Talk:Paper Mario: Color Splash

Missing things
Where is the reception?! －&thinsp; yhynerson1 ( talk,  contribs )  20:42, 15 June 2016 (EDT)
 * The game hasn't even been released, so there is no reception to report. MarioComix (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Do you really think adding the pre-release fanbase reception was a good idea?
I don't think adding it is a good idea at all. Gold Luigi (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I know Super Mario Wiki here tends to avoid "fanbase reception", and usually only reports on official reviews and sales. However, the edit does provide sources, and I personally can't invalidate those any more than official reviews. MarioComix (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I don't know how reliable the said sources are, if they are wiki-material sources. 19:01, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Just to say, the Fan Reception that was added a while ago was copy and pasted right from Wikipedia. 20:38, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Yes, I KNOW it was copy-pasted from Wikipedia, I just think it doesn't suit for it to include the fanbase reception, unless it makes them beyond happy or beyond sad/angry. Gold Luigi (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Should've reverted plagiarism at first notice. In terms of fan reactions, there isn't much say in Reception and Sales except "User scores on larger publications and Nintendo's own built-in systems (such as on the Nintendo eShop for Nintendo 3DS or Wii U) can also be used, especially if there's a noticeable discrepancy between critic and player reception." though the next sentence immediately warns: "However, it's generally unadvisable to make qualitative statements such as 'The game was well-received on Miiverse', as these statements are prone to weasel-wording and can hardly be 'proven' one way or another." I have to note on the latter part of the later sentences on why I do not support making statements on general fan section. There are no means to properly generalize fan reactions (after all, this whole "negative fan reception" can characterize a mere vocal minority). That there is one source, techradar, is fine, but it's one of the two sources (techradar and nintendo-insider) provided and you also have to examine the source rather than accept them just for being sources. The source provided is a single opinion by an author from techradar is far from enough to avoid a hasty generalization as "fans of the series, who were critical of the game for seemingly continuing the gameplay style used in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, which had a lessened focus on RPG elements, story, and featured no original characters" (techradar's opinion piece was the source for that statement). Sure, the piece itself says, "Us Paper fans are very wary", but that's just an empty statement. The other source, is again, an opinion piece from techradar. To be fair, this one does a tad better job at trying to sum up fan reactions, but its only supporting evidence is that there is a change org petition to cancel the game and one comment. The rest is just opinion, not really reporting. The last source is basically a repeat of the change org petition, but it's also not supported and does not make any generalizations to fan reactions. I don't think fan knee-jerk reactions deserve any coverage on this wiki unless they're actually significant. These aren't. None of these sources themselves provide anything substantial to back up the claim that "fan reception is very negative" aside from the ridiculous change.org petition. Even then, something on change.org isn't significant aside from there are really unhinged people in the Paper Mario fanbase. 20:01, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I say we put back the reviews because, remember the game had only been around for 30 minutes when it was first announced and people already hated it. 16:45, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
 * This is not the first game that had mixed reception from the fans who judged only using the trailer as source. If you want pre-release fan reception to be covered for all games, I think you should make a proposal.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
 * @Fawful's Minion: YouTube comments sections are hardly good indicators of a resource that is difficult to quantificate and therefore add as a legit source in MarioWiki. As for the reviewer comments, it sounds like a legit op-ed but I'm not too sure if it's a good idea to source it, for all the reasons my twin has said. 20:34, 19 June 2016 (EDT)

Sledge Bro.
Can someone please tell me if Sledge Bro. is really a boss in Paper Mario: Color Splash, because I remove this information since there was no source that come with this information and now someone else add this information back to the article and once again without a source. So, do Sledge Bro. make a appearance in Paper Mario: Color Splash as a boss? -- 14:00, 17 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I'm 100% sure that i've seen a Sledge Bro as a boss in a demo at E3 (on YouTube), but right now i can't find it anywhere :c I think it's a better idea to remove Sledge Bro from the page, maybe it was just the boss for the demo. - 20:29, 17 June 2016 (CET)
 * He appears in the GameXplain's video of 15 minutes of footage from a game demo, along with a collectible to increase the maximum number of cards that can be used at once. Since the video was made private or maybe even removed, we cannot cite a source for now. This is also why I didn't add the line about the collectible.--Mister Wu (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Do you have a video for proof? --LTIan (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
 * As I said before, the video was made provate or removed, this is why I didn't add relevant information contained in it. As far as I'm concerned, we might have to remove Sledge Bro as well, until official material reconfirms him.--Mister Wu (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

Backwards "L"
I do not know if it's me who not notice much because the "L" on Luigi's cap is small, but when Luigi is found and he is surprised, when he is surprised, the "L" on Luigi's cap backwards? I need that other people confirmed and if yes, is it trivia worthy?-- 18:00, 21 June 2016 (EDT)

Here on this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh16YgtySJI&feature=youtu.be&t=20m1s --  18:01, 21 June 2016 (EDT)


 * I doubt it'd be particularly noteworthy, probably an error or minor laziness on the part of whoever did the character model (if that's even the right term). 18:06, 21 June 2016 (EDT)


 * Yeah, I noticed that, too. Perhaps it'll be fix in the final version. If not, then yeah, trivia. 18:07, 21 June 2016 (EDT)

Remove Morton Koopa, Jr. from Boss List
While I do understand that the Koopalings will appear in this game, I would appreciate it if someone could just remove Morton's name from the list. Because until I know if the other Koopalings will make their apperances, I don't want to see a single Koopaling name in that list. Just leave the Koopalings' listing alone. --LTIan (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
 * It has been said that the Koopalings will appear in the game, but Morton is the only one to date we saw, so saying that Morton will appears is preferable.-- 12:58, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
 * But Mario JC said that "All Nintendo said was that "the Koopalings" will appear, so to be on the safer side, it should appropriately be left as "Koopalings"." So I think we should remove Morton's name and just leave it as Koopalings in the Boss List. Until there are 2 or more Koopalings available, I don't want to see Morton's name on there. --LTIan (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I do not see the problem of having Morton on this page, since it is the only one of the seven Koopalings whose role is confirmed. It's valid information and I don’t think we should remove valid information just because it not please somebody-- 16:13, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
 * Where is it confirmed anyway? If the Koopalings are confirmed to make an appearance here in Color Splash, we can also list their names in the characters section, just not under the boss fights. 17:02, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
 * I'll put them under "Others" section then. --LTIan (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
 * You misunderstood what I said: I never said Morton's name should be removed nor was I displeased at its being there, what I meant from what I said was that it should be left as "Koopalings" as well as his name, because he's the only one confirmed. I thought that much was obvious so I didn't bring it up, sorry for not making that clear.
 * OK. But can I at least put Bowser in the boss section? If the Koopalings are involved with some sort of color-stealing scheme, I think Bowser may be the one who's behind it all. --LTIan (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
 * That is a different story and falls under the category of speculation. Unlike the Koopalings, there's no source that explicitly states or mentions anything relating to Bowser's appearance or role.
 * Fine, I'll put Bowser in the Others section, too. JIC if he should be involved. --LTIan (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2016 (EDT)