Talk:Mario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Mario was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:37, May 5, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Mario:
  • Focus article on the character Mario, and his creation and evolution. Reduce discussion about the games in general, that's what Mario (series) is for.
  • Ensure that every statement is supported by a reliable source.
  • Rewrite the whole "Appearances" section. Expand the paragraphs and cite more sources, especially in the two bottom sections concerning Mario's non-platforming game appearances. His Game & Watch games get barely a sentence. But please don't go overboard. Remember; that's what Mario (series) is for.
  • Once two weeks have passed since the failed FAC, submit this article for peer review.
  • Edit the concept and creation part about mario's last name as Miyamoto confirmed that he doesn't have one: (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/09/shigeru_miyamoto_mario_and_luigi_dont_have_last_names)
Priority 1 (top)

Five things you (possibly) didn’t know about Mario[edit]

article here

Grammar and Spelling[edit]

In the first paragraph, there should be fixes made. I'm sorry, but the semi-restriction keeps me from editing. Iloveyummyfood (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out anything in particular? I'm not really seeing how it's particularly badly-written. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 00:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"...Younger brother Luigi" should be changed to "...younger brother, Luigi", for example.Dragonman66 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, after nearly a month of discussion. Cúchullain t/c 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)



– It seems rather silly that the entry for just "Mario" is the video game character. I'm moving this page to Mario (character) similar to Kirby (character) or Master Chief (Halo). Please let me know if this has been discussed before. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC) --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Prisencolinensinainciusol - you really should bring this up for discussion before performing the move and/or starting to disambiguate links, not after. It has been discussed at least once before here, though this was back in 2007. Regardless, a move for a page this big with so many contributors should definitely be discussed. My two cents: I'm opposed to the move. Mario is by far the most common subject associated with the name and is the primary topic. Both Kirby and Halo are commonly associated to many other notably topics, especially Halo, which has a multitude of meanings in religion, mathematics, etc. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I can agree that Mario the Nintendo character is the most common reference to Mario, but not enough to warrant being the primary topic as delineated in WP:PTOPIC.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In a similar vein, I've moved what was previously at Luigi to Luigi (character).--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Please bring this up at somewhere like WP:VG since it would affect a lot of articles, and you'll get a lot of input there. And as someone else said, please don't make the changes pre-emptively - discuss first and make sure there is consensus to do so. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - See the green subsection above, when this was rejected in 2010. Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, as per Sergecross73. Mario is the primary topic here, as a quick Google search shows. Additionally, most if not all of the real people named Mario are not known by just their first name - so suggesting that someone who is looking for, say, Mario Lemieux, will just type "Mario" into the search bar and not his full name is absurd. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agreed that Mario is the primary topic. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: At this point, the discussion was converted into a formal Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - No argument presented. "It seems rather silly" is not a reason to rename. 2010 consensus still stands. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak in light of GBooks results, and arguments about the general importance of other Marios (especially Mario Lemieux), as well as in light of my own obvious bias in favor of VG. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this is the primary topic for video games fans. There are people on the planet who aren't. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Noting again, the benchmark for any primary topic is Google Book hits and a result which is

