Talk:Super Mario Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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.
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:27, August 29, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Super Mario Galaxy:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : The plot summary needs to be reduced, and long paragraphs throughout the article need to be broken up.
  • Copyedit : Ensure that all external references utilize the features of {{cite web}} and other related templates.
  • Expand : The history/development section is extremely sparse right now.
  • Wikify : The main text needs additional wikilinks, particularly to non-VG topics.


Former good article nominee Super Mario Galaxy was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 23, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
January 15, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Nuvola apps important.svgPlease note that discussion on this talk page has determined that the UR MR GAY meme is not notable enough for inclusion in this article, and any additions of the meme without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to propose the addition of the meme on this talk page, please ensure that your proposal is accompanied by external citations and adheres to Wikipedia's policies on original research and undue weight/neutral point of view.



WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive stuff[edit] WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I will review this article over the weekend. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Section by section review[edit]


  • Are in well-placed locations and abide by the criteria.


  • Everything's fine here, although the in-line cites may not be needed if sourced later in the article.


  • Good.

Gameplay-Premise and Setting

  • First paragraph completely lacking of cites.
  • Again, second paragraph lacking of cites.
  • A bit confused here - do all the special stars play the level on a time limit?


  • Explain if any of these controls are new.
  • Cites!

Gameplay-Power ups and lives

  • "He can also jump higher and run faster" - incorporate this into a previous sentence
  • Some of the details seem a bit repetitive and a bit unclear. Try removing extraneous material as the article sometimes goes off on a tangent.


  • I suppose its ok.



Concluding Thoughts

  • I am not going to go through the remaining paragraphs/sections until the citation issues with the first half are resolved. Because of this problem, inflated by overarching issues I describe below, I am going to have to quick-fail this nomination.
    • Issues of prose -- at many points the article seems written in the perspective of a gamer and not a more...universal view.
    • Lack of clarity -- many instances where small details are inflated
    • Citations

If you have any questions about this, please direct them to my talk page. I am moving to fail the nomination, as explained above.

Result: Not listed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN quick-failed[edit]

Comparing at the version of the article from the last GA nomination with that of the current version. There is very little difference between the two, which means that very little has been done to address the concerns from the previous two failed GA nominations. As such, I am quick-failing this present GA nomination and removing it from the current list of nominations. I strongly suggest expanding the article and attempting to fix the concerns from Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA1 before nominating again. As always, copyedit requests and peer reviews are recommended after expansions have been done and previous problems remedied. –MuZemike 04:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering the nominator had only ever made one single minor edit to this article previously, I'm not surprised the nomination failed. Яehevkor 12:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario Galaxy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Gameplay written like Game Guide
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Gameplay section.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Why does Pic#2 have two rationales
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Passable but a better Pic#2 could be used.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Issues must be addressed before passing. Suggestions are only suggestions. There are enough issues for a quick fail but I'll wait for these to be addressed.


