Talk:Super Mario Bros./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

"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 2007 (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)

That video is of an ips hack of the game, it is well known as Super Mario Forever, it is a challenge or kaizo hack. -- hdofu 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

According to (which came first, Arcade or Famicom)

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)

Super Mario Bros. was released in America on October 18, 1985! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.82.148 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not. That's an error and has already been exhaustively researched and discussed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Chalk me up as yet another person who DISTINCTLY remembers Super Mario Bros. first as an Arcade Game, and then a NES staple (at least in the US). @Dez: IIRC, the "vs" Games -as opposed to Super Mario Bros. proper in its own cabinet -were on a stupid (IMO) arcade system called Play-Choice 10 or something like that, where a whole bunch of Nintendo Games were in the same Arcade Cabinet (IIRC "Goonies," "Punch Out," "Duck Hunt," et al.), and a quarter only allowed you to play a game on a crappy timer. Thanos777 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say, which came first in the US, and it is quite possible that the arcade version dropped before the cartridge version, but if we are discussing which version was designed first, that is clearly the Famicom version. I have two bits of evidence for this, one suitable for sourcing in wikipedia and one not. The first is the "Iwata Asks" entry for New Super Mario Bros. Wii in which the history of the series is discussed and Miyamoto clearly describes how the original game was designed for Famicom and that development started at the same time as The Legend of Zelda. The second source, not suitable for Wikipedia, is an interview I conducted with Frank Ballouz, at the time the marketing director for Nintendo of America's coin-op division, in which he states that he was the one that told Japan that they had to make a Super Mario coin-op after he played the consumer game. Indrian (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (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)

The material you mention is sourced and relevant to the article. In the lead is it appropriately mentioned in the broader context of ports and alternate versions and their success in relation to the success of the original game. It is not given undue weight or prominence; its about-10-word mention in the lead is roughly proportional to the three body sentences devoted to the topic. Therefore, it (in my opinion) satisfies Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight," and I do not see any reason for it to be removed. However, the specific mention of the NEC PC-8801 could be genericised to "the home computer" or "non-Nintendo systems". Xenon54 / talk / 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

In the article there is no mention of any of the other console versions of Super Mario Bros. (Such as Super Mario World on the SNES or Super Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64) as sequels. Is this intentional? If so please explain why.

Also I was wondering why there is no mention of the warp pipes (other than the one for world -1). I believe the fact that you can beat the game by playing only 8 total levels (using the warp pipes) is more than relevant in the gameplay section, or another section, esspecially for when the game was made.

If you have any questions or concerns contact me Tough_guy223 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughguy223 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario World is considered to be a direct sequel. It was released in Japan as Super Mario Bros. 4. Super Mario 64 is really only related to Super Mario Bros. because the main playable characters and "baddies" are largely the same in both games. SM64's gameplay, however, is completely different from that of SMB, therefore it's hard to justify calling SM64 a direct sequel. For all other concerns, Wikipedia is not a game guide. The article should focus on the "real world" aspects of the game, such as development history and reception. Xenon54 / talk / 13:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not playing exactly the same doesn't make Super Mario 64 any less of a sequel, but that is beside the point. TJ Spyke 14:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's certainly a sequel, but it's not a DIRECT sequel. SM64 is part of the "Mario series" that started with SMB, but it is not directly descended from SMB in terms of gameplay and such. That timeline of games that directly descend from SMB is SMB -> SMB2 -> SMB3 -> SMW -> NSMB -> NSMBW. These can be considered SMB's direct sequels, where as other "Mario series" games can be considered "indirect sequels" or, for some games, "spinoffs". Xenon54 / talk / 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "direct sequel" and "indirect sequel", just "sequel". This has nothing to do with the topic though, so let's get back on track. TJ Spyke 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am digressing quite a bit. Apologies. (The only reason I brought up the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" was because I think the article was specifically worded that way a long time ago -- pre-NSMB, the lead said "SMB spawned four direct sequels and numerous spin-offs.")

Toughguy, the reason why gameplay tips and secrets don't belong here is because this is an encyclopaedia. We aim to give a general overview of the topic at hand -- a summary of the information required to understand the topic without going too in-depth -- just as a paper encyclopaedia would. Someone who knows nothing about Super Mario Bros. won't care that if he were to play it, he could beat the game in 8 levels, nor would he care that by discovering a hidden area he can skip around the level structure as he pleases. He would want basic information about how the game works, plus maybe a little information of the timeline of the game's development, and then he would want to know how critics and the general public received the game. All articles are supposed to focus on those three points, but the most text should be put toward the last one. Xenon54 / talk / 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If "gameplay secrets" don't belong here, why is there mention of world -1, that is much more of a secret as it was a mistake. The warp tunnels were put in intentionally. While I don't disagree with your comment about the gameplay secrets, why is a reletivly unknown secret (world -1)in rather than a well known. Toughguy223 / talk / 15:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Minus World is widely known and and is the subject of material published by reliable sources; therefore, any information someone writes about it is theoretically verifiable. The warp zones, meanwhile, do not have the same level or amount of information available, and, again, in the past editors of this page have come to a consensus that their mention would be too game-guidey. Xenon54 / talk / 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

'Titular' character (opening paragraph)?

Why not change this to 'lead' character? Chevymontecarlo. 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "lead" is subjective; the word "titular" is not. Simply calling Mario the "lead" character is technically synthesis -- you're using information given in the article, or gleaned from playing the game, to draw your own conclusion -- unless a reliable source can be found, of course, that refers to him as the "lead" character. Changing the word to "lead" would also, in theory, require a discussion to examine sources and establish a consensus that Mario is actually the "lead" character. Conversely, since the title is obviously Super Mario Bros., Mario can safely be called the "titular" character without any issues regarding original research.

Finally: yes, I know, the word "titular" contains the word "tit" and is pronounced "tit-ular" (well, at least I pronounce it that way). Still, those are not good reasons for the word to be changed. Xenon54 / talk / 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

profanity in introduction

Somebody might want to re-check the first sentence of the third paragraph.

Removed; it was vandalism. Remember Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so please don't hesitate to remove any vandalism you come across by clicking "history" at the top of the page, then clicking "undo" next to the edit that contains vandalism. Xenon54 / talk / 10:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does it require a citation?

I don't get why a citation is required for the Super Mario Bros. stage in Brawl...its an observation of the game there is no citation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.228.89 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read Original research. In short, anything gained from personal observation or research is inherently not verifiable by other editors and those who are reading the article. Britannica wouldn't take your word for it and neither do we. Xenon54 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros Deluxe save

I want to add that SMB DX added the possibility to save the game. Is there any reason why this wasn't in the article and I shouldn't put it? Can I use giantbomb.com as a source?--ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason that I can see why that should not be written. Do you have the link to a specific page which you were planning to cite as a source? A top-level domain is not enough; someone who is reading the article should be able to find the exact page where you got the information from. Xenon54 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason I asked you to post the link to the source. Citing other user-editable sites are strictly disallowed; the information there is completely unverifiable, so citing another wiki is not much of an improvement over not citing a source at all. Xenon54 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice the huge "Edit Article" button. I'll see if I can get a better source.--ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NA release date, again

Sorry to bother everyone, but I found this recently: http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol1_page3.jsp. Looks to be a series of interviews of Shigeru Miyamoto by Satoru Iwata. But what's more important is this footnote:

Super Mario Bros. was a platform game on the Nintendo Entertainment System released in Japan in September 1985 and in the US in March 1986.

