Talk:Super Mario (series)

Keep this page? Or no.
I wouldn't consider this a TPP, so here is what this is.

Ok. So do we really need to have a Super Mario (series) page? The Mario series page has better coverage on the games in this article. So, keep this page? Or don't keep this page.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: July 20, 2011, 23:59 Date Withdrawn: July 16, 2011

Keep

 * 1) we have articles on every other sub-series so why not have one on this
 * 2) – Per Goomba's Shoe15.
 * 3) Not like I spent an hour working on it. BTW, there is a construction template, I'm still working on it. It's kinda like the DK (series) page.
 * 4) Sure.

No Keep

 * 1) Per Supremo78

Comments
The Super Mario series is not and shouldn't be considered a sub-series. In Japan, Mario is called Super Mario. Also, over there, games such as Super Mario Bros. are considered in the Mario series.

I just want to point out, this is the biggest sub-series in the Mario series. I'm still working on it! If this fails, the Mario Baseball series will be merged with the Mario series, as well as all of the other series. And @Supremo78, on the Mario series page, one of the sub-series is called the Super Mario series. 16:38, 6 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Well still. I don't think we need to make one of these. But if this fails, sorry for my stupidity.
 * @Supremo your vote is invalid cause you have no reason
 * "Well Still" isn't a very convincing counter-argument either. 16:42, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
 * How are you perring yourself if there is not valid reason? 16:44, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
 * He can per himself if he made the proposal he's peering his proposal
 * Rather than deleting it right off the bat, why not let it run it's course as an article under construction. Of course at this point in time the Mario series page is going to have better information.
 * Okay then. This is my opinion. The Super Mario (series) shouldn't be created partly because its just like a mini Mario (franchise). It already says that the games on the Mario series page that those games are in the Super Mario series. And really, people don't consider there is a Super Mario series. When they think about Super Mario Bros., they think Mario (series), not Super Mario (series). And like said before, this is like a mini Mario series page. If you still want to have it, make it a subsection of the Mario series article.

There already is a subsection in the Sub-series section on the page. It is not a mini Mario series due to the fact it features all of the games with "Super Mario" in it. 16:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)


 * I have no more argument, so I remove my vote.

Shouldn't Super Mario Land and Super Mario 64 DS be added to this article? Bspald95 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Never mind. Bspald95 (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

Deletion Template
If anyone puts up a delete template again, I'm goanna flip! 17:04, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Who deleted section on playable characters. 17:10, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

Ports
Do you really think that the virtual console ports should be treated as separate games? I mean, just because Super Mario Bros. is released on the Wii, that doesn't mean it's a new game in the series. I think that we should remove the virtual console section from here and make the 30 games in this series become 23.

-IGGY7735

I counted and there should only be fourteen.

SM3DL's Location
Shouldn't Super Mario 3D Land be in the Super Mario Land series article.


 * No, since the game is considered to be in the mainstream series, not the Super Mario Land series.

Should Super Paper Mario be in this? It has mostly platforming levels.--Yoshidude99 16:36, 23 April 2012 (EDT)

No, SPM should not be in this. A Super Mario game is basically a Mario 100% platformer with the name Super Mario in it that has no sign to be in another sub-series, and SPM fits NO part of that description.

New 3D Super Mario
I read on a website that a new 3D super Mario is being made for the Wii U. Here it is. http://www.ign.com/games/super-mario-wii-u/wii-u-112718

I got 2 more sites. Here they are. http://wiiugo.com/?s=yoshiaki+koizumi+confirms+Super+Mario http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/07/wii-u-mario-zelda/all/1

I added the first one to the Mario game series.

Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2012 (EDT)Electrical Bowser jr.

Yet another site, this ones talking about a leak that they're making a 3D Super Mario called Super Mario World 3. http://wiiugo.com/leaked-details-about-super-mario-world-3/


 * That has yet to be confirmed by Nintendo before it has a place here.

I think it's SMS2, because they are making a sequal to Luigi's Mansion and it seems ilogical to not make a sequal to a comparable game that was more popular in the first place. If you look in the beta elements section of SMG there is a sprite of Mario from SMS; some say it's a place holder, but I say otherwise... Also, Club Nintendo Fans and other Mario fans a like have been demanding a sequal for a long time. The WiiU would be a perfect fit (Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmhedjQmx10 on this theory.) I am NOT comfirming this, but it seems more than likley.. --Lcc98 (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2013 (EST)Lcc98 talk


 * 07:25, 1 December 2012 (EST)


 * The title may be fake, but we can't deny the fact that Nintendo is already working on a new 3D Mario game for the Wii U which is the upcoming Super Mario installment. Nintendo developers (the Super Mario Galaxy team that worked on Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D Land) already stated they are.--Prince Ludwig (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2012 (EST)

The Lost Levels
I'm not, underline not, saying we have to get rid of the Japanese Super Mario 2, but is considered an official part of the series in America? My reason being is that it's not mentioned AT ALL in the Super Mario 25th Anniversary Limited Edition extras and it's not in the 25th Anniversary video (both American version). Also, it never got an official release other than All-Stars and Virtual Console. KoopaKiller13 (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

I don't really see why t matters whether or not its an official part of the American series, because where was Mario created? EmperorLuigi115 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

SMW2: Yoshi's Island a main game?
In the same interview Miyamoto confirmed the Koopalings weren't Bowser's children, he also made an interesting statement about SMW2: YI, he commented the game was initially intended to be part of the [main] Mario series, before the Yoshi series actually begun. According to him, the developers consider this a game of the [main] Super Mario series.

New Argumented Reality Mario Themed Game
Check This Link to see the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v8Tub3gtew This new Mario game has backwards compatibility

that's not something we should put on this page, say that on Mario (franchise) cause that has nothing to do with the main series.

Super Mario Land?
Is there any specific reason the Super Mario Land games are not considered part of the main series? 68.9.233.144 05:39, 4 July 2013 (EDT)

Special?
Quick question, but why is Super Mario Bros. Special not considered part of the Super Mario series? --174.59.4.202 15:43, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

Super Mario Galaxy 2 Review Links
The Gamespot review link did not send me directly to the review.

The link in the page is: http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supermariogalaxy2/index.html?tag=result;title;0.

The actual review link is http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/super-mario-galaxy-2-review/1900-6263170/.

For someone who is able to edit this article, please fix this link. --Marrow (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2014 (EST)

Upcoming Game?
On the page, it says that there is an upcoming Super Mario game. Don't we need a source for this? If there is, can someone send me a link to it?

The Super Mario Land games are confirmed canon by Nintendo
Nintendo on their Japanese 30th anniversary website has posted "the history of the super mario series." All the games considered canon are still on the list, however the Super Mario Land games (specifically the first mario land and six golden coins)are added. Since this is indeed an official source by Nintendo, we have no choice but to edit this and the "Super Mario Land series" article to fit this official picture by Nintendo. If there is any reason why we should deny this official source please speak up. Here is the official source.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/

Here's the US link, too:

http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/

It seems Nintendo changed their minds about the Super Mario Land games being canon. However, it only applies to Super Mario Land 1 and 2- not counting additional sequels or spin-offs. That makes Daisy, Tatanga and Wario confirmed canon characters, at least for the time being.

