Talk:Mario Strikers Charged

New Boxart

Could someone put this in? http://gonintendo.com/wp-content/photos/mariostrikerschargedfootball_2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masternimbus (talk • contribs)

Not with that "Aussie-nintendo.com" text in it, do you have a different pic? TJ Spyke 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazon has this one: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/61j5zwsqKIL._SS500_.jpg not sure if it can be used though Ozkills 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It can do for now, but eventually it will be replaced by a better pic (like a straight on one, rather than tilted sideways). TJ Spyke 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with the American version now that it's out to coincide with the article name. GaeMFreeK 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont know who put up the PAL version again but i have put up the American Boxart --KKXRS 22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened again. Proceeded to reupload, and whoever's doing it needs to stop. That image is okay to use here. --GaeMFreeK 06:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, which boxart have we agreed to use?

I think we should be using the North American one, as a greater population is going to get the English title without "football" than the English title with. Also, it's consistent with the article name. Currently, it's still "football". If I don't get any responce, I'll change it. D prime 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the NA boxart. TJ Spyke 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd oppose the switch for the same reason as listed below. I generally support the original english language cover art, similar issues have been discussed at Talk:Wii_Play#Cover_art_again. - hahnchen 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Next Character

Judging from the silhouettes in the image of the cptn select screen, Bowser Jr will probably also be a playable character. Knuckles sonic8 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still speculation though and hsould not be added in. TJ Spyke 01:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know that - I wasn't planning on adding it. I was just making a comment. Knuckles sonic8 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Bowser Jr in a match on YouTube, therefore he's definately in it. Some Guy (Izzy259) 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You do know this section is 9 months old, before he was confirmed? TJ Spyke 23:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New captain confirmed?

I heard that Diddy Kong is confirmed to be here, I have no sources so I won't post it although one of the captain's silhouttes looks exactly like him. Guess who i am 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Same with Bowser Jr., as I mentioned earlier, and Waluigi. Knuckles sonic8 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Bowser Jr. is on there now. Was he confirmed or suttin'? DarthJango42 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

New sections have appeared regarding the characters and although I have helped a bit by editing it to remain consistent with a format, I'm a little skeptical as to whether or not these should be included in the article. If the decision is not to, let's just post speculatory comments here of Rumored Characters and Sidekicks. How does that sound? Knuckles sonic8 13:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumored sections don't help the article as anybody can make a rumor. I think speculation should stay here (or preferably on messageboards) and only confirmed character listed in the article. TJ Spyke 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, thus far, we got: (Reading the roster from left to right, starting after DK):

• 5. ---
• 6. ---
• 7. Wario (Confirmed)
• 8. Yoshi*
• 9. ---
• 10. Bowser Jr. (*)
• 11. Diddy Kong (*)
• 12. Waluigi (Confirmed)

[*Indicates "speculation"; ---Indicates "unknown"]

Any others? Knuckles sonic8 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• 5. Waluigi
• 6. Luigi (it's hard to tell because he's in the frightened pose)
• 7. Wario
• 8. Yoshi
• 9. Daisy (it's hard to explain but her head is tilted and a bunch of stuff)
• 10. Bowser Jr.
• 11. Diddy Kong
• 12. Some random guy...

This is just my opinion. I think 5 is Waluigi because of the nose and stuff. But all this is debatable... None of these guys but Wario and Waluigi are confirmed, I'm just taking guesses. DarthJango42 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pikachu?

i dont think that pikachu would be in this game... why's he on the list? 66.189.47.0 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. TJ Spyke 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone thought a silhouette was Pikachu. One of them sure looks like him. Evan1109 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh God I hope it isn't.Link's Awakening 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu isn't because I have the game. Pikachu is part of Pokemon not Mario.76.110.82.251 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This game also has Diddy Kong who isn't in any Mario game. Pikachu is a Nintendo character so it would have been possible. But since this game has been released a while ago, we all know he's not in it and this discussion is no longer important. 194.78.37.122 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true, Diddy Kong was in Mario Power Tennis and Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (for example). TJ Spyke 01:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New Sidekicks

In the GDC screens, you can clearly see Birdo, Shy guys, and something else (I have no idea what the last new sidekick is. They're in this screen (the weird one): http://media.wii.ign.com/media/846/846913/img_4380406.html

Birdos: http://media.wii.ign.com/media/846/846913/img_4380408.html

and Shy Guys: http://media.wii.ign.com/media/846/846913/img_4380407.html

I guess you could also confirm some items and stages in there too if you want to (although they're nameless). DarthJango42 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The new sidekick that's hard to identify appears to have claws. It's probably Monty Mole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.173.142.35 (talk • contribs)

Q3 Release?

What website said Q3? Can we please have a source? -YoshiRox10 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.36.234 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Nintendo announced all the games coming out in Q2 and this wasn't on the list. So they are probably assuming it will be Q3 although it may also be Q4. DarthJango42 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQS and Gamespot have it under Q3 release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.173.142.35 (talk • contribs)

GameFAQs is not totally reliable for this, GameSpot is more credible (although I wish Nintendo would give an estimate). TJ Spyke 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Character Selection Screen

I found what appears to be a screen shot of the character (or at least the captain) selection screen. Does anyone think they can make out any of the characters? [1]

I also came across this: [2], which might just be the side kick characters.

