Talk:Paper Mario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePaper Mario has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 6, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 12, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
August 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 3, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Paper Mario:

WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-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.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Everyday life.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Sales?[edit]

I'm just wondering? Is this game rare? I just think becuase it came out late in the n64's lifespan. I bet it did sell well, but is the game cartridge a little uncommon today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This page[edit]

has 4 pages of the same theme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.106.79 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I thought Paper Mario: the Thousand Year Door wasn't the sequal to Paper Mario. I thought Superstar Saga was the true sequal. If you play the games, Paper Mario: TYD is more of an update.

Considering the original (and still commonly used) name for this game was Paper Mario 2, I think it's safe to say it is the official sequel. Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga wasn't even made by the same company as the Paper Mario games. -Luigi2 | Talk 22:05, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Luigi2. Superstar Saga was not really so much as a sequel to Paper Mario, even though the rpg style and aspects of gameplay were similar. 203.87.8.127 11:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture Comment[edit]

I think the picture is from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. The isometric view wasn't in Paper Mario. Mred64 05:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Reverted the vandal's work. -- A Link to the Past 05:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The SMRPG picture is back, and the original is now gone from Wikipedia. -- VederJuda 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way administrators can lock pictures? I would like that picture to be replaced with the real boxart that used to be there and not have it taken off again. -toastypk

It would be great to have this as a featured article.[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer review/Paper Mario/archive2 This got me to think, maybe he's right... having this as a featured article doesn't sound like a bad idea. I did a little reviewing to make sure nothing was glaringly wrong, and fixed a mistake in Watt's species, she's a Lil' Sparky.

Why do I think this is a good featured candidate? Have a look: there are almost no typos in this article, the game mechanics are explained wonderfully, the characters are listed in an ideal intensity, not too much and not too little, and the article just looks plain professional. I think with just a little more fixing and tuning, this should be a candidate for a featured article!

I hope that's not unreasonable, I say we should look into it. -toastypk

(I'll probably register a wikipedia account in the future, I just haven't been motivated enough to yet.)

Sorry, but this not not nearly featured article quality. Compare it with Katamari Damacy, a featured article on a game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well what do you mean? That article looks great, but this one seems around the same length as a normal featured candidate, at least from my perspective. I tried to look at the guidelines, and I didn't notice any POV stuff, it was a good length, just gave me good impressions. What is it that needs improving? I'd love to pitch in more. Toastypk 02:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
There is content for the plotline, but it shouldn't be in the lead, but in its own section.
It has no references.
It has no discussion on its critical acclaim, its sales figures or the Mario RPG series as a whole.
Characters section is too excessive. All NPCs should be merged into the plot section.
No mention of Princess Peach's playability. The playable characters should be unlistified, and made into a section about the partners and talk about how they work in and outside of battles.
No discussion about audio, and barely anything discussing the graphical style.
No discussion about the varying enemies, such as how a flying enemy is immune to most hammer techniques, or that spiked enemies will injure Mario or anyone who jumps on them when they attack. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
There's actually mentions of the hammer on flying enemies and spiked hurting enemies, and I was going to make a change to the article to add that but it looks like it's already there. o_O I'll see what I can do about the rest though. Toastypk 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Wait, I thought we were trying to improve this article, and it was starting going well, why did you end it? EDIT: Ok, yes I'm still a newbie at this system but I guess I've just been trying to put good faith into the nomination, which I'd really love to see one day. Toastypk 15:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if we need all of those boss stats[edit]

Isn't there a wiki that deals with indepth stuff like that? I think it's called Wikibooks. Toastypk 22:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think we need all the stats on there. I'm going to add a little note on the top of the edit page saying please don't put any boss stats on. Toastypk 05:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is adding links to reviews for the game ok?[edit]

I saw somebody added a link to a review and then someone else took it away. I didn't see anything wrong with that, or is there something I'm missing in the rules?

What should we do about the NPC list?[edit]

Frankly, it looks like something you'd see on GameFAQs, and I somehow doubt it belongs in this article. I was just going to delete it, so if anyone has any better ideas about what to do with it, please post them here. --82.7.125.142 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosses[edit]

I've decided to add the bosses section. I'm quite new so I'm sorry for any errors I've made. First off, the bosses can be tied in with the Star Spirits, and the main point of the game is to collect the Star Spirits. Also, the aritcle Lava Pirahna can be merged. I also plan on making a mini boss section, for bosses like King Goomba or Jr. Troopa. 0Z0N3

I don't know if extensive boss data is really worth it.[edit]

It's nice and all but doesn't suit wikipedia for some reason. Anyone have similar objections/comments?

