Talk:New Super Mario Bros. U

Might not be a real game

Didn't Reggie say that the Wii U games shown wouldn't actually become real games? If that's the case, I don't think this page is really necessary.--Kingplatypus 17:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure Reggie said that the games available to try out on Wii U at E3 2011 were not prototypes of actual Wii U games & were just demos to show off the system, I'm not so sure if this page is necessary, all though it might be worth mentioning on the Mario series page, but I really am not sure about it having it's own page. EpiSonic (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it could be a planned game, but like any subject, it needs significant coverage in third party reliable sources. There is only one shown in the article. If this is not fixed, then the article needs to be merged to New Super Mario Bros. Wii. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It could go either way. The original Luigi's Mansion was originally a tech demo that became a full game but a Zelda tech demo that came out at the same time did not become a full game and was instead replaced with the Wind Waker, a Zelda game that used a completely different graphic style.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammar error?

I found in the first paragraph, the text "It is unknown if the game will released in a final state." Somehow doesn't seem like it is correct grammar. "will released in" is the part I'm concerned about. "Will be released in" or "will release in" sound like possible candidates for the correction, but of course, I could be the one asking for no reason. --75.150.46.230 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merged to New Super Mario Bros. Wii per consensus shown below; copy/paste merge noted on both pages

---

{{I think this page should be merged into New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's a stub here, a stub on Super Mario Wiki, basically we don't know enough about it to give it it's own page. A section and a redirect would do good, better than a whole page. We could also merge in a fair use image. --Nathan2055^talk 17:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - While there are more sources available like these([1][2][3]), I don't think there would be enough content where it would not fit nicely in the other article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to put a notice on the WikiProject Video games talkpage. While I'm at it, I'll do the same thing at the Nintendo task force. If you are going to put in support, place "*'''Support''' - " before your comment. --Nathan2055^talk 00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - clearly not notable and doesn't seem a confirmed game.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It's even dubious whether it's a real game. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I don't see why this couldn't be a subsection like Mortal Kombat Gold or Mortal Kombat: Unchained and considering how much info. we have so far, it wouldn't have a hefty section at that. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support First of all, this game is merely a demo. Probably it isn't real. Secondly, it is a mere stub and would fit in the New Super Mario Bros. Wii article. Androids101 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the price «trivial»?

The following paragraph was removed on 03:06, 8 April 2013‎ by WikiPediaAid with rationale «Removed trivial information»:

• «The sum total of playing the game with four players (including all necessary hardware except the television) is in some regions above USD 1.000.»

Is the price of playing the game trivial information? I disagree but am interested in hearing community feedback.Bjornte (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is extremely trivial. It is not covered by any reliable sources and it does not impart any useful information to the reader about the game itself and assumes that the reader is interested in playing or buying the game. Furthermore, that reference is also from a blog that appears to be owned by you, so you are citing yourself and that suggests a conflict of interest and a question of verifiability. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it is trivial. Unless it's getting a lot of coverage, WP:NOPRICE applies. For example, it'd be notable to include the price of the PlayStation Vita in its article, because there's an endless supply of reliable sources citing that as a reason for it not selling well. But just random observations by a singular blogger? Not noteworthy. (Besides, is it even that out of the ordinary? I bet it'd be in a similar price range to buy a PS3, 3 controllers, and a copy of Madden 2013 too. Or just any scenario where you'd be buying a new system and equipment for 4 player multiplayer.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, per ThomasO1989's reasonings. Given the fact that the reference is from a blog owned by you, it also provides a question of verifiability and self-published sources should not be used. Also, are you aware of our conflict of interest guidelines? Typically those that have declared a COI would voluntarily restrict themselves to making suggestions, providing sources, and pointing out errors in the article on the article talk page. I have no problems with you editing other articles, just using the blog written by yourself as a reliable source. Let's take Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for example of pricing. Per Sergecross73, unless A New Hope or The Force Unleashed's prices have gained a lot of coverage, WP:NOPRICE applies here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hi, OK, I wasn't aware of the WP:NOPRICE or the conflict of interest issue. Noted and won't repeat. Bjornte (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for understanding, a lot of people get pretty upset when a bunch of rules are thrown at them like that. Let me know if you have future questions on how things work here. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New Super Luigi U

