Talk:Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story

American boxart

Play-Asia reveals the American boxart. Look at it here. Usually if it's temporary it would say so, like it does on New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Should we change it? --98.154.145.231 (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not right now, that image has their watermark which Wikipedia prohibits. So wait until one appears on Amazon or some other US site. Sarujo (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you save the smaller image (the thumbnail), it doesn't have the watermark at all. Is that permitted? BAPACop (converse) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it would just appear blurry. Besides I already uploaded a version of the cover. So problem solved. Sarujo (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Solid Proof

I have Rock Solid Proof this Box art is unoficial. Ok, I called Nintendo of America A few days ago they said this was made by gamestop. Gamestop made it, not nontendo so THIS IS FAKE BOXART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.116.63 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw some of the real boxart at Gamestop and that is not the real boxart so I agree that it is fake. The title logo isn't right either. IT IS FAKE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.250.245 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but word of mouth an unregisted IP is not "rock solid proof". Also shouting is not going to get what you want from this article. Sarujo (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, it's a fake boxart and I won't shout it. All that is true.--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

No, a simple word of mouth is not good enough. You need a reliable source to prove this. Claiming that a phone call was made or someone dropped by Gamestop and saw something else is not a reliable source. Information posted on the "official website" or a "reliable gaming news site" is what's needed to help with this claim. IP:173.52.116.63 stating that they made a phone call has no merit as for one, as far as I'm concerned, there not a respectable journalist of any kind. And two, even if they were they would have to "publish" their finding on their venue of imployment, not here. Wikipedia is not a place to break stories. So again, I say this "trust me" and I know it to be true because I saw this or did this is not exceptible per Wikipedia's guidelines. Sarujo (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll look for more proof.--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

I'm having trouble e-mailing Nintendo about the boxart but I noticed that Nintendo.com has a different title logo on their box art than the one in the article. [1] and [2] See the difference between Nntendo.com's title logo and Gamestop.com's title logo?--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

There's barely any difference between those logos, though. The Bowser face moved. That's about it. The box art from Gamestop is a translated version of the Japanese box art. Isn't that what the box art is normally? On a side note, don't trust the Nintendo site on this game, because it still says release for Fall 2009; even after they confirmed the release date for me, they still haven't updated the page! Also, I just sent a question to Nintendo, so I should receive a reply soon. BAPACop (converse) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo has replied. They've said:

    
Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,

I'm afraid we do not have any additional information to share regarding Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story.  Everything we’re able to
share has already been posted to our website (www.nintendo.com).  As we get closer to the game's launch, we’ll reveal more details.
We ask that you continue checking the website.

Sincerely,
Alain Dao
Nintendo of America Inc.
Nintendo's home page: http://www.nintendo.com/
Power Line (Automated Product Info): (425) 885-7529

Sounds like they don't want to reveal the box art, so it actually is doubtful they would release it to Gamestop if they weren't ready... Although they still don't have the release date up (and Gamestop does), so I don't have the slightest idea what they're doing. BAPACop (converse) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You base that on an automatically generated non-response email? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they answered me the last time. Plus, I think the fact that it is an auto-generated E-mail speaks for itself: they really don't want to release any information. But honestly, i have no clue what they're doing, they give info to Gamestop but refuse to release it on their own website? I'm tempted to say it's fake simply because I've never seen a Nintendo box art released in the US with just a plain white background, there's always something behind it... But Nintendo of America is confusing me right now... I'll see if I can get to talk to a real person. BAPACop (converse) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I heard of some kind of GameCon. I think Nintendo is supposed to announce something about Mario and Luigi BiS there. I just can't understand Nintendo anymore.--71.61.250.245 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

Huh, I'm pretty sure it tells us that you contacted someone who doesn't know anything, because they're some random customer service representative. Basically, here's your argument: "I've never seen it happen, so it will never happen EVERRRR". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...yeah. Really, there are only two reasons to think this box art is fake:

• It's not on Nintendo.com. But Nintendo is being weird right now.
• It's not normal-looking box art. And as you've so kindly pointed out, that's about the worst argument EVERRRR.

