Removing it will also get rid of the white space. The Prince (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying what the end game bonus is
Is there really any reason to not put this in the article? I mean, it's informative, and it's the first time Luigi has been a 3D Mario game. We could give a quick mention to the SM64 rumors as well. I think it should be added back into the article, but I won't do so before a discussion. Knowitall (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have to use discretion. No policy or guideline suggests we include all information that one may be able to fit in. How important is it that Luigi's Cosmic races are harder? A hypothetical, unlockable stage wouldn't get a mention, why should Luigi? It's nothing more than guide content. The only reason it would get more significant mention is because it is a significant event in the game. However, it is not gameplay. It's a hidden unlockable. It is not especially notable, and not widely covered. In fact, I would venture to say that there's far more notable unlockables in many, many other games - Melee's Tamagon trophy, Melee's Mario & Yoshi/Helmetless Samus trophy - Hell, Mr. Game & Watch in Melee is more notable, by the fact that this is the first new, original game that he has been playable in since the early 80's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those two trophies are hardly significant, and Mr. Game & Watch is shown in the Melee article in the form of a picture. How is it not notable? This is the first time Luigi has been playable in a console, main Mario series platformer game since 1991! I've like to see some other people's opinion's on this. Knowitall (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Luigi's inclusion itsself isn't necesarily game-guide content, but saying that his races are harder and what his physics differ from Mario can be considerd game-guide content. Moccamonster (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Tamagon trophy is an example of the censorship that existed in Melee, where Nintendo altered several trophies (or flat-out removed them, in Tamagon's case).
 * The Mario & Yoshi/Helmetless Samus trophies are a part of a promotion where players can have these trophies added to their memory cards.
 * There must be something to establish the end-game bonus' notability, but what establishes the notability of the trivial thing you present? You need to establish how notable it is that Luigi hasn't been playable since 1991 on a console, main Mario platformer. All I can say is your reasoning is dubious at best, and unless you can show why it is so notable, please remove it from the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Game-guide material would be things like saying that Luigi has different races and physics. The FACT that he is included (which can't be denied in any way) is not game-guide material (though i do agree that it will probably be in most game-guides about this game). 86.88.117.225 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What relevance does it have? To say that he appears for following a certain condition is a game is game guide content. How many featured articles even do that, hm? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moccamonster. We could probably remove the latter. The Prince (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So...can we add that Luigi is in the game, to the article? I'm sick of Wikipedia users insisting on removing information. Also, I'm fine about removing the "different races and physics" part, I guess. Knowitall (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Not everything needs to be on the article. Stages are an important part of SSBM, but we don't list them, do we? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not that important. The fact that Luigi is in the game needs to be in the article. Look at this section from the The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker article: "After completing the game, the player can replay it with minor modifications: Link starts with the Deluxe Picto Box, making the Nintendo Gallery side-quest possible to complete; Aryll wears a skull dress given to her by pirates; Link can understand the Hylian language; and Link wears his blue crayfish pajamas, worn in the beginning, throughout the game, instead of the traditional green tunic and cap.". Blue crayfish pajamas are certainly less notable then a playable character, don't you think? Knowitall (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And must i note that [The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker]] is a Featured Article? Therefore, with the hidden features when completing the game, is allowable in aforementioned article, therefore it is allowable in this article too. Moccamonster (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And may I note that that's not notable, either? It's a list of secrets. It's a guide. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't allowed then the article wouldn't be featured, agreed? Moccamonster (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So then, I guess you consider a change in clothing to be a notable end-game bonus for a non-playable character? If yes, you're wrong. If no, it's something which slipped throug hthe cracks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, im always wrong and you're always right? I am sure of it that if the article was not according to Wikipedia guidelines, that it would not be a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moccamonster (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because gods are in charge of featured articles, and once an article is featured, it's monitored every second of the day by people with no less than the highest intellect and logic. End-game bonuses are only important of there's nothing significant to make them important. It would be important if it continued the plot, or was widely covered. Is it either, I ask you? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're making a big deal out of this. Why is it so important to you? And why does it say you've retired on your user page? The Prince (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we don't need guide content. Why hasn't anyone shown me a single instance where SMG's end-game bonus content is especially notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Luigi! The character that was rumored to be in SM64 so many times and for so long! Also, very few Nintendo games give you another character to play through the game with after you've been it once. I actually can't think of another one besides SMG. Knowitall (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is that trivial, but you'd be hard-pressed to show that to be true. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know about the trivial part, but it's true. Luigi's hasn't been playable in a Mario platformer since Super Mario 64 DS, but he wasn't even a secret character then. The reason why we should name Luigi in the article is to let the reader know that Luigi is playable, and that there are no rumours about this, like there were in Super Mario 64. Moccamonster (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirby: Canvas Curse unlocks a character for beating the game, Kirby: Nightmare in Dream Land unlocks a character for beating the game, New Super Mario Bros. unlocks Luigi as playable for beating the game. You add on so many conditions to make it seem more significant than it is - "first time Luigi's been playable in an original 3D console Mario platformer", "no other Nintendo games reward you for beating the game with a playable character", etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New Super Mario Bros is a handheld side-scrolling platformer. New Super Mario Bros ALSO notes the inclusion of Luigi. So, right now, all the articles noted in this discussion have the end-game bonusses and even how to get them(though they don't go in specific details). Moccamonster   Talk  17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. So, tell me - of the games with end-game content - let's say, New SMB, SM64, and SMG, how many are featured articles? One. How many mention the end-game content? Two. Which article is featured? SM64. Which article does not mention end-game content? SM64. Oh, and I'm wondering what relevance is in "oh, it's just a handheld sidescrolling platformer." The only reason to add conditions excluding certain things without explaining why they are excluded is desperation and knowing that you can't survive without those unnecessary conditions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't proved any points. It's going in the the article and staying there. Me and Mocca both agree that it should be in....and you haven't proved any good reason to why it shouldn't be. Knowitall (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And please, stop quoting things wrongly, i didn't say "JUST a side-scroller". I said that because it is much harder to make an extra character in a game like SMG, while in NSMB, it is much easier and way more obvious since it's New Super Mario BROS. While you comment that i have no good arguments in regard to articles or "conditions excluding certain things", i haven't heard any good reasons rom you either except for your talking about game-guide content all over again. And when a discussion comes to this level, then it is not a usefull and decent discussion. Moccamonster   Talk  22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My reasoning will come immediately after yours. Not my job to counter-argue nonexistent arguments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, you are the one having a problem with the inclusion in the article. We do not have to prove our right, and right now, you're not in the position to demand things like that. Moccamonster   Talk  09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, fun idea, let's not start focusing on majority rule instead of quality arguments. I'm sorry if I want a good reason for you to provide, but that's your job. I don't provide an argument and then YOU provide an argument for me to counter afterwards with the aforementioned argument. Terrible logic = "we have more people, so we don't HAVE to prove our case, nya nya" - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep a calm tone while discussing, Link. You've misinterpreted Moccamonster's comment; He's saying that you can't change something when there's consensus not to change it, even though you think it's completely absurd to have that information there. If you can't approve of that, you'll have to take it somewhere else, bacause I'm getting mighty sick of such a lame debate. The Prince (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Like The Prince said. In my opinion, it is more than fair to say that when something is added to an article and it has reached consensus, and somebody wishes to change this, then that person should give one or more fair arguments. Moccamonster   Talk  18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia worked that way, vandals would rule all arguments, because they would say "we are in greater number, so the article must be vandalized!". You have to give an argument, provide a single reasoning why Luigi being playable in this game is necessary to mention. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work like that. Adding vandalism is against the rules of Wikipedia, and everyone knows that. Lots of people saying "we want vandalism" doesn't mean vandalism will be condoned. It's ridiculous. Adding "Luigi is playable" is not vandalism. Besides, tons of video game articles mention numerous characters that are playable. Why should this be any different? And don't give me that "well, all those articles will never be GA" bull. If it's allowed on all video game articles, there is no reason to make an exception. It's not against Wikipedia rule, and most people here feel it is a necessary mention. That's the consensus- deal with it. In my view, Luigi being playable is not game guide content, it's merely stating a reward for completing the game, which is not uncommon. You've also failed to recognize that the Purple Comet is also mentioned in the article even though it, like Luigi, is also mentioned as an "unlockable," so your "game guide" argument is actually invalid for you're obviously after specific details regardless of standing. And as a final note, what Mocca and Prince are saying is that you're trying to eliminate information from the article, and willing to state your view only by arguing against someone else because you cannot create a legitimate argument of your own. --ThomasO1989 (talk)
 * Um, see, I'm kind of confused. I mean, I fail to see why the one who actually provides several arguments based on reality, me, cannot make an argument, but people hiding behind some laughable consensus to avoid having to make an argument, can. Let me assess your arguments: They either are nonexistent or are terribly mediocre. Why is the Purple Comment even mentioned? The presence of bad content does not validate the presence of more bad content. Why do you constantly refuse to give an argument? Let me guess - because you aren't capable of it? The fact of the matter is that hidden characters are not notable unless there's reason to say they are. Is this a special playable character? No. He's just another unlockable. We see a list of characters in FF articles - not a list of playable ones, but a list of characters in general, playable ones separate for the sake of separating the hero's team from NPCs and villains. Why do we need to list unlockables?