Should the NA release date therefore be changed from "by March 1986" to definitively "March 1986"? Nintendo's main website still (unhelpfully) says just "1985". Xenon54 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that it's not Miyamoto stating it, only a footnote by the article's author. Plus it would be an example of one of several different dates given by Nintendo and Nintendo people, which is what lead us to have to do the consensus last time of "by 1986". And I get the feeling that the author of the page is referencing the Wikipedia article since none of their material to date has ever stated specifically March 1986 before or anything around that date, only we have. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To throw some potential confusion on to the fire, I was just made aware of this Oct 5, 1985 article in the Milwaukee Journal that lists Super Mario Bros. amongst the 17 titles that are going to be available in 1985. It's the first detailed contemporaneous source that I can really remember seeing about the NES launch. The article promises more information will also be in the Oct 19 & Oct 26 issues of the same paper. Do we have the means to track them down? Brideck (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1) All the Journal articles are online through google news. 2) That's simply an announcement of intended availability and not a statement of it actually being available. Its accuracy on forward looking statements is not implied, and in fact that's further illustrated by how it says "next Tuesday" (which would have been October 8th) for the NES unveiling when it wasn't until the 18th. 3) Even the US copyright database shows SMB was not available on the 18th as the package was first finished on the 19th and the manual not until the 31st. One would expect them to be promoting a game already launched in Japan, but not finished yet for the US, in their US press releases which is what Semrad was repeating along with his personal experience playing the proto NES at the June '85 CES in Chicago. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Are they? I wasn't able to track them down. Could you provide links? I'd like to read them even if they're not useful in this discussion. 2) Agree with both of these points. I do find it interesting that it would ever have been promoted as "coming in 1985" given that according to the other sources listed above a localized version hadn't even been produced yet. Maybe it just turned out to be a bigger job than Nintendo had planned. 3) The US Copyright database doesn't always seem to be 100% accurate when it comes to these things. For example, Pinball's box has a date of 10/1 while its manual is 10/31. Kung Fu's box is 10/31 and its manual is 10/15. I don't think anyone has ever argued that those two titles weren't available at launch. 4) I know it would constitute original research, but I might try to get some folks on various Nintendo forums to examine the date codes on their copies of SMB. I've personally not seen any from 1985, although I've probably only looked at a dozen or so. It would be interesting to see if anyone could find one. Brideck (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Unfortunately google news doesn't let you directly look up by dates (at least none that I know). You have to try a roundabout way of looking up something from that day or week and hoping its indexed. I also happen to live in Milwaukee and can look up the stuff on microfiche locally. 2) I don't recall it seeing promoted as "coming in 1985", rather just as one of the games planned to be available for the system in general once the system is available. Most likely they didn't plan on it taking longer or it was a last minute addition to the NES initial titles based on the rising popularity of it in Japan with its release just less than a month before (which seems more likely given the sources). 4) The US Copyright dates are literally by the dates filled out by the applicant (Nintendo) at the time. The publication date is defined as "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public.". So no, according to what Nintendo filled out, those dates are when the said material (box and manual) were first available to the public (i.e. outside Nintendo.). There is nothing inaccurate about them, they are 100% percent accurate on the information filed. What may be inaccurate is people's perception of "launch" and what it was. October 18th is simply when they did the publicity of the official "unveiling" and started approaching stores and locations in the New York area to carry it for the test market. That doesn't mean, boom! they were available throughout the New York area on the 18th. Sales didn't really start until after Thanksgiving in to November, when the actual Christmas season sales started, which is when the first ads started appearing in New York newspapers (I have copies from several news services). It is entirely possible to have not had Kung Fu and Pinball ready for physical sales until the beginning of November, which it appears more and more that these dates are lining up for an end of October date for completion of the game materials (manuals and such). The copyright filing is about protecting those works, which companies take very seriously, because it protects their works. A company is not going to put material out there before a copyright filing, and when it does file it has to take that publication date very serious or it screws with their defense should someone claim it to have something earlier than the filing or granting dates. 5) Which date codes? On the chips or the label? The label is always going to say 1985 because the copyright application for the game itself was filed off the Japanese version and Japanese publication date of 9/14/85. How copyright of actual games works is usually a representation of the game itself (usually a VHS tape of it in those games) is sent in to provide a representation of the visual works. Unfortunately that's what's screwing us up with having an actual US publication date for SMB. Likewise, the Kung Fu packaging filing also states its purpose is "New Matter: some artwork, text & ill." which means they could have had the box done earlier (and been going off the Famicom version) and that was just a filing based on changes. Such is the case with Pinball as well, whose initial copyright is followed off the audio visual works off the Vs arcade release on 7-26-84 with a supplement filing sometime in 1985. Remember, for the June CES showing and the subsequent press they didn't need to have boxes and manuals done, just the games themselves - most of which were already released Famicom games. Its when you go to actual sales that you have to have that material complete of course. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

4) If they're accurate, doesn't this dispute the 1986 date for SMB? Like you said, the copyright DB has 10/19 & 10/31, and if it's accurate that would mean that it was "made available to the public" in some form in the tail end of 1985. 5) Date codes on the actual chips. For example, I have a Wrecking Crew where the codes for the three chips are PRG: 8542, CHR: 8542, CIC: 8541. That tells me that it was likely assembled in the 42nd week of 1985. This corresponds to the end of October. The earliest chip code I've seen for each game generally corresponds to its estimated street date within a week or so. Looking at codes for the oldest looking copies of SMB would provide more (albeit inadmissable) evidence one way or the other. Brideck (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

4) No, as stated it does not state release date. Just that the material needed to actually sell the game (box and manual) was not available before that date hence release for sales would have to be after it. It does not list the actual release date of the NA version of the game is stated, which is why we have to go by the direct interviews and such (which I'm not going to go over again, it's was a very long discussion process at the video game project page that continued from here, and is fully archived). Secondly, the date in this article says "by March 1986" not "1986", leaving it open for a possibly earlier date. If something supporting an earlier date can be found (advertisements, etc.) that can still be changed, but 1986 were the earliest advertisements at the time of the discussion that could be found. 5) Yes, chip dates would help - however it still would not provide an actual sales date. My guess is at some point it's going to be found it was available for sales in November of '85 or later. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the kind folks over at NA has found an SMB from the 42nd week of 1985 which is consistent with anything I've ever seen for any of the other October launch titles. If that's the case, I wonder what all the documented recollections of SMB not being ready are all about? The chip info, plus the copyright db info for the box/instructions, and 1985 news article seem pretty conclusive to me. Unless you're proposing that they had everything printed, games manufactured, etc. and just kept their best game sitting in a storeroom for some reason. Brideck (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, once again the Milwaukee article states planned releases not actual relesaes. The documented recollections are from the people who were actually in charge of NOA at the time and hands on in the October launch - and they are factual - the chips just backed it up even further. Chip info is not release info, it's fabrication info of the chips - when the bulk run of chips were created, not used. It does not state the manufacturing date of the cartridge itself, which (having been involved in this on a professional level) happens anywhere from a few weeks to several months later. The way it works is chips and pcbs are ordered and manufactured seperately, their availability and arrival depending on the materials demand in the market. Then they each get shipped, then whoever is doing the manufacturing of the cartridge itself puts them together. And once again it disproves being ready for Oct. 18th and backs up the documented recollections, as the 42nd week of 1985 was the work week of Oct. 21-25th. First being fabricated during that time, combined with the box and manual dates all support it was not ready for the claimed Oct 18th launch. As previously stated, my guess is at some point it's going to be found it was available for sales in November of '85 or later. And please, leave the grandstanding commentary "Unless you're proposing that they had everything printed, games manufactured, etc. and just kept their best game sitting in a storeroom for some reason." out of the discussion, that's not what was being stated, and a complete missinterpretation of the facts and previous commentary to even try and state that --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Grandstanding"... love it. Especially that you had to link to it to show me what it meant as if I were a 7-year old child. Anyway, not attempting to do so... just stating that with all the evidence in hand, it would make the case of SMB truly exceptional when compared to every other NES game manufactured during this era. As I stated, the 42nd week of 1985 is as early as I've ever seen any other CIC chips to be dated. Granted those dates are not in time for the Oct 18th launch, as you stated, but would still line up decently for a 1985 availability which is all I've ever specifically been arguing for. Either way, those dates pretty strongly contradict the linchpin quote from Kent's book that "it took a few months to create an American version of the game". At the least it contradicts the notion that those few months came after the game had already been released in Japan. Just not sure why all of this evidence is deemed worse than a series of quotes from a book that may have been recollected incorrectly, especially when faced with a concrete cartridge from that period. I didn't come in here with a particular agenda, as I understand the rationale behind the 1986 date, and I wasn't even expecting to actually find a copy manufactured so early. But now that I have, my thinking has changed.Brideck (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Take it how you want it, you appear to not be very involved at Wikipedia so I pointed you towards guidelines as I would for anyone else. And no, they don't contradict the "linchpin", they're clearly supported here. The agrument here has always been was whether it was available for the Oct 18th launch as the current Nintendo claimed, and it has once again been proven it was not. The "linchpin quote" and time period is a direct quote from NOA president Arakawa and Lincoln who were hands on involved with the New York launch and directly stated when they went to New York it had not yet been introduced. That's not an "incorrect recollection", an individual recollection is something an indvidual makes. Kent, who I verified with for the discussion on this over at the video game project pages, interviewed Arakawa, Licncoln, and the rest of the main players of NOA for this information - a group. And sorry but from a professional research standpoint, information directly from the group of people involved (including quotes), always trumps guessing and surmising. That's why we took their info over the current NOA's information, who we found simply comes from a canned database that everyone there uses with no idea where it came from. For the third time, I'm sure we'll find that it was available sometime in November or December '85 - but without concrete citable verification of it's actual availability, we can't fully state that yet. That's why we went with the by March '86 date because that was the soonest we could find an actual store advertisement for the game. I'm still hunting for a verifiable New York area one for SMB, and when that occurs I'll be more than happy to have the date changed to whatever month the advertisement is from. But none of Kent's quotes from Arakawa and Lincoln have been disproven so far, including the few months one which simply states that it took a few months to develop a US version and certainly available by the National launch in '86 - it was not stating or implying it was not available before that. What the previous issue with late '85 was with the few months statement, is to whether it was a pack-in during the '85 launch (which the current NOA has erroneously claimed), or not (which of course it was not). Japan didn't start packing it in until several months after SMB's Japanese introduction because of how quick it became a hit, and the packin of SMB came in '86. It gets tiresome going around and around on here in various articles with people similar to you who pop in and do this, becuase I have to keep typing more and more and longer to further explain things that are part of a professional research process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're projecting the launch argument on to me. I've never once argued for it being a launch title, just that it was released in 1985 given the evidence. We're going around in circles here so I clearly just need to get out of here. I was only looking to interject new concrete materials to the 17-page debate which I think I've done as I don't think I saw the Oct '85 article, the copyright database, or chip mfg dates mentioned anywhere in here. If you feel you need to find a circular or receipt from 1985 showing that someone bought the thing in NYC in that period, more power to you.75.72.206.27 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't change October 18, 1985 to March 1986! It says in Super Smash Bros. Melee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.162.122 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. You clearly did not read or participate in the countless hours of discussion, e-mailing and searching that pretty definitively prove that October 18, 1985 cannot possibly be correct. There's a reason it says Don't change without discussing first!. Xenon54 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1986 NA release date

