Talk:Super Mario Bros.

Animal crossing port

This game IS on animal crossing for gamecube. shouldn't it count as a port? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.245.187 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling Game of All Time?

Why does the article say that this game is the bestselling as of 1999? Isn't it still? I would update to 2008, but I'm not registered and it's protected... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.81.158 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I found a page on the Guinness World Records website that affirms SMB as the best-selling video game. [1] And next time, please put new threads at the bottom of the page. Xenon54 00:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Four not three direct sequels

Super Mario World is also a direct sequel to SMB (in the same way SMB2/SMB USA is; i.e. it was acknowledged as a direct sequel only in certain regions) as it was titled Super Mario Bros. 4 in Japan. Actually, I would argue the 'canon' chronology goes SMB-Lost Levels-SMB3-SMW (this may be mentionable), but I understand why SMB2/SMB USA is still technically on the list.

Oh, and Yoshi's Island was not titled SMB5 in any region (there is no SMB5).

Some Crazy Bootleg

Guys. I've never met anyone who has seen this. At my local grocery store I saw a Super Mario Bros. game (in cabinet) that was like a mod of everything. It had a skateboarder instead of mario. The coins were coke cans. Bowser was a football player who threw footballs. The man-eating plants were scissors. The cabinet had the exact same cabinet as a normal Super Mario Bros. The music was the same. Has anyone ever seen this bootleg? Amulekii (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Must have been done by some dedicated homebrew group. There are probably hundreds of edited SMB games like that, why bother? - Up and over for a six! (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mushroom Traitors?

The Goomba's Japanese name (Kuribou) is based on chestnuts, not mushrooms. The Goomba is actually supposed to resemble a chestnut in it's shape and color. So, as oppose to mushroom traitors, Goombas are actually some kind of odd chestnut monster. -- Kendamu 14:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the manual for the US/EU version of the game, it isn't. --Hullubulloo 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Confirming Musroom Traitors, it is also stated in the Super Smash Bros. Melee(PAL) Trophies information about Mario. 194.120.158.162 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was "traitors of the Mushroom Kingdom", not "traitors that happen to be mushrooms", but I haven't checked.

NES Classics Version

This was also released on the GBA as part of Nintendo's NES Classics series.

That's already mentioned in the article but it's under Classic NES series, which I think was the American name for the series. Corbo 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jackson reference...?

I think that reference is totally useless. There are billions of Mario Parodies around the Internet. Why is a Jerry Jackson reference here? I remember that two submissions were blammed in Newgrounds. But the moderators allowed them in the very end! Not only that, but Jerry Jackson make movies totally pointless, without any kind of sense. They are poorly drawn, with a emotionless voice, not sound at all, and they even manage to appear in the Frontpage and here in the Wikipedia. I'm going to delete that reference right now. Please, be fair.

Vs. Super Mario Bros. statement removed

The player begins with only two lives rather than the standard three, and 256 coins are required to earn an extra life, as opposed to 100 in all other versions.

I removed this because this obviously depends on switch settings. Both the number of lives and how many coins are needed for a 1-up are configurable settings. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of info

I can't say that I agree with the removal of the cultural info here. I mean, the whole article is cultural cruft, we might as well acknowledge it. Its not like it hurts the encyclopedianess. I won't revet, but I think the info should be put back. pschemp | talk 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It was "A Wikipedia user noticed that foo is referenced/is similar to/is mentioned in passing in bar" original research plus an ad for someone's album. If someone wanted to write something cited, that would be fine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe pull the album ad but the content seems encyclopedic to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it original reserach to talk about a phrase the game uses? Anyone can verify that. pschemp | talk 02:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it original research to note how many toes a species of bird has? Anyone can catch the bird and verify that.

Synthesizing direct observation is original research. In this case, it's really, really inane original research, but it's a good hedge against Armchairs in popular culture. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The first half is all "A Wikipedia user noticed that foo is mentioned in passing in bar." Super Mario Bros. or its music has appeared in the background of dozens, if not hundreds, of TV shows and movies and mentioned im passing in many; listing every single one is neither useful to an encyclopedia or even practical. We're not exactly talking about SMB3 and The Wizard, here.

The whole bit on "I'm sorry..." is full of unsourced, largely unsourcable statements:

• It has become something of a pop culture phenomenon, similar to "all your base are belong to us." - Since when?
• The phrase is frequently parodied and referenced in popular culture, most often in video games and video gaming related contexts. - The video game world is pretty self-referential, especially when video game series reference previous games in that series. Any reference in a source other than video game recognizing this phenomenon?
• It is sometimes called both a meme and a snowclone. - This is an artefact of memespam being cut from the article on "I'm sorry" and is similar to "Fanfic often depicts this character as..."
• It is sometimes cited as a good example of negative reinforcement. - By whom?

The rest is more "A Wikipedia user noticed that foo is mentioned in passing in bar."

So, where's the encyclopedic content? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the removal of info, why is it that there is a constant effort to remove or minimize the presence of the Minus World? This is something that has been around for years (as in, you saw talk of the Minus World in old magazines), and it's well-known why the Minus World is there, and yet anytime it's added to the page it's either removed completely or listed as "uncited", which is crap, as the game itself should be enough citation. 66.168.83.91 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, there's a conspiracy going on. My guess is a loser who got pissed off because he sucked too much to get there

Don't space. TTN and others keep removing it. He states it's game guide material or cruft which would be spam. Angry Sun 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Giana Sisters

There’s no mention of Great Giana Sisters, a 8-bit era computer only clone of Super Mario Bros that had to be removed from the shelves due to legal issues. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already linked off the main page for the Mario Series in general. Babrook 9:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"king cooper"?!

i'm sure the name i remember was bowser, not sure if this was mentioned in the game itself though and i don't have the instruction manual availible.

It's 'King Koopa' Babrook 10:00 23, January 23 2007 (UTC)

Killing bowser (reffered to in the article as "king cooper"

i clearly remember the manual saying that there were several ways to kill him, are there any known ones other than the two already mentioned in our article? Plugwash 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's 'King Koopa' Babrook 10:00 23, January 23 2007 (UTC)

Mario and Luigi

"The game starred the Italian plumber Mario and his slightly younger brother Luigi." Something about this statement bothers me. I was always under the impression that they were twins, but I don't remember there being any information given about the slight differences in their age. Is this just an assumption or does someone have the original packaging? Either way I think I'm going to add the word "twin" to that sentence somewhere. Quixoto 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They ARE twins. Mario was just born first. And whomever brings up that the GBA port of Yoshi's Island removed the twin statements: That was only the English version. If you were to translate from Japanese (or just about any other language included in the European edition), you'd find "twin brothers".

eu gostaria da jogar mario forever

Music

The article ought to touch upon the music of the game.--Xtreambar 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Evan1109 16:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Minus World in the Virtual Console

The article said "the glitch remains in the Virtual Console version, but not in the form it is remembered." I did it in the original way as soon as I got the game, so for one, that's totally wrong. And for another thing, whoever said that didn't elaborate on this "difference". I changed it for now--but if this isn't a flat-out lie then please elaborate on the differences. Evan1109 16:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

how do you do the glitch? isn't it break two blocks above the pipe duck down and jump?

Backwards fireball

"Note the backwards fireball" What?

