Jump to content

Talk:Super Mario 3D Land: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎PETA rubbish: new section
Line 142: Line 142:


:::The above excerpt is from Plot, not Gameplay. {{done}} and sourced. [[User:Salvidrim|Salvidrim]] ([[User talk:Salvidrim|talk]]) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:::The above excerpt is from Plot, not Gameplay. {{done}} and sourced. [[User:Salvidrim|Salvidrim]] ([[User talk:Salvidrim|talk]]) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

== PETA rubbish ==

Mario '''transforms''' into a tanooki; he isn't 'wearing' tanooki fur! Using power-up logic in a fictional video game to insist that Nintendo is trying to 'brain-wash' people into killing animals solely for their fur makes it obvious that PETA is employing any desperate publicity stunt--no matter how illogical--it can possibly fabricate. Using this same irrational mentality, Mario is 'wearing' an exoskeleton from a bee that he 'clearly' killed; never mind that he's thousands of times bigger than a bee, and couldn't dream of 'donning' an exoskeleton. Where was PETA in 1990? (SMB3) Were they not desperate then, or why are they suddenly coming out of nowhere with their non-sense 21 years later? I personally think if we have to mention this goofy campaign by PETA, it needs to be reworded. As of my writing this post, the article seems 'confident' that Mario wears tanooki fur in the brief PETA mention. I don't know what to do about a source, but anybody who has spent a few mere minutes playing a Mario platform game knows without any room for ambiguous thinking that Mario uses power-ups, not wears animal clothing. Can anybody help with a source, if possible? Kind of tricky to source correctly because it almost goes without saying that these are power-up items. Thx. [[Special:Contributions/67.182.237.57|67.182.237.57]] ([[User talk:67.182.237.57|talk]]) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:31, 17 November 2011

WikiProject iconVideo games: Nintendo Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Name should be changed

The game in question is simply Super Mario with 3DS not being part of the name. A quick look at the logo proves that. It should be at Super Mario (3DS) instead.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move accomplished. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Super Mario (game)"? I think it fits. SWFlash 12:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's unnecessarily ambiguous for something that's likely just a working title. Reach Out to the Truth 14:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. It's good how it is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Super Mario (Nintendo 3DS) like Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS), however just 3DS is probably enough to distinguish it, either way though there should be consistency--sss333 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Developer changed

The developer had been listed as Backbone Entertainment, with the reference being an article and video of Iwata's GDC keynote address. Nowhere on the referred page or in his speech was Super Mario (3DS) credited to anyone but Nintendo EAD Tokyo. If I have missed the reference, please update the page with a correct source. Rasdock (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Super Mario 3D Land

Nintendo's July 28 press release announcing the 3DS Ambassador program refers to the game as "Super Mario 3D Land" and gives a November release date. ShadowUltra (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! I've been doing research on this topic, as I'm also interested in this game, and there is no way that "Super Mario 3D Land" is the correct title. It's only mentioned in that one press release. I requested move protection because of this move warring. And I don't see anything about a November release date. I say revert the move until there is stronger evidence. --Nathan2055talk 15:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo just gave a press release this morning. The source is shown in the article. I would imagine that by the end of the day, at least 5 good new sources will report on it. Cool your jets Nathan. This is the new, real name. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are multiple sources showing now. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it looks like you're right. No matter what the title, it still looks like a great game. --Nathan2055talk 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release date revisited

OK, I've reverted this same edit twice from two different accounts. I asked in Target last night about the release date, they have no info. If you're saying you got it from GameStop, that's a lie. Back when Pokemon Black & White had no release date, they started running around saying it was going to come out on 4/22/11. I ended up coming out on 3/6/11. GameStop lies a lot. Unless you can publish a source, no more editing of the release date, please. --Nathan2055talk - review 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are technically in the right, the date hasn't officially been announced by nintendo. However, a reliable source (I think it was MTV or something) commented about the date they keep adding. While it's still not official and shouldn't be added, there always seems to be a lot of people who feel the need to add it anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not considered a reliable source unless it's announced by Nintendo. Lots of companies lie about these dates. --Nathan2055talk - review 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MTV itself is a reliable source in itself, that's not the problem, it's just that it be warranted to use them as a source for info about gameplay, or a review. It shouldn't be used for release dates that hasn't been announced yet. (So you're right, I"m just making sure you're right for the right reasons...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with what you've said. I've gotten the page semi-protected for 48 hours until we can get this mess straightened out. --Nathan2055talk - review 02:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT I FOUND THE SOURCE for the relese date at http://www.gamezone.com/news/item/super_mario_3d_land_mario_kart_7_dated . OFFICIAL Canihuan300 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They say it's official, but as you'll note in the comments section, they don't list their source. I'm not sure they're a reliable source, and Nintendo has still not mentioned these release dates... Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction request

