![]() | Paper Mario: Sticker Star has been listed as one of the Video games 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Paper Mario: Sticker Star is part of the Paper Mario series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 12, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the developers of
Paper Mario: Sticker Star de-emphasized a proper story because fewer than one percent of players found the plot of
the previous game interesting? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
If I recall correctly, this will only be released in Korea... -- Evildevil ( talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For several days this has been on yet is not tagged for speedy deletion. Is this because there is confirmation? Even still this article needs a lot more work, even though it has only just been announced (if true) Someone link to confirmation please? Thanks, LuGiADude ( talk) 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be an article as it was previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.20.144 ( talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. The article itself says "rumoured" and last I checked, Wikipedia does not do rumours. Sorry! LuGiADude ( talk) 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If the article isn't going to be redirected back, then it needs to moved to a new name. SNS ( talk) 05:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to Paper Mario 3DS, under this name, it's just like a reference to that rumour. Shadow King618 ( talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Who ever moved this to "Paper Mario DS" is, to be honest, a complete freaking retarded moron. Firstly, this is NOT even a DS game. So, why you couldn't have left "Paper Mario 3DS" alone, instead of redirecting it to "Paper Mario DS", I just don't understand. Either "Paper Mario 3DS" or "Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS game)" would be suitable. Not "Paper Mario DS". If it was a DS game then maybe "Paper Mario DS", or even "Paper Mario (Nintendo DS game)" or something like that, but it's not. Again, whoever moved this to "Paper Mario DS" is a retard.-- The Ultimate Koopa ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Leaked release date - http://www.cubed3.com/news/14285
Gamestop handed me their data for upcoming releases for the Nintendo 3DS. On it, it says that the release date for Paper Mario 3D is May 2nd, 2012. Can anyone find confirmation on this somewhere that we can cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.145.244 ( talk) 20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The release date i've heard is November 30, 2012. Acdrybones 13:44, 24, February 2012 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. Stickers DO appear in gameplay. NINTENDO has videos on it. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN. I CAN PROVIDE LINKS IF YOU WANT. IT IS NOT A RUMOR. Please fix this. 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A sticker shop appears here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4OHZXdtavE 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah Mario GRABS A STICKER AND USES IT AS A POWERUP BUT IT'S NOT "PROVEN" THAT IT'S A POWERUP?! WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?! 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) To clarify my rage: Mario grabs a sticker of a boot and doublejumps on enemies. He grabs a sticker of scissors and cuts up enemies. HOW THE DAIRY COW IS THIS NOT PROVEN?! 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Told you so. TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 06:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no source, but I'm assuming this was announced at the E3? Salvidrim! 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Why has it got BBFC Rateing it should be pegi A Candela ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Should probably go somewhere into Development Section that Shigeru Miyamoto interfered constantly in the game's development. Sources: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/29/paper-mario-vs-nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto and http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/miyamoto-convinced-the-paper-mario-sticker-star-people-to-ditch-the-story/ -- 68.6.182.39 ( talk) 06:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use the European cover instead since it's almost identical to the original Japanese cover (minor differences) and therefore more faithful to its original feel and mood than the American counterpart which is completely changed? See this comparison for reference: http://i.imgur.com/h7O64bP.jpg GonbeFAN ( talk) 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Somehow the description I added to the change I did got cut off, so I'm pasting it here:
'Changed to European cover because of it being way more faithful to the Japanese cover art, and this being a Japanese game. ( to compare :
http://i.imgur.com/36zPoRe.jpg ) The American cover art probably was changed because of NOA thinking it'd fit better for the American market. While the Japanese and European covers are better representations of what its original Japanese creators intended. (Case in point: Kirby) I already made a comment on the talk page over two weeks ago, but nobody replied yet. If anyone has any objections to this change, please put it on the corresponding article's talk page first so it can be discussed properly instead of having an edit war.'
GonbeFAN (
talk) 22:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sergecross73, This game according to the article is an RPG, but according to Gamespot and IGN Sticker Star is either an RPG or an Adventure game, respectively. These two sources conflict with each other into what to make of this game. Here's why:
Here are the reasons this game should be labeled an Adventure game. Please take them into consideration. If not there has to be a reason why, but I can't comprehend it right now.
