Jump to content

Talk:Dr. Mario

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDr. Mario 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 11, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

double articles

[edit]

what a mess, there is a dr. mario article, which is more a series article, the is a sdr mario (video game) article and the template doesn't contain half of the games like dr. wario... Romanista 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting article off

[edit]

I somewhat have a problem with A link to the past removing much of this content..I think it should be split into multiple articles

  • Dr. Mario (the character and such)
  • Dr. Mario Series.
  • Dr. Mario NES (which would cover all the clones)
  • Dr. Mario 64

If we dont proceed with this then the older revision should be reverted -- larsinio (talk)

Then PROCEED with it. This content will not be here when those articles are made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The patent

[edit]

Hey, the patent says that the random number data is stored in the ROM. Wouldn't that mean that Dr. Mario clones that generate random number data without using a ROM (for example, on computers or CD-ROM-based consoles) not fall under the patent? Heck, if it turns out that Dr. Mario doesn't actually store random numbers in the ROM but instead uses a normal random number generator, it might not even be under its own patent! - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also regarding the patent, the link to it is broken. It's not a 404 response, but the patent isn't found in the patent database. ~ anonymous Dr. Mario fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.199 (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Meh, it works as of now. Salvidrim (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release History

[edit]

Is that really an incomplete list? Should the tag be removed now? I certaintly haven't heard of any more Dr. Mario games than that, unless you include Smash Bros. Melee, which isn't REALLY a Dr. Mario game. Fieari 19:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Not anymore. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Mario 64 etc.

[edit]

Honestly, this should be about the original game, Dr. Mario, and any information on the character be moved to Mario. Dr. Mario 64 is very different, with a new gameplay mode, four players, improved graphics, a new story, and the fact that the plotline and cast is reminiscent of Wario Land more so than Super Mario Bros. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree a new article for dr. mario 64 should be started. -larsinio (talk) 8:50, August 31, 2005

Funny - I think the article should be about the entire Dr. Mario series, as there isn't nearly enough information to justify splitting it out into games. Nifboy 21:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You were saying? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

World record

[edit]

I removed the sentence:

Conor Houghton recently set the world record by scoring a whopping 396,000 points shattering the former record of 96,000 points.

because it is almost certainly untrue, if it is true, some support is needed. Notjim 22:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt that its true. I just did a Google search [1] and couldn't find anything relevant--TBC??? ??? ??? 07:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source Code

[edit]

Does anybody know of any place where I can find source code for a Dr. Mario clone? I have to make a clone of my own in Visual Basic (hehe... advanced) for my school and it'd be nice to see how somebody else did it. BirdValiant 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karn Evil 9

[edit]

Fifteen minutes and fourty-four seconds (15:44) into Karn Evil 9, during the Second Impression, you can hear a very distinct melody. The very familiar measure sounds identical to one in Dr. Mario, the song Chill, at one minute and twenty-nine seconds (1:29). Although there is no evidence I know about that says the creators of the game borrowed the melody from the song it is not an uncommon finding in the video game world. Other infamous video game themes including ones from classics like Doom also feature "stolen" melodies. Is this relevant enough to be featured? --The Skunk 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill music

[edit]

anyone have a link to Dr. Mario's "chill" music?

Start Menu Music

[edit]

The start menu music reminds me of the theme song for the Gummi Bears.

"Time to get a haircut"??

