MarioWiki talk:Chronology

Um... full support.
 * If you want this to become effective, propose it. - 15:36, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

This is amazing. Mr. Way-with-words strikes again!

Hmmm... I didn't propose Minor NPCs though. I like this idea anyway, it rocks. 15:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Just asking, what's the point of that note about Luigi's Mansion not being the last game? I mean, how could it be? - 17:27, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


 * A lot of people think it is the last game because of Bowser's apparent death (in fact I believe someone stated that on the main page in the last archive). Even if he did die before the game, we know characters can always be revived (I mean, he died in New Super Mario Bros., became an undead monster, and good ol' Junior brought him back to life). -- Son of Suns
 * Bowser did also die in Mario is Missing!. - 17:42, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Yep. But that is a low-canon game, so use discretion. ;) But again, death does not equal last game.  -- Son of Suns

Format is fixed. Glad to have you back for things just like this, SoS. 21:25, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I think your proposal to instate a solid timeline is a good idea, but while you have obviosly put a lot of thought into how it should be done I feel your policy involving remakes could use some fine-tuning. As you said, most remakes are nothing more than re-releases with updated graphics, maintaining or adding on to the existing plot only. However, some do change the plot (as you said), and I think that if these changes are significant enough, the original and remake should not be considered one incident anymore. In your example of Super Mario 64 and SM64 DS, the plots are clearly different: in one Yoshi sleeps on the roof the entire time, in the other he saves Mario; both games are canocal, but they are far to different to be assumed to be different versions of one incident. A better assumption would be that Bowser attacked Peach's Castle twice (either at seperate times or one after another, both work). I hope I don't appear brash, but I've spent the better part of a year forming my own timeline and dealing with these problems, and I salute you for taking on this undertaking as well. - Walkazo 03:20, 27 August 2007
 * And Bowser was stupid enough the 2nd time to put many of the stars in the same location, to be recovered in the same fashion? While there were new challenges in SM64DS, quite a bit of it was identical to the original too; I don't see Bowser making such a mistake very sensible at all. 01:09, 27 August 2007 (EDT)


 * The plots are basically the same for both games. Peach bakes a cake and invites Mario over to eat it.  Bowser attacks Princess Peach's Castle and uses of the power of the Power Stars to create an army of monsters in the painting worlds.  The main change in the plot is who the playable hero is, and that is only temporary.  Not playing as Mario from the beginning is a gameplay challenge, not a significant act that makes the game a completely different adventure.  Although there are many changes, the game is basically the same.  I think either we have the same policy for every remake, or we list every release of a game as a new adventure.  We can't give Super Mario 64 DS special status because you play as Yoshi instead of Mario from the beginning.  Plus, it doesn't make sense to call the game Super Mario 64 DS if it is not intended to be a retelling of Super Mario 64.  The game is so much more advanced then the original - 64 seems to be a misnomer for a game with such advanced graphics compared to the 64-megabit original. Also, I would like to remind people we are not saying the order we place games in is the official chronology - it is merely a guide to help solve the confusion of writing a Biography section.  This is not a timeline, but a set of sensible rules.  -- Son of Suns


 * To Wayoshi: Bowser did exactly the same thing twice in a row in Yoshi's Safari, so its not that far-fetched to assume he did the same for Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS. To Son of Suns: I guess you're right about not letting ourselves get too picky about tiny plot details between the many incarnations and remakes of Mario games. If we did, the timeline would be way too muddled anyway... Though, in your example you listed Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island as 1 and Yoshi Touch & Go as 2, despite the fact that YT&G is just a remake of SMW2:YI. I think it would make more sence if YT&G was just included as part of the SMW2:YI article, the same way you included Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3. The differences in plots and/or gameplay between the versions of Yoshi's Island could be included in the section as well, and the same format could be applied to the other remakes (SM64 and SM64DS, for one). I think it would make everything much more clear to the readers, which is the whole point of a Super Mario Wiki timeline anyway, since it seems unlikely Nintnedo will provide us with a canocal one anytime soon. - Walkazo


 * I noted earlier that Yoshi Touch & Go is a retelling of Super Mario World 2, and that they occur at the same time. However, I changed the format so both titles are listed by the same bullet.  However, I do think Yoshi Touch & Go deserves its own article, as the gameplay is so different.  But for story purposes, it is merely a retelling of Super Mario World 2. -- Son of Suns


 * Thank you for taking my advise, and you have my full support on this endeavor. - Walkazo

Question
Technically, wouldn't Partners in Time have to appear 2 times on the timeline? That could get confusing.
 * It depends on what you're looking at. If it's Petey Piranha, who only appeared in the past, it's one section. If it's E. Gadd, who had a younger version in the past and an older in the present, it's two sections. If it's Mario, who travelled through the time, it should only be one section. - 14:28, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Exactly, although you would have to make note in the Baby Mario section of the Mario article that he met his future self and battled the Shroobs. It's all relative to the character's individual lifetime. -- Son of Suns

Oh. OK.