The reception section seems a bit disproportionately positive. And yeah critic response was positive enough, but among fans of the Paper Mario games, I've noticed Sticker Star is almost unanimously disliked. Enough so that the reaction to Color Splash was primarily negative (which is mentioned in its article.) Should there maybe be a sub-section for fan reception or even just a little blurb at the end of the reception section? I don't really edit Wikipedia much or anything but it just felt weird that the article didn't mention anything about that hahaha
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paper Mario: Sticker Star. 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.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Kersti. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Kersti until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Captain Galaxy (
talk) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I hope to get to this before Christmas Eve. ♦
jaguar 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall this is a well-written and solid article. I couldn't find many issues with it prose-wise and the sources all check out. My only concern is the barebones reception, though for GA it is acceptable. Still it would of course benefit from a slight expansion. I know you're busy with a FAC and another GAN at the moment, so no rush getting to this one. I'll leave this
On hold. Good work! ♦
jaguar 11:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Le Panini ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC).
not even one percent said the story was interesting? Otherwise, the (first proposed) hook is (the most) interesting, verifiable and mentioned in the body with an inline citation. The article was promoted to GA appropriately (though nomination says "Created/expanded"—next time double check that template parameter), is plenty long and very detailed with no obvious policy/guideline issues. Will be good to go after that one word is changed. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do (within the rules of Wikipedia) to make the description of this game's reception more accurate? In the grand scheme of things, this game absolutely did NOT receive favorable reception. Most people dislike this game, and those who do enjoy it are generally a small minority. It has been noted, still to this day, as the least favorable Paper Mario game and is still used to compare against the later improvements that Color Splash and Origami King made. Yet, the opening says the game received "Generally favorable reviews", and the majority of the Reception section talks about positive reviews.
I don't think it's fair to say generally favorable reviews if we're just looking and like ten or so big name corporate reviewers. Many poorly-received games get unusually high reception close to launch. Being this was the first new Paper Mario game in a while, and reviewers seeing it as "New" and a "Breath of Fresh Air" tends to taint the early reviews as unfairly positive. If you take a cursory look at something like Gamefaqs you'll see that the majority of player reviews are negative. It's fine to note the positive reviews the game has had, but I feel it's extremely misleading to keep referring to the game as having "Generally Favorable Reviews" when it simply hasn't. Shadow2 ( talk) 01:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Paper Mario: Sticker Star has been listed as one of the Video games 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | Paper Mario: Sticker Star is part of the Paper Mario series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 12, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the developers of
Paper Mario: Sticker Star de-emphasized a proper story because fewer than one percent of players found the plot of
the previous game interesting? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
If I recall correctly, this will only be released in Korea... -- Evildevil ( talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
For several days this has been on yet is not tagged for speedy deletion. Is this because there is confirmation? Even still this article needs a lot more work, even though it has only just been announced (if true) Someone link to confirmation please? Thanks, LuGiADude ( talk) 09:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be an article as it was previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.20.144 ( talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. The article itself says "rumoured" and last I checked, Wikipedia does not do rumours. Sorry! LuGiADude ( talk) 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If the article isn't going to be redirected back, then it needs to moved to a new name. SNS ( talk) 05:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this should be moved to Paper Mario 3DS, under this name, it's just like a reference to that rumour. Shadow King618 ( talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Who ever moved this to "Paper Mario DS" is, to be honest, a complete freaking retarded moron. Firstly, this is NOT even a DS game. So, why you couldn't have left "Paper Mario 3DS" alone, instead of redirecting it to "Paper Mario DS", I just don't understand. Either "Paper Mario 3DS" or "Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS game)" would be suitable. Not "Paper Mario DS". If it was a DS game then maybe "Paper Mario DS", or even "Paper Mario (Nintendo DS game)" or something like that, but it's not. Again, whoever moved this to "Paper Mario DS" is a retard.-- The Ultimate Koopa ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Leaked release date - http://www.cubed3.com/news/14285
