Template talk:Mario franchise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old stuff

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. (archive entry) Courtland 01:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have spin-offs like Wario Land, and other miscellaneous like Mario is Missing here, too? Lockeownzj00 23:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wario is expansive enough to have its own separate template, which it does. And I don't know about the edutainment games. -- A Link to the Past 23:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I've tried to reduce this template in size somewhat by using abbrev. Please tell me if you like it. Radiant_>|< 10:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Added in Yoshi and Yoshi's Cookie under the Yoshi category, feel free to take it back out if you feel it doesn't belong in this specific template. Anon.

Consistency issue

I think there is a consistency issue here. "Super Mario Sunshine" is listed simply as "Sunshine"; surely "Super Mario 64" should therefore be listed as just "64"? Kidburla2002 12:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Super Mario 128 - request for removal

We have next to no information about this game, and what we do have from Nintendo only says "we're experimenting with various ideas". The rest is just speculation which you could read on any gaming forum, so I don't think it has any place in an encyclopedia. I suggest removing SM128 from this template because it is not a game, just an unofficial "title", and lacking any concrete facts (hell, you might as well rename it "the next Mario game" because it lacks any information specific to this particular game, which could be anything). -82.7.125.142 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bolding

Someone is bolding all of the game titles under the reasoning that it is easier to read. Not only is that subjective, but most template I've seen of this kind do not have their entires bolded for easier reading. Anyone else care to comment on this? KramarDanIkabu (speak) 23:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it does seem to be more consistent with other templates to not have it bolded. Keep it as it is. :)

About using BR

I strongly discourage using BR in this (or really, any) template. It might look good at your screen resolution and/or with your browser window opened at a specific size, but because this template uses percentage-based sizing, if someone views it on a larger (or smaller!) display, it'll look even more goofed up to them. =) Instead, it might be worth finding out how to refine control of word-wrapping in HTML/CSS. --Locke Cole 16:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

About formatting

This is really a continuation of the section directly above. If you edit this template, please keep in mind why the &nbsp; codes are in the template. They are currently used to keep title names from wrapping (try it, if your web browser is maximized, restore it, then resize the window and watch as the title names refuse to wrap). Without the &nbsp;'s this would not work. If there's a better way to do this (via CSS or something), I'm all ears because I admit it's not the prettiest code to edit. But then it's a template, we shouldn't be making many changes to it anyways. =) --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 07:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mario Kart series inclusion...

Would Mario kart go into the Mario template also? Technically, it is part of the Mario franchise, and since things like the Mario RPG are in this, Mario Kart should surely be also. I know Mario Kart already has a template of it's own, but it is really small and, to me, not enough to merit it's own template (debatable).

So I'm proposing that the Mario Kart series be included, and that the Mario template replace the Mario Kart template. I dunno, what do you guys think? XtremeGamer99 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the spin-off sections with more than five games should be separated, as the Mario Party and Kart series are. KramarDanIkabu [[User talk:KramarDanIkabu|(speak)]] 19:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So, that means that the Mario RPG series and the Yoshi games should have their own template? If that were true, then only the Super Mario Bros. games should be on this template (the first set of games that are already on it).

It's a Mario serires template. Either that means it includes the entire Mario franchise, or includes just the Mario games and not spin-offs. I just don't think it's good practice to mix them, having some series have a template of thier own. Meh XtremeGamer99 17:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Italics

Since these are titles of video games, per the Manual of Style, I believe they should be italicized. KramarDanIkabu [[User talk:KramarDanIkabu|(speak)]] 19:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the manual of style was intended for use with templates. Italics are more difficult to read as well, especially since everything in the template is italicized if we apply the MoS guidelines. I believe the intent was to help highlight titles when used in article text. I am going to revert the changes you've made for now until a consensus can be reached one way or the other. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 19:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely use italics. They're proper names of long-form works. I don't think italics hurt readability significantly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italic_in_templates. (Trying to centralize this discussion). —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's subjective, and please try to reach a concensus before you edit templates to reflect your personal preference. Vic Vipr 00:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italic_in_templates. (Trying to centralize this discussion). —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Italics in titles discussion

There is currently a discussion re: italics in titles at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italic_in_templates. Anyone with an interest in this should participate in the discussion there. Thanks! —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 06:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonbreaking spaces

&nbsp; is used to keep dashes from appearing at the beginning of a line (titles will either fit entirely or wrap, but not be split). Please don't remove them. If adding new titles (or editing existing titles), be sure to use nonbreaking spaces as well. Locke Cole 13:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You can also use <span style="white-space:nowrap">Title –</span> as well. Which you use can vary depending on how much space the &nbsp;'s take up, but you should probably be consistant throughout a template (use one or the other, but not both to avoid confusing newcomers). Locke Cole 13:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert the template again. I have not removed any of the non breaking spaces, just converted it to unicode. Also I have added more content to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't realize &nbsp; was also an actual unicode character. I apologize for reverting it. My only concern now is that people will think they're just regular spaces (because they appear identical). I'm not sure how to resolve that. Locke Cole 14:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

To bring this back up again, there was a recent piped link removal and a Rv for non-breaking space reasons, but the template is wrapping like crazy for me, so I suspect that non-breaking spaces aren't actually being used. Can we just stick with using "&nbsp;" for clarity's sake? --Pagrashtak 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Separating the 2D and 3D titles

I don't see why they're separate, they're all part of the main series, so I can't see any reason to split them. Look at Template:Zelda series to see what I mean. --82.7.125.142 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

i merged them. Anybody who disagres please talk here. - Hbdragon88 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Kong characters

Should Donkey Kong characters be added to the characters section? I mean, the following Kongs had been featured in the following Mario centered games (correct me if I'm wrong on some of them):

Donkey Kong Jr.:

• Super Mario Kart (Playable character)
• Mario's Tennis (Playable character)
• Game & Watch Gallery 1-4 (Playable character in 2 and 3)
• Mario Tennis (Playable character)
• Super Mario All-Stars - Super Mario Bros. 3 (Non-playable character)
• Super Mario Advance 4 (Non-playable character)

Donkey Kong:

