Confused about the wiki's Super Mario (series) page

[Legault]

^This is exactly the reason I chose to consult with others here before changing the Wiki, because I figured there had been some thought put into the classifications. And while I really appreciate the above post (didn't expect such a detailed, well-argued response, to be honest!), some of the factors used to define a "Super Mario" title still don't quite add up. I'll be dividing up my arguments into numbered chunks to make them more manageable.

1) The first problem I have comes from relying upon the Anniversary Collection booklet (here on referred to as ACB) to determine which games are, for lack of a better word, canon. I've flipped through the booklet myself in person, and there's no indication I could see that the book treats itself as authoritative; it's simply a fun look back at many of the games in the Mario series. Even if we were going to give it authoritative status, we'd run into the problem of which games to include in the "Super Mario" series moving forward. Is Super Mario 3D Land a SM game, for example? There's no way to know since the book doesn't tell us, which leads us right back to our previous project of coming up with a definition for ourselves.
Problems with leaning on the ACB:
-ACB gives no indication that its own list is authoritative.
-ACB cannot tell us which games are official Super Mario titles going forward.

2) The second problem I have lies in your assessment of the first two Land games as "unique" enough to be considered a "branching" sub-series. Your say that despite being the GB complement to the NES SMB, the first Land game "did have different characters, enemies, setting and even a unique power up, [and] SML2 totally went of in its own unique direction..." Putting aside any reliance on the ACB, what kind of a standard is this? Is it really objective enough to be used fairly? Because several Mario games that are clearly part of the SM franchise would fail this test, notably Sunshine: it has different characters and enemies, a very unique setting, and completely new power-ups in the form of the FLUDD. Uniqueness clearly isn't a criteria in determining which Mario games fall under the SM heading, so why are the Land games being excluded for this reason?
Problems with leaving out the Land games:
-Several other Super Mario games (i.e. SMB2, Sunshine, etc.) have unique settings, enemies, and power-ups.
-Although your prerogative is not to split up the SM games (which I think is sensible), nevertheless relegating the first two Land games to their own subseries seems like a shaky, maybe even contradictory move.

[As a quick aside, I'd just like to emphasize that the "Super Mario" moniker is in the Japanese release of Yoshi's Island. They simply removed the "World 2" part of the title.]

3) My third and final problem with your post lies in your understanding of what defines a "remake" versus a "port" versus an original game. To be blunt, I doubt anyone would find your definition here convincing. You say that G&WSMB is a remake "because the plot is the same." By this standard, Galaxy 2 is a remake of Galaxy, and SMB2j is a remake of SMB. You provide in your post a list of SMB remakes / ports, and other than the G&W entry, those others do constitute ports / remakes- but for reasons you don't provide. Every other game shares the same mechanics and very similar / identical level design. What does G&WSMB share with the original? Nothing, other than the narrative framing of "Go rescue Peach from Bowser."

[Two more small things: SMB Special could be excluded from your list on the grounds that it wasn't made by Nintendo, and All Night Nippon should be under the Lost Levels banner.]


What I hope I've demonstrated here is that, at heart, this issue all comes down to a question of definition. What, precisely, defines a Super Mario title? We have a couple possibilities on the table, and a few new ones you've added. If the standard is "Whatever the ACB says," then we can't in good faith include any game post-Galaxy 2 until another such booklet or list is released. If there's some other standard, then it needs to be outlined clearly, as making arguments like Land not feeling like a SMB game doesn't provide any verifiable criteria.

For the moment, I'm tabling all talks of YI and WL in favor of figuring out if the Land games should be added, since, if the list is going to change at all, this will likely be the most immediate change. Thanks for your patience and insight into this. Cheers!

 

[-----]

1. The book was made to show the main series Mario games in my eyes, while giving a good retrospective on them.

2. Okay, I want you to think about this: since Yoshi's Island is extremely unique, does this mean you still find it to be a part of the Super Mario series? (oh and by the way to my knowledge the GBA rerelease of yoshi's island over in japan dropped the super mario part)

3. I can't argue with your first point on that one, but about your special notes and stuff:

Super Mario Bros Special came out before Lost Levels in Japan, and was licensed by Nintendo, effectively making it the original SMB2.

All Night Nippon is a special version, just replacing all the personalities.


Now my thoughts on this in general:

We could have one part dedicated solely to all main games by Nintendo.

And another part specifically made to entirely branch out the rest, including the Land games, the Yoshi's Island games, and the Wario series.

Speaking of the Wario series, what about WarioWare?

It involves Wario, has some platformer style parts in the form of some of the minigames, and have some connections to the Wario Land series.

