Talk:Super Mario Galaxy 2

Shrunken Mario Level?

I deleted a piece of text referring to a shrunken Mario level, akin to Tiny Huge Island on SM64. I didn't see anything like that in the trailer, except for a giant goomba, but there were giant goombas in the original Mario Galaxy. If this referred to a different part of the trailer I missed, feel free to add it back in though.86.171.208.83 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was referring to this. Giant Goombas, giant blocks, giant pipe, and giant 1-up. I think it's probably a bit too early to say anything about specific levels like that, but if someone else wants to add it back, there's the picture. 71.245.139.158 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with reomval. First, we don't know if this is simply one part or a larger world. Also saying that it is similar to the tiny huge island is misleading since we don't know if they are using that dual world premise again. Finally, I not sure if a list of worlds is appropiate to begin with as the article for the original game does not have one.--76.66.188.112 (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

90%

I don't have the cite on me now, but as I understand it, in context, Miyamoto said they started with ideas they didn't get around to using in Galaxy 1, and then ended up making lots of new stuff -- the 10% of levels that aren't "new" isn't anything reused from Galaxy 1, it's just ideas that they came up with during that development cycle. 71.245.139.158 (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Miyamoto cited that 90-95% of levels were new. And yes you are right, they aren't old reused levels, just ones that they came up with during the first games development cycle and were never included. 02:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostOverThere (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, until someone can find a reference of someone interpreting it in that (obviously correct) way, it probably counts as original research, and the currently cited (and wrong) interpretation has to stand. At least until the game comes out. 70.109.111.184 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Peppy

Where was there a mention of Peppy Hare? I tried looking for it and I can't find it... Could someone provide a link to a discusion about that? :/ 65.64.100.229 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Neermind, it's already been removed. 65.64.100.229 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you know

It said that Galaxy 2 will be the first title to have a sequel on the same platform. Now i may have mis-understod this but........Super Mario Bros. 1, 2, and 3 were released for NES? And both Super Mario Worlds were for SNES?

Agreed--the front page's claim of "... that Super Mario Galaxy 2 will mark the first time a second Mario franchise title has been made for a single Nintendo system?" is rather silly. Even if you omit the American-released SMB2 for NES because it was a re-branding of a non-Mario franchise game, SMB3 still counts, and SMB2 in Japan would count as well. Additionally, look at Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2 for Game Boy. Can somebody with the proper credentials get this removed from the front page? This article (as of the time of this comment) doesn't even make the claim. It makes the much lesser claim about it only applying to 3D games (which, in my opinion, is too narrow a restriction for the claim to have any noteworthiness). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.157.181 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair; The SNES/NES and game boy versions were way back in 95, over 13 years ago. i think its more of a 'modern' view that its the modern series to have a sequel on the same system (hence in 3D). Also be bold! Wikipedia:Be bold. If the statement is inaccurate it can be rephrased or removed. No one needs to have proper credentials to edit, its wikipedia where anyone can edit. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time that there will be two 3D Mario games on the same console. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Release date

Despite the note I placed, people are still tampering with this game's release date. This makes me believe that this constitutes vandalism rather than good-faith edits. Should users who change the date be warned in the same way how UR MR GAY trivia is now seen as vandalism? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what official policy says, but since it's impossible to alter the date without seeing the hidden notice, I think yes, it is vandalism. -sesuPRIME 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If they've never changed the date on this page before, I would assume good faith. If it's an IP account and they've made the change only once before, I'd still assume good faith only because IP editors don't know about looking at an article's history, might not even see the "new messages" box, and might not even see the notes we leave because they tend to edit with blinders on (i.e. they don't understand all the wiki markup, so they start searching for a single word, number or phrase and edit it without regard for surrounding text; that's how you get the atrocious English people add sometimes). If it's an IP who's changed the date more than twice or an account that's done it once before, I would say you can begin to assume bad faith, but you have to realize there are unreliable sources out there reporting various unofficial and unconfirmed release dates, so it's not all bad faith editing. Just remember to keep levelheaded and assume good faith. DKqwerty (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rosalina?

I was just wondering if anyone knew whether Rosalina would be coming back for this sequel. If anyone knows could the include that in text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.81.37 (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Engine

I have changed the engine details. No solid information has arisen yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No confirmation yet. Digitelle (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes a source "reliable"?

This could apply to ANY article really, but as the subject says, what makes a source reliable, or rather, what is a reliable source? GameStop, Amazon, GAME, EB Games etc, are not reliable, but GameSpot, or GameFAQs is. Now, the online stores obviously are unreliable, but what exactly makes GameFAQs or GameSpot reliable, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ultimate Koopa (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The general question is tough to answer; I guess a source is reliable if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Going by this, I'd say that GameFAQs might not be a reliable source. GameSpot, however, along with other trusted sites, is listed on the list of reliable video game sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Geoff B (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know?

The Did You Know fact at the top of the page is incorrect. A Mario was released more than once on the NES and the Game Boy. However, Super Mario Galaxy 2 will be the first time a second 3-D Mario game will be released on a Nintendo console. (NSMB and NSMBW do not count because they are played in a 2-D perspective.) I have decided to BE BOLD and fix this. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)