• Mario Kart 64 (Playable character)
• Mario Kart Super Circuit (Playable character)
• Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (Playable character)
• Mario Kart DS (Playable character)
• Mario Kart Arcade GP (Playable character)
• Mario Party (Playalbe character)
• Mario Party 2 (Playable character)
• Mario Party 3 (Playable character)
• Mario Party 4 (Playable character)
• Mario Party 5 (Playable character only in Super Duel Mode)
• Mario Party 6 (Non-playable character)
• Mario Party 7 (Non-playable character)
• Mario Golf (Playable character)
• Mario Golf (Game Boy Color) (Non-playable character)
• Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour (Playable character)
• Mario Golf: Advance Tour (Playable character)
• Mario Tennis (Playable character)
• Mario Tennis (Game Boy Color) (Playable character)
• Mario Power Tennis (Playable character)
• Mario Tennis: Power Tour (Playable character)
• Mario Superstar Baseball (Playable character)
• Super Mario Strikers (Playable character)

Diddy Kong:

• Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour (Playable character)
• Mario Kart: Double Dash (Playable character)
• Mario Power Tennis (Playable character)
• Mario Tennis: Power Tour (Playable character)
• Mario Superstar Baseball (Playable character)

Dixie Kong:

• Mario Superstar Baseball (Playable character)

So should they be added? - NES Boy 04:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice how these are ALL spin-offs. 75.64.28.58 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Size

Inspired by the Template:Final Fantasy series, I think we should shrink the template, and remove the repetitions (too many "Mario", "Super Mario"). igordebraga ≠ 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm going to be bold and remove some of the content. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What the heck?

See Super Mario Advance 5. I put the Mario series aboe the Yoshi series, and it has swallowed it up. How can this be fixed? I created the Yoshi template since someone deleted it from teh Mario tempalte - Hbdragon88 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. It appears someone didn't close the table properly in the Mario series template. Pagrashtak 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Apparently an anon accidentally removed the closing markup when adding Waluigi back on 14 January and no one noticed. Pagrashtak 01:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fanmade games

I'm not going to push the subject terribly hard, but I honestly do not see what's wrong with including them; other templates include fangames in them - for example, The Metroid Series lists Metroid Prime 2D. While, arguably, allowing fangames in an already cluttered listing means you potentially have to allow in many fangames, both Mario Forever and Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX are very likely the two most popular and well-known of the Mario fangames and I feel rightly deserve a place. The quality in Mario Forever, specifically, exceeds pretty much every game in the "Other" section. Unless a sufficient reason is brought up as to why they should not be included, I feel they should be re-added again. BlazeHedgehog 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It says "Mario series" at the top, and really, a lot of the stuff in this template should be split off into separate templates (or removed outright). Adding fanmade games just further clutters a template already suffering from clutteritis. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but we're not adding ALL Mario fangames. As long as it's kept under reign, certainly it can't do that much harm, right?BlazeHedgehog 03:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"It can't do that much harm" is likely the thinking that lead to this template getting as large as it has though.. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a quick fix, we COULD dial down the font size of the template. Most large templates seem to use smaller font sizes to fit more into a smaller space. BlazeHedgehog 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh geez, please no. Dialing down the font size just makes it harder to read and make it appear to be more cramped. I think we need separate templates for these - I advocate something similar to Template:EnderCharacters, where three templates are linked together by a single bar down at the bottom. - Hbdragon88 09:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I could seen that, sure. I mean, even without the two fanmade games, this list isn't going to get any smaller - especially considering Nintendo's tendency to slap Mario's face on all kinds of games nowadays. BlazeHedgehog 06:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

@BlazeHedgehog there's WAY to many fan games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.221.21 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yoshi's Island

I added Yoshi's Island back in there it deserves to be considered part of the main series if it carries the Super Mario World name. As for taking out SML3, I agree with that desecion. I'm sorry I put it up there. Sam 01:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not considered main series because the Yoshi's Island has nothing to do with SMW. In Japan, the game doesn't even have the SMW name. Instead, it's just "Super Mario: Yoshi's Island". Besides, the game is already in the Yoshi template, so having it here is redundant since this template already links to that one.--Darkhunger 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but people may want to have access to it's article due to it's inclusion in the Super Mario Advance series and it having the mario world name in America. I think we should keep it. It also doesn't look to good jumping from Advance 2 to Advance 4 on the template anyway. And it is supposed to list all the games in the Mario remake series, right? Sam 03:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The remake already has links - under "Alternate versions" there's SMA 1-4 and SM64DS Hbdragon88 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I did that. But I really think it deserves to be up there. Sam 02:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make changes without consensus. You brought the issue here and it was determiend that it was not part of the main series, yet you put it back in there. It is NOT part of the main series - Yoshi is the main playable character - and as Darkhunger said, it doesn't even have the "Super Mario World" name on it. Hbdragon88 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Paper Mario

Paper Mario is a seperate series from the RPG series. Super Paper Mario is not a RPG. Sam 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Luigi's Mansion

Luigi's mansion in the main series.

I'm not in favour of splitting this into even more subseries (actually, I think the opposite, but I see I'm outvoted), but how is this any more to do with the main Mario series than DK, Wario or Yoshi's games? It contains three (maybe four) characters who regularly appear (Mario, Boo, Luigi, plus arguably Bowser) as well as others who have since appeared, in the main series. The same could probably be said of all three of the others. I say Luigi's Mansion is a subseries of its own. RobbieG 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Luigi's Mansion is definately part of the series because :

1)Introcing new character's; 2)Reference of other Mario Games

Donkey Kong Country contains numerous references to the Donkey Kong arcade game, including music and characters. Several characters introduced in that series have since appeared in Mario sports titles, such as Diddy, Dixie, Klaptrap and Kritter. Wario Land is actually called Super Mario Land III: Wario Land, features Mario, a Koopa and a statue of Peach, and several characters introduced in the series appeared in Doctor Mario 64. Also, music from Wario World appears in Dancing Stage: Mario Mix and Mario Power Tennis and the latter also features the factory from the WarioWare games. As for Yoshi, most of the characters in his games are from Mario games and continue to appear in them. Mario was even playable in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island with the right power-up. What's so different about Luigi's Mansion? RobbieG 11:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"In Paper Mario 64" a reference in Luigi's diary to his winning a mansion, and in Thousand-Year Door, there are references to the game "Luigi's Mansion" (such as a crow in Twilight Town proposing a website called "Luigi's Mansion," and another crow telling him that the name has been used already).