However, note that the US list omits Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels from the list- this suggests the canon is subjective even to Nintendo.

Agreed. I think we should say that the lost levels are canon even in the U.S despite the American version of the site. The Japanese is the source of Mario, so it might only be fair to call canon the original source material.


 * These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the article. Additional footnotes can be used for disambiguation of some entries' position or for noting changes in Nintendo's stance over time (something that should also be documented), or the different viewpoints of what consists a main entry (like how, for example, Yoshi's Island was developed for the purpose of expanding the Super Mario series, even though it ended up spinning-off its own series). --195.97.37.132 08:48, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

That makes sense. We should edit the article based on Nintendo's current standpoint rather than our assumptions. We will have to clarify that both the Japanese and NA/EU canon are both different. I do find it interesting how Super Mario bros U.S.A (as called in Japan), is considered canon in the main Mario series in Japan, but Super Mario bros 2 ( the lost levels as called in America) are not considered canon in America. Since I am new to this site, I do not really know how to edit the article. Do we need to request permission? To who?

I have attempted to edit the page. There is still much need for the article to be edited to add the land titles. I have attempted to change some of the basic text to tell the reader that the first two Mario land titles are apart of the main series. If you could edit the page to completely fill in these games that would be appreciated. I am inexperienced with editing source code. Thank you. 10:44, 29 May 2015 (EDT)


 * This is a major change as it has repercussions for organization across the wiki and should be decided via proposal, not via one brief conversation with only two people involved. The last time this was proposed, it failed. Granted, that was years ago and there's new information to consider, but the fact that the discussion got that contentious last time just proves that you need to do this via proper channels this time too. - 15:28, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

Proposals are only neccarey if there is question of if the material should be on the article. Size of change is not a reason as to why a proposal is needed. This is because size and importance of something is debatable and opinionated. A simple minor change could be small to one and huge to the other. Since Super Mario Wiki has nothing to say how big something has to be to be proposed, then according to the rules it is perfectly fine. Proposals so far should only be made if there is doubt or question about the material. Unless you doubt my source, then there is no one to question if it should or should not be there. If that is the case one has every right to post a fact when there is no opposition. Do you question my source? If my reasoning is not clear please explain. 4:58, 29 May 2015


 * Proposals are necessary for major changes that affect central pages or large numbers of pages, especially when there's a good possibility that some users may disagree. Including the SML games in the SM series is changing the definition of the central series of games, which is a big change under any reasonable measure, and it would potentially require the reorganization of hundreds of History sections across the wiki, which is unquestionably weighty as far as changes go. Furthermore, Nintendo has had conflicting stances on the matter over the years which should not be completely ignored in favour of this one new feature, and SML (and YI) games also have their own subseries apart from the SM series that spawned them, which adds to the awkwardness of how to approach dealing with them anywhere, so it's far from a cut and dry situation nomatter which way you slice it. Personally, I would say the SML games (and Yoshi's Island) should definitely be on this page, but still separated from the main games so that we can avoid reorganizing everything to be consistent, and to reflect the past ambivalence about their classification. - 17:46, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

Although Nintendo's canon stances have changed over the years, it is up to Super Mario wiki to keep updated on the current canon Nintendo says is canon to stay relevant to the current Mario lore and history. The situation may be different if Nintendo were to constantly switch up which games are and are not apart of the main series. However, since it has been officially added, there is no need to doubt whether or not they will keep the Land games as part of the main series. Furthermore, if you will still deny me then I will propose. Though if you want me to propose you will need to tell me how, so that this official information can be apart of the wiki for all to understand. 6:13, 29 May 2015 (EDT)


 * We also have to organize the information in the most effective way; I agree that the SML games should be on this page, but separated, like how the ports and remakes are separated, despite past Nintendo-produced rundowns of the series including some of them (and not mentioning others at all, while the new one mentions none), in order to keep things clear and manageable, both here and across the wiki. Proposals explains what to do, and you can also look at archived proposals to get a better idea of how proposals are written and run. This proposal would go in the "Changes" section. I also recommend making three option headers, rather than just "support" and "oppose" - i.e. one for full inclusion (here and in wiki organization standards), one for partial inclusion (i.e. what I'm suggesting, to include them here, but separate and not forcing reorganization across the wiki), and one for no inclusion (only because there has to be a "no change" option). - 19:58, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the help. But I disagree with putting the Land games in their own section like remakes. If Nintendo says they are main Mario titles then they should be categorized as such. Not based on our assumptions. 10:29, 29 May 2015

Lots of work to do
Knowing that the first two Super Mario Land games are now apart of the main series. There is a lot of editing to do. Such examples as turing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." Into "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth game in the Super Mario series. " We will also have to add the titles to the "Main" list. 01:28, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

Create a New Super Mario Bros. (series) page
I think, with 4 games and 1 extension game, we should create an article about New Super Mario Bros. sub-series. Why we can not talk about since Article about some sub-series, like the Donkey Kong Country (series) being sub-series of Donkey Kong (series), I read a Iwata Ask about New Super Mario Bros. Wii (I think or was it one of New Super Mario Bros.), is one reason why the team believes New Super Mario Bros. a new type of game to the Super Mario Bros. grind because of the 2.5D graphics and it was the reason they stuck the word "New" on the game's title. So, why not?