[edit]

Is there any evidence that there are lyrics to the music in the game? The entire haircut and barber talk in the gameplay section seems to be completely made up. My searches in Google only bring up this article, so I've removed it. If someone can find some adequate proof, feel free to put it back. --Jacquismo 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFIC DATES

[edit]

WAT R THE SPECIFIC DATES OF THE JAPANESE N AMERICAN RELEASES —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dr-Mario NESscreen.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dr-Mario NESscreen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rip-off Dr. Hello

[edit]

There is a not so known Korean Dr. Mario rip-off called Dr. Hello made in 1991 by Sis Corp for MSX and then ported to SG-1000. I think that the MSX version is very, very rare to find, because there is no ROM of it. Only there's a rom of the SG-1000 version and one that is a SG-1000 ROM converted to MSX. The game has also adult stuff, like nude nurses. Also, looks like the SMS is compatible with the SG-1000, because the game is sometimes confused with a SMS game. Also, I think it was originally made for the Samsung Gam*Boy, that is a SMS clone that runs SMS games. Here are some sources (I think that those are the only internet pages about this game):

Converted MSX ROM: http://www.icongames.com.br/msxfiles/drhello/index.htm

Gameplay video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgUa-uZlus

Information (1): http://gonintendo.com/?p=71194

Information (2): http://www.gamesniped.com/2009/02/01/sega-master-system-dr-hello-reproduction/

SMS (or SG-1000, I don't know why it says SMS) rom: http://smspower.org/db/dr_hello-sms-kr.shtml

Those are the only sources I found, and I think the only sources in internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.97.147 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find the download site....

[edit]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.213.102 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


COLOR ???

[edit]

i've read elsewhere in wiki, that the black & white game boy cartridge can play on game boy color with a special palette. Game boy color can add colors to games, but yes, i've just try it and it works. It is not as good as the NES version, or as other game boy color games, but it has colors. but... i got this game befor super game boy and game boy color cames out, back in 1992 ! that is amazing. Super mario land (1) and alleyway have their very own palettes too, but they're crappy, Dr mario is very nice ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.8.212.160 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

[edit]

"While parents were critical of the premise due to its inclusion of medicine in a children's game..." ...what the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.141.30 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what's the problem? Salvidrim (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class Assessment.

[edit]

Per request at WP:VG, I've decided to perform the assessment. This is my first time doing anything like this, but I'll give it a shot. Specifically, the request was for a C-class assessment, with, if possible, tips for further improvement to B-class.

I'm happy to say that the article, as far as I can tell, passes C-class criteria. Though some work definitely needs to be done, if I knew very little about Dr. Mario, this would give me enough information to consider myself satisfied, which seems to be the main criterion required for the class. As for B-class...

B1: References - The references are... acceptable. However, I think the article relies a bit too much on NinDB. It would be a good idea to see if you can't locate some of its information elsewhere. Neoseeker's also a bit iffy. Also, try to locate a second reference for the claim mentioned in the previous section- it seems to have been challenged, and as a particularly strange (if believable) claim, it could use the extra citation.
B2: Coverage - What is currently in the article is probably covered fairly enough. However, if it's possible, I'd like to see a bit more information on the development of the game. If that can't be done- which is fair enough, that happens sometime, especially with older or more obscure titles- perhaps go into a bit more detail about the game's impact and legacy. I feel it just needs... something, but I'm afraid I can't quite place just what.
B3: Structure - Spiffing!
B4: Grammar - No obvious grammatical mistakes, would probably pass B here as well.
B5: Support - Illustration is fine. One quirk with the infobox: it might be a decent idea to add the release dates of the Virtual Console and Game Boy Advance versions. There's probably relevant information on the latter at the NES Classics page, and the various lists of virtual console games could aid in finding that version. (I don't know if it was released on the console virtual console, but I'm pretty sure it made it out somewhere on the 3DS one.)
B6: Clarity - Generally acceptable. Is the term 'falling block game' widely used? May want to link to its entry on List of puzzle video games.