"Mario & Luigi :Superstar Saga" include several reference a Luigi's Mansion

Yeah, right, I know all that. But that's basically the same as what happens in the other three, isn't it? The RPGs are hardly any more mainstream than puzzle or sports titles, after all. RobbieG 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that so? If anything, the RPG games are the closest things to mainstream besides the core ones listed in the current template. The important thing is that they actually have story and dialog (which almost none of the spin-off games have). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.145.224 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Super Mario Bros. Special

Super Mario Bros. Special is not part of Main Series ; is Spin-Off

Super Mario Bros Special is an officially licenses direct sequel to the first game. It is obscure, no one has heard of it, but it is an official sequel and is therefore part of the main series.

Hotel Mario and Mario Educated game officially licenses by Nintendo but NON part of Mario Main Series. The three Zelda CD-I officially licenses by nintendo but NON part of Zelda Main Series

So? Need I remind you that the Oracle games, the Minish Cap, Four Swords, and Four Swords Adventures were officially licensed to Capcom, yet they are considered part of the main series? Why not Super Mario Bros. Special? (On a side note, Hotel Mario actually wasn't that horrible. It's pretty much only hated because it's on the CD-i (which gave birth to those infamous Zeldas).)

Oracle of Ages and Seasons, The Minish Cap and Four Swords were developped by Capcom, but published by Nintendo. Super Mario Bros. Special, Hotel Mario, Mario is Missing, etc. were just licensed to other companies, Nintendo didn't published them. Four Swords Adventures was developped and published by Nintendo, Capcom didn't make that game.DjinnFighter 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

... That still doesn't mean that Super Mario Bros. Special is not part of the series. 208.101.136.228 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the list into home console & handheld

Sorry for not using the talk page when I made the change last night.

I like keeping them separate. I never considered Mario Land 1 & 2 to be true Mario games since they were made by a different director and had a different feel from games in the main series, if you know what I mean. Plus, a bit of extra info can't hurt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedian06 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it certainly makes sense (and is helpful) to seperate these lines of games out. I've also gone ahead and taken the arcade games out of the "console" section and placed them up in a section of their own, seeing as they aren't console games (and this how other video game series templates have their games seperated out). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the arcade/home-console split. Wikipedian06 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding: Mario Land subseries & Paper Mario subseries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.55.85.106 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't just add that, you pretty much destroyed the version that Wikipedian06 and I worked on. I don't really like how that's set up; I think the organization was more informative when it was split up into handheld, console and arcade games, and that there wasn't a "main series" per se but rather two platformer series: one for consoles, and one for the handhelds; basically, how it's set up at here. Are there any thoughts from anyone else on this style? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

Mario Series

Opinions? It's much more organized. Bly1993 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it for the most part. However, I think there should be a handheld section with the two Super Mario Land games (& New Super Mario Bros. moved to that section). SNS 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm also a fan of splitting up the platformer series and also the RPG series into the console and handheld sections, and I'd also like to suggest an "arcade" section for the original arcade mario games (something similar to this version; as of writing this message, the main template also looks like this, but I have feeling that a certain user is going to revert any changes made to this template, as usual). Other than that, though, it looks great. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the other day, since Lost Levels & Special are basically alternate versions of the original Super Mario Bros. (the same exact kind of levels with the same music, etc.) wouldn't it make sense to have them in parentheses like this?

Super Mario Bros. (Lost Levels, Special)

Just an idea I got while looking at another template. SNS 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Seperating "Other games"

Mario Series

This is my idea to seperate "Other games" into more sections. Should it be implemented? SNS 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes

Hugeness

This template is way, way too large, even with the hide option. I suggest removing most of the minor games that won't be relevant to the vast majority of articles (Kaettekita Mario Bros.? The Wrecking Crew remake? Each of the Mario's Early Years games?) and allowing the relevant categories to handle those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What I suggest is to seperate some of these into other templates & link to their general series pages (it's already done with Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, etc). I believe that there's enough RPG games for them to be seperated. SNS 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can spin Early Years and his educational games into a separate template...of course, I favor collasping the SML series back into the main series. They are handheld titles, but a two-game subseries? Hbdragon88 03:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Something would have to be done about the page for the Early Years in general. I think it could be moved to a new name where it's a general series page for all educational Mario games then the new template can be placed there. As for the other suggestion, I tried to include New Super Mario Bros. by changing the name to Handheld Subseries but it was reverted. SNS 04:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I would like to point out that there is articles for the Game & Watch games he attempted to link to. I was thinking of adding them earlier but then I remembered about this. SNS 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Jr.

DK JR is not part of main series.

Yes it is. It's practically the direct sequel to Donkey Kong. And it features Mario as an antagonist too. On the other hand, Donkey Kong 3 stars Stanley the Bugman and doesn't feature Mario. Jonny2x4 04:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. All of the games featured in the Main series have one thing in common: Mario is the playable character. In DKJR, Donkey Kong Jr. is the playable character and Mario is the enemy. This is why Yoshi's Island is not in the main series, because it has Yoshi as teh main playable character. Hbdragon88 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Game & Watch

I've split Mario-related Game & Watch games into a seperate template. Any comments?--TBCTaLk?!? 03:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to link to templates, so I changed the links into the closest thing they have to general series articles. I also changed the links to the templates that were already there (except the Yoshi one since there's no "List of Yoshi games" or "Yoshi series" article). Other then that, it was great that you made those templates. SNS 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

seperate -> separate

then -> than

Learn how to spell, retards. -lysdexia 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think TWO spelling mistakes are worth wasting your time over? And what with the comment? That's irrelevant. -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.81.145 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mario vs. Donkey Kong

Okay, what is this? The first one is in the main series, but its sequel is in the other spinoffs? Is there a reason for this? Hbdragon88 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mario is NON playable character in Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis.

