Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Super Mario Galaxy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Luigi

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Luigi is in the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.26.222 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Box Image

Should it be edited to include the "E" rating label? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.245.98 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Luma

When will the article make mention of Luma? The version in the kiosk (which I persume is the final build) already formally introduces them after meeting Rosalina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.232.145 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Priness Rosalina??

Someone has been changing the name "Rosetta" to "Rosalina" in the plot section lately. Would someone mind fixing this? Anon 16:55 20 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.73.251 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't you fix it? The page doesn't appear to be protected in any way...but I fixed it. -Sukecchi 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is rosalina, check this page and this video too. (check the description on the right and click "more") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.123.218 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I've already asked for page protection, too much warring going on. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is fucking retarded. Obviously, the English name was changed. Seriously, why don't you idiots actually check the sources and do some research instead of going revert-happy like a complete fucktard? Besides, the source cited is Nintendo of Europe's OFFICIAL website, not some random unreliable third-party media site. No need to put both names -- just stick with the English version since this is the English Wikipedia. Unlock the page so I can keep on adding some more juicy content that's recently been revealed on the nintendo.jp website. Wikipedian06 03:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the precedent set by characters who have their names changed for the English version (e.g. Bowser), I've gone ahead and put in a small paranthetical note about Princess Rosalina's name. I imagine she'll eventually get split off into her own article where it will just be mentioned in her introduction (thereby negating the need to mention it here), but until that happens it seems to me that simply recognizing both names for what they are is the best way to stave off a repeat of what happened before the protection. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The page is locked until disputes are settled, and so far, they are far from settled. Also, watch your language. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make an edit, please type the following {{editprotected}} <what you want to be put into the article> Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is being disputed here? Wikipedian06 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're reading above. People can't seem to settle down and leave the page alone, so it's been protected. People kept changing Roselina to Rosetta, adding the UR MR GAY thing which by the way is not an easter egg, it's simply the way the designed the logo. So simply type in what I told you to earlier, and an admin may add in your edit, depending on whether or not it's valid and a good edit. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After this dispute is settled I think it still should be kept on a smaller lock for a short while to keep from the recent vandalism and speculation which has been plaguing this article. Also, just for reference, what is this "UR MR GAY thing" and why does it keep on getting bought up? --Is this fact...? 09:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The twinkling letters in the title spell that out. It's completly ridiculous that people want it in here. It's total nonsense. -Sukecchi 09:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

Old: "The October 2007 issue of Nintendo Power confirmed the return of the Super Mushroom and Fire Flower power-ups"

New: "The October 2007 issue of Nintendo Power confirmed the return of the Super Mushroom [1] and Fire Flower power-ups"

Old: "New gameplay mechanics include Gravity Arrows, which make Mario gravitate in the direction that these arrows point"

New: "New gameplay mechanics include Gravity Arrows, which make Mario gravitate in the direction that these arrows point [2]"

Old: "Star Shards, which can be grabbed simply by moving the cursor over them"

New: "Star Crystals, which can be grabbed using the Wiimote's sensors and then shot as a projectile [3]"

--Is this fact...? 09:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not done YouTube is not generally used as a reliable source. Tra (Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand, although they are gameplay videos, so they must have been taken from elsewhere, most likely online. Could someone find the original source and link the new links? --Is this fact...? 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You do pick them up with the remote and shoot them. I spent the last two hours doing that in my livingroom Southsailor 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Official Game Footage: Luigi in Galaxy

Discuss --Is this fact...? 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He was speculated to appear since this picture: http://www.themushroomkingdom.net/images/ss/smg/060.jpg

It clearly shows a Luigi-like figure in the lower-right, behind the window. However, he has now been officially confirmed in Nintendo Power!

"It's surprising how Mario's scaredy-cat little brother, Luigi, keeps finding himself in the spookiest places. Ghostly Galaxy is packed with giant Boos, trap doors, and one green-suspendered knee-trembling sibling. But saving his bacon is worth the effort- once you get Luigi safely back to the Comet Observatory, he'll help you out in your quest to find more-tricky stars."

This doesn't necessarily mean he is playable, but it should be mentioned. 208.101.156.13 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which section should this be under? Plot...? Gameplay..? --Is this fact...? 23:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we mention it in plot. could someone make that edit please?Madhatter9max 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll request it as soon as someone tells me what issue of Nintendo Power the quote is from. As you can shortly see above, YouTube videos won't be edited in as cites. --Is this fact...? 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in issue 222 of Nintendo Power. It mentions him in the "Ghostly Galaxy" (if I remember the name right). I'll be happy to post a scan of the article if anyone asks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.163.171 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do; that would be very helpful in settling this question. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

check the footage at this site...he's on there, face it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFtSRicjGVQ 76.27.215.219 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Madhatter9max 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He is comfirmed as playable. You need to obtain all 120 stars with mario and finish the final fight with Bowser then let the credits role.

http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10464&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=855&sid=07081d099876a92f9ac4443deff701d5

I know its a forum and dosent count as a reliable source on here but scroll down to the spoiler tag, click and read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.43.27 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

someone add him to plot! stop whining about technicalities and put him in!76.27.215.219 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a picture from issue 222 of Nintendo Power. See No, there was no picture of Luigi in any of the 4 page article, and though it doesn't mention him as being playable, it says that he'll help you out on your quest to find more tricky stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.163.171 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is playable after all. http://www.smgalaxy.com/forums/messages.php?board=1&topic=6 208.101.156.13 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