Gamestop handed me their data for upcoming releases for the Nintendo 3DS. On it, it says that the release date for Paper Mario 3D is May 2nd, 2012. Can anyone find confirmation on this somewhere that we can cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.145.244 ( talk) 20:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The release date i've heard is November 30, 2012. Acdrybones 13:44, 24, February 2012 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. Stickers DO appear in gameplay. NINTENDO has videos on it. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN. I CAN PROVIDE LINKS IF YOU WANT. IT IS NOT A RUMOR. Please fix this. 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A sticker shop appears here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4OHZXdtavE 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah Mario GRABS A STICKER AND USES IT AS A POWERUP BUT IT'S NOT "PROVEN" THAT IT'S A POWERUP?! WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?! 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) To clarify my rage: Mario grabs a sticker of a boot and doublejumps on enemies. He grabs a sticker of scissors and cuts up enemies. HOW THE DAIRY COW IS THIS NOT PROVEN?! 67.174.105.246 ( talk) 18:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Told you so. TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 06:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no source, but I'm assuming this was announced at the E3? Salvidrim! 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Why has it got BBFC Rateing it should be pegi A Candela ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Should probably go somewhere into Development Section that Shigeru Miyamoto interfered constantly in the game's development. Sources: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/29/paper-mario-vs-nintendos-shigeru-miyamoto and http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/miyamoto-convinced-the-paper-mario-sticker-star-people-to-ditch-the-story/ -- 68.6.182.39 ( talk) 06:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use the European cover instead since it's almost identical to the original Japanese cover (minor differences) and therefore more faithful to its original feel and mood than the American counterpart which is completely changed? See this comparison for reference: http://i.imgur.com/h7O64bP.jpg GonbeFAN ( talk) 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Somehow the description I added to the change I did got cut off, so I'm pasting it here:
'Changed to European cover because of it being way more faithful to the Japanese cover art, and this being a Japanese game. ( to compare :
http://i.imgur.com/36zPoRe.jpg ) The American cover art probably was changed because of NOA thinking it'd fit better for the American market. While the Japanese and European covers are better representations of what its original Japanese creators intended. (Case in point: Kirby) I already made a comment on the talk page over two weeks ago, but nobody replied yet. If anyone has any objections to this change, please put it on the corresponding article's talk page first so it can be discussed properly instead of having an edit war.'
GonbeFAN (
talk) 22:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sergecross73, This game according to the article is an RPG, but according to Gamespot and IGN Sticker Star is either an RPG or an Adventure game, respectively. These two sources conflict with each other into what to make of this game. Here's why:
Here are the reasons this game should be labeled an Adventure game. Please take them into consideration. If not there has to be a reason why, but I can't comprehend it right now.
The reception section seems a bit disproportionately positive. And yeah critic response was positive enough, but among fans of the Paper Mario games, I've noticed Sticker Star is almost unanimously disliked. Enough so that the reaction to Color Splash was primarily negative (which is mentioned in its article.) Should there maybe be a sub-section for fan reception or even just a little blurb at the end of the reception section? I don't really edit Wikipedia much or anything but it just felt weird that the article didn't mention anything about that hahaha
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paper Mario: Sticker Star. 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.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Kersti. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Kersti until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Captain Galaxy (
talk) 16:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I hope to get to this before Christmas Eve. ♦
jaguar 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall this is a well-written and solid article. I couldn't find many issues with it prose-wise and the sources all check out. My only concern is the barebones reception, though for GA it is acceptable. Still it would of course benefit from a slight expansion. I know you're busy with a FAC and another GAN at the moment, so no rush getting to this one. I'll leave this
On hold. Good work! ♦
jaguar 11:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Le Panini ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC).
not even one percent said the story was interesting? Otherwise, the (first proposed) hook is (the most) interesting, verifiable and mentioned in the body with an inline citation. The article was promoted to GA appropriately (though nomination says "Created/expanded"—next time double check that template parameter), is plenty long and very detailed with no obvious policy/guideline issues. Will be good to go after that one word is changed. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything we can do (within the rules of Wikipedia) to make the description of this game's reception more accurate? In the grand scheme of things, this game absolutely did NOT receive favorable reception. Most people dislike this game, and those who do enjoy it are generally a small minority. It has been noted, still to this day, as the least favorable Paper Mario game and is still used to compare against the later improvements that Color Splash and Origami King made. Yet, the opening says the game received "Generally favorable reviews", and the majority of the Reception section talks about positive reviews.
I don't think it's fair to say generally favorable reviews if we're just looking and like ten or so big name corporate reviewers. Many poorly-received games get unusually high reception close to launch. Being this was the first new Paper Mario game in a while, and reviewers seeing it as "New" and a "Breath of Fresh Air" tends to taint the early reviews as unfairly positive. If you take a cursory look at something like Gamefaqs you'll see that the majority of player reviews are negative. It's fine to note the positive reviews the game has had, but I feel it's extremely misleading to keep referring to the game as having "Generally Favorable Reviews" when it simply hasn't. Shadow2 ( talk) 01:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)