  • Gameplay is written as a game guide and needs to be rewritten completely.
  • Why does the second picture have two rationales?
The rationales have been merged into one. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 has died and become a redirect.
  • Ref 16 dead.
  • Citation needed in development
  • Ref 18 dead.
  • Ref 19
  • Where is the ref for the rest of the multiplayer segment in development.
    • Added ref. The official site is fine, right? Darrman (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The Multiplayer segment in development. Not the multiplayer section.
  • Ref 24 is dead
  • Ref 25 is no good
  • Bottom half of last paragraph in development does not have a source to cover that information.
  • I am done checking for ANY dead links. Most of links redirect to its homepage.
  • ref 30 parameters.
  • Music, second paragraph mostly unsourced.
  • Are the English titles official translations? The article states only a Japanese release was issued.
  • Why mention the other games in reception?
If you're talking about the other top-selling games mentioned, I think it's nice for people to be reminded which games have been bundled with the system. If we leave this out, people might be wondering why the overall vs. non-bundled rankings are so different. However, if you feel this is unnecessary or too much detail, I can take it out. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It sounds more like justifying Galaxy's ranking and should be removed.
Removed. Mario777Zelda (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't mention an outdated sales number in reception.
  • Third highest on that website. Outdated info
Corrected. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 61
Seems fine to me. Darrman (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Do not cross off the reviewer's list. And secondly, the refs location have been shifted when references have been removed or added. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Darrman, use this version: [1]; I'm assuming it's the one used for the original reviews. Anyway, ref 61 there was a dead link, and since the source isn't the greatest and the review quote was rather bland, I've removed it from the article for now. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it referred to the OMN review, not the ref at review start. I think it was pushed down when I added a release date ref. Darrman (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Reception is disorganized. Reorganize the information. Something like Sales/Awards, Aggregate Reviews and User reviews, then whatever is left. Do not take this organization to heart. It might not work here.
Reorganized. There's now a brief introduction with an overview of sales and reception (in the form of aggregate reception scores), and then a section on the actual reviews and a section for awards. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Awards and nominations section? Even though awards and nominations are mentioned in reception already?
Merged into reception. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing release dates ref in Sequel section.
I added a ref for the overseas release dates, if that's what was needed. Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


  • |lead=yes in Nihongo title
  • "(which Mario had in the previous two games)" Try to avoid in word brackets to for better flow

I removed that line. Darrman (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Replace the second picture for something more legible to general readers if possible.


The sales numbers in the reception have been updated, and the figures from ~2008 have been removed entirely. The ranking for Top Ten Reviews has been updated from first to third. The awards section has been consolidated into the reception section, since these were almost word-for-word the same. Also, there is now only one rationale for pic #2. Mario777Zelda (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to each point under the issues presented so I know that's the issue that you've tackled. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave a general rewrite, trying to remove original research. Hopefully it meets 2c now! Darrman (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't. If significant progress isn't made in ~2 days from now, I'll have to close this GAN since it doesn't look like it will meet the requirement in a good amount of time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the progress on the gameplay rewrite? Also, I will fail this if there isn't a plan on how to fix the refs. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In the rewrite, I was trying to remove original research , that's all. As for the gameplay, how do want it organized? Darrman (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay should be written on what it is instead of how it is. Look at Super Mario 64 which doesn't describe everything and anything of the game. I'm going to fail this as GA since there's too much that needs to be done. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Super Mario Universe re-direct[edit]

I think we need a discussion on what to do with Super Mario Universe as a re-direct here. In my opinion:

  • Super Mario Galaxy 3 will be released this upcoming fall 2013.
  • A few years later, Nintendo will reveal a sequel whose working title is Super Mario Galaxy 4, but later it turns out that they'll actually title it Super Mario Universe. (This parallels the story in which Super Mario Bros. 4 was re-titled Super Mario World.

