Talk:Super Mario/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stars(Mario) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stars(Mario). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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 ...

In games such as Super Mario Bros. 3, the Fire Flower(that looks like an Ice Flower) on the slot machine is smiling, as is the Starman. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Toadistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toadistan. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reach Out to the Truth 00:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

I feel like there needs to be a section for criticism since some people consider him offensive, but I don’t have the heart to write this about my favorite video game hero.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Uhhh well feel free to provide reliable sources that verify info on any sort of criticism. I’ve noticed you’ve used “him” in your comment - please note this is about the game series, not the character. I’m also not sure I’ve heard of anyone finding Super Mario offensive in any real capacity... Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, read [1]. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 02:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Your link isn’t working for me, but Mario Wiki isn’t a reliable/usable source anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Overuse of images

I tried cleaning this up some but I’m stuck on my phone at the moment and it was hard to deal with it all. Anyways, there have been waaaaay too many images added to the article recently. Pictures of the consoles don’t aid the reader in reading about the game. If they want to know what an N64 looks like, they can click on the N64 wiki-link. All the logo stuff is a bit much too - box art can be shown in the individual game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am condensing. I don’t think all the logos should be removed though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise against the use of the logos, too. If they're just to show that different Super Mario games have different designs, that isn't really notable, unless there are multiple reliable sources that cover the differences. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. But please, look around at any series articles in good shape, like an WP:GA or WP:FA article. We don’t have logos plastered all over the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No biggie and no edit conflict. Feel free to remove them then. I guess I was following the model of Spider-Man in film. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I should note that I didn’t add all of them. One you removed and the other is still there.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Help adding Super Mario Advance 3 and 4 to timeline

I want to add Super Mario Advance 3 and 4 to the timeline as Advance 1 and 2 are already included. SMA3 was released in 2002 with Sunshine, however I don't think the template allows for splitting the colors on a year (red for SMS and blue for the remake SMA3). How can this be avoided? Mousymouse (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I already requested this. @Ferret: said he may could fix this but he is busy at the moment. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I did lose track of this. I'm not sure when I'll get to it, but I later realized that what I suggested probably won't work without more effort. Each year is a row in a table with a colored background, so to give a special color to just one games means I have to split the entire year into multiple rows. I'll try to take a look at it soon but it may be too cumbersome to be worth it. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not use the old template then? That was working fine. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably have no choice. It would have been better if we divide the remakes from the original but it’s not possible at the moment. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't SMA3 also have to be coded green because of its ambiguous status as a double agent between the Super Mario series and the Yoshi series? Ozdarka (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah they should be fine still I feel. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 11:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 to the timeline

Should the game 'Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3' be added to the timeline? It has the subtitle Super Mario Land 3 and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's island is, so I believe it should be included despite the unusual gameplay. EpicMeeper (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding it with a different color though that plan was delayed. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Release timeline" Section Corrections

I think there should be some corrections to the "Release timeline" section on this page.

1) I think "Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World" should be colour coded with a blue instead of a green as it's just the Mario 1, 2, and 3 remakes with "Super Mario World" added with it. The section has the game colour coded with a green making it a cross-series game but as it focuses on the main games (released at the time) I'd say it's classified as a remake. If the compilation is truly a cross-series game can anyone explain why.

2) I think "Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3" could be colour coded with a blue as well since it's a remake of "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island". The section classifies it as a dedicated part of the main series so if it truly is can anyone explain to me how it is a dedicated part of the main series. The game could also be colour coded with a green as it isn't based on a main series game but a cross-series game so it's now a remake and a cross-series game at the same time so what should it be colour coded as?

3) "New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe" is colour coded red making it a dedicated game in the series but I think it should be colour coded blue as it's just "New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe" with added levels. Blue is the only colour that it could be as it can't be red as it's not a main game (the original "New Super Mario Bros. U is the main game) and it can't be green as it's not a cross-series game with added levels.

Cheers - Euan :)

--Euanperrin17 (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, Jhenderson777 needs to switch it back to the old template, as even he conceded his version had unfixable errors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

189.202.57.195 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The font is Super Mario from ffonts.net

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island Isn't A Main Game & Should Be Removed From The "Release timeline" Section

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island should be removed from the "Release timelines" section as it's not a main Super Mario game. It's a cross-series game and is the 1st instalment in the Yoshi's Island series. --Euanperrin17 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Does it not have “Super Mario” in its title? Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see how Super Mario in its title can make it a main game but the Mario wiki says it's the 1st instalment of the Yoshi's Island series. The Wikipedia page and Mario wiki page for Yoshi's Island DS says it's a sequel to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island making Super Mario World 2 the first instalment of the Yoshi's Island series and not a main Super Mario game. --Euanperrin17 (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t it be both? Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 isn't on the release timeline as its separate from the other 2 Mario Land games & starts a new series (Wario Land) even though it has Super Mario in the title but Super Mario World 2 is on the timeline although it does the same thing as Super Mario Land 3 - It has Super Mario in its title but starts a completely new series and is separate from the game its a sequel to. I'd say a main Super Mario game is one where you control an adult Mario who is the main/first character you can play as. Games with Super Mario in the title where Wario/Yoshi are playable are separate and the beginnings of spin-off platform series where they are the main characters. --Euanperrin17 (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euanperrin17 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You might want to to look through the talk page archives to see the past discussions on the topic. It’s been discussed a lot in the past and you’re not really bringing any new ideas to the table here... (Also, read through the article itself too. Miyamoto himself considers Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island part of the Super Naruo series.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