Proposer: Deadline: July 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: July 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) By looking at naming, design choices (including art and gameplay), and the developer interviews found at "Iwata Asks", I think that the Mario series of platformers is now split in three branches:
 * 3) *The New Super Mario series ("New" Mario games in http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/nsmbu/0/0) that are 2.5D platformers with gameplay and design decisions similar to the one used in the old Super Mario Bros. games (especially 3 and 4, known as World in the West), with goal posts to be reached or bosses to be beaten within a defined amount of time to complete the stage;
 * 4) *the main series (now known as "Super Mario Galaxy" series in http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/super-mario-3d-world/0/6), which is a series of fully 3D platformers with unrestrained movements of the main character started with Super Mario 64 and continued with Super Mario Sunshine and then Super Mario Galaxy, with a new gameplay based mainly around finding and collecting special items that, when collected within stages, mark a subpart of that stage as completed and make the player return to the main hub stage;
 * 5) *the "Super Mario 3D" series (distinguished from the Super Mario Galaxy series in http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/super-mario-3d-world/0/6), which is a a series of fully 3D platformers with unrestrained movements of the main character started with Super Mario 3D Land, and based on a more linear gameplay reminescent of the original Super Mario Bros. games, with a goal post to be reached within a defined time to complete the stage.
 * There are of course elements common to all three series (e.g. powerups that "transform" the main character giving new abilities, optional collectibles in each stage, recurring enemies), and the Super Mario 3D series might be seen as an evolution of super Mario Galaxy 2, still I think that we should really consider making this distinction in the Wiki as well, which also means creating a page about the "New Super Mario Bros." series.
 * 1) I do believe that games that have "New Super Mario Bros." in them follow the same coherent themes and gameplay, even more so than Super Mario Land series (which has a page, as I stated in the comments below). Additionally, games under the "New Super Mario Bros." tag have their own themes and art style, so they're more similar to each other than they are to the pre New Super Mario Bros. 2D platformers. To counter the slippery slope argument, the 64/Sunshine/Galaxy games are radically different from one another, and Galaxy 2 is not enough for a "Super Mario Galaxy" series. As for the the 2D-into-3D platformers, we don't have enough games to also consider it its own series. Invoking Super Mario 3D Galaxy is only hypothetical and does not solve organizational problems, nor does it have any bearing on this topic. Even if we did have Super Mario 3D Galaxy, it would most likely fall within "3D Land/World" style anyhow, and that would probably be the grounds to create articles on those games. Anyhow, stating that these pages will get redundant, but we'd have to consider the other subseries pages including Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario Land, and this page. So, it's still not a problem of this getting its own page, it would be the problem of all those subseries pages.
 * 2) As long as the games are still counted as Super Mario games, yes. I do believe these games are similar enough to warrant a subseries page.
 * 3) My opinion pretty much matches Magikrazy's. Keep the games on this page but also give them their own article.
 * 4) This thought has crossed my mind multiple times and honestly, I see fair reasons why this sub series should have an article. I mean these games share more similarities than most other games in the main series (and by similarities I mean I'm pretty much playing the same game five times).
 * 5) Per all. The "New" series are similar and based on the base games, but they have enough differences to be considered different.
 * 6) Per all, especially Pyro Guy.
 * 7) We have a Mario Kart page, a Mario Party page, a Mario Golf page, a Mario Tennis page, a Paper Mario page, a Mario & Luigi page, why no New Super Mario Bros.? There are (correct me if I'm wrong) 4 games in the series, and it just needs to be done.
 * 8) Per all, under the rationale that New Super Mario Bros. is its own subseries by now.
 * 9) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I think we've had a proposal like this in the past, and I believe that the NSMB games aren't really different enough from the old 2D platformers (SMB3, World and the like) to merit them as a separate series. Donkey Kong Country has different mechanics from some other DK games, but NSMB is almost the same as old games but...with new levels and a few new items and enemies, and the graphics have been updated. But the core gameplay hasn't significantly changed. So I can't see how that justifies creating a separate page for NSMB.
 * 2) Per Chocolate Mario.
 * 3) Essentially, the only hint towards a new series is the word "New.", as the gameplay is still pretty much the same as always. It's like saying Super Mario Bros. 1-3 is a different series as Super Mario World because World lacks the number 4 in it's name. It's basically the Mario version of the Donkey Kong Country Returns games.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) We actually did have a proposal about this; Per all opposing reasons there.
 * 6) - Been mulling this over since I was on the fence, but yeah, gonna listen to my gut and vote "no" on this, like how I opposed the past proposals. The NSMB games are no more different than the other 2D platformers as SMB2 (except graphically, but as seen in Super Mario Maker, that's pretty superficial), and certainly not more different than when you compare the SM64-type games to SMB etc. And most worrisomely to me it that it opens the door to iffier subseries pages being made too, and even the splitting of History sections, which we emphatically don't want; the "there's already a subseries page" argument gives the pro-splitters a foot in the door, and will probably led to more attempts due to the perceived inconsistency between the series pages and the organizational aspect of the wiki: better to be consistent. And upon further consideration, we don't actually have an example of a completely nested subseries getting its own page, so this would be a new precedent: SML is separate from both SM and WL, thanks to YI, SMA is not completely contained within SM, and while there are separate DKC/DKL series pages despite them being grouped together in History sections (but not templates or categories currently), there's no umbrella page (the overall DK series is more like the overall Mario series page). And to a lesser extent I tand by my final argument in the older proposals, in that we should focus on making extant series pages less crappy, rather than piling on redundant new ones to neglect.
 * 7) – I really don't like creating new articles just for the sake of creating new articles, which is what this seems to be all about. Furthermore, the New Super Mario Bros. games are not that much more different from the mainline Super Mario games. If your argument that they differ enough is that the titles in the New Super Mario Bros. series contain Star Coins, plot twist, Super Mario World already had a similar mechanic, whilst Super Mario Advance also had specific coins that could be collected in a similar fashion. Furthermore, the inclusion of Red Coins in Super Mario Bros. Deluxe's challenge mode further cements my belief that the creation of a New Super Mario Bros. series page is absolutely unnecessary. I would also write something about how the categorisation of these new pages, and how this would open the floodgates for new series pages to be created, but it appears that Walkazo has already illustrated opinions that are similar to my own in this instance, so I have to say per Walkazo on those points.
 * 8) Per all, especially Pi, Chocolate Mario, Walkazo, and BabyLuigi64.
 * 9) I think this would eliminate our Mario timeline of platforming games, but whether or not I am corrected on that point, I also support Walkazo in this and preceding proposals.
 * 10) Per Chocolate Mario.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per everyone.

Comments
Shouldn't New Super Luigi U also be included in this new page, if it is to be created? 13:26, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Yes, since New Super Luigi U being a extension game of New Super Mario Bros. U.-- 13:30, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

So would you want the games separated in Histories and such, or would it be like how SMA has a series page, but all its entries are just part of the overall SM series (even when they're being listed separately from the originals because of new content situations), or how DKC and DKL both have series pages but get lumped together into one overall DKC/L series (while DK64 and the other games are separate)? Because I would be totally against splitting up the Histories, templates, categories and whatnot. And I'm still a bit wary even just on the series page front because then it could be argued we also need a SMB sub-series page, and one for 64/Sunshine/Galaxy - and potentially future ones for the "3D" series if World is followed up by something else (probably 3D Galaxy, as another crossover, and then that'd also make folks wonder if we should get a specific SMG sub-(sub-)series page... At some point, all the extra pages starts getting redundant, and just adds to the pile of stuff we need to maintain. - 14:37, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
 * No, i don't want like you say splitting the histories, templates, categories from the SM series. But, like you say, it would be like how DKC and DKL both have series pages from the DK series. I don't really think we need one for the 64/sunshine/galaxy or even 3D series, because they share mostly the same thing from being 3D and they are mostly for search a star-like item. The 3D series like Land and World is mostly look like a crossover from 2D games and 3D games.-- 15:18, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

I think it's better if we leave it as it is. I'm not too fond of invoking hypothetical slippery slopes. But it's already confusing where 64/Sunshine/Galaxy should be categorized (along with the 3D Terraqueous Macrocosm games). New Super Mario Bros. as its own sub-subseries might work since they all fall within a particular style and naming convention, but it does leave questions about Super Mario Bros. 1-3 and stuff like Super Mario Land 3 and Super Mario World 2. As for Galaxies and 3D Terraqueous Macrocosm, well, there aren't enough games yet since it's a game and its sequel. I'd be concerned if we ever get a third game including 3D Terraqueous Galaxy. 16:00, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