Overall, it's a pretty decent article. It definitely has potential if you can add just a bit more to it, but at the moment it's got a few kinks that could be worked out before B-class is considered. However, none of these should stop it from reaching C-class, so congratulations.Hammerbrodude (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try address some concerns.
B1 - I was uneasy adding the citations for the release dates. I will try to find alternative sources for the information.
B2 - I very, very strongly agree that a Development section is needed and it is planned.
B5 - Agreed on the GBA Mini Series release. And why is there no info (outside of a category) about the VC release? What an omission! I'm on it!  Done
B6 - Wikilinked appropriately.  Done
Salvidrim (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B5 and B6 addressed and fixed! Also modified the refs a bit and worked on the Legacy sub-section. B1 I will take care of as soon as possible, and B2 will definitely need a lot more work, and on that I'm hoping I'll be able to have assistance from the other editor who worked a lot on this. I'll leave him a note. Thanks for the assessment! Salvidrim (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second point of B1, the claim is from a book, thus any likely "second" source will probably be quoting the book. I kind of doubt the reliability of the claim that "parents" complained -- I believe the author, Andy Slaven, may have expressed that idea and synthesised things, but if the fact that parents expressed the criticism desribed in the article was really important and notable, it would be reported elsewhere, which is not the case. I am trying to obtain a copy of the book to be able to see he text by myself. Salvidrim (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the release dates sources, I was able to find alternate sources for all releases but the GB NP one, where only NinDB and GFaqs seem to have the info, and in that case NinDB appears the most reliable of the two. Salvidrim (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also swapped out some NinDB sources from the Legacy sub-section. Ref#2 bugs me -- why does it reference Dr Mario 64's credits? Salvidrim (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the credits (which I've viewed here), Gunpei Yokoi & Takahiro Harada are credited for "original concept". I am unsure as to whether or not it specifically refers to this game, however...
Aha! Found an interview with the Harada (here) where he mentions being the game's producer. Will edit accordingly! Salvidrim (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Bible Quote

[edit]

I was able, after much searching, to find the full quote. Here it is:

  • "This is similar to playing Tetris, but with colorful pills instead. Parental groups were upset with Nintendo at their choice of content, since many parents disagreed with the use of medicine in the game. Nintendo basically told these groups that they could bite the "Big N" and kept producing this title (which parents bought for their children anyway)."
Video Game Bible, 1985-2002 By Andy Slaven, p.102

So it seems the quote is verifiable indeed. Whether it should be presented as fact (as it is now) or as Mr. Slaven's opinion (or account of the situation) is more debatable. --Salvidrim! T·C 08:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the relevant part of the quote and converted {cite web} to {cite book} properly. Salvidrim! 05:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Assessment

[edit]

How lovely to be back here; it's nice to see people so dedicated to the improvement of articles. This was my first attempt as assessment back when I changed it to C-Class... and I'm pleased that it's been noticed. I've gained a bit of experience since then, so without further ado...

Per request at WP:VG, I've decided to perform the B-Class assessment. Specifically, the request was for such an assessment and any advice for possible GA status. I'll do what I can to provide this.

