Talk:Super Mario 64/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Mutated Cap" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mutated Cap. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Mutated Cap until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CaptainGalaxy 14:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"Super Mario 64 Glitches" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Super Mario 64 Glitches. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Super Mario 64 Glitches until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Under the "Glitches" section, the line "Scott Buchanan, with the alias pannenkoek2012, collected one of these coins in 2014 without tool assistance, and described the programming mechanics of Super Mario 64."

The word in bold is incorrect. pannenkoek2012 never collected the coin without tool assistance in 2014, and in fact said in the video that it would be extremely difficult without a lot of practice. I simply propose that the word "without" is changed to "using," or something of the like. Sorry if this is formatted incorrectly in any way, I've never done this before. --Roshibomb (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Roshibomb, thanks, this has been edited. Popcornfud (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

Add in action-adventure as another genre to this game: I've experienced this game and it seems like this game is more action-adventure. 173.32.132.87 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. You'll need reliable sources for this addition. Most sources call it a platform game. Popcornfud (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

FA in need of review

Hate to do this to one of the biggest parts of my childhood, and how I got introduced to the Mario series, but an article considered FA in 2008 is an article only considered FA in 2008; we're now in [insert current year here], and "featured article" ain't the phrase I used to describe this article.

• It fails 1a
  • I would fail this article for FA for the Reception section alone, because it's such an organization and user navigability nightmare; it's like it's trying to put the major points together tidily but failed in spectacular fashion and became a Frankenstein-monster-like mesh of quote-farms and condensed summaries of multiple sources.
    • Para 2 and Para 4: Can I just say how much it annoys me when a sentence about a few source's scores is brought up in the middle of other sentences that establish critical opinion? We have a template of a side-list of review ratings for a reason, because bringing them up in prose makes reading the article awkward and more difficult to process.
    • Speaking of which, most of the accolades and awards should be listed in the ratings template as well instead of bunched together like a quotefarm in prose.
    • There are very few instances were I could justify paragraphs as long as the ones in this section; this is not one of them, however, as not only are they separable but have lengths the result of not knowing how to organize and present conclusions in a concise manner.
    • Speaking of which, this section goes all over the place. We start with a brief sentence about the critical reception, yet the rest of the paragraph is about commercial performance. Then it goes to the next paragraph to awards and accolades in magazines, then that same long-ass paragraph (that I can tell with my own eyes where it should be split) goes into a quote farm that only represents the opinion of a few sources, except with paraphrased statements and scores instead of quotes. We then get a paragraph of sentences much more suited for the legacy section than making up this much space in the reception section, then it goes back into another unreadable-as-textured-Mario-64-signs quotefarm paragraph switching back-and-forth between accolades that should be in the same place as those other simply-summarized accolades in paragraph 2, and more brief mentions of score. This is the least comfortable and most angering reception section I've seen.
  • There's also a major organization problem in the legacy section. It goes from describing how big and amazing the game seemed at the time, to an entire f---ing quote about the game's outdateness, back to how great the game felt at the time with another goshdarn long quote. I'm pretty sure it's a requirement for strong prose that you leave the use of long quotes to a minimum. Additionally (and I'll cover more about the article's completeness in the next set of bullets), there's no other retrospective sources represented to describe how outdated the game is, just a random quote by a professional journalist whose like any other professional journalist.
  • There are tons of prose quibbles I have (such as why Mario's movements aren't introduced before the power-ups and those cannons) I couldn't summarize all of them simply, but just know it leads to an article with not the best writing it could have.
• It fails 1b.
  • There is no representation of academic or scholarly literature. Inexcusable, as I found pages-upon-pages of it with a simple Google search.
  • For reception, the game's contemporaneous reviews are massively under-represented, with only a few opinions from these sources explained when there are many more not talked about, such as those cited in the article only for their scores (even IGN... let me repeat, IGN doesn't have its upon-release opinions stated) and the many, many others you could find with MobyGames, retromags.com, kultboy.com, and Internet Archive. I mean, where in the world is Computer and Video Games? This issue makes the summary of reviews in the lead ("Reviewers praised its ambition, visuals, gameplay, and music, although they criticized its unreliable camera system.") that much more questionable.
  • This is especially true for newspapers covering the game upon release, as it's missing perspectives and content about the game from sources like The NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and much more.
  • There's so much missing so much on the game's legacy. It at least talks about its influence on the 3D video game landscape, but content about its massive online cult fandom is lacking; It briefly talks about its use in Machinama and fan remakes, but I see nothing about the game's speedrunning community, conspiracy theories (not counting a brief paragraph about the Luigi ones), corruption streams, ROM Hacks, challenges such as the green demon, and much more. Heck, I'm not even seeing anything about the Backwards Long Jump trick, which is the biggest known glitch to even gamers who aren't Mario 64 fans.
  • I also see no info on the press and critical reactions to previews of the game, such as those at E3, or... f---, not even anything about the E3 presentations themselves, which I saw in the newspaper Google searches!
  • As a player of Mario 64, I can tell there are issues with the gameplay and plot sections of what content is included and missing pieces.
    • "The player can pick up and carry certain items, an ability which is used to solve various puzzles." What the heck? Which puzzles? All I remember for the "puzzle" segments is just walking around and touching things, and I don't remember carrying anything for these. The only example I could loosely (and I mean very loosely) fit into this category is the penguin star, but all you really had to do was get the penguin to his mother, both characters of which were very transparent and not secret in any way.
    • There's seriously nothing about the type of enemies, bosses, and levels Mario encounters? I'm not asking for a WP:GAMEGUIDE summary, but something more than that. We have this for a more recently-nominated featured article on a Mario game, why not Super Mario 64?
    • Why is the cannon so extensively talked about when there are so many other methods of moving through levels not brought up, like carpet rides, shells, moving poles for Mario to latch on, switches and pillars to enter other areas, and much more?
• It fails 1c and even the good article's 2b and 2c
  • In addition to the lack of newspaper, academic, and other contemporaneous print coverage I mentioned above, there's also some questionable-to-unreliable sources; while they make up a minority of the cites currently use, it's a big enough minority to put FA 1c into question
  • Most of the article's coverage on Mario 64 Machinamas is cited with self-uploaded Youtube videos used to present their popularity and origins. I'm not against the use of self-published sources themselves (in fact, in some cases I would require them for FA for completeness), but stuff about the origins of these videos and their success must be made notable by independent sources. If all you have are these Youtube videos, then the info's not worthy for inclusion.
  • Speaking of Youtube cites, more than half of the music and sounds section uses a Youtube channel video as a citation, which itself cites a user-written wiki.
  • How is Source Gaming a reliable source?
  • The cite formatting also sucks and is inconsistent:
    • Ref#105 doesn't have a publisher or work credited. As User:Nikkimaria would say, "Check for others"
    • Ref#112 formats author names without the [Last, first] way of formatting while other cites do the opposite
    • Some sources without an author credited have the author fields in their citations presented as "[Source] staff" in some and blank in others, even between sources of the same works (for example, IGN)
    • There's is also inconsistency with whether authors are credited or not. Don't tell me GamePro, NextGen, EGM, Edge, and Game Informer don't credit their authors; I've read and cited reviews of these publications for other video game articles, and they credit their writers all the time (albeit with nicknames sometimes).

