Talk:Super Mario 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Mario 64 article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Super Mario 64 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Super Mario 64 has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2005.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 3, 2006	Featured article review	Kept
October 20, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
December 13, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
Current Status: Former featured article, current good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects
Click [show] for further details

	This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

CVG Portal

This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.

Top

This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

This is a selected article of WikiProject Video games.

This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.

CVG To-do:

	To-do list for Super Mario 64:	edit · history · watch · refresh
copyedit - weasel words, peacock words, unsourced statements, a strange section of quotes from people who have played Super Mario 64, but has little to do with its legacy. The development section is patchy and not very comprehensive, needs sources. The reception section is one-sided, counterintuitive, contradicts much of the article, and has no sources.

Archives Archive 2005

The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife.

[edit] Deleted reception paragraph

I removed the paragraph under the reception paragraph as a glaring example of Point of View problems. It was completely unsourced, unattributed and made a highly contentious point. Most of the rest of the article would seem to indicate that Mario 64 represented a bold new direction for the series, and was not much like previous games in the series at all. At best the article should attribute some sources and counterbalance it with an op=aj was here to mes it up+ om of the talk page. For what's it's worth, I have responded to this issue at User talk:Frogacuda. Andre (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks

If you have time why not help with writing a player's guide for Super Mario 64 on Wikibooks? Gerard Foley 15:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that book was deleted along with the rest of the videogame books. I have started to write my own guide from scratch in the Public Domain at WikiKnowledge if anyone wants to help with that instead. Gerard Foley 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on development

This should be incorporated: http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/kong/features/mario64/index.shtml - Fredrik | t c 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oooh

omg. look at google video there is a luigi is real thing there. Whoa

Thats some bad grammar you got there. And its pretty easy to make a screen shot/video that streches mario out a little and makes him green... Wesz 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FARC

The article Super Mario 64 includes:

Limited references concerning the history and the development of the game. The references in the article are not formatted correctly.
Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation? The "Rumors" and "Impact" section requires citations as well.
Far too many fair use images.
The "basic controls" section could do with some trimming.
Is the "remakes and sequels" section necessary?
The spoiler warning is quite lengthy.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with #2 #3 you threw out #5 and I dealt with #6. Number 1 i'm working on, and #4 is not a valid issue. You should have posted a cleanup instead of doing a FARC Seraphim 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of spoilers tag

The list of levels does not consist of "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag is used for. While playing the game you are not suppossed to be surprised by any of the main levels. What would be considered a spoiler is explaining how to find Shifting Sand land, but since that is not mentioned, there are no spoilers that I can see. Seraphim 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the list of the levels featured in the game certainly adheres to the title of "spoiler warning". Perhaps one reading this article does not want to know that about the levels in the game? We cannot be careless and need to patch up all loose ends. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In the game if you hit the start button you get a list of all the levels in the game. It is not a spoiler, and there is no way you can consider a level list to be giving away "Plot and/or ending details" which is what the spoiler tag covers.Seraphim 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Rumors

I just removed the Rumors section. Wikipedia is not a place for rumors or speculation, however, I realize that the rumors were posted to adknowledge that the rumors exist which does fall inline with wikipedia standards. With that said, we cannot add unverifiable information to articles, and the rumors section definatly needs some references added. I'll post the content of the section here, and whoever added the rumor can add in a reference, and then once it's all referenced we can add it back into the article. Here it is:

Because of Super Mario 64's great popularity, rumors spread like wildfire after its release.

The most infamous rumor is that Mario's brother Luigi is an unlockable character in the game. This rumor was fueled by a blurry texture on the pedestal of a statue in the castle courtyard that some think reads "L is Real 2401" (or alternately, 2041), for which various speculative explanations have been proposed by fans. Others believe the text to read "Eternal Star," which makes sense since the texture appears on the pedestal of a star-shaped statue. The phrase "Eternal Star" has been used by Nintendo in other games, most notably as an unlockable board in the first Mario Party title. Luigi is a playable character in the Nintendo DS version of the game.

Photoshopped pictures of Mario with a green tint have been presented as evidence of Luigi being playable, but no one has been able to accomplish this feat in the game. Nintendo has consistently denied Luigi's playability, and never commented on the meaning of "L is Real 2401." However, in one Nintendo Power April Fool's issue, the table of contents said that this cryptic phrase would be discussed on a page whose number did not exist in the magazine.