Umm...could someone sum up those discussions above? Where the March 1986 release date comes from, in particular. I find it a bit ludicrous that the release date includes the warning notice "Don't change without discussing first", but at the same time fails to be verifiable for editors. Prime Blue (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, October 18, 1985 was the date that Nintendo began attempting to sell the NES to stores in New York. They only sold half of them, so in early 1986 they moved to Los Angeles to try again. Meanwhile, a couple of months earlier (December 1985, maybe) SMB had been selling well in Japan, so Hiroshi Yamauchi and Minoru Arakawa decided to start development of an English version. At the same time SMB became a Famicom pack-in game. The first physical evidence for a US release is an ad in the March 13, 1986 Los Angeles Times for SMB, Tennis and Kung Fu. (Search Google News for the ad's preview.) But that only confirms that Nintendo went to Los Angeles, not necessarily a national release, which we really want. Full-blown articles begin around July-August 1986 in the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and other papers. Most of this comes from The Ultimate History Of Video Games by Steven Kent. E-mails to Nintendo have proved fruitless, as they don't know or (less likely) don't want to tell us where they got October 18, 1985.

Since the last time we went through this, this press release was also issued: "Since the series' debut in North America on the NES in 1986, more than 222 million Super Mario Bros. games have been sold worldwide. Mario remains one of the most recognizable characters in the entertainment world, and stands as a symbol of fun worldwide." Surely Nintendo has better editorial practices than to get that date from us.

Also, Boys' Life volume 77, issue 4, page 10 (Google Books), in an article about SMB, mentions the NES as going on sale in September 1986 "after testing the waters of New York and Los Angeles."

The New York Times Guide To Essential Knowledge (2007, Google Books): "Quantities of the NES were shipped into the New York market in time for Christmas 1985, with national distribution following early in 1986."

Those two last sources seem to back up Kent's account. In any case, it would be a little difficult to release a game nationally before its console. I defer to Marty Goldberg for further questions relating to sources. Xenon54 (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Summing it up besides what Xenon already stated (and there was a much longer discussion at the video game project page), the US copyright database also showed the box and manual were not complete until the end of October - after the claimed Oct 18th release for it, showing it could not have been released until at least November '85. Likewise no actual ad could be found for SMB in available resources before early March '86. With all this and what Xenon stated, it was decided by consensus (at the project) that putting "by March 1986" was the right thing to do. As I also stated in the latest round, above, my feeling is we'll find something eventually for a November or December '85 availability. But until verifiable/reliable material for that time is found, early March '86 was the earliest a verifiable/reliable source could be found. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

New developments: an e-mail from a second level support agent at Nintendo partially proves and partially disproves Steven Kent's account and the conclusions that were made at the end of discussion a year ago. October 18, 1985 was the day that the NES -- and, according to the agent, SMB -- was sent to "22 retailers in the New York tri-state area". But I assume we are interested in general availability, for which the agent gave me a month but not a day -- January 1986. Just a minute ago I asked if he was sure that they didn't know the day. I will forward a copy of the e-mail to anyone who asks me via e-mail. Now, the bigger concerns are: should we accept this as gospel? Can e-mails even be cited here? Xenon54 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that does not really help at all. Nintendo has always claimed the game came to the U.S. at the same time the NES was launched in New York City, but all the discussion here has been about how that official line may be in error. Until a contemporary advertisement, newspaper article, or internal company memo surfaces showing a 1985 date, doubt will remain. Indrian (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, doesn't matter if it's secondary level or any level or various different departments. They all get their information to the same internal database. Likewise, they were not Kent's account, but rather directly Arakawa's and Lincoln's via interview. And once again the copyright database entries for the box and manual back it up as well. Xenon, feel free to email me (Special:EmailUser/Wgungfu)a copy of the email regardless if you like, I'd like to talk to this agent further - hopefully it's not the usual woman that answers their email questions. She appears to take everything in their database as gospel. So I'm clear, you're stating that the agent said SMB was sent as an evaluation/promo copy to the retailers in Oct. of '85 but that the game itself wasn't available for sale to the general public until January of '86? If it turns out to be true, that would simply change the context of Arakwa's statement to not being available - for sale - at the launch. And it would also fit in to why the manual and box were first being completed yet. The problem I have now as well is that we've now got three different dates and contexts from out of Nintendo. 1) Oct. 18th, 1985. 2) Oct. 18th to retaliers with sales in January of '86. 3) 1986. Which further complicates their reliability as a resource. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter which date is given, I think it should definitely be sourced (probably with multiple sources, even) as there obviously still is disagreement over this. Else, users would be left in the dark as to why this date was used as soon as this section is archived. The original consensus also implied that the ambiguity of the North American release date should be explained in the article as well. I would appreciate if either Xenon54 or Wgungfu could add this with references, as you two are probably the most competent editors on the subject. I guess the explanation could be based on Mario777Zelda's rough outline. Prime Blue (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How is that information off-topic?

It's information, direct from the developer, about why a certain mechanic is the way it is, and why it changed from the previous game.----occono (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be better suited in Mario Bros., I believe. Change the "Reception" section to "Reception and legacy" and tie it in somehow -- "In Mario Bros., jumping on turtles caused Mario to die. In subsequent games in the Mario series, jumping on turtles is the only way to attack them, and this is why..." The Gameplay section here has to be a description of gameplay that is as basic and concise as possible, in order to give someone who has never played before basic context in reading the rest of the article. Adding text that is largely a description of differences from a previous game may confuse readers and is outside the scope of the section anyway. You could create a "Development" section, but with just that one bit I don't think there's enough substance to warrant another section. Xenon54 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there's more information about development in the interview I cited, plus some Iwata Asks interviews and other things. I think I can pull together enough for a development section at some point. Thanks for the reply.----occono (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a problem with the new part because as soon as you start talking about tricks and that, it ventures in to game guide material. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's really detailed enough to be considered a game guide, it's just detailing why the mechanics of the game came to be.----occono (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario 25 Picture ::

I have no idea how pictures work on Wikipedia. I think it'd be nice if someone could take a picture similar to this one: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/10/500x_mario252.jpg So we could showcase the graphical change in this edition. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.27 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

36th tile?

The only way for the 36th tile to be a blank is if the number 0 and the letter o are used for both. That's because there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and 10 numbers from 0 to 9, which add up to 36. You'd have to have 35 (1-9 and 26 alphabet letters) for the 36th to be a blank. If you look closely, the o and the 0 in Super Mario Brothers differ slightly (notice on the Thank you MariO while there's a ZERO in your score, and you'll see the difference). So, is it really the 36th, or the 37th tile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.25.16 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the basic rules of computer science is that if you need to count, you start counting from 0. So, yes, the space is the 37th tile -- if "0" is the first tile. But "0" is actually the zeroth tile, making the space the 36th tile. Xenon54 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no development section?