 * And I reiterate the spoilers point. Let us ask one thing - why were spoiler warnings abolished? Because they were being used in sections where spoilers were to be expected. People never said that "spoilers can be anywhere in the article that people choose to place them". There's no expectation that there would be a spoiler in the Gameplay section. The major spoiler of Half-Blood Prince was extremely notable, but does it need to be mentioned in a section that would not obviously have such an utterance? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok Link, this is no way we can have a fair discussion. You keep saying that we don't give any arguments, that we are always wrong and that you're arguments are good. And yet again, you have not understood my argument about the consensus. I did not say that it is about our greater numbers, it is because we have reached consensus, which the numbers of people having reached consensus(with which all editors agree on) is irrelevant. And for the "nonexistent or are terribly mediocre" arguments: Luigi has not been playable in a Console Mario Platformers since Super Mario Bros 3 (i think). Therefore, it is important to note that he is playable, since it's his first 3D appearance in general in a Console platformer since Luigi's Mansion. Moccamonster   Talk  12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly - "terribly mediocre". How many conditions are on there? Luigi has to be playable, it has to be a console game, it has to be a Mario game, it has to be a platforming game, it has to be a 3D game, it has to be a new game. After you've eliminated SO many games solely to make Luigi being in so notable, it just becomes trivial and laughable. Why is New SMB exempt? It sold more than 10 million copies, is the second most popular Mario game in Japanese history, and the DS itself is more popular and well-known than the Wii. The fact of the matter is that Luigi hasn't been playable in any original Mario platformer since SMB3. Luigi being in New SMB is far more notable than him being in SMG - he's more easily obtainable in secret form, he's immediately known from looking at the game cover, he's available in the multi-player mode, etc. Luigi being SMG is a hidden bonus that wasn't even covered all THAT much. Not even remotely NEAR the coverage of Luigi in New SMB. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if the Super Mario 64 article says that Luigi is playable in Galaxy, then why does the Super Mario Galaxy article say it? Knowitall (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it fell through the cracks. Spoilers of a different game with no expectation that the spoiler will be in said section is not protected by that "no spoiler warning" guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "it has to be a console game", There are differences in handheld and console games.
 * "it has to be a Mario game", isn't that obvious?!
 * "it has to be a platforming game", because there are lots of spin-offs in which he is playable, but those are completely different games (like Mario party, sports etc).
 * "it has to be a 3D game", because making secondary playable 3D character is much harder then 2D.
 * "it has to be a new game", because the game we are discussing in here is the newest in the serie.
 * All we have heard from you is saying that our arguments are "laughable" while i haven't heard any good arguments except for you saying that "Luigi being SMG is a hidden bonus that wasn't even covered all THAT much". That is a far to vague argument. Moccamonster   Talk  17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see this as worth arguing about anymore. It's not going anywhere. Link, your problem is that you can't argue in a calm, respectable way. Being sarcastic and arrogant is not going to strengthen your argument. It only shows you can't give evidence in a mature manner so you resort to attempting to belittle people as if it makes you more relevant. STOP. If you cannot argue without resorting to crap like "Uh, fun idea", or putting down others' arguments as "laughable" or "mediocre" without consideration, then there's no reason to continue this discussion: Luigi stays, that's final. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you really warrant respect. You claim that I have no argument, and then wait for all the respect and kind words to fall in? You contribute nothing with your horrible, horrible replies, Thomas. Hopefully, you will never utter another word.