  • B1: References
This will definitely provide some trouble later on should anyone attempt GAN. In particular, the following media do not have a clear consensus for reliability (as far as I can tell)
TheMushroomKingdom - Fansite. Although running such a site probably requires a great deal of work, I'm not sure this would stand much chance of being considered reliable.
NintendoLife - Oh, can't we come to consensus for this one? It looks thoroughly reliable a website to me. You might be able to find the information elsewhere, I don't know, but really I'd advise just getting the well-needed discussion for this site out of the way so that it can be used reliably across the site.
NinDB - Though this looks accurate enough for me, it may be a good idea to establish what makes it accurate.
Arcade-Museum - Probably accurate; a favorable argument could probably be made for this.
Nintendojo - Like NintendoLife, it looks accurate enough to where one couple probably get away with using it, although admittedly I'm not sure quite as convincing a case one could make for it as NintendoLife. In any case, it's only for the review, so using it is probably alright.
Also, the following sites are situational and may or may not be reliable in this article.
Kotaku - Prior to 2010 (if I remember right), the site was not considered wholly reliable here, and so only material by certain authors is considered reliable before that year. Since the article was published in 2007, it would be a good idea to prove the reliability of Mr. McWherter.
GiantBomb - Reliable for content by the editorial staff. As this appears to be from a database, I'm doubting that this page was from them; therefore, this source would probably be called unreliable.
And finally, the following source is considered unreliable and should probably be removed-
MobyGames - As it relies on user-submitted content with "no apparent editorial oversight".
However, it seems that all information I'd question is cited, so kudos. Thanks, also, for providing the quote in the above section.
  • B2: Coverage
Lead is fine. There are a lot of people who dislike citations in the lead if the information is used elsewhere... I'm not one of these people, but it might be wise to edit the article accordingly later on should GAN be attempted.
Gameplay is fine. Which isn't totally surprising, as Dr. Mario isn't a very complex game. I am sure that there are competitive players somewhere who would have my head for this quote, though.
Development... I like longer development sections. They're usually the most interesting reads if they can be provided, as they show information that is not readily apparent upon just playing the game. However, for the older games-especially Dr. Mario, whose conception was probably a two-sentence exchange of "can we capitalize on Tetris?" and "sure, and Mario too"-I understand that this may not be possible. Forgiven.
Lead of 'reception' is fine.
  • B3: Structure
The structure is inherently fine, although there are a lot of one-paragraph sections. Could any of them be merged, perhaps?
  • B4: Grammar
There were a few wordings I found mildly quirky and a couple of minor spelling errors. I've fixed them. If you want more information, you can check the diff in history. With no intended rudeness, my favorite of these was seeing 'play' repeated three times within five words.
  • B5: Periphery
I'd recommend using one of those fancy rationale templates for the cover art, but there are no apparent problems with any images or infoboxes used in the article.
  • B6: Clarity
No readily apparent issues.

History:
Section B1 completed by Emmy Altava 07:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sections B3 and B5 completed by Emmy Altava 07:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sections B2, B4, and B6 completed up to (but not including) "Re-releases". The rest will be done (after they wake up) by Emmy Altava 07:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sections completed by Emmy Altava 23:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to a few concerns:

  • B1 - Individual Sources:
TheMushroomKingdom.net. I raised it for discussion here specifically after using it in this article, and the only reply was not an objection. I would consider it situational for Mario game as a factual source.
NintendoLife - all discussions seem to point towards reliability. 1 & 2.
NinDB - No prior discussion, used here because the information, despite being presume accurate could not be found elsewhere in more reliable sources thus far.
Arcade-Museum - This site is "Killer List of Videogames", KLOW is shown to be a platform-specific RS in the Sources page.
Nintendojo - No prior discussion; used for editorial content.
I've replace the Kotaku one with this one, from Nintendo World Report, also classified reliable at WP:VG/Source
MobyGames -- I am finding several mentions of Masaaki Iwasaki having been part of the Data East sound team, but none in strictly reliable sources. The only one marginally better than MobyGames is an OCRemix.com page linking him to Magical Drop. I'll change it, but I am unsure of how preferable it really is.
Giantbomb replaced with an IGN source.
  • B2 - There really isn't much more meat to Development, I'm afraid. What little facts there are certainly deserve mention, as the people who worked on the game also took part in other notable projects.
As for citations in the lede -- it was something I was mulling over, and will certainly give it more thought before a GAN.
  • B3 - I changed the structure around a bit to standardize it and paragraphed things more appropriately.
  • B4 - Three instances of "play" in five words? Ouchie!
  • B5 - I'm not familiar with images, rationales and such. I'll see if something can be done.  Done


I've gone through the article and am happy with the improvements made. I've done a bit of reshuffling of the material used within the article; I think it looks a bit more full now. (Specifically, Ports merged with development to become "Development and releases", Sequels merged with "Legacy".)

Now that we're through that, let's get to the fun part.