I think that the right of Donkey Kong might be Waluigi with a game face on, then Luigi to his right with a suprides look on his face, and under Bowser it has to be Yoshi, and under Peach it could be Diddy Kong jumpin or something, and the other ones I have no clue. --Jak 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Answers is a mirror of Wikipedia (i.e. what shows up here shows up there). That image used to be in this article until it was deleted because whoever uploaded it didn't provide the source for the pic. Look higher up on this talk page, where this is discussed. TJ Spyke 20:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates

Why is there such a prominance given for the Australian release date? It is mentioned in the first paragraph whilst other release dates are omitted. H7dders 12:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia is the only region with an announced release date. Others will be added when they are announced. TJ Spyke 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo Europe gives the release date as 25. 05. 2007 and this is already mentioned in the box on the right-hand side, (with reference). My question is why does the Australian release date appear in the main body of the article, whilst the others do not? Surely there is no reason why the Oz release date should be mentioned twice. H7dders 08:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't anymore. It looks like it was removed when the European release date was added. TJ Spyke 08:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese title

Why is the title in katakana as well? The game is being developed in Canada. Some of the people on Wikipedia have to get off this obsession with putting everything in Japanese, no matter how weak the link. Better put titles in Katakana for every other western-developed game that also had a release in Japan (GTA etc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.119.167.101 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Because it's a Japanese title (look at who owns the IP and is publishing it). This is standard policy per WP:VG. We do the same for the Metroid Prime games, even though they are developed by Retro Studis (which is based in Texas). TJ Spyke 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Who has been writting those double marked captains? You must set sources that you have found for prove it.
PS: Write quite well next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.123.106 (talk • contribs)

I don't live in Europe, so I can't check ONM. Template:Cite journal says how to reference a mazazine though. TJ Spyke 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is the last character?

I can't tell who he is from the video. Right at 3:05. http://kotaku.com/gaming/super-mario-strikers/first-look-at-mario-strikers-charged-online-play-254670.php DarthJango42 05:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we may have the answer. Look at this IGN preview page: http://wii.ign.com/articles/788/788419p3.html

I fear that the final character is Petey Piranha. Suigi 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the 2nd page mentions him, too: http://wii.ign.com/articles/788/788419p2.html Suigi 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion

British footballing father son duo Ian Wright and Shaun Wright-Philips have signed up to be the faces of Nintendo's forthcoming Wii soccer game, Mario Strikers Charged Football. Should this be in the article ? [3] Bencey 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All Stadiums

I own the game, Spyke. I'm sure my eyes aren't deceiving me when I scroll through the stadium list. This is like asking citations for new VC games. -MrDrake 11:34, 22 May 2007 (GMT)

I would be more likely to believe you if the game didn't come out in Europe for another 2 days. Maybe a store broke the release date, but can you provide a source (or at least take a picture of the TV screen). TJ Spyke 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A store did break the release date. I've only taken a picture of me being Striker of the Day yesterday, and I don't want to dig out my camera again right now. I'll do it later though. Add me on MSN, btw, so this discussion can go a little faster. You know where to find the address. *hint hint*A certain forum*hint hint* -MrDrake 11:34, 22 May 2007 (GMT)

Title

Seeing as how this game is coming out in Europe first, and because the sport is much more popular in those countries, the title and wording of the article should be based on the EU name and Queen's English. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even when the game was announced (in Europe) last summer, they called it "Mario Strikers Charged". It wasn't until a few months ago that they came out with "Mario Strikers Charged Football". I think it should stay at the current name. TJ Spyke 05:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty irrelevant; the fact that they are using Mario Strikers Charged Football now instead of their original name is relevant. Regardless of what it once was, that's irrelevant to the group of people this game will appeal to the most. It's not like the Wii or Mario is particularly less popular in Europe - they're just as, if not more popular there than in NA at present. It's only fair to give preference in this case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Game came out first with the name "Mario Strikes Charged Football", so that should be the title of the article. Encouraging to see the box art is for the first name though. --Oscarthecat 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The US name is more appropriate for this article. --Coconutfred73 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coconutfred73, could you elaborate? Without further details your argument is a bit flimsy! Thanks, --Oscarthecat 17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares if it was released in Europe first? This is the US Wiki therefore the US name should be used for this article. --Coconutfred73 17:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The en.wikipedia.org is short for English. This isn't a US Wiki. It never was a US wiki. --Oscarthecat 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Coconut's argument is that every article on Wikipedia should be at its US name. Naturally, he's wrong. Tubestime 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm saying if this is the English Wiki then the titles of the article should be translated in US language. --Coconutfred73 17:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What US language is that? There's so many : take a look at the impressive Indigenous languages of the Americas article. However, on a serious note, there's a comprehensive discussion of the english language variants at WP:ENGLISH, with details of when which variant is most appropriate. Regards, --Oscarthecat 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page to the one title that is verified by the game box cover (i.e. the four-word one). Please use WP:RM if you wish to change this. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oscar, unlike you I will use WP guidelines to support my case. WP Guidelines say that when there is more than one valid English title (like there is here), we go with what the original author and/or first major contributor used. That is "Mario Strikers Charged", the reason the European boxart is up is because that is the first one made available. TJ Spyke 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop just saying "WP guidelines" and go and read up on what you're trying to cite? The "original contributor" argument applies to language and titles, and in both cases is the last thing to draw on. In fact, the title should be set to reflect the most common version of the name. Of course, until we know sales figures for the US and the rest of the world, we won't know which the most common name is. But since it's not even out in the US yet, we can probably make a good guess! Tim (Xevious) 08:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

TJ - so where there is more than one valid English title, we go with original text regardless of whether it's the more widely used one? WP guidelines make pretty good sense most of the time, are you sure you're interpreting this correctly? --Oscarthecat 09:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

