Template talk:Castlevania series/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of Castlevania titles

Where would be a good place to include the List of Castlevania titles in the template? No particular spot really jumped out at me. Any ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC))

You could change the title bar from "Castlevania series" to "Castlevania series (List of titles)". Or just give up and add an "Other" or "Related articles" section, I guess. --DocumentN (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kukeiha Club

What does the edit summary here mean? --DocumentN (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How can we then solve?

MisterMario92 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't see any merit in your current changes. You're adding two rows with one item and fail to make any distinction between console and handheld titles. That one is a compilation is largely irrelevant as the compilations stay within the respective sections. The present format is fine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think my type of text is better than the atual.MisterMario92 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better :) MisterMario92 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, simply your opinion isn't going to convince anyone. You need to state reasons beyond what you like and dislike. If you can't state why your version of the template is better, then you have no argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

-

My arguments:

No matter which platform for the game in question was launched, this is the background. Leaving everything mixed this way, the reader is atrapalhado, and não saberá not if the game is a unique history, remake, spin-off. In my template, he will be well informed.

The template are very mixed. We will organize by history:

-- If the story is unique and is:

• Original release: it is in "Original Release"
• Spin-off: it is in "Outhers" or "Spin-off" even
• Re-release: it is in "Re-release"

-- If the story is not unique and is:

• Remake: You will be in "Remakes"

So would this:

-- Original History

• "Original Release"
• "Spin-off"
• "Re-release"

-- Not Original History

• "Remakes"

In my view, the classification by history is more important than of the system. MisterMario92 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your classification by "history" is largely represented in the current template as the games are listed chronologically. Again, your template fails to distinguish between the portable and non-portable Castlevania titles, which was a big jump for the series and an important division. Dividing those two is far more important than dividing the games and the compilations, especially considering how few compilations there are as versus the actual titles. That and you still haven't addressed the problem that your template creates two rows with one item, which is rather nonsensical. In any case, English please for the initial comments. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

- Hey there Sephiroth BCR. You implied that Castlevania's switch to handled consoles was an important change in the series. "...your template fails to distinguish between the portable and non-portable Castlevania titles, which was a big jump for the series and an important division." I have to disagree. When Castlevania first move to portable consoles (Castlevania:The Adventure for Game Boy) it's game play remained similar to that of it's NES counterparts. So, I have to assume that you are referring primarily to the jump to the Gameboy Advance. However, the vast majority of significant changes in these games (as well as the DS games) first occurred in Castlevania:Symphony of the Night for the Playstation. Thus, I believe that your statement is erroneous and that it dose not support the idea that a template fails to distinguish between portables and non-portables is somehow inferior. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. Also, with regards to my previous edits which you reversed, I do not feel that a table being "too big" merits a reversal, especially if it provides more information to the users. Thank you. (Sorry, I originally posted this in the wrong place) Jdhenry (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MisterMario92 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And? MisterMario92 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't really said anything to address my points. Also, trying to edit the page anonymously to get your changes done isn't really helping your case either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[+]

My mode is much better :-) MisterMario92 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[+]

What is the error? MisterMario92 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit War's End

The two versions of the template that keep flipping back and forth have been fused into one. Done. Any objections? --Bishop2 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly more platable. I still believe it's unnecessary, but to end this inane conflict, sure. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

MisterMario92 (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Sorry, I didn't notice this edit war was going on until after I changed it. My main gripe is that even after separating hand held games from console games, everything is still lumped together and not very organized. Furthermore, it seems a bit unfair to separate games into consoles vs. handhelds as this partitioning does not reflect significant differences in game play, graphics, and other areas. For instance the game most similar to Symphony of the Night is Dawn of Sorrow, but the former is on a console (Playstation) and the latter is on a handheld (Nintendo). Also, the current grouping lumps Haunted Castle together with colsole games, which is misleading as it was originally an arcade game. Thanks for your consideration. Jdhenry (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Hey there Sephiroth BCR. You implied that Castlevania's switch to handled consoles was an important change in the series. "...your template fails to distinguish between the portable and non-portable Castlevania titles, which was a big jump for the series and an important division." I have to disagree. When Castlevania first move to portable consoles (Castlevania:The Adventure for Game Boy) it's game play remained similar to that of it's NES counterparts. So, I have to assume that you are referring primarily to the jump to the Gameboy Advance. However, the vast majority of significant changes in these games (as well as the DS games) first occurred in Castlevania:Symphony of the Night for the Playstation. Thus, I believe that your statement is erroneous and that it dose not support the idea that a template fails to distinguish between portables and non-portables is somehow inferior. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted you. Also, with regards to my previous edits which you reversed, I do not feel that a table being "too big" merits a reversal, especially if it provides more information to the users. Thank you. Jdhenry (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

dracula x for the snes

dracula X for SNES is not a direct port of Rondo, it is a different game but with the same back story92.0.45.112 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MisterMario92's Template