500,000 sales in America, and 750,000 sales in Japan

I was going to change the number of pre-orders amde but it's protected. May I put it in there, and how am I going to do it???? --Mr.Mario 192 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for this? And...is it really important to mention? It's sales that matter, buku... (And yes, I'm aware that pre-orders become sales). -Sukecchi 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First review published

The first review for the game has been published, a 38/40 by Famitsu. Can this be added in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far the only source is an unverifiable poster on a forum, but I've got to make a run to the grocery store so maybe I can pick up a copy and double-check to see if the poster is right. Although I was kind of comfortable.... --jonny-mt(t)(c) 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I found a copy of the magazine (go figure; the bookstore in my neighborhood doesn't close until midnight) dated 11/2, but the only mention of Super Mario Galaxy in it is to talk about how much the editors are expecting from it. So either the review was in the last issue, it was in their special Wii/DS issue (unlikely; I checked that as well), or the source is unreliable. At any rate, I don't think this qualifies as verifiable until at least some scans of the review surface. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey the review is real if you go to gonintendo.com and go back a couple of the previous entries, you will see a link to Famitsu's review of Galaxy. (I would just add a link to show you, but I'm still learning exactly how to do that.) (Sina Cool 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

It's in English. It's not the original source. show me an actual scan of the magazine and we'll talk. Wikipedian06 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

is this guy for real?

http://super-mario-galaxy.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europebound2007 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt nintendo would actualy send out the game 3 weeks early to retailers, or if they did at least it would be mentioned some where besides just there. And also, in the future i wouldn't belive anything i saw on a blog unless there are other cridible rescourses that mention it.→041744 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy is violating Google AdSense terms of service by incentivizing his ads, not to mention breaking copyright laws by implying that he'll leak the game if he earns enough revenue. I've reported him to both Adsense and Nintendo, and recommend you guys to do the same. Don't fall for his scam. Wikipedian06 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He's also directly linking to that boxart, it appears to be directly linked from Wikipedia. -Sukecchi 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already been leaked. I have no idea if he was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.152.126 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That blogspot is dead now, thank god. Also, i believe Nintendo did release full games to the retailers, they were only meant for there display consoles though. I'm not sure if this is cannon information as i have no source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.43.27 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Lock?

I edited the "Plot" Section on the page (I added the Luigi info from the new issue of Nintendo Power) and it got erased. Now, its locked from editing until November 6th. I don't think this makes since. Futurekid000 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Must be because the UR MR GAY thing is back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.123.218 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I put it in the Plot section.

2. The UR MR GAY thing is over

Futurekid000 00:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability and YouTube videos

I just wanted to note here that under Wikipedia guidelines, YouTube videos cannot be used as reliable sources. As such, I've gone through and replaced all YouTube links in the article with {{fact}} templates.

On a quasi-related note, I couldn't find any specific guidelines on verifiability as it relates to video games released in one region but not another. Now that it's out in Japan, some editors (myself included) have direct access to the final product, which means that we can directly verify issues related to gameplay, plot, etc. before it is released in the States. This has been done before with no objections, but given that this is a very high-profile release, I just wanted to make sure that I didn't miss something in the policies preventing me from adding this information. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher... They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere..." --Is this fact...? 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Japanese titles

I noticed there has been a little bit of back-and-forth today between whether or not to include the Japanese title of the game. I personally come down on the side of including it, but when I looked around a little more I realized there's no clear consensus on their usage. I've put my thoughts down on the talk page of the video game style guide in the hopes of settling this question, and so I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone with an opinion on this matter add their comments there. Thanks! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a Japanese game after all JayKeaton 09:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Piracy mention in article

Do we really need to add a sentence mentioning that the game has been dumped?

1. Every Nintendo game eventually gets pirated. Look on GBAtemp; there isn't a single exception. This is nothing new or special.

2. We really don't need to be giving pirates more attention, which they crave.

Wikipedian06 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. For all those reasons, buku. -Sukecchi 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there is no point in mentioning piracy of the game. The significance of Super Mario Galaxy has to do with a copy protection hurdle that Nintendo threw at the pirate community, but it is nothing that needs to be in an encyclopedia.

(Mad Gouki 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

I disagree, to an extent. This game being leaked will have huge repercussions in the industry... it should be mentioned. HOWEVER, all things considered, the change in the article regarding it being leaked shouldn't be made until after the game is released. You don't want to add to the advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.44.83 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that every game gets dumped and appears onto the internet, that's a given. However, for a full, finished game to appear onto the internet 15 days before release is something worth mentioning. It's not like it's an advertisement stating "LOOK! MARIO WAS LEAKED! SEE?!? PIRATES OWNED J00! WE PWNZORED NINTENDO AND GOTZ THEIr GAMEZ B4 REL43SE! WHOEVER IS A PIRATE SHOULD COME DOWNLOAD IT!!!".

