This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Super Mario World article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Super Mario World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Super Mario World is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2020. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from the article: "In this version, Luigi has his own sprite (in the original, Luigi's sprite was simply a palette swap of the Mario sprite)".
I don't think this is correct. He's a palette swap in the original "Super Mario Bros.", but I think he has a taller, thinner sprite than Mario in SMW, in addition to being green. Pookiyama ( talk) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
On contrary to the above statement this depends on the version of Super Mario World you are playing. In Super Mario All Stars and Super Mario Advance 2, Luigi was given his own sprites where his height has been adjusted and some of his physics altered to match what Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels (SMB2: Japan). EDIT: I Just realized this was already added in the additional versions of the game. My mistake. DioShiba ( talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)DioShiba
This article is good, but it could be a lot better. So I am proposing some changes/alterations to it. First off, it needs more visual examples of gameplay. Second, the gameplay section has been divided into more paragraphs to make it more aesthetically pleasing and readable. And finally, could we expand a little bit on the gameplay itself? EnglishEfternamn *t/c* 20:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not believe that this article meets the GA criteria anymore. From a quick glance, I notice that this article has a severe number of tags, most of which are citation needed tags and some of which I have appropriately added. There are four one-sentence paragraphs, source #3 is a bare link, and source #6 (GameFAQS) is an unreliable source per
WP:VG/RS. I am not convinced that that is how we should develop citations as in source #10. I think that this article is in need of major cleanup before it can survive still being a GA.
Gamingforfun
365
16:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Super Mario World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Slightlymad ( talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll take over this one. Looks good at first glance but hopefully everything goes smoothly. Slightly mad 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
As the reviewer has apparently decided the sourcing of this article is sufficient, I feel compelled to point out one serious and one potential minor sourcing issue. First the serious issue: the information on the development of Yoshi is sourced to an IGN article quoting a Kotaku article quoting an interview on the official SNES Classic website. A source quoting another source should never be used unless the original source is truly lost to the world, as there is an inherent risk of introducing a transcription error each time the information is recreated. The IGN source should be replaced with the original interview. As for the potential minor sourcing issue, the article cites a Japanese-language article several times. Jaguar, did you go to the original Japanese for this information, or did you use the English translation done by Shmuplations? If you used the English translation, you need to indicate this in the citation, as the very nature of the translation process means it differs from the original source. While I am here, I also feel compelled to point out that the review section really needs to be reorganized, as right now it mixes together opinions of the original game at its release with retrospective reviews of the original game, the Virtual Console re-release, and the SNES Classic re-release while often failing to identify the distinction between these different time periods and platforms and even using transitional language that implies the reviewers in different time periods are pointing out similar issues contemporaneous to each other. Retrospective reviews should appear together after initial reviews and be clearly identified as such because the initial reviews are judging the game based on the state of the video game industry in 1990-91 when SMW first appeared, while the retrospective reviews are judging the game in hindsight with full knowledge of how the industry developed in the years and decades to come. While both POVs are valid, they are inherently different, thus the need for separation. One final small point and then I will return you to your regularly scheduled review already in progress: the article contains a statement that because Sonic was seen as cool, Nintendo executives worried about Mario's deficiencies as a character. The statement is unsourced, but is apparently taken from the IGN History of Mario article. Our article mischaracterizes that source, however, which states that Nintendo execs thought Mario might run into difficulty because he was not a "badass," but that in the end it did not matter because SMW outsold the first two Sonic games by a wide margin. At the very least, the article needs to accurately reflect the source, but really, this should probably be removed altogether, as the IGN article does not seem to have received any input from these mysterious nameless Nintendo execs, and I am not aware of any source with such insider knowledge making this claim, throwing the whole premise into serious doubt. Other than that, the article seems to be in pretty good shape. Indrian ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The premise of secondary sourcing is to lean on editorial chain for fact-checking and accuracy (reputation) whereas an interview—as a primary source—offers none of those correctives. Now, qualitatively, it's reasonable to worry when a source appears to uncritically repost the interview as fact (which would indicate the secondary source's low quality) and one can even argue that one secondary source is more authoritative than another secondary source in stating a specific fact, but unless all available secondary sources are hopelessly low-quality, we always recommend using a secondary source's reputation and editorial chain before relying directly on a primary source interview. A bunch of older reviews cited
