Talk:Super Mario 3D Land

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)

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

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

That's unnecessarily ambiguous for something that's likely just a working title. Reach Out to the Truth 14:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. It's good how it is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Nathan2055^talk 15:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

In fact, there are multiple sources showing now. [1], [2], [3], [4]. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like you're right. No matter what the title, it still looks like a great game. --Nathan2055^talk 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

It's not considered a reliable source unless it's announced by Nintendo. Lots of companies lie about these dates. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 02:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edit request from 60.230.109.155, 3 October 2011

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

... 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)

 Not done unless a source can be given--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oops! Thanks for correcting me. I will add the AUS release date. Salvidrim (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Salvidrim (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

Please cite a source. Salvidrim (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to support it. Яehevkor ✉ 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The above excerpt is from Plot, not Gameplay.  Done and sourced. 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. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my reference to Mario 'wearing' a bee exoskeleton is a nod to the bee power-up suit in Super Mario Galaxy. Sorry that I failed to make the distinction. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the latest edit omitted the PETA stuff. I personally wouldn't mind it being kept out of there entirely, or at the very least out of 'Reception' section. I don't recall PETA being a "video game reviewer"--this section as I understand it relates to reviews of the game's graphics, etc. Nevertheless, I'm NOT going to request an admin to remove my post, since it will probably still be relevant (I'm sure this PETA stuff will resurface in the article--and will probably still unfortunately carry the insistence that Mario is 'wearing' fur.) 67.182.237.57 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the material in question for several reasons, firstly we should get a consensus whether to include it al all. Secondly, it was only sourced to the game/website itself, we should include sources independent of PETA, I'm sure they exists, everyone jumps to attention whenever PETA makes fools out of themselves. Thirdly, the second sentence (a rebuttal) in the section was unsourced anyway. Яehevkor ✉ 13:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think in theory it would be worth a very brief mention, but I can't help but notice that people keep on adding their little editorials afterwards, and that's no good at all. If that continues, it should probably just be removed outright. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly believe it should be mentioned, it is a notable fact (covered significantly by RS news outlets), however an effort must be made to maitaing NPOV (no matter how stupid or wrong you think PETA was or wasn't.) --Salvidrim! (t • c) 21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the game, Mario doesn't kill tanukis. He wears a suit based on it. I know he doesn't actually kill tanukis but PETA thinks he does. They even made a picture showing Mario killing a tanuki. Shouldn't Wikipedia be aware of that? I mean its a notable fact. Richskim (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011(UTC)

I went to have a quick look for sources the first one I found said the whole thing was a joke. Яehevkor ✉ 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness. Right when PETA was more ridiculous than ever. Richskim (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be mentioned along the lines of [quickly runs off a sentence] "PETA started a "Mario Kills Tanoki" campaign accompanied by a flash video game, they later admitted it was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to raise awareness for the tanoki fur trade rather than implying Mario actually wore tanoki fur." The sources I have read roughly support that [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc Яehevkor ✉ 22:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Rehevkor. To find PETA themselves admitting that this is all some joke is much easier sourcing than dealing with the power-up sources idea. Once again the typical PETA approach is evident--Make a big scene, wait for the uproar, then 'clarify' their intentions. Good thing Nintendo has a huge loyal fan base that can easily see through PETA's unusual publicity antics. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So should we put it in the article or not? Richskim (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the fact PETA did a criticism campaigm and put out a game (using the image of Mario, which, as far as I know, is technically copyrighted to Nintendo), then later pulled back saying "it was humour", and most notably the strong reactions from the public, definitely deserve a mention in Reception. Perhaps if later controversies emerge it can be split into a "Controveries" sub-section, but by itself it doesn't warrant it IMO. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel it should be mentioned some how, but it shouldn't be given too much weight, it really only inherits notability from the game itself. WP:NOT#NEWS should be considered. I double there'll be any more controversy, even this was deliberately manufactured by PETA to be controversial, so a separate sub section shouldn't be necessary. Яehevkor ✉ 16:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is included in the article, should it be in the Reception section? Richskim (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is where I would put it. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally think inserting this into the Reception section is problematic; since PETA was "manufacturing" the controversy, as someone previously statedt. This had nothing at all (at least as I vaguely understand it) to do with PETA's opinion or critique of a video game; it was just a good opportunity for them to use a familiar popular culture example to many people and cause a stir to bring attention to their ideals any way that they could. But, on the other side of the coin, IMO it really doesn't have better placement potential in any other section of the article (at least as it currently stands). Although [the Reception section] is quite an awkward place to have this information, given it isn't a genuine praise or criticism, I don't see the awkwardness lessening in other sections. Therefore, if we do decide to include this bizarre material, my vote would be to place it in the Reception section until a "less awkward" section or location materializes, assuming that will ever be the case. I echo Rehevkor's desire for this to not be given undue weight in the article. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• This information should be in the Reception section, in my opinion, but only when renamed to "Reception and criticism". A lone section, "Criticism", would only mention this statement, so it does not make sense.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know if that is warranted. I mean, they essentially admitted later on that it wasn't even a real criticism... Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We could include a part that says it was joke. Most people don't know it's a joke because they didn't do what Rehevkor did. In the video, skip to 1:59. The world is not aware of it being a joke. Why not put this PETA stuff in the article now? PETA must be feeling very miserable right now because people still think its real. Richskim (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Open