if miyamoto considers super mario word 2 to be a main game then i guess we can have it on the "release timeline" section. i guess we cant argue with the creator himself but if super mario world 2 is a main game as the title suggests its a sequel to super mario world & it has "super mario" in it youd think super mario land 3 would be classified as a main game too. the title suggests its a sequel to super mario land 2 & it has "super mario" in its title. id say super mario world 2 & super mario land 3 branch off and become the 1st games of different series (the yoshis island & wario land series) but if miyamoto himself considers super mario world 2 to be a main game then i guess we can keep it on the release timeline :) --Euanperrin17 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sales

Currently, the sales section states that "Super Mario Bros. is the second best-selling single video game (second to Wii Sports), with 40.23 million units sold." I wanted to get feedback before outright removing this claim, but it seems off. According to Wikipedia's list of best-selling video games, Minecraft is currently the best selling video game, followed by Grand Theft Auto V.

I'm not sure if this information is outdated or if it's attempting to articulate that Super Mario Bros. is the second best selling video game when discounting rereleases and multi-platform releases. If it's the former, it should obviously be removed. If it's the latter, I question whether it's notable given the number of caveats. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "Super Mario Bros. is one of the best-selling video games of all time, with 40.23 million units sold" instead. Pacack (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This information was added prior to the release of Minecraft in 2011 and GTA V in 2013, so it's very outdated. I went and made the proposed change. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Fix the Lua error that shows up under the series section. 2601:3C4:381:EC60:2939:AB59:48E2:8EFF (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

No Super Mario game is on the Virtual Boy, therefore there is not a game on every major Nintendo console. Yoshi's Island and Bowser's Fury are also not main Super Mario games! 2600:1700:1595:8210:9C90:E205:FB6D:5301 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - While we all draw the line differently, you'd be hard pressed to find someone that calls the virtual boy a "major" product of any kind. The rest of your request is too vague to act on. It's unclear what you want done exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Related video

Editors here might be interested in this just published youtube video about which games are part of the series: jan Misali - how many Super Mario games are there?. It mentions this article as one of its main sources, and also points out there are inconsistencies between the release timeline, the sales and aggregate review scores table, and the navigation template. A few of the creator's videos have gone viral before, so there may be an influx of new editors and comments resulting from this. the wub "?!" 16:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of substantial structural changes

I wanted to put this up for discussion because I think the drastic revert that was just executed warrants it. The changes I made contextualized the progression of the series, establishing changes in the industry and how this series has fit into and defined it. The chronological groupings were not "arbitrary" as described in the revert edit summary, as the four stages are supported by the sources. It's noncontroversial that there was a series of 2D games, then 3D and open worlds, then new 2D games and more linear 3D ones, then a return to the open world format. While there is overlap between these in the form of re-releases, the changes I made acknowledged them. See Metroid for a comparable structure. The revert returns the article to simple lists of games in a vacuum, which undermines the point of this article's existence, which is to provide an overall perspective of how these games are historically connected to each other.

As for the remasters, it's not important to me that they're in the timeline, but NSMBUDX probably shouldn't be there if SMBDX isn't. Ozdarka (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's really why you should discuss major changes to high traffic articles before doing it. I wasn't even the one who reverted you, but I just above showed I was interested in improving the structure, but you just dove in anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Try to stick to the point of this thread, which is the third stage of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I'm happy to accept the outcome of such a discussion. Ozdarka (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I was responding to your own point of complaining about "drastic reverts" - I'm just telling you how to avoid putting yourself into the very situation you just put yourself into. But okay, sure, I'll bite. I said we should move towards more objective measures, while you seemed to shift to more subjective measures, like grouping like gameplay features. You're also cluttering up things with all the ports and re-releases. You're not moving in the right direction. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no situation that I'm aware of. Not that my motivation has any bearing on the content, but the practice in presenting ideas is enough for me; whether the changes are ultimately kept is incidental. Reversion is part of the process. This discussion is for the merits or flaws of my changes.