Simply put, prose and navigability issues beyond belief, horrifically incomplete and non-representative of a big part of the literature, and some questionable sources. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, a pretty persuasive analysis there. Nothing to add. Popcornfud (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Just one more thing. The types of stars aren't specified; like I said, not looking for a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but types of star missions repeat in many levels, such as those where you have to find secrets and red coins, beat bosses, traverse from one part to the next, puzzles, races, and more. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. If I can find some time here soon, I’d be willing to take a crack at the unreliable sources and bad formatting. I could use a boost with the prose because my available time is sorely limited at the moment. (An FYI that I have no previous involvement with the article, it’s simply a subject of interest combined with I recently re-started the game and collected all the stars pretty much from memory, so my interest is piqued at the moment). Red Phoenix ^talk 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: If you wanna keep your interest going, I recommend watching "Mario 64 challenge" videos and speedruns of different types of Mario 64 (such as Non-stop, randomizer, and Twitch-trying-to-stop-play versions) on Youtube. ;) HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha, we’ll see about that. I’m more of a Sega person usually, so maybe some Sonic speed runs might interest me more. Can I recommend we appeal to WT:VG and draw some support? Popular franchises like this usually generate instant interest, and I’m volunteering to do the dirty sourcing work no one likes to do (and my time is quite limited; I would need a couple of months if I wanted to revitalize the article myself given my current situation). Red Phoenix ^talk 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the TCRF Mario 64 articles have some sources that aren’t used here. Those could be a great starting point. JOEBRO64 21:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: That'd be awesome, but I'm not sure what you mean by TCRF. My apologies for being daft. I'd love to have time to do additional research. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Red Phoenix, The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki that documents unused game content. Their Prerelease:Super Mario 64 article has some sources we can use. JOEBRO64 03:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I had literally never heard of The Cutting Room Floor before. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so my available time has sucked even worse than I thought. Unless some support does get drummed up, I have no qualms about this going to FAR. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