 

[Walkazo]

1) It doesn't matter how the book "treats" itself: the fact that Nintendo created and released it makes it canon - and one of the very few scraps of canon we have for this kind of thing. Usually we only have titles and release dates to go by: we're lucky to get something like the booklet, and we can't afford to make speculative value judgments about its tone and write it off as nothing more than an outdated lark. We're not relying on it, mind you - we still include the random SMB-ish games that were too obscure for the writers to bother with, we're not ending the "SM" series at NSMBWii, and we even had the "Super Mario" classification before SMASLE came out. However, thanks to the booklet, we can now point to some solid evidence beyond the raw names that supports our decision to make a central grouping of the main sidescroller games: when it comes to Chronology (MarioWiki:Chronology), and Canonicity (MarioWiki:Canonicity), we are mostly dealing with scraps like this, and if we're picky about it, we'll have nothing left to work with at all. Long story short, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

2) SML's departure is still way bigger than the games whose places in the "Super Mario" series aren't contested. SMB2's plot was admittedly unique, but that was because it was recycled from a preexisting game, whereas SML was a "Mario" game from the start: it's radical departures from the norm were voluntary. SMS is even less of a black sheep, since it stuck to the old "Mario saving Peach from Bowser" plot, rather than making a new princess and villain, and then using that as a lead-in to a direct sequel that abandons the damsel-in-distress structure entirely. And, unlike SML, many of the new species, characters and even places introduced in SMB2 and SMS became staples in the Mario series. Daisy and Wario were brought to us by the SML games, but SMB2 introduced Birdos, Shy Guys, Pokeys, Bob-Ombs, Ninjis and Pidgits, and had a lot of influence on the content of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, while SMS gave us Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Petey Piranha, Gooper Blooper, Isle Delfino, Piantas, Nokis, Cataquacks, Shine Sprites and F.L.U.D.D./nozzles. All things considered, SMS and SMB2 made many more fundamental contributions to the Mario series than the SML games, which introduced one recurring character who has only ever appeared in spin-offs since her debut (no RPGs, not a single new "Super Mario" game), and then became the vehicle by which a whole new series emerged. The SML titles had no lasting impact on the core "Super Mario" games, but they are the foundation of the Wario series: this seems like enough to give them their own "SML/WL" branch, rather than making them just a couple knots in the "Super Mario" tree trunk that merely precede the eruption of WL:SML3.

3) SMG2's plot isn't the same: for one thing, it has Lubba and the faceship, rather than Rosalina and the Comet Observatory, and there's lots of other little changes. If it was a remake, all they'd do was make new levels and add Yoshi, but leave the story alone - but they didn't do that: they changed the story too, making it more of a retelling, or a re-hashing, or whatever - but certainly not a "remake". And SMB:LL was billed as a sequel, wasn't it? Hence the "2"? Its been a while since I played it, but iirc, SMB Deluxe definitely treated it as "Mario saved Peach, but now he has to do it again", although the original Japanese apparently didn't say as much. But nevertheless, it still had that "2", and none of the other random SMB games tried to pass themselves off as sequels like that. And it's not so much "what do they share with the original", but rather "what is unique" - and the plots are not unique. If you read through the wiki, the History sections come at the series from an in-universe perspective: we don't go so far as to say "Mario did this game, then this game, then this game", but it would be a colossal waste of time and energy to devote full sections to every one of the SMB games, but if they're given full status on the series pages, consistency stats they should get full coverage in History sections too. But that would be nuts: it is just not practical to call all these random remakes original games, not with such flimsy reasoning either way.

You're right about ANNSMB being SMB:LL-based (failure to proofread on my part), but the fact that Hudson made SMBS doesn't mean it's not a Mario game: it was still licensed by Nintendo, after all, and beyond that, the development details have no bearing on whether the game's canon or not: it's all canon, and it's all included. The problem with the definitions is that there's no real option for what we have here: remakes are usually the same game, only updated with extra stuff and a few tweaked details, but VSMB, SMBS and the G&W game all fiddle around a lot more, sorta like how SM64DS seems a bit more than your average remake. But there's no real term for this sort of uber-remake as far as I know, hence I default to "remake". It's also more straightforward to just say "remakes are the original game, but different" while "ports are the original game on a new system, but which are otherwise the same", rather than trying to fuss about with more precise terminology. As things are now, the userbase can barely handle "remake", "port" and "re-release": complicating it further will just lead to more inconsistencies. And, as I said before, ultimately, it doesn't matter from an article's POV: any given story only needs to go in the History once - any more and it's redundant, unless the story's got some major rewrites (like SM64DS or SMG2).

 

[Legault]

1) The relevance of the ACB remains unclear. It doesn't treat itself as an authoritative source, so why should we? It includes many games as official Super Mario titles; why limit the franchise to just this selection? As you yourself admit, the Wiki already includes games not in the ACB and has to make judgment calls about Mario games released after the Anniversary Collection. So what role does the booklet play? Seems like a nice collector's piece more than anything, and if it doesn't have a specific purpose, then consulting it at all seems like a waste of time.

2a) Let me get this out of the way first: nothing in the first two Super Mario Land games has anything to do with the Wario Land series. SML was a typical platformer; SML2 was a World-esque platformer with a little more exploration and prettier graphics; SML3 was a coin- and treasure-collecting romp with a slower tempo; and WL2 onwards departed from traditional platforming in favor of an emphasis on puzzles and environment interaction. And while the Wario Land aesthetic carried over into WL2, neither the Eastern feel of SML nor the more cartoonish feel of SML2 were ever returned to in the Wario Land games, so I don't know where you get the idea that the first two Land games "are the foundation of the Wario series." Both in terms of gameplay and presentation, this is simply false.