Considering how much development information exists, it seems odd that there is nothing in the way of it here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've since written one. It's coming along nicely :)----occono (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/mario25th/vol5_page1.jsp [More info here, if anyone'll add it.]--occono (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible Confirmation of 1985 Release Date

Well, after all the discussion and digging that has been done here and at the video games project page, I may have just found the smoking gun for a 1985 release date. Unfortunately, it is in a paid database and cannot be reporduced here for copyright reasons. What I have discovered is a Macy's ad that appeared on page 29 of the November 17, 1985 issue of the New York Times for the Nintendo Entertainment System in the ProQuest Historical New York Times database. For reference purposes, this ad is called "Display Ad 23 -- No Title" in the database. This ad lists all the games available for the NES and includes an entry for "Super Mario." While I cannot reproduce the ad itself here, I have all the information I need to cite it in the article itself. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem just citing the info for the ad. If that's the case, then it falls in line with what I stated earlier - that we'd most likely find some kind of ad for a November release. A November release of course supports the copyright database info that the box and manual were not finished until the end of October. Figuring in manufacturing and distribution, mid November seems about right. I would say a date change to November 17th, 1985 sounds good with a reference to the Macy's ad. Macy's in NY were of course major launch site for the NES as is was for most console and home computer test marketing/launches in that early through mid-80's era. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice job! I searched a couple of databases that I access to (including Proquest) several times, but unfortunately since ads are not well indexed I had to limit my searches to actual articles. I just searched again and indeed I found the same ad without any trouble. The ad says "Video Robots" with a large picture of ROB in the center. "Super Mario" is listed as retailing for $25. I would go for November 17, 1985 as well -- but is it usual for video games to be released on a Sunday? Xenon54 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, there were no release standards back then as far as a certain time of the week etc. And a weekend would have been common for a department store promo like this - especially a Sunday, which is traditionally a family day in the US.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of how, for example, most movies are released on Friday and most DVDs on Tuesday. But after surveying several release dates there did not appear to be some sort of pattern back then. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that are we certain that this is the day? Should we be assuming that the ad ran on the day of release or within a couple of days? Xenon54 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can only go by what we have and the release date of the ad itself is irrelevant in this regards since the ad is addressing a specific event/date. It's about when the game was actually first released. We have verifiable confirmation it was being sold on that day of November 17th (and not just announced as a planned game, as a price was given for the day). The ad/event is in regards to that day only, so we have no idea one way or the other if it was available a day or two earlier there. We can only go by what we actually have, and knowing that Macy's is a major major test location - the kind you base an event around. They (the small group of NOA in NY including Arakawa and Lincoln) were setting up and staffing these events themselves. My thoughts are that if they were at that location sooner (Friday/Saturday), they would have made it a weekend event and stated more dates than just that Sunday in the ad. They probably took Friday and Saturday as prep time for such an important location. And in the end, we are left with this as the earliest verifiable and reliable "the day" currently available. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Super Mario History Booklet from SMAS: LE says it was released on October 18, 1985. --Jayt55 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As the HTML comment in the article said, please read the rest of the discussion before changing the date. Doubt has been cast on October 18th -- Nintendo doesn't know where they got that date from -- and our consensus at the current time is that the date is not correct. November 17th is the earliest date on which the game was verified as being available to the public. Xenon54 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Release date, part IV

This horse has been hanged, drawn and quartered by now, but nevertheless I came across this article by David Dayton of TMK, in which he settles on 31 October 1985 as the "most likely" release date. He references the copyright office and most of the articles and newspaper clippings that we've already been through, but he also sent an e-mail to Gail Tilden, who, according to Dayton, was head of marketing at the NES's New York launch, and who seems to confirm that SMB was available at some point during the launch, even if it wasn't on 18 October. Did anyone else see this? Perhaps this debate can be finally put to rest? Xenon54 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good article and repeats much of what we already uncovered here. The problem is it's still a guess. He's assuming that's when it was first sold (i.e. released) because of the copyright filing, when what the copyright database states is when it was first made available for public consumption. This can be off-press date, your shipping date, or your publication date (i.e. available for purchase). We have no way of knowing which was intended and normally in video games you want to get the copyright done as early in the process as possible. So I'm inclined to believe Oct. 31st is the off-press date (same with the slightly earlier date for the box). Additionally it's still just the date given for the manual and not the entire product. As shown by the earlier box publication date and the discussion about the chip manufacturing, it simply shows a timeline of when the reources for the finished product were being produced. Not their assembly (as a single finished product), not their shipping and distribution, and not the selling of the finished product. Regardless, we're still left with the only form of evidence that doesn't require any sort of interpretation being the Macy's launch as we discussed previously. I'd be comfortable with changing the release date to that Macy's date as we previously discussed, but not the Oct. 31st because of the reasons I stated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

pc version

i have played it myself so i know that it exists. could anybody find a source to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No PC version exists. ROMs played on PC emulators don't count. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mario Story

There isn't anything in the article regarding the story behind Mario/Luigi and how they got from Brooklyn to the Mushroom Kingdom. My knowledge isn't encyclopedic, but I would have thought that such a pivotal idea would at least be included, as well as how it was then contradicted in the opening story of Yoshi's Island. And yes, there's nothing in the Yoshi's Island entry which covers the disparity in the two stories either. As Baby Mario/Luigi have become (essentially) characters in their own right (as used in the Mario Kart games Double Dash and Mario Kart Wii) I think that something to tie up, or at least try to explain the thinking behind the change would be useful. It all depends on whether such information exists, but the bottom line is that the Mario story is one of the most important in the history of gaming, to just go from 'development' to 'gameplay' and omit the backstory puts a big hole in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.248.49 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. = Japanese inside sex joke?

"Ana no kyuodai" in Japanese slang means "hole brothers", two (or more) men who have had sex with the same woman. I wonder if Super Mario brothers have been a big inside joke all of this time: *plumbers* going down pipes, both rescuing the same princess. Maybe Japanese think "Ana no" sounds like Mario.. Kyuodai like Luigi. 216.227.117.35 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find independent, reliable sources making the same points, they possibly could be added. But this sounds like one person's interpretation, and thus original thought, which is not acceptable. --McDoobAU93 02:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

PEGI Rating

Was just changed from 7+ to 3+, so I decided to do some research.

As seen from the PEGI Website:

• The GBA NES Classicis rated 3+;
• A Nintendo 3DS release is rated 3+, it is unclear whether this is a Virtual Console version or the one given as part of the Ambassador Program;
• The Wii Virtual Console release is rated 7+.

It is not immediately clear what was the original NES release's rating (or if there was any). Salvidrim (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Top-Selling Game

I don´t think that the article should state that Wii sports has surpassed Mario in terms of sold copies. This is a highly discussed topic and there is no official data to clear it out. It is a matter of definition. I, personally, think it makes no sense whatsoever calling a 100% bundled game that has never even been sold alone outside of Japan the most-sold game of all time. And if we did, I´m pretty sure that the "best-selling game of all time" would be Solitaire. If Wii sports has to be mentioned, this whole argument should be mentioned, preferably in an own section. --77.10.93.159 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A side note -- I've bought Wii Sports as a standalone title in North America. Salvidrim! 23:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed available for a time, but the stand-alone-purchases don´t come any close to Super Mario´s sales. Valid argument is valid. --77.10.106.190 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"No official data"? Nintendo of Japan President Satoru Iwata said so himself that Wii Sports outsold Mario. Most copies of Super Mario were sold bundled with the NES, so it's no different with Wii Sports being bundled with the Wii. I don't see what's wrong with stating this fact in the article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no official Data that compares the stand-alone sells of Mario to those of Wii Sports. But it is obvious who would be the winner. Even though there were NES/Mario bundles, the cartridge was also sold seperately and everywhere. I think it´s all about definitions, whether the total sales with bundles count, or only the stand-alone sales, and if it has to be sold seperately from the beginning and if Minesweeper and Solitaire count as a video game. Well, for me, they do. --77.10.113.201 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Any attempt to compare unbundled sales without any evidence would be a violation of WP:OR and therefore not permissible. Since reliable sources as well as the company's president have said that Wii Sports has outsold this game we need to include that here unless there are reliable sources challenging the claim and so far that has yet to happen.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to the GameFaqs Page for Super Mario Bros. under External Links

I've been going through some of the NES/Famicom game pages that exist here in Wikipedia and seeing if they have links to their pages on GameFaqs in the External Links section. I've been using the standard GameFaqs template for making links, such as the following:

• {{GameFAQs|type=console/nes/home/|num=525243}}

Which would look like this with the spaces removed, and a "name" added

• Super Mario Bros. at GameFAQs

The template details can be found at its page here:

The GameFaqs page contains relevant information that may not be suitable for Wikipedia, but is suitable for GameFaqs. They contain detailed credits of who did what on the game, provide information on game cheats that I know many people have mentioned in Talk Archives before, and also contains release information for when the game, and ports of the game, were released globally.