I think this is referring to if you are a big Mario and jump on the axe at the same time as touching King Koopa, there is a glitch where the size effect of mushrooms is reversed. So, Mario is big, but he eats a mushroom and Mario shrinks, then he eats a flower and gets fire power. Growing up, we called this "Little Guy Fire Power". Once 4he dies, the size thing resets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The "hardest level ever" video

You've all probably seen this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6204903272262158881

It looks like a mod of some kind. Does anyone of you know it? Shinobu 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about the same thing. I also think that the video's famous enough on Google Video and various forums to warrant a mention in the article. Does it fulfill notability requirements? --Safe-Keeper 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

According to

Steven Kent's "The Ultimate History of Video Games", Super Mario Bros. was an arcade game first, then ported to the NES. --Imax80 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true. VS Super Mario bros was in fact based on the NES version. Else why call it VS Super Mario Bros, like all the other NES "remakes" appearing on the VS Arcade System? --Dez26 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page: Kent's claim was that Super Mario Bros. was originally released in Japan as an arcade game, then ported to the Famicom. That port was then released in the US with the NES. The VS Arcade version then followed. Druff 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I belive that Mario Bros. was an arcade game first. Maybe we're getting SUPER Mario Bros. confused with Mario Bros.Chaoman42 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the arcade version of Super Mario Bros. was released before the NES in the US. I remember being able to beat Super Mario Brothers on one quarter without warping prior to the NES being released in the US. I also remember getting a NES (with the dumb robot) within a week of its release and how dissapointed I was with how much easier Super Mario Brothers was. I'm not sure what the Japan release schedule was, but I can tell you that the arcade Super Mario Brothers was definitely released before the NES in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.62 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also played the arcade version of Super Mario Brothers prior to the NES being released in the US and the NES version was much easier. The most glaring difference was in the X-4 worlds, where you could land on the hammer when the clock hit zero and it would grant you the full time bonus. There was at least a year in between when I first played the arcade version and when I first saw the NES advertised. The fact that it had Super Mario Brothers made me want to get the NES. The later versions of the arcade game were the dumbed down ones from the NES and even had different clock speeds. 216.171.129.224 (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

This article has at times been pruned of information of wide interest, such as its popularity (cited in the peer review as a section to expand, not delete!) and the minus worlds (as above), as one can see by comparison with: archived version.

Presumably this is because the article becomes unwieldy with all this information, so I've made a separate article for more detailed information: Super Mario Bros. Technicals.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but Super Mario Bros. is a major element of pop culture.

In future, could editors please discuss deletions and refer to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, and suggest guidelines for what should and should not be included?

Nbarth 19:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As per "Wikipedia is not a gaming guide", people have suggested instead that much non-encyclopedic information be put elsewhere, such as: [2]

Nbarth 08:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bowser (smb1).png

Image:Bowser (smb1).png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. for GameCube

SMB for GameCube (in Animal Crossing) is the original ROM. A full emulation; no modifications. So I moved the information about it to where the information about the Classic NES Series and Virtual Console versions are. Mega Man 5 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ID Software's PC port of Super Mario Bros?

There is a story that ID Software approached Nintendo with the idea for a PC port of Super Mario Bros (and an accompanying demo), but were turned down, which led to the creation of Commander Keen instead. If anyone would like to research this and integrate it into the main article (trivia section?), that would be great.

GA

This article does not currently meet GA standards. Images lack fair use rationales (which is a quick-fail criteria), it's terribly under-referenced, the random wikification of stand-alone years needs to be corrected. References also need to be consistently formatted. Currently, there are extra characters at the end of one reference. Not sure what it is, I assume accidental. I'll wait a few days before checking back. If these issues haven't been addressed, I'm going to delist the article from GA. Know, however, that it can always be renominated at a later time. LaraLove 17:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It needs to be organized. The Master of Suspicion 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales are now in every image. However, the relatively few references won't meet GA criteria. I can't find a single reference in the gameplay section, which is long enough that it deserves references. I'm now delisting this article as GA until the standards are met again. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"World 0"

Someone added this under Bugs/Glitches. There's no citation, plus it appears as though it just applies to emulated versions, whereas this article is talking about the actual NES Cartridge game. Instead of removing the section, I thought I'd see what others thought, if it should stay or go. Poor Poor Pitiful Me 03:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well since I received no replies, I took it upon myself to remove the section since emulated versions of video games aren't usually discussed in respective articles, in part due to the questionable legality of emulators. Poor Poor Pitiful Me 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1up spot in 2-2?

Is that not notable enough to be mentioned under bugs/glitches?

I believe that this bug was exploited in the 1990 Nintendo World Championship... 164.236.0.10 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Renom

I've renominated this as a Good article canidate. The two main concerns for delisting were no sources and no fair use rationales for the images. Both have been fixed by me (though for the 2nd one, I just added the article name to all of the fair use templates), so I've gone ahead and relisted. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

MoS issue

The footnotes must go after the punctuation mark—not before. I'd fix this myself... but I can't be bothered. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Looks like I need to go back over the MoS. Completely my fault. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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:

Ah, a classic. Some comments:

1. The caption for the image in the infobox is an interesting pastiche of OR and POV. "As was typical of NES games in America at the time the cover shows a scene from gameplay in 1985." Such a statement, even if made in the body of the article, would be highly suspect and require a citation. It needs to be changed to something very factual about the picture. It's not even really a scene from gameplay, but more of a hodgepodge of game elements. On the opposite side of the coin, "a gameplay screen shot" is not a very descriptive caption.Caption removed until I can think of something to write without stating the obvious NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

   And this is why I shouldn't do reviews later at night — you actually don't need any caption since it's the cover art, which is self-evident. So this concern is done with. Cheers, CP 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Super Mario Bros box.jpg needs to have sourcing information.Request left on uploaders' talkpage NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Where did you get the cover art? From a website? Did you scan it yourself? That needs to be noted in the summary.Not necessary. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Same with Bowser (smb1).png. Who took the screen shot? Was it taken from a website?Required information already on image page NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Again, with All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros box art.jpgSource listed as "classic-gaming.com", though as Pagra said, it's no necessary.NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) and SuperMarioBrosSNESTitle.pngSource listed as "Video-game or computer emulator". NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC). These are non-free images, and every precaution must be taken.
   • Box art and screenshots only need to list the game and copyright holder for source. It is irrelevant if the image came from a user scan, a user screen grab, or from the internet, as it has no impact on the copyright status. Pagrashtak 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
3. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to cover all major section of the article (for example, it doesn't at all cover the large game play section) and not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article (for example, "Although often wrongly credited as the first scrolling platform game (there are at least a half dozen earlier), it is the first console original in this genre to feature smooth-scrolling levels" is not mentioned in the article itself and, to boot, is an unreferenced statement as well)Unreferenced statement removed, lead cleaned up NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. After using Mario/Luigi for half of "Power-ups," the section makes it seem like only Mario can grab a Super Star.Fixed. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Referencing Wikiquote, as you do in power-ups, is not acceptable as a reliable source, and the statement itself is rather trivial to the entire article.Fixed. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. "If Super or Fiery Mario touches Bowser at the exact same time as the axe, Mario will flash as if he was hit (but still remain big) while the bridge is destroyed. Mario will then glide towards the Toad retainer as opposed to running towards him." requires a citation (Small Fiery Mario). This statement could be easily challenged, perhaps by someone who can't manage to pull of the trick and thus questions its existence.First sentence rewritten, second sentence removed. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
7. The "Music" section is far too small to stand as its own Level 2 heading. It needs to be expanded or merged with another section (maybe a Technology section that discusses the graphics as well?)As I'm not an expert on the graphics, I've merged it into the Gameplay section. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
8. The "Game and Watch" and "Famicon Disk System" sub-headings do not contain enough information to stand on their own. They need to be either expanded or merged.Merged into an "Early re-releases" section. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
9. All one-two sentence paragraphs needs to be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.Done. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Hacked versions should be a Level 3 heading under "Alternate Versions," not its own Level 2 heading.Merged into Re-releases section. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Under "Re-leases," "Virtual Console" and "Animal Crossing" do not need their own Level 3 headings, unless they are expanded, and "Animal Crossing" needs a citation.Combined. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    What should I do with the Animal Crossing section? I can't seem to find a reliable source (aside of a Youtube video) for it. Should I just remove it? NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