I think New Super Luigi U needs its own article. Pokebub22 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering it's only really an add-on for NSMB.U and there isn't a great deal to say about it, I feel it's best just leaving it in this article. DarkToonLink (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet after its release, particularly the retail disc, there will be several media outlets talking about the DLC game in its own right. A future, separate article is plausible, just like New Super Luigi U itself eventually becoming a separate purchase. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There are loads of reviews of Super Luigi U. There's also this interview and this one about the game, as well as this info about the sales. Considering that, this definitely should be it's own article. I'll try doing it. 和DITOREtails 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC) [4]

Wii U Pro Controller "having all the necessary buttons"

This is actually inaccurate, as there are a few levels in the game that use motion controls on the GamePad and Wii Remote (specifically the tilting platforms also seen in NSMBW). The Pro Controller doesn't have that. With the patch announced (which I added to the article), it'll be interesting to see how Nintendo addresses that issue. --Thunderbird8 (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The comment isn't an attempt to be accurate, it's a biased complaint about the game not initially supporting the controller. Thanks for catching it and removing it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Personal observation"

"Many of the musical themes are taken from New Super Mario Bros. Wii." I don't agree that this should be removed from the article. 80% of the soundtrack comes from that game, so it's not like it's anything minor. I guess it's not that important to fight over, but it's still relevant, accurate info, even if it's technically a "personal observation" ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, how did you get your "80%" number for how much of the soundtrack was brought over? What if it's really less than that, or more? Another user may say "oh, maybe half of it is from New Super Mario Bros. Wii" and change it, then another will say "no, it's all from New Super Mario Bros. Wii" and change it. If we have a source, say an interview with the composers, saying, "We took maybe half of the themes from New Super Mario Bros. Wii and the rest are all-new compositions", then that eliminates the problem and the guesswork. That is the biggest reason why personal observations are not permitted; it's your observation, not necessarily everyone's observation, no matter how "obvious" you feel it is. --McDoobAU93 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If the info is as obvious as you state it is, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source that says so. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

More in depth explanation of gameplay

We all know this game is simple run and jump, but it still needs to be described in detail. This section, for standard gameplay at least, only really says how "this game is similar to the last one". Shouldn't it be expanded? Le Panini ^Talk 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Super Mario Bros. U/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 04:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've kept an eye on this page for a while just because of the amount of vandalism it gets and because I intended to flesh it out. I was real confused to see this be nominated for GAN because, at the moment, it is nowhere near GA-level right now. Because of this, I've decided to immediately fail this, because there simply exist way too many issues at hand that makes me feel keeping this open would be inappropriate.

• The writing varies in quality. Sometimes the article overexplains certain details (why do I need to know that the other New Super Mario Bros. games don't have a seamless map? Why is that even important to mention?),
• other times it doesn't even mention key details (such as basic player moves). It's also real choppy, and frankly just isn't very interesting to read.
• The article sections are relatively the same, with some being excessively long (Gameplay)
• and others way too short for a game like this (Reception).
• I also do not like how some info, such as most of the Development section, aren't merged into other sections are just floating around with no real context behind them.
• The reception itself is my biggest problem. There's over twenty reviews in the review score box to the right (it shouldn't even really be that long), most of which aren't even in the text, and it's only like two paragraphs and a free-floating sentence. It's simply unacceptable to have a GA with a reception that tiny. What's there isn't good either, because in addition to more awkward word choices it doesn't really do a proper job at actually explaining the what and why, since it's mostly just reviewers saying "this was good" or "this was bad".

I do not like failing GAs because I understand nominators have put a lot of time into these, and it can lead to feelings being hurt. But this article cannot pass at this stage with these three big problems present. Three issues might not seem like much, but they're so important and cover the majority of the page that it simply can't pass. My recommendation would to set up a peer review for this and have other editors take a look at it, and provide some more minor corrections in additions to the ones I've mentioned here. This article definitely has the potential to be a GA, it just can't right now. You can definitely get it there. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Namcokid47, Thanks for your review! I now know what I need to focus on. I'll get to this soon. I most likely didn't think too hard about this one, as I've been busy with Paper Mario: The Origami King and it's featured article process. Le Panini ^Talk 17:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Nabbit" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nabbit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 7 § Nabbit until a consensus is reached. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"New Super Mario World" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect New Super Mario World has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 8 § New Super Mario World until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)