New Super Mario Bros. is no more deserving of its own series page than the rebooted Retro Studios Donkey Kong Country, or if Nintendo decided to make sequels (not sequel) for Yoshi's New Island. -- 10:18, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
 * And what about Super Mario Land? It has three games and a discontinued Virtual Boy game, yet it has its own page. It's much more loosely tied than New Super Mario Bros., which, without a doubt, has a coherent naming convention and similar artstyles to each other. 14:51, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
 * To me, Super Mario Land is more obviously a spinoff (everything in the games are so different, and it doesn't follow the "Super Mario Bros." naming) while New Super Mario Bros. is a continuation of the original series, like Donkey Kong Country Returns. -- 19:43, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Super Mario Land has little influence in the Mario series as a whole, but it's still coherent enough (its storyline, for instance) to have its own sub series article. Donkey Kong Country Returns and Tropical Freeze are a different case, and they're much more drastic than New Super Mario Bros. revival (Kremlings?). New Super Mario Bros. are treated as their own set of games now, as "New" used to imply and pander to nostalgia, but that it has been used for 4 subsequent games/extensions feels significant for me. You don't see "Donkey Kong Country Returns: Tropical Freeze", do you? 02:41, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
 * "Super Mario Land has little influence in the Mario series as a whole, but it's still coherent enough (its storyline, for instance) to have its own sub series article." Exactly. That's why, to me, Super Mario Land is obviously a sub-series, while I feel NSMB is just a continuation of the original games. -- 10:55, 3 July 2015 (EDT)

@Mister Wu: Three branches? Where would pre New Super Mario Bros. 2D platformers go? The Super Mario Wiki equivalent of a taxonomical dumping ground? And are we really going to name the cluster of 3D Mario platformers that isn't 3D Terraqueous Macrocosm the "Super Mario Galaxy series"? As for the significance of New Super Mario Bros., we do, however, have a page on Super Mario Land (series)... 14:48, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, to be honest, I already implicitly classified them as the old "Super Mario Bros. series" ;-). Anyway, since as you pointed out the Super Mario 3D series only has 2 games and the main series started with Super Mario 64 in itself had quite a few changes before becoming what is described by the developers as the series of "Super Mario Galaxy" games, I think in those cases just a reorganization of the page and the template in these 3+1 (or just 3, if we consider Super Mario 64 as the continuation of the Super Mario Bros. series) branches would be nice, although not really mandatory, in order to point out the similarities between games and clarify which should be the proper sequel of which.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
 * I suppose so, but I wouldn't be all-out supporting marrying 64/Sunshine/Galaxy even though they're 3D platformers that share a similar logo style, which suggests that they're similar in a way... 02:41, 3 July 2015 (EDT)

@Andymii:in my opinion the argument is quite flawed because Super Mario World is Super Mario Bros. 4. The name was dropped in the West but in Japan there never was this distinction between Super Mario Bros. 1-3 and Super Mario World, even in the name. In the case of the New Super Mario Bros. series, it is the developer themselves who are making this distinction, even though the gameplay is so similar that New Super Mario Bros. U is in Super Mario Maker along with the Super Mario Bros. games. After all, it is difficult to ignore that, before New Super Mario Bros., Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine were released, and if I'm not mistaken those were considered the proper continuation of the Super Mario Bros. series, with New Super Mario Bros. coming later to offer again the gameplay of the old 2D games without being just a port or an improved version.--Mister Wu (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Andymii: It's a combination of factors, not just naming convention. Naming just reinforces the games' grouping. All New Super Mario Bros. games have the same art style, music style (bahs), gameplay (controller schemes have remained consistent; same items including Red Coin Rings, Blue P-Switches; physics), and a few other things. The New Super Mario Bros. games, as I've pointed out, have more in common with each other than Super Mario Bros. 1-3 have with themselves. 00:13, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
 * Of course the games are similar. When SMB 1-3 were being developed, they were still advancing and trying to make improvements, which explains all the changes and improvements you see going even from SMB to SMB3. (although in Super Mario Bros. 2's case, it wasn't supposed to be a Mario game in the first place) -- 12:52, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

Just a question: what makes the NSMB series distinct enough from the classic SMB series (barring 2 and including TLL, I suppose)?

Idk, I personally think the Bahs and art style is no big difference. Again, as I've said, if we're going to make the "New" Mario games a sub-series, why doesn't SMB 1-3 also get their own sub-series as well? --Andymii (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2015 (EDT)
 * I do not consider that SMB 1, 2, 3 and World should have their sub-series page, because they are different from each others, SMB1 had 4 levels per world, Bowser Impostor is battle and you rescue Toad who always say that the princess is in another castle, except World 8. SMB2 takes place in Subcon and the end of the game imply it was Mario's dream, SMB3 take place in Mushroom World, you need to rescue the Mushroom King in each world and Peach in World 8 (aka Dark Land) and SMW take place in Dinosaur Land, you need to rescue Yoshi's friend and rescue Peach's mysterious kidnap. Also, each game have a different end-of-level (goal pole in SMB, battle with Birdo/Boss in SMB2, Card Panel in SMB3, Giant Gate in SMW. The NSMB series are mostly different from these games, because of the art style, the 2.5D, the "bah" in music and the game always take place in the Mushroom Kingdom and the world's theme is always the same in each game (plains, desert, water, forest, snow, mountain, cloud). Also, you only need to rescue Peach in this games and found all star coin and the 5 games always end with a Goal Pole in levels.-- 13:39, 3 July 2015 (EDT)

@Pyro Guy: What exactly are the differences? I know they are there, but how significant are they? Andymii (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2015 (EDT)

Super Mario Logo
Do we really need four versions of the Super Mario logo? We have one being used for the info box, and then three variations of it at the top. Two of them are just repeats of the other two, but with a different colouring or placement. 03:40, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
 * I know it's long overdue for an answer, but my answer is no. This stuff should be saved for a gallery section. 01:39, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Create a New Super Mario Bros. (series) page -2nd Try-
I know it will perhaps be boring to bring a proposal that was closed in July, but with new wiki users and new arguments I would like to share what’s could possibly change. For my part, I sincerely believe that the New Super Mario Bros line of games deserves an article for his own series. The team working in this line of games explained in an Iwata Ask the reason of having hung the word "New" in the name and it was because of the 2.5D and that's why they say it is a new type of game. I don’t think we should drop the argument of the producers. Then another of my arguments it’s that I do not believe that New Super Mario Bros. Is a continuity of the old Super Mario Bros, because each games are entirely different, SMB1 being different from SMB2, which is also different from SMB3. When I play SMB1, I don’t think I’m playing the same type of game when I play SMB3, but when I play NSMBWii and NSMBU, it’s like I’m playing same game. Furthermore, I also believe that the old 2D games are the 3D games of today, because each of them have a place completely different and a different type of action from the previous (SMB1 happening in the Mushroom Kingdom, SMB2 in Subcon, SMB3 in the Mushroom World, SMW in Dinosaur Land, SM64 in Peach’s Castle, SMS in Isle Delfino, SMG and SMG2 in the galaxies) The NSMB line of games always have the same themes in the Mushroom Kingdom and each level will end with the Goal Pole. Each of the 2D games that are for me the 3D games of today finish a level by different method. Goal Pole for the first game, a boss to SMB2, a Goal Panel for SMB3 a Giant Gate for SMW, a star for SM64, a Shine Sprite for SMS and a Super Star for SMG and SMG2. Also, some sub-series have their page, there is no good reason why it would not be right for this one to have it. It'll perhaps open doors for other sub-series games article, but they can have the potential to have a article, it could allow those who only want to see the details about a sub-series in general to look for them than a article series that having a whole mash-up of game of a complete series. If you want to see NSMB games in general, you go to the article I request to create. About the Super Mario 3D Land and 3D World, I think it is a type of cross-over like Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam being a cross-over of Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi. As another argument, I believe that the first 2D games that are for me the 3D games of today, I think the developers are trying to differentiate the game for each one and they are trying to improve the game in every way, while NSMB game online are an interpretation of the first titles and they try not to make big changes set in. I think I have brought several arguments to convince that in my line NSMB game deserves its series of page like other sub-series have.