Got it, thanks. Hbdragon88 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrible

This template is terrible. It's huge, unwieldly, and fails to make any useful distinction between games of great relevance to the series as a whole (SMB, the first Mario Kart) and games of relatively little relevance (SSX on Tour WTF?).

As such, I propose we ditch the bulk of the links, while retaining links to List of Mario games by system, List of Mario games by genre and List of Mario games by year. The $10,000 question is, however, what articles are so relevant to the series as a whole that it is useful to link them in every article? Ideally, this would be less than a dozen articles, even better would be a half-dozen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about all the work that has been done since the last time you said the template was too large (didn't you noticed the educational games, Game & Watch games, etc. now have their own templates instead of being on this template?) I suppose this template can be divided more but it just makes no sense when other series (like the Sonic series for example) can have way more then the amount you claim would be the ideal. SNS 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This template has dozens of links to many extremely obscure games or games where Mario has an extremely minor role. We shouldn't be cramming exhaustive lists into navboxes, and navboxes that attempt to do so end up so huge that they aren't useful. The fact that other navboxes do this is not good, and I'd like to set agood example here and use it to help get the others changed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

noticed -> notice -lysdexia 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Some conversation with LttP on IRC wasrelevant to this; we need a standard less than "every single Mario game that isn't on some other navbox" because it's leading to a template so large that it's useless and obtrusive, and I'm soliciting ideas for another standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past/Mario thing The beta version of my/somewhat AMIB's "ideal template". - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mario has appeared in at least 100 Nintendo games, not to mention brief cameos in games such as Punch out, and pictures on the wall in Ocarina of Time. It would be ridiculous to have a list that large in the category. If you all want to recognize every single game Mario starred in, create a list as a separate wikipedia entry, but as for this category, we should focus on Mario as the main character in platformers. Come on, Dr. Mario is 100% puzzle game, 0% mario game, the animations just help to sell it.NinjaSkitch 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy

There's some back and forth with Galaxy being added to the list, so I'm going to make a case for it here. I think what seperates Galaxy from 64 2, or 128, or Metroid Dread or whatever is that there's been an actual playable demo that was shown at E3 2006 and at the more recent New York press event. Screenshots and announcements can be made fairly casually, but once a playable demo has been released, I don't think it's necessary to hold back and wait for more concrete evidence that it will be released. I'm sure that at some point a game has been cancelled after a playable demo was made, but I don't think we need to be that cautious. El Cid 05:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a playable demo of 128, as well. Galaxy doesn't have a firm release date, it doesn't have a firm name, it doesn't really have firm anything. It's just too far off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A playable demo of 128? I can't remember anything like that. There was that little tech demo where there were all those little Marios running around interacting with stuff, which was just a video or a semi-interactive program running of some hardware if I remember correctly. Nothing that was open to the press to play. Do you have any references to there being a playble 128 demo? El Cid 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. No. I'm beginning to doubt myself, to boot. Eh, as long as it's clear that Galaxy is the line, we shouldn't have problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. El Cid 06:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

coler

look mareo is red!JosephK19 08:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And Luigi is green. The blue is a standard color for the entire project, and it's used because many pages may have multiple navboxes at the bottom. A motley assortment of different-colored templates makes for an ugly-looking page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge the RPG series with this template?

The RPG series shouldn't be considered totally separate. It's not exactly a sub-series since most of the story behind Mario Bros. is expanded upon these games, so I think they can be considered mainstream. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.146.237 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Also, Luigi's Mansion and Yoshi's Island are part of Mainstream. I suggest to insert RPG series, Luigi's Mansion and Yoshi's Island

I would support all of the above games being included. However, I also think this is where the template should end; this could theoretically go on forever, including all of the Mario sports games, Smash Bros., and games in which Mario has a cameo (e.g. Punch-Out!!). -- Kicking222 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no...the point of the navbox is to keep it clean and link the most relevent articles together. This navbox was once huge and massive and unwieldly. Now it's been parsed down a lot and is more manageable. Beyond that, LM and YI are very much so spinoffs - this is a Mario series template, and Mario isn't the playable cahracter in either of those. Hbdragon88 08:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in all intents and purposes, Mario is playable. He affects Yoshi in Yoshi's Island DS (faster running and higher jumping), and can be controlled with a special item. Regardless, I think that the inclusion of Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island DS wouldn't be too bad, as they marketed YI as a part of the franchise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it would be very hard to determine what sub-series should fall under this template if we add either the RPGs or Yoshi games, I say we should just stick with the platformers and let the sub-series have their own template. ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The RPGs use this template, but their own articles aren't listed in it. That's very strange. We should either list them, or create another template, but we should not have neither. Taric25 08:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario

One thing, should Super Paper Mario be included on here? Its been said to be a platformer with RPG elements, not the other way around. -- Lord Crayak

Agreed, none of the other Paper Mario games are included, I don't see why Super Paper Mario should. Markcookney 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a platformer, like the other games in the main series. But, I have to see the game before, maybe the RPG elements are too important to make this game a main game. DjinnFighter 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I made this argument before Super Paper Mario was added and I was in favor of putting it on, as it's platforming elements seem to overshadow it's RPG mechanics. -- Lord Crayak

Comment: I added the other two Paper Mario games because someone added Super Paper Mario. However, it is very debatable, because Super Paper Mario is not really an RPG, but it IS a sequel to the two other Paper Marios. Unfortunately, now the template is looking quite crowded.----Scabloo 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario can be on this template for reasonable reasons, it's a platformer. But, the two other Paper Mario aren't main games, they are RPG, nothing to do here. DjinnFighter 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why we should just rename this template from "Video Games Featuring Mario" to "Platform Games Featuring Mario". Seriously, it's not that hard, and it'd help clear up a lot of confusion. The way it is now makes it seem that these are the only mainstream Mario games anyway - which isn't true anymore since the RPGs add a whole lot of story that the platform games didn't, and they are becoming the second most important genre of Mario games (Mario Kart being a third, but that's obviously just a spinoff). 208.101.148.128 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should have a criteria for these games. I will gladly create one. Willy105 17:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

nbsp

What does it do? What is the point of having it in the place of spaces? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Yoshi's Island should be removed. It's already in the Yoshi template, plus this template focuses on the main Super Mario series. Also, it should be renamed "Super Mario series video games" or "Mario platformer series video games" or something of the like. --Jopasopa 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario World 2

Why isn't Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island on this template? Sure, it can be argued it isn't technically a Mario game, since the main character is one of the many Yoshis, but at the same time, its official title includes "Super Mario" in it (and its the sequel of the first Super Mario World). Drumpler 00:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at that myself, but Super Mario Land 3 is not on their either...guessing they only want games specificly with a Mario name and Mario protagonist on the list than side stories (I actually was wondering why Kart Fighter, a very well known game, wasn't included despite the template being on its page).--Kung Fu Man 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island should definitely be included.

