Talk:Mario Kart 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 

Racers and tracks[edit]

I have added a "racers" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.117.148 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And it was deleted almost instantly. What's the point in making a section that contains no information at all? If no racers are confirmed yet, why even bother mentioning it? Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I think we should add a track section because on the official trailer at some Nintendo fair in Japan, it does show three tracks. One is around Peach's castel, another is a jungel track, and the third is on wuhu island (from wii sports resort.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.117.148 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While this may be ok information to add later, a trailer is not a good reliable source. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Blake is right. That's not officially confirmed yet, and a trailer is not a reliable source. (Besides, we don't even have names for the tracks, so "potential track descriptions" wouldn't really be notable anways... Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I think this article should be merged to Mario Kart#Series as a subsection. Two sentences is hardly enough information for an article. Once a good paragraph or two of encyclopedic information is revealed, then it can be re-split. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, if this game came out a couple weeks ago, I'd have to agree, because it wouldn't be likely to expand anymore, but with this being a game likely to come out within the year, I feel like more info will be coming on it relatively soon, so I'm not sure it'd be worth moving just to move it back so soon. Also, I think part of the problem is that people only keep adding their speculation or don't bother to source anything. There may actually be more info out there; let me see if I can find anything else for the article...Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Something like Kingdom Hearts III is a good example of a game that is not out yet, but has the right information for an article. I am not saying that is the lowest bar, but if you can't even write a paragraph about it, then it would work better merged in the series article until it is strong enough to be on its own. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I added some more things. It's not at much as the KH3 page, but it's much more than it used to be, and everything is sourced using well known video game websites. I think it's worth keeping as it's own article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it is just enough to let it slide. It is sad that it took a merge prod for it to get added though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Some sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is "Giant Bomb" a reliable source? It confirmed online multiplayer, but also contained a lot of information that keeps getting deleted off of here, so I didn't know if it was just mirroring old versions of wikipedia or not... Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Giant Bomb is a situational source - basically, if the information is a part of its own little Wikipedia, it's not usable, but if it is from an editor of the site, then it is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction request[edit]

{{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. Please cite this article [9] as a source on the game’s release month – it’s been written more recently than the current source, which was written over a year ago. RGGH (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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)
I've replaced the source with something already in the article to avoid repetition. By the way, if or when Nintendo gets a Flickr account, consider releasing select images under a Creative Commons free license. Those that can be used are listed here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All#Creative Commons. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should be protected.[edit]

And not just protected so that only registered (autoconfirmed) users can edit, but protected so that ONLY administrators can edit this. Until people can STOP being stupid idiots and adding December 4th, DESPITE being told not to, and putting things like "Disney Interactive".--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're not an admin. Do you not even trust yourself to edit? The vandalism is upsetting, but attacking and insulting others (like calling people "stupid idiots") is not helping either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not that, it's just that while protecting the page will keep it from being edited by guests, people can still join and vandal the place.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Then semi-protected. I'm sure that after ten edits and four days of Wikipedia membership, they would learn to look at the <! dash dash. Datkip (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You've been around wikipedia for a while, Ultimate Koopa. You must know this is how wikipedia works, when a subject gets popular, and/or is in between that phase post-announcement but pre-release, all sorts of misinformation, good and bad faith, is added. Put/keep the page on your watchlist, and revert the ill-informed edits. Eventually things settle down and stabilize. Much like it did initially at the Nitendo 3DS article at pre-release. Anyways, I'm all for protection, but there's no way anyone's going to go for a "Admin-only" editing status... Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about mis-information, but blatant vandalising, for example, putting "Apple" as the developers, changing the release year to 3011, or changing "Mario Kart 7" to something stupid like "gta v". I don't think those specific examples have actually happened.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You..don't feel that falls under "bad faith misinformation"? Well, whatever you classify it as, my message is the same, you insulting them isn't helping, and there's no way people would support an "Admin-only" editing status here... Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lubba and Whittel[edit]

Lubba and Whittel are unlockable playbles characters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.114.32 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Source? Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

YouTube's Reliability[edit]

I know this is coming off as butthurtery, but why is a YouTube video posted on Nintendo's official account considered an "unreliable source?" Datkip (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what the video in question was, but here's how it is: YouTube videos can be reliable sources, but they have to tell info to the viewer, as opposed to just showing info. Sometimes, if there's no explanation of what is happening in the video, people might not be able to catch on. As long as it tells, rather than just shows, it should be good to go. There's a bit more to it here. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Retro Studios Involvement[edit]

Please refrain from extrapolating information and assuming that "Retro Studios" is a co-developer. People keep taking liberty at adding this unconfirmed news as a fact. Mr. Miyamoto saw Ryan Harris at the Developer Roundtable (Ryan Harris is a Retro Studios producer who has been interning at Nintendo's Kyoto HQ for a year and a half to study the Japanese methodology of the company), and commented that Retro Studios is helping with Mario Kart. But then IGN confirmed on Nintendo Voice Chat that they spoke with the producer (Hideki Konno?) and that Retro is providing help with one of the levels which is assumed to be Donkey Kong's levels and assets from Donkey Kong Country Returns. This does not mean Retro Studios is a co-developer. Perhaps when we see the final game credits we will know exactly what they contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOAWiki (talkcontribs) 01:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See, this is what I always thought. Someone provided a source that said otherwise though, so I stopped pushing it... Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Here. This is what I was talking about. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/311082/previews/mario-kart-3ds-can-retro-studios-mix-up-the-old-formula/ Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


Tanooki Power-up[edit]

What about the Tanooki Power-up Nintendo showed today?