11. Given the great importance that you put on the reception of the game in the lead, the reception section is exceptionally thin. The lead should probably be toned down a bit (would help it seem more neutral a bit) at the same time as this section is expanded Certainly for such a seminal work, there must be more to say about reception and legacy. For example, the reception section for games that had little lasting legacy such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES game) and Major League Baseball (video game) have longer reception and legacy sections.Expanded section; un-strike if it's still too short. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to be so tough on this article, but it has been delisted once before and is high-profile enough to be under the scrutiny of multiple contributors. Anyhow, to allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Please note as well that this is only a preliminary review, and that I will be conducting a secondary review that will address, among other things, the references to make sure they are all working etc. The hold will not be extended for my second review, so please ensure that the above concerns are taken care of in a timely manner. Thank you for your work thusfar. Cheers, CP 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a look and strike out things I'm done with. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The references need to be formatted also. Pagrashtak 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a little concerned about the refs overall. There are a lot of refs to TMK. I wouldn't have a problem with a few, but when there are this many it may cause the reliability of the article to be questioned. I think part of the solution is to remove some unneeded refs. Stating that Mario primarily attacks by jumping on the enemy is so basic it doesn't need a citation. At the least, this could probably be switched over to an instruction manual cite. I have the instruction manual at home; I can look to see what can be switched over to that when I get home if you need me to. Pagrashtak 16:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just chose TMK because it has been and always will be very reliable. I can go ahead and remove the unnecessary refs, but unfortunately I don't have the manual. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the unnecessary refs (the article now has 26 refs instead of 38; wow!) and have fixed the rest to use {{cite web}}. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Part 2

Wow, it was really silly to remove all those references without checking with me (the actual reviewer of this article) first, because now an article that was fairly well-cited before is now just missing many citations. TMK was reliable for much (perhaps not all) of the things that it was citing (such as game play) and now that you've removed them and I can't tell where it would have been alright to use TMK or not. Until the citation issues are addressed (all potentially contestable issues and the gameplay) section, I will not be re-reviewing the article for other things. I said before that I would be checking the references in my second review, which I do because it's better to toy around with those once everything else is ducky (except, of course, when there are references that are flat out missing). I would have checked, as I said, for reference quality and workability after everything else is complete. To re-review again would be the equivalent of re-reviewing the article in its entirety. Please re-add the citations as they were, and I will let you know where more reliable sources are required in a second review. Cheers, CP 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See, this is the problem I have with GA. I can make suggestions to improve the article all i want, but the nominator will always allow your comments to trump mine because you're the "actual reviewer"—whether I'm right or wrong. So I'll just list my major concerns with the article here, and let CP line-item veto and tell you which ones you should actually bother with. As stated before, gameplay has many superfluous references, often to websites with possible reliability issues. Sentences like "Super Mario Bros. was scored by Koji Kondo, and its themes are easily the most widely recognized of any video game score to date." are what need refs. The gameplay section is too detailed. No respectable video game FA would allow such an in-depth discussion of the mechanics as this snake of a sentence: "King Koopa may be defeated in one of two ways: either by touching the axe at the edge of the bridge (thereby dropping King Koopa into the lava) or, as Fire Mario or Luigi, throwing fireballs at him to defeat him directly, revealing what enemy is in disguise; this is the only method one can use to receive points for Koopa's defeat." There's also a lot of glitch discussion. I will agree that the Minus World should be in the article, but small fiery Mario and jumping the flagpole is not notable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines for more on this. Remove the flags from the infobox. WikiProject VG convention is to use {{Vgrelease}} or similar, but no images. Pagrashtak 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're taking this far too personally. I didn't say that your comments were right or wrong, I just said that's silly for someone fixing up an article to mix up two sets of suggestions. I have a method for reviewing articles that allows me to keep track of changes so that I can make sure that everything is in tip-top shape. The problem was not your suggestions, it was that the person editing this article took them up at the same time as they took up my suggestions and, in doing so, made it nearly impossible to track changes because now the article has changed substantially from the version that I reviewed. The concerns you brought up were legitimate, quite possibly even things I wouldn't have noticed on my own. But the editor implemented them intertwined with my suggestions, and I can't tell what's what. I likely will ask the editor implement many of the things that you suggested, but this is a very high-profile article and a structured approach to this review is the only way that it will be able to maintain Good Article status if it is implemented. Please assume good faith and don't take it as a personal attack, as more suggestions for improvement can only help. I asked the editor to restore the citations not because I thought that they were wrong, but so that I could track the changes. Anyhow, I will take a look at the article again later today and say what else needs to be done, likely incorporating User:Pagrashtak's commentary. Cheers, CP 16:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking this personally at all. My problem is not with you, but the way GA is structured. Although, if I can identify ref problems now, I don't see why they can't be fixed now, even though you're not looking at them yet. Pagrashtak 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the continuity of my review really; the only way I can manage these is to be a bit of a control freak. I don't mind input, especially from someone who obviously knows what they're doing, such as yourself, it's just frustrating to be presented with an article that had many of references missing. Anyhow, no hard feelings, I do appreciate some of the concerns you raised. Now, on to the changes!

1. The lead still needs some work per WP:LEAD. For example, I personally think that the first paragraph is still somewhat POV, although perhaps I'm wrong. Also, given how large the game play section is, it's highly underrepresented in the lead.Fixed POV; added more information about gameplay. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
2. I had one GAR put on hold and among the concerns was that the screenshots and box images had no direct source to link to them. Pagrashtak's argument about it not affecting the copyright status makes sense to me, so if they'll (singular "they" by the way, since I don't know Pagrashtak's sex) back me up on it, it should be fine without it.
   • It's he. I'll back you on this. As long as the image page gives the game and copyright holder, it is sufficiently sourced. Pagrashtak 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3. All of Pagrashtak's suggestions under this heading make sense to me except the removing of the last glitch. It was my understanding that the jumping over the flagpole thing was significant, especially because it was actually useful in some of the other version. Here's a compromise: if you can find a non-TMK, reliable source to discuss the glitch, keep it. If not, then it probably isn't notable enough to merit inclusion. NES Vids doesn't qualify (in this case) as a reliable source, by the way.