US boxart

Can someone please find a bigger picture of the US boxart? --Coconutfred73 01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I will. It was just revealed a few days ago, so sites like Amazon (which usually have big pictures of box arts) might not have it yet. TJ Spyke 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Coconutfred73 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was the European boxart outright removed? The NA version isn't out, the EU version is, and the sport is indisputably more notable in EU than NA. There's giving NA preference, and then there's just completely wiping EU being of any relevance to the game from the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose both could be used (like we do for the Brain Age/Brain Training article). TJ Spyke 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia fair use guidelines, we can't use both. No idea why Brain Training/Brain Age hasn't had that one altered. Tim (Xevious) 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Because to use one or the other is synonymous with "this name is more official than the other". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Online server crashes

The server for online play has now crashed two nights in a row. Is this worth mentioning in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Typhoon (talk • contribs)

Not really. TJ Spyke 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There are conversations on messageboards about this (like wiichat.com). There are too many players and Nintendo's servers can't handle this. I think an 'Online issues' article wouldn't be a bad idea. 194.78.37.122 10:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Once there are reliable sources reporting it, then maybe. Messageboard gossip is not reliable. A writeup by IGN or the like, that's another matter. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's soccer not football

Here in the US it's soccer and this is the English Wiki, so therefore soccer should be used, so stop putting football. --Coconutfred73 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hoped this discussion is resolved, on your talk page where the case for football rather than soccer is made. --Oscarthecat 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP says that in this case (where both are correct), we go with what the original author used, and the original author used soccer. End of story. TJ Spyke 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though more English-speaking people probably know the sport as football than soccer. "This is the English Wiki, and as we all know, we speak English and everyone else speaks derka derka!" - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That argument won't work, under that logic we should use queen's English for everything. Oscar kept changing it to football despite the fact that WP guidelines clearly support using soccer in this situation (since the original author used soccer and that is what the article used until a few weeks ago when someone else did the same thing as Oscar). TJ Spyke 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What it should be is based on who the article should be directed towards. If it's determined that it should be the EU title, we should also change the article's text. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works and I think you know it. Also, it's not a "European" video game, it's just a video game. If anything, the fact that it's called soccer in Japan (where Nintendo is located) helps that case. Of coarse, the only thing that matters is WP guidelines, and there are no guidelines or policies that support using football in the article (other than to say what the European/Australian title is). TJ Spyke 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, may I see a reason as to why we should use the American name? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to repeat myself over and over? Bolded and capitalized to get it through since I have said it several times already: WP GUIDELINES SAY TO USE WHAT THE ORIGNAL AUTHOR AND/OR MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR USED, AND BOTH USED SOCCER. Also, it's not "American", other countries like Canada and Japan also use soccer. TJ Spyke 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the game's title. I suggest you keep your title, TJ. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

TJ - thanks for the help with this. I was wrong in changing to football, should have looked further back at prior edits. --Oscarthecat 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have encountered so many people on here who don't want to follow the guidelines that it's hard to tell when someone just makes an honest mistake. TJ Spyke 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is a knock at me, then I respond with "I have encountered so many people on here who don't follow AGF that it's hard to tell when someone just makes an honest mistake". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, A Link to the Past is correct when he says that "[w]hat it should be is based on who the article should be directed towards". The "original author" argument is the very last point to consider - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. In terms of the English-speaking population, the majority call the sport "football" - and if you then think about the population who are going to be interested in this game, that becomes the vast majority. I vote that the article be moved over to the name used in Europe and Australasia, and the language be changed to reflect this. Tim (Xevious) 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline actually doesn't consider the audience but the subject. The question is, are the "vast majority" of the games going to be sold as "soccer games" or "football games"? I'm really thinking the more appropriate item out of that MOS page is "In choosing words or expressions (especially article titles) there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple variant spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable and reasonable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable." —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So if it can't be agreed, we should use association football. But I would be inclined to believe that the vast majority of football games are sold under the name of 'football', what with it being a minor sport in the US. I'll have a look for sales figures to confirm this one way or the other. Tim (Xevious) 08:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a knock at you, and I apologize if that's what it sounded like. TJ Spyke 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "we go with what the original author used": TJ Spyke, I'm inclined to agree with you. There is nothing else about the game to declare a language of preference (since the game is released worldwide), although looking at discussing at Super Mario Strikers, soccer was the term of choice there. Based on the tiebreaker of using the original author's dialect, and based on the word choices of soccer and maneuver, the article should be in American English—and call it soccer. I went by the comment in the article and the discussion here which had leaned toward football and assumed consensus had already been reached. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I continue to feel that there has been no real argument as to why we should use MSC - the sport is more well-known/liked in Australia and EU, it came out in EU first, and it had more than 380,000 connections to the Nintendo WFC in the first four days of release. Google hits are certainly not a good source, as I showed before (and not only that, but you can't do Google hits with this - every single one of MSCF's hit would have MSC in it was well). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of these compromises have been pretty pointless. Why are we using a piped link at all? If you use the term soccer, then there is no need to insert the word "football" after it, but the term is not as globally recognised. If you use the word football, it could be ambiguous. If people are not satisfied with the term soccer, then don't bother with all this piped link bullshit and use the article name - football (soccer). I can't believe this has generated so much discussion. - hahnchen 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's not based around football soccer! It's based around soccer itself. --Coconutfred73 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Soccer *is* football (soccer). If we're going to follow WP guidelines (as in, the real WP guidelines and not TJ's incorrect interpretation of them) then we should attempt to use an alternative which is recognisable to all. As C.Fred quoted above:

"In choosing words or expressions (especially article titles) there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple variant spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable and reasonable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable."