{{Request edit}}

I work on Nintendo of America's PR team. I'd like to contribute information that will improve the factual accuracy and timeliness of this page.

I am aware of (and agree with) Wikipedia's policy regarding Conflict of Interest editing, so I'm not making changes to the page. However, I'd like to ask a Wikipedia editor to update the sourced article for this game’s release month. As sergecross73 noted, the only official release timing is "November." Please cite this article [5] as a source on the game’s release month – it’s been written more recently than the current source. RGGH (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a common problem with given dates like this is that random people come and change the date to ones given from GameStop, Amazon, etc. which make approximate(fake) dates. We try to revert them as timely as possible, but it is difficult. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll do my best to help with this too, but for whatever reason, wikipedia editors love fake release dates, whether it be in good or bad faith... Sergecross73 msg me 19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced release date revisited

Closimg RFC as overkill. the article has had semi protection re-applied through till Nov 13. I sift through MedCab cases and had a look at this one too, I will also close out the MedCab case. While IPs and new users are subject to the same rights that long time editors have, they also have the responsibility. Additiojs to an article (such as a potential release date) needs a reference, and a reliable one. From what I've seen, the date was in a MTV press release, though later the date was retracted. It's not our place to comment on why it was retracted, but as the information is not current or correct anymore from that source, an alternative source is required, of which I could find none. Discussing one's edits is a requirement, as Wikipedia is a collaborative place. As the users making these edits have failed to provide a reference and have not discussed them on the talk page, semi protection is the only alternative. If new autoconfirmed accounts continue to add an unsourced release date, post a message to their talk page asking them to join the discussion here. Remember they're new, and peobably don't realise our policies, so explain it to them in a nice way. If the user(s) continue to make the edits after a talk page notification, and without discussing them, then that is disruption, and the appropriate avenue is WP:ANI. Hope this helps. Steven Zhang (talk)

The following discussion 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.

We are now part of a full-fledged edit war here. I need help-we have a bunch of auto-confirmed users setting the date to the 13th. Look at http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/VnTS_u2DBaJ5N-PXEJC-gWWMkSC5Rixm. I need other editors to discuss these edits here and show the other users that you just can't add this unsourced info. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - review 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other users don't care about consensus. They do WP:BOLD edits they think are correct, and don't stick around long enough to see that they are wrong. We can't do anything other then keep reverting until Nintendo says a better date. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC needs a specific question - Can someone please re-state the RfC issue above? RfCs work best when a content-related question is posed (such as "which date should be used for event ABC?"). That way editors such as myself could jump in and help. The above RfC text is focusing too much on the edit-waring behavior, which is best handled at WP:ANI. RfCs should focus on specific content issues. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the question is what should be done to prevent this problem. MediaWiki doesn't support protecting a certain area of a page, which I think I'll suggest at the MediaWiki wiki. I've tried semi-protecting, now it's full-protected, a rare occurrence. What can be done to prevent this other than watching and reverting? --Nathan2055talk - review 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a informal mediation request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-08-20/Super Mario 3D Land. --Nathan2055talk - review 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is any of this necessary? This is just a standard case reverting vandalism and/or getting a page protected from Anon IPs editing or something. Am I missing something? Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Gameplay Section rewrite

Hi, I think the gameplay section is a bit convoluted and needs a bit of a tidy up. I've drafted a couple of paragraphs to replace what is there already but I'd like to run past the regular editors first. Apologies for my poor wiki-edit skills!


Super Mario 3D Land combines gameplay elements from previous 2D and 3D Mario titles. Mario can move in three dimensions throughout most of the game, and has retained some of his moves, such as the wall jump and ground pound, from 3D Mario games. Power-ups can also be collected to transform Mario's abilities in a smiliar way to 2D titles. Nintendo have confirmed the return of Mushroom, Fire Flower and Star Man power-ups, along with the Tanooki suit from Super Mario Bros 3. Mario will lose a power-up, or a life, if he is hit by an enemy or environmental hazards, such as fire or bottom-less pits.