    Question: The source there is a website with a couple of screenshots and a movie. So does that count as a reliable source? It's not related to TMK or NESVideos. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   Responded on my talk page. Cheers, CP 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   Per the discussion on User talk:Canadian Paul, there are not enough sources to establish notability for the Jumping over the flagpole glitch; thus, it has been deleted. Information on the Minus World glitch has been merged into the Gameplay section. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

4. References 18 and 28 need to use WP:CITET or a similar format as has been used in most of the rest of the article. Actually, Ref 18 should just be removed, since it's a)Not really an acceptable source and b)Is citing something that doesn't need to be in the article anywaysRemoved Small Fiery Mario section; formatted Ref #27 (28 was already correctly formatted) NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well yeah, because when you deleted ref #18, ref #28 became ref #27 =P Cheers, CP 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   Yet another reason I shouldn't edit Wikipedia in the early morning. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

5. I've heard conflicting reports on citations in the game play section. When I had my VG articles reviewed, I was told to cite everything in the game play section. When I reviewed one of the Zelda games, I was shown examples of FA articles that didn't have them. So I'll default to User:Pagrashtak on this one. Whatever they say about citations in that section is what you should do.Pagrashtak has switched most of the citations to the instruction book. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
   • See my comments below. Pagrashtak 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Some statements require citations:

   Under "Music," I don't feel that all of those statements could be considered "common knowledge" by someone who's played the game. Stating that "Overworld" is the primary theme is fine, but the other three are so specific in musical terms that they require a citation.Rewritten in layman's terms; that is, without all the references to time and whatnot. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   "This glitch has been fixed in the Super Mario All-Stars remake as well as in Super Mario Bros. Deluxe." (Minus World)Referenced. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   "As one of Nintendo's most popular games, Super Mario Bros. has been re-released and remade numerous times, ranging from an arcade version released soon before the original NES release to the game being available for download on the Wii's Virtual Console." (Alternate versions) You've already sourced its popularity, I'm more concerned about the fact that it was released. Surely that must be citeable somewhere?References added. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

7. I would get rid of the Hacked Versions section. Lots of games have hacked versions, they're not inherently notable.Removed. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Reception and legacy has a citation that's not included between ref tagsFixed. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
9. The "Development Staff" should probably be incorporated into the main body of the article, or the infobox.Inserted into infobox under Designers. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to check the references now an d will get back to you on them. I'm going to post this part of the review now though, since my computer has a habit of crashing when I check refs, and I don't want to lose the rest of this. If Pagrashtak gives you the go ahead to remove the references in the game play section, then that should simultaneously take care of their concern regarding the overuse of TMK. Cheers, CP 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be good enough for now. Tell me when this is all done. Cheers, CP 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a long weekend coming up (Election Day in the US), so I'll work on it then. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I finally switched any gameplay references I could over to the instruction booklet. It still seems a little over-cited, but now that it's using what is definitely a reliable source for the bulk of it, it's a very minor problem if you ask me. Pagrashtak 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Last two things (hopefully)

Great work thus far! I just have two more concerns:

1. I still don't feel the lead completely summarizes the article. There's a large weight placed on game play, but there's still no discussion on what Mario and Luigi actually do in the game, what their mission is and how they accomplish it etc. etc. There are many references in the lead to game play elements (King Koopa, Starman, Goomba etc. etc.), but these are completely outside of the context of the game itself. Right now, if you read just the summary, you'd know all about the re-releases, the impact it had, some random elements, the music etc. etc. but you'd still have no idea what the game itself is about.Also, I feel that you haven't really summarize the "alternate versions" section either, although all this would require would be something like "The game spawn many alternate versions as well" and then maybe a "such as..." afterwards if it wouldn't make the lead too detailed. Done. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Now that Animal Crossing is gone, "Newer re-releases" should either be expanded or merged with "Classic NES Series" and remain solely under the Level 2 heading of "Re-releases," as a Level 3 heading can consist entirely of 2 sentences.Expanded section; changed title to Virtual Console. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do this, and I think it should be good, unless Pagrashtak has any more comments. Cheers, CP 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One last little thing now: now there's a small issue on the other side of WP:LEAD. In the lead you state "Super Mario Bros. was one of the first games to feature a storyline..." a fact that is not in the body of the article. Given that it's potentially challengeable too, you should probably provide a citation for wherever you put it in the body of the article. Cheers, CP 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Removed sentence; also have rewritten the lead NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like it's time to pass the article! I do recommend that, if you want the status to last, you keep this page watchlisted and watch for crufty and game guidey changes, which will quickly deteriorate the article, since it's a high traffic page. Anyhow, congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Box Art...

The cover depicted in the article shows the US version. I'm wondering if Japan's box art was different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.45.119 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Template:LOCErequest NF24^{(radio me!)} 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at it now. Livitup (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• First pass through the whole article is done. Please check the source for hidden comments prefaced with "NOTE FROM COPYEDIT" I'll come back to review any comments you have after a couple days. The 'Alternate Versions' section especially needs some clarifications. Overall a good article! Livitup (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the comments and made come changes. I removed the last paragraph in the All Night Nippon SMB section (BTW, the show and the game were popular), the source I cited earlier in that section says that most levels are similar to those of Vs. SMB, with some directly imported from The Lost Levels. Xenon54 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That section looks MUCH better. Your edit was a little deeper than I was willing to cut, since I'm not an expert on the game, but the way you modified it makes it read much better. I had added a to "The Mario series is one of the most popular and enduring series of all time." in 'Reception and legacy' but now that I reread the section I see the next few setnances back up the statement, so I think it's OK. I'll move this to proofread status at LOCE, but I think you're in pretty good shape from a CE standpoint.  :) Livitup (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mario/Luigi's life-cycle

It is untrue that attaining the fire-flower upgrade ALSO increases your hit-tolerance. You are still subject to one hit even as fire-Mario before returning to his infant stage (i.e., smallest Mario), as opposed to the implication by this part of the Gameplay section that it somehow increases your hit-tolerance as well (up to 2, before returning to infant-state). That would be great, but it is unfortunately (and disappointingly) untrue.

1. Insert the cartridge into your NES and play for yourself.

The first mention of the fire flower is:

If Mario or Luigi gets a mushroom, they will be able to take two hits before losing a life; collecting a fire flower grants the ability to throw fireballs, as well as the increased number of hits.

Secondly, there's also this sentence:

If he takes a hit from an enemy as Super Mario/Luigi or Fire Mario/Luigi, he simply reverts to regular Mario/Luigi and the game continues.

I don't see how that's untrue; the first says "as well as the increased number of hits" (referring to the 2 hits) and the second equates Fire and Mushroom. NF24^{(radio me!)} 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I apologize for not having recognized that second statement; it does clarify. However, perhaps the original statement should be modified to read "If Mario or Luigi gets a mushroom, they will be able to take two hits before losing a life; collecting a fire flower grants the ability to throw fireballs, however Mario's maximum tolerance for hits remains 2 (you do not, as in future games, revert to any preceding form of Super Mario, but only to his original pre-mushroom state)." - This would eliminate the need for later clarification or reinforcement.

12-20: I saw the page, and the edit looks great - Thank you!

New Super Mario Brothers

The article states that the original game "has spawned two direct sequels". While I am not arguing that Super Mario World and 64 and such are sequels, might we rethink the possibility of labeling The New Super Mario Brothers as a "direct sequel"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.25.121 (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. The Reception section looks like this:

The game has spawned two direct sequels, Super Mario Bros. 2 and 3...

but the lead section said:

...five direct sequels...