I believe therefore that association football should be used instead. Tim (Xevious) 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My interpetation is correct. I decided that the best solution is to just call it a sports game (like Mario Power Tennis) to avoid any problems. TJ Spyke 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The current solution is actually pretty fucking good. Good call. - hahnchen 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current edit is fine. Excellent, in fact, because the whole game resembles footy about as much as Speedball 2 does!. But I don't agree that your interpretation of the guidelines is correct, as I showed above. Tim (Xevious) 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think using soccer makes more sense, since it is referred to as soccer - even if not primarily - in all regions, whereas only some will call it football. Association football is an acceptable, if a little long winded alternative. Slimeknight 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Future sence

I do not think all the text in the article have been changed to use current sense. That is, not "the game will feature" but "the game features" and so on.--Henke37 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Samus as ball?

Some people think the ball looks way too like Samus Aran's Morphball form to be just a coincidence, while I do not own the game yet, the ball on the boxart does look very much like her. --Henke37 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research, so it can't be mentioned in the article. TJ Spyke 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

tidy up/rewrite

The writing in this article is poorly styled/messy. I don't own the game myself so I'll leave the rewrite to somone else but it needs to be done... 131.111.8.104

Move

The only argument for the NA name is that the article's title was the NA title first. However, as stated, it's a last resort. It's to be used when it's too close, the amount of evidence. However, Strikers Charged Football came out in two regions before Strikers Charged came out in one, the game is based on a sport most popular in Europe, and the game has been successful so far, remaining high in the top sales lists of Europe. What can be argued for the NA title? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the North American title, it's the Japanese title (well, the Japanese title when translated into English). I just don't see the need to move the article, it's not hurting anyone to keep it at the current name which also helps keep it neutral (the same reason that the intro was changed to just say sports game rather than soccer or football). TJ Spyke 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

TJ, just curious, is it coincidence that you've opposed every single NA-to-Europe move you've participated in?

Anyway, the fact that there is not a single version of this game released under the current title is an EXCELLENT reason. Do you intend to claim that more NA gamers will come to this article than EU gamers? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. How is it an excellent reason? TJ Spyke 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Japanese title is irrelevant - just like how it was irrelevant to what Dark Cloud 2 ended up as. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just saying that it's not just the North American name like you said. You could say it's the NTSC name (just like MSCF appears to be the PAL name). Like I said, the current name is also more neutral, another reason to keep it here. TJ Spyke 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral? It's NA-biased. There has never been any single argument to using the North American name besides "it's the Japanese name", which is hardly a legitimate argument. Strikers Charged lacks ANY presence in NA besides "it's going to be released", while Strikers Charged Football has been released twice over to great customer reception - it had hundreds of thousands of WiFi connections four days after its release in Europe, it boosted the Wii to unprecedented sales, and it has consistently remained high in the top lists in most, if not all regions of the PAL region.

Also, is there a reason why you only bothered to respond when it became necessary? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I say it's neutral because it doesn't imply that the "football" is the only correct name of the sport. If the NA game was called "Mario Strikers Charged Soccer", I would still support calling it "Mario Strikers Charged". As for boosting Wii sales, Wii has pretty much been selling out almost non-stop since launch. As for why I didn't reply, I was waiting for others to respond since it shouldn't be just the two of us discussing this. TJ Spyke 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So if that was the only title for the game (Charged Football), you'd make up a title just because it'd be "biased" to do so? There's no logical reason to use the NA title for the Winning Eleven games just because it implies that football is the only name for the sport. Same with this article. Your argument holds no precedence and isn't backed up by anything - your argument implies that we should use unofficial titles to avoid bias.

