Talk:Super Mario Maker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mario Maker)

Screenshots[edit]

We have 2 non-free screenshots on this article, but neither of them show the editing interface. Which is kind of odd when the editing tool is arguably the most unique and important aspect of the product. A screenshot like: [1] would be a better use of non-free media than the 2 screenshots currently in use. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (And I've got a sneaking suspicion that these screenshots, and probably future ones as well, are more about someone subtly showing off their creations than actually bettering the encyclopedia...) Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham, Sergecross73, and The1337gamer: I added the creation interface image in response. We can keep the infobox image, but which screenshots must we keep? --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the screenshot of the Yoshi costume could go. It seems more decorative than informative. The other screenshot might be better with some alternative image. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Yoshi one is a little bland, where as the other one shows the busy, zany nature that many of the user-created levels tend to consist of a little moreso... Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we do decide to use more than one screenshot, I think they should be using two different artstyles, so that we're making full use of the number of non-free images we decide to go with.--IDVtalk 20:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of the 10 Mario Challenge image. It illustrates both classic stage "remixes", different playable characters and the 10 Mario Challenge itself, as the caption described. Saying it was decorative is really silly indeed. Though, I think I've come up with a better idea: I can try to create a screenshot to replace both the 10 Mario Challenge and NWC screenshots. I know a scenario in the game that allows the 10 Mario Challenge, classic stages, different playable characters, helmets and game styles to be illustrated in a single screenshot. It'll make for one hell of a caption, though, which might be a problem. Philip Terry Graham 03:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, you don't have to include all details, do you? Why not just graphics of SMB, SMB3, SMW, and NSMBWiiU and get this over with? --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need all the details visually represented though. There's 2 core parts of the game - level creation, and level playing. Both should probably be visually shown. Things like the "10 Mario Challenge" aren't really something that requires an visual representation to express, (nor do I really see what about it that image expressed. That's there's a life counter in the corner during that mode?) Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only simply want to make good use of the images, rather than them being, you know, decorative. There's an art in illustrating a game and the way it works in such a limited fashion; especially in instances like this where having more than two screenshots will be received negatively by other editors. Philip Terry Graham 23:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable designers making levels for Mario Maker[edit]

@AdrianGamer:, as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of developers that have created levels in Super Mario Maker, I think we should definitely give details on what these people actually did. The whole point of the original list was to give encyclopedic information about the levels created by notable developers (such as inspiration). Simply giving a list of names is nothing more than trivia and I don't see what the point of this would be. ~Mable (chat) 19:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the consensus of the AFD was to merge the list into here. There would need to be a new consensus to remove the chart outright, which I also oppose. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Turning the table into prose might be possible, but I simply don't know how one would go about doing that without giving an entire paragraph to each level, which would obviously be excessive (Especially if the list grows). ~Mable (chat) 20:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, table is still the best way to mention it, but I'm not sure if it should remain. Just because something passes WP:N, doesn't mean it improves the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the chart to prose on this sort of thing, it's easier for the reader to keep track of the examples/quantity. And as I said on the AFD, if reliable sources are dedicating whole articles to it, it seems like something that merits inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the "Broadcasting" and "Creation date" tables necessary? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting refers to who commissioned the creation or who published the result. I think it denotes why a level is made. The creation date is only really important to show if the level was made before or after the release of Mario Maker in the US. ~Mable (chat) 05:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's topic is about the game, not the levels created by these notable developers. Yes, these people played the game, that should be mentioned, but when they created it, or what they had created is completely not useful. I'd see this as WP:GAMECRUFT. They get plenty of coverage, but at the end they really tell readers nothing related to the game. I mean, we already considered a detailed explanation of the levels featured in all games GAMECRUFT, and these get excluded because they are covered by reliable sources? Reliable sources also tell us how to find all the game's collectibles, techniques to beat the game's bosses or to level up without wasting time as well. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing the date field, that's not all that essential. Even the broadcasting could be merged into the details/about table. The core things of importance are the notable creator, and a brief outline of what they made. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...there was a reason why I made it on a separate page in the first place, I knew it wouldn't really fit with this article as the topic is simply different :s ~Mable (chat) 16:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AdrianGamer that this information falls under cruft and, to me, is edging on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Since creation dates and the contents of the levels are not essential to the reader's understanding of the game or its significance, they don't belong in the article. It reminds me of the character table we used to have on Smash Bros for Wii U and 3DS, and how we opted out of columns containing dates when the character was announced, etc. Since the information is not substantial enough to warrant a separate article, perhaps this information doesn't belong at all. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just get this straight: on the one hand, the information is considered notable enough for Wikipedia, but on the other hand, it is not a big enough of a topic to deserve its own article, but once it gets merged into a larger article, all the information has suddenly doesn't belong anymore? The original list was about mainly about the creative works these people created, that (obviously) weren't notable enough on their own but were clearly related in such a way that they could easily form a list. Should the merge be undone to keep this article focused on the actual game, rather than suddenly moving its focus on related creative works? ~Mable (chat) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that notable developers that have created levels can be considered notable. What the levels actually were and when they were created is not. AndrianGamer's trim to the section was a reasonable edit, IMO. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just the names and sources used is really all that's needed. The rest seems like a better fit for a trivia section on the Mario Wikia, or something. It would be written as so:
"Notable designers who had created a level for Super Mario Maker included Michel Ancel, Koji Igarashi, Tim Rogers, and Derek Yu."(sources go here) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...who have created a level for Super Mario Maker include..." might be preferred. I don't really see what use the names on their own have, but I suppose there's no use arguing... ~Mable (chat) 20:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's better, but how are the names by themselves any worse than the table? I'm still not even sure if this needs to be stated anyway. Should we allow a sourced list of celebrities/notable people who have built something in Minecraft, as well? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point in listing notable developers who have made SMM levels, unless the level (or the developer's involvement) has received A LOT of coverage by reliable sources, or if it's important in some other way. I remember hearing about how a level by Michel Ancel (I think?) was included in the base game - that's fine to include in the Development section imo. Developers who have been invited to create levels by Nintendo and used in their promotion of the game, such as Playtonic Games, can be mentioned in a Promotion section. As for any other developers who have made SMM levels, I don't see how it improves the reader's understanding of the game. It just feels like cruft to me.--IDVtalk 22:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have achieve a consensus. I had trimmed it again. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article reads more like an advert than an Encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.187.245 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff not in the game?[edit]