The game may star Yoshi but Mario is for the most part always with Yoshi, and at one point one can play as Mario, after getting a star. In my opinion it is just as much a Mario game as a Yoshi game. I've seen arguments that SML3 would have to be in if this were. While SML3 had the Mario name, it only featured Mario in an ending scene. It also had very little if any elements from and no influence on the series. Most importantly is SMW2's impact on the series. The ground pound is a good example. It became an important part of later MARIO games. Super Spike (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wriiting out the full titles

I believe the titles of the games should be fully written out in the template, as it seems more formal than abbriviations, and a wikipedia artical should be as formal as possable. I believe the template should look something like this:

LightningLuigi (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant titling

The inconsistent titling in the game's section hurts the overall template in my opinion:

Main Series: Donkey Kong • Mario Bros. • Super Mario Bros. • The Lost Levels • SMB 2 • Super Mario Land • SMB 3 • World • Super Mario Land 2 • 64 • Sunshine • New Super Mario Bros. • Galaxy

Related Games: Donkey Kong Junior • Donkey Kong (Game Boy) • Land 3 • World 2 • Luigi's Mansion • Mario vs. Donkey Kong • Super Princess Peach • Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2

It keeps switching between full title, short title, and abbreviated title, and looks like a jumbled mess. Can't we keep a simple titling scheme for this template? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't mind when it shortens Super Mario Galaxy to Galaxy but shortening Super Mario Bros. 2 to SMB. 2, its just ugly. Don't be worried if the line goes over two lines. Who cares? Not everything has to look perfect or as condesed as possible.  The Windler talk  20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how they would look with different titling.

It looks to me like there's too much emphasis put onto keeping the series title over possible common name (i.e. Land 3 instead of Wario Land) and that's a bit ridiculous. I prefer the full titling or the simple short titles. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario 64 DS

I have a problem with Super Mario 64 DS being on the list of Main games. Obviously I don't want to 3RR, so I have proposed removal for the rest of the Wikipedia community to develop consensus. Currently as of 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC), the remake of Super Mario 64 is on the template, thus I have removed it once, but it was replaced by the same user. My points are that Super Mario 64 DS is a remake of Super Mario 64, and is therefore should not be on the template. Just because it has an article, dosen't mean it becomes part of the template. Not every game (or article for that matter) has or needs a navbox. Not every Mario game is on the template so why should this one get special provisions. Second, it is not part of the Main series which is the section it is placed under, even though it is in small and in brackets, it implies still that it is a main Mario game. Other than a few extra features, it is a remake of Super Mario 64 and is stated so in the article Super Mario 64. A link is provided there. Thirdly, there is a remake link in the Related series section. That is where Super Mario 64 DS belongs, in that link. Hopefully that clears things up, and we can have common sense here.  The Windler talk  04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've changed my mind on this. I'm fine with excluding it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou,  The Windler talk  21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Blue Twilight DX"

I have removed this fangame from the template, as the arguments that were originally keeping it here are now moot. "Mario Forever" no longer appears on this template, and for that matter, no longer as a page. Along with that, the Metroid Template also does not list fangames.

The point is, this template exists for games that are TRULY related to the Mario Series. Games that have been officially licensed, and not just fan games. As there are hundreds of fan games out there. Yes, there is the argument that "it was somewhat popular", but that doesn't deem it a place standing next to REAL Mario games. Or even the spin offs. If there was a page simply dedicated to "popular" fangames, then sure, it would fit on the template fine. But this isn't about that. This is about the true Mario series and it's official spin offs.

Putting a fan game on here, is more or less a simple advertisement for it, nothing else. It is not educational to the Mario Series, and that's exactly what Wikipedia was meant to be. Educational. Not an advertisement. SimplyAwesomeAJ (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)AJ

Mario

Can we please add mario Kart to the list. Preferable  • Sports Games (Mario Kart) • . Mario Kart has it's own series article, where as the other sports games do not. Just would make sence to add it.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Waluigi and Princess Daisy

I think Waluigi and Princess Daisy are important characters because they appeared in the last 3 Mario Kart, in Mario Party, in Mario Golf, Tennis, Football ... (I'm sorry form my bad English, because I'm 11 and I'm Italian.) --94.101.50.129 (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem about the 2 is that most of their appearences have been only in the Mario spinnoff games and not the canon games (excluding daisy's small appearence in Super Mario Land). They are indeed important however none of their roles are notable for the series.User talk:GS Sentret

Both of those characters have a little reception from "Top 10 characters ....", but that alone isnt enough. You need at least 3 or 4 different sources talking about the subject. Happy Searching! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yoshi's Island

Due to 2 or 3 discussions that you can see if you scroll up that all have the same consensus, I've moved SMW2: Yoshi's Island back into the "Other Games" section. Muzer (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Donkey Kong Jr. • Donkey Kong 3 on the main series of Mario Mario is not playable in this games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamjo6217 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Donkey Kong Jr. Donkey Kong 3 on the main series of Mario Mario is not playable in this games

Why is Donkey Kong Jr. Donkey Kong 3 on the main series of Mario Mario is not playable in this games and why user blake delete all my Video games remake changes all Games are remake not only Super mario 64 Ds and Super mario allstars and Super Mario advance4 super mario bros 3 also the other games are remakes also when whey have not full articles on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamjo6217 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy display issue