What's more, it's ignoring the fact that someone leaked it. It's not like the game walked out of Nintendo's office and put itself onto the internet. What if this happens more? Nintendo could be in a spot of trouble. Kalidascorp 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Wii piracy widespread? When Halo 3 was leaked there were hundreds and thousands of pirate copies downloaded and played, but does the Wii have as big a pirate community? I mean was the dump actually usable and playable for a lot of people, or was it more of a dump just for the sake of a dump? JayKeaton 09:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually open further investigation, the source given for the leak says that it was the kiosk demo version that was leaked, not the full version. The full version wasn't leaked until a day after the release in Japan. I have changed the wording in the article to better reflect the source. JayKeaton 09:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a new source which explains that it was a full version of the game, although there was a 10 minute time limit on the kiosks. (New Source) Also, the actual date it was leaked was on the 25th at least, since that's when the articles came out. Kalidascorp 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even the new source says it was a demonstration purpose disc from a kiosk machine. JayKeaton 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a full game, but had a 10 minute limit on kiosk machines. On normal consumer Wii consoles, that limit does not exist, showing that it is in fact not built into the game. Kalidascorp 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda funny how no one gives a shit besides you, Kalidascorp. Are you part of the PROMiNENT losers or something?

The English version of SMG was leaked on the 27th, IIRC. The earlier ones were hoaxes, some of which bricked users' Wiis (and boy, am I happy for those "unfortunate" pirates.) At the time probably less than 10-15% of all modchip users could actually use it. The WiiKey update didn't come out until November 2 (Japan time), and by then, someone on 2ch had already beaten the Grand Finale Galaxy with Luigi. It made no difference, and none of the pirates were able to beat Japan to leak any important game info anyway. This isn't like Deathly Hallows, where the leak made international news headlines and caused half of the Internet to know the whole plot before the street date. Therefore, mentioning this game leak is absolutely unnecessary. Wikipedian06 08:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All of this seems irrelevant considering the main argument for its inclusion on the page is that it was a high-profile title and yet it was leaked before its release. Had it been some obscure third-party title that no one had ever heard of that was leaked before it was released, than it wouldn't be important to include it on the page. But the fact that this was one of Nintendo's highst profile titles -- if not the highest -- in awhile is what makes the fact that it got leaked important to include on the page. 99.229.143.35 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

^ Ooops, that's me. Me2NiK 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedian06, I suppose I'm not the only one who gives a shit. Besides, do you really think this info is really all I care about? I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with you, or editing that section. However, others may continue to add info that they feel is important, including this information. Just because you think it doesn't belong here doesn't mean it shouldn't.

On a side note, I suggest you grow up quickly or learn to be civil. Any more of your bad attitude and I'll take appropriate actions. Kalidascorp 18:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that telling someone to "grow up quickly" is exactly going to entice civility out of them. Some might even say that telling someone to grow up is not at all likely to make them be civil at all, which means the intention of that comment would be to ridicule undermine him (it doesn't matter if he deserves it or not). It's a strange one, sort of passive aggressive, trying to make it look like you are being mature and calming someone down, when you are really trying to offend them and provoke more aggression. In any case, you BOTH need to be more civil. JayKeaton 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception slowdown!

Now that reviews are coming in, for the sake of the article try and put off editting the reception section because like all the other articles it will repeat the same pattern - first its nothing but praise and obvious bias stating it has a 99% and is the top rated game at Game Rankings even though it only has 21 reviews (Zelda: TP, Oblivion, BioShock, Halo 3 and now the Orange Box are going through this, they always get scored out of the list!) - then comes overwhelming negative comments - then an edit war between the two with huge discussions about it here - finally, LONG after the game is released we get some where... how about we cut out the middle man and just wait until it was 30 reviews or so? Check at Game Rankings to see the number. Come on, bias only slows down article development and the reception sections are always the "capture the flag" point in the "wars". Stabby Joe 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could just decide in advance which reviews are notable enough to be put in the article and ignore the rest. The obvious ones would be IGN, gamespot, Edge, Famitsu, ONM? (Alewhey 10:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but we need to keep it neutral. Stabby Joe 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It can be hard to find any critics that will fault a game like this, it is a uniquely Nintendo thing I guess. Even Spielberg can get his fair share of critics, but when it comes to Nintendos "big games" the praise is often piled on quite high. As for notable reviews, I think we should add the more famous ones like famitsu and IGN, and also keep an eye out for notable regional reviews. Like Eurogamer and Edge magazine seem to be credible sources for both internet and in print reviews for the UK region. Are there any precedence for video game articles coving different world regions for the reception section? Filling it all with American reviews doesn't seem to be a great idea when there are sources for all over the world, like Australia, Europe and Asia. JayKeaton 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eurogamer and Famitsu should be listed so not only US and it should have cons, don't be bias like in your comment sasying its "hard" to find faults, its that kind of thinking which is bad for development, you show fanboyism with that regardless if thats your intention. It doesn't have perfect score so thus it has cons, its obvious people! Nintendo Zelda: Twilight Princess has cons... heck even Ocarina of Time has cons listed, it doesn't matter how high the game is scored, wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is easy to find critisisms, just look at non perfect scores and look at why that is. Stabby Joe 10:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I said it was hard to find cons, not impossible or out of the question. If you can find a consensus of cons that were given to this game by critics, then hats off to you, you did the work to make this article better and more well rounded. JayKeaton 11:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already started... and like most good quality game articles finish with having a good reception section with 1/3 about cons ONLY IF the game is very praised. Its not hard to find cons considering not everyone has given it perfect scores like Gamespot and IGN... just read the review and find out whatever happened to that other 1 score. But atleast we've cleared up what we were saying, so thanks. Stabby Joe 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can help it, try to choose complaints that appear in multiple reviews, rather than complaints that only one specific reviewer experienced (sort of like finding consensus on complaints). But if they are all a little different from each other then just do whatever you'd normally do ^_^ Good work too, by the way. The whole post release section doesn't seem to be mutating into anything unreadable like the Halo 3 article did around the time of its release. JayKeaton 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewers are always mixed, not everyone finds issues with certain aspects. If the cons that are currently listed aren't good enough than therefore they don't count and NEITHER DOES anything positive the reviewers have said and I think its safe to assume that IGN and Gamespot are important enough...