What does Winning Eleven have to do with this? Besides, the Winning Eleven games (which Konami is slowly starting to use the Japanese name "Pro Evolution Soccer" worldwdie) don't use "football" in any of the titles. It wouldn't be making up a title. TJ Spyke 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, it's irrelevant - but the fact of the matter is that you said "you'd still put it at Mario Strikers Charged if the NA name had Soccer in it". To do that, you'd be making a fake name for the game. - 64.235.64.33 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, waiting for others to respond only stops the argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was less than 1 day before I replied, this isn't an urgent matter that has to be solved as fast as possible. We should see what others think. TJ Spyke 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But my post was minutes after yours. I didn't make a statement for someone to just go away and not respond. - 64.235.64.33 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I really don't care either way about this move. And the reason is that Mario Strikers Charged is shorter. The fact that the Japanese name is the same, and that this was the original name of the article add to the weight that it shouldn't be moved. You may feel the Japanese argument defunct, but for the same reasons, I would support a move from Dark Cloud 2 to Dark Chronicle. - hahnchen 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep talking about Japanese - why should a region where the game hasn't even been given anything more than a vague release date be considered at all? Europe and Australia got it before North America and Japan. Tell me - in the entire world, which version was released first - Strikers Charged, or Charged Football? And the only reason why it was given the current title is solely because it was first revealed at E3 - an NA-based event. EU editors shouldn't get the short end of the stick JUST because they cannot predict the future. The only name revealed was Strikers Charged, so the argument doesn't apply for the sole reason that its use was a necessity - it is clearly not a case of "the majority of editors choosing their preferred name", it's someone creating the article with the only official name given at the time. Also, the length of the title is wholly irrelevant. Shortening article titles doesn't come before accuracy and logic. Really, all pro-NA arguments in this case are very weak and not based on the notability, reception, popularity, notoriety, success, or the peoples' awareness of the game, but technical issues such as length of the title and which title was used for the article first. And no, your Japanese argument is defunct - despite the popularity of the original game in Japan, they thought it would be better to release it in PAL regions first. The PAL version is the first version, primary version, and only released version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the "where it's released first" argument is not too strong, such as my support for Dark Chronicle. The Japanese argument is really just to say what name was intended for the product, and which region is the odd one out, in this case it would be the PAL region which differs. But to be honest, in this case, it isn't strong either (unlike for the Mega Drive move, which I felt that the Japanese slant mattered). It's not a big deal though, I wouldn't oppose a move, but I wouldn't bother to support one either. If you feel strongly about this, you should just take it to WP:RM and let the non-gamers jerk off about this. - hahnchen 10:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, the game was NOT unveiled at E3. It was acutally unveiled at ther German Leipzig Games Convention (I remember staying up until 5AM watching coverage of the event where they announced it). It wasn't until February or so when they announced the PAL name of the game. TJ Spyke 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, then. That's still nothing to assert that the NA version deserves the title more. It's actually more helpful to give the title to the version which is actually out, so why in the world do you oppose? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, unless you can provide a reasoning besides "the title was Mario Strikers Charged", I don't see any arguments for keeping at the NA title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just sick of explaining non-stop. Your only argument is "it was release in PAL areas first, so it should use their name". TJ Spyke 00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (common name) says that we should use the most common English name. Why should we assume that the PAL name, the only name given for any released version of this name, is not the most common English version of this game's name? On top of that, PAL version came first, the NA version does not exist yet, the WiFi connections for this game have consistently remained in the top ten WiFi connections consistently, sales have consistently remained in the top ten all over Europe and in Australia. These are not only the only arguments I'm providing, but the only arguments provided by either side (besides "we used this name first, we should keep using it", which is a tie-breaker rule - it cannot be the only argument). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So just because the game is not out in North America yet, it doesn't exist? So I guess games like Super Mario Galaxy don't exist either. While the PAL version is out first, I wouldn't be so sure that the PAL name is more common at the moment. WiFi connections don't mean much. Sales aren't fair to judge by yet. The way I see it, the only valid argument for the PAL title is that it came out in PAL territories first. Since the title has been controversial, that is another argument for the NA/JP title (since WP:NC says if a title is controversial, then the current title should be used basically if it still works). I feel like I am arguing with a brick wall since I don't think you will ever change your mind, and you shouldn't have just moved the page since that is supposed to be only for uncontroversial moves, you should use WP:RM instead. TJ Spyke 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should we assume the most common English name is the name of the unreleased version? Also, you NEED to provide a reason to stay at the NA name besides "it works". Mario Strikers Charged isn't even ADVERTISED in any region outside of Europe and Australia, so that goes to say that no one can know of the game without doing research, while simply seeing the commercial aired in EU and Australia makes them aware. We have to look at which came first in reality and not Wikipedia. The sport is a sport more popular in PAL regions (significantly more so). the PAL title is seen on television and in print, while the NA version is not. Why should we use the one that has no exposure to non-fans? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I ask you yet again - at what point would Mario Stikers Charged be the common title? It's not even been released under that title yet, so why would it be? It hasn't had any advertisement in North America, so why in the world would it be? I see a single argument for the usage of the NA name - and it's only good when it's placed on top of another legitimate argument, and I don't see that here. The sport is stronger outside of NA, the PAL version is the first version of this game to ever bee released (in English or otherwise), there exists a fan base in the PAL region, the PAL version has exposure to fans of the game and anyone who happens to see the commercial, and when you Google "Mario Strikers Charged", it gets 1,460,000 hits. Google Mario Strikers Charged Football, you get 1,220,000 hits, and Google "Mario Strikers Charged" -"Mario Strikers Charged Football" and you get 1,170,000 hits. There's not enough of a difference to make Google hits even relevant. So let's see - you only have one argument (which is weak by itself), but I have many - the above stated, and 76 news stories which use Mario Strikers Charged Football versus 54 which use Mario Strikers Charged (I analyzed each and every article). So news exposure + TV exposure + first release + superior sales + genre which appeals more to PAL regions = use Mario Strikers Charged Football. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you move it?! We don't need the Euro name! The US name has already been announced, so why not just leave it like that? --Coconutfred73 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So I'm gussing we should move all the 4th Generation Pokemon names too since they were released in another region than the US. --Coconutfred73 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what Europe is? It's an English-speaking region. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. So guess what? en.wiki does not cover only NA. It covers EU as well. We should use the original English title over the title of an unreleased, later version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've been thinking about this one for a while...
I'll try to summarize my thoughts here:

1. Link, stop pretending that MoS doesn't matter unless you could already win the argument without it. (What's the point of a manual of style if it has no bite at all?)
2. I don't know if it's being advertised formally or not, but the displays have been in EBs and Gamestops for some time now, with clerks spreading knowledge about its release by word of mouth.
3. It's a canadian game.
4. Whether or not soccer's more popular in europe is irrelevant: A videogame isn't even remotely the same thing as a real sport.
5. The game is currently only available in Europe.
6. Google hits, while never the last word in anything, do tend to support 'Football'.
7. 'Mario Strikers Charged Football' still includes the north american title entirely intact within it. (I know that isn't a policy reason, but it shouldn't be a brain age/brain training issue, where people familiar with one might not recognize the other)
8. The higher number of european-themed articles tend to imply greater recognizability. I realize that could change, but it's still worth acknowledging.

Overall, my personal preference is weakly in favour of doing the move to Mario Strikers Charged Football, but we really need a couple more opinions on the subject. Perhaps you should follow Spyke's suggestion and do an RM. Maybe ask the videogame project people to come back to the topic. Bladestorm 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... is it possible to discuss the move here before trying to perform it? Hmm? Bladestorm 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ALTTP basically told me he did it to force me back into the conversation (saying "If you would stop disappearing for days on end and force the discussion to a halt, I wouldn't have to force you to come back.), which basically violates WP:POINT. TJ Spyke 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In the fact that I felt I had reasonable evidence to destroy any existing doubt and the fact that the opposing side was no longer participating in the discussion gave me reasonable cause to move.