I think a good amount of info for the bosses is necessary - after all, they play a pretty big part in the game, and each one is special in its own way. Miles Blues 16:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider it unencylopedic. There's barely anything to write about besides how to beat them, which is game guide material. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deserves more than this[edit]

Paper Mario is a fabulous game (more so than its successor) and deserves more than this. Clean-up is going to be enforced and the development history needs to be included. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, and right off the bat I should say that boss stats and descriptions are too specific for a wiki aritcle's taste, and really shouldn't be on this page. That's more for wikibooks. Toastypk 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. All right, it's time for the FA promotion to begin. First, I'm submitting this to peer review and like Toastypk noted, the boss stats are going to be removed. A "storyline" section containing few spoilers and the {{spoilers}} and {{endspoilers}} tags need to be included. The development and history will follow, and sales figures also require ciations and references. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
When I begin work on the article, the review from Famitsu should be collected. Does anyone know how to access the website? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
How about this? --Pagrashtak 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
"..Famitsu scored it equally as high." While the link is useful, it is kind of disappointing that it doesn't hold the actual review score (out of 40). —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

CVG peer review actions[edit]

So far, I have added a source for the badge screenshot, shortened the story, and removed some of the subsection headers in preparation for rewriting the sections to flow better. This was all per the CVG peer review. Log any other CVG peer review-related changes you make here as well. --Danaman5 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite submitting the article to numerous peer reviews, I'm actually very lazy to research the topic and improve the current quality. I'm not sure as to why though. The image of the badge needs to be replaced since it possesses a logo, which is not allowed per the fair use guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Enemies that can attack party members[edit]

What enemies can attack Mario's party members?

Offhand, I know Tutankoopa, Big Lantern Ghost, and Kent C. Koopa can. I think Bowser's fire breath can hit them too. Agent CH 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Enemies that attack party members

Buzzar- A giant bird found on Mount Rugged. Uses a wind attack that hits party members. Stuns them for up to three turns.

Tutankoopa- The second boss. Uses a magic spell that causes rocks to fall from the ceiling. Stuns them for two turns.

Big Lantern Ghost- A mini-boss found in the Shy Guy Toy Box dungeon. He attacks by shining light from his lantern. This stuns party members for two turns.

General Guy- The fourth boss. He rides in a tank, which has a light bulb on the back. During battle, he may use the light bulb and shoot electricity at you. This stuns party members for two turns. However if Watt is your partner, she will not be affected by the attack. The light bulb on the tank can be attacked, and when you break it, General Guy cannot use this attack anymore.

Lava Bubbles and Embers- Fireball enemies. Lava Bubbles are red and are found in the volcano area; Embers are blue and are found on Star Way. They attack partners by stopping in front of them and spitting fire at them. Lava Bubbles stun them for two turns, while Embers stun them for three turns. They are the only minor enemies that can attack party members.

Kent C. Koopa- A large Koopa Troopa who guards Pleasant Path after chapter 5. He is an optional boss, which is good, because he is very tough. In battle he will often use a spinning shell move that hits Mario as well your party member. They will be stunned for three turns if they get hit. When this happens, Mario will not be able to inflict damage to Kent C. Koopa because of his very high defense. This is what makes Kent C. Koopa a "superboss."

Bowser- In the last two battles with Bowser, he has a special attack. He pulls out his star wand, it glows and releases a giant yellow energy wave that hits party members, stunning them for up to three turns.

No other enemies attack party members directly, but if the partners try to jump on a spiked or fiery enemy, they will be stunned for one turn.

Three black Shy Guys[edit]

In Bowser's Castle the second Bowser door makes you take a quiz and if you get three wrong answers it says "Now you meet your doom!" and makes you fight three Black Shy Guys. Is this true?

I've never tried this, but I've heard of many cases so it's safe to assume it's true. Blue Mirage 08:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely true. ... I still haven't beaten them. :( Toastypk 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember that. I was able to beat them, but I had used up so much of my inventory that I decided to restart from my last save afterwards.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, and IF you defeat them (very difficult) it supposedly makes bowser harder.

I'm pretty sure they're called "Anti-guys". you meet one in shy guy's toy box. I have also tested to see if they make bowser stronger if you kill them, and his health and damage has stayed the same, I'm not sure about his defence though. Bananafonana (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New sections[edit]

I have added two new sections: an "overworld" section and a "locations" section. As of now they are very short, but I will probably add more to them later.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 00:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

New images available[edit]

I have uploaded several new screenshots which can be viewed here. Feel free to use them as you wish.

Locations section[edit]

I really don't think this is necessary, in my opinion. --The Great Llama(speak to the Llama!) 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the locations section might be good for people who want to know more about a specific location (like the Toy Box) that they've only heard of and haven't actually played the game (like me). Zman42 16:40 20 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console[edit]

Is this game going to be able to be purchased for Wii's Virtual Console? The Swagga 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but that will very likely happen, as most Mario games will probably be open for download on VC eventually. –Llama man 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just confirmed in Nintendo Power as coming soon --FigmentJedi 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaah! Why does my issue always come late? — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be released in July 2007 in Japan, but no U.S. date has been announced --4 July 2007

As of today (13th July) it's been released on the Virtual Console in Great Britain. I'll amend the article to state that. Mikebot 01:11, 13 July 2

As of today (16th July), it's been released for the US Virtual Console. I would amend the article, however, the article is protected. BlueWolfman (BlueWolfman 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Making a clean up[edit]

As with most video game articles on Wikipedia, there are too many things listed in this article that are only necessary for walktroughs and FAQs. I will delete them as such. --Soetermans 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sequel[edit]

Is there anyway we can prove that it is a sequel? ~ A Concerned Wikier.