E3

So, I found this source (https://www.destructoid.com/stories/this-live-demo-of-super-mario-64-is-an-amazing-retro-e3-moment-511570.phtml), that shows a live demo of SM64 during E3 1996. Could we use this? Blue Jay (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Glitches section doesn't talk about glitches

So we have a glitches section that only briefly mentions glitches and then proceeds to talk about the "L is real" rumor which isn't a glitch. Maybe this should be changed to talk about glitches that are well known outside of the Mario 64 community (like the backwards long jump) or it should just be removed completely. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Every copy of Mario 64 is personalized

Can you add in a new section about "every copy of Mario 64 is personalized" which will also have the Wario apparition?--24.44.76.88 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This would be more of a rumor as it isn't actually real. In fact, most footage of it is either edited or of the fan made "personalized" Super Mario 64 game. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

DSi and MS-DOS Ports?

Under the Legacy portion of the article, there is a phrase that lists what platforms Super Mario 64 has been ported to. As someone who has been active in the porting community, I have also seen ports of Super Mario 64 for the Nintendo DSi and MS-DOS surface on the internet. If there is not an article on the internet about these ports, will it not be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmchlngy4 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The version for the Nintendo DSi is the same as Super Mario 64 DS. The DSi received very few DSi exclusive games that aren't simply DS games. The MS-DOS version is most likely not an official Nintendo port. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Record-breaking $1,560,000 auction sale in July 2021

Page is semi-protected so I can't edit it right now, but there's a sentence about the recent auction sale that needs a little work for grammatical correctness:

"It's packaging condition had been rated 9.8 on a 10-point scale by Wata Games, which to that point, less than five copies have received such a high grade."

should be changed to something like

"Its packaging condition had been rated 9.8 on a 10-point scale by Wata Games; at that time, less than five copies had received such a high grade."

or

"Its packaging condition had been rated 9.8 on a 10-point scale by Wata Games. At that time, less than five copies had received such a high grade."

107.15.33.139 (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rumors and glitches section rewrite

Hello! So as I was looking through this specific sentence, I noticed a few sentences that seemed to be rather disconnected from the rest of the section. The sentences read, "Speedrun techniques include the backward long jump. Pannenkoek2012's highly technical analysis of Super Mario 64 glitches and mechanics has been covered many times in the video game press." I feel like these sentences could be combined and possibly made to fit the article better. However, despite natively speaking English, I still struggle with certain things like combining sentences so I'm not sure how to go about this. If anyone could help me out I'd appreciate it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Info about the backwards long jump as a frequent technique of speedrunners is too specific and trivial for the article IMO, so I removed it. Potential secrets uncovered have received significant coverage; "techniques" have not (only YT videos and listicles like the one cited before).--MattMauler (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

While I do agree with you, I have found sources that mention some glitches. However, I do agree that it's a bit trivial as the only one for a source that I know is considered reliable is a top 9 by IGN which I don't think would be suitable for use with the article. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Add updated, high quality, cover art from NOA’s press release website.

Somebody else do this because I don’t how the hell the uploading system works. Bobbywall03 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bobbywall03: I see no issue with the current cover art. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:NFC - we are restricted on the use of non-free media as our goal is to promote free media. As such, we cannot use excessively high resolution images for cover art. --Masem (t) 15:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

How is this article now?