However my current issue is the 11/10 by ONM Itlay. Simpley, it should be listed because one: when Half Life 2 recieved an 11/10, no one took the reviewer seriously IE not even listed at Game Rankings or Metacritic and two: its has never been listed in any other game articles, so if it has to go here then so does it elsewhere... and I can't see that happening. We've got all the well known reviews listed, now people are just promoting the game with more little known ones. All we need to do with the Reception section now is make it into actual paragraphs like one on gameplay and/or another on controls and sounds and of course a thrid for any cons that are mentioned. The same system was used when making featured articles.

And lol! Halo 3!? I took me awhile but I made that reception section less "fanboy" with its comments about "best [feature] ever!" comments, same goes for Zelda games. But no, I can see development of this article going smoothly at this point. Stabby Joe 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

I know a lot of people are constantly searching all the new secrets posted on the internet and want to share, but PLEASE WARN OF SPOILERS. Confirming that the game does have Luigi as playable character while predictable is a huge spoiler and shouldn't be placed without warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.15.164 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not put spoiler warnings in sections where it is obvious there will be spoilers. Geoff B 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does.Where else does it go?
Blind man shady 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia only uses spoilers in sections that WOULD NOT normally be thought to contain plot elements. Areas labeled "Plot" or "Story" are obviously going to contain elements of the plot or story, and therefore obviously contain spoilers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game site. DurinsBane87 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Grand Finale Galaxy

See www.smgalaxy.com for said rumor. This galaxy has constantly been brought up on 2ch and other prominent Japanese discussion forums, though no pictorial or video evidence has surfaced so far. Is this real or is it a hoax? Wikipedian06 08:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Beats me, but the original Japanese includes a phrase (「と思われる」) that indicates the poster is not sure themselves. Sounds more like a rumor of a rumor to me.... --jonny-mt(t)(c) 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SPOILER WARNING*

There is a Grand Finale Galaxy. You get there by getting all 120 stars as Luigi (you unlock by collectiong all 120 stars as Mario.). It takes place in the Muhsroom kingdom from the beginning of the game.

I added it back in due to footage from NicoVideo that confirms it. Wikipedian06 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I live in Gateway Galaxy! 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kamella?

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)

ONM Italy Review

Please, what is the problem in putting this review up? This is the only game that passed perfection. Just leave the biggest review (110% from ONM Italy) and the worst (90%), so there would be an even balance. Also, there should be something mentioning that Mario Galaxy is the first game to ever pass perfection on any review to date. --Mr.Mario 192 19:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Half Life 2 (and more, who knows? you didn't) got an 11/10 from a source (Maximum PC?) and like that source with this one is they don't count to review average. Also this article is editted mostly by those in the west which is what the english wiki is for hence the reason Italy isn't required. ONM Italy haven't been mentioned in a single english game article nor are listed for round up sites like Game Rankings. Also like the HL2 11/10 people didn't think much of it nor the review because to claim a game in more than perfect is well... not the case... ever... in everything... in history... And finally it seems that the only people who want to add it are those who want to give total praise 9I mean even though I don't mean to offend or acusse, your name with "Mario" in it is a dead give away to someone who LOVES the franchise) IE people who just want to promote the game they like, which is not good for article development. We've got the most well known reviews up now and guess what, they're all positive, so any more isn't required. Stabby Joe 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This still smacks of original research, no matter how you look at it. GameRankings, which gives an average of several reviews, would probably be the most reliable source to indicate the game's rank, not random reviews picked and chosen by anyone. Perhaps you could maybe mention the top 3 or 5 that game rankings has on its list (not the top 3 or 5 highest, but the ones ranked 1-5). Drumpler (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Who was the comment aimed at because if it was me what are you on about? I never said not using Game Rankings, it is as you sid a more realiable source. "Random" reviews as you've put it are usually listed from the more popular/well known sources in English. Although I find the Japanese one odd since thats got to be the only non English reviewer mentioned in most game articles. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary...

to note that you can unlock Luigi under the "Plot" section?Dude902 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.5.150 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

I'd say this scrapes into the B-class zone, now, though there's still work to do before nominating it for GA. Here are some ideas to get you there:

Get more citations. This is currently the main thing holding you back. See WP:CITE. You might also want to convert the citations to use the cite web template where appropriate: WP:CITET.
~~Lead needs expansion per WP:LS. Summarise the entire article in three or four paragraphs.~~
~~Try and make the gameplay section a little shorter if possible. If there are any details listed which aren't useful to those who don't play the game, don't list them.~~
~~Plot section seems a bit light, but if there isn't much of a plot then it's understandable.~~
Reception section needs expansion. Have a look at some articles listed here to get an idea of what to include.
~~Supermariogalaxydemo1.JPG doesn't have an adequate fair use rationale.~~