Paper Mario is not a sequel. Miles Blues 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, during production it was called Mario RPG 2 or something like that. So really, it IS a sequel of sorts to Super Mario RPG, but that really makes no difference. LN3000 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Paper Mario[edit]

Even if theres been debate above to whether the other Paper Marios are sequels, shouldn't the article at least link to them for being under the same title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.155.164 (talkcontribs)

Mario's Partners[edit]

Hey I was just wondering... could we put up all the characters who join Mario in the game? My cousins have the game and I haven't seen or played it in a while and I'm trying to remember the partners but I can't, thanks whether anyone does or doesn't, I've checked everywhere and they only mentioned a few so thats why I ask. Leosj 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This should really be in the article. I'll try to add it soon (I'm slightly busy at the moment with other projects but this article is on my to-do list). For your present benefit though, they are Goombario, a Goomba; Kooper, a Koopa; Bombette, a Bob-omb; Parakarry, a Paratroopa; Bow, a Boo; Watt, a Lil' Sparky; Sushie, a Cheep-Cheep; and Lakilester, a Lakitu. Axem Titanium 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this?[edit]

http://games.fok.nl/phpThumb.php?src=../games.inc/uploads/1097234401.4544.jpg&w=250 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.1.34 (talk) 19:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the screenshot on the top is from the first Paper Mario...a hoax. — Malcolm (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite definitely a hoax. The wonders of photoshop. 203.87.8.127 11:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peach'sCastle.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Peach'sCastle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Character page?[edit]

Should we have a page devoted to characters from this game? Other RPGs have character pages, such as EarthBound, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger and Super Mario RPG, and Paper Mario is just as important as them, if not more so (I would say it is more significant then EarthBound, Super Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger, due to more fame and recognition and worldwide releases.) Also, the current article hardly explains the characters at all, and characters are a very important part of this game. For the character section to be professional and informative without making the current article too big, shouldn't we start a new page?

Sorry if there is somewhere else to post this, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in Game Techniques[edit]

I believe that the game does not use rescaled sprites, but instead used sprites as textures on 3-d squares. Someone please check this. See Ya', tfullwood 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT WANT[edit]

"DS remake

On April 16, 2008 the Japanese magazine CoroCoro said that there would be a remake of the N64 game. It was said to be released in Japan in July 2008 , although as of July there has been no official release confirmation from Nintendo. [10] [11]"

DO NOT WANT. Firstly, it wasn't CoroCoro, it was some random Korean site. Well, as far as I know. Could someone link me to the Paper Mario DS Corocoro scan? Thanks! LuGiADude (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable source for this. And rumours shouldn't be added to articles. I'm removing this until a more reliable source is found. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paper Mario/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.Any comments are welcome. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Looks fine

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Has only 18 refs, but many are used more than once.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    All sources look reliable.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Talks about the game overall, not just the plot.
    B. Focused:
    Talks about the game, without straying.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Not an advert
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History looks clean
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Would recommend using {{Non-free use rationale}}, but is fine the way it is.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Looks great

two different european realse dates[edit]

In the description at the top it says that this game was released in Europe in 200 but under release dates it says it was released in 2001 in Europe. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamsDreams (talkcontribs) 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A-class assessment request[edit]

I have put in a request for this article to recieve an A-class assessment. It is well written, sourced, and very imformative to the reader. I am suprised it hasn't been nominated for FA recently because it is very close. DrNegative (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A-Class assessment[edit]

  • Per WP:LEAD, references aren't needed in the lead if they get used elsewhere.
  • The Bowser's castle image should be right justify, per WP:MOSIMAGES; "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left".
  • The images all need alt text, which is required now.

That's about all I could find. The article looks really good, and it's a nice read. --Teancum (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll get to work on these soon. DrNegative (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

3DS Reamke[edit]

Can anyone confirm that the 3DS game is a remake? From the available screenshots on http://e3.nintendo.com/3ds/ I didn't see any recognisable locations. Would it be prudent to label it as a possible reimagining rather than a remake until we know more? It might even be an entirely new game. Thanks. --BMHBrown (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place I've seen any remake comments. I think it's just based on a random person's speculative assumption. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, its not a remake, so it shouldnt be merged, the game should have its own article page. In one of the screenshots it has a chainchomp as a party member and i have personally played all the paper mario games and there was no chainchomp... so its not a remake.207.161.129.44 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any evidence pointing to it being a remake. There shouldn't be any talk of merging Paper Mario 3DS into this article unless Nintendo confirms it to be a remake. eyeball226 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Watt's gender?[edit]

In the game, Watt is referred to as both "he" and "she" which makes me wonder if there's an official word on this.

P4wn4g3 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

She. It wasn't until my 3rd play through that I realized this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.184.209 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Paper Mario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paper Mario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)