Talk:Super Mario

Smiling items

The article says that various items (e.g., Fire Flowers and Starman) have smiley faces on them, but they don't -- just have have eyes on them ...

New mario IOS game

The super mario run needs to be added to the list of mario games http://supermariorun.com/en/index.html it has it's own article but hasn't been added to the list of games yet. source: http://supermariorun.com/en/index.html Thestarchyninja (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly? It's mentioned multiple times in the article. It's not in the "release" section, but that's because it's not released yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Timeline Dispute

A small thing, maybe, but there's been a lot of back-and-forth on the main article recently about what games in the leading timeline can be considered 'original' and therefore written in bold. The recent argument is that the NSMB series and some handheld games shouldn't count as bold due to being a sub-series, but I believe they should be bold due to them not being remakes or re-releases.

Surely only remakes should be the ones not in bold, as all the other ones are original entries in the main series? This could help prevent the ongoing edit war. GloverMist (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize, I usually would have started a discussion sooner, but usually editors who make such half-assed edits don't stick around to discuss, and I would have thought they'd have stopped after pointing out the major flaw in their changes. The IP keeps arguing over which games are mainline or spinoff, but that's irrelevant, as the only thing the timeline covers is whether or not its original or a re-release. Regardless of whether or not its a spinoff, its objectively false to label games like New Super Mario Bros as non-original releases. They are not remakes, they're original material. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73, if the PC and arcade ports of SMB are not on the timeline "because they're alternate versions of a game already listed on the timeline, and don't have their own article either", then can you tell me why Super Mario Bros. Deluxe should be there? Ozdarka (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I had not been aware that DX didn't have its own article. I don't maintain every aspect of the the Super Mario franchise on Wikipedia, believe it or not. This can be a good time to discuss what to include too though, so that's fine. I don't think it's particularly necessary to list off every single release of redundant entries. DX is a little different, considering it was released over a decade later, and was one of the platforms best-selling games of all time. I think that's more worth noting than some obscure arcade variant. Perhaps someone else can come up with a little more air-tight of a method for determining what goes on there though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Purposefully excluding games that didn't sell as well is no better because it artificially presents the series as universally successful commercially when it isn't. That's bias. The PC and arcade games aren't exactly ports because they have different titles and different levels, so they are distinct games and should be included somehow. Ozdarka (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, then maybe trim out the entries without their own article then? It's too cluttered with every single minor variant on there. That's generally how WP:NAV templates operate too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Mario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120710232628/http://www.1up.com/news/gdc-2007-mario-maestro-shares to http://www.1up.com/news/gdc-2007-mario-maestro-shares

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection?

Hey,

Was thinking that this page and the one on the Mario franchise should get semi protection like the Nintendo and Legend of Zelda pages have. Anybody know how we can request it? -Peterjack1

I’m an admin, and I watch over the page and I can protect it if need be...but I really don’t think the page has received enough WP:VANDALISM to warrant it yet. If you disagree, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP, but they’ll likely tell you the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Peterjack1 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason SMB2 and Odyssey 2 are missing?

Just wondering, it seems to be a giant oversight to skip SMB2, especially given that there's the Japanese and "Western" versions of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derf Jagged (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor appeared to have done a reorganization that moved SMB 2 to the bottom of the page. I’ve undone the change, as I feel it makes more sense to list them in chronological order by release. I’m not sure what you’re talking about with your “Odyssey 2” comment though. Super Mario Odyssey was always in the article and Super Mario Odyssey 2 isn’t a real thing as of writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Rejected article reorganization

To explain a bit - the article was recently drastically reorganized with any discussion, consensus, or explanation. I undid it, as it was not an improvement for a few reasons. (For reference, you can see the rejected version here.

1. The bizarre way you grouped some titles together violates WP:OR.
2. Even beyond that, it’s just not intuitive. It’s very confusing to see the list and timeline jump from Super Mario Bros 1 to Super Mario Bros 3.
3. Its best practice to list in 100% objective order, like chronologically or alphabetically, as to eliminate confusion or arguments. In this situation, by release year probably makes the most sense.