  • B1: Majority of sources are either definitely reliable or likely reliable. Ideally, we'd come to consensus on the remaining sources, but such might be difficult given the increasing apathy plaguing Wikiprojects in general... but it's earned B for sure.
  • B2: Per the above. It would be nice if it could be strengthened a little, but it's enough for B and might survive GA.
  • B3: I think the structure is fine, but I just changed it, so without a second opinion it might be egotistic of me to give this anything more than B. GA could be possible here.
  • B4: Quirkiness eliminated. There shouldn't be any noteworthy problems here.
  • B5: All images have rationale, all infoboxes appear complete.
  • B6: I'm a total nerd, but I think the article is mostly clear enough to be understood. I'd have someone else look over it who doesn't care as much about video games as me. However...

Verdict: . Last night, I wasn't sure I'd be able to give the promotion... but after looking it over both last night and now, I think it's improved enough to where it should be able to pass a B-Class assessment with no major issue. Could the article reach GA? I think it probably could. Really, all that might need to be done would be a bit of discussion on sources.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dr. Mario (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 11:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "is an 1990" - a 1990?
    "Nintendo home console since the NES, and most portable consoles" - remove comma
    "as one of the thirty games" - remove "the"
    quotes should not be italicized
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Reliability of references needs a check:
    themushroomkingdom.com
    arcade-museum.com
    nindb.net
    cheatcc.com
    More publishers required, eg 21, 22
    Non-English sources should have language parameters
    Most dates in references were in dmy-format, so I changed all to dmy.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Checklinks check: ok
  • Dabsolver check: ok
I'll address concerns:
  • Fixed prose issues of point 1.
  • Sources:
  1. themushroomkingdom.com - Listed as situational at WP:VG/S for facts
  2. arcade-museum.com - Listed as platform specific RS at WP:VG/S for arcade games
  3. nindb.net - See this discussion for my rationale, no consensus on reliability. Will replace if deemed absolutely necessary?
Okay, so I found an alternate secondary source (an archive of Nintendo's site, couldn't be better) for the SFC release date and the existence of the GB (NP) release, but no source for its date. So basically, either I have to use a source whose reliability is unproven so far, or have an unsourced release date. Which do you think is preferable?
  1. cheatcc.com - Used for opinion piece, no prior discussion. Removed.
  • Publisher= added
  • Language added to the Jap source
  • Dates: You've fixed all that needed fixing?

Lemme know if there's anything else. Salvidrim! 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a little bit brief; maybe add similar versions were available as bonus in other games. And any information how much levels it has? Is it limitless?--♫GoP♫TCN 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Salvidrim! 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-class assessment

[edit]

This simply needs approbation from two uninvolved editors. My reason for nominating the article follow:

  • A-class (as opposed to GA or FA) is more about the article's completeness than its outstanding quality; I believe Dr. Mario (video game) is as complete as it will ever be, thus believe it should be A-Class. Other more stylistic concerns will be worked on before or during an upcoming FAC. Salvidrim!

RE: A-class assesment

[edit]

it seems to me that this article meets all nessary critiera for an A-class aritcle, However in reviewing this aritcle I found one minor gamatical error, which I fixed. Think this article should be reviewd by at least one other editor for any other grammer or spelling errors, then promoted to A-class — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16bitz (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of edits, which includes general fix ups and rewording, during in the past hour. Anyone want to take a final review before promoting to A-class? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this deserves A-Class. --J (t) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: article moved. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– I firmly believe this is unambiguously the primary topic of Dr. Mario and that the disambiguator is superfluous. The current Dr. Mario disambiguation page should be located at Dr. Mario (disambiguation). This will require admin assistance, as per the separate pages' histories. Salvidrim! 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but this should have been formatted as a multi-move including the disambiguation page. This is the clear primary topic, unless someone can provide evidence that the real doctors listed on the disambiguation page are commonly referred to as "Dr. Mario". Powers T 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've done a bit of fiddling with disambiguation pages in the project in the last couple of days, removing any that were currently redirects or only disambiguating to one page (ultimately removing 17 unarguably useless pages from WP:VG), and this one was one of the ones I was most curious about the continued existence of. There's really no question that if someone is searching for Dr. Mario, they meant this. Emmy Altava 08:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The original video game is clearly the primary topic. — Bility (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Doctor or physician

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion.