So I'm against this re-direct. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're against this redirect based on complete speculation? Okay. No. Яehevkor 00:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Do plenty of Mario fans speculate incorrectly that this game's title is Super Mario Universe?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for speculation or making predictions. I already discussed this with you a few weeks ago. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
But now I'm discussing whether Super Mario Universe is a sensible re-direct; and I'm explaining why I'm against it. Georgia guy (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Which is based on complete speculation. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It's good speculation; some people make not-so-good speculation on the future of Mario IMO. But remember that the actual subject here is whether Super Mario Universe is a sensible re-direct here. An answer of "yes" requires the story of the future of the Mario franchise to be that there never will be a Mario game that this is the actual title of. Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"Good" speculation or not, it's not allowed. It's not worthwhile to accommodate games that don't even exist. No. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
But the re-direct to this article suggests that the game exists; merely as an alternate title of this game. Georgia guy (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you assuming a game exists based solely on a redirect on Wikipedia? That is without a doubt one of the worst arguments for a game's existence. If I make a redirect called "Super Mario Starstorm" does that means that game exists too? No. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
But what does the re-direct actually mean about that title. If it means nothing, we can't have it. Georgia guy (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Speculation is speculation. It has no place here. Acting based on what Nintendo might do in several years time? Okay. Still no. Яehevkor 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
But how does this re-direct make sense?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. Do you have any suggestions that aren't based on speculation? Perhaps the redirect should be deleted entirely. Яehevkor 01:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That was my proposal, to delete the re-direct and not re-create it until there's official info on an actual Mario game with that title. Georgia guy (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Your proposal was nonsense. If your proposal was the deletion of the redirect I'd have listened. The venue you are looking for is WP:RFD. Яehevkor 01:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
If your proposal was simply "I suggest deleting 'Super Mario Universe' because there are no reliable sources that support any correlation with the two titles," then it would have made sense. An argument for "We should accommodate games that don't exist yet" doesn't fly. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, please note that this discussion has been made obsolete because contrary to my prediction at that time, the Mario game for this fall is Super Mario 3D World, not Super Mario Galaxy 3. Georgia guy (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It was pretty moot to begin with. Also, you nominated Super Mario Universe for deletion but it doesn't seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion? Яehevkor 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
And this is why you don't make proposals based on pure speculation. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

External link to walkthrough[edit]

I would like some consensus as to whether the article should have a link to the game's walkthrough on GameFAQs. The link was undone without explanation so I think it's better to discuss why or why not this link should be on the article. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the link in question. It is a detailed walkthrough on how to play and make it through the game. I linked to this page, but I don't know if it's any better. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GameFAQs is not a reliable source, as it relies on user-submitted content. Any links to GameFAQs are not appropriate. In any case, game guides in general are inappropriate on Wikipedia. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to advertise walkthroughs. Also Wikipedia in general is not a walkthrough. IF you want to post walkthroughs you should go to a wikia instead. NathanWubs (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah.. Gamefaqs guides are self published and opening the flood gates there would be a disaster. Game guide information simply isn't something Wikipedia caters for. Яehevkor 10:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wired src[edit]

Wow—this article's reception is tiny. Anyway, came upon and thought it might interesting to include in a sentence. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

the (third) highest reviewed game of all time.[edit]

There is a problem with the source for this, hence the flip-flop edits of the last day or so. In this list SMG is listed as the highest rated game, but the game's article lists it the third highest. The GameRankings list hasn't got games for positions 1, 2 and 5 so I think we'll have to tread carefully with it as a reliable source. - X201 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the discrepancy as well. Perhaps we should bring the issue to the attention of others at WT:VG, as it seems to be relevant to the other games on GameRankings' All-Time Best list: Ocarina of Time, for instance, is ranked second on the All-Time Best list, but fourth on its individual page. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is also ranked inconsistently. Thanks, zziccardi (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's back to 3rd in both sources now. Яehevkor 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not for me. It's still 1 and 3 when I check it. - X201 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Same here. —zziccardi (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Weird, tried it in every browser, shows as 3/3. It did show 1/3 last time I checked previously near the start of this mess. Яehevkor 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I checked out the links. Turns out this one uses the minimum 20 reviews, while the one sourced in the article uses >5 reviews (per the search box) which GameRankings uses in their overall rank. Rockysmile11(talk) 21:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I originally thought that as well but then I noticed that it's not universally true; SMG2 shows up as 5th when you select >5 reviews in the list, but its page has it at 6th. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Guess there is an issue with the rankings then. Rockysmile11(talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless GameRankings says which list is their definitive list, I don't think we should use any list as their definitive list. There is too much variance between them. It should be generalized to say "among GameRankings's top-ranked games", or removed. Alternatively, someone could cite someone who has made a declaration about GameRankings's ranking of the game. – czar 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 Works for me, although there should be a hyphen between top and ranked if everyone is fine with that option. —zziccardi (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It's been more than a month and GameRankings' numbers are still inconsistent, so I went ahead and made the (hopefully non-controversial) change. —zziccardi (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)