Does anyone know why Super Mario Galaxy shows up as "U R MR GAY" when viewed from the Super Mario Galaxy article? It seems to show up fine on the template itself and other pages with the template, and I can't find any evidence of why it's doing that on the article's source or the template's. --24.76.170.141 (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a vandal. It was reverted long before you posted this, but it may have not refreshed in that article yet or something. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Land games

Shouldn't these be listed under "main series?" I mean, yes, they had a different director, but Yokoi oversaw the creation of Donkey Kong and Super Mario Bros. It's not like he's a complete stranger to the world of Mario. These games were made with the intention of being installments into the main Mario series and were advertised as such upon their release. 67.83.203.63 (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I changed it so that they are now part of the main series. If there's some reason why they shouldn't be there it can easily be changed back, but I didn't see any discussion here saying they shouldn't be in the main series. 67.83.203.63 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sports

The Mario sports games (Mario Power Tennis, Mario Superstar Baseball, Super Mario Strikers, to name a few) are abscent in this template, and they don't have one of their own. If I counted right, there are about 10 games, spanning tennis, golf, baseball, and soccer I think. There may actually be enough to merit their own template. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

New template version

Mario series

Opinions?

Related Series addition

I understand, as big as the Mario games have gotten, that we have broken off a lot of the different games into their own template. While I agree it would be far to unwieldy to have them all in the main template, I still think it's stupid you can't access the other mario games, such as Super Mario Allstars, Dr Mario, etc, from this template.

The solution I came up with is a Related Series and a Spinoff Series. YOu don't add the games back in, but you do a link to their perspective series, that way to make them more easily accessible.

Here's an example -- didn't do a spinoff series from it, and the related series isn't all there but it's a good start about what I mean.

Unofficial games

I believe that category needs to be there. Salvidrim! 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both Mike and myself are fine with the remFoval of unlicensed media. However, if you believe the template should include unlicensed media, then you should include Super Hornio Brothers as a matter of policy. Not sure what there is to debate. - hahnchen 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of censorship; I believe it should contain (and be renamed to) Unofficial games. Unless there is an issue with refocuing the scope of the section? Salvidrim! 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why limit it to games if not for the reasons of censorship? You are the only one to have suggested this. - hahnchen 18:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

... Yes, I am indeed the one suggesting it. I believe unofficial games of arguably the biggest video game franchise merit inclusion in the NavBox. I believe other unrelated, unofficial media (remixes/covers of songs, parody videos, pornographic material, released unlicensed novels, etc.), while it may be independantly notable, is not pertinent enough to the video game franchise to be in the NavBox. The contents of the this movie are completely irrelevant to my point. Salvidrim! 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then how have you managed to enforce your original suggestion, and revert to it, without having any discussion - when others clearly disagree. Why should something that probably should be deleted, such as Dian Shi Mali be included in the template, when it is clearly less notable or even interesting than Super Hornio Brothers? If it's notable, it goes in. - hahnchen 18:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The template isn't for Mario games, it's for the Mario franchise. This includes things like Super Mario Bros. (film), it doesn't really need to include things like unlicensed properties. If you want to include them, you should include the unlicensed properties that are notable, not a subset that conveniently aligns with censorship. - hahnchen 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe listings for unofficial media needs to be there - for example, the templates for Star Wars and Star Trek do not directly link to unofficial/unlicensed material - these are arguably the biggest movie and TV franchises, and I believe they set a precedent. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your points. :) Salvidrim! 18:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Paper Mario games

They don't seem to be mentioned at all. Any ideas? Arran64 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Like the Mario & Luigi series, it is under Mario role-playing games. Salvidrim! 01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. My bad. :) Arran64 (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Super Mario vs. Mario (franchise)

There's been an edit war over this so let's get this over with. We should keep the title as Super Mario, since it is offically trademarked as Super Mario. 50.46.237.146 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There has not been an edit war. You have been repeatedly editing against consensus, have been reverted, and blocked. Super Mario refers to the main series only, and this template is about the entire franchise. Perhaps you should review the content difference between Super Mario (series) and Mario (franchise). Salvidrim! 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Only roughly 1/5 of the template deals with Super Mario games. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Mario (series)" be a WP:DISAM page? It currently redirects to Super Mario (series), which can be confusing. On the page it even says that "Super Mario (series)" is sometimes referred to as "Mario (series)". Thats even more confusing for people who aren't familiar with "Super Mario (series)" and "Mario (franchise)". Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Done due to no objection/response. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 00:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Now it redirects to Mario (franchise)... CyanGardevoir 11:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