here, but NP's Oct issue appears to only have a review score and no actual review. The Sept issue has a feature on gameplay but no review. I can try to help if you need a specific issue (not
watching, please
|
Resolved
|
---|
|
The game's 30th anniversary is 21 November 2020. I think that'd be a good time to run it on the front page. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Somebody is continually reverting edits so that this page displays an inaccurate description of the game's save behaviour. You cannot continue from "the last level played" upon a game over. You -- as explained in Section 10 of the game's instruction manual -- return to the last save point, which is a fortress, castle or ghost house. Perhaps the "last level played" behaviour is accurate to the GBA or other ports of the game, but it is not accurate for the original SNES/Famicom version. Please, stop silently reverting this edit. LegalUsername ( talk) 22:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Super Maio Wolrd. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Super Maio Wolrd until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I intend to record this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia in advance of it being featured on the front page of Wikipedia. I just did some light copy edits to make it more readable. SimLibrarian ( talk) 08:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is protected so I can’t edit it, but at the end of the re-releases section, is a newly added sentence “September 2017.[47]On September 5th 2019,...” A space is needed at the beginning of the sentence and the date needs changing to be consistent with the rest. Thanks. - 109.249.185.101 ( talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think one of the two copyrighted images should be the worldmap, since it's a big feature of the game. 205.175.106.39 ( talk) 23:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Super Mario Brothers 2 Advance and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Super Mario Brothers 2 Advance until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
12:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
3 up moon and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#3 up moon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
12:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Can someone confirm to me why this article uses British English instead of American English? Nothing negative, just surprised. The articles for Super Mario Bros. 1, 2, 3, The Lost Levels, and All-Stars use American English, but not this. Carlinal ( talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
While I am certain that this could be linked back to the 2020 Nintendo Gigaleak, should this be touched upon in brief in regards to the Beta Assets? While I'm not sure how much we could talk about in regards to this topic I was wondering if it was worth going into discussion about. DioShiba ( talk) 15:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Super Mario World article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Super Mario World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Super Mario World is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2020. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote from the article: "In this version, Luigi has his own sprite (in the original, Luigi's sprite was simply a palette swap of the Mario sprite)".
I don't think this is correct. He's a palette swap in the original "Super Mario Bros.", but I think he has a taller, thinner sprite than Mario in SMW, in addition to being green. Pookiyama ( talk) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
On contrary to the above statement this depends on the version of Super Mario World you are playing. In Super Mario All Stars and Super Mario Advance 2, Luigi was given his own sprites where his height has been adjusted and some of his physics altered to match what Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels (SMB2: Japan). EDIT: I Just realized this was already added in the additional versions of the game. My mistake. DioShiba ( talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)DioShiba
This article is good, but it could be a lot better. So I am proposing some changes/alterations to it. First off, it needs more visual examples of gameplay. Second, the gameplay section has been divided into more paragraphs to make it more aesthetically pleasing and readable. And finally, could we expand a little bit on the gameplay itself? EnglishEfternamn *t/c* 20:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not believe that this article meets the GA criteria anymore. From a quick glance, I notice that this article has a severe number of tags, most of which are citation needed tags and some of which I have appropriately added. There are four one-sentence paragraphs, source #3 is a bare link, and source #6 (GameFAQS) is an unreliable source per
WP:VG/RS. I am not convinced that that is how we should develop citations as in source #10. I think that this article is in need of major cleanup before it can survive still being a GA.