2b) One man's opinion, but the Wiki shouldn't be in the business of classifying games based on "feel." SMB2 doesn't feel like SMB1; Sunshine doesn't feel like 64; Galaxy doesn't feel like Sunshine; etc. What's even worse is classifying games based on impact, arguing that because other Super Mario titles "made many more fundamental contributions to the Mario series than the SML games," they're SM games and the less impactful ones aren't. This is wholly irrelevant to determining canonicity. Think about it: if impact is the standard you're using, then shouldn't SML2 get in over, say, NSMB2? The former introduced Wario at the very least; the latter introduces nothing notable. NSMB2 is actually likely to go down as the least impactful Super Mario game ever, so in the name of consistency, you should remove it from that Wiki page.

3a) I still cannot for the life of me understand why plot of all things matters here, but for what it's worth, SMBG&W differs from the original in that you find Peach in every castle rather than simply the last one. Relevant plot change!

3b) Slapping the "Super Mario" logo on a game doesn't necessarily make it canon, and despite you claiming otherwise, something tells me you agree. After all, are random Mario romhacks not made by Nintendo official SM titles? Of course not. So we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere; whether or not that means Nintendo made the game, licensed the game, or something else entirely needs to be made clear. My vote still goes out to "Nintendo making the game," since that avoids a lot of mess.

3c) Regarding ports and remakes, you said that "VSMB, SMBS and the G&W game all fiddle around a lot more" than most simple ports. This is true in part: from what I understand, VSMB is essentially the same game with a versus mode and a few small level changes- which is the definition of an enhanced port- and SMBS isn't made by Nintendo in the first place. If you do count licensed games as official SM titles, then I don't see why SMBS wouldn't be its own game, seeing as it's no more or less different from the original than SMB2j. (You can see here why I think this whole "licensed games are still official games" is a bad approach, by the way.) Other than story, G&W is an entirely new game with an entirely new set of mechanics, which places it far apart from the other ports and remakes of the original SMB.

---

EDIT: I wanted to get to parts of Austin's post as well, so I'll just do that down here.

2. Okay, I want you to think about this: since Yoshi's Island is extremely unique, does this mean you still find it to be a part of the Super Mario series? (oh and by the way to my knowledge the GBA rerelease of yoshi's island over in japan dropped the super mario part)
[...]
Speaking of the Wario series, what about WarioWare?

It involves Wario, has some platformer style parts in the form of some of the minigames, and have some connections to the Wario Land series.

I would personally consider Yoshi's Island a part of the Super Mario series, yes. It has all of the factors I'd find reasonable in determining whether a game is a proper Super Mario title: platformer, made by Nintendo, has the Super Mario name in the title... as an extra bonus, YI is unique in how it expands the Mario mythos, for what that's worth. And as for the name:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/gba/561566-yoshis-island-super-mario-advance-3/images/box-21800

Seems like the name retained the Super Mario bit in all regions.

As for WarioWare? I'm not sure platforming parts are sufficient to be treated as a SM title. Otherwise, games like Super Paper Mario, Super Mario RPG, etc. would also need to be thrown under the umbrella.

 

[-----]

yeah but it's all

shown to show super mario advance and stuff

so it doesn't really count in my book

 

[Walkazo]

Alright, first of all, read MarioWiki:Canonicity and MarioWiki:Chronology. In short, everything is canon, and everything is of equal value. This is not my personal opinion, this is established Super Mario Wiki policy, and you need to keep that in mind when making your arguments, because a lot of what you're saying flies in the face of how we run things around here, and you WILL need proposals to change that.

1) The booklet was made by Nintendo, so it is canon, and according to policy, we will treat it as such, rather than making judgement calls about whether or not it "treats" itself as authoritative. But just because it leaves out obscure stuff and remains fixed in time while the series marches on and produces more games doesn't mean we should outright ignore it any more than it means we should feel bound to it. Either approach would be narrow-minded. Instead, we think outside the box and include obscure stuff Nintendo ignored, while at the same time bear in mind that it also omitted well-known games - namely the SML games, SMW2:YI and perhaps most tellingly of all, YI:SMA3, despite the rest of the SMA titles being included. The question is why did they pointedly ignore YI and leave SML out in the cold with it, and should we continue to do the same 9as I said before, our "SM" classification predated SMASLE); we can only speculate on Nintendo's thought process, but we can answer the questions for ourselves. I provided many reasons for why we have/can consider(ed) YI and SML to be their own separate things.

2a) You misunderstood me: I know full well that WL:SML3 and the rest of the WL series are different than the first two SML games - hence I've been saying there's a series break between them all along, rather than arguing for them to be merged into one series or some nonsense like that. They are the foundation in that SML's plot led into SML2's plot, which then led into WL:SML3 - the first two games are the means by which Wario and his series were created (rather than Nintendo simply going "poof, new character, new series: have at it", they eased gamers into it - or lured them in with Mario, if you wanna be cynical about it).