 * Yeah, I forgot, the fact that I can put a handheld in my pocket is such a significant difference. Luigi is basically a modified Mario in both New SMB and SMG. The fact that you can play through the game as a modified Mario isn't noteworthy at all.
 * Oh, yeah, I forgot, the lack of coverage on a subject is vague. That's definitely not a good reason to exclude Luigi in SMG. Does that also mean that lack of coverage can never be used, even though it should be used as often as humanly possible? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're actually saying that being arrogant, sarcastic, and hostile is contribution, and pointing out the flaws in your argument and your reasoning strategy is "horrible, horrible?" I hardly believe that. Everyone here is willing to argue respectfully. You however choose to shoot down everyone else and disregard their opinions. Such a strategy will not help you. Your arrogance and hostility will not persuade me, nor anyone else here, to agree with you and it never will. Honey works better than vinegar. Respecting people and their opinions goes a lot farther, which is why I pointed out that this discussion is going nowhere, because you simply refuse to do so. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My God, is it still talking?
 * Yeah, you sure do deserve respect. Oh, crap, my bad - that sarcasm going at it again. So you ask for respect and don't act in a way that warrants a single drop of it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, refering to me as an "it" is a foolish attempt to discredit me and isn't going to help you gain support. This isn't about me and you know it. This is about you. You should respect everyone. And you haven't. Look at this whole discussion. You have been acting the same to everyone else long before I came in. It has never helped you. You're in no position to be acting this way if you actually want people to agree with you and change the consensus. Are you simply saying that people who don't agree with you are "disrespectful" and therefore can't have a say in something? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Thomas. I have had it with the constant arguing with someone who seemingly can't behave in a discussion. And now i will probably get reactions like "You are just agreeing so you won't have to give any arguments because you don't have any good arguments". But if this is the way you(Link) behave in a discussion, then i will simply retreat. Moccamonster   Talk  10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In a different article, there was an argument like this, and I think 2 or 3 people got blocked. So I agree with Moccamonster. This should get toned down a bit. Epass (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me take the responsibility of ending this goalless, drawn-out discussion. The consensus remains that Luigi is a notable mention in the article on account that no argument could be civilly and maturely made against it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it would take an act of God to get a single reason out of your mouths as to why this should be besides "it's the only original, main, new, full 3D, console Mario to feature Luigi as a character hidden deep within the game as playable!". New SMB did it first, and it was more notable. Hell, New SMB was the first new original Mario game to feature Luigi. Hell, it was the first new original Mario game since SMB3 to feature Luigi as a significant feature on the cover. I do believe it's also the first main Mario game to feature him on the cover besides Mario Bros. But whatever. You're all just far too stubborn, and all I say is "we have a consensus! We don't NEED a good argument, but since you're all by yourself, you DO", as if this is a vote. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, discussion's over. If you had simply acted civilly to everyone and their opinions, the discussion would have actually gone somewhere. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically, you decided that since you have a consensus, you're allowed to get rid of the discussion? Right. So, Thomas, ever heard of reality? See, it's this little thing that we "exist" in, and it dictates that you have absolutely no ability to end a discussion. The one and only reason you would have to end the discussion is because your arguments are terrible or imaginary. So, sorry, discussion isn't over. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious you're ignoring all my statements about the way you behave. As you can see, I can tell you what I think of you without being absolutely rude or making belittling statements against people that are, as you have mentioned, "imaginary." In "reality," people get ahead a lot farther without resorting to arrogance, which is why this discussion has gone nowhere, and never will. It's not just the arguments that move ahead a discussion. It's how the people within it behave. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really shocked that you think I should give you respect. YOU are the one who started "antagonizing" the discussion by implying that I had no legitimate argument. So, if this discussion ends, it's because of your trolling me, not my response to it. I still haven't seen any guideline supporting the inclusion of Luigi as a super secret unlockable playable character. Why is that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm about two seconds from taking this to arb com. So, everybody just calm down and be civil please. Or I will take this to arb com.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 00:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Link, the reason why you haven't heard any "good" arguments, is because you immediatly think our arguments are "mediocre". And when you keep saying that our arguments are "terrible or imaginary" then nobody will really feel obliged to giving arguments anymore. Moccamonster   Talk  11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That is why this discussion has gone nowhere since no middle ground can be reached this way. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The very instant I establish that you are the one who derailed the discussion, Thomas, you don't even discuss it. Shocking.