I think it would help add to the Wikipedia article and provide an easy to access storage space for information that people may want, but is not suited for the purposes and guidelines of Wikipedia. What do you folks think?

OtakuMan (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Super Mario Bros. Deluxe GBC cartridge.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Super Mario Bros. Deluxe GBC cartridge.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Super Mario Bros. Deluxe GBC cartridge.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Link to picture of Macy's ad in the New York Times for US release of Super Mario Bros. for the NES

This is a link to the Macy's ad in the New York Times for the American release on the NES. The link is for this reference ---> New York Times: p. A29. November 17, 1985. Here is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lostlevels/5106061662/sizes/l/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.56.11 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't confirm the release date, though.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why we list a specific day for the North American release, as the long discussion held on this topic previously could not produce a concrete source. Further attempts by a fan site and, most recently, a Gamasutra article added some first-hand recollections to the print and government sources previously unearthed by wikipedia editors, but this research only further proved there are no good sources, only conflicting pieces of circumstantial evidence. The New York Times advertisement only demonstrates that Macy's was marketing the game on November 17, 1985 and makes no claim as to the first day of the game's availability. In the previous discussion, this ad was discovered by and presented here by me to show that the game must have been released in 1985, since at the time many editors, myself included, were beginning to favor the idea of a 1986 release date due to a lack of 1985 sources, but I never intended to argue that the ad confirms a specific release day. To use this as a source for the North American release date is deceptive and irresponsible. Indrian (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gamasutra Article suggesting either NA date as October 19 or November 17, 1985

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/167392/sad_but_true_we_cant_prove_when_.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.190.252 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Emphasis on suggesting. Drawing reasonable conclusions based on navigating a series of conflicting sources is a wonderful and informative intellectual exercise but does not, in fact, provide a factually certain release date. While those findings could certainly be discussed in the body of the article, they provide no help for the infobox, because even well-researched and well-reasoned speculation is still speculation. Indrian (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. Maybe I should have discussed this here first, but I've added the above ref to the release date. The ref does back up the 1985 date given in the article and it is a listed RS unlike the Mushroom Kingdom (currently listed as situational) which uses Wikipedia in its list of sources (EDIT: To be fair, it's attributed and not taken as fact). The Gamasutra article was inspired by the Mushroom Kingdom piece so there may be a little redundancy, but overall I think it adds to the reader's understanding of the problem more than it detracts. If there is a problem with it then please remove it. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all; it is a good piece with solid research. The only problem would be using this to add a specific date in the infobox since there is nothing definitive in the research. In the body of the article or as an additional source for a 1985 release date is just fine. Indrian (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

when was it included with the NES, and how many copies did it sell before then?

Were its high sales figures only because it was freely included with the Nintendo after a certain time period? Did it sell well before then? This information would be good to have in the article if anyone knows the answer. Dream Focus 09:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Release date, again...

I just reverted an edit saying that Super Mario Bros. came out on October 18th 1985, without discussing first. As there was a 'Don't change this without agreement' template, I deleted the info. If anyone has problems, leave it on my talk page. Darrman1 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Who developed Super Mario Bros. ?

According to allgame, it's "Nintendo R&D4" : http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=1320. According to Mobygames, it's "Nintendo Co., Ltd." and "Systems Research & Development Co., Ltd." : https://www.mobygames.com/game/nes/super-mario-bros. The other databases (such as Gamefaqs and Giant Bomb) only list "Nintendo". Which one should be listed here ? Hell Pé (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend checking Wikipedia's own article on Nintendo. It clearly lists all of Nintendo's Research & Development teams which fall under the umbrella of Nintendo EAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Peach or Toadstool?

Has there been a discussion on which names should be used already? Magicperson6969 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Princess Peach and Princess Toadstool lead to the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Toadstool was used in the official English localization for this game, as well as many others. It is more accurate to refer to her as "Toadstool" here. Also, as IP said, both names lead to the same article, so it would be unnecessary to write something like "Princess Toadstool (later renamed Princess Peach)..." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Fullscreenmario.com mention

Hi, over at Video game requests there was a request for fullscreenmario.com which has actually received coverage, both as a game and after the closure. I don't think it's enough to warrant a full article, but do you think it could be included in this article, perhaps as part of the 're-releases' section? Samwalton9 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response thus far I have added this to the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not an official re-release of Super Mario Bros. Fan projects, despite coverage, don't count as "re-releases." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That was my only concern. Where do you suggest it be added? Samwalton9 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

US Release officially found!

Click here

According to Gamasutra writer Frank Cifaldi, Super Mario Bros. was trial-released on 18 October 1985 in New York, and the national release was before early 1986. People are still confused, though. As of now, the predicted dates are:

1985

October

• 13th(from Super Mario All-Stars's prediction)
• 18th
• 31st

November

• 17th

1986

• 1986

---

That's all! :) -GLaDOS996 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• With the exception of a couple of small quotes from interviews he conducted himself, Frank actually just took all of the stuff we dug up on this talk page and reproduced it for Gamasutra without any attribution, which I consider poor form. The article was an interesting read, but it does not add anything to what we already knew. Indrian (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact is left out that when Gail Tilden was questioned on The Mushroom Kingdom (which continued the research started here) and shown the copyright database info, she admitted she could be mistaken about her claimed assertion about it being available on the 18th at FAO. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

North American Release Date of Super Mario Bros. in NES

I think its real that the release date is Oct. 18. Stop undoing it. I found it on gamespot and that site is legit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloAgainstWiki (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

GameSpot may be a reliable source, but so are many others that have different release dates. Which one's correct? There in lies the problem. There are too many conflicting sources to give a definite release date in NA. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I am sorry if I started a war just by a release date. I am not going to undo until we found the real release date... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloAgainstWiki (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, Nintendo itself says October 18, as was published in its Super Mario History: 1985-2010 booklet that was included in Super Mario All-Stars 25th Anniversary Edition. I would think that would add some weight, even if it is a primary source for such information. --McDoobAU93 15:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, check the archives. There was a whole discussion regarding that already, there's nobody left there from back then, they just get their info from a canned database, and it conflicts with a host of other info including Nintnedo's own copyright filings from the time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That answers my question ... thanks! --McDoobAU93 15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm back with another legitimate source that I don't think has been mentioned in the discussion before. I'd looked at the copyright database before, but never at the US trademark database (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4801:atkahe.1.1). It's entry for Super Mario Bros. lists 19851018 as the first use in commerce, much like the entries for Nintendo Entertainment System itself and other searchable launch titles like Clu Clu Land, Wild Gunman, and Wrecking Crew. --Brideck (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The USPTO was covered in the original discussion here (see the archives). Couple of problems with that. a) That's in a trademark filed years later that's retroactively looking back and stating when it was first used vs. something from the actual time. As was established, the current Nintendo gets it's info from an in-house database that everyone quotes from vs. an actual source from the time. So it would make sense that any of these later filings would also claim that date. b) First use in commerce does not mean release date of a game. It simply means the first time the item that's being trademarked (in this case drawings of Mario and related game art) were used in a commercial setting. That would include things like promotional materials and the like. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lowest possible score

Don't know if this can be of use for the page. [1] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

North American release in 1985

I seen the North American release but there was no month or date. It was released in North America in October 18, 1985. I will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfaddenskyler (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Read the sources. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

Let me edit your page pls ty Cassartois (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

SMB Deluxe NA Virtual Console release

SMB Deluxe was released on December 25, 2014 in North America. (216.252.30.100 (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

Infobox image

Currently, the North American and Australian artwork is used. The old European artwork uses the drawing design from the original Japanese release. If the 2nd infobox image is not allowed under WP:NFCC, shall the European artwork replace the American/Australian one instead? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No, per WP:STOPCHANGINGIT --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Atari 2600

Was Super Mario Bros. also released on the Atari 2600? I think I saw a video of it. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Maybe you're thinking of Mario Bros., which did come out on the Atari? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MIT article on Super Mario Bros.