Full List?
Is there a full list of all the Mario games on the Wiki somewhere? And what about Game & Watch mini-games? Are they to be counted too? - Walkazo

Games. 20:20, 26 January 2008 (EST)


 * This is very, very late, I know, but I just played Game & Watch Gallery 4, and the premise is that Mario and friends are putting on a faire/circus called, "Mario's Show." In that case, all of the minigames happen at the same time, I would suppose.  15:55, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I would count Game & Watch gallery games as spin-off games. Spin-off games should't follow a timeline but be grouped after type (all Mario Kart games in one section, all Mario Party games in one section, then one for miscellaneous games perhaps?) - 15:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Proof of a Chronology
I think we need to talk about how we know that the chronology is based on release date. Right now we say that it is and back off -- it seems like an assumption. We know that Super Mario Bros. 1, Super Mario Bros. Lost Levels, and Super Mario Bros. 3 follow each other because of the instruction manuals I believe. Super Mario World links itself to SMB3 because they are going on vacation to celebrate Bowser's defeat in the previous title. SMW2:YI places itself earlier in the timeline, proving that there is one. And so on and so forth. I think that's all the proof we need. YI says there is a timeline, and SMB1-3 and SMW shows that release date gives the chronology with the exception of games that purposely place themselves outside of it. 16:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I think there is one but some of the plots in the series contridict each other.--Inuyasha Zero 16:25, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
 * As far as I can understand the policy, we just use the release dates by default because it's the closest thing we can get to a canonical source of chronology. In most cases there is no proof it works that way; for all we know we could be horribly wrong. Personally, I have to muck around with the games A LOT to make a nice, consistant timeline; and who knows, maybe the Nintendo writers have too, but chose not to share their insights (though somehow, I doubt that's the case). So, aside from kidnapping said writers, I don't see how we can solidify the matter any more. - 20:18, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Both of you are right. My idea was just to make sure this doesn't become like MarioWiki:Canonicity, a piece of debated writing where people are left wondering where Son of Suns got his ideas from, and whether they are official or not. 00:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I dunno, saying "We here at MarioWiki use release dates to blah blah blah..." should make it somewhat clear it's just what we do. Or we could make a disclaimer template or something - we could use it here, on Canonicity, and any other policy pages lying around. - 02:12, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Son of Suns has a tendency to make people think that he meant that "the truth is this" rather than, "I think this," as I found out when I read a comment of his dating back that stated this: alternate canon simply means questionable canon that has not been confirmed to be of relation to the video games. It doesn't mean alternate universe or anything like that, yet a group of users such as CrystalYoshi believed that and time was wasted.  That's why I'm thinking that more clarification would be better for clarification's sense.  I'm thinking something like this:"'The Super Mario Wiki bases its view of Mario chronology on release dates except when a point in the sequence of events is clearly or relatively defined, such as in Yoshi's Island (clearly defined: Mario's birth) or in direct sequels (relatively defined: comes after the previous title's events). This view is unofficial and has never been explicitely supported by Nintendo or its associates.  Therefore, it should simply be viewed as a way to convey information from editors to readers."

We could then go on to say why we believe there is chronology based on release dates, but we definately don't have to if we clarify that much, right? I just don't want this to become another Canonicity page, where one user's speculation becomes fact because it was not made clear that the page was speculation for the purpose of Wiki management. 14:21, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, SoS seems so sage-like sometimes it's hard not to think of him as on the same playing field as us. Anyway, I'm all for your quote there, and the page could use some more work while we're at it. The page has the beginning of a list of titles, but we should try making a list of all the games (using the List of Games page is a bit confusing because of all the re-releases and ports, especially in the old days). And in the explanation sections, it might help to have links to the example games, for people who don't already know them by heart. I'll be glad to help out, but unfortunately I'm going on a small trip tomorrow and won't be back until Sunday; if there's still work to be done then, count me in! (Unless you think it should be a Sysop-only thing, as it is official MarioWiki policy...) - 18:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Personally I'm fine with clarification edits and such to these pages. Something like throwing all of the canonicity rules out the window would probably be a sysop only thing, though. :P  But we're just specifying what in fact this is.  I really don't see a problem with that.  22:01, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, cool. I'll be back Sunday, in that case. - 00:13, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Rewrite
Comments and concerns, please! I've explained a lot more, and I'm aware that the policy has been altered to a certain extent. Anything you see on there that is not true, please list below. I'm aware that I included alternate media sources on the list in the event that a user wanted to know where they go; this isn't a plot to integrate them into the biography sections. Comment away! 12:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It looks great. I added spaces between the "/"s and the game/remake titles in the timeline to make it easier to see they are seperate games (otherwise the black was difficult to tell apart and it looked like one big title). - 19:58, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks! 22:50, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