To resumed all this, that’s what I say :
 * The 2D games that appear to me like the 3D games of today are too much differente from each other to have their article for a sub-series.
 * If we want to look to something in general (eg : If I want to look for the Donkey Kong Country games, I always go to the Donkey Kong Country (series), because the Donkey Kong (series) is more of a mash-up of all games and it’s more harder to look only for what appear in the Donkey Kong Country (series).
 * The New Super Mario Bros. line of games appear to me not much different from each others
 * Super Mario Maker (well I didn’t talk about it in the big text above), they just placed four games platform and set of equipment for the four themes are consistent.

If this passed, that’s what a would make :
 * Create a article name « New Super Mario Bros. (series) », it would talk about the games, the main protagonists, the supporting characters, the main antagonists and major items (eg : star coins). New Super Luigi U will be included.
 * The games would not be separated from the games histories from the Super Mario (series) like Donkey Kong Country (series) is not separated in the games histories of the Donkey Kong (series).

Opposers : Give me a good reason why all others sub-series article exist and why this one could not.

Proposer: Deadline: December 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Donkey Kong Country, DK Land and Wario Land are sub-series of the Donkey Kong and Wario series respectively, but New Super Mario Bros. is pretty much a sub-series of a sub-series of a sub-series of the Mario series as a whole. Furthermore, Super Mario Land can be justified by this proposal, and finally Super Mario Advance is partially Yoshi series thanks to it remaking Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Also, per the last two proposals for creating an NSMB page.
 * 2) - Per the opposition votes on the last time this unnecessary upheavel of the backbone of the wiki was attempted, and the time before that, aaaand the time before that too. There is no point having a NSMB subseries page because it is completely nested within the overall SM series page: anything that can be said about the NSMB games is already said on Super Mario (series), so why bother saying it again on yet another crappy series page? And if we make a NSMB subseries page, that will opens the door to subpages for other chunks of the SM series (and beyond), but they don't need them either, so no, that is NOT a precedent we want. Donkey Kong (series) and Wario (series) are like Mario (franchise) (and Yoshi (series)) in that they're the four main "partner series" that make up the franchise, hence Donkey Kong Country (series), Donkey Kong Land (series) and Wario Land (series) exist: they're equivalents of the SM series itself (as well as any given non-platformer spinoffs too, from Mario Kart to Dr. Mario), so you can't really try to compare them to a subset of SM games - it's crabapples to oranges. As for Super Mario Land (series) and Super Mario Advance (series), they're also different from NSMB, because they can't be nested within a single parent series: SMA has Yoshi's Island in there, and SML is a transition from SM to Wario Land and the first two are different enough from both that they get listed separately in History sections (but since SMA are all remakes, as long as the original games already have sections, they're just grouped in there too, same as any other remake). Speaking of which, History sections, categories and templates should be consistent with subseries pages: split out a NSMB series page, split it everywhere else too, or be inconsistent with every other series that's gotten a page so far (except the SMA remakes): either way, it is NOT something we want. The core games should all be at the tops of Histories, and all covered here: no redundant series page, no organizational inconsistencies, no opening of the floodgates to more hellish subseries discussions. We should just make the series pages we already have presentable and call it a day.
 * 3) I don't agree with Walkazo on everything, but before we descend into these kinds of proposals, we need to focus first on the quality of the (series) pages as a whole, as I've reiterated every single time these kinds of arguments get brought up. We have been extensively documenting the consistently poor quality of these kinds of articles and have not yet reached a final agreement on how they should be designed. It will be far more constructive to focus on the foundation of such pages than spending futile effort after futile effort on trying to do anything else with these crummy (series) pages.
 * 4) Per all the opposition votes on the previous proposals and these.
 * 5) – Per myself in the above Oppose section.
 * 6) There's Mario, Super Mario, and New Super Mario. Do we really need a page for a sub-sub-series? (in other words per all, especially BabyLuigi64)
 * 7) Per all the opposes in the last proposal of this. Walkazo said everything I needed to say.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
Instead of creating series and subseries pages (reading Walkazo's and Bazooka Mario's comments I now understand the issues) would a reorganization of the Super Mario series page made by grouping together the games pertaining to particular subseries be useful instead? After all the developers themselves recognize this kind of grouping, as Iwata Asks I linked to in the previous proposal showed, and it would aid recognizing games with similar features. Of course, the chronological criterion is good as well and is the one used in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros., but I was still wondering if it would make sense to try such an arrangement.Mister Wu (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2015 (EST)
 * I find your opinion interesting and it would not let down the argument of developers. It would be strange that a professional wiki drops the opinion of those who work on the Mario series.-- 09:51, 28 November 2015 (EST)
 * I still maintain that it would be better to stick to chronological order, rather than chopping the main series up into pieces, everywhere, rather than creating disagreements between how this page is organized compared how everything else on the wiki's organized. Nintendo changes its mind on how it deals with these games all the time, and we're under no obligation to blindly follow them one way or another, since our needs (an efficient, comprehensive way to organize all the info) don't always line up with theirs (i.e. they can ignore obscure 3rd party remakes from the 90s, we can't). On the public front, official timelines released for the 25th and 30th Anniversaries didn't divide the SM series up: all the games were side-by-side in one linear row, and if we want to take the lead from one style or another, we should use the one they're advertising the series to the public with, since that's what most fans will see and expect. Chronological order, plain and simple, is how every other series works around here: it's the most straightforward way to present the information, and it involves the least amount of judgement calls from us. It's worked perfectly fine for 5 years, and it should keep working just as well. - 10:48, 28 November 2015 (EST)