So, other editors and I have done some work on this article concerning the issues brought up by HumanxAnthro, and I'd appreciate some feedback. Are there still issues with the article that need addressing? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• This article is definitely going in the right direction. The cite formatting is improved, more reliable sources are being used, more stuff is getting cited, the reception is more organized than I remember to be, and that's good. However, that's only through a skimthrough, and I have not looked at the article in full, neither the sources to see how well the article represents them, or if there are any other details. I can say the Reception section's prose needs to represent more reviews, such as those that only have their ratings listed on the side (WP:DUEWEIGHT). 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 19:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, cool! I've already done two edits to help with that a little. If you (or anybody else) has the time for a more detailed analysis, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

One thing I would like to say is that for the Fan Projects section, it seems to be in a list-like format rather than in prose. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for this article to have it like this, but from what I've seen Wikipedia editors prefer prose in articles unless it's something like an "Awards" or "Filmography" section. But if everyone else is fine with that, there's not much I can do there; I guess I'm fine with it as well. Other than that, I think everything looks good so far; maybe just a couple more edits and it could come back up to at least a GA-status.

Also I have to commend you for taking on such a daunting task as reediting this whole article. How did you do it and keep track of every change that needed to be made? Did you write out the changes you wanted to make beforehand on something like Word or Docs (that's how I usually edit articles), or did you use the Sandbox? Either way I appreciate it; this article was one I used to read a lot as a kid, and I'm glad it's getting a new coat of paint now. I would give you a Barnstar but I still don't know how to do that yet (lol). PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't use Docs, I just looked at the problems listed by HumanxAnthro and the FAR page. I didn't really have a plan beforehand, I just looked at what the problems were and fixed them, although it does require stamina. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 23:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario 64/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jibreel23 (talk · contribs) 13:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Well written

This article fits the criteria for well written as it has no grammatical errors, and is concise. It also complies with the Manual of Style.

Verifiable

Does not have plagiarism, original research, controversial quotes or citations.

Broad in Coverage

The article covers all the main aspects, and stays on topics. Although I thought mentioning fan projects is unnecessary, Super Mario Bros. which is a good article, talks about fangames, and even has full articles devoted to them. See Tuper Tario Tros.

Neutral

The article is not biased towards any viewpoints.

Stable

The article does not get many edits a day. It can go a couple days without edits although compared to other good articles it gets more edits.

Illustrated

The article has a good amount of pictures with good captions. It also has valid fair use rationales for all the images used.

I would pass the article as it fits all the criteria.

• @Coolperson177: @Jibreel23: This was a really...really poor review, and I've gone ahead and reversed the promotion for the following reasons. First of all, Super Mario 64 was demoted from Featured Article status in April this year. This review does not explain how the article has been improved to address the concerns raised there. I understand this isn't an FA nomination, but the concerns are still valid for GA. Second of all, the reviewer did not ask any changes of the nominator, or offer any criticism to improve the article. Third of all, the reviewer only has 110 lifetime edits. In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the GA status, and giving the nominator (who worked hard on this article) a better quality review, I've undone the promotion. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I respect that. Thank you. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Alright thanks for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibreel23 (talk • contribs) at 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario 64/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments to follow within a day or two. ♦ jaguar 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• One thing which strikes out at me is that the lead appears somewhat disorganised. The release dates are included at the end of the second paragraph rather than in the beginning of the first, and the second paragraph (development) could be expanded. The last paragraph should start straight away with reception "Super Mario 64 received critical acclaim...", and the sentence before that moved elsewhere
  • Third paragraph modified, removed the release dates from the lead, expanded the second paragraph a bit. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "The first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay, it features 3D freedom of movement" - the second '3D' is redundant
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "A multiplayer mode featuring Mario's brother Luigi was cut, but rumors spread of his inclusion as a hidden character" - are these rumours worthy enough to be included in the lead? Especially seeing that this is in the development paragraph
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Numerous developers have cited Super Mario 64 as an influence" - could be expanded to something like an influence for 3D platform games or 3D gaming in general. 'Influence' sounds quite vague in this sense
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay to release