2b) Not once did I say anything "feels" like one series or another. And once again, you're misinterpreting me: in no way am I saying any one game is more important than the other - I was only speaking about the relevance of certain games to the specific Super Mario sub-series. SML and SML2 did have an impact on the Mario series as a whole, but they have no relevance to the rest of the core Super Mario games: none of their original characters, enemies, places or items appear in a later SM game, whereas SMB2 and SMS did have an impact on the sub-series, with things they introduced reappearing in later games. (On a side-note: NSMB2 hasn't had a chance to make any lasting marks, so calling it the least impactful is unfair - not that it matters anyway, since everything about the game screams Super Mario, including the name itself, and all that is why it's unquestionably part of the series.) Does this mean SML and SML2 aren't as important as the other games in the overall Mario series? No way. Does it lend support to the idea that maybe these games aren't really a part of the central Super Mario sub-series? Yes, and that's all I'm saying. (And as I said before, all things are canon, so there's no "determining of canonicity" going on here, just organizing games for the sake of History sections, categorization, and series pages.)

3a) Because most of the content in the Super Mario Wiki focuses on in-universe stuff, of which plot is an integral component? Remakes have differences like that too: looking at a couple scans of the manual, it's pretty clear that this isn't a sequel or a new game (Game Description: "One day the kingdom of the peaceful mushroom people was invaded by the Koopas..." Letter: "Mario, Help! I am Princess Toadstool of the Mushroom Kingdom..."). It's more of a SM64DS-style "retelling" remake, if you ask me.

3b) Again with the canon. We're not talking about canon here, because it's all canon, regardless of whether it's in the specific "Super Mario" subseries or not. Besides, from MW:Canonicity: "Any officially licensed appearance ...are considered official because Nintendo either developed the product itself or authorized another company to use the Super Mario brand." Don't like it, make a proposal about it, but it won't pass.

3c) SMBS was not marketed as a sequel, unlike SMB:LL, and since it has different gameplay but the same story and overall structure, that makes it another remake. From what I gather, VSMB has different levels than the original, meaning it's not an enhanced port, it's another remake. I still say that the story can't be overlooked so cavalierly, not when the wiki has such a strong in-universe approach to writing about the games in our articles, and I stick to my earlier assessment: the G&W game has the same plot but different levels and whatnot, and so it's a remake.

4) I agree with Stone Cold Steve Austin: The "Super Mario Advance" part of YI:SMA3 is to signify that it's part of the "Super Mario Advance" series, not the "Super Mario" series. And there's nothing saying that being in one series automatically makes you part of the other series: otherwise WL:SML3 would be in the SML series and we've already established that it's not. And I totoally disagree that Yoshi's Island fits with the Super Mario series. Like with the SML games, just going by the style of gameplay and the name alone doesn't work games: you need to look at the big picture of what the game is like, and the game is nothing like the other "Super Mario" games. It stars Yoshi, it's set in the past and Mario is a baby, there are transformation blocks instead of power-ups, there is no princess in distress...

5) As for WarioWare, it its own sub-series in the overall Wario series, which isn't part of the Super Mario sub-series or the more encompassing Mario series, but it is part of the overarching "Marioverse". The Wario Land games get their own sub-series too, while things like Wario World or Wario: aster of Disguise are just part of the Wario series with no further classifications.


(Sorry if there's typos and things: I've been writing this for well over two hours and now I really have to go make dinner instead of proofreading this.)

 

[Legault]

yeah but it's all

shown to show super mario advance and stuff

so it doesn't really count in my book

It would have been rather awkward to call the game "Super Mario Advance 3: Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island." It's equally bad in Japan, where the game would've been billed "Super Mario Advance 3: Super Mario: Yoshi's Island." Ick. Plus, Super Mario Advance has the "Super Mario Bros. 2" taken out of its title, yet I doubt anyone would argue that merits de-inclusion from the SM canon.

Alright, first of all, read MarioWiki:Canonicity and MarioWiki:Chronology. In short, everything is canon, and everything is of equal value. This is not my personal opinion, this is established Super Mario Wiki policy, and you need to keep that in mind when making your arguments, because a lot of what you're saying flies in the face of how we run things around here, and you WILL need proposals to change that.

After reading through both a few times, each page lays out some perfectly reasonable policies that I wouldn't find at all worth amending. Clearly I must be misunderstanding parts of it, however, as it seems to me that many of your arguments- not mine- fly in the face of those established policies. Maybe things will become less muddled as we talk this out.

1) The booklet was made by Nintendo, so it is canon, and according to policy, we will treat it as such, rather than making judgement calls about whether or not it "treats" itself as authoritative.

First, allow me to address the definition of "canon" used on the Wiki page: "The canon of a franchise is a system of classification that separates official media products from unofficial media products, therefore determining which characters, locations, events, etc. "actually" exist in a series' fictional universe." This is a poor definition for our purposes, as we're less concerned about which games "exist" and more about classification. That is still an issue of canonicity, but I just wanted to specify what I mean to avoid confusion: when I use the term "canon," I'm referring specifically to which games are a part of a sub-series on classification grounds.