 * Also, you never provided quality arguments, even when I was being half-way polite. You can thank Thomas here for starting the chain of trolling. The fact of the matter is that the only arguments you've ever provided are "it's notable". Why? You gave a very laughable set of conditions to make it seem notable, even though Luigi was JUST playable in another game, in fact, prominently - not a secret, super-secret, so-secret-you'll-probably-never-find-him character - but in the exact same capacity as in the original games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you continue attacking people with your condescending remarks, you will get blocked, Link. That would be your 17th block, so I suggest you cool down and let this discussion end. The Prince (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'd like to say that Arb-Com is a last resort&mdash;Request for Comment and others should be taken before that. I'd also like it if this discussion could actually revert back to the debate itself, and not other users' conduct. For the actual discussion, I'd say that he should be mentioned. Luigi is a notable character by Wikipedia's standards, so him being playable should be included as this indicates that it's not trivia. Theoretically, his inclusion also doubles the game's duration. I'm sure that having a passing reference to him shouldn't infringe upon WP:NOT. Thanks. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember to remain civil in this conversation (not specifically you, Ashnard).   jj137   (talk)  21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Link, just drop it. If you have been blocked so many times, why continue to say this stuff to users? I mean, come on; it's a VIDEO GAME! I like video games, but I don't take things that far. Geez. Prepsear (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
Upon its review on March 23, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

"contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced, etc, or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, huh, or similar tags"

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Epass (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Be honest, this article has flaws, firstly a short reception. 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

X-Play review
I've tried everything. Would someone please try to put X-Play's review on.{http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1665/Super_Mario_Galaxy.html} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The box is already too big, and doesn't need X-Play's review. The Prince (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Being one of the most notable video game television shows says otherwise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is important enough to include, but it will also make the already big box even bigger. 86.88.117.225 (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why it shouldn't be included. The Prince (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then drop one. I can assure you more people know X-Play than Eurogamer. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't. Let me guess: I'm an idiot? The Prince (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if adding a review at the expense of dropping another just because "more people know about it" is really the way the go. The list of reviewers are there to show what ratings the game got from different critics, not to showcase what this cool, renown guy thinks or something. There's already enough critics mentioned to show that the game is well-liked amongst most reviewers, and X-Play gives SMG a perfect score just like Eurogamer does, so it may be a bit redundant to make the change. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Prince, let me assure you that any disruption such as your "Let me guess: I'm an idiot?" will not garner any reaction. The most you will see is an AN/I from me for harassment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and besides, we need reviews from Europe too, not just the US. The Prince (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides Edge you mean? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The Prince (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping X-Play off to keep a site on just because they're European would make as much sense for removing any other score.
 * Regardless, the list is hardly huge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some other game articles, I agree with Link that SMG's list actually isn't really big compared to those. SMG has 8 critics shown, but SSBB has 11, and LoZ:TP, BioShock and SPM have 10. I'm assuming that a suitable limit to the number of critics listed without going overboard would be 10. Another critic or two to be added to SMG's list wouldn't hurt I guess. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The list could be expanded with the score from X-play, but since it already gives a perfect, like most other reviewers, it doesn't add any vallue in my opinion. Moccamonster   Talk  09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * X-Play might aswell be listed, the issue right now is that the text and the table sizes are different, exapnd the text to solve the problem. And FYI, Eurogamer is listed in many game articles because we want more than just US sources to highlight reception. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone that thinks X-Play should be listed. Off! (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario Galaxy Sales
The Intro states SMG sold 5.19 million copies as of March, yet the Receptions section states 5.19M sold in 2007. Am i missing something or does this imply SMG hasn't sold a single copy in '08? :P Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, never noticed that before... Anyone got a sales chart or something? Moccamonster   Talk  15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian06 performed an incomplete revert. The figure is for 2007, as stated and referenced in the Reception section. Dancter (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Helper Characters
Does this actually add anything to the article? Apologies to whoever wrote it but its not particularly well written and having characters assisting you in the game isn't really a significant part of the gameplay (certainly not on a par with the power-ups for instance). I'm sure Mario 64 and Sunshine had NPCs that helped you get star/shines, although I can't think of any examples right now. :) Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not important, so i already deleted it. As you said, "helper characters" are normal in Super Mario games. Moccamonster   Talk  16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Incorrectly labled as galaxies"
The article mentions this several times, for example in the second paragraph, it says "Levels take the form of Clusters of Planetiods (incorrectly labled Galaxies)while gameplay is updated with a variety of gravity effects and new power-ups."