The suspicious texture also appears in Dodongo's Cavern in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, a game which recycled and revamped the graphics engine from Super Mario 64. The artists may simply have reused the texture as a joke, knowing the fuss it would create amongst keen-eyed fans. Several other out-of-the-way Mario references exist in that game.

Thanks Seraphim 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, could "L is Real 2401" mean "Luigi is real to April First"? Just an intrepration, but, makes sense... 65.96.98.74 22:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent removals

Please discuss your removals before doing them unilaterally. Do not remove sections - find references, don't kill the entire section. Andre (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, feel that it has not been established that we have too many screenshots on this page. Though the line about Desert Land and the rumors section need references, they should not be removed out of hand. We will locate references for them. Andre (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Um.... Look up 1 section on the talk page called "Unreferenced Rumors". Right now someone is trying to get the page's Featured Article status removed. All issues need to be dealt with immediatly so people don't post Remove decisions and then never check back again. Seraphim 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andrevan here, that the first choice should be fixing text, not removing it. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 17:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that the first choice should be fixing text not removing it. However the first choice should also have been posting a cleanup tag on the article, not creating a nomination to remove this as a featured article. But Eternal_Equinox did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates. One of his reasons was alot of uncited text, specifically the rumors section. Since no part of the rumors section had any references that is an extremely valid point, and people would have to vote for removal of the article's featured status. Most people don't go back to re-check their votes a few days later, I removed it to here to prevent people that view the FARC's only once from voting Remove. There has been too much work put in this article, for it to loose featured status. Once the FARC is over i'll gladly put the rumors section back in and tag it with references needed, however right now this was needed since one of the biggest reasons for removing featured article status is that they have tags all over them. I also suggest you all vote on the FARC nomination, since it's "your" article that will be loosing it's star.Seraphim 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox doesn't have authority. He's just a user, and at the moment there's little risk of this article losing FA status. Please stop removing the text, and let's discuss how to fix it. Andre (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You are also a user so I don't follow your message. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it up for now. But if the FA vote gets another remove vote (becomes tied) I will have to remove it again. There is a much greater risk then you believe. There is a FARC vote going on, that right now is 3-2 for keep, that is not "little risk". I'll tag the section as needing references. Seraphim 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by that message was, your criticisms and the FARC nomination are not necessarily important. Any user can make them, and doing so does not necessitate authority. Because of Seraphim's reaction, I was unsure if he was aware of this. Andre (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand understand what the FARC nomination is. If that passes, this page looses it's FA status. It doesn't matter who nominates the page. Seraphim 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uch, so much talking on such a minor topic. Nevertheless, I agree with Andre. But who is this Andre? Bcem2 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Status?

What is the current article status? Is is a featured article still or not? And where is the star if it is? ~~User:Judgesurreal777~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.166.217 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it's still featured. The templates at the top of this page explain it. I still see the star. Pagra shtak 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something funky with the star on this page. I see it about 1/2 the time I come here for some strange reason. *shrug* It is still a FA. Seraphim 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Resolution Screenshots

Bowser start of snow level Big Boo's Mansion Fortress The monkey that steals Mario's cap Dire Dire Docks 2nd snow level Rainbow Road with Wing cap

Placing them here so they're not forgotten. Do what you want with them except deleting them. I'm using some of the best hardware avaliable to render them. Renegadeviking

I don't think high-resolution screenshots are appropriate here since the game doesn't look like that on the Nintendo 64. Emulator screenshots are fine IMO, but the configuration should be as close as possible to the original hardware. Fredrik Johansson 11:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's called high res instead of low-res. I promise you no body will be confused. Renegadeviking

I've converted the included images into links, since images claiming fair use can only be used in the article namespace according to Wikipedia's fair use policy, item 9. A few comments about these screenshots: High-resolution screenshots should be avoided in favor of low-resolution screens, which appear the same in the article and make a stronger fair use argument. (Fair use policy, item 3). Retouched or enhanced screens are typically not as useful as the original screen; the raw screens give the user a better idea of the game. These enhanced screens, while pretty, will mislead the reader and also weakens the case for fair use. Pagra shtak 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi model

While it's known that Luigi is not a playable character in the game, there is a model for Luigi hidden in the game. Somebody looked through the ROM and found the polygon data and was able to produce this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1531148774953443944

Should this be added anywhere in the rumors section?