I wonder if this would be a useful reference for this article. It talks about some abstract sciency stuff that I am not understanding too well, but have a look...

• Hardesty, Larry. "“Super Mario Brothers” is hard." MIT News. June 1, 2016.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Super Mario Bros. was a top hit game when it first came out. Over 1,800 was sold in one day. H5macste (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – // Hounder4 // 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"Pseudo-sequel"

What exactly is a pseudo-sequel? 47.152.93.124 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• It means "fake-sequel" pretty much, but this isn't needed as Super Mario Bros. is the direct successor to Mario Bros, so I removed it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

As a fan of the Mario series, I find this information inaccurate. First the "Bricks with a question marks" are called Question Mark Blocks and the Mushroom is colored Red and Orange, not Red and Yellow. I hope that you have taken my advice and Write back. I can be reached at Personal information removed. . Thank you for our consideration.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Going Backwards

When I was a kid it was one of the most frustrating aspects of the game. As the screen scrolls you can't go back. I would really appreciate some mention of this in the article and a technical explanation, because it is one of the biggest aspects of game play and it's completely overlooked in the article. --The_stuart (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unless a reliable source states the same issues, then it doesn't belong. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Speed Runs

Gamesdonequick is taking place at the moment and that made me wonder if top Speed Run times would be mentioned in games' articles. Apparently not. Has nobody thought of that or is it considered unencyclopedic to include these for some reason? OdinFK (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sources mentioning that the game has a popular speed running community are allowed, but detailed info such as exact times, names, and high score totals are considered WP:GAMECRUFT and shouldn't be included. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming of the game

I would like a researcher to investigate the naming of this game. To me, it sounds like a poorly translated Japanese that ended up as nonsense in English. Could it mean Mario's super brother, Mario Brothers (improved)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.56.157 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2017‎ (UTC)

• The game's official title is not up for debate, and if you are asking simply for discussion, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Vines

In the description of gameplay, the vines (which grow upwards from special blocks) are not mentioned. Yet, these are part of the iconic imagery of SMB. This game is one of the most important video games of all time, so I think the vines should be mentioned. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Source

• http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104562-Miyamoto-Reveals-Super-Mario-Bros-Development-Secrets

JOEBRO64 20:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

i would like to say how good this game was The Quinn Downs (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Check the user's other edits, its just opinion spam. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Super Mario Bros.. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol2_page2.jsp
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69rhpclDX?url=http://www.1up.com/features/mario-maestro to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3163588
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104055353/http://kotaku.com/203229/japanese-famicom-smb-minus-world?tag=gamingsupermariobros to http://kotaku.com/gaming/super-mario-bros/japanese-famicom-smb-minus-world-203229.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gameboy.ign.com/index/choice.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128095218/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various23.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various23.html

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) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge plot section with gameplay section??

This article has a lot wrong with it that needs to be fixed, and one thing I noticed was that the plot section is extremely short and looks somewhat out-of-place because of that. I would suggest expanding and elaborating upon it, but thinking about it there really isn't much to expand, as the game has a fairly simple and no-so-prevalent storyline. Which begs the question- should we perhaps merge the plot section with the gameplay section?? I mean, as I said, the plot of Super Mario Bros. isn't very complex at all and isn't a large aspect of the game either, and as pertaining to WP:VGORDER, games that have smaller storylines can simply cover the subject at the beginning of the gameplay section, so maybe we should just do that here?? I know this is a fairly big change to enact out of nowhere so I wanted to make sure to bring this subject to the talk page before making such a considerably drastic move. I'd highly appreciate some input on this and perhaps a discussion on the subject. Cheers. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario Bros./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I will tackle this classic. Comments to follow. Indrian (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds tight. I will start following up to comments as soon as possible (which should be fairly immediately). I know this is a late response, I just haven’t found the time to type out a reply until just now. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox and Lead

•  DoneThere are really two developers on this one, the Nintendo Creative Department and Systems Research and Development Company (SRD). The whole R&D4 thing appears to have been made up by dodgy English-language sources, for various Iwata Asks interviews reference the developers as being in the "Creative Department" and this interview in particular specifically explains that the Creative Department was the forerunner to EAD. As for SRD, at the time, Nintendo did not do any programming in-house, so SRD wrote the code for the game.

Changed this in the infobox (as well as the dev section)- have you got any suggestions as potential sources to use for SRD, by chance?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Source for SRD writing the code? Does the Iwata asks interview state this too? (not loading for me.) EDIT: Also, your claims of "disruption" are silly, the entire point of a GA review is to improve the article. Holding back on sources for no real reason does not accomplish this, nor does throwing around accusations. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Its disruptive because I ask for changes, nominator makes changes, and I review changes. Other editors are allowed to chime in, but if you just start removing stuff we are working on for the review then that becomes difficult. Anyway, Nintendo had no in-house programming capability until the Super Famicom. Toshihiko Nakago was an employee of the System Research and Development Corporation, which was a separate company that did a lot of the programming for Nintendo in the early days similar to Intelligent Systems. SRD was later purchased by Nintendo and became an internal division. In one of the the Iwata Asks interviews, Nakago explains his employment status. I will track it down before the end of the review, but not right now. Be patient, the source will get in eventually. In the meantime, there is literally no reason to take it out because putting that information in the article does not violate any Wikipedia policy. You should put a citation needed tag on it instead. THAT is improving the article; removing accurate information is not. Indrian (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? Removing unsourced (and WP:OR-looking) claims makes the article worse? I'm not being disruptive when I'm following one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, all you have to do is simply provide the source that states this. You are being combative for no real reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's see. Editor walks into an on-going GA review where the sourcing of that claim was already being discussed and instead of participating in that discussion takes unilateral action to remove accurate and verifiable, though currently unsourced, material from the article. So yeah, I would consider that unhelpful to the process. Now, the first time, sure you may not have been aware of the GA, that's fine. Now you are. So because you don't know Nintendo history very well you have decided to remove accurate information for which it is already understood sourcing is forthcoming because you consider it "OR-looking." That would be fine if there were not a GA review going on addressing this specific issue, but not under these circumstances. Indrian (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Doneit was first released in Japan in 1985 for the Famicom Disk System - SMB is not an FDS game. There was an FDS port, but that is not the original.

Fixed- This isn’t a sloppy inclusion is it?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Donethe player controls Mario and his brother, Luigi - This sentence construction implies that a single person is controlling both brothers.

Reworded as “the player controls Mario (or his brother, Luigi, in the game’s multiplayer mode)”

•  Donerunning and jumping through 8 worlds of levels - I would probably change this into 32 levels across 8 worlds or something, as just saying there are 8 worlds of levels does not provide a proper scope for the game.

Changged to simply “32 levels”. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't run or jump in the water worlds, remember? You just swim. Dream Focus 23:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Donedistinct power-ups that aid Mario on his quest - Mario AND Luigi, right?

Fixed this but shortened it a tad by simply saying “the brothers” (too vague?) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Donebegan development as a shooting game before the team decided to instead make it a side-scrolling platformer - This is incorrect. The Iwata Asks interviews make it clear that it was always a scrolling platformer featuring Mario. The shooting comes in because there were going to be some sky stages that played more like a shooter with Mario in a vehicle.

Decided to nix this completely from the lead. Will change it accordingly at some point in the dev section. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneNintendo's mascot - At the time Mario was not a company mascot.

Removed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneThe commercial success of Super Mario Bros. prompted the creation of two direct sequels both for the NES - Three, SMB2 Japan, SMB2 US, and SMB3.

Fixed.

• Since the above comments were made, the intro has been nearly completely rewritten. Overall, I like the rewrite, which greatly improves flow. It feels a little short now if this goes to FA, but its certainly sufficient for GA. Indrian (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Development

•  Donewas designed by Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka, both of whom belonged to Nintendo's former Entertainment Analysis and Development division at the time - Incorrect. They were members of the "Creative Department," a precursor to EAD, as revealed by Iwata Asks.

Changed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneAccording to Tezuka, the prototype initially was not a side-scrolling game, and the player controlled a 16 by 32 pixel square. - This is not quite what the sources say. They began experimenting with those features as you say, but its not like that was ever going to be the final game. Probably should be reworded to say something like "the developers started by creating a prototype in which the player moved a 16 by 32 pixel square around a single screen."