So I have to say it's official. BAPACop (converse) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, funny how you say it's official. Well, aside from your excellent source of yourself, do you have anything better? "This is unlikely" or "this random customer service rep's response which covered nothing didn't say anything important" are amazing arguments, I know, but I think we should do something a bit better. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait...so if I say it's fake, my arguments are wrong. And if I say it's real, my arguments are wrong. And if I admit that my arguments really aren't that meaningful, I'm still wrong? You're trying to tell me exactly what I'm trying to tell you: There's no real evidence to either side. The only thing I can say is that Gamestop has the right release date. There's actually really no evidence either for or against the box art from Gamestop, so why don't we just push it back to the Japanese version until Nintendo official announces it? BAPACop (converse) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I for one am grateful for the effort you guys are putting into this, including calling or writing Nintendo and asking about the box art. However, Wikipedia isn't meant to be used as a news source, so it's not really that important that the most current box art is used. Why not just remove the box art from the article, wait a little while until it's obvious what the box art looks like, and then add it? Gary (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem stemmed from the fact that the box art may not actually be real at all, let alone current. But seeing as the arguments back and forth have shown that there's no proof to either confirm or deny it, I think we should revert it back to the Japanese box art until Nintendo posts a North American version. If there's no objections, I'll probably do it later today or tomorrow. Or, of course, someone else can do it if they want to. BAPACop (converse) 04:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not back and forth. We presented: A box art from a well-known company that has no record of doing what you accuse them of (that is, both creating its own logo for a game, and its own box art for a final release of a game), you present: a hunch. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, but now you're aggravating me. What do you want me to say? I'm not the one who accused them, the original IP user did that. And I'm not certainly accusing them of creating their own logo, because Nintendo created that logo already on the Japanese box art! If you just scroll up, you'll find that I entered the conversation attempting to prove the thing was real. I listed the facts that I could find, and said it could possibly be fake, but was probably not (although that maybe wasn't clear). Your response:

    Basically, here's your argument: "I've never seen it happen, so it will never happen EVERRRR".

But when I tried to say there's no reason to assume it's fake, you shot down my arguments!

    Hmm, funny how you say it's official. Well, aside from your excellent source of yourself, do you have anything better?

You told me I was wrong! Now you're saying I'm wrong when I say you could be right when you said I was wrong? What the %#*@ do you want me to say? BAPACop (converse) 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I want you to say "keep the image", because we have no reason to believe it is fake. If it turns out fake, remove it. Simple as that. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep the image. BAPACop (converse) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, New Age Retro Hippie, id have to agree with BAPACop on this one. your not making any sense. 98.67.183.42 (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo is really confusing me and all of us the should at least give us a reason to know why they don't want to show us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutorboi124 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank God!

that boxart is ugly anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.132.107 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

E-mailed Gamestop about the boxart

To solve everyone's problem about the boxart, I simply e-mailed Gamestop instead of Nintendo. Hopefully they will respond soon!--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

Everybody is missing the point here. A personal email is not a reliable source. They're going to have to publish a statement either on their website or in a trusted news publication. Your emails don't count for jack, so stop trying to using them. Sarujo (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not trying to use them as citations or anything, just attempting to solve the problems until the actual official sources are released. Plus, they're not just my personal E-Mails, they're also the "personal" E-Mails of Nintendo of America and Gamestop... The two companies we're talking about are publishing the E-Mails. Isn't that an official statement, regardless of it's location? BAPACop (converse) 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still personal no matter how you try to rationalize it. In this case, it was addressed you and only you by those parties. They didn't send their emails to everybody. But even if it was sent to other recipients it wouldn't make any more of a difference in this matter. The information must be published on their website or a trusted third party publication. Sarujo (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh never mind, they gave me a stupid response anyway. But seriously, an e-mail can be proof. I mean, if Nintendo e-mails me saying it's fake, then it's fake. Now let's forget about this boxart until it's completely announced.--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

Hey, I just got an email from Nintendo that said that Master Chief was a secret character in this game. Post it k? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What? A secret character? Where did you hear about that? And why would Alphadream put in a Halo character in Mario and Luigi?--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