In the future, make sure you discuss radical changes to articles first, especially when it’s obviously a popular, high traffic article like this. It’s not required, but it’ll keep you from wasting a lot of time and effort with your work being undone. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I did the grouping based on gameplay, which is not OR it’s jusr fact. I believe that makes the article the most organized. Blame Nintendo for making the sequel to Mario “Mario 3” and the spin off “Mario 2”. At the very least, keep the paragraphs on each game and the timelines as this article is underdeveloped. -Peterjack1

Im not going to “blame Nintendo”, im going to “blame you” for violating policy and making confusing edits. I’m afraid that you don’t understand WP:OR. And you seem to have missed point number two as well. Check the section above. You’re already confusing people with your reorganizing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine, we can include Mario 2 in the mainline games to avoid confusion. However, they still does not justify the entire revert. The justifies editing my work, because it is not OR it is stating facts about the game and is unbiased. Peterjack1 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps for you to understand what was so wrong with what you did, we need to go into more detail on what you did. Please explain your organization scheme in more detail. What were your criteria for organization? Why did you regroup each title you moved? Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My criteria is based on its gameplay; is it a platformer with common Mario elements? Is it seen by the general Mario community as a main series game? And if you would like me to go into more detail, here you go:
-Mario 2 is based on throwing turnips, you can’t defeat enemies by jumping on them, which is the #1 identifying mechanic of Mario, this one thing alone makes it a completely different game and if it’s name wasn’t “Mario 2” it probably wouldn’t be on the timeline.
-The Super Mario Land series isn’t really part of the main timeline; it’s kind of it’s own thing. The gameplay has the base elements but is just different and in the third game you play as Wario.
-Yoshi’s Island has the subtitle “Super Mario World 2” and has Baby Mario in it so I put it in the “other platformers” section.
-New Super Luigi U is both an add on to NSMBU and it’s own standalone game, so it could go either way I guess. Same with Super Mario Maker, it features the same 2D gameplay as the NSMB series but is a level creation game so could go either way.
Any other questions? Peterjack1 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that’s plenty, that illustrates my point perfectly. You used all sorts of your own personal criteria and judgements in your re-organization. If you don’t see it as original research, then you don’t understand original research. And again - it’s counter-intuitive - unless you plan on maintaining it personally for the rest of your life, it’s going to fall into disrepair because no one is going to understand all of that. You need to choose simple organizing methods that are easily understood instantly. Not make people have to put it all together like a puzzle. Sergecross73 msg me 11:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Disorganization of the games aside, the individual sections are written like high-school essays, not like an encyclopedic article. Look at the section for Super Mario 64 for example-- "it was clear that 3D was the future of gaming", "none were the major breakthrough the industry was looking for," "it was mainly praised for just being a solid game". There's no sources, it's all fluff, and it's all from your head. It's downright awful. The revert was more than justified. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed. The tone was not encyclopedic in his additions at all - it was way too informal, readling like something between a personal editorial and a casual conversation with friends. You should not write things like “Super Mario Sunshine came out a whopping 6 years later. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Mainline was officially updated

Hi, folks. Just a friendly heads up regarding the time Miyamoto stated how he and his team felt that Yoshi's Island was a part of the core series during the 25th Super Mario anniversary. There has been a change reflected in official material since then particularly in the Super Mario Encyclopedia released for the 30th anniversary. You can find it on page 241. There's multiple plausible explanations: perhaps some nuance to the sentiment was lost along the way whether it be in his understanding of the question, the understanding on the interpreters' part, or even just a change of mind upon further reflection down the road.

Also it's worth mentioning that in page 255 of said encyclopedia that Super Mario Maker is not classified as a mainline Super Mario series game either. I imagine the change can be a bit of an adjustment especially for the sort of fans who are vested in these sort of details and that one might as well prepare for some sort of other change flying under our radar again some day. Thanks for your time!2600:8805:8100:5F60:2D6B:C89A:25E1:EAB9 (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yoshis Island is a hard sell for me, considering past commentary, and it’s full title itself, though I could see splitting the Mario Maker games into their own subsection, they do seem to be discussed as their own thing now that the full sequel has been announced. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that's due to the Japanese title of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island being Super Mario: Yoshi's Island. It's kinda like Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3, in that it is considered in the Super Mario Land series (is it really?). It was titled so in Japan, as Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land. I would consider them both breaking points from their previous series into new series of their own. I'm sure it's up for debate but I would generally see them as the origins of their own series rather than the black sheep of the Super Mario series. --Bchill53 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I hear you both on that and recognize it's a conflict of information on their part. The whole book was surprisingly specific with the whole "17 titles in the main series" thing (as neither Run or Odyssey were out yet) and then on page 81 they get into how members of "the Mario family" have had their own spinoff platformers. It's possible that they've come to a decision that while the game has benefited from the Mario branding, had built upon Mario's trope codifying platform styles, and contributed to the sparse amount of lore...they may have just found the lack of time spent playing as Mario in the game to be a deal breaker. Either way: in the event they recant on it, I'll sigh and chuckle about it and go "Oh, Nintendo" but the rest I leave up to youto mull it over. Thanks for your time and attention and for maintaining everything!2600:8805:8100:5F60:2D6B:C89A:25E1:EAB9 (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Free Edit

If Wario and Yoshi are Super Mario characters,then their games belong to the Super Mario series

Sergecross73's edits are driving me nuts! Kairipines (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)