Noted and changed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneThe prototype was based around a shooting mechanic with considerably different controls. - That is not what the source says. It was always a scrolling platformer, but Mario could acquire a rocket at times and shoot enemies while driving it. This is further explained in the Iwata Asks interviews as well.

Changed wording to reflect this. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

•  DoneThe development team changed the game's focus to jumping action and they thus remapped the A button from shooting to jumping. - Again, I do not think the sources indicate this; they merely explain that the jump control changed. Jumping is present in the earliest design documents, the same ones that include the shooter elements.

Completely removed this sentence. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

World 1-1

•  DoneSuper Mario Bros. is the first side-scrolling video game featuring Mario, and one of the first video games directed and designed by Shigeru Miyamoto. - I don't think this sentence was meant to be here.

This sentence was left over from before I began working on the article, and I have no idea why it was even placed in the middle of that paragraph in the first paragraph. Either way, I completely removed it bc it was unsourced and not really even that relevant to anything. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Release

•  DoneSuper Mario Bros. was first released in Japan on September 13, 1985 for the Famicom Disk System, Nintendo's proprietary floppy disk drive for the Famicom - No it was not. It was a cartridge release. The FDS version came later and was a port of the cartridge ROM.

Fixed. Should this maybe be included in the ports or rereleases section or is it fine how it is??

•  DoneThis version of the game is extremely common in North America, with several copies of it having been manufactured and sold in the United States - Millions of copies were sold. Is this supposed to be variants? Also, there is a stray ref tag here.

Hehe, whoops. Removed the </ref> tag, and also switched the wording from "several" to "millions of".

Vs. Super Mario Bros.

•  Donewith several of them reappearing from the game’s Japanese sequel, Super Mario Bros 2. - Actually, its the other way around. The arcade game was made first and served as the springboard for making SMB2.

Noted and changed. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Remakes

 DoneI removed the fan remake because that is not an official release and renamed the section as a result. I note there is also a citation needed tag in the remaining paragraph, which needs to be fixed.

Ok, I dug up an Ars Technica article and added it for a source, as well as a bit of additional elaborative info. I didn't even catch that, thanks for pointing it out!! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Deluxe

 DoneI assume this was merged and redirected into this article. That's not a problem, but the reviews should be placed in the reception section.

Düne. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Reception

•  DoneWhen it was first released, Super Mario Bros. only received one English written review from Computer Entertainer / Video Game Update - This is not true. It was reviewed in some newspapers as well, for instance the Milwaukee Sentinel. You don't need to track down those reviews to reach GA status, but the incorrect statement about only one English-language review should be removed.

Fixed. Perhaps I will attempt to dig the Net Archives and somehow find this Milwaukee Sentinel review at some point down the line, but for now... hell no, too much work... TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

•  DoneIn the United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted an amicus brief citing social research that declared Super Mario Bros to be a violent video game. It was compared to Mighty Mouse and Road Runner, cartoons that depict a similar form of violence with little negative reaction from the public. - This paragraph does not really do a good job of explaining that the brief was in support of overturning a law about violent games and was merely making the point that tame cartoon violence like that found in the game appears in other forms of media without comment. They are not really declaring it a "violent" game.

Saving this point for last since it entails the most effort. I looked into the sources (mostly the first one) and reworked the paragraph's wording a bit to coincide more with the actual points of the event. I did rush this a bit, so it may need a little further elaboration, but i don't know. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the language a little bit more. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And that does it. A few factual things to clear up, but we are in good shape overall. I will therefore put this nomination  On hold while this concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. I’ll start tackling these ASAP. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this should do it- it looks like I've gotten through all of your notes. Please respond with any concerns or further suggestions/improvements you have. Kudos! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Indrian:, you're still here, yeah?? Not like there's a rush or anything- please do take your time, and there aren't any worries if you're busy or anything like that. It's just that it's been a few days since I finished up with your notes, and it occurred to me that I didn't tag you on it, so I wanted to make sure that it didn't somehow fly past your radar/get buried in your talk page or anything. Not to be a nuisance, I just want to be safe. :) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer: Thanks for checking in. I did hit a busy patch, but should have this wrapped up this week. I appreciate your patience. Indrian (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw an unreliable reference in the batch (that's Mushroom Kingdom), which is a minor 2b vio. (I would also caution against the press release I noticed--there might be others.) Some citations are not complete, which is not a problem for GAN but should be cleaned up. I would also encourage reviewing the use of the parameters in the citations--|work=/|website= should be used where a number of |publisher=s were used (and I'm sure I missed some in my edit just now). --Izno (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. This review is still ongoing, and I had not gone through all the sources yet. You are absolutely welcome to contribute some formatting suggestions to this review, as I have not yet engaged with the sources on that level. Indrian (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been waiting to conclude the review while Izno has been doing his welcome work on the source formatting. Now that he appears mostly done, I will wrap up shortly. Indrian (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Sequel

@TheDisneyGamer:Alright, lets continue the review. Thanks to Izno for his good work on source formatting! I have a few more source concerns as highlighted below.

•  DoneI see no indication that Transmission Zero is a reliable source, as it just appears to be someone's blog.
  • I’m afraid that you appear to be correct about this one- I didn’t look through every source and it seems that this one was added quite a long while ago and never caught/removed. I went ahead and did some digging, and I found this journalistic write-up that mentions the workings of the glitch in detail at one point- does this fly as reliable enough or is it too journalistic??? ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneRefs 27 and 28 on the Minus World from legends of localization and UK Business Insider have no source information included, just a link to the original web page.
  • Fixed both of these- I don’t know if I was wrong in my uses of publisher/website, so please feel free to correct me if needed. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 23:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneDitto refs 36-39 and 41 referencing various release formats.
  • Most of these were simply a result of me not wanting to go through the effort of typing out an entire citation template (especially on a mobile device, which makes it quite tedious) and thus leaving it as a mere link for the time being. Regardless, I have expanded all of theme.
•  DoneIs the website oprainfall actually reliable? I see no indication of editorial oversight.
  • Good point- found the official Euro website and used that instead. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneRef. 59, the NES Classic Interview with Tezuka and Miyamoto is not properly formatted.
  • Fixed- Once again, this is a case of me having been a lazy teenager. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
•  DoneRef 70, "Mario Sales Data" links to a website that I am not certain is reliable. Nintendo has released these figures, so finding an alternate cite should not be difficult.
  • Changed to a Guardian article on 25 series facts- perhaps another, more direct source can be found somewhere along the line, but this is good for the time being. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all I can see on that front at a glance. Indrian (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Looks like I’ve gotten through all of your notes. Some of these are old citations that I never even bothered to notice until you pointed them out, so thanks. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 03:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Real quickly, sorry for the lack of context in adding the new section- I meant to explain it in the edit description, but just to quickly clear it up, I put your new ref notes in a new section in order to desperate them from the rest of the review and make it easier to get to them more quickly. Sorry if this messes up the talk page... log...(?) or whatever, but I thought it’d be more practical. ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence

@Popcornduff: & @Dissident93:...

I don't feel that your example works. While I understand your reasoning to an extent, calling this a "video game" as opposed to simply a "game" is different from calling something a "novel" as opposed to a "novel book". @Dissident93:, ff something is a "novel", then it can only be a book- there isn't such thing as a "novel video" or a "novel movie"- a novel is a category of books and nothing else. A "game", on the other hand, can be a large variety of things- it can be a board game, or a sports game, or- obviously- a video game. There are several subcategories for simply a "game", and that's why it needs to be clarified as being a "video game". The same applies to @Popcornduff:'s earlier examples- a "cat" can't be a "cat plant" or a "cat fungus"- a cat is and animnal, and nothing else. And similarly a "sandwich" IS a type of food- there's no such thing as a "sandwich drink", is there?? No! As my dude @Indrian: said, a WP article is supposed to be geared towards a general audience- that means that anyone who comes onto this article and reads the beginning paragraph should be able to think "OK, this is a video game- not just any game, not a board game, but a video game." If someone sees the page for, just to take an example, BLT and reads that it's a type of "bacon sandwich", then they understand that it's a sandwich, which is a type of food, and can't be anything else from an automobile to a pornographic novel. And if they don't understand what a sandwich is, then they can go to the article for "sandwich" and find out if they wish to.