I made a new and enhanced template. MisterMario92 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MisterMario92 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual template need to be changed. It is very confused. I think my template is best. MisterMario92 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

it is not "confusing", you were told here before why the original template was fine and that it didn't need to be changed. simply your opinion that it is "best" isn't going to convince anyone 92.14.232.201 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't speak english fluently. I hope that you can understand me. You talk as if your opinion is the opinion of the group, but things do not work that way. You must understand that I also want to help and you are not trying to cooperate. You say that "OTHERS" think this or that. But, you need to say that "YOU" think this or that. Before you start a conversation, you need to put in your head that is not correct to generalize your opinion, because it is only "your opinion", and can easily don't represents the views of the group. I just require that you do not generalize the things, bring the conversation to the particular, without involving other people, because the issue is between you and me. Do not say that your opinion represents the views of others simply because you do not have this kind of information! I don't said that my template "IS" best. I said that I "THINK" that my template is best... Man... we are here due the same objective. We need to cooperate, you must understand this. What you think that we need to change in my template? Is best if you say what you appreciate and what you don't appreciate. Remember, this is public, then anyway we need to cooperate. Can you understand this simple fact? MisterMario92 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

not referring to myself, read the past discussion that you deleted 92.15.28.193 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Template protected

I have protected the template to prevent further edit-warring. Please discuss, involve more editors, or use dispute resolution to reach consensus. Abecedare (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of issues

Judgment has never been stated to be a "gaiden". IGA treated it part of his timeline. Yes, I understand gameplay wise its completely different than any other castlevania, thus fans seeing it as a kind of spinoff series.

Secondly, its been confirmed that Lords of Shadow is not part of the main series. It represents a reboot, and isn't canon according to the original timeline according to Dave Cox.

I'm not entirely sure what those who made the template are implying, but those facts should be figured in.137.222.114.243 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We need other type of template MisterMario92 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i don't think you realize the user was referring to your version of the template —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.13.141 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Handheld vs. mobile gaming

Since Super Mario Run is going to be released on smartphones, I was about to add a new section to this template to reflect that, considering that handheld gaming and mobile gaming are not the same concept here or on Wikipedia (considering that those two "gaming" links go to two different articles.) I almost changed the template to reflect this, but then noticed that my edit idea was performed once already [1], but afterwards, was reverted [2]. In the edit notice of the revert, there was a statement regarding the section being unnecessary since it would only contain one item presently; even with that being true, I think the new section is necessary since handheld gaming is not mobile gaming, and the distinction needs to be clear in this template. I propose that the change to add the "Mobile" section to this template be reinstated. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(Pinging recent editors of this template for possible input: Dissident93, The1337gamer, UltraDark and Sergecross73.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it being in the handheld section, since phones are. Having a "mobile" section for just one game doesn't seem worth it, and we have no idea or not if they will ever make a second Mario mobile game. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The group name is handheld, not handheld game consoles. Mobile and tablet devices are designed to be held in your hand. They are handheld devices. And thus Super Mario Run is playable on a handheld device, so it fits into that section just fine.. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

When there is a huge amount of mobile games for Super Mario, then it will be the best time to give the mobile games their own category, but for now and having learned my lesson they should stay in handheld. ULTRA-DARKNESS^{:) 2 CHAT} 17:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Split

While I agree it is acceptable to say these games belong to this game series, I'm unsure if they actually have to be place on the same level as main game entries. Let me explain based on previous games from different series: back when the side-scroller, construction game, Mega Man Universe, was to be a thing, templates and pages never call it a main entry in the classic Mega Man series; Super Mario Maker's concept is a very identical game to said cancelled game. Now, mobile games like Sonic Dash or Rayman Jungle Run are also referred to as spin-offs, and listed as such on their respective pages and templates, both are also automatic-runner platform games, why is Super Mario Run (no intention to demerit the game) so special then? Shouldn't a "Misc. spot" be more suitable to add these two? Yeah, Nintendo made those but so was Mega Man Universe being made by Capcom so the developer has nothing to do with it.