Problem #1: Everything is canon, which means nothing is "more canon" than anything else. So why does the ACB suddenly hold weight for determining canonicity? That directly contradicts this line from one of the pages you linked to: "...the Super Mario series and its many spin-offs do not have an officially recognized canon."

Problem #2: Regarding Yoshi's Island, I'd say that intentionally leaving out both YI and SMA3 is good evidence that those games aren't canon according to Nintendo-- or would be, at any rate, if the Wiki acknowledged some standard for canonicity related to the ACB. As such, it's possible in theory that Nintendo simply wanted to focus on the Super Mario games which starred Mario as playable, which would make sense for his 25th anniversary. Get creative; there are dozens of solutions / excuses you can boil up to address this problem. Especially since the ACB has no special status according to Wiki policy.

Problem #3: Whether it wants to admit it or not, the Wiki is involved with determining canonicity because it has a specific Super Mario (series) page. This demands selecting which games to include and which games to exclude, and one cannot get around establishing some kind of standard. So what is it going to be? Is it going to be the ACB? My definition? Your definition? Some other definition? This is an inescapable question despite the Canonicity page's insistence to the contrary.

2b) Not once did I say anything "feels" like one series or another. And once again, you're misinterpreting me: in no way am I saying any one game is more important than the other - I was only speaking about the relevance of certain games to the specific Super Mario sub-series. SML and SML2 did have an impact on the Mario series as a whole, but they have no relevance to the rest of the core Super Mario games: none of their original characters, enemies, places or items appear in a later SM game, whereas SMB2 and SMS did have an impact on the sub-series, with things they introduced reappearing in later games. (On a side-note: NSMB2 hasn't had a chance to make any lasting marks, so calling it the least impactful is unfair - not that it matters anyway, since everything about the game screams Super Mario, including the name itself, and all that is why it's unquestionably part of the series.) Does this mean SML and SML2 aren't as important as the other games in the overall Mario series? No way. Does it lend support to the idea that maybe these games aren't really a part of the central Super Mario sub-series? Yes, and that's all I'm saying. (And as I said before, all things are canon, so there's no "determining of canonicity" going on here, just organizing games for the sake of History sections, categorization, and series pages.)

Look carefully at the bold. You open this section by insisting you're not evaluating games based on feel or impact, then immediately go on to justify Mario Land's exclusion based on feel and impact. That's a clear-cut contradiction.

Remember: the Wiki's decision to specifically remove the Land games from the page is itself an act of determining canonicity; if you really feel all things Mario are "equally canon," then there shouldn't be any sub-series pages to begin with.

3a) Because most of the content in the Super Mario Wiki focuses on in-universe stuff, of which plot is an integral component?

Plot isn't an integral component of any Super Mario game, but I can see you won't budge on this point. It'd be nice if you could at least apply it consistently.

3c) SMBS was not marketed as a sequel, unlike SMB:LL, and since it has different gameplay but the same story and overall structure, that makes it another remake.

So now we have a new definition to add to the list of what defines a "Super Mario" game, eh? It has to be marketed as a sequel now, apparently, despite the fact that SMBS and LL aren't in any other way different. I do hope you're beginning to see what a muddled mess the Super Mario (series) page is in regards to definitional consistency; seems to me like you're shifting around your definitions to justify whatever games happen to be on that page at the moment.

And there's nothing saying that being in one series automatically makes you part of the other series: otherwise WL:SML3 would be in the SML series and we've already established that it's not.

Who is "we"? I'd very much argue that Wario Land is a part of the Mario Land series, both because of the name and because it follows the plot of SML2 (I'm sure you'll love this point). The only way you can "establish" whether or not something is a part of the sub-series is to provide a definition for inclusion in that sub-series, which you still have not provided.

And I totoally disagree that Yoshi's Island fits with the Super Mario series. Like with the SML games, just going by the style of gameplay and the name alone doesn't work games: you need to look at the big picture of what the game is like, and the game is nothing like the other "Super Mario" games. It stars Yoshi, it's set in the past and Mario is a baby, there are transformation blocks instead of power-ups, there is no princess in distress...

1) Yoshi's Island helps build the Super Mario mythos in a major way. Remember when you said that "most of the content in the Super Mario Wiki focuses on in-universe stuff, of which plot is an integral component?" YI would seem to fit the bill quite nicely here.

2) The bolded portion again demonstrates you determining canonicity based on feel rather than any objective measure.

---

I appreciate your patience in talking to me, Walkazo, but we're not going to make any headway until you recognize that you've yet to provide any clear standard for what distinguishes a SM game from a non-SM game. You must have a standard, since the Wiki page includes certain games and excludes others; what is it? If it's in any way confused or contradictory, then it really ought to be ironed out.

 

[Bop1996]

The problem with your argument is that the series' naming conventions aren't very coherent to begin with. We can't really just go by what the names say when they're so different in so many ways. In fact, the entire series diverges in so many ways at so many points that we can't really have a cut and dry standard for this at all. We take multiple factors into account in order to attempt to do the best job classifying the games as we possibly can.