I told you - I emailed them! I can post an email if you'd like. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New Age is being sarcastic, and trying to prove to you that anyone can post something here, and claim it's an e-mail, and say it's true. You need more proof than just claiming something. SLJCOAAATR ^{4 6 8 15 16 23 42 108 305 316} 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it just absolutely amazing that people try to take good intentions and twist them? In citing those E-Mails, I was making an attempt to end an argument in a way that could be easily verifiable if anyone else were to send a similar E-Mail. If you ask Nintendo the same question I do, you'll get the same response. So if you're not lazy, you'll know I'm telling the truth.
Considering there's no source for or against either issue, there's really no way to support each side without attempting to get more information than is already available. I do this by sending E-Mails to the respective sites. And once again, if you ask Nintendo the same question, you'll get the same answer.
Also, in this case, unlike New Age up there, I am telling the truth. I'm also capable of attempting to have a decent conversation, rather than just automatically attacking the other person's viewpoint EVEN IF I AM AGREEING WITH THEM! BAPACop (converse) 04:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. No matter HOW you suggest we use these unusable emails as a source, they can NEVER EVER EVER be used. And oh? I'm wrong? And you're right? But, we provided the EXACT same level of evidence! I don't see why you could be more so right. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point: I'm not trying to suggest we use them as a source! (Haven't I said that at least twice already?) I'm trying to hold off an argument (that will never really be solved because there's no apparent source to either side) until there is an official source. BAPACop (converse) 04:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

BAPACops's right you know. this will never end with a right answer until nintendo either releases the game, or posts it on their website. any other website that shows box art, unless its IGN, gamespot, or kotaku is either showing a placeholder, or their wrong. 98.67.2.158 (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, we aren't going to solve anything if we argue like this. Let's just wait until the proper info is released.--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

problem, boxart is real. check nintendo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.181.12 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who took out the boxart!

Guys didn't we tell you not to take out the boxart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.132.107 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny... the IP user 67.82.132.107 removed the box art... Wow, you should have let yourself know what you decided before you removed the box art. BAPACop (converse) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

no, this person obviously did not know we can check what IPs edit. thats just some dumb person trying to act smart. Mario & Luigi RPG 3 (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shigeru's involvement

Could use a ref for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olifromsolly (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Claimed?

you say I "claimed" I called nintendo. My gosh if you dont belive I called Nintendo Why dont you call them up YOURSELF and ask if this Boxart is FAKE!!!! Well, I dont have an account here on Wikipedia so I really dont care if you guys are goin around with fake boxart. If you really want to convince me it is real, write on my talk page on Mariowiki.com. My username there is Ratfink43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.227.212 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well RatFinkt, it's not a matter of fact or fiction, it's a matter or reliability. A word of mouth claim is not a reliable source. And me calling them for this conformation is pretty redundant. Such a claim can be used in a Wikia but not in Wikipedia. Now I gather that you believe that, that calling you a liar. But regardless of fact or fiction, that's nobody's call to make here. What is, is whether or not the source is reliable to hold up for this graphic or article itself. In a situation like this you have to ask yourself "Am I a respectable journalist for a news publication?" and "Am I doing this for said news publication?". The only way to properly source the claim is to find a news article on a reliable video gaming news site like IGN or GameSpot about Nintendo announcing that the current image is fake and making copyright complaint over it, or a leaked concept image that they didn't want the public to see at this time. As game developer do create concept art for their game covers, or teasers. So that would be the only way. Phone calls and emails are not reliable sources. Sarujo (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm 99% sure this boxart is fake. I went to Gamestop (the store, not the website) and they have a totally different boxart on the soon-to-be-released rack. I don't have a link to show you, but if you go to Gamestop you will see the REAL boxart, and you can take a picture of it, and post it on the internet. Or just ask a worker there about the boxart. simple, right? Ratfink43 is not a liar. --Fawfulfury65 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