Does "Glaring" really warrant a mention?[edit]

I'm writing to question the importance of this line in the Development section:

A new feature is how characters interact with each other while driving. Characters not only turn their heads when another racer is nearby, but make faces as well, such as "glaring".

This "new feature" is not really new. Mario Kart Wii also had characters "interacting": they also turn their heads toward opponents. But it didn't change anything. To me, a "feature" is something that affects the gameplay in some way. Head turning and eyeball rolling do not, so therefore this feature is purely aesthetic. While veterans of the Mario Kart series might take notice, a reader not familiar with Mario Kart would not see why "eyeball rolling" warrants a mention.

This line is referenced from this article's statement:

I did notice a subtle feature being shown in this demo: Mario and Luigi will look at each other as they get closer to each other. Not just in head turning, but also in eyeball rolling. They'll give each other focused glares as they're driving, something that I've never seen done in previous versions of Mario Kart.

Let's examine the source in question. First, the source is titled "Mario Kart 3DS is Looking Slick," meaning that the article is focusing exclusively on the visuals. Second, the article is a list of observations from a trailer, as at the time the game was not playable. Therefore it can't be said that any of the "features" mentioned in this article has a direct effect on the gameplay. This statement does not say anywhere about why "glaring" has significance from a gameplay standpoint.

Therefore, I think the whole "characters glare when they pass each other" is really trivial. What do you all think? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be formulated more along the lines of "a trailer shows..." than "a new feature..."? Salvidrim (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see the problem. Is it sourced? Yes. Do we doubt it's true? No. Are we thinning out the article because it's really long/bloated/hard to read. No. So why remove it? Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that really answers my question. What makes "glaring", which has no visible impact on the game play, so important that it warrants a mention? It's like as if the source said "Seeing the leaves fall on some tracks is nice touch" and then adding to the article "A new feature is that the player can see leaves fall on some of the tracks." Just because something is sourced doesn't automatically make it notable. Besides, the Development section is already becoming messy with statements like "Blah was revealed, and then bleh was revealed the week after" which belong in the Gameplay section anyway. Why can't we trim it down and clean-up now instead of waiting to fix it up later when the article grows really large? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As per the article: I did notice a subtle feature being shown in this demo: Mario and Luigi will look at each other as they get closer to each other. Not just in head turning, but also in eyeball rolling. They'll give each other focused glares as they're driving, something that I've never seen done in previous versions of Mario Kart. -- The writer clearly focuses a whole paragraph on it, and emphasizes that it's more than had been featured in previous titles. It seems more than a passing mention. I agree, the development section needs cleaning up, which would involve making the separate "and this was revealed" type statements flow better. But that doesn't mean this needs to be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I missed Salvadrim's comment when I commented earlier. I have no problem with rewording it to something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Gah, I haven't seen you spell my name correctly even once! But since it is synthesis from the trailer, I strongly think at least a rewording is clearly a good thing. Salvidrim (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Characters[edit]

I have added a section called Characters with a list of the returning, leaving and new characters in Mario Kart Seven, tell me what you think. :) Matthew Talk 10:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

While we appreciate the work, character lists are a form of WP:GAMECRUFT and are thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thomas is correct. (Also, as you'll note, none of the other Mario Kart articles have such a list. It's not because no one's gotten around to it. It's because of the Gamecruft guideline.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks for letting me know. What else can I not do? Matthew Talk 10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I Don't Get It[edit]

Why call it Mario Kart 7 even though it is the ninth installment of the series? Likely Ally (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Two of the titles (Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP 2) were co-developed by Namco and not released on Nintendo consoles. Salvidrim! 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Yup, exactly. The two arcade releases were rather obscure, most casual fans aren't even aware of their existence. As far as to why they started to number the games 7 games in, I haven't ever heard a reason. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
My assumption is that it is because Mario Kart 7 is the seventh Mario Kart game on Nintendo consoles. Salvidrim! 22:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I definitely get that, I was referencing the fact that they didn't number any of the games until 7; like how Mario Kart Wii wasn't named Mario Kart 6, Mario Kart DS wasn't named Mario Kart 5, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo "Rushing the Game"[edit]

Some sources refer to an unofficial translation of the Japanese Iwata Asks article that states Mario Kart 7 was completed "as an act of emergency" indicating that the game was rushed. This is not seen in the official translation. The important source at the top of this Talk page also refers to this translation. Which is more reliable, the official translation that supposedly omits or rephrases details, or sources that refer to the text in its "original" form? Just curious as to whether or not this fact is dubious and if it should be included in the article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in one that directly contradicts the other? If there were contradictions between the two, I'd say stick to the original, but if it's simply "one has it, one doesn't", as long as their both reliable, it seems like we'd be fine using either. (Assuming it's a legit translation.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Any specific reason for this!?[edit]

I have edited the wiki page re-entering the release dates as Month Day Year as most video game Wikipedia articles have it listed as month, day, and year. Why do we need to change this? I'm simply not okay with release dates like this. Why do we do it? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Demo version of this game?[edit]

This game has a demo version (Game Card only), but why don't they have the demo version of Mario Kart 7 on the eShop? 108.6.253.32 (talk · contribs)