and more likely than all the other topics combined

is this Mario 50%+ of all Google Book results, yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of those are not books about Marios other than the VG character; they are results of books authored by people named "Mario". Excluding these coincidental results, on the first three pages, I see a few about the VG character (ISBN 1101517638, ISBN 1591845637), one about Mario Lanza, one about Mario Vargas Llosa, two about Mario Lemieux, and Mario: A Novel by fr:Claude Jasmin. But I am not willing to base my decision solely and exclusively on this fact. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per IIO. There is a broader world of Marios outside of video games. Also, the long-term significance of the video game character is questionable. (I may be taking a longer-term view of what 'long-term' means here than some people would.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, there should be best possible links to Mario (given name). Gregkaye (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – the primarytopic claim here is ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias I know this isn't official wikipedia style or policy but in my opinion Worldwide Perspective ought to be considered in the title as well.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Right; a character known worldwide is more significant by far than an extremely rare name among every non-white nationality (and most white nationalities). Red Slash 21:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have to oppose here. Mario the character is known all over the world, probably more than any other Mario. - WPGA2345 - 20:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"probably more than any other Mario" does not come close to satisfying primarytopic criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me reiterate, then. Looking at everything that is known as just "Mario" in the world, there is no topic that even comes close in worldwide meaning. All other topics combined don't even come close in worldwide meaning to the game character. - WPGA2345 - 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I suspect the demographics of Wikipedia users has led to an underestimate of how many people have no idea who the videogame character Mario is. McPhail (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no argument of any sort has presented itself over why a name has primary topic over a character with long-term educational significance. None. Jack. Nada. Vague assertions and hand-waves aren't even remotely convincing, not when pageviews and links are ridiculously in favor of the character. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 21:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Red Slash: @WPGA2345:@Salvidrim!: can someone please do a Google Book search and say what % of Google Book hits for "Mario" relate to this Mario? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:No, we can't. Google search results are completely meaningless non-statistics. Even worse than the trope that statistics are lies, is the fact that the idea that Google search results are a statistic is a lie. You may as well consult cards and runes. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A large majority from my POV but I assume that Google tracks my search history and whatnot, so it's hardly neutral. I am utterly convinced that the video game character is, by an insane margin, the most widely used definition of the title "Mario", and nothing else even comes close to the degree of primarytopic-ness. The article even demonstrates that Mario is amongst the most recognizable figure in the world. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: I'll make an observation. It seems to me that many people consider the lack of any parenthetical identifier suffix on an article's name, to be an achievement award bestowed by ad hoc handful of volunteer Wikipedians who are self-appointed evaluators of the global psychoperceptual zeitgeist. That's not a matter of record-keeping or facts, but almost of fandom. We are here to record what objectively is. Our Mario is only a character, and nothing is even so much as affected by saying so. I say that as much as I despise this foolish and chaotic calling of votes upon a personal whim which disrespectfully flies in the face of the community's established consensus. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: I don't think Google Books necessarily tracks your search history, but just for illustration tell us, without clearing cookies, of the first 10 books in your search for "Mario" how many relate to Mario the video games character? Then click through to page 6 of results and say how many there. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:That is not an illustration, unless you mean refrigerator magnet art. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
See my reply inline to your earlier comment. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Smuckola: I don't oppose to this article being titled Mario (character), the parenthetical disambiguator isn't an issue. I just don't think pointing Mario anywhere but here serves the readers. Yes, I am biased in favor of video games, but I expect that a significant proportion of the readership searching for Mario also is. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: I think that's well said! :) So I guess one should vote here both upon the name of the article and the target of a redirect of the name "Mario". Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above - Lets be honest - Unless you live in a cave you would know who Mario is, I personally see no point or benefit to the proposed name other than stating the obvious!. –Davey2010(talk) 21:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support—I don't live in a cave, and I don't have a clue who "Mario" is. The first-name by itself is ludicrously unkind to readers who are searching. It wastes people's time. Tony (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Red Slash below: "This article receives an absurdly high usage percentage of people looking for 'Mario'." Quintessential WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, therefore the proposed move would be unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
And everyone who's looking for another Mario? Tony (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Click the Mario (disambiguation) link at the top of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Tony: and everyone who's looking for another Mario? That's an argument against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which has always had strong consensus support. By definition the title of a primary topic article is ambiguous, and people looking for other uses will be taken to the primary topic article never-the-less. That's why we have hat note links, and why we limit the use of ambiguous titles to primary topics, like this one. --В²C 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Well-known as the video game character is, he's not the primary topic. In any case, I would suspect that most people who aren't video game nerds would know him better as "Super Mario", whether that is his correct name or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, even though I have a bias towards video game subjects that originated from the 1980s–1990s. If I have bias, why do I support this move? Well, the term "Mario" doesn't make me immediately think of this character, but "Super Mario" does. Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps then, Mario>Super Mario, Super Mario>Super Mario (disambiguation), and Mario (disambiguation)>Mario? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: I'm neutral on that idea, mainly because the character, in recent times, has established a name for himself that doesn't include the "Super" adjective. To me, that idea is almost like trying to start a move discussion to move Princess Peach to Princess Toadstool; it's a bit outdated, and may not apply to all of the regions of the world that speak English. Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: However, I am in belief that Super Mario should redirect to this article; I may imitate that move discussion after this one is finished. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • [Further comment] Systemic bias and other reasons not to move - I'm willing to bet that if Mario was not a name for white people, this move wouldn't have even been proposed. "Mario" as a name is heavily overrepresented in Europe compared to other places (duh, as it's a name from Italy) - on a worldwide scale the character is far more notable. (Which article are people in India more likely to be looking for? Well, pageviews already have told us, but even so, it's not a difficult mental jump to realize that unless you're of Italian descent or have other connections to Italy, you're far more likely to know Mario as a video game character than to know any actual person named Mario.) I'm also just going to throw out the fact that nobody has provided actual evidence that the article on a name (not actual people, mind--a name) has educational significance rivaling the article on a globally recognizable and significant character. There are only two criteria listed for determining primary topic--usage and long-term significance. Neither criterion has prominence over the other; in any case, usage is an absolute blowout. This article receives an absurdly high usage percentage of people looking for "Mario". And no case has been made for why a name could possibly have more long-term significance than the character. There's no case to move based on what's been presented here. Red Slash 17:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You're nuts. You'd diss all the real Marios for a video-game character? Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
RedFlash, I've indented that to the same format as everyone else and added [Further comment] Given that for music fans Mario (American singer) is probably more important than a pixel-man from their parents' generation, I though the race comment was bizarre. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Goodness, have y'all read WP:PTM before? Essentially no one else is known simply as "Mario"; the people named Mario don't have much standing here. And In ictu oculi, people are voting with their eyeballs, and nobody else receives more than a sliver of the interest that the character gets. And as for the race comment, well, it's hard for me to believe that, if a French international franchise appropriated an uncommon Vietnamese name and created a character of this magnitude, we'd have any debates over where the primary topic is. Red Slash 02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The partial title match guideline applies to disambiguation pages, not anthroponymy lists. Disregarding for the moment the trivial argument that all the people named Mario are in a way known as simply Marios, we've actually got articles on two notable people who are mononymously known as Marios, just like the character. So, the claim that essentially no one else is known simply as "Mario" is simply false. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi: I understand that you are not a gamer nor a big fan of that artform. However, attempting to belittle or denigrate this article's topic (a pixel-man from their parent's generation) is not an appropriate way to support your opinion that the video game character is not the primary worldwide use of the name "Mario". Your GBooks argument was far more polite, civil and convincing. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Salvidrim! possibly. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, while the common Italian name isn't as old as Luigi, the fictional character's long-term significance is still dubious in comparison. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an index of popular things on the Internet. The other obvious move destination for the character page is Super Mario, a title that unambiguously refers to the intended topic area and should be equally as recognizable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple games were Super is not used and the character himself is not actually called Super Mario. I see a case for a redirect but not a rename since the character's name is Mario.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the IP; the character is more known these days as just "Mario", but the term "Super Mario" usually refers to the character. (There's a discussion related to this currently happening right now on Talk:Super Mario.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The way I look it, if we know that there's a reasonable degree of ambiguity when you mention the term "Mario" in generic context, when someone asks you "Which Mario?", the most common answer will be "Mario, the video game character", and the most succinct answer will be "Super Mario". The word "character" on its own, while it is common as a Wikipedia disambiguation marker, doesn't quite strike me as the most natural turn of phrase. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Once again while several games in the series have used Super Mario I am not aware of the character himself being named that. For that reason we should not use Super Mario as the tiyle.--69.157.252.247 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There are a ton of people named Mario. It's a very common name and has existed for a long time. Clearly, it takes precedence as the primary topic, over the character. TBWarrior720 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no real evidence the Nintendo character isn't the primary topic for the term Mario. This proposal was previously rejected for the same lack of evidence. We don't go by gut feelings and what "seems rather silly" in the words of the nominator. Calidum Talk To Me 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Is the fact that it's one of the most popular masculine names worldwide not evidence? Or the fact that there are not only a ton of people named Mario that have Wikipedia articles, but that there are some that do go by the mononym "Mario"? TBWarrior720 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Image use[edit]

I feel that we should include a shot from Super Mario Bros., which I feel is more important than Mario Kart. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For future use[edit]

In 2010, 93% of Americans knew who Mario was. I do not feel that any other human being named Mario [surname] is nearly that known. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

At the very least it would bring an end to any attempt to resurrect the pixelman man from my parents generation argument.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015[edit]

Please change where it says that Bowser jr. stole the magical paintbrush, in the game, if i'm not mistaken, he says that E. Gadd gave the paintbrush to him. not stolen. UmbreonInvaderz (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Question: @UmbreonInvaderz: Are you requesting that "having stolen the paintbrush" be changed to "having received the paintbrush"? and by "he says" are you indicating that it is within the game Super Mario Sunshine (primary source) that the paintbrush was given?  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)