Super Mario Maker?
Should Super Mario Maker be considered a mainstream game? It has the standard platforming and "Super Mario" in the name, but the levels are primarily user-generated. I wanted to get the community's opinions on the subject before adding it.--MarioManTAW (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2016 (EDT)
 * I think it's better off as a miscellaneous game. For starters, there's no official narrative in the game whatsoever; whereas every single mainstream Mario platformer has one. Super Mario Land has more in common than Super Mario Maker, and that has standard platforming and Super Mario in its name too, but we don't consider it part of the mainstream series. The user-generated content and primary focus around level creation is enough for it to be different than the mainstream ones, and I think there's too much debate whether it constitutes as one, so there's also that. 11:48, 22 April 2016 (EDT)
 * For what it's worth, there has been a few relevant discussions on this. It's been argued that the series should be part of the mainstream games because of its name and gameplay, and it's listed alongside other similar games in the anniversary booklets (but Super Mario Land stuff is there too, and we don't group Super Mario Land for various reasons). On the other hand, this deviates strongly from the other mainstream games just by being a level maker tool thing rather than a traditional game, so you could make a case for that too. 18:06, 22 April 2016 (EDT)

My edit
I know it's bad but fix it Arceus (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2016 (EDT)
 * No, I'm not fixing poor writing for you. First of all, your writing is subpar. I *think* you're a foreign speaker on here, but even so, there's a lot of errors in your writing; you need to capitalize "Super" in the "Super Mario series. Second, Super Mario Bros. 2 isn't a mod of Doki Doki Panic. It's heavily based on it, but the word "mod" has other implications that are inappropriate to describe it; the previous revision described it better. The Peach description stating "she can float" is randomly placed in the end of her description block. When you added Yoshi and Daisy, the coding is broken; that you don't need to know English to fix it, so you should fix it yourself so you understand how to code tables yourself better. Daisy doesn't belong in this article either, she's not even in the Super Mario series. You did make good edits that I'm going to restore, but please keep in mind that when you make mistakes that you're aware of, you're expected to fix them yourself. 12:52, 22 April 2016 (EDT)

What about Super Mario Land Arceus (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2016 (EDT) I believe Super Mario Land is part of the Super Mario Land series. Marioguy (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

SMBS and NSLU
Why does SMB Special get special treatment? From what I understand, it's literally just a remake of SMB.

On that note, why isn't New Super Luigi U considered to be part of the main games? Isn't it its own game with its own levels? 13:51, 18 September 2016 (EDT)


 * SMBSpecial is as much a remake of SMB as the Japanese SMB2 (Lost Levels) is. Or NSLU is of NSMBU.
 * SMB level maps
 * SMBS (X1) level maps.
 * - Reboot (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 * Regarding New Super Luigi U, it is effectively a DLC pack for New Super Mario Bros. U, to the point that you can just run it directly from New Super Mario Bros. U, with the Wii U still recognizing that you are playing New Super Mario Bros. U, if you buy it as DLC for that game, which is the way it was originally sold as. Even if it has then been sold as standalone, I wouldn't consider this fact enough to consider it a new game. If you want, you may create a proposal to find a consensus on this matter.--Mister Wu (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 * I will happily concede SMBS, because it turns out I was misled into believing it was only a remake. I still don't see why NSLU would be considered to be a DLC seeing as it has the same amount of levels as a full game, so I'm likely going to make a proposal about it. Thanks everyone. 17:16, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 * It's not a matter of being considered, it is a DLC pack for New Super Mario Bros. U! It just installs on top of the game adding a new set of levels, with their own assets, a new playable character (Nabbit) and different choice of characters, slightly different cutscenes and a new menu. The underlying game is exactly New Super Mario Bros. U, version 1.3.0. To back this with official information, here's the UK site:




 * type: Add-On Content (Wii U)




 * And if we look at what is said about the standalone version, we discover this:




 * The content of the Game Disc version of New Super Luigi U is the same as the add-on content for New Super Mario Bros. U. New Super Mario Bros. U is not included, and is not required to play the Game Disc version of New Super Luigi U.




 * The North American site is also clear in this regard:




 * Show off your skills in this downloadable content for New Super Mario Bros.™ U. With 82 new courses, it's almost an entirely new game!




 * So, even Nintendo officially considers New Super Luigi U downloadable content for New Super Mario Bros. U. We can discuss where to put it, of course, as New Super Mario Bros. U is the second Super Mario game that receives DLC content, and this time it is quite a big downloadable pack, with its own name and that was even sold separately (even though the standalone version still has the same content as the one of the downloadable pack).--Mister Wu (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 * Although, does anyone else think SMBS deserves to be in the "main games" section? As was pointed out, it's a brand new game. It does borrow graphics from SMB, but that doesn't mean it's not a sequel (and thus a separate game). See The Lost Levels (or Megaman 2-6). 17:20, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 * SMB Special is not recognized by Nintendo as a main game. Additionally, the game was developed by a third party and was not released for a Nintendo platform. It's just an SMB-based game released for a non-Nintendo platform. --PhGuy12 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Wario is not really a main protagonist in the Super Mario series
The Super Mario Land series, yes, but his only appearance in the Super Mario series, not counting the SML games (which we don't appear to) is merely as a port to a game he previously wasn't in. Yoshi, I can understand, since he was in other games, but not Wario - and if we really ARE counting the SML games, wouldn't he fit under antagonist anyway? CrashBash (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
 * True, the only time we see Wario actually help Mario out was in Super Mario 64 DS (as far as main series is concerned). However, he's not exactly a main antagonist either, save the end of SML2. At this point, he's more of an anti-hero. Not good, but only helping if it benefits him. 15:25, 20 October 2016 (EDT)

Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
I got to say: should we add that game on the page, under the related games section or not add it at all?

-- BYLLANT   03:48, 8 November 2016 (EST)
 * It's not unreasonable to put it under related games. Go for it. 17:09, 8 November 2016 (EST)

What a main Super Mario game is according to Super Mario Wiki?
Just when I thought the situation regarding to Super Mario Land games couldn't get worse, both Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run have joined this dreaded debate. It seems that, indeed, Nintendo also considers those two as main entries in the Super Mario series, not spin-offs, related or additional games, so these infographics having Super Mario Maker were not a coincidence. Well, according to the official Mario Portal website, the main games are these (in their Japanese releases):


 * Super Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Bros. 2
 * Super Mario Bros. 3
 * Super Mario Land
 * Super Mario World
 * Super Mario USA
 * Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
 * Super Mario 64
 * Super Mario Sunshine
 * New Super Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Galaxy
 * New Super Mario Bros. Wii
 * Super Mario Galaxy 2
 * Super Mario 3D Land
 * New Super Mario Bros. 2
 * New Super Mario Bros. U
 * Super Mario 3D World
 * Super Mario Maker
 * Super Mario Run

The bolded games are currently considered main Super Mario games by Nintendo but the Super Mario Wiki has decided to sort them into different categories (Super Mario Odyssey is not yet on the list but one has to be foolish to think it won't be included in the future). These game were not put together by coincidence by Nintendo, and it's not the first time they are sorted like that, these are the true MAIN Super Mario games. However, I'm quite aware Nintendo's statements are not a law to be followed by editors on the Super Mario Wiki. The reasons excused in the past to not include certain games is that Nintendo tends to contradict itself, like the exclusion of the Super Mario Land games in the 25th anniversary was not to be ignored (which I still cannot get through my head how can we let an old celebration still be more relevant than the most recent celebration) or the absence of the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 in western materials serving as an excuse to also omit other games.