In this case, Super Mario Land games are quite different from the main Super Mario series, allowing us to classify them as their own series. The bit about canonicity, as far as I can tell, simply states that all Nintendo-licensed sources for Mario information are to be treated of equal canonicity, since Nintendo themselves don't do a very good job defining canon. However, with all the conflicting sources, it's often up to us to use our best judgement to determine what Nintendo actually meant.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

1) It doesn't matter how the book "treats" itself: the fact that Nintendo created and released it makes it canon - and one of the very few scraps of canon we have for this kind of thing. Usually we only have titles and release dates to go by: we're lucky to get something like the booklet, and we can't afford to make speculative value judgments about its tone and write it off as nothing more than an outdated lark. We're not relying on it, mind you - we still include the random SMB-ish games that were too obscure for the writers to bother with, we're not ending the "SM" series at NSMBWii, and we even had the "Super Mario" classification before SMASLE came out. However, thanks to the booklet, we can now point to some solid evidence beyond the raw names that supports our decision to make a central grouping of the main sidescroller games: when it comes to Chronology (MarioWiki:Chronology), and Canonicity (MarioWiki:Canonicity), we are mostly dealing with scraps like this, and if we're picky about it, we'll have nothing left to work with at all. Long story short, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

2) SML's departure is still way bigger than the games whose places in the "Super Mario" series aren't contested. SMB2's plot was admittedly unique, but that was because it was recycled from a preexisting game, whereas SML was a "Mario" game from the start: it's radical departures from the norm were voluntary. SMS is even less of a black sheep, since it stuck to the old "Mario saving Peach from Bowser" plot, rather than making a new princess and villain, and then using that as a lead-in to a direct sequel that abandons the damsel-in-distress structure entirely. And, unlike SML, many of the new species, characters and even places introduced in SMB2 and SMS became staples in the Mario series. Daisy and Wario were brought to us by the SML games, but SMB2 introduced Birdos, Shy Guys, Pokeys, Bob-Ombs, Ninjis and Pidgits, and had a lot of influence on the content of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, while SMS gave us Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Petey Piranha, Gooper Blooper, Isle Delfino, Piantas, Nokis, Cataquacks, Shine Sprites and F.L.U.D.D./nozzles. All things considered, SMS and SMB2 made many more fundamental contributions to the Mario series than the SML games, which introduced one recurring character who has only ever appeared in spin-offs since her debut (no RPGs, not a single new "Super Mario" game), and then became the vehicle by which a whole new series emerged. The SML titles had no lasting impact on the core "Super Mario" games, but they are the foundation of the Wario series: this seems like enough to give them their own "SML/WL" branch, rather than making them just a couple knots in the "Super Mario" tree trunk that merely precede the eruption of WL:SML3.

3) SMG2's plot isn't the same: for one thing, it has Lubba and the faceship, rather than Rosalina and the Comet Observatory, and there's lots of other little changes. If it was a remake, all they'd do was make new levels and add Yoshi, but leave the story alone - but they didn't do that: they changed the story too, making it more of a retelling, or a re-hashing, or whatever - but certainly not a "remake". And SMB:LL was billed as a sequel, wasn't it? Hence the "2"? Its been a while since I played it, but iirc, SMB Deluxe definitely treated it as "Mario saved Peach, but now he has to do it again", although the original Japanese apparently didn't say as much. But nevertheless, it still had that "2", and none of the other random SMB games tried to pass themselves off as sequels like that. And it's not so much "what do they share with the original", but rather "what is unique" - and the plots are not unique. If you read through the wiki, the History sections come at the series from an in-universe perspective: we don't go so far as to say "Mario did this game, then this game, then this game", but it would be a colossal waste of time and energy to devote full sections to every one of the SMB games, but if they're given full status on the series pages, consistency stats they should get full coverage in History sections too. But that would be nuts: it is just not practical to call all these random remakes original games, not with such flimsy reasoning either way.

You're right about ANNSMB being SMB:LL-based (failure to proofread on my part), but the fact that Hudson made SMBS doesn't mean it's not a Mario game: it was still licensed by Nintendo, after all, and beyond that, the development details have no bearing on whether the game's canon or not: it's all canon, and it's all included. The problem with the definitions is that there's no real option for what we have here: remakes are usually the same game, only updated with extra stuff and a few tweaked details, but VSMB, SMBS and the G&W game all fiddle around a lot more, sorta like how SM64DS seems a bit more than your average remake. But there's no real term for this sort of uber-remake as far as I know, hence I default to "remake". It's also more straightforward to just say "remakes are the original game, but different" while "ports are the original game on a new system, but which are otherwise the same", rather than trying to fuss about with more precise terminology. As things are now, the userbase can barely handle "remake", "port" and "re-release": complicating it further will just lead to more inconsistencies. And, as I said before, ultimately, it doesn't matter from an article's POV: any given story only needs to go in the History once - any more and it's redundant, unless the story's got some major rewrites (like SM64DS or SMG2).

Per this

 

[Hobbes]

There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by Walka or Bop. Per them, Nintendo doesn't help a lot, so it falls in the admins' hands to decide. Trust me, this wasn't decided in a day. The organization you currently see is the product of over seven years of discussions and tests.

