Talk:Super Mario RPG

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has several issues:

• The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article. See WP:LEAD.
• The gameplay section is generally unsourced; only 1 out of 3 paragraphs is sourced
• The story section is just a big mess. A series of bad merges have been done, and the result is a big mishmash of confusing plot information. Needs to be completely rewritten.
• The reception section is too short; there has to be more reviews available for such a famous game.
• Legacy section has a {{fact}} tag in it. Needs a cite.
• The rerelease and rumored sequel section is tagged with a cleanup template. Needs to be addressed.
• The references are badly formatted, and are hard to follow. I also believe there are same unreliable sources used in the article, linke YouTube.

If these issues have not been resolved in one week, I will delist the article of its GA status. The Prince (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that the screenshots do not illustrate the game very well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Forgot to mention that. The Prince (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One week has passed, and since these issues haven't been resolved, I'm delisting the article. The Prince (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/19970419014216/http://www.next-generation.com:80/news/082496g.html

Huh. I just noticed something.

The remake lacks the subtitle Serouj2000 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Bad Sources in development section

I have read "Epic News" in Nintendo Power issue 77, pages 26-29, and so many citations pull from this article, that don't occur in the article at all. Citation 21, supposedly about a 60% completed game with turned based mario characters weilding weapons, cites this article, and this article says that they had a 70% completed game that played more like Zelda Link to the past.

This source was used correctly at other times in the article, but a large number of the citations all come from this Nintendo Power article, that does not cover what is stated. 64.33.139.18 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Seperate page or section for the Remake?

Leaving and left under Legacy seems like an odd choice as it's a completely new build, new developers, minor changes from the original version, etc. 2603:3020:2102:5400:48A9:43A6:88B6:F8BF (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

We should only create a new page if there is sufficient stuff to write about based on coverage in reliable secondary sources to justify it. (That might be the case, I haven't checked.) Popcornfud (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s just lazy. 2600:1017:B000:A5D2:509C:E087:D8E0:1801 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You're more than welcome (and capable) to write up a separate article for the remake yourself. ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that if the remake gets its own page, this page's name should be changed to "Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars" since that's the full name of the original and the remake takes the plain "Super Mario RPG" name. 136.54.66.53 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Split request for the "Remake" section

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.

The result of this discussion was to keep and not split. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Support - The remake clearly has significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, as shown from this WP:VG/RS-oriented Google search. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Tell that to people like lazy TommyO. 2600:1017:B009:F8E5:EC3F:694D:9CDA:2EA3 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

2600:1017:B009:F8E5:EC3F:694D:9CDA:2EA3, please do not make personal attacks towards other users. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 02:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The Switch remake, aside from some extra content, is pretty much a faithful remake of the original SNES release. Everything about the remake could be talked about here on the article, much like how ProtoDrake did with his work on the Live A Live article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The right way to do this is to use the sources to expand the section in the existing article. If it gets to a point where there's a lot of good content and the section is getting big, then split the article. Popcornfud (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Metroid Prime: Remastered is a section within the original Metroid Prime article. - Richiekim (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2023 (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.

GA breadth

To meet the GA criterion for breadth, the article really needs to be updated with the calvalcade of new sources on the remake's reception. czar 12:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Remake Sales

You forgot to add in the sales of the remake, which sold 3.14 Million units, surpassing the lifetime sales of the original game. GuyUser81 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"Super Mario RPG 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Super Mario RPG 2 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 27 § Super Mario RPG 2 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)