{{merge discussion}} Template:Mario series characters should be merged into this, under the subheadings of 'Characters' for main characters, and 'Enemies' for common enemies (e.g. Goomba). Discuss. Arran64 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Template:Mario series characters already links to List of Mario series characters; merging all into one would unecessarily bloat it. Salvidrim! 23:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• But they're related - and every other franchise seems to have a character list in their templates. Of course I don't mean having everyone on the list; just the main characters who have articles, whilst still acknowledging the extended list. Arran64 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• But why include the characters in both templates? I'm not disagreeing that the main characters (Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, Bowser) could merit inclusion, but I see no compelling reason to change. Salvidrim! 23:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I mean to delete the other template - there's no need for an independent one relating to the characters of the series, particularly when there are so few characters with articles. Arran64 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• There needs to be a NavBox with all Character articles, whether this one or a separate one; and the franchise one is already large enough that I believe keeping them separate is the best way to keep them manageable. Salvidrim! 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for above reasons. The franchise template is too large to go on all the character articles and the characters are too many to put on the template. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - After looking at the resulting template by Salvidrim, it isn't half bad. I do think however, that Wario is almost non-debatebly more an antagonist then a protagonist. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose reasons already stated. Template is too large and would also be unnecessary. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Already mentioned! 22dragon22burn (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion continues at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 7#Template:Mario franchise D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've reverted the tfd template, since there seems to be something here rather substantial already. See my comments at the tfd. --IznoRepeat (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support — On the point of bloat, this template isn't particularly large nor does it include a particularly large number of links that it would become unwieldy to edit it (there are bigger, and they have no problems). It would allow for a more fuller browsing experience than is currently offered on top of it. --IznoRepeat (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Propose - I have toyed around a bit with it; here's my proposal. Doesn't look all that bad. Thoughts? Salvidrim! 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Looks good! However, I'd just like to say that a person navigating this template might be specifically looking for the Mario characters, and not only might this cluttered (thats a minor issue), but it does not show if the character is antagonist, protagonist, or supporting, which is one of the purposes of the original template (in my view, anyway). But, on the other hand, this makes for easier navigation to the viewer. I think that the "characters" and "enemies" groupings aren't one of the best out there, since Bowser is both a character and an enemy, same for Birdo (to an extent), Wario, Waluigi, etc etc... Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 09:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  Whether a character is antagonist or another classification isn't particularly important for the general reader who might come to read the articles (the one we're supposed to be writing for). I might accede that at least two categories might be necessary. Perhaps Characters as the overall set, with the subsets Protagonists and Antagonists, where the characters end up in one or the other based on the straight majority of their appearances, or possibly on their first appearances. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  See example that doesn't itself change the categorization, though the groups might need that. --Izno (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  I support the current version of the draft. Great idea, Izno!:) Salvidrim! 15:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  Me too; however, I think that Bowser, Wario and Waluigi should be antagonists instead of protagonists. Looks nice! =) Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 05:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Bowser's an antagonist (despite having had a handful of supporting roles), he's the "archantagonist" to Mario (the "archprotagonist"). Waluigi's been established as an antagonist. Wario was an antagonist in a handful of games, but starred as a protagonist in a greater number of games of more importance, so I think he's safe where he is. Same for Donkey Kong. :) Salvidrim! 15:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  While Wario may have been a protagonist in those games, he was still a bad guy, and would be considered an overall antagonist for the series. What games are you referring to? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Undent: There are still two more alternatives to consider: Scrapping the unnecessary distinction between good guy and bad guy (this solves the problem of classification), or tweaking the format yet another time which does not solve that problem but which does shrink the navbox some more. Thoughts on either of those two options? --Izno (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Definite Oppose on the second; I actually had to look thrice to even find the distinction. Another issue both ideas pose is that link to the Recurrent Enemies list, which looks "out of place" in a standard list. I still support the initial "good guy/bad guy" subdivision. Salvidrim! 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure there's a problem with it looking out of place. Enemies are characters, are they not? It's something that you would need to get used to, but I think would be better in the end. /shrug. Not too attached any which way, just throwing things out there. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Erm, that doesn't work really well. I'm still against the templates being merged in the first place; looking at how long the character section is, its not needed. I'm commenting on the layouts as there would be no point arguing on, since consensus is going the other way. As for Wario; he's protanist in the Wario series; however, should the Wario series be counted as a part of the Wario series? I'm confused... Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 05:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  For a very good reason -- Wario's a confusing case amongst others. However I think the assigned roles of the individual characters is a completely different debate, well outside of the scope of this merge request -- we should stick to this for the time being. The version with my support is still this one, which I believe both conveys the needed information to differentiate, links to both relevant lists in a sensible manner, and minimizes clutter. :) Salvidrim! 05:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  Oops, an edit conflict happened. Now, replying to the original question. And yes, enemies are characters - but enemies are also bad guys, so the "good-guy"/"bad-guy" distinction is still there - just presented in a different format. Additionally, I see that discussion started by the fact that all other series have articles. Firstly, most don't have 16/17 (depending on the Diddy Kong issue); and thus obviously they can list it without problem. If you really want to, the Sonic the Hedgehog series has a template too, and they have way less characters. To Salvidrim's post: yes, it that is by far the best proposal out there, but sorry, I disagree with the "mimising clutter" part, since, again, this has 16/17 characters, and merging will only clutter it. Just my thoughts. =) Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 05:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  Template:Sonic characters has less entries, but text-wise the size is similar. In any case, I believe the choice is between a Template that is unecessarily split (thus double the templates on some page, which is obviously a large size) and a single, unified template that is minimally enlarged, but still not that much, and less so than two separate templates. :) 05:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth, the Sonic characters one used to be a lot bigger, but I and some other users have removed many names due to deleting or merge/redirecting a number of non-notable character articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the merging into one of Salvidrim's proposals, though I'm not sure which way to go on the protagonist/antagonist situation. When it's just one long line of characters, it seems too long, so I think it looks better in two rows, but I'm not sure it's necessary to designate protagonist/antagonist either. (And I feel that characters like Wario could cause future arguing/edit warring as far as which one they'd be classified as.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  The questionable nature of some of the characters is one of the reasons I think it would be a good idea to merge the set of characters, regardless of the length of the field (again, I've seen much longer, especially due to my work in navbox template conversion to use hlist). --IznoRepeat (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  Go for one alphabetical list of characters, and another line with the enemies (Goomba, etc.) that are not unique characters. Fair? Salvidrim! 15:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm. Maybe something close to the below? It doesn't seem practical or correct to separate the enemies, as they are all characters if even they are recurring in a very particular role as enemies.

• Or possibly the below?

• --Izno (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  Love it! Salvidrim! 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm confused in the fact that all the "bad guys" are "enemies" in video gaming, including Bowser (the "Boss" is just a type of enemy). So is Fawful, Koopalings etc. Just my thoughts. :) Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 23:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Common enemies" and characters in antagonistic roles are different things. :p Salvidrim! 23:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  Contrast Piranha Plant & Petey Piranha, it should clarify the distinction. Salvidrim! 23:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I kinda get what you're saying. I think it should be named as below. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 02:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Propose Just throwing an idea out there:

I think this will get rejected, but just another option. :) Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 02:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, I actually like it! Salvidrim! 13:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Not a fan, due to the lack of "balancing" in the groups. Would still prefer one of the two suggestions I last offered (and which you were a little ambiguous on which you supported more, Salvidrim). --IznoRepeat (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  (due to edit conflict this comment only refers to IznoRepeat's comment) Huh, but there are only three of them [the enemies]; and now since Princess Daisy (Mario) is an article, thats even more unbalanced. I believe User:22dragon22burn is opposing still, and I am more on the neutral side. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  I like the "single list" with Common Enemies (X - Y - Z), but I feel as if there's not enough of a "separation" just by sticking it at the end of the list, which is why I think the latest suggestion by Androids may be better. But it's purely a design thing now, the templates could be merged immediately with consensus and then you can still work out what layout/design you prefer amongst yourselves. :p Salvidrim! 23:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've implemented my last copy, as it seems there is definitely support for the characters here. No comment on exact implementation except what I've already said. I'll see about removing the characters template if this edit holds for a day or so. --Izno (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  Salvidrim, I noticed your last edit even though it was reverted. The template shouldn't be redirected. It should be removed or replaced where necessary, but that should be done after this template has had some time to sit. Per silent consensus (if it exists at that time), we can implement that. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  Gotcha. :) Salvidrim! 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly still support this, and I love both proposed templates! Must say I prefer Androids' template, though, simply because I really don't see the need to differentiate between protagonists and antagonists, especially since the characters in the series all stand on confusing ground, as debate has shown (Wario, for example). I think if we must differentiate, then perhaps it should be between main characters (the "big eight" of the Mario Kart 64 roster, perhaps) and others. Arran64 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  I also like Androids' idea of having "Common Enemies" as a subheading, since I foresee more of these articles springing up over time (Koopa Troopa is long overdue in my opinion). Arran64 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  Oops, just realised the template's already been changed! I like it as it is! Though I'll keep my ideas up, just in case. Arran64 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  I actually think I'd prefer Android's idea at the moment, since hopefully Koopa (and possibly Boo) will have articles soon. Izno, are you that strongly opposed to that version? :) Salvidrim! 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  Not particularly. --IznoRepeat (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

   Done Since three editors support the version and Izno said he wasn't particularily in opposition, I went ahead and made the change. :) Salvidrim! 02:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merged. I've marked the characters template for WP:CSD#T3. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  Looks nice, although I'm still not used to it. But looks nice! CyanGardevoir 11:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Birdo as a Character

Since Super Mario Bros. 2, Birdo has appeared as an apparent friend of Mario, etc, and has not appeared in any other main games of the series. Even in Super Mario Bros. 2, she was less a "common enemy" and more of a miniboss; by this logic, the Koopalings could be considered "common enemies". I propose moving Birdo into the "Characters" section. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is there some reliable source (primary might be preferable in this case) stating that Birdo is an individual character (like Petey Piranha), and not a species of enemies (like Piranha Plants)? Koopalings are unambiguously named, unique, individual characters. Salvidrim! 20:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• After reading the article, I believe there is little doubt. I support.  Done. Salvidrim! 20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Vs. Series

I've added the Vs. Series game to the arcade list on the template  superβεεcat  22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody please explain to me...

...how games in which Mario isn't the main character can be considered part of the main series. - 190.138.7.134 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the "main series" is not "a series of games where Mario is the protagonist", but "the games in the Super Mario series". Salvidrim! 23:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

paper mario

there is no mention of the paper mario series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.99.194 (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are mentioned under Mario role-playing games. :) Salvidrim! 13:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"New" as a sub-series?

I'm not sure I support this particular change in the template... Is it something that Nintendo officially recognizes? TheUncleBob (talk)

I don't really support this either. It seems to suggest that it's a third tier beyond "Console" and "Handheld", which isn't true at all... Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of 3D Land to Super Mario Land

Miyamoto stated that Super Mario 3D Land is a brand new game, and it's not part of the Super Mario Land series. They do have the "same" name, but they clearly have different game mechanics. Xanthux (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Subseries

An IP keeps grouping certain games together arbitrarily, stating that Super Mario 64, Sunshine, and the Galaxy games are in the same "subseries." The IP has cited a Wikipedia article as the basis of grouping those games together, which is inappropriate. What are some other opinions? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My concerns are:

1. At the Super Mario (series) article, there's enough arguments over which games are considered Super Mario. Classifying it further will lead to further arguments.
2. The current way of organizing - making them "console" or "handheld" is completely objective and clear cut. Again, splitting them out like the IP was suggesting, requires far more interpretation... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now, that particular portion of the template looks and feels rather disorganised and fails to establish that some games are part of an easily recognised subseries. I notice that the only seemingly offending example cited was the grouping of Super Mario 64, Sunshine, Galaxy, and Galaxy 2. Neither these, nor the others, were grouped "arbitrarily": those four were grouped because they all share an identical core gameplay mechanic with slight alterations between each (the FLUDD in Sunshine, for example), whilst taking into account cited information in Super Mario 64#Sequels. Despite that, I will concede that those four games were released far enough apart for their alleged relation to be nebulous. However, all other groupings were made due to obvious relation suggested by title: there is no reason to separate the four Super Mario Bros. games, the three Super Mario World games, the two Super Mario Land games, the four New Super Mario Bros. games, the two 3D games, or even the two Galaxy games (even if you can't group the latter with 64 and Sunshine, you can definitely pair them up), much less fragment them by the type of media device. The template, as it is, implies one (or two) big, contiguous series of games without regard to how they differ or how they're related. 150.137.2.4 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sharing core gameplay mechanics does not imply they're in the same series. If so, then it is easy to say that Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario Sunshine are in the same "series," because they are 3D titles with emphasis on platforming. At least one of the sources you mentioned (this one, the others are videos which I can't verify at the moment) does not support the claim that the four 3D games are in the same series. There is no mention in the source that Sunshine is a "sequel" to 64 or that the games are in a series, other than building on 64's mechanics. It was also published in 2002, way before Galaxy and Galaxy 2, so it can't be used to support that the claim that those two games are in the same series either. Separating by Console and Handheld is the most objective way to classify the games. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2014

216.252.30.100 (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Super Mario Advance, Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, and Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 should be included

You guys have Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario Bros. 3: Super Mario Advance 4, and Super Mario 64 DS but not the remakes of Super Mario Bros. 2 (US version) Super Mario World, or Yoshi's Island? (216.252.30.100 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC))

We can only list titles that are stand-alone Wikipedia articles already. Stickee (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)