 

[Marioguy1]

You have to remember, Legault, the key word in "Super Mario (series)" is not "Super Mario", it's "series". There is no rule that applies to each game individually, we must look at the games as a continuum.

When the games are lined up, you see that they differentiate. SML on its own resembles SMB3 very much. However SML in line with SML2 and SML3 is very different from SMB3 in line with whatever two games come after it. SMB3 continues with Mario saving people, while SML starts focusing on Mario fulfilling his own goals and then switches characters entirely. Once you look at the entire SML series, you see that it is a different series from the SM series.

 

[Mario4Ever]

I agree with Walkazo and Bop.

Problem #1: Everything is canon, which means nothing is "more canon" than anything else. So why does the ACB suddenly hold weight for determining canonicity? That directly contradicts this line from one of the pages you linked to: "...the Super Mario series and its many spin-offs do not have an officially recognized canon."

All that means is that from a plot perspective, there is no officially recognized order (e.g. Super Mario Sunshine doesn't take place after Super Mario 64). Compare that with the Metroid series, for example, in which there is an officially recognized order (Metroid/Metroid: Zero Mission, Metroid Prime, Prime 2: Echoes, Prime 3: Corruption, Metroid II: Return of Samus, Super Metroid, Other M, and Fusion).

 

[Legault]

We take multiple factors into account in order to attempt to do the best job classifying the games as we possibly can.

The organization you currently see is the product of over seven years of discussions and tests.

You have to remember, Legault, the key word in "Super Mario (series)" is not "Super Mario", it's "series". There is no rule that applies to each game individually, we must look at the games as a continuum.

---

I appreciate your patience in talking to me, Monobear and tucayo and Marioguy1, but we're not going to make any headway until you recognize that you've yet to provide any clear standard for what distinguishes a SM game from a non-SM game. You must have a standard, since the Wiki page includes certain games and excludes others; what is it? If it's in any way confused or contradictory, then it really ought to be ironed out.

EDIT: Instead of being coy, let me again explain myself. People are saying they agree with you; at the moment, there's nothing to agree with. For comparison, let's look at the main Wikipedia page and how they classify the Super Mario series:

[quote author=Wikipedia]
Super Mario release timeline
1985 Super Mario Bros.
1986 Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japanese version)
1988 Super Mario Bros. 2 (International version)
1988 Super Mario Bros. 3
1989 Super Mario Land
1990 Super Mario World
1992 Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
1993 Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3
1995 Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
1996 Super Mario 64
2002 Super Mario Sunshine
2006 New Super Mario Bros.
2007 Super Mario Galaxy
2009 New Super Mario Bros. Wii
2010 Super Mario Galaxy 2
2011 Super Mario 3D Land
2012 New Super Mario Bros. 2
2012 New Super Mario Bros. U
[/quote]

Note the inclusion not only of the first two Land games, but also Wario Land and Yoshi's Island. The standard employed in this list is as follows:

a) A platformer, either 2D or 3D (or a hybrid, in the case of 3D Land)
b) A game made by Nintendo
c) Has the name "Super Mario" in the title

You may or may not agree with this list, but it's a list done right: clearly defined standard for inclusion/exclusion, no arbitrary exceptions.

This sort of standard is what I'm asking for, since I'd assume the Mario Wiki is also concerned about consistency and clarity. It goes without saying that your standard could be more complex and nuanced, but it does need to be clear and it does need to be consistent. This is the law of good taxonomy, for Super Mario games as well as anything else.

 

[Glowsquid]

[quote author=everyone, including myself]a big bang theory episode script [/quote]

What the admins here seems to be missing is that Legault wants a purely objective criteria for including games on that page. It doesn't really matter how much you try to justify it as "well you see [game] is REALLY different because of x and y and z"-at the end, the Super Mario Lands or whathaveyou are still platforming games starring Mario and developed by Nintendo, and they're excluded based on a subjective impression of their content and place in other material (and no, I don't really buy the "You have to take EVERYTHING into account" argument).

Now, with that in mind, I think the discussion can go either of two ways;

1:stick to our guns but invite users to propose to add/remove games on the proposal page (it's no more arbitrary than what we're doing now, really).

2:admit defeat and define clearer standards for including stuff ont the series page.

or maybe more. But I invite you to stop trying to argue which game is "different". It's clearly not going anywhere.

 

[Hobbes]

OK, Legault, what is your proposal? You want us to organize them in the same way as Wikipedia?

I personally think that platformers that have Mario as a main, playable character should be labeled as part as the Super Mario series. Which means we wouldn't include WL or YI, but it would mean including Mario Land.


EDIT: I think that's what Glowsquid said in his last post.

 

[Walkazo]

This is the law of good taxonomy, for Super Mario games as well as anything else.

What the admins here seems to be missing is that Legault wants a purely objective criteria for including games on that page.

[quote author=everyone, including myself]a big bang theory episode script [/quote]
We could always use cluster analysis like in numerical taxonomy - can't get much more objective than getting a computer to do it for you. But I stand by the "look at all the aspects and make a decision based on the big picture" approach (which is more like cladisic analyses), even if it means there's no single, eloquent definition of a core "Super Mario" game.