I'm not a member of Super Mario Boards but I have witnessed this debate from there, people in those forums have stated that the aesthetic of the Super Mario Land games is different enough to sort them on a different category, that stuff like the rail shooting sections of the original, the developer being Nintendo R&D and not Nintendo EAD, or that it spun-off into the Wario Land series are "perfectly excusable" reasons to sort the Super Mario Land games in the "Additional Games" section they are currently located, but I find that to be nonsense, because the Super Mario games do not have a specific aesthetic to follow in the first place, the developer doesn't matter, in the end it's still Nintendo making these games and other series have spun-off from the Super Mario series, the prime example is Yoshi's Island.

Now, for Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run, I was also on the wagon they were spin-offs, I mean, one is a creation tool game and the other is a mobile game not made for Nintendo hardware, but it seems that's not an excuse anymore, and it seems it never was, Nintendo sees those game as main entries, and I got to admit I find Nintendo's words the highest authority to follow, because without them there wouldn't have been a Super Mario Wiki, right? But I'm sure that's very unlikely to change for this wiki, for now. This is when the question from the topic comes to subject, what defines a main Super Mario game? if I was to find a solution to this debate, I'd say to stick to what Nintendo says. If they get contradicted in the past, it shouldn't matter anymore as a lot of things get retconned (like Mario no longer originating from Brooklyn and being always a resident of the Mushroom World according to the story of Yoshi's Island). Why not call main games the 20 games (including Super Mario Odyssey) that are listed above, even if there are ample differences between them? Why isn't Nintendo's way of classifying these series the way we do it as well? Why does the past material has to matter (screw you Super Mario History booklet!)? Of course, this is not a proposal, because it would be a vicious cycle to bring another proposal for this, yet I want more to know what other editors think what should be done about this.

-- BYLLANT   01:41, 5 March 2017 (EST)
 * I will have to think a proper answer, but for the moment it is important to know this: the only time Nintendo explicitly mentioned the Super Mario series, calling it Super Mario Bros. series, is in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros., on pages from 238 to 255. There, it is clearly stated that Super Mario Maker  is not part of the Super Mario series. The portal does not state that those games are all part of the series. If you want to go with official information, unless Nintendo explicitly uses the Super Mario Bros. term when introducing new games, you'll inevitably need to stick with the Encyclopedia for the moment.--Mister Wu (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Why Super Mario Land/Super Mario Land 2 still unchanged?
As points 13 and 13'1 say, Super Mario Land and it's sequel are confirmed maingames by Nintendo and there was some works to do like change the number of installements: change "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." Into "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth game in the Super Mario series. " etc. After few years this still unchanged but why? Is there a valid reason or it was just forgot?-- PrincessDaisyForever (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2017 (EST)

Reconsidering the common and notable enemies and obstacles
I think we should reconsider the common and notable enemies and obstacles. Listing all the enemies of all the games together is in my opinion just excessive and not even that useful, as we have the individual games' pages for that, and having a page with a table to scroll to see all of them might be impractical. On the other hand listing the recurring enemies and obstacles, those that became a mainstay like Goombas, Koopa Troopas, etc. might be more sensible to showcase what the series is known for.--Mister Wu (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
 * This discussion also happened over here. I'm still in favor of trimming the section and outright deleting the split article. 21:09, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
 * One thing I'd like to consider is having pages for enemies the way Zeldawiki does it. It shows pictures of the enemies from either sprites or models, along with their name, which links to their articles, and as such could be easily used by people new to the series, for each respective game. 20:09, 19 July 2017 (CT)
 * The Zelda Wiki creates separate galleries of enemies for every single game, which showcases every enemy within a given game using their name and an image, nothing more. That's a mite bit different than what's going on here. 21:12, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Indeed it is, but I think we could try that instead of this, as well as having a link to the ginormous List of enemies. 20:13, 19 July 2017 (CT)
 * Ideally, every page would already have a section covering every enemy. New Super Mario Bros. has a great example of this, along with Paper Mario and the M&L games. It's not ubiquitous, but it definitely should be. 21:21, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Yeah, something like that, or the grid/gallery thing Zeldawiki does, would be great. It'd probably be preferable if they were on a separate page, like Beta Elem...er, "Prerelease and Unused Content" as well as galleries in general. I'd do it, but I'd need sprites and renders, which I can only get ahold of in very specific occurrences. 20:25, 19 July 2017 (CT)
 * No, splitting them all is a step too far. Subpages are only supposed to be made if the content is dense enough to support it, and especially when considering that some games don't have all that many enemies, making a separate page all of them just makes it harder for users to find relevant content. We don't need to make matryoshka dolls out of our articles. 21:38, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Unless we want to transclude that section (from the newer page to this page) to have it on both (which we may not even work due to users not agreeing on it), I don't think that page is needed. 22:01, 19 July 2017 (EDT)
 * Per my comment here; I agree on trimming the list and deleting this article. 00:16, 20 July 2017 (EDT)

Yoshi's Island
In that one interview where the Koopalings were declassified and Mario's last name was stated to be nonexistent (since retconned), Yoshi's Island is stated to be both of the Yoshi franchise and the core series of Mario platformers. Ergo, I think policy would dictate that it, along with the Mario Land games, Maker, and Run, should be listed under the main series. There's not really a consistent over-arching "story" between each game as it is. Here's a link: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. listed the games released on Nintendo's consoles featuring Mario and clearly stated which ones are part of the Super Mario Bros. series. Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island was listed and clearly stated not to be a part of the Super Mario Bros. series. Not even Mario Portal, which even lists Super Mario Maker among the Super Mario games, lists Yoshi's Island among the Super Mario games. Either the core series is not the Super Mario series or Miyamoto's statement has been redacted.--Mister Wu (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