I'm not saying we should make a list out of it, at least beyond a few examples, but should we mention that Destructoid put up a list of all the 2D Mario mechanics & so forth that aren't in SMM? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we just list off every single one, wouldn't that just be trivial? Maybe listing the most notable three would be fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that they put up this list. I'm asking if them doing so, pointing out that not all of the gameplay material from past Super Mario games in this tradition made it into SMM, is worth noting in the article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a general statement? Sure. But as a list of all the stuff not included? No. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there should be a section about release dates for material[edit]

not all stuff was available at release with certain elements released later. release dates for those things should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.45.196 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most important gameplay is not in the article.[edit]

When I was reading this, I realized something. Some things, like the unlockable content that appears after spending five minutes making course.s MonstoBusta2000 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Over time, new editing tools are unlocked" isn't good enough? Wikipedia shouldn't read like a guide, and having the exact details could be considered WP:GAMETRIVIA. Anybody else agree? And what other things are missing? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: You're right; it's all there. WP:GAMEGUIDE — Smuckola(talk) 00:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest update notice?[edit]

Could someone add the update details from what was announced in the recent Nintendo Direct, please? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3/2017[edit]

i think it will be for switch as well. --Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 19:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynda1231 (talk • contribs) [reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Mario Maker. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Mario Maker. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Maker 2 page?[edit]

At the moment, Super Mario Maker 2 redirects to this page, but I feel it should be given it's own page since it is a different game. 185.178.49.147 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON. It will eventually have it's own page but right now we are basically in the "announcement" phase and need time for more sources and coverage to be generated. -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100%ing community[edit]

After the Wii U online shutdown was announced, the community tried to beat every remaining uncleared level, is that notable enough to be included in the article? I am RedoStone (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As always we start with: Are there reliable secondary sources that covered this? -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this source count? KiwipediaZea (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're headed in the right direction but unfortunately, per WP:VG/S, NintendoEverything is considered unreliable. Check that page though for sources that are acceptable. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected myself and I was thinking if this source could be reliable. KiwipediaZea (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GamesRadar is reliable. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a Guardian article. Also, according to the article the goal to complete every level has been completed. Squidb4ll (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Team Zero Percent has it's own article, and there are two paragraphs on that article stating the completion of all Mario Maker 1 levels (while mentioning "The Last Dance", the last uncleared level of the game on an other paragraph). However, according to it's website tracking the completion of the uncleared levels in MM1, the percentage of uncleared levels that have been cleared was 101%. I clicked the "Learn why" textbox below the percentage and two paragraphs popped up. The first paragraphs elaborates that the level "Trimming the Herbs" "was, in fact, a convoluted sort of troll", and tool-assisted speedruns were "not possible on the Wii U". Fortunately, the creator of "Trimming the Herbs" (abbreviated as "TTH") had a hardware-based TAS prototype to "develop and clear-check" the level. Long story short for the good news; Sanyx91SMM2 cleared TTH with over a hundred hours of "practice and attempts", and Team Zero Percent treated Sanyx's clear of TTH "as the 101st completion percentage to signify his dedication to going above and beyond in the effort to truly complete every level in the game."
Not to mention, you can view the completion here. KiwipediaZea (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Mario_Maker&oldid=1217940229"