Have a look at WP:GA? for further ideas. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 07:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be working on this article alot from now on.. Oh and supermariogalaxydemo1.JPG has the fair use rationale now.. It's fixed. The plot is just fine.. I don't think it needs anything new or deleted. Other than that Me and other members will work on the rest. You don't mind it we use your comment as a checklist right? Cause i'll be striking through some of the things on the list. Feel free to correct me on any of the things I striked through Please. Uch iha 23 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just finished adding all citations for the Citation Needed tags.. Crossing off first comment. Uch iha 23 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Summarized I don't think it needs 3-4 Paragraphs for this article it's summarized just fine in 1 paragraph. Crossing out 2nd comment. Please feel free to correct me.. It's what Wikipedia is all about. Uch iha 23 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just expanded the lead to include information on the basic plot of the game and other gameplay elements. I may go back and tweak it a little more, possibly expanding it to multiple paragraphs (i.e. one paragraph for the market impact and reception, another for the plot and gameplay). --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work so far, although I uncrossed the citation point, as there are still considerable chunks of sections without any sources. For example, the first couple of paragraph of the Reception section are uncited - this needs to be fixed along with everything else which isn't cited. Una Laguna^Talk 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually all the citations are in the table.. So you could just read them.. So I'll cross it off again oh and cross off plot. Two more thing left to do for GA Status! I've been working in this for a while.. So corrections will be wonderful. Uch iha 23 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lovin' the enthusiasm (not to mention the hard work!), but I uncrossed the citations item. Not all of the reviews have web citations yet, and I have a nagging feeling there's more to cite yet in the body. I'd also like to go through at some point and change the citations over to {{cite web}} templates to ensure a more uniform look in the references section. To be honest, given the importance of verifiability when compared to the other points UnaLaguna brought up, I think citations should be the very last thing we cross off this list. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Gameplay Section can be any shorter... So i'll cross it out for now. Uch iha 23 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article has reached Good Article status.. Uch iha 23 03:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Expansion?

Maybe there needs to be more on the plot. Most Wikipedia articles that I've seen tell what happens with the storyline in the beginning, middle and end, albeit in short detail. --Is this fact...? 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I beat the game last night, so I suppose I can write up a quick summary that we can work from. I'll do that later tonight unless someone beats me to the punch. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The preliminary plot expansion is done. Now if someone would take a look at it, tighten it up, and wikify it I'd be most appreciative. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 15:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Firmware Update?

Tell me, good folks, does this game contain any firmware update for the Wii? Maybe version 3.1? My internet has been down since October so I don't have the latest version yet. 216.166.78.9 18:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The pal version certainly does, I put the disc in this morning and it updated to V3.0E -- Alewhey (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The NA version also has a firmware update, but I haven't checked what version exactly; all I know is that it does have an update. -- VederJuda (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese version has a firmware update as well. Don't really think this is notable enough to go in the article, though.... --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Day-early release- is it notable?

Certain GAME stores in the UK and Ireland are offering SMG a day early. This link here shows for Oxford Street, and many major cities such as Belfast, Dublin, Cardiff etc also are doing the same thing. Is it notable to add this somewhere in the article or are theyre many of this kind of promotion going on? Leemorrison 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rank at Game Rankings and Metacritic... NO!

Just like to point out that Galaxy has never surpassed Ocarina of Time on Metacritic OoT holds 99. While galaxy has only hit 97. And currently Galaxy is .3 above Ocarina of Time the numbers are no where near solid but Galaxy higher than Zelda needs to be changed.

Don't start adding its rank just yet, the last edit said it was now "offical" which it is not. The following games had the same rank when they JUST PAST 20 reviews: Halo 3, Zelda: Twilight Princess, BioShock, Call of Duty 4, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, God of War II, Gears of War, GTA: San Andreas etc etc and of course Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mass Effect will most likely repeat the same pattern.

My advice? WAIT! Now that reviews are coming in and coming in fast, its score/rank will change constantly (up and down) so I reconmend to just wait for atleast 40 reviews before bragging about a rank that won't stay. Now I know for a fact that many will object and/or do anyways but all its going to do is create an edit war and enforce biased in what is supposed to be a neutral article. Stabby Joe 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, even the top number 3 game of all time on GameRankings.com (Soul Calibur) only has 28 reviews. JayKeaton 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is completly irrelevent. We know for a fact that SMG will get MORE reviews coming in and this pattern has happened with other games and Soul Calibur is old and at the time that was as much as one would get and will not get any more. Personally I think it will do well enough to stay in the Top 10, but my personal game prefference shouldn't call for what I edit and how. Stabby Joe 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case GameRankings is still the best way to demonstrate how reviews currently add up, even if only 10 percent of all reviews for it are in so far there is still no better way to say where the game currently stands. People will continually update it themselves and having that system is better than not saying anything at all in my opinion JayKeaton 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, of course. I never said not using Game Rankings at all. They do give good indication of overall recpetion and get more game reviews than Metacritic. All I'm saying is not placing any rank until its got about 50 or so because between now and 50+ its won't stay where it is, up or down. Stabby Joe 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But people really will update it as it changes. When the Transformers movie came out I was really impressed with how people continually updated the Rotten Tomatoes rating as the reviews kept on coming in. If we leave out the GameRankings thing then someone will add it in, you can't really stop them from doing that and I think that putting a note on the reception section warning people not to add it really goes against the be bold ethic of Wikipedia. I can't remember what those little notes are called. You know when you go to edit a section and there is a note that appears in code that is designed only to be seen in the editing process? JayKeaton 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