Placement of the Koopalings
Currently, the Koopalings are listed as "secondary antagonists" due to never being a final boss, despite being the main antagonists (ie the bad guys that drive the plot) in Super Mario Bros. 3 and New Super Mario Bros. 2. Bowser Jr.'s on the "main antagonists" list despite never being a final boss himself, with the closest he comes in this series being him assisting the final boss in Super Mario Sunshine, New Super Mario Bros., and New Super Mario Bros. U. Can this be changed so the Koopalings are in the "main" category? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * Similarly, I feel that F.L.U.D.D., Luma, and Cappy deserve to be on the "Main Protagonists" list, as in the games they are in, they are with Mario the whole game. We include one-off final bosses like Wart and Tatanga in the main antagonists list, after all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * Also with that, I'd like to point out that Toadette and Daisy are included in "main" due to Super Mario Run, of all things, one of which is DLC. Yes, I'd say F.L.U.D.D., Luma, and Cappy deserve to be there as well. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * And the "additional games" section just needs merged with the main, as it's opinionated and speculative to call them "additional" for any reason listed. So what if some of them have been retroactively included? As shown in the above section, Yoshi's Island seems to have been retroactively excluded. And if Super Mario Maker and Run have always been included by Nintendo since they were made, they belong in "main," regardless of how spinoff-y they may seem. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * The problem I see is that this page simply doesn't follow directly what Nintendo states to begin with - which isn't necessarily wrong as for example they changed their mind on Super Mario Maker, which in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. is very well promoted but clearly stated not to be a game of the Super Mario series. We must choose to either follow Nintendo sources, in which case we must update the listing to reflect the Super Mario series in the Mario Portal and also exclusively list the  presented in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. since the Mario Portal now covers other series as well, or we can find different criteria, which we should clarify.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * In all honesty, I don't think the Koopalings make for main antagonists. I don't know why, but I mostly see it as their placement in the series. Bowser Jr may not be a final boss, but he plays second fiddle to Bowser almost all the time, and we know for SURE that Bowser is always the main antagonist, because he is the one who orchestrates all of the kidnappings of Peach, and he just sends his minions sometimes to do his dirty work for him. To be honest, Bowser Jr does more than just serve as a hard boss for the Mario Bros to fight--he is always in their way, always doing things to hinder their progress, but the Koopalings are just hard bosses who serve as Bowser's generals and only sometimes do the dirty work. However, in the end, I think the Koopalings might make for main antagonists, given the arguments that you put out. 23:41, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * I think I can kinda explain why: As you pointed out; Junior has a presence and is a recurring enemy throughout a usual game, whereas the Koopalings are, individually, seen once prior to the ending so whilst they are technically antagonists, it's harder to credit them because they're not a single person. Then again, Kamek occasionally plays a similar role to Junior and he's listed in the Secondary Antagonists section so it's a more of a question, to me at least, as to whether or not we bump Junior down.--Thatguy62 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2017 (EST)
 * No, I never put the Koopalings as secondary antagonists because they're not individuals and Bowser Jr. as a main antagonist because he's an individual, that would be Bowser Jr. fanboyism at its worst, as they all have a name and their own appearance that is even more distinguished from Bowser than Bowser Jr.'s one. Bowser Jr. is simply the mastermind behind all the events of Super Mario Sunshine, you have to fight him repeatedly to progress in the story and unlock new features and he's fought in the last boss fight. By the way, Junior is also fought in the last boss fight of New Super Mario Bros., even though in that game Bowser can be considered the mastermind. As an example, was Ludwig von Koopa ever the main villain, the mastermind behind all the challenges that Mario had to face and the last (or only) enemy to be fought? Yes, in the Super Mario Picture Books of the '90s. But in the Super Mario series, especially now? No. In that series he just has slightly more screen time than any other recurring boss with unique name and appearance thanks to the cutscenes. New Super Mario Bros. 2 is the closest to him appearing in the final boss fight, but just like the other six, he's not fought directly in that fight, and it's obvious that Bowser is the one that organized the kidnapping of Peach and thus the mastermind behind the events.--Mister Wu (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2017 (EST)
 * What I'm saying is that as a thematic group, the Koopalings are the main antagonists of SMB3 and NSMB2 because they are the ones to kickstart the plot in both games, particularly in the former of those, as the "Bowser kidnaps Peach" portion didn't happen until all seven were beaten. We list the group here, not every individual within their own box. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2017 (EST)
 * Actually, the original manual of Super Mario Bros. 3 clarified that it was Bowser who sent the Koopalings around the Mushroom World, so even then they weren't autonomously conceiving a plan but rather just executing their father's orders. Bowser being the final boss wasn't just a last world plot twist. Anyway, as much as I'd love seeing the Koopalings as main villains, I think that with the current page structure this is not possible - we should then put to scrutiny every boss to see if we have to review their placement based on how we're viewing as main villains enemies who never really acted on their own in the Super Mario series and are not fought in any last fight. I'm personally more fine with the previous structure that just listed the most frequently recurring bosses in a shorter list, or even the structure of the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. that just lists the main characters without even distinguishing between good guys and bad guys. According to Nintendo, the Koopalings are main characters of the Super Mario series, but the current page structure doesn't seem to allow us to show that very clearly. This is however a different change we would have to discuss.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2017 (EST)
 * They're still the main antagonists by definition of antagonizing the protagonist the most. In a non-Mario example, Emperor Palpatine appears in The Empire Strikes Back and gives orders to Vader, but Vader's still the main antagonist of that movie. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2017 (EST)
 * Really, they never were the main antagonists in the way the other currently listed main antagonists were. Never fought in directly in a final battle, never been the ones devising the evil plan behind Mario's adventure. If you think at the Star Wars example (The Return of the Jedi final fight), the fight was against Darth Vader as well, nowhere were the Koopalings involved that much in a final fight, they just appeared to make Bowser and Dry Bowser bigger in New Super Mario Bros. 2. The Koopalings might be historical villains with own name and appearance, but they never had a critical role that would earn them the title of main villains, in my opinion.--Mister Wu (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2017 (EST)
 * (Starting indents over) I'd also advise against aping the character classification of ESMB, as that could eventually turn into a slippery slope leading to outright copyright infringement. I think most of the current structure is fine, but that "additional games" section has to go. Either they are part, or they aren't. If any current source lists something as part of it, it's part of it, even if another doesn't list it there. Yoshi's Island was once considered by Nintendo to be part of this series, but now is not. Anyways, it's pretty clear that, for our purposes, "main characters" for this series overview is going to have a different definition than the more general one ESMB would provide, just like how they say that the Switch isn't the successor to the 3DS or Wii U, but by our definition, it seems to be one for the U, as I'm not seeing any more U games being produced. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2017 (EST)

Is Yoshi's Island a core game?
According to Miyamoto, it is. But we currently put it in "related games". Shouldn't we put it in "additional games"? And while I'm here, should "main games" and "additional games" be merged? - 17:41, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * I remember having this debate before, and the short answer is "no, Yoshi's Island is not a core Mario series game". There's a lot of arguments to dig up that I don't feel like parsing through old proposals to find an appropriate comments section, one of them is sorta related but not completely. Additional games aren't merged because they aren't part of the main series per se, they sorta go out of their way to do their own thing (and the Super Mario Land thing is addressed in the linked proposal.)  20:16, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Well, shouldn't we at least move it to "additional games"? - 20:41, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Since that interview Nintendo didn't put Yoshi's Island among the Super Mario games. They didn't do so in the and, as a consequence, in the Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros., they don't do so in the Mario Portal - and the American Official Home of Mario as well. They rather put the game as the first Yoshi platform game and the . I do even wonder if we are giving that interview too much weight, as we don't have the Japanese words, creating ambiguity in the meaning of core Mario series, and more than five years passed since when it was published - the current situation of the Koopalings doesn't count as affirming the current validity of that interview, as well before it already Super Smash Bros. Brawl, New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition stated that they weren't Bowser's children but rather Bowser's minions.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Okay. - 01:41, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * This has been brought up twice before on this very page. I think the safest thing to do would be to put it in the "additional games" section, and change that section's header to say that those games are sometimes considered to be part of the series, but not consistently. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Should I make a TPP? By the way, it was brought up twice, but no replies either time. - 02:34, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * The time I brought it up it got one reply. I don't think a proposal's needed, but a simple talk through with multiple inputs until a group decision is made, as that can be reconsidered without hassle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2018 (EST)