Dr. Mario assumes the role of a physician, not a doctor. Physicians are recognized for the completion of a doctorate degree in medicine (MD), which provides them with the title of a physician, medical doctor, or surgeon. Doctors, on the other hand, have completed a doctorate of philosophie (PhD) in university. They are mostly consultants and professors, not like Dr. Mario. At first, I wanted to add the "medical" in front of "doctor," but realized that the word in question was already used three times in the sentence. Therefore, I changed "doctor" to "physician," describing more accuratley Dr. Mario's role. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first wikilink in the lede already points to Physician, but uses the word doctor, in an attempt at usingg simple words in the intro. The use of the word "doctor" without further clarification in the main body of text was an oversight; a doctor is someone who has a PhD, a physician is a health care provider; I believe the distinction is unambiguous in the case of the role Mario assumes in this game. Salvidrim! 16:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of using simple words in the article's introduction. On Wikipedia, we want articles to be accurate. The word "physician" is used in society to describe the main character's occupation. Doctors, on the other hand, describe anybody who obtained a PhD. Professors, sociologists, scientists, researchers, and nurses, among many others, can be called doctors if they complete a third cycle degree in university leading to the obtention of a doctorate degree, the famous PhD. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any of the games or game manuals refer to him as a physician, I don't think we should use it. We don't need to be applying real world technicalities to a light-hearted, fictional character, that is very light on story or medical information in general anyways. His name is Dr. Mario. Call him a Doctor. Keep it simple. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are we seriously disputing the use of a single term? The character of Dr. Mario is both a doctor and a physician; the former is shown by the character's name and the latter is shown by his appearance & the gameplay. Neither term is incorrect and which one is used comes down to preference. Salvidrim! 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the word "Doctor" or "Dr." is added in front of an individual's name, as in Dr. Mario, to show that the person is a physician. Others who have completed a PhD usually add the ",PhD" at the end of their name. It is however true that certain individuals with PhDs call themselves doctors. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the use of the term "medical doctor"; doctor and physician are both preferable terms. I feel edit-warring over this is a bit silly however... I support physician. Only one editor that I know of opposes the word physician and has doner so without discussion his position AND by violating 3RR; I believe we sjould stick to "physician" at he moment, unless objections are properly forumalted in the futtre. Pardon my typing Im not usin a computer! Salvidrim! 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with your convincing argument. We will stick with the word "physician." (P.S. That's the reason for the typos!) --MaxDawsonC (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! That's what happens when I'm not home and I can't resist replying from my iPod. ;) Salvidrim! 01:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-native English speakers know the "doctor" can means who save life, but the word "Physician" is too rare...--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Non-native English speakers think that "Doctor" or "Dr." means physician or doctor (title) simply, and the games is a Japanese game.--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? --MaxDawsonC (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, considering what is written on your user page... "What I want to say is that I can not understand English." --MaxDawsonC (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His English is good enough to communicate, though it shouldn't render his argument invalid. His point is that the original developer says he's a doctor, therefore, Mario's a "doctor." On a related note, the "galaxies" in Super Mario Galaxy hardly fit the definition of a real-life galaxy but you don't see that article calling them "small clusters of planets." Stick with doctor. The term is generic enough that it gets the point across. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentionned above I personally agree with either doctor or physician without much difference; going back to "doctor wikilinked to physician" (which was the last stable version) is certainly a proposition I can support. As per WP:BRD I'm thus reverting to the last stable version, without prejudice to changing it back to physician if consensus emerges at a later point. Salvidrim! 16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK with me. As long as the words are not changed without a valid explanation... --MaxDawsonC (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what Thomas is saying is exactly what I was getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive.