However, Glowsquid is right in that a debate will not go anywhere, since there's clearly two irreconcilable approaches to the situation (to extrapolate using all the details, or to choose a few key aspects and make a cut-and-dry decision based on them alone), so a Proposal would be the simplest way to settle it. (Assuming Legault is willing to join the wiki and actually make any changes required by the proposal outcome - talk is cheap, after all, and Rule 11 states that "The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it.") Plus, changes this big require Proposals anyway (keep in mind that isn't not just Super Mario (series) we're talking about here: countless History will need to be reorganized, not to mention template and categorization systems, as well as numerous other series, game and policy pages).

If you (Legault) are going to propose we use the "name, platformer, Nintendo" argument, that means the proposal will be about adding SML1-2 and YI, while removing SMBS due to it being made by Hudson (although that'd be inconsistent with the usual "made or licensed by Nintendo" definition of canon used on the wiki, so I don't recommend going that far and just sticking with the first two criteria). You could also make a three-option Proposal, with the third choice being a "name, platformer, Mario" definition (like Tucayo's post), which would run the middle ground and only add SML1&2, but that might split the vote. Normally I'd suggest running two proposals, one about the SML games, one about YI (and then a totally separate proposal about the remakes/originals issue), but a case-by-case approach like that is what you want us to stop doing...


I'm so tempted to make another response to your last post, because you still misread what I was saying in parts, the fact that you're using "canon" in a different way than wiki policy means we're unnecessarily talking at cross-purposes a couple times, and on a personal note, I don't particularly want the last word to be you calling me unobjective, inconsistent and contradictory... But I don't want to burn any more hours on posts that won't accomplish anything for either of us, and my position on the matter is clear enough already, so any further reasoning would just be repetitive at this point anyway.

 

[Legault]

I personally think that platformers that have Mario as a main, playable character should be labeled as part as the Super Mario series. Which means we wouldn't include WL or YI, but it would mean including Mario Land.

Though this isn't my personal preference, it seems to be a consensus here, and I feel it's an extremely reasonable way to go. I'd be on-board with this change, seeing as my standard is a bit too big of a first step. We can always cross this bridge later if others feel it's worthwhile.

(Assuming Legault is willing to join the wiki and actually make any changes required by the proposal outcome - talk is cheap, after all, and Rule 11 states that "The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it.") Plus, changes this big require Proposals anyway (keep in mind that isn't not just Super Mario (series) we're talking about here: countless History will need to be reorganized, not to mention template and categorization systems, as well as numerous other series, game and policy pages).

Seeing as I'm the one that made this topic and brought up these issues, it'd be irresponsible of me not to take the necessary next steps, like joining the Wiki and making a proper proposal. I may turn to you all for advice in trying to avoid making rookie mistakes, but otherwise, I'll get on that ASAP.

I'm so tempted to make another response to your last post, because you still misread what I was saying in parts, the fact that you're using "canon" in a different way than wiki policy means we're unnecessarily talking at cross-purposes a couple times, and on a personal note, I don't particularly want the last word to be you calling me unobjective, inconsistent and contradictory... But I don't want to burn any more hours on posts that won't accomplish anything for either of us, and my position on the matter is clear enough already, so any further reasoning would just be repetitive at this point anyway.

That's just my writing style. If I ever seemed to be attacking you personally, it was a failure in communication on my part; you've all been very patient and gracious. Since we are at a crossroads, it seems like a formal proposal is next on the docket.


And a big thanks to Glowsquid for helping make sense of my ramblings. I really appreciate it.

 

[Legault]

A formal proposal is now up. Any and all comments encouraged!

 

[Dr Luigi Tm]

Since Miyamoto recentely said that he consider SMW2:YI part of the main series, as I always believed too, I think that this game has his place on the ''Super Mario Series'' page. It has as much importance as SMW or SM64. It brings many elements to next installements of the series (like the remixed Star Theme, the hability to ground pound...). Miyamoto worked on this game and it was 100% Nintendo / Mario.

After that, we can say that SMW2:YI is part of 2 series... the Mario one, and it is at the same time the first of the Yoshi's series. It's how I see it.

For SML and SML2, I still need to think about that...

 

[2257]

If you're going to have a game in the Super Mario series, then it should be about fucking Super Mario.

wow ive really been playing these games the wrong way,

 

[Kyoko Sakura]

This thread will be kept open if this proposal is still up for debate. Otherwise, other mods besides me, feel free to lock and archive this thread.

If you're going to have a game in the Super Mario series, then it should be about fucking Super Mario.

wow ive really been playing these games the wrong way,

I laughed.

 

[IceShadow1199]

I agree with Mason's suggestion, this is just to spawn another flamewar.

 

[Hobbes]

If you're going to have a game in the Super Mario series, then it should be about fucking Super Mario.

wow ive really been playing these games the wrong way,

I laughed.

Quote of the year.

 

[Mario4Ever]

^Definitely.

 

[Knife]

I agree with Mason's suggestion, this is just to spawn another flamewar.

What flamewar? Everyone has been civil in this thread.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't research enough about Legault's other threads. Anyway, why did he get banned?

EDIT2: Never mind. This post doesn't exist.