It sez there are other open world mario games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.15.130 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it says there are other open world Mario games. I'm sorry, was there a question? I'm a bit confused. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Mario 64 counts,maybe Super Mario World is kind of like a open world 2d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.15.130 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario 64 are commonly accepted as open-world, as opposed to linear games like Super Mario Bros. 3 or New Super Mario Bros.. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree but most people consider Super Mario World a 2d open world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.15.130 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are trying to "prove a point", invoking a silent majority shouldn't be necessary. Super Mario World, despite its navigatable world map, keeps a "level-to-level" progression, with a myriad of paths to choose from. There is no world to explore, so to speak. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 15:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario 3D Land/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Perhaps state that the story - Bowser kidnapping Peach, and Mario tries to rescue her - is almost ever found in Mario games

   You can simply write "allotted among the 16 worlds."

   "The three Toads who helped Mario earlier on investigate the letter" - on investigating

   "another photo is found with Peach in a Tanooki suit herself." - the herself is redundant

   Overall, the article is in a good shape. The prose meets the criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref 7 is blank and I also question the reliability of this site

   Be consistent: "VideoGamesBlogger." or "Video Games Blogger"?

   Single pages should be noted as "p." not "pp." ;)

   Overall good

   Ref 27 is dead

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: I feel this meets the criteria very easily, but I am not sure if this will pass the FAC criteria. I think it needs a few copyeditings as I stumbled across phrases that could be better phrased. Good work overall! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Comment : This article is currently Start-class. Normally, I would have had this article upgraded to C and B class before nominating for GA, so this seems a bit premature. But if it's truly GA quaility I have no qualms against it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't believe this article is GA quality. I already had to fix several errors. I think the Development section could be organized better (it mixes early development with when it was announced haphazardly) and it contains at least one contradiction. The article should be reviewed for C and B before being even considered for GA. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to clean up this section in the next few days or does it require more time? Of course, you are always welcome to withdraw this nomination, especially as you are a major contributor. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The development section is a whopping four paragraphs long. The "mixing of early development with when it was announced haphazardly" claim literally took 3 minutes to sort out, and the accusation of "contradictions" just needed some clarity in the writing. None of these issues, including what the class of the article is, are found over Wikipedia:Good article criteria for a justification to quick fail an article. Infact, the fixing of those minor issues are what GA reviews are usually for. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I do respect Thomas' comments however and if this nomination really does bother him so thoroughly, then fail the article. However, fail the article based on the quality of the article itself, which I believe is currently of GA status. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues presented within the review have been corrected I believe, thanks mostly to Thomas. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The aforementioned Blogger site is unreliable and should be replaced with a better source. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and replaced both Blogger citations with a new Andriasang source and an existing Game Informer source. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will promote this article to GA status. Great work! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Super Mario 3D Land. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130111005522/http://m.ign.com/articles/1194014 to http://m.ign.com/articles/1194014
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69qbkhX6O?url=http://www.edge-online.com/news/miyamoto-reveals-more-mario-3ds to http://www.next-gen.biz/news/miyamoto-reveals-more-mario-3ds
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150315092217/http://www.1up.com/reviews/super-mario-3d-land-3ds?pager.offset=1 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/super-mario-3d-land-3ds
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120720180748/http://uk.gamespot.com/super-mario-3d-land/reviews/super-mario-3d-land-review-6344529?tag=summary;read-review to http://uk.gamespot.com/super-mario-3d-land/reviews/super-mario-3d-land-review-6344529?tag=summary%3Bread-review

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Image not found

The image is missing. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You’ll have to be more specific, I can’t tell what you’re referring to... Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. The image is back. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)