I guess the best way I can put my argument is this- let's create a template phrase of simply "xxx yyy"- "xxx" being the first word, or the descriptor word, and "yyy" being the second word, or the subject word. In this present context that we're speaking in, "Video" (or "board" or "sport", for that matter) is the subject word ("xxx") - meaning that it describes "game", which is the subject word ("yyy"), or the thing in question. "Video" is describing the kind of "game" that the subject is- essentially, "xxx" is describing the characteristics of "yyy". Conversely, if you're talking about a novel in the context of a novel, then "novel" is the "yyy" in this case- never mind that it's being categorized as a "book", because a novel can't be anything but a "book". For an example, let's take the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, which is described as a "dystopian novel"- "dystopian" is the descriptor/"xxx" word, and "novel" is the subject/"yyy" word. This means that "novel" is a "yyy" word and "video" is an "xxx" word- in other words, completely different. If you call something a "novel book" or a "sandwich food" then that's simply redundant on a different because you're technically establishing the thing's occupation twice- you're using 2 "yyy" words in one. "Book" could also be classified as a subject word, but in a slightly different case in which it'd be a single-word phrase- so if you're talking about the broad concept of a "novel", then you'd just call it a "book"- a subject/"yyy" word without a descriptor/"xxx" word, because no such descriptor word is needed for a general umbrella term like "novel". In this case, if you're talking about just a "video game", then it'd be classified as a type of "game" ("yyy"), because that's all what it is.

I suppose this opens up a few fallacies in my argument- for instance, I called "video game" an "xxx yyy" phrase at first and then basically switched over to simply calling it a "yyy" phrase for the following context, and I've completely ceased to make any mention of the role of "platform" in this case. I'm no genius, and I'm not great at writing out long, detailed arguments like this, so I'm positive I left many holes in this one. If I had the time (i.e. the patience) to truly delve deep into this bullcrap I could probably come up with a whole thing having to do with a phrase structure with 2 descriptor words and a subject word ("xxx yyy zzz"...?) for "platform video game", but either way, my point is that I find your driving logic to be considerably narrow-minded. Calling something a "video game" is entirely different from calling something a God damned "novel book", and I think it'd be far more logical to call it a "video game" as it'd make it more understandable for a general audience. If this is a consensus all across Wikipedia that you're both conforming to then I wholeheartedly disagree with it and wish to protest. If you come up with a better example for a counter-argument then I could perhaps give you more credibility.

Sorry for my somewhat incessant rambling. Thanks for reading all of it (assuming that you did, of course- if not, then shame on you, fool!) ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 20:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. A novel is a medium of expression. Mystery is a genre. Platform game is a genre. A video game is a medium of expression. The apples to oranges comparisons certain editors are attempting to make here are not helpful. Look at some FAs. Halo: Combat Evolved is identified as a first-person shooter video game even though no other medium of expression involves the FPS concept. This is because one is a genre and the other is a medium. I have not clicked on every FA video game article, but every one I have identifies the subject as a video game (I would not be surprised if one or two don’t, but it does appear to be the widespread practice). It’s disappointing that such a basic fact needs to be explained this exhaustively. Indrian (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at the Titanic article. It begins: RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner. It doesn't say "passenger liner ship". Perhaps there are people who don't know that passenger liners are a kind of ship, but it's not the role of the the Titanic article to explain this. Besides, "passenger liner" is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMON term, and all passenger liners are ships, so to write "passenger liner ship" would be tautological. The same goes for the Roland TR-808 article, which describes it as a drum machine and not a "drum machine musical instrument", even though some people might not know what a drum machine is; the beagle, which is a breed of small hound and not a "breed of small hound dog"; or the electron, which is a subatomic particle and not a "subatomic particle physical body". These are all FAs, by the way. (edit: actually, I see Titanic has lost its FA status.)

"Platform game" is the WP:COMMON term, widely understood, accurate, concise, and natural. It describes both the genre and the medium. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. Wikipedia's own article identifies "platform game" as a genre; it is not a medium of expression. WP:COMMON is misapplied because "platform game" is not the common term for the medium, video game is. As I said though, virtually every video game FA identifies its subject as a video game even if in a genre exclusive to that medium, so its clearly not just me that has this opinion. Indrian (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that the term "platform game" is a medium. Instead, the term conveys two pieces of information simultaneously: the genre (platform game) and the medium (video game). You cannot write "platform game" without also implying the medium, by definition.

This is widely understood. It is so widely used and understood, in fact, that the platform game article itself is titled "platform game". And this is why WP:COMMON does indeed apply: "platform game" is the common term for a video game of the platform game genre, and I've only ever read "platform video game" on Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrapping Up

@TheDisneyGamer: Well, I feel like we have been on a real journey here full of twists and turns and even a little conflict here and there, but we have just about reached our destination. All my above concerns have been addressed. I am going to read the article carefully one last time, and if everything looks good, I will promote. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to your thoughts (and possibly your further notes). ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer:I made a few more copy edits, and we are down to one final issue, after which I will promote. In the gameplay section, the article states "The final stage of each world takes place in a castle where Bowser or one of his decoys are fought." The article does not state what is meant by a decoy, nor does it explain the mechanics that are used to defeat the Bowser at the end of each world (getting past him to touch the axe and collapse the bridge or using fireballs when powered up with the fire flower). Once the boss info is expanded a little, it will be time to finalyl put this sucker to bed. Indrian (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Indrian:: Done and done. I went in and elaborated on the false Bowsers as well as explaining how he is defeated. It might need a source (probably the manual or an IGN article or something), but as it is, how does this look?? I can always try and rewrite it again if need be... ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Time to promote! Thank you for your effort and your patience. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thank you in return for your civility and your great help in this fairly long and eventful journey- this was a fun trip, and it's satisfying to have finally reached the end, after months upon months of revising and rewriting. To quote Princess Peach from the end of the game, "Thank you Mario! Your quest is over. We present you with a new quest. Push button B to select a world." :) ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No Japanese reviews??

It seems a little Anglocentric to not include any Japanese reviews in the Critical Reception section. What are people's thoughts on this?--Coin945 (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well this is an English encyclopedia, anglocentrism is to be somewhat expected, no? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

initially planned as a farewell to the Famicom

The second paragraph begins:

The game was designed by Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka and was initially planned as a farewell to the Famicom in Japan before the release of the Famicom Disk System

I've added a {{Citation needed}} as a statement of this sort surely must be backed up with a reference, but aside from that there's just the general problem that the statement is trivially wrong as currently worded.

The Famicom Disk System is an accessory to the Famicom. The Famicom Disk System was not in any way a replacement or a "next iteration", nor did it in any way represent any sort of end for the Famicom. The Famicom was clearly still climbing the heights of its fame and popularity (it hadn't even made it to North America yet, obviously, since SMB was a release title for it there).

The only intended meaning of this claim I can think of that wouldn't be trivially wrong, would be if it meant that it was meant to hail the end of Famicom cartridge games coming from Nintendo, as the ramped up the Famicom Disk System as the way of the future, to replace cartridges (and not, of course, the Famicom itself). This too would be a highly suspect claim to me, as I don't think they'd jump immediately to "no more carts" before the FDS has even been released yet - which is why I added the {{Citation needed}} - but at a minimum it would need to be reworded to say that, rather than the current incorrect assertion.

Micahcowan (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• It should just be removed anyway if it's not backed up by a source. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• I've removed the CN tag because it's sourced in the article: Though not originally using any particular character, the very deliberate creative process of what would become their next game was motivated by their technical knowledge from previous games such as Excitebike, Devil World and Kung Fu, by a desire to give the ROM cartridge format "a final exclamation point" in light of the forthcoming Famicom Disk System which was expected to become the dominant new game delivery medium, and by continuing their legacy of "athletic games" with a character running and jumping with many obstacles. JOEBRO64 11:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Okay - so it needs to say that then, instead of saying it's a "Farewell to the Famicom" (fixed). Micahcowan (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedrun World Record

The world record on the page is obsolete :

New WR : 4:55.796 by somewes on 22nd of october 2018

https://www.speedrun.com/smb1/run/yl47rgkm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdTLDDvmNFs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomygood (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• We shouldn't even be citing this on the page anyway... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Stuff that has to urgently be done on the article.

1. The article is a SERIES OF VIDEOGAMES, not just a single one.

I'm not asking politely to do this, this HAS TO BE DONE ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercontributor (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Super Mario for the series. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that this user has just been blocked as a sockpuppet of Samsungx635. JOEBRO64 19:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

Can you put in the Japanese title? Jalenjke (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's already there in a footnote. JOEBRO64 12:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Super Smash Bros Brawl in the chronicles section claims that it was a launch title for the NES. Although that may not be 100% accurate. Jakeconer (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 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. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)