The groupings were merely genre, which is broader and more easily categorized than gameplay features as well as verifiable. The subjectivity of such a layout is limited here, but I think that the most controversial elements are the games with "3D" and "Galaxy" in the titles. However, the majority of publications identify these as more linear in scope compared to 64, Sunshine, Odyssey, and Bowser's Fury. Some of the sections in my version gave these sources upfront, minimizing the contentiousness. Re-releases of various kinds are tangential and the way they're mentioned shouldn't affect the article structure. Perhaps someone has a different perspective. I welcome suggestions from anyone who wants to make any. Ozdarka (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't notice this conversation. I'm not really a maintainer of this page, but I was the one who reverted you, User:Ozdarka. The main point of contention was that you moved all the ports into the main chronology rather than having a separate section. Yes, there were some subtle differences between Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, but in general, having a separate remakes & ports section seems more accurate and useful for readers to me. (I'm not sure if a table is the right way to do it, but a separate section definitely is.) As Sergecross noted above, there's some tricky OR questions no matter how the games are presented that aren't easy to fix, because there isn't really an objective measure here. That said, I agree that I think your changes were moving in the wrong direction - not saying the current format is perfect, but it's better and simpler. I think any structure needs to be as simple and verifiable as possible, and just using the game series as headers works for that at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I've done another edit leaving the remakes where they were, restricting the changes to eliminating excessive detail already found in the games' articles and adding time eras with headings that I believe are hard to argue with. The return to open-ended gameplay in Odyssey is not an original conclusion; it's sourced (I've included one of these in the section). I based this edit on the last quality assessment, which recommended more of an overall view that focused on changes in style across the series. It's important not to simply replicate the list of games already provided in the timeline, otherwise there's little point to the section at all. Ozdarka (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that past bit. There is no requirement to organize the article differently from the timeline. We can't let something as silly or meaningless as that to get in the way of best conveying the information. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The point is that it can't just be a list. The section should provide an overall perspective. These comments were made in the last peer review, which is old but still pertinent:

• "As it stands, the section is essentially a list of games with some information on levels but little on how it contributes to the series as a brick in a wall."
• "Development should cover the macro-level decision-making at the series level, or decisions that higher-ups made about where the series was going, and only cursorily dive into the development aspects of the character himself or the individual games."

Essentially, the section should show trends unfolding across history, while avoiding original research. I think the current chronological structure facilitates this. Ozdarka (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Missing games

Some obscure games that are basically Super Mario Bros ROMhacks but made officially by Nintendo aren't here : Vs. Super Mario Bros. Super Mario Bros. Special All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros.

This is also missing Super Mario 64 DS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:4E7F:378F:2C2C:63C2:FEC7:2D57 (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please consider adding it or say why to not add it. 91.168.208.89 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

These minor variants are covered at their respective articles rather than here. Both are mentioned at the original Super Mario Bros. article. That’s good enough. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Bowser Jr. as a Playable Character

It says that Bowser Jr. has been a playable character, but he has only been so in some of the sports games. he never has in other games. Please fix this. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

He's playable for a player 2 in Bowser's Fury. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not on every main Nintendo console

It is not on the Virtual Boy so it must be removed!! 2600:1700:1595:8210:119F:83F4:A75:55D8 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what this is referring to, but generally speaking, the Virtual Boy isn't really a "main console" though. Sergecross73 msg me

Every console is a main console. Also Yoshi's Island and Bowser's Fury are not main games, get your facts right!! (Why can’t I edit it anyways!) 2600:1700:1595:8210:119F:83F4:A75:55D8 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Yoshi's Island and Bowser's Fury ARE main games. Bowser's Fury is a remake. Second, there have been Mario games on Virtual Boy, such as Mario's Tennis. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the Super Mario page. It doesn't cover things like sports spin-offs. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Mainline games’ font in the titles release section should be made bold to differentiate from ports as 3D World on Switch or mobile entry as Super Mario Run. 95.102.48.0 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - This is not necessary, nor is it intuitive for readers to understand.

Categorization of Super Mario Maker/2 as remakes

I checked the edit summaries for a rationale or argument regarding this but instead only found assertions like "It's not a remake" and "That doesn't make any sense" so it should be established what the criteria for a remake are. So I'm going to ask here what makes a remake.

It might be argued that the original game's name should appear in the title, but if Super Mario Maker is a remake of multiple games, then the name of the series "Super Mario" followed by "Maker" would reflect this. SMM is about nothing but recreating the games in new ways, and this is in the very title. The user "makes" their own versions of the games. So I would argue that SMM is actually the very definition of a remake, just with the interactivity of the video game medium.

If you think this is only my concept of what a remake is, let's see a reliable source: Larke-Walsh, George S. (2018). A Companion to the Gangster Film. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 449:

"The terms 'remake' and 'original' are not as simple as they may first appear [...] the term remake stands for more than just new versions of the same story [...] remaking is a recursive practice, leading to a perpetuation of texts that are all mutually interdependent."

If the content of SMM was independent of the original games, then it could be argued that it's entirely its own title. But it's based entirely on the original content, and hence a remake.

Considering that both the marketing of SMM and a reliable source on the meaning of "remake" position the game as a remake, I think this should be reflected in this article.

Ozdarka (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither Mario Maker game were most commonly described as remakes or remasters, full stop. Just because the game allows the player to create content - including conceptually older games content - does not conceptually make the games as a whole a remake/remaster. Not only is this original research, it's just not commonly portrayed as such. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

100% behind Serge. Super Mario Maker 1/2 are not remakes/remasters. More importantly, not a single reliable secondary source (or even primary source!) has been presented calling it a "remake". -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agreeing with the counterpoints. Sharing assets/gameplay with these older games doesn't make them remakes. If this were true, then one could argue that any level editor (released separately) based on an older game is also a remake. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)