And would it kill you to not avoid the discussion just because you're on the losing end? If you can come here to report someone, you can come here to respond to me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Link, it's called a weekend. Two days is not enough time to unilaterally make a controversial move. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or not. Everybody thinks they're right. But, in the absence of flagrant vandalism, no single editor gets to act unilaterally without consensus. Tell me, did you take my advice, and try for a proper RM? Did you ask the people in the videogame project to join in the process? Bladestorm 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he didn't file a move request or bring it up at the VG project. TJ Spyke 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for this argument to be tested out on TJ. Additionally, the user is consistently editing throughout these weekends that he disappears. I see no attempt from him to continue the discussion - in fact, he himself stated that he stopped discussing so that others may join in. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, then why are you pressuring him to continue when you know he wants more external input? Bladestorm 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he's a part of the discussion! If he isn't willing to discuss, then I'm not willing to accept his opposition as being with reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't reply in 10 minutes and you post a comment on my talkpage telling me to reply? TJ Spyke 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You stop discussing for several days. You suddenly come here to tell on me and revert my move - but you still haven't even acknowledged my recent argument. All you have to do is say why superior news coverage isn't enough. News coverage is used to determine real world notability, so why not determining this situation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have to do anything. I agree with his suggestion to get more opinions in here. Stop trying to force people to conform to what you want. This is a collaborative effort. Bladestorm 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How does leaving the discussion cause people to participate in it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He suggested RM four days ago. I suggested the videogames project page two days ago. If you choose to ignore other editors, and try to perform moves out of process, then don't be surprised if you don't get what you want. And you don't have to take people's advice and go for a RM, or go to the videogame project; but our waiting for the external input that we suggested days ago is not the same as "leaving the discussion". Bladestorm 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving and returning constantly (IIRC, two times before this) is pretty close to leaving the discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Boxart

The Boxart is not the american boxart. Here is the actual boxart for the game http://gonintendo.com/?p=18442. If you agree that this should be posted, could someone post it?--Scotty12 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but this really shows NA bias. The NA version isn't out so the box art for it could very well be tentative, while that box art is the final box art in several regions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The boxart may not be the American boxart, but this is not the American Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Tim (Xevious) 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the boxart, but stop saying "American". Both the United States AND Canada share the same boxart/names/etc. for video games. Mexico usually gets the same box too. Basically, it's North America (I know some people from Canada have complained of similar things). TJ Spyke 00:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Bladestorm 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, hi, North American. And guess what one of the short versions of that is? It's American. Canadians don't like to be labeled as such, but the term more accurately describes North Americans than denizens of the US. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "American" is almost always used to desribe someone from the US. When discussing covers, i've seen many people )inlcuding you ALTTP) say "US cover", like it's only the USA that uses the cover when it's actually multiple countries. TJ Spyke 02:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then here's a turnabout - you referred to the boxart as the European boxart, when it's the PAL boxart. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a couple of instances where Australia had a different boxart then Europe, but I admit that I usually just say European. TJ Spyke 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here is a little sensitivity to canadian editors. Whether or not it's technically accurate to refer to citizens of both the americas as "american" is beside the point. Yes, we know this. But, the fact is, canadians don't like being called american. That's just how it is. It has nothing to do with disliking americans (heck, my girlfriend's american). It's simply a bit of sensitivity. I think it shows great character on spyke's part to even concern himself with such things. Normally, it's only canadians who would care how canadians feel. That said, I'm not really contributing anything to the article by saying this, I suppose. So I'll shut up about it now. :) Anyways, have you requested input from the videogame project on the subject of the proposed move yet? Bladestorm 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd be a little more impressed if he felt this way about using Europe instead of PAL. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Except... the australian markets and european markets are separate. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes, they don't. (heck, what about all that virtual console stuff for the wii?) PAL is just a tv signal standard, isn't it? It certainly isn't the same as lumping canadians in with americans. Also, (and I don't know if this applies to spyke or not, but it certainly applies to me) I don't even keep track of when PAL does or doesn't even apply anymore. I tend to focus on DS games more than Wii games. Does the DS even have PAL? Not that I can tell. So we should talk about the european version of big brain academy if it's the DS game, and the PAL version if it's the wii game? Argh, so confusing! Whoops... I was going to shut up, wasn't I? Anyways, have you requested input from the videogame project on the subject of the proposed move yet? Bladestorm 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa is in PAL, and certainly not a part of Europe. Besides the PEGI logo, they're the exact same. And no, I haven't yet done so. Be a peach and do that? I have to brb. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from the fact that people sometimes mistake "region of publication" with "publisher". South Africa is clearly not a part of Europe, but aren't games released in South Africa released by the European division of the publishing companies? Like, say, Nintendo "of Europe" for Nintendo games. Kariteh 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, the vast majority of video game articles on the English Wikipedia have the English NTSC boxart if one is available. And there is one at GameFAQs that is fair use. I'm not seeing why the PAL version is any more of the "original" and I'm merely trying to make everything consistent now that the NTSC release IS out. --GaeMFreeK 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

sage

Lame arguing about nothing. DO NOT WANT

Er.

Guys, nobody's changing the cover, since it was the first cover posted, the first cover used, and the NA cover is largely similar.

The rest of this header is Stupid Arguing About Something Other Than The Article. Enough with the nattering about pet peeves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reboot on the Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Okay, so the last move debate had some rather long, drawn-out discussions involving only three people. That's a bit much for people new to the discussion to read. To that end, I'd just like to summarize arguments for and against here, to make it easier for people to follow along.
By all means, feel free to add other arguments, but I make two requests:

1. Please put discussion in the discussion section, not the arguments section. This is just to keep the primary arguments easy to read.
2. Please add new arguments to the end of the respective list. This is so that people can refer to "#3 for support", without having "#3" changing into a different referred argument.