People edit the scores, AGAIN I never was against that. I'm JUST reffering to the RANK. See my game list at the top? Gone through it with all of them. Stabby Joe 13:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

People will edit the rank too. Already SMG has more votes than the number 3 ranked game on the list (though at last check it didn't rank higher, just had more votes). Oh, by votes I mean reviews. JayKeaton (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well we're closing in on most reviews being out, mostly PAL region reviews so I'd still wait on it. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree here that we need to wait about a week or so more to allow the accumulation of more reviews before stating that it is #1 at GR. When BioShock came out, we underwent the same issue (as it was breaking review records), and decided to wait about 2 weeks after release to then add it being the "xth best game at GR and MetaCritic". It likely will end up #1 at GR when all is said and done. So either wait two week or until it accumulates about 50 reviews (the number that most other GR Wii games in the top 10 have), and then its a completely fair statement. --MASEM 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be taking this up with GameRanings.com instead of Wikipedia? GameRankings says it is the number one game. The GameRankings system doesn't block certain games from being number one until a certain amount of time (though it does block games from being number one until the reach at least a certain amount of reviews, about 20 I think). SMG has already passed GameRankings algoritihsms and it is number one on GameRankings list. You can't change that. And you can't decide that it is not good enough until 2 weeks from now, because that is what GameRankings says on their official list! You should be contacting GameRankings with your complaints, not editing Wikipedia so it reflects your own ideals on what should and should not count as an "official number 1". It is on their website, it has been sourced and cited and I do not think you have the right to change it just because you feel that not enough time has passed JayKeaton (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And besides, it has one less vote then Zelda Ocarina of Time has. It's not up to us to determine or rewrite GameRankings policies, only to report it. JayKeaton (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On Ocarina, that was a different timeframe for gaming without a proliferation of online sources. The comparison in number of reviews should be made to similar tier games on the same platform: eg Nintendo-published titles for the Wii like Metroid Prime 3, Super Paper Mario, and Mario Strikers Charged - which is around 50 right now.

The main reason not to add it until some time has passed or it has a roughly equal number of reviews is because that ranking may change as more reviews come it. For GameRankings, they could care less - they want to present the rankings and the like as they happen and is not a big problem. For Wikipedia, however, we do not want to state such details until they stabilize out so that we're not editing the details every single day (this falls out from both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#CBALL. If we state, in the present period of statistical instability, that SMG is #1 at GR, and someone prints that out for reference in their own writing, but then a week from now the game drops to #5, that person is going to think Wikipedia to be an unreliable source. We just need to wait a little longer, once an appropriate number of reviews have rolled in as to then be able to state with future confidence that the game is rated #x at those sites.