--Byll the Wyll (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I simply renamed the groups and made it more accurate. Both of these games are Super Mario titles, so they wouldn't belong in the spinoff section with games like Super Princess Peach and Captain Toad Treasure Tracker. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

Remakes: Super Mario Advance, Super Mario Advance 2, Super Mario Advance 3 121.54.32.165 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Please don't add redirects to articles already in the template. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Lords of Shadow

@Dissident93: New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe should be labeled in the template somehow. (More properly once it's released. So that's my fault for jumping the gun.) I can understand if it not necessarily a remake. If not that, it should be in parentheses behind New Super Mario Bros. U. It has new features warranting the 'Deluxe' aspect and should be acknowledged somehow. Bchill53 (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I guess it can't hurt just being redirected to the section that already exists in that case. I'll re-add it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Great, thank you. Bchill53 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

Dissident93, please explain your reasoning for undoing the edit that is explicitly verified by the most credible source possible. If it's your interpretation of a timeline that excludes many games in this template, that's not going to hold up. Ozdarka (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the quote, by the way: "When we first made Yoshi's Island, we considered it part of the Mario series. After that, the Yoshi series continued on its own. As developers, do we consider it to be part of the core Mario series? The answer is yes." ~Shigeru Miyamoto Ozdarka (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm just going by what the old consensus was, of which I was not apart of. I'm trying to find the discussions that lead to this so I could link you to it but apparently it was not on this talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Awaiting any source with Nintendo explicitly saying the game is not part of the series, since there is already one saying it is. Otherwise, I'll reintegrate it into the template. Ozdarka (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That's ample time. Please stop removing correctly sourced content. Ozdarka (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As much as I like Miyamoto, I think the guy is wrong... Are all the other Yoshi games also to be moved in this category then? --Bchill53 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Miyamoto is the creator of the Super Mario series, so the source is the most reliable one as well as explicit (a requirement of sources). He said that after the first game, the Yoshi series continued on its own (see quote above). Ozdarka (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2020

Remove link to Super Mario Bros. Deluxe from remakes as it redirects to Super Mario Bros page 165.197.109.6 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It leads to its own section on that page, so it seems worth keeping. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

Mario Kart Tour should be removed, as it is not a Super Mario game. 2600:8804:1080:39A:8C00:D5A1:DC70:1F08 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island should be in the spin-off category instead of the main series category (similar to Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3; numbered sequels with wildly different gameplay styles starring different protagonists, which then became their own franchises). 63.135.30.73 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See also #Super Mario World 2 as well as the comment in the wikitext source. Izno (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

These recent changes

I hate to cause trouble or anything, but I can't for the life of me understand some of the changes that have gone on recently here. I had barely come to tolerate the notion of slagging 'The Minish Cap' off as a separate entity, when the subsection gets re-named "spinoff titles". How in the world can you justify calling TMC a "spinoff"? It is a valid Zelda game, not like the proposed "Tingle" title, which is a proper spinoff. This nonsensical attitude towards TMC has to stop. It was one thing when it was being grouped in with the 'Four Swords' titles on purely stylistic grounds, but calling it a "spinoff" is, frankly, an insult to the title.Rhindle The Red 13:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While I do think TMC should definitely be in the same section as the other FS games, I agree with you on this, and have moved Tingle RPG down into its own section. This makes the template slightly bigger, but there are larger ones out there, and unless someone can think of a better solution I don't see what else to do. - Ian Moody 19:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see why TMC would be part of the Four Swords-series. Yes, the game was drawn in the same style..but does that justify a move to the section of the FS-titles? If we're gonna keep TMC in there, we might as well make a "Ocarina of Time"-subseries paragraph and move Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask there, since they're also in the same style. -- SoothingR^(pour) 14:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an old argument that I don't feel like fighting right now. We'll see how closely 'Twilight Princess' adheres to the classic Zelda story. If it strays significantly, I'm going to once again fight for putting 'Minish Cap' into the main listing. I've always advocated separating out the 'Four Swords' titles because their multiplayer aspect is the thing that distinguishes them from the other titles. TMC is closer to the other Zelda games than, say, 'Majora's Mask'. I'm just not in the mood to go on too much about it right now.Rhindle The Red 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)