The issue

Whether the article would be best-served by having it listed by its current title (Its north american name: "Mario Strikers Charged"), or by its european name ("Mario Strikers Charged Football").
A Support indicates that you wish to move to "Mario Strikers Charged Football".
A Oppose indicates that you do not wish to perform the move.

Supporting arguments

1. The game is currently only available in PAL regions. (With a NA release over a month away)
2. The PAL version contains the North American version, and thus can be considered an expanded version of the title.
3. More coverage seems to focus on the PAL title, which implies greater recognizability.
4. Google hits tend to favour "Mario Strikers Charged Football".
5. It is currently advertised in these regions (Europe, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand).

Opposing arguments

1. MoS tends to favour the style of the earliest major contributor to the article.
2. MoS further tends to favour the current stable choice of style over changing solely for stylistic reasons.
3. The game has been listed by its north american title in EBs and GameStops for some time, and has been the subject of coverage by this title.
4. It's a Canadian game, and the title in Canada is "Mario Strikers Charged".
5. "Mario Strikers Charged" takes a style-independent approach for dealing with the soccer/football issue. See Opportunities for commonality.
6. "Mario Strikers Charged" is a shorter title, and thus easier to remember and search for.

Discussion

Please discuss Supporting or Opposing arguments here. This is also a good place to request clarification.

• For clarification, I don't think #6 in the opposing arguments is a good argument; it's simply something that I see somewhat often when considering page titles. Bladestorm 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Though the game is currently only available in Europe, this is obviously going to change. Articles don't need to be as short-sighted as to not see beyond a month away. Bladestorm 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just to note, MoS says to stick with the original, stable title when in doubt. That is, when there are no noticeable arguments in favor of one side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• A comment: Sorry for saying "European" instead of "PAL" again. Honest mistake. Bladestorm 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

!Votes

Please include your (non)votes here, and a quick reason why.

• Move. MoS suggests we stay at the original title when in doubt, and superior news coverage isn't a secondary argument by any means. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Move - Because of the fact that MoS says to stick to the original title of the article when in doubt, and there's no strong argument either way, I see no reason why the article's title should be changed from what it currently is. --Bishop2 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • News coverage is a very strong argument. The fact that there's been more news coverage for the PAL version is a strong argument, and I do not see a single reason to say that it's not. Just a question - do you have doubts about if there is more news coverage and more exposure to the gaming and non-gaming public for the PAL version? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Under the logic of news coverage though, we would be right back here requesting it moved back since the game will get lots more press coverage in North America in a few weeks). TJ Spyke 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • "What if" is an argument under no circumstances. If it comes to that, then propose the move. Currently, there is no doubt, and using the "stable name" argument is just stretching it out (there needs to be doubt involved, and I see no doubt here). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Wiki should not be shortsighted to the obvious. Right now it is obvious that there is more coverage in PAL territories because the game is OUT. There will be more coverage in NTSC areas when the game is OUT. --Bishop2 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't move because the US name has already been released. --Coconutfred73 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That would only be an argument if the US name receives preference for being the US name, which it does not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Move There is currently more news coverage for the PAL version. Future hypothetical NA coverage is absolutely irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kariteh 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a comment: I don't think spyke was using the likelihood of future american coverage as a supporting argument for the north american title per se, but rather to highlight the fact that, if the move is based solely on that fact, then we may end up right back where we started. (btw, don't forget to !vote, spyke) Bladestorm 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct. ALTTP's argument seems to be based on "superior news coverage", which could lead right to another move change next month when the game is released in North America (not wanting to crystalball, but most Mario games tend to get lots of media coverage).
      • So, because there exists the possibility that we might have to move back, we should just assume that it will definitely happen? You can't assume that Mario Strikers Charged will get so much more coverage than what Charged Football has now. I used that argument because it had so much MORE news coverage, not because it had one or two more. Yes, it'll get news coverage. But to say that it will get the gap that Football has right now is huge crystal balling. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The amount of coverage the game has from PAL-based sites is hardly overwhelming. It's not even equal to the ludicrious amount of coverage that an IGN and GameSpot together would spend on previews leading up to the final release or any major title. --Bishop2 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't move The current title is one of the official English titles, the article has been stable at this name in the 10 months it has existed, the sole argument for moving it seems to be more press coverage. TJ Spyke 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, press coverage - I mean, it's not as if press coverage is a good argument (even though it's constantly used to find the notability of articles), right? Seriously, you're talking about arguments, you don't even have anything that could support staying. We are in doubt, so the MoS doesn't even work in this case. Even you're in doubt, you just know that saying it will show that you're opposing for the wrong reasons. You can't just downgrade legitimate arguments all because it hurts yours. You've resorted to arguing "what ifs" and "could bes" even! - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Link, can you tone it down a bit? This is needlessly combative. Each person isn't obligated to personally satisfy/convince you. You aren't even making any sense anymore. "MoS suggests we stay at the original title when in doubt" "We are in doubt, so the MoS doesn't even work in this case" (notice how those are mutually exclusive statements?) Please, just let everyone else comment. Discussion is encouraged, but badgering isn't. Bladestorm 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't move Ultimately I would favor whichever choice would be the most harmonious for the community, but I personally favor the current title for the reason of "Opportunities for commonality" mentioned, which is similar to a reason I was trying to express in the naming discussion for the "Brain Age" articles. Dancter 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Don't move It should just be the NA title, as it was announced earlier than the EU title, and the EU title includes the word Football only to link it to the EU name of Super Mario Strikers, Mario Smash Football, and so people can reccognize it as a game about football. Moccamonster 12:40, 30 June 2007 (GMT)
• Don't Move I believe it shouldn't be moved because it is the Official English title. Uchiha23 19:53, 30 June 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Game-guide and Minutiae.