I've changed the latter to read "two direct sequels". NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Mario & Luigi

Why no mention of the history of the Mario Bros? Namely Mario's first appearance in Donkey Kong, and the game Mario Bros? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.98.75 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We've got separate articles for Mario, Mario Bros., and Donkey Kong. This article is about the game Super Mario Bros., and going into the history of Mario in general would be way off topic. Xenon⁵⁴ 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

According to this link-checking tool,[3] there are two dead links on the page. They are current numbers 23 (Games FAQ: Super Mario All-Stars) and 30 (Screenshots V). Please fix them. I would myself, but I don't know what sites can source this, since the game came out so long ago. Giants2008 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The first? I don't think so

There is a statement in this article- "It is the first console original in this genre to feature smooth-scrolling levels, which made it a landmark in home video-gaming" that is untrue. The first game that featured that was Snokie. This platformer featured jumping on platforms, jumping over hazards, AND smooth scrolling. This video of Snokie's gameplay clearly shows all of the above, and establishes that Snokie in 1983, not Super Mario Brothers, was the first platforming game to feature smooth-scrolling levels. I can't add it myself, so that's why I'm posting it here. 76.28.138.83 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bundled game

This was bundled with the NES, no? In Japan too? There's no mention of it. Mahanga^Talk 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Music - Most recognized?

The article states "The music, especially the Overworld theme, has also become one of the most recognizable pieces of music in the world." Well, that seems a bit odd. The theme to Super Mario Brothers, though popular, can't possibly come close to being called that. This statement has no citation, and is just overall pretty random.

JasonAdama (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia (you don't have an own userpage yet, I assume you're new)! You are absolutely correct. In fact, such statements can be deleted without hesitation. You can delete them right away!. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Explosions after completing a round

After completing one sub-world, sometimes explosions occur in sky from one to six times. Does anybody know how do they happen? Some old friend of mine does and but I have no idea how he figured it out. If anyone here knows, please add it to the article. 124.106.200.31 (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of what not to add to the article. Wikipedia is not a game guide. No cheats, hints, tips, or other things that belong at GameFAQs. (For the record, if the last digit of the timer is 1, 3, or 6 when you finish the level, you get that many 500-point fireworks.) Xenon54 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SMB Deluxe

Why was the page for Super Mario Bros. DX removed? Major games like that should have their own pages... Up and over for a six! (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?

For what reason is the tag there?LedRush (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the neutrality tag. Fumoses (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SMB no longer best-selling game of all time

Please read http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/wii-sports-is-best-selling-game-ever/1276855 to find out that, based on cumulative worldwide sales figures ending the week of December 27, 2008, Wii Sports is now the best-selling video game ever. Somone should fix this article as well as the Wii Sports article.

Interesting. I know that VGCharts (upon which the yahoo article is based) is not a reliable source here, but yahoo is. Quite honestly, I feel that this is clearly true and so we should make the edit to correct it, but I assume some here would rather point to the underlying "non-reliability" of the yahoo article's numbers (VGCharts) and say to wait.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

An unreliable number is still unreliable even if a reliable source quotes it. I have explained on several pages why reliable sources sometimes quote VG Chartz (one reason being that reliable NPD numbers require a subscription, which is $15,000-$20,000 per month). TJ Spyke 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was pretty darn reliable.LedRush (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, because their guess was close? The Wii sales are easy to predict since they are consistent. If you want an example of how incorrect they are, they said the Wii sold 2.985 million systems in December. The ACTUAL amount was 2.15 million. What happened after the real amount was announced (an amount supported by Nintendo themselves)? They made up some BS story about NPD under-tracking and how they methods are flawed. So their Wii numbers were off by 830K, their DS numbers were off by under by 214K, Xbox 360 over by 76K, PSP under by 135K, PS2 over by 50K, PS3 under by 19K. Yeah, really reliable ::rollseyes::. TJ Spyke 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Assesment

I read over the article, and I believe it's worth an FA nomination. Thoughts? NintendoNerd777 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your FAC nomination. Please read the FAC instructions at WP:FAC and notify the significant nominators before nominating. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No Doubled Periods

There should be no doubled periods in this article; it is incorrect grammar, according to [[4]] and many other sources:

"5. Do not use a period to end a sentence which ends with an abbreviation which itself ends with a period. Typical abbreviations which end with a period are: Mr., Mrs., Ms., St. (street or Saint), Mt. (mountain), Dr., Jr., Fri., Feb., a.m. and p.m. (Note: Do not abbreviate professor to Prof. in academic writing). After a career in the army, she went on to work for Time Warner Inc. (no extra period)" Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

North American Release Date

I've tried in two separate edits to alter the release date listed from the incorrect 1986 to the accurate October, 1985. The second time I provided three separate sources (as many as could be fit in the edit summary's character limit) for the change, but was told "An FAQ is not a reliable source." None of my sources was an FAQ, so I can only assume the links were not actually read. IGN lists the North American release as October 1, 1985. Gamespot lists the release as October 18, 1985. So does the official data page for the game on GameFAQs (which was probably why the link wasn't read...someone saw "GameFAQs" and assumed I linked an FAQ rather than a factual data page on that site). While there is discrepancy between the exact day in October 1985, all these sites agree that it was indeed sometime in that month. These sites exist to provide accurate and detailed information about video games to consumers, so I don't see how they'd be unreliable. Furthermore, even Nintendo lists the North American version of the game under a 1985 release date. With all this, I'm not sure how "1986" got plastered onto the page on the first place, but the repeated undoing of edits to fix this is counterproductive. Can we get this straightened out once and for all?

The database listings are best considered tertiary sources, and especially for older facts, less desirable than good secondary or primary sources. This includes the Nintendo page. While they are correct more often than not, independent gaming site databases are often rife with inaccuracies. On top of that, for the IGN/GameSpy database, in many cases if the date is entered without a valid day, the system registers it as the 1st of that month. GameFAQs is like IMDb, heavily reliant on user-submitted information, with limited editorial oversight. While such sources are sometimes the best among limited options, that is not the case here. Most of the sources provided are relatively poorer, low-hanging fruit. That sort of practice is what caused the recent dispute over Modern Warfare 2. Both GameFAQs and Gamespot refer to it as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,[5][6] when both the developer and publisher maintain that it is Modern Warfare 2. Dancter (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to the newly added source on the 1986 date, the cited text reads:

"When Nintendo went to New York, Super Mario Brothers […] had not been introduced. […] It took a few months to create an American version of the game, and the cartridge was available by the time Nintendo of America went national—the end of 1986."

If it took "a few months" to create the American version, that surely does not equate to the end of 1986 - over a year later. The clear answer is that this source date is a typo, and 1985 remains the accurate North American release. The other distinct possibility is in the grammatical form of the sentence in question. Reading it carefully, it could very well be that the author is citing 1986 as the time Nintendo of America went national, and does not provide an exact date for the release of Super Mario Bros. This is logical, as "the time Nintendo of America went national" is the object immediately preceding the clarifying remark after the dash. In this case the only date given by the article is shortly after the Japanese release...which would be in 1985.