• "or punch using the game controller's analog stick and buttons" - you could link Nintendo 64 controller here rather than the generic game controller
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "he campaign included advertisements on MTV, Fox, and Nickelodeon" - can Fox be linked?
  • Linked to Fox Broadcasting Company. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• " the game sold more than 2 million copies" - two
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• " in the United States by December 1996,[43] becoming the best-selling video game of 1996 in the United States." - repetition makes it read awkward. Try ...becoming its best-selling video game of 1996
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "During the first three months of 1997, it was the second-best-selling console game in the United States at 523,000 units.[45] By early 2001, it had sold 5.5 million units in the United States.[46] It was the best-selling game in the United States between 1995–2002, with 5.9 million units sold in the US by 2002" - United States is mentioned a further four times in the following sentences. This could be easily condensed to flow better
  • Condensed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• "€21 million or $27,000,000 (equivalent to $43,000,000 in 2020" - the equivalence should be converted into euros as that is what was being specified
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• I won't let this hold back the review, but the Super Mario 64 DS subsection could be expanded slightly. The copies sold is ten years out of date - it's sold 11.06 million copies worldwide as of 2018
  • Updated. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "It was released on the Wii Virtual Console service in late 2006. This release added enhanced resolution and compatibility" - this can be combined to improve flow. ...in late 2006, adding enhanced resolution...
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• ""The Whizz" of GamePro commented on the 1995 Shoshinkai version's smoothness" - most readers (including myself) wouldn't understand this. Why not substitute it for beta version or prototype?
  • Changed to "prototype". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• "and how the action in the game was a blast" - very informal, paraphrase it or put it in quotes
  • Quotes added. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• " Ed Semrad of Electronic Gaming Monthly agreed." - this reads awkwardly. Can you provide more context?
  • Expanded sentence. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• " Larry Marcus of Alex. Brown & Sons" - I'm quite bewildered at somebody from an investment bank commenting on the game. The source states that he was a video game analyst, so inserting that should clear it up
  • Added. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the reception section should ideally switched with the first, as per the usual WPVG standards
  • Switched. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Maximum gave it a 5 out of 5" - no need for scores to be mentioned in the prose
  • Removed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• " Official Nintendo Magazine called it the first truly convincing use of 3D in a platformer[82]." - the source given links to Mean Machines rather than ONM
  • Fixed URL and changed the prose. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Jonti Davies of AllGame commented on the diversity of the gameplay and how many things there were to do in each course" - might read better as ...commented on the diversity of the gameplay and the abundance of activities found in each course
  • Changed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Doug Perry of IGN found the graphics simple but magnificent, and that the excellent animation and framerate fulfilled Miyamoto's dream of creating an interactive cartoon" - the latter half of this sentence reads like a copy and paste
  • That wasn't a copy-and-paste, but OK, I removed it. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Maximum gave it a "Maximum Game of the Month Award", making it the only import game (predating its international release) to win that honor, and called it the greatest game the magazine had ever reviewed" - will read better as Maximum gave it a "Maximum Game of the Month Award" before its international release, citing it the greatest game the magazine had ever reviewed
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• " In the 3D transition, many of the series's conventions were rethought drastically" - what does 3D transition mean? The game's transition to 3D during development, or video games in general during the mid 1990s?
  • Specified to "As the 3D platformer genre evolved". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• "operated by the in-game character Lakitu" - this statement is much more suitable for the gameplay section rather than legacy
  • I just removed that since I couldn't find a good place to put it in the gameplay section. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Nintendo Power stated the camera control scheme is what transitioned platform games into 3D" - I feel that this could be rephrased
  • Rephrased to "Nintendo Power stated the introduction of the camera control scheme was an important moment for the 3D platformer genre", is that okay? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• "The Nintendo 64's analog stick affords more precise and wide-ranging character movements than the digital D-pads of other consoles, and Super Mario 64's use of this was novel" - this reads awkwardly. Try something like Super Mario 64's use of the analogue stick was novel, affording more precise and wide-ranging character movements than the digital D-pads of other consoles
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• "but after one week, he wasn't found" - informal. Replace this simply with to no avail
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• "and were grouped into the "Super Mario 64 iceberg"" - this will confuse unfamiliar readers. Can you elaborate was the iceberg is? A meme, or depiction of an iceberg illustrating varying levels of depth etc?
  • Added that it's a meme. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Miyamoto mentioned at the 1997 E3 convention that he was "just getting started" on the project" - perhaps try Miyamoto affirmed that work on the sequel had only commenced at the time of the 1997 E3 convention
  • Fixed. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I congratulate you on the hard work you've put in to improve this article. I was going to get this to GA myself earlier this year but didn't have the time. Overall the article is solid and comprehensive and meets most of the GA criteria. There are several instances of ungainly prose but nothing which can't be addressed. I will leave this on hold. Please get back to me if you have any questions. ♦ jaguar 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jaguar, I think I've addressed all the issues you've described. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've read through the article again and am confident that it meets the GA criteria. A very well deserved GA for an important video game - well done! ♦ jaguar 00:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible new fan project?