Please will you modify the parts that categorise the players as their "playing-type" like attacking, defensive etc. I feel that there shouldn't be reference to the characters' specific skills within the game or too much minutiae about their abilities. Other stuff like the list of available stages also strays far too close to game-guide material. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, a point-by-point description of the characters' special moves is certainly unsuitable; it's doubtful whether there should be any description of this type of thing at all. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this from the Wii online games list

This game utilizes the Wi-Fi function, so why do you insist on keeping it absent from the list? Link 486 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not the first WiFi Wii outside of Japan

Pokemon Battle Revolution is the first Wii game to use WiFi outside of Japan.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but has that game evn been released yet? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it hasn't been released in Europe yet. Outside of Japan, Mario Strikers Charged was released first , if you look on their respective articles. I think the confusion has came because this was released after Pokemon in America. Yet people are forgetting that this was released in Europe before that was released in America. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing for Americans

The article should have the regular Mario Strikers Charged box not the Mario Strikers Charged Football box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.128.65 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 July 2007

You say "confusing for Americans" yet you are aware of the different naming in between the different regions so It's obviously not confusing for you. This really isn't an issue. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The American boxart we found is at poor quality. --Coconutfred73 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can't the article have the regular Mario Strikers Charged Football box? I think it's fine like it is. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no reason not to have it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's an American boxart at GameFAQs that's fair use, and almost all of the articles at Wikipedia about multi-region games have images of their American boxarts. Why do we need to make an exception for this one? --GaeMFreeK 03:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Almost all of the articles at Wikipedia about multi-region games have images of their American boxarts" is just plain wrong, I'm afraid. Tim (Xevious) 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's true. Almost every game that has been released in multiple regions (and has been released in North America) has the North American boxart. TJ Spyke 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not true, unless you're going to be very wooly with your definition of "almost all". In any case, it matters not; Wikipedia has a policy on not being North-American-biased, and so there is no reason to alter this boxart. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters

This section is very poorly written. As I know barely anything about the game, I think someone else should do it. MamaWaluigi 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not about cramming all the information in as possible. All game-guide and In-universe material has been omitted. If you want to know everything within a game, then go to a gaming wikia. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariowiki.com has all of the characters, and their abilities. Go there if you want that information.--Ridley76 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Debut in Mario Strikers series

You should put a note on characters that made their debut in the Mario Strikers series, such as Diddy Kong. --PJ Pete

CERO rating

The CERO rating has been flip-flopping of late. The latest change adds a source, which is good--except it's a picture at a blog site, so I think we need to {{verify credibility}}.

While I think we need a better source, IMHO, we have a source now. Accordingly, I think any further changes need to cite a source at the time the change is being made, otherwise it risks being reverted as disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Number shout-outs?

Donkey Kong wears shoulderpads similar to those used in the NFL, and his number, 55, is displayed across his stomach. 55 is also the number worn by Miami Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter, who has a bit of a history of walking around before games with his jersey rolled up over his stomach. It may be just a minor tribute, but has anyone noticed any other similarities from other captains' numbers/appearance? Slurms MacKenzie 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Online region incompatibility?

I hear people talking about how you can't play this game online against people from other regions. Is that true, is it a glitch, or is it just a hoax? If it's true that online play is restricted to your region, woild that be important enough to put in the article? (I came here to find out if it's true or not, and I couldn't find it in the article.) Ron Stoppable (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can play against specific people by using their friends code, but for reasons of lag playing against randoms defaults to regional settings. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Both in this discussion and in the article, I believe someone should define what is meant by "region". Is it the technical term used for DVDs and the like (ie, Region 1, Region 2, etc), or is it a geographic term (ie, same city, state, timezone, etc). If the latter, what precisely is a "local region"? 72.231.170.93 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's meant by the region used for most video games (i.e. North America, PAL, Japan/Asia). I can verify that though, so don't take my word for it. TJ Spyke 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Difference between "game engine" and "physics engine"

There has been some back and forth on this article about whether it is appropriate to list the Open Dynamics physics engine in the "engine" field for this game. In game development, when the term "engine" is used it specifically refers to the broader "game engine" and not the more specific "physics engine" component of the technology. Yes, Open Dynamics was used for the physics on this game (as seen in the instruction manual), but to state that the entire game is somehow built on a physics engine is incorrect. It would be appropriate to list "engine" and "physics engine" seperately.

Saying that Stikers is built on Open Dynamics is like saying that an Automobile's engine is the motor that controls it's winshield wipers. - Open Dynamics is just a small portion of a larger whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.167.101 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kritter has the ball!

"Kritter cannot be controlled by the player except when he has the ball or is defending against a Mega Strike. He is generally not affected by items (exceptions: Daisy's spikes affect kritter, Bowser's fire affects Kritter). Kritter does not run around uncontrollably when on fire, although the fire prevents him from catching the ball with his hands. Players cannot move Kritter outside the goalie box. However, the player is able to control Kritter when he has the ball in his possession."

Is it just me or does the last sentence say the exact same thing as the first... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.213.198 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

name

came out in europe first, so should have the first official english name: Mario Strikers Charged Football Lu-igi board (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where it came out first doesn't matter, and this issue has been discussed. The article has been at this name and stable for over 2 years, so WP:ENGVAR goes against moving it and says it should stay at the current name, which IS official. TJ Spyke 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming?

Should this be called Mario Strikers Charged Football I ask because the game was released in Europe before America and Canada

Pdiddyjr (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consult the numerous and lengthy discussions above to understand what the consensus is. Salvidrim! 22:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)