I never called Ratfink a liar. Again the two of you are missing the point. Word of mouth is not a reliable source regardless if it's true. And telling me to go to Gamestop and take a photo is no better either as a photo of a copyrighted image is another Wikipedia violation. The only way to settle this dispute, is to wait until the game is released. Sarujo (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could leave it up until later. Also it is on Nintendo.com so it is either real or the beta picture. And I know you didnt call me a liar, but you were basiclly saying I was wrong. I dont know if it is on Nintendo.com right now but it was before so I guess I was wrong about the boxart being fake. Im sorry, Ok? Whats wierd is Fawfulfury saw a diffrent boxart at gamestop. Well, true or not, it should be left as a beta picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.232.189 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

About taking a picture of the box art... How is the image any more copyrighted when you take a picture of the physical object than it would be if we used the online version of the same artwork? BAPACop (converse) 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Also, it looks like Nintendo has responded in a way, because they did post Gamestop's artwork on their own page. Therefore, the art is 100% official, and 0% fake. Problem solved! BAPACop (converse) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just wait!

Can't you people wait! It is not that far away from here It is less thaan a month away! Just have patience, you inconsiderates idiots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutorboi124 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

don't insult users. there just excited. and how does being excited about something make us idiots? 98.67.178.7 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's Just Hope!

Let's just hope that ugly boxart isn't real! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.132.107 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:'(

Well Sadly looks like nintendo of america posted the boxart on their site so oh well i guess that ugly boxart is the real boxart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.132.107 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

nintendo could of at least changed the backround color to that goldish backround color on the website 98.67.176.200 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting reeeally off-topic. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

nooo its not. 98.67.179.184 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeeeees it is. It's not really our place to suggest improvements on the box art background. BAPACop (converse) 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is with all the unregistered users talking about off-topic things. This page is only for discussions about fixing the article, not about the improvements to the game so please stop!--Fawfulfury65 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)fawfulfury65

well the articles not gonna get much better. its 2 days before the games release. 98.67.0.20 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow

The game comes out tomorrow so we might as well stop arguing and be excited for the coming out of the game! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutorboi124 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

not out

this game is not at any gamestop. IM SO MAD!!!!!!!!!!!!111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.183.69 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The release date means that Nintendo is shipping the game today. When it appears for sale depends on each individual store.

P.S.: The number "1" is not a form of punctuation. BAPACop (converse) 23:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it, but Wikipedia =/= Game forum. SLJCOAAATR ^{4 6 8 15 16 23 42 108 305 316} 02:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

well that sucks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.1.123 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 

It's OUT =)

It's finally out! Hooray!

How long should the plot be?

I don't think we need to include every detail of the plot. I thought the 3-paragraph plot summary as it was here was quite sufficient, but now the plot summary is quite a bit longer, giving a great deal of information about the parts towards the end of the game. Can't we try to abbreviate things, so that this article has a more succinct plot summary like the one for Partners in Time? Gary (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the information is useful I'd say it should stay, and I find info about the end of the game useless. --Fawfulfury65 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Fawfulfury65

There's a lot of useless/excessively detailed information here. The pages for similar games such as Super Mario RPG, Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, and Superstar Saga don't have such long and tedious plot summaries. Does anyone have a problem with trimming the plot section of Bowser's inside story? Gary (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I just went ahead and trimmed it. If it grows back again, you can find my shortened version here[3] Gary (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Someone should work on the reception section, because it was not made into a graph yet. ～～～～ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner4 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bowser as "the main" character

There is debate whether or not "This game is the first game in which Bowser is featured as the main character." It doesn't seem true because Bowser was a main character in Super Mario RPG and Super Paper Mario. The use of "the main" disregards the fact that Mario and Luigi are also main playable characters, but the point against that is "they're supporting him, despite being in the title" which is completely unfounded and seems like original research. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Metacritic":

• From Paper Mario: "Metacritic—Paper Mario". Metacritic. Retrieved 2008-08-17.
• From Giant Bomb: "Giant Bomb Profile at metacritic.com". Metacritic. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2011-08-17.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the remake section of article has plagiarized text from MarioWiki. The revision that adds it to Wikipedia by an IP in 20 October 2019 was after this writing in MarioWiki's article in 12:20, July 26, 2019 and this extra revision. The text is copied almost word for word save for a few phrase changes. The plagiarized paragraph should either attribute to MarioWiki or have the paragraph rewritten. 47.148.113.225 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)