timeline theories
yes I have not edited this page in a while however I wanna lay down the rules about us users doing a timeline

First things first: Nintendo has not confirmed the mario games have a timeline, that has only been confirmed for the zelda series because of that the writers of the plots of the mario games dont have to pay much attention to see where things put in so its crazy to pay too much attention to the plots of the games to find links

If there is a timeline: Then its only based on official nintendo stuff dont include the cd-i games and the cartoons i hate when people bring up mario is missing and stuff

Anyway read this before we go into all the crazy stuff like how mario got into Brooklyn and whatnot Retrieved from "http://mariowiki.com/User:Clear_Discoherency"


 * Yes, no timeline has been confirmed - that is why we go by Real World release dates to organize everything. Just because they weren't produced by Nintendo doesn't make the cartoons and CDi games any less a part of the Mario series as something like Super Mario Bros. - all games (and other media) are created equal. These games/cartoons/etc. were all approved of by Nintendo, so they're not fanon or whatever and deserve to be included in our timelines. You may not agree with it, but these are the policies that have been decided upon by the community as a whole (via. Proposals). Making your own therories and timelines is fine (I do it too, and it's not the same as how things are run here, that's for sure), but just remember, you're not the only theorist around here, and you alone cannot "lay down the rules" for other users. - 13:33, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm just saying, would you consider the legend of zelda: faces of evil canon?--Clear Discoherency 16:43, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure what you mean... I know The Legend of Zelda has a pretty wacky "history" (I don't know specifics, though), but it's a totally different series, so how does it affect the Super Mario Wiki? I'm sure there are ways to reconcile all the conflicting information, but it's not official and cannot be integrated into the mainspace. - 18:15, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

About release dates.
The first thing I've noticed on this page is the following: "Articles must list information about a subject according to the international release date of sources... Information in articles should be ordered according to the international release date of the video game, cartoon, comic, etc." Now, I find this a little vague - does "international release date" specifically refer to the European, North American, some English-speaking territory, or basically the first western, non-Japanese release? It seems like editors have generally taken it as the latter, but I think this can be revised. Rather than that, why not primarily use the order of their initial release? As in, entirely regardless of selecting certain regions over the other? Using the original date a product was released to any public audience first would be more straightforward, is the least biased approach in regards to localization or country of origin (of which there are plenty of instances of titles being originally released outside where it was developed), and it also matches with most current info boxes on this wiki (which seem to list things in descending order anyway). (Speaking of which, since info boxes already seem to do this - in the event of a game being released in separate locations on the same day, wouldn't it make sense to also list the release dates of those certain titles according to time zone?) LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (EDT)


 * That's a holdover from when our main policy-maker was hellbent on making the wiki international-based, rather than America-biased. The followup to this policy's rewriting was a proposal that went so far as to use the names and boxarts from the first English/international release (i.e. "Yoshi's Universal Gravitation" instead of "Yoshi Topsy-Turvy" since it came out in the PAL region first), but that's since been vetoed by the wiki's proprietor to reflect the fact that most of our readers are North American and for search/traffic purposes and whatnot, it's better to cater to the most people (it's also simpler and more consistent than a mash of NA and PAL names, since most folks don't memorize which games came out first where and wouldn't recognize that there was a systematic basis to it all). Anyway, I agree that using the first release date, period, regardless of region, would be clearer and more objective (and I think we're already doing it that way anyway, just haven't reworded the policy page). As for time zones, my knee-jerk reaction was "too complicated/detailed", but I suppose all that really amounts to is fixing the order as "Japan -> Australia -> Europe -> NA", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. - 16:01, 14 May 2014 (EDT)