Is this necessary? In the game, instruction booklet, etc they are constantly referred to as "galaxies", not "clusters of planetoids" (which is what the article refers to galaxies as from this point on). Whether this is deemed a "correct" definition or not doesn't really seem relevant to the article. 68.57.54.195 (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: not only is it unnecessary, it's easier to just say "galaxy" as "cluster" sounds confusing. Since whoever also changed every mention of "galaxy" into "cluster" in the main body, I restored the original text. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparantly, the japanese definition of a galaxy is anything in space, including planets and sattelites. But Galaxies is easier, this is ok as far as i can see. Moccamonster   Talk  20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot section
I've deleted the paragraphs about Luigi and the Toad Brigade - the plot section should summarise the plot without going into great detail about extraenous characters that are unimportant to the overall story. 212.64.224.241 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

DS Hoax
Should we mention the Super Mario Galaxy DS hoax that was floating around the internet for a while? The 'L is Real' Hoax was mentioned in the Super Mario 64 article, why not this one? --Randoman412 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's completely trivial, just like the L is real. Besides, the DS hoax is less significant. 217.166.85.2 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should at least be noted that it exists. Just say something like "There's a possibility DS game is in the works, but it is highly unlikely. The first revelation of this was this video: [video link]". That's just my opinion, though...16_BIT_MARIO1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To suggest one is in the works without one actually being made is speculation. This is a fan video and nothing more. It does not deserve being mentioned. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Secret Message
I don't know whether it's worthy of recognition or not, but the letters with stars underneath them on the box art spell out U R MR GAY 88.104.103.17 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are aware of this. However, it's not notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually quite striking, and definitely notorious. Southsailor (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And quite unintentional, random, and trivial. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was reached months ago that it is not notable nor appropriate for Wikipedia. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not notable? :S ...Plus every other piece off trivia seems to make it onto Shitipedia, however rubbish...


 * Not for long, though. :D Geoff B (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really believe it was unintentional Southsailor (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can provide a reliable source that confirms that it was intentional, then go ahead and insert it. (-; Otherwise, inserting it flies in the face of so many guidelines and so much common sense that it will be removed instantaneously. clicketyclick yaketyyak 08:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You just don't think it's notable because it makes reference to the word "gay". You people are pathetic. It's still a valid piece of information. Nintendo could get sued... OMG. Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See above infobox before replying something like that. The page is open for discussion, but you need a credible source not opinions that Nintendo possibly could be sued or theories that it was intentional. find a source and then include it in the article that says so. Also Trivia in wikipedia is to be discouraged. A point to ponder. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's discouraged, why do you have a rumours section on SM64? That could be... no, is considered trivia. And the information is noteworthy, to say the least. And learn to use a comma. You needed at least 4 in the above section, and you used one. A point to ponder... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Ottawa4ever said, this page is open for discussion. If you can find a credible source that either states it was intentional on Nintendo's part or that it caused a lot of commotion within the gaming community (as the L is Real rumor did), then tell us. Otherwise, it's merely a coincidence. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC) That's true. No, it hasn't caused commotion, and it might be a coincidence. Whatever. YOU'RE SO DIFFICULT! You're all difficult. Why do I bother? WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Different gameplay
Shouldn't it be mentioned that the game plays quite different from 64 and Sunshine, and focuses far far less on exploration and instead on linear paths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exploration and linear play? Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy have similar gameplay. The castle and obervatory serve as the HUB from which worlds with different levels can be accesed. Linear gameplay would be that the player is required to finish the levels/worlds in a particular order. Moccamonster   Talk  08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Super Mario 64 is far more focused on exploration. It plants you in this level and you try and find the star. Galaxy is far more linear, it puts you in the level and you follow the clearly marked path to the star. They are very different takes on the 3D Mario game. Knowitall (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Sounds like something we can put in the article. 217.166.85.2 (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who's used to editing Wikipedia put that in please? 91.105.96.56 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Point. While on SM64, the levels were overall worlds with different areas to explore, Galaxy is a lot more linear.--Wariodude64 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)