You can't even be sure this is even true. M2K e 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did this video. I reverse-engineered the polygon data and distorted Mario's head, then changed the suit and hat color to green, then the red M to a green L icon. The Luigi model is not in the original game, I modified it. I'm currently building a Super Mario 64 editor, and Luigi is nowhere to be found in the game. There is an unused animated beta Yoshi egg though...

Do you have a website for this project? It'd be a nice reference to prove, once and for all, that Luigi is not in Mario64. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 03:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, just watched said video, and I shall point out that Mario's icon is at the top left. I would reccomend editing that. P.S. Tell me the program at my talk page.--Sheenfanficker

[edit] flying 1-up mushrooms

There flying mushrooms in this game, like the outside the castle in 3rd tree from the waterfall. Why do these mushrooms chase you? Why did the programmers design the mushrooms to chase you?

So you wouldn't have to go through all the trouble of chasing them. The Legend of Miyamoto 20:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of levels and FAR

Hi all - as you know, this article is currently undergoing a minor Featured article review to tighten up the language. (I want to emphasize that this is NOT a nomination for the removal of featured article status.) One issue that's come up is the list of levels - is it too crufty? Is it too long? Should it be spun off into its own article? Should it be converted into prose, and if so, how? Input from people who regularly edit this page would be absolutely wonderful; you can comment here. Cheers! The Disco King 13:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glitches

An anon added a long list of SM64 glitches to the article, but I've removed it. This is exactly the type of cruft the FAR listed above is meant to address. The section was also unsourced. -- BrianSmithson 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

I've counted 13 fair use images in this article, which seems a little excessive to me (especially since this is meant to be a featured article). It would be good if someone could sort through the screenshots and take out the ones that are least useful.--Kingston Jr. 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I've reverted to the version where you removed some of them. Each image in this article needs to be directly related to something in the text. I can buy that seven or eight images do this, but not 13. Also, the reversion to the article before your cuts also deleted a bunch of {{fact}} requests for source citations, so I've put those back, too. — BrianSmithson 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the screenshots were free images then there wouldn't be a problem, but since they're not we should follow the policy for fair use images set out in WP:FU, which states that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Given that this is supposed to be a featured article I believe the article should follow this policy to the letter. Aside from that and some minor unsourced info here and there, it's a pretty good article.--Kingston Jr. 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowser's voice?

According to the article, Bowser was voiced by an uncredited Issac Marshall. However, according to an issue of the The Mushroom Kingdom Mailbag (the second "the" is deliberate in this case), the user "Stealth Yoshi" proves (via an audio sample) that Bowser's low-pitched growl is the same as the shrill laugh of a Boo, only slowed down by a factor of about 8. (It is important to note that both sound bytes originated in this game.) Does this mean that he also provided the voice for Boo, or has the article simply been misinformed? --Ppk01 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A benchmark for all 3D games

"Super Mario 64 was considered so revolutionary that many consider it the benchmark for all later 3D platformer games and 3D games in general"

The source provided for this sentence ([1]) does not mention anything about the game being considered a benchmark. Its very weasel worded anyway, but I've removed the source and tagged it with 'citation needed' instead of taking it out completely.--58.169.31.200 01:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nintendo basically set the standards for how 3D space would be navigated within video games with Super Mario 64." That seems pretty clear to me, but just to make it crystal I've changed the wording to "set the standard." Andre (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems totally wrong. There are a lot of different control types. I.e. Croc or Crash Bandicoot use totally different navigation types. 84.178.73.248 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be changed. "Many" is not composed of a single gamespot article. And besides, Jumping Flash! did this a year before mario 64.--58.169.0.94 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about that -- it's about setting the standard, influencing and inspiring other games, as diverse as GoldenEye. Control schemes are not the issue. Andre (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been changed a while ago, but I just wanted to comment here on the reasoning. Saying that something "set a new standard for how 3D space is navigated in a game" is a very different thought that saying it "Set the standard for all 3D games." The latter implies it's a standing benchmark of quality which is NOT what the article was trying to say. The article was more discussing about the way analog movement was used in conjunction with a dynamic, intelligent camera, something which HAS been important to the development of 3D gaming (perhaps not all 3D gaming, but a large portion, all the same). The point made in the article was articulate and accurate, so I changed the wording to more reflect that feeling. Frogacuda 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumours quote -- is it unnecessary?