Removal Addition of SNES from console list

[edit]

I have now twice reverted the removal by 50.121.5.250 of SNES from console list. I've invited the user to participate in this discussion... although it is a well-sourced fact, so I am unsure what discussion there is to be had. I am eager to hear his viewpoint, however. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, I misunderstood the user's edits -- he tried adding the console to the list, not removing it. However, a game called Dr. Mario was indeed never released on SNES; a game called Tetris & Dr. Mario was, and included a version of this game. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now the editor has removed Nintendo Power from the list, while that is an appropriately sourced fact... I'm not sure what exactly is going but I've urged the user to come here to discuss. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that equilibrium will probably be re-established sooner or later. The details referred to look to be relatively minor and this isn't a BLP, so there shouldn't need to be any rush to deal with repeated attempts to change the content. I expect that other editors familiar with the topic will chime in and consensus will become evident. -- Trevj (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade High Score

[edit]

I removed a bit of text about people holding arcade high scores because I could not find coverage of the fact in reliable, independent sources, and as such the information appears to be non-notable. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that Dr. Mario is a physcian.

[edit]

In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, for Mario's normal trophy it says:

A familiar overall-clad figure who is Nintendo's flagship character. His courage and jumping ability have seen him through countless adventures. He's a multitalented plumber with the knowledge of a physician, a top-notch golfer, and a veteran tennis umpire. Is his jumping prowess a boon from his girder-climbing days? It's almost certain that they are talking about Dr. Mario. Should we call him a physician then? --GameBoyMad (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It simply states he's a plumber with the knowledge of a physician. That's not stating someone is literally a physician, you'd need a reliable source that specifically states he's a physician. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dr. Mario. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype titled Virus

[edit]

The prototype of this game was titled Virus, not to be confused with ports of Zarch. Is there a more reliable source for this than The Cutting Room Floor (earlier, later)? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that any mention of this would belong better either at Virus (disambiguation)#Video games or as a hatnote on Zarch, but I'm not sure whether posting on one of those other talk pages would be considered forum shopping. I have nothing to offer on the sourcing question. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABRELATED requires that the target page (in this case, Dr. Mario) mention the term (in this case, the title Virus). Without mention in this article, I can't justify a link from Virus (disambiguation) or the top of Zarch, and without an additional secondary source, I can't justify mention in this article. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had realized, several days earlier, that my original reply was essentially useless for just this reason. I apologize for my sloppiness, in particular not making more time to actually look for sources. (To clarify: I can think of a handful of other websites that mention the Virus prototype, but none are anywhere near reliable.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule SE cloning the game

[edit]

I just figured that Capsule SE made by m-bounce was cloning the Dr. Mario, right? Apollo C. Quiboloy fans (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fever theme in Puyo Puyo Tetris

[edit]

According to ShiroBrawl, the fever theme was used in Puyopuyo Tetris, even though Sega own Nintendo's intellectual properties/licensed rights. ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the GA criteria, mostly due to the "Legacy" section. The first paragraph of this section is uncited, which the second half seems to be a random assortment of uses in other media. I think this section needs additional research and to be organised more effectively. Is anyone willing to undertake this task, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Dr. Mario

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Legacy" section is my biggest concern: the first paragraph is uncited, while the rest of the paragraphs are an assortment of appearances in other media. There are also some uncited statements in other parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in Legacy. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. mftp dan oops 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MFTP Dan: It was only recently that GA required a citation after every paragraph (with some exceptions, like the lead). Articles were not "grandfathered" into this requirement, so GAs promoted before this change might require fixing up to meet this higher standard. If there was one or two minor citation concerns, I would not consider bringing an article to GAR. With this article, I thought the amount of uncited text was too much for the article to be considered GA at that time. If someone is willing to fill in the missing citations, I can re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like most of the citation concerns have been resolved. I also recommend that an interested editor read through the prose and split up the paragraphs, as many of them are too long. Typically I recommend a maximum of six sentences. Z1720 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dr._Mario&oldid=1254762586"