To really overdo the evidence, when the Nintendo Entertainment System was first released on October 18, 1985 (verified in the console's own wiki page even), it came bundled with Super Mario Bros. By definition then, Super Mario Bros. must have been released on that same date. I am editing the date back to October 18, 1985, and I will point to this discussion in the edit summary 98.28.141.221 (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The game was NOT available at launch. Games can be bundled after launch (Super Mario Bros. 3 was bundled with the NES at one point, and Super Mario All-Stars was bundled with the SNES). I will have to check, but I think it was released sometime in December. It definitely was not released on the same day as the systems launch though. TJ Spyke 04:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Games can be bundled after launch, but this one was a launch title. See this article. See history section on this page. It ranked #2 on IGN's Top Ten Launch Titles of All Time. Listed again as October 1985 on N-sider. It was most definitely a launch title. 98.28.141.221 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikis are not suitable sources for verifying information. Anyone can edit a wiki page. I found an error in the very second sentence of the Giant Bomb page; the NES did not launch in Europe in 1985. As for Super Mario Bros. being a launch title, the nationwide "launch" was in September 1986. During the 1985 test market in New York, there was only one package option available, which would later be named the "Deluxe Set". The "Control Deck" bundle was not the first package option, and it wasn't available at the start (October 18, 1985). Super Mario Bros. probably hadn't even been bundled with the Famicom at that point. Dancter (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

After further research, it seems that the game was available in the US as early as November 17. To clarify to 98.28.141.221, I am willing to admit being wrong on the October 18th date, but what I won't admit is that what has been shown so far is sufficient to prove it. It isn't. While it's not error-free, the source I cited is one of the best-regarded books on the subject, not to be simply dismissed on the basis of second-hand sources such as wikis or GameFAQs. Dancter (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So for the time being, should the date be set as 1985 until a proper source can be found for an exact date? My main issue was with the 1986 date, which I KNEW to be false, even if I was having a hard time generating appropriate sources to prove it - a frustrating situation for sure. And the main brunt wasn't the database sources like GameFAQs (though the universal agreement of all of these sources does speak to the 1985 date more strongly than the single book, reliable though it may be, can speak to a 1986 date), but rather Nintendo's own site. I realize there can be errors anywhere and everywhere, but I would hope that Nintendo would be aware of when they launched the game that more or less is the reason they exist today. I was also linking the other wiki page not to cite it as reliable per se, but rather to point out that if I was incorrect about the launch title bit, that page would need to be similarly corrected. 98.28.141.221 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo doesn't even know the date of when they released Donkey Kong in arcades, the game that saved them in North America and became the second biggest arcade game ever. All Nintendo has is the year they released it. TJ Spyke 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse not listing the date with not knowing it. It's inane to assume they don't have it on record SOMEWHERE, but the point is moot - even if all they are listing is the year, in this instance the year they are listing is NOT what this wiki article was claiming, so either wikipedia or Nintendo got it wrong. I think benefit of the doubt should go toward the company unless otherwise proven wrong, which has not happened here (yet, at any rate). 98.28.141.221 (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotation stated that the game "was available by the time," which is not the same as being first available at the time. The preceding sentences read, "By the end of 1985, Nintendo began packaging Super Mario Bros. with the Famicom. This marketing move was so successful that Yamauchi decided to do it in the United States." The suggested "clear answer" that "1986" was a simple typo conflicts with a number of other explicit as well as implicit facts, including whether "a few months" can pass between "the end of 1985" and "the end of [1985]," especially if "the end of 1985" means September 13 at earliest and "the end of [1985]" means October 18. It also conflicts with when the nationwide US launch of the NES occurred. By the end of 1985, the NES was still only a test market in New York City. The console was not even released in another market until the Los Angeles debut in February 1986.

As I stated above, wikis are not suitable sources for verifying information. That principle applies to Wikipedia, as well. This very encounter is testament to that. A Wikipedia article cannot in itself serve as a source for verification of information. That's why there is such an emphasis on citing reliable external sources. Dancter (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. I'd have to agree with Dancter, the NES was only being test marketed over that time, and the US didn't get SMB until sometime in the Spring/Early Summer. That's when press coverage first started mentioning it. Commercials such as this also started broadcasting in September in the New York area for the NES in advance of the test there and specifically pushing ROB, and not mentioning zip about SMB - just the actual launch titles. It started making appearences in the later '86 released Deluxe set commercial but was not included with it. It finally became a pack-in in the Action set released in November of '88. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above (overwhelming) evidence, I've been bold and changed the release date back to 1986. (Although I admit I haven't participated in the discussion, I've certainly kept tabs on it.) Please discuss here before changing again. Xenon54 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What "overwhelming" evidence are you referring to? If Nintendo's web site lists 1985 as the release date, then Wikipedia should too. I'd at least like to see one or two valid sources cited in the article if 1986 is really correct. If there are no objections, I'll change the date back to 1985 and cite http://www.nintendo.com/wii/virtualconsole/games/detail/3AhiHlPhEtLc5rGACE1dxueM0y5QDqCZ.Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Firm objection, and you don't have overall consensus for the change per the above discussion and it's participants (TJ Spyke, Dancter, Xenon, and myself). A) Likewise, the "overwhelming evidence" is easily seen above in the evidence listed and linked to throughout the discussion. B) Nintnedo's site is refering to when it first appeared in general - i.e. the Japanese release, which was in late '85 as mentioned and more than well documented. The site does not discern a specific release date per country. What we do for sure know is it was released in Japan in late '85 for the famicon while the US NES was still being test marketed in New York, selling a limited 50,000 consoles. It wasn't until '86 after the LA test in February that they then moved on to a full nationwide campaign and release of the system and accompanying games. A US date for 1985 has not been confirmed, however sources for it from the time period first start appearing in the US in '86. We also know it appears in no NOA press, commercials, etc. until '86. By Wikipedia's standards we have to go with what multiple sources can actually reliably place the release date, and the multiple sources put it in '86. If you can find a source on Nintendo's site that specifically touts a US vs. Japan release date, then I'd certainly agree. But the Wii virtual console entry is to vague, and as others mentioned above, it wouldn't be the first time incorrect material was put up on a company's site. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did some brief searching at google books, but found generalized and somewhat conflicting information. Several books briefly mentioned the North American holiday release of the NES in 1985 and the success of Super Mario Bros. in the same paragraph, but did not explicitly state the game was released in 1985. I found one or two that did explicitly state Super Mario Bros. was released in 1985 (one stated it was shipped with the NES), but I also found a book that stated 1987. :-\

Regardless, all the above references I found were very generalized accounts of the release taking up a few sentences to a short paragraph. The only one I stumbled across that provided any real details was Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution. It provided a rather detailed and informative account of Yamauchi's decisions and actions to bringing the NES over to the US. Based on that and the information cited by other editors above, I'm inclined to believe that Super Mario Bros. had a 1986 release in the US, and I support Marty's comments directly above mine.