I found this source related to a version of Super Mario 64 that gives Mario a gun: https://www.polygon.com/2021/3/1/22307966/super-mario-64-fps-gun-speedrun-alpharad-youtube. Would this be appropriate to be added under the Fan Project section? It could be a possible sub bullet-point of First Person Mario 64. Thoughts would be appreciated. --Splatana (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Added that as a separate bullet point since nobody's objected. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 23:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a weird fan game to add but I don't have any strong objections to adding it. Just find it a bit weird since Mario does not seem like the type of guy to be using a gun. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I've found its an internet rule to give any character who does not seem like the type of person to use a gun a gun. This is an obvious example, another is Kirby with a gun, of which there are plenty of fangames and memes, and is actually happening with the new Ranger copy ability. Splatana (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

True... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Game Director

Shouldn't only Miyamoto be credited as director on the infobox? Koizumi and Tezuka were only assistany directors, not game directors. Honestly, I'd just add Yoichi Yamada as Co-Director as he was course director. Aalji (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Koizumi is worthy of it though honestly checking the development Aalji (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I've heard, who is listed as director in the infobox isn't all the clear with the documentation, sometimes making it seem like Co-directors have priority over head directors. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the documentation for the infobox, and it says "do not list other types of directors in [the director] field". I'm not sure if assistant directors fall under "other types of directors", but I believe that "course director" does, so I don't think we can include Yoichi Yamada under the director field. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 23:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Course directors would more appropriately be listed as designers. For reference, the infobox for Super Mario World lists Katsuya Eguchi and Hideki Konno as designers, as the credits sequence lists them under "Map Director" and "Area Director", respectively. Condontdoit296 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to readers looking for basic information on the article that the other people are credited as "course director" and there is no source discussing that the game was "really directed by ______" Miyamoto should really be the only one there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought of a solution, and maybe we can use tooltips to describe their specific roles? That's what I just did on the course directors and the assistant directors. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 01:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no real point in doing that as it just is an extra text to say "well they aren't really directors". The purpose of the infobox is to supplement information within the article, not give new ones. If Miyamoto is the only director, we don't just add other people with different credits to shove them in. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean This director and this director is kind of too much Aalji (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that MoS guideline, I removed those other tooltips just now.. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Antagonist"

MOS:FILMCAST says: Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. does this guideline also apply to video games? Elizium23 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I can't provide a definitive answer for that, but I did find this green sentence in MOS:VG which includes the word "protagonist". — Coolperson177 (t|c) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, terms like "protagonist" or "antagonist" should be used sparingly and are often overused to the point where they are meaningless. If you look at Characters in the Mario franchise, it refers to any literally enemy character as an antagonist. Even if it's just a one-off character who acts as an obstacle at best and doesn't have a major role, they're automatically an antagonist. In the context of this article, "Bowser, one of the main antagonists of the Super Mario franchise" makes sense because Bowser is the big bad and beating him is the main goal of the story. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right. From our article on antagonists: An antagonist is a character in a story who is presented as the chief foe of the protagonist. [emphasis added] — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

My request is to add how super Mario 64 was rereleased on Nintendo switch through 3d all stars and the n64 emulator. I noticed the re-release portion lacked this information. ConcernedGamer (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

ConcernedGamer, are you talking about this? If so, 3D All-Stars is already in the article. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think they're wanting info on the Nintendo Switch Online N64 Emulator release. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: The Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack? Isn't that what you're talking about? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I don't actually know what the name for the actual N64 emulator is that's included in it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright. If it's okay, I'll close this request now, since the information ConcernedGamer wanted is already there and I don't think the emulator's name is important. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I know it's not important. I'm just stating that I Don't know what I should actually refer to it as. Also, the request is already closed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no official name for the emulator that the Switch uses to run its retro game collection, as far as anyone knows it's just an in-house system built by Nintendo. No official sources mention emulation at all, though of course we can surmise that that's how it's implemented - mention of an emulator in any respect is a technical detail that would be outside the scope of this article, in my opinion. Wpscatter (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Inverted Room" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Inverted Room and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Inverted Room until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Eyerok" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eyerok and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Eyerok until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Hoot the Owl" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hoot the Owl and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Hoot the Owl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Jolly Roger Bay" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jolly Roger Bay and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Jolly Roger Bay until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Dire, Dire Docks" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dire, Dire Docks and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Dire, Dire Docks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)