Mind you, I'm also of the opinion that while the average rating percentages reported by GR or Metacritic are good information, the ranking is not because it be dethroned by other games in the future, and we would keep on having to go back to this article to amend its GR ranking. Providing the link to GR or MC is sufficient to allow the user to decide how the game fairs to other games. --MASEM 14:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Providing a link is not enough. A link should be a source. People who print this page cannot click on the link. It is also not our job to decide if something is stable or not. All we need to do is say "As of the 18th Nov 2007" SMG was the number 1 ranked game. It really isn't our job to rewrite the list. If we decide that SMG shouldn't be in the list, then we would need to bump up 10 other games to make the list. Orange box on the PC only got 26 reviews, so that should go too. You have to remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; it is not our place to predict that SMG will be bumped off that list in the future. JayKeaton (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Orange Box ranking isn't mentioned on wiki and no one said whether SMG will or will not be bumped off the list and if we're not a crystal ball then we can never predict it WILL stay where it is. All I and Masem mean is that it will change so much AT THIS CURRENT POINT that such information can't be listed on wiki which is supposed to add SOLID info when it comes to product pages. And a link is what is important and enough as it is a citation and without that no one would even go to wiki to begin with. If it says rank 1 here then rank 2 or vice versa here then that takes away any credibility of the article. And finally I'm more confused at why you're protesting so much, its not like we're out to make look bad since I'm never biased in editting, yet and forgive if I'm wrong, you seem to be doing the opposite which is to make it look good... which is biased. By the end of the month it will have plenty of reviews and there will be no problem. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if the game looks good or if it looks bad. But no other game has EVER taken Zelda OoT out of the number 1 position, not even for ten seconds. There is a minimum amount of reviews needed to be eligible for proper ranking and no other game has ever reached that minimum number and still had a score high enough for the number one position. That is notable enough in itself. But the fact that SMG already has 31 reviews added (it would be more by now if GameRankings didn't put their site into lock-down again) and it still takes number one place, plus the other aggregation site also collaborates the same game with the same score, means there there is something worth noting here. Kotaku has already declared it in an official news posting (currently on the main page), so I do not see why Wikipedia has to wait for Stabby Joe to say that it is ok. JayKeaton (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, there hasn't been a case OoT being "dethroned" by any of the said previous, they only got to place 2 I think so it reported on the basis of it being the first generally... even if it doesn't stay that way, however (and here we come back to this point) if you go posting articles saying so and then it isn't then that means false citations. Plus you've wanted to cite Kotaku elsewhere on another top... do we have to cite everything with just one gossip site which I wouldn't call the biggest news givers in the game industry at all? Plus I find it odd you think its a personal matter. I'm not the only person who supports this view so don't point your finger at me. Masem has stated the same and other reasons and they seem perfectly reasonably methods of article development that have been applied to other articles in the past. Plus I starting not to believe you when you say you don't care about the game itself when 1: you once tried to persuade me not to add cons earlier and 2: you protest alittle to much over an incredibly reasonable and plausible approche into editting just one line of a large article, a piece of info that will become rock solid in like a week but like YOU SAID, we're not a "crystal ball". I love this game, I think its by far better than OoT but that doesn't matter since I'm trying to help wiki. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't like Kotaku? Or you think it is a rumor that SMG is number one on GameRankings list, the first time ever a non Zelda game has taken that place. Well let me be the first to tell you, it is not a rumor, Zelda OoT really HAS been bumped down and Mario Galaxy is in the number 1 spot, and Kotaku has confirmed that it is worth posting a front page article about. Or perhaps Joystiq is enough? I would joke that it would take God himself to come down and say that it is notable that SMG has already been the best game of all time, for the first time ever taking out Zelda for top stop, on GameRankings... but you would probably say that God does not count as a notable game critic ; ) JayKeaton (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, bad God joke and secondly I never said it was a rumour so all of that you've just said is irrelevent to my last point. And Kotaku doesn't post then list news in terms of importance, its by date and its not top news anymore because guess what, theres more news, and more will follow that... Stabby Joe (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My joke writer is on strike so all my good ones wont be back until he gets his pay rise. I told him that he already earns more than me so he should stop complaining, but he refused to reply because he thought I would just use his response later on as a written joke. JayKeaton (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've unearthed some sarcassum, I can easily say we've ran out of arguments for eachother lol! Stabby Joe (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just write that for the time being it is ranked no. 1 after 31 reviews, but could be subject to change as more reviews are coming in. Isn't it significant that for the first time in 10 years, a game has broken the no. 1 rank for even a moment in time. User: eratangos 01:50 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We could when we know it will stay where it is. Besides the issues mentioned above, another one is the way people are going about it. I would rather put something in like "by mid november SMG has an average critic score of no.% based on no.% reviews, currently making it the highest rated game on the site" whereas others seem to want to mentioned what was previously number 1 (OoT) which doesn't matter since its an article for SMG. But of course since the game has just come out it is expected for hardcore fans to want to edit first... luckily like others (notablly Halo 3) they'll stop and people who push for better development IE neutral, we should get somewhere. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Stabby Joe, you make some good points. But aren't you in clear violation of the Three-revert rule? I count five reverts removing the game's rank in the last 24 hours. TK421 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not know of that rule, thats for pointing that out. Duly noted for the future however that doesn't mean people should start going over board and not considering what I have proposed which is supported by these: WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#CBALL. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So many different sites have declared it. And it doesn't matter if those sites aren't CNN or big names like microsoft.com, they are still worthy sources. JayKeaton (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And VGCharts in an official news posting. I hate to say it, but I don't think your opinion matters anymore. There are so many sources for it and you are being out numbered. JayKeaton (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has already corrected the gamerankings rank for Zelda Ocarina of Time to second place. So it is now official, your cause is lost. JayKeaton (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Its funny really, even though wiki doesn't want to make these things personal I have to say you are being unnecisarily smug and cocky as if you've won some kind of battle. Instead I going to have to take it away by saying, GOOD! It can be official since what you've got there is a realiable source there (IE not gossip Kotaku), I NEVER said I wanted no info one it, you just provided a poor basis, but VG is a better citation. You can still act all high and mighty if you want but remember... you acting like that over a wiki edit and a non existant battle, one where I was all for placing in the first place, just not when most reviews were coming out... a notion you failed to understand or grasp for day one... Stabby Joe (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that it is a good thing, I have been saying that since the very beginning! And I didn't see it as a battle at all, you were the only one that mentioned it. But now that you do mention it, if it was a battle then you would have completely pulverized. But I do not see it as a battle at all. No, I see it more of a war ;) Haha, just kidding, it's just a Wikipedia page, no need to get worked up about it ;) JayKeaton (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but no I'm going to have to get unnecisarily worked up about it. Pulverised? It was without rank mention when it first past 20, I got a second opinion from Masen, no links for mentioned when news first hit and you've provided a realable source I wanted in the first place and glad it will most likely stay at 1... how on Earth did I lose anything? Was all that I just said a joke? Yes and that was pointless like your last and any future comments by anyone else in this now irrelevent topic and should focus more on improving the rest instead on ONE LINE. Like you've said, no one has won or lost because its a dam wiki edit. But hey, this was alot easier and more understanding here than when Twilight Princess made the second spot... and what is it now? 20 something? The same cause was applied here yet in this case however the rank is staying. GO MARIO! Stabby Joe (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Go Mario? JayKeaton (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For getting number 1... how did you not get that being the many comments relating to it? But regardless this is trivial discussion and is not what these pages are for. Stabby Joe (talk)

Sony sponsored negative reviews?