I must admit, however, that this is still a somewhat grey issue to me, but I don't have the time to properly research the topic. So though I'm inclined to believe a 1986 release year, I'm still open to the idea of a 1985 date. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

The one that stated that it shipped with the NES is either misleading or flat-out wrong. My main concern is not the year, but the October 18 date. As reasonably-supported claims, I would actually accept either a 1986 or 1985 listing for the time being. Dancter (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the October 18th date appears to come from the myth that it was a pack-in for the NES from the beginning (October 18th, 1985 is when they first started trying to get the NES in at stores and shopping malls in New York). That's of course been proven completely infactual because we already know it wasn't a pack-in until '88 when the Action Set was released. So I don't think the October 18th date is an issue anymore - it's been dissproven. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see which reliable sources point to a 1986 release (unless we say nationwide release), though either date is fine as long as it can be backed up. Commercials not mentioning the game in 1985 and press coverage starting in 1986 does not mean that it couldn't have been released in 1985. Marty Goldberg mentioned that Nintendo's site lists the Japanese release date. While possible, this seems unlikely, since I'm looking at the US version of the site, and it lists the original release of Super Mario Bros. 3 as 1990, which is the US release date, not the Japanese one. The same is true for other games like Super Princess Peach or Super Smash Bros. Brawl, for example. The book found by Guyinblack25 at Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution also supports a 1985 release date, but only in passing (perhaps not reliable). On page 78, it says "Mario and the NES finally debuted in the United States in 1985..."Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A) It being a US site has little to do with what was stated, i.e. that it's most likely the actual release date for the game itself - which would have been the Japanese release date. B) Nintendo's commercials, own press, catalogs, etc. not mentioning the game leans far more towards it not being released then it does them just not promoting it, which would be highly unlikely given everything we know about it being a success in Japan first. You don't bring a big title over and then no promote it. C) All having the correct SMB 3 date shows is the site is a mishmash of info - most of these things are typed up by modern PR people vs. anyone that was actually at the company at the time or completely familiar with it's history. D) The book Guyinblack found in passing does indeed mention it in passing, and could very likely be basing it on the same incorrect assumption a lot of the other other October 18th sources are. Likewise D) Steven Kent's book The Ultimate History of Video Games, also goes over the whole thing in even greater detail, and specifically mentions items regarding it's US development and release, verifying the 1986 date -

• "When Nintendo went to New York, Super Mario Brothers, which would become the linchpin during the national launch of the NES, had not been introduced." - pg. 297
• "By the end of 1985, Nintendo began packaing Super Mario Bros. with the Famicom. This marketing move was so successful in Japan that Yamauchi and Arakawa decided to do it in the United States. It took a few months to create an American version of the game, and the cartridge was available by the time Nintendo of America went national - the end of 1986." - pg 300.

Given that info came directly from his interviews with people involved in at NOA at the time, and further supported by all the other info mentioned above (their own console boxes, marketing, the press coverage, etc., etc.) also supporting this, I don't see a strong argument for a 1985 release date. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider the above case, point by point. A) Presumably, the US site has US release dates. In all cases that I checked in which a video game had a standalone (not sharing a cartridge) release in both countries, the US release date is listed even when the Japanese release was first (making it the "original" release).B)Good point. Perhaps Nintendo didn't know how important the game would become, since it had only been released in Japan in September of 1985 (I think).C)See part A. Why would you think that Super Mario Bros. is the only deviation from the pattern?D)I'll have to take a look at this book. Where does it say "Super Mario Bros. was released in 1986"? If this is stated, and it is based on the interviews you mentioned, this discussion is over. However, as far as I can see, your quotes only imply that the release date may have been in 1986; this isn't a strong case either.Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now this is just plain silly already especially stating it's "not a strong case" because of some percieved deficiency based on some desire to argue until the very end against a complete lack of consensus, or a need to come back with the same statement - take your pick. A) Fact: Nintendo went to New York during the christmas season of 1985, that's the end of 1985, and more specifically the Christmass sales season for 1985 started on November 29th (always the day after Thanksgiving in the US). It clearly states it had not been introduced, let alone a US version developed yet. B) Fact: During the same season time period, sales in Japan of the game, introduced in Sept. 13th (i.e. almost three months previous, sales take *time* they don't happen immediately) were strong enough to prompt him to pack it in the famicom *and then* work on development of a US version which "took a few months". Even just assuming "a few" is 2 months, Christmass season(December) plus 2 months = February. (Game development at the time typically took longer than that, so I'm even giving the benefit of the doubt with that low interpretation). C) Fact: After the test market in LA in February, the next apperance was the Summer CES in June, at which SMB was on demo and covered by the press. D) Fact: Nintendo finally went national at the end of '86 and we have documentation that it was available by that time. And to summarize again, NY = limited test market sale that was done with immediately after christmass and SMB was not available for. They take the remaining inventory, 50,000 units (Yamauchi sent 100,000 units and only 50,000 sold), and sell that in February in LA. I.E. if it wasn't introduced in NY and there was not another test marketing in between, then it would be completely impossible to be "introduced" in the US, let alone the math of the minimal two month development time. Fact: If it was not introduced during the limited New York test market, as it states - it was not introduced in 1985 - there was no other venue that year. And why would I think Super Mario is the "only deviation"? Becuase it is the only game incorrectly tied to the October 18th, 1985 NES launch date (which isn't a sales date, it's when they first started approaching retailers to get it in stores for the Christmass season) - the later games do not suffer this. If all the other games you mentioned had confusion on an October 18th, 1985 launch date, you might have something. Likewise, regarding the "not knowing how successful" that's completely the opposite of what I stated that in regards to - they *knew exactly* how successful, that's exactly why they packed it in to the Famicom by the end of the Christmass season (December) and started development on the US version. You're just surmising for the sake of argument now. Yamauchi was not the type to gamble, everything was specifically calculated by him as is well documented. That's precisely why it's being referred to as the linchpin of the national launch. Regarding the book, whether you read it or not and are familiar with it or not, it's a well used and regarded book by the video game project. And as with any reference, we tend to crosscheck and crossreference as well, as has been done by everyone here to achieve the current consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite the the book in the article, then (perhaps another source as well?), since you're sure that the date is 1986, even though multiple, usually reliable sources would have to be incorrect. I still don't see where the book actually states this fact, but I don't really care that much. In case you're interested, the Wii Shop Channel's info page on Super Mario Bros. lists the release date as 10/18/1985. You'd better let Nintendo know that they're wrong.Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Given the evidence Marty has presented and my own interpretation of my books I read this morning, here's the conclusion I've come to. It is very unlikely that Super Mario Bros. was released in the 1985. Every source I've seen that states October 1985 or just 1985 either simply lists the date like IGN and GameSpot, or mentions it in passing. The passing mentions are also often ambiguously written in my opinion. Save for Kent's Ultimate History, every detailed account I've read about the NES's release in the US omits the game. The less commercially successful R.O.B. is covered in greater detail than SMB, which was already a best seller in Japan at the time. The most logical solution in my mind is that the omission of such a big seller in marketing materials and descriptions of the system's release point to SMB not being released during that time period. I assume it was going through localization at the time, I don't know.

Here's the "but" though. I think WP:V should still be applied to an extent. My reasoning is that though there's a strong argument for a 1986 release date, the argument is at best mild synthesis and at worst original research. I think the prudent thing to do is to list 1985 for now, but with a section of text in the article about the differing information. Something like, "Many gaming websites list the game's US release date in 1985 along side the NES, however, Steven Kent and [INSERT NAME] stated that the game was not available until 1986."