Like 2D Mario platform games, levels in Super Mario 3D Land are mostly linear, obstacle courses as opposed to the free-roaming 'mission' structure seen in 3D Mario titles. Each level has a start and end point and must be completed within the time limit. Level themes include traditional Mario environments such as lava, ice and ghost houses.

Alongside platforming elements, the game also contains boss encounters and mini-games.


I don't know if that last sentence is needed but I thought I'd add it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hey what about the flying boxes and s**t explained at the TGS trailer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.143.252 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super-Mario-3D-Land-Logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Super-Mario-3D-Land-Logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a rationale, this is my first time so would probably like someone experienced to double-check it. Salvidrim (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have asked The Lovable Wolf to explain the C-class assessment, but being a novice at it myself I thought my idea it was Start-class may have been mistaken... I see I am not the only to think so, but am still curious as to the reasons of both parties. Please discuss! :) Salvidrim (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it surpasses Stub, which is a tiny article that would easily be merged somewhere else. C-class basically has most of the required information in the article, but has formatting or sourcing errors that should be fixed before B-class. Start-class is somewhere between a stub and a C. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree it isn't really a stub per se, and clearly is not a C-Class. I'm just trying to acquire some insight as to how assessments work... thanks. Salvidrim (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, of course I've read the WP:VG/A several times, as I've said, I was just seeking additional insight from more experienced editors. Thanks. :) Salvidrim (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've opened discussions about the possible addition of Future-class to WP:VG here: WP:VG/A, I think this article is a perfect example of how it could be useful. Salvidrim (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 60.230.109.155, 3 October 2011

AUS 24 November 60.230.109.155 (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... I'm going to assume you intend to point out a release date for AUS would be November 24, 2011. Please source your claim. Salvidrim (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done unless a source can be given--Jac16888 Talk 11:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the usual first-party source for Nintendo release dates states nothing of an eventual AUS release.[1] I doubt the validity of the information. Salvidrim (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30 seconds and i found this [6] not that hard, also Salvidrim that site is not a first party source for Nintendo, scroll down to the bottom and you'll see right there that it says "This site is not affilliated with Nintendo" Mark (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Thanks for correcting me. I will add the AUS release date. Salvidrim (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Salvidrim (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Incorrect statement under "Gameplay": "The leaves, which turn out to be Super Leaves, are blown across the Mushroom Kingdom, bestowing raccoon tails on all living things they touch." Similar statements are made throughout the article. However they are not raccoon tails... they are in fact tanooki tails... two different animals... hence "Tanooki Mario" not "Raccoon Mario". Sorry if this sounds picky, but they are two totally different things. Tanooki/Tanuki holds a special place in many Eastern lores.

24.137.124.149 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a source. Salvidrim (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to support it. Яehevkor ✉ 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above excerpt is from Plot, not Gameplay.  Done and sourced. Salvidrim (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PETA rubbish

Mario transforms into a tanooki; he isn't 'wearing' tanooki fur! Using power-up logic in a fictional video game to insist that Nintendo is trying to 'brain-wash' people into killing animals solely for their fur makes it obvious that PETA is employing any desperate publicity stunt--no matter how illogical--it can possibly fabricate. Using this same irrational mentality, Mario is 'wearing' an exoskeleton from a bee that he 'clearly' killed; never mind that he's thousands of times bigger than a bee, and couldn't dream of 'donning' an exoskeleton. Where was PETA in 1990? (SMB3) Were they not desperate then, or why are they suddenly coming out of nowhere with their non-sense 21 years later? I personally think if we have to mention this goofy campaign by PETA, it needs to be reworded. As of my writing this post, the article seems 'confident' that Mario wears tanooki fur in the brief PETA mention. I don't know what to do about a source, but anybody who has spent a few mere minutes playing a Mario platform game knows without any room for ambiguous thinking that Mario uses power-ups, not wears animal clothing. Can anybody help with a source, if possible? Kind of tricky to source correctly because it almost goes without saying that these are power-up items. Thx. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_3D_Land&oldid=461091008"