I am sure we have all heard about Sony's aim to dilute Super Mario Glaxay's high scores, but does it warrant an addition to the article? Here's the link anyway [[4]] JayKeaton 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the Sony logo at the top just looked like paid advertisements, the same that show up on every website. Regardless of the review quality, there's no real proof that he was paid by SONY, and I personally think it's bullshit. DurinsBane87 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but proof and your opinion are not prerequisites for addition to Wikipedia. It just has to be notable and have sources from established websites, which it has both. It doesn't even need to be fact, it just needs to be reported on, so thank you for your opinion but sadly it is not needed here. JayKeaton 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would need to be reported by something more than a blog. DurinsBane87 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point Jay that opinion isn't something required on wiki BUT what you and the site have is likewise. I'd go for this conspiricy if there was more sources to back it up. That site looks like pure unoffical opinion to, and the review isn't totally negative anyway. Stabby Joe 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the 20 minute (and counting) database lag will do to this post, but here goes anyway...: The review isn't totally negative, but so far compared to any other review in the known internet it is uniquely negative for a review from an established site. As for other sources, it is a breaking story so it will take between 1 second and 24 hours for the websites to report it, if they are willing to report it at all. It is already well into Friday for most of the world, so there is a big chance that most gaming sites will not be updated until Monday in any case JayKeaton 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case we'll just have to wait and see. Stabby Joe 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is just stupid! It's more like he's criticizing the system than the game itself!Frankyboy5 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious about the particular person that wrote it, the "Sponsored by Sony" image was only added for his recent articles, articles more than a week or so old do not have that little sponsored by Sony thing on them. There is a noticible change in tone from the writer since Sony started sponsoring him, he started reporting on news less and getting involved more. Like before Sony he would simply report stats for sales, but after the Sony ads he would say that the competition has won a "victory" over Nintendo whenever they outsold them. We'll have to wait and see if anyone reports on it though, or even just reports on the forum and blog response so we can validate that there really was a notable response in blogs and forums JayKeaton 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Variety has responded to themselves about the Sony thing, on the same link here [5]. They even changed the title of the review in reply to all the attention it has been getting. EDIT: No, I seem to have gotten myself confused. I meant to originally link to the ACTUAL review, but accidentally linked to the nsider article. But the author of the original article has asked that the nsider article change the title, which is a response from Variety and Mr Fritz JayKeaton 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, am I correct in understanding that you are saying that Nsider2 made changes to its blog article upon request from the author of the review, and not that the author changed the review content in any way? Dancter 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The author of the original Variety review contacted Nsider and requested that they change the title of the Nsider post which was about the Variety review. Phew, I had to read that back a couple of times to make sure it made sense. It's like 40 degrees Celsius here today (and no aircon!), dulls the mind =D Sorry about any mix up JayKeaton 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this [[6]] original page that highlights the controversy looks like an NsiderNews article, not an Nsider forum or blog post. It comes under the Nsidernews.com domain and this news article is linked to a lot if you google it (not to mention the Diggs and Digg traffic). I know Nsider does not have it's own article on Wikipedia, or it did but it was deleted, but does that still not qualify it as notable? JayKeaton 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not even worth a mention. Looks like a typical Sony fanboy going bawwwwwwwww and whoring for attention. Just ignore. Wikipedian06 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more polite? Wikipedia is not for personal attacks. ---- Jedravent (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

While the Nsider site makes a point, unless it is recognized by more reputable sources (such as IGN or even Game Rankings), it should qualify as only a blog. Drumpler (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well Kotaku commented on Variety's review. Kotaku do not usually comment on other sites reviews, in fact besides Famitsu they have never posted a news article about another sites review. JayKeaton (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kotaku also didn't make any mention whatsoever of any ulterior motives or potential Sony involvement in the substance of the review. It's worth including perspectives outside of traditional video gaming media (something N'Gai Croal touched upon in his most recent blog entry), so I'm not saying mention of this review shouldn't be considered, but Nsider2 has no strong basis for its claims, which is probably why it agreed to remove all direct accusations of "a possible Sony conspiracy". As it stands right now, there's no adequate reason to add what you're proposing. Dancter (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that they did mention alterer motives, just that it was rare for them to comment on it. I don't really think it has enough merit to be added to the article either, but I just want to be sure of that first. JayKeaton (talk) 21:19, 17 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)

Rank in Gamerankings

I didn't know where to put this discussion, so if I misplaced it, pardon me. So, how could Ocarina of Time getting #1 spot for years, if they unfairly putted the Mario 64 reviews. In other words, they forgot to put a lot of other reviews, such as the 10/10 on Edge, or the Gold Award on EGM??? So, if we put all the reviews together and SM64 pass OoT, can we change the part in the article that says that OoT holded #1 spot for 10 years? --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What? No, look. The site had OoT at the number 1 spot for 10 years. How they got that figure is irrelevant; you don't get to say "well, they should have had [some other game] at the #1 spot for [reason], that's not encyclopedic.66.24.104.37 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There re many things wrong with GR, for one the Orange Box technically isn't a game yet it hogs 2 spaces with less reviews than newer games. But its not are place in wiki to judge. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Zelda has been unmovable for all this time, yes. There is a system in place to stop games with only a few reviews added from being added to the rankings, you can see this with games like Robo Aleste, which has a 100 percent score but only 2 reviews, so it does not enter the proper rankings. As for missing reviews, you can add reviews yourself (well not right this second, the site is still completely locked up while the web master allegedly updates the system), but usually you can add more reviews if you join the site. When the site is unlocked I suggest you join and try and submit those missing Mario 64 reviews, but if the system wont let you for some reason then you should email the web master and ask that they be added. JayKeaton (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)