The quote I'm referring to is the "Headless Snowman 64" game article. It's not exactly a rumour, but a joke about Luigi not being in SM64. Is it worth keeping it there? 143.238.194.33 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA status removed?

How did this happen without the removal discussion being advertised? Andre (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say, how did we go from FAR to FARC? Also, it seems like there have only been two or three people weighing in on the discussion to remove it. I'm going to revert the removal for now until this is explained. Andre (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The FA status was removed because according to what Deckiller said in the FFXII article's talk page, it lacked inline citations and had serious lead and POV issues, and little work was done to fix those issues in the 1+ month given. Sjones23 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Famitsu review

Geez guys, you've got reviews from every country except Japan. Get this worldwide view straight. Famitsu gave the game a 39/40, which is an impressive feat. I can't just add that though, as someone still has to find a source for it (and I don't want to help as I rather want to review the article).--SeizureDog 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This is my review of this article for a GA status:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is well written.

a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:

a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Semi-protection?

Can we see about getting this page put on semi-protection for a while? The GameFAQs crowd seem to have learned how to escape from their cages as of late and are determined to junk up pages related to video games here. None of the offenders have made edits while being logged in, though, so preventing anonymous edits for a while should clear the issue up. erhudy 06:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Little Awards Shown in Wikipedia

In the page, there is little awards shown for Super Mario 64. As of other 790 reviews and awards of which 97% are 10 out of 10, best game ever made, greatest game of all time, game of the year, best design, best coordination, and best controls. I would love to hear other opinions or add more awards.

- February 2007- The Legend of Miyamoto

[edit] Remakes and sequels

Should there be anything on how Super Mario Galaxy is considered the true sequel by some fans?

Notice what you said. It is considered to be a sequal by fans. Not Nintendo. The fans. This makes the statement original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. So no, there shouldn't be anything about it unless Nintendo makes a statement saying that it is. --pIrish 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The trivia recently removed needs incorporating into the article body if possible. I'm a fan of tagging the trivia section for incorporation, rather than zapping the lot, but here's the points removed :-

The golden rabbit, Mips, is named after the Nintendo 64's MIPS processor.
Speeding up Bowser's maniacal laughter results in the high-pitched laugh of a Boo.
Several things change when Mario collects all the stars. Bowser's final battle speech is different, Yoshi appears on the castle roof and grants Mario a new triple jump, the beach cannon is unlocked, and the Big Penguin in Cool Cool Mountain gains weight.
Without using coin-duplication glitches, there are 2092 coins in the 15 worlds. Two particular coins (Snowman's Land's narrow wooden path leading to the snowman's head, and near Tiny Huge Island's cannonball hole using big Mario) are each members of a 'coin line', but they were accidentally embedded inside walls. They can be seen by manipulating the camera to view inside the wall.

--Oscarthecat 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The MIPS fact was previously incorporated, but removed for some reason. Andre (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of enemies

I think there should be a list of enemies added to this article, or at least a link to this page: Mario series enemies 209.103.228.155 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2041?

Hey everyone I think there is a connection between the L is Real rumor and the release date of Super Mario Bros. What I did was I divided 2041 by 64 (referring to nintendo 64) and got 31.890625. I then rounded that to 31 and multiplied that by 64 to get 1984 which is a year off from the release year of Super Mario Bros. in Japan and the U.S. This is just a guess about what the rumor means or if it means anything at all. Tell me your opinion on this.--Coolkid602006 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no connection. Andre (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang...Last night I kept thinking about what this could be and I moved the numbers around to get 4/1/02 which is

April fools day 2002. And in April fools day 1998 nintendo power magazine they faked a page about it. Tell me your opinion on this.--Coolkid602006

There is no meaning to the number 2041, numerological or otherwise. Andre (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESuper_Mario_64_6654.html"