Marty- Given your job and contacts, you're probably the one in the best position to pursue this further. And by pursuing further, I mean contacting Nintendo of America with some of the information we've dug up here and possible post an article at GameSpy. That's the only idea that comes to mind in order to get to the bottom of this. Because as long as numerous reliable publications are using the 1985 date, technically we're bound to use verifiable information. The only other possible alternative is to start a discussion at WT:VG and get a wide consensus to ignore the rules in favor of a logical argument. I've always been wary of the WP:IAR policy and don't think it should be cited it in such a small forum like this talk page. Wish I had better ideas, but this one is a real tough one. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

I would say in the meantime to have a compromoise listing something like "85/86" in the release date in the info box with sources to both until it can be cleared up further. As you said, all the evidence points to '86 and the data entries at reliable gaming sites are usually just regurgitating each other. The 10/18 date is completey impossible (it was based on the incorrect assumption that it came bundled with it) as has been discussed here, but I'm willing to go with the more general '85 along with '86 until it's cleared up. If you want, since you're the most neutral, go ahead and add the section of text you were talking about as well. It should include everything though, including it not being a pack-in (as is shown on the boxes), not covered in any marketing material by Nintendo, and first showing up in the press in June of '86 and in Nintendo's commercial for the Deluxe set that year as well. I'm looking as well for print ads, and the earliest I can find any mentioning SMB is from March 13th - which again would be in line with Kent's information that it took several months to develop after the Christmass season. As far as localization, yes, it was going through a buildup of market in Japan first before it came here, hence Kent's text. Also if you want in the meantime, start it up at WT:VG to get wider consensus on WP:IAR and reference people to the discussion here to get the history. In the meantime, I'm also going to use my contacts as well to try and track down some of the former NOA people of the time to see what they can shed light on, because I trust those sources more than modern PR. For example, it's commonly told that it jumped from the AVS to the boxed NES which is supposed to have debuted at the June '85 Summer CES (and this is alluded to at Nintendo's museum display in NY). This is wrong - there was another in between NES that looked like the AVS model with wired controllers, with Nintendo Entertainment System printed on it. How do I know? I happen to have the actual folder sized brochure given out at the show. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me, although I do trust "modern PR" a bit more. Here's the full relevant text of an email reply that I got from Nintendo after inquiring on the point (this, of course, is OR):

"Hello,

I appreciate your interest in the North American release date of Super Mario Bros. for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES). I can confirm that the game was released in North America in October 1985.

As you know, there are countless websites on the Internet that post Nintendo news and information. Many of these independent websites take the liberty of posting news based on rumors, speculation, or assumptions--and that is just fine. We understand that Nintendo fans are eager for as much new information as possible!

However, as a publicly traded company in Japan, Nintendo has a responsibility to our retailers, suppliers, employees, and stockholders to provide accurate, official information on our products. Therefore, what we present on our official website will always be confirmed and reliable. Although officially confirmed information can still change from time to time (like product release dates), Nintendo's own websites will be the most current official source for all Nintendo news and information.

Our website is also a source of information on products produced by our third-party licensees. However, because these products are not produced or sold by Nintendo, we may not have all of the latest details. In these cases, we recommend that fans visit the website for the actual company who produces the product in question, or contact them directly for the latest news.

Sincerely,

Nintendo of America Inc.

Andi Anderson

Nintendo's home page: http://www.nintendo.com/

Power Line (Automated Product Info): (425) 885-7529"--Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a typical canned PR response they send out in regards to current product info - I could probably ask a question about the validity of information anywhere else on their site and get almost the same response. This had nothing to do with most of what's addressed there, i.e. "Nintendo news and information" websites she's referring to. She's most likely reporting back what she's been told, i.e. the same issues I mentioned before. The statement about being publicly traded so needing to have correct information has more to do with advertised game content, pricing, etc. vs. a correct release date. They have to provide the products as described or face legal issues. I work in the industry, that's what "modern PR" people do - they have a prescribed script and official "PR" info they go by, which is why I never go to them for serious reasearch. And in fact I worked with some of their PR during the '05 anniversary providing PR resources of promo materials they no longer have. Even then they were trying to incorrectly state SMB as a pack-in, when all you had to do was look at the original box (as shown here) to see it was not. Always go directly to the people involved with the subject at the time, not modern PR. Either way, we'll proceed as discussed above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, talking to several people at NOA right now, Andi doesn't work in PR. She's one of several people in tech support that responds back to general questions through the website, and gets her information from the same place everyone else in tech does - a generic databse. I had them check in to it further, and the information in their canned database is generic with regards to this - there is no background info or anything else regarding the US release, just a date. Nothing for them to state "this is why". The people I talked to were very honest about that, to their credit. I'm going to keep working on the contacts inside to try and talk to any of the older staff that are still around, but as we joked with each other, most of them are retired. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Per comments above, a discussion has been started at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

• I know I am a little late to this conversation, but I have just found an interesting article in the Philapdelphia Inquierer dated August 19, 1986. No link I am afraid, but some relevant quotes below:

"Nintendo says it sold 6.4 million games starring Mario and his brother, Luigi, between Sept. 1, when the game was introduced, and the end of February, the last month for which figures were available. The game plugs into a television set and costs $95.

The company hopes that Super Mario and Luigi will become stars worldwide, just as Japan's robot toys stampeded around the globe two years ago.

Nintendo exported 200,000 Super Mario games to the state of New York earlier this year to test at its American subsidiary, Nintendo Entertainment Systems. The results of consumer tests have not been released, but the company is confident that Super Mario will be snapped up from American toy store shelves by Christmas."

This was apparently a Reuter story, and both the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen (and most likely others as well) also ran this story. Seems to be pretty definative proof as to a 1986 release date, especially with everything else gathered on this talk page. Indrian (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See reply at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

Multiplayer?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain that the NES version of Super Mario Bros., the definitive version, doesn't have multiplayer. "2 player" just refers to playing as the second playable character, Luigi. Again, I might be wrong. I know Super Mario Bros. Deluxe had some form of multiplayer and that the VS. system game did, but I'm sure (or pretty sure) that the NES version didn't. --Bentendo24 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few years since I played on my neighbour's (still-working) NES, but I do remember there being a multiplayer mode in each of the 3 SMB games. There were two options on the title screen. Hitting "2 Player Game" starts the first controller as Mario. When Mario dies, the second controller takes over as Luigi. When Luigi dies, Mario takes over and so-on. I guess it's a race to see who finishes first or has a higher score. Split-screen was still a technical impossibility (it wouldn't be around until StH 2, I think) and so it isn't technically multiplayer as you would think of it today. Here is a list of all NES multiplayer games, and sure enough it's listed. Xenon54 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my bad! That's actually a really cool idea. --Bentendo24 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Minus World Level

People say it's really world 36, because that's the 36th tile in the ROM, but after counting up (using Mario's lives as a way to count to 36), I have found the 36th tile is "Z", NOT " ". The " " is the 37th tile! I went online, and found the graphics tiles, and if you count them, the 0-9 are 10 and the A-Z are 26, THEN you have the space tile, that's the 37th (THIRTY-SEVENTH) tile!! Here's a link that shows the graphic tiles for the game:

http://www.nesplayer.com/database/info/emulation/doc/romdoc.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.82.227 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The first tile, which is a zero, is considered to be tile 0 (or the "zeroth" tile) by the game; thus, the blank tile is indeed tile 36. Only when the tile that represents "0" is considered to be tile 1 (or the "first" tile) does the blank space end up being tile 37. Usually, computers begin to count from zero, rather than one. Xenon54 / talk / 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Trivia in opening paragraphs

I really don't think the opening paragraphs are the appropriate place to mention things like All Night Nippon and the PC-8801 port. This are obscure side-notes and should be relegated thusly. Renfield (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)