Gamingforfun
365
16:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Super Mario World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Slightlymad ( talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll take over this one. Looks good at first glance but hopefully everything goes smoothly. Slightly mad 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
As the reviewer has apparently decided the sourcing of this article is sufficient, I feel compelled to point out one serious and one potential minor sourcing issue. First the serious issue: the information on the development of Yoshi is sourced to an IGN article quoting a Kotaku article quoting an interview on the official SNES Classic website. A source quoting another source should never be used unless the original source is truly lost to the world, as there is an inherent risk of introducing a transcription error each time the information is recreated. The IGN source should be replaced with the original interview. As for the potential minor sourcing issue, the article cites a Japanese-language article several times. Jaguar, did you go to the original Japanese for this information, or did you use the English translation done by Shmuplations? If you used the English translation, you need to indicate this in the citation, as the very nature of the translation process means it differs from the original source. While I am here, I also feel compelled to point out that the review section really needs to be reorganized, as right now it mixes together opinions of the original game at its release with retrospective reviews of the original game, the Virtual Console re-release, and the SNES Classic re-release while often failing to identify the distinction between these different time periods and platforms and even using transitional language that implies the reviewers in different time periods are pointing out similar issues contemporaneous to each other. Retrospective reviews should appear together after initial reviews and be clearly identified as such because the initial reviews are judging the game based on the state of the video game industry in 1990-91 when SMW first appeared, while the retrospective reviews are judging the game in hindsight with full knowledge of how the industry developed in the years and decades to come. While both POVs are valid, they are inherently different, thus the need for separation. One final small point and then I will return you to your regularly scheduled review already in progress: the article contains a statement that because Sonic was seen as cool, Nintendo executives worried about Mario's deficiencies as a character. The statement is unsourced, but is apparently taken from the IGN History of Mario article. Our article mischaracterizes that source, however, which states that Nintendo execs thought Mario might run into difficulty because he was not a "badass," but that in the end it did not matter because SMW outsold the first two Sonic games by a wide margin. At the very least, the article needs to accurately reflect the source, but really, this should probably be removed altogether, as the IGN article does not seem to have received any input from these mysterious nameless Nintendo execs, and I am not aware of any source with such insider knowledge making this claim, throwing the whole premise into serious doubt. Other than that, the article seems to be in pretty good shape. Indrian ( talk) 07:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The premise of secondary sourcing is to lean on editorial chain for fact-checking and accuracy (reputation) whereas an interview—as a primary source—offers none of those correctives. Now, qualitatively, it's reasonable to worry when a source appears to uncritically repost the interview as fact (which would indicate the secondary source's low quality) and one can even argue that one secondary source is more authoritative than another secondary source in stating a specific fact, but unless all available secondary sources are hopelessly low-quality, we always recommend using a secondary source's reputation and editorial chain before relying directly on a primary source interview. A bunch of older reviews cited
here, but NP's Oct issue appears to only have a review score and no actual review. The Sept issue has a feature on gameplay but no review. I can try to help if you need a specific issue (not
watching, please
|
Resolved
|
---|
|
The game's 30th anniversary is 21 November 2020. I think that'd be a good time to run it on the front page. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Somebody is continually reverting edits so that this page displays an inaccurate description of the game's save behaviour. You cannot continue from "the last level played" upon a game over. You -- as explained in Section 10 of the game's instruction manual -- return to the last save point, which is a fortress, castle or ghost house. Perhaps the "last level played" behaviour is accurate to the GBA or other ports of the game, but it is not accurate for the original SNES/Famicom version. Please, stop silently reverting this edit. LegalUsername ( talk) 22:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Super Maio Wolrd. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Super Maio Wolrd until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I intend to record this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia in advance of it being featured on the front page of Wikipedia. I just did some light copy edits to make it more readable. SimLibrarian ( talk) 08:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This article is protected so I can’t edit it, but at the end of the re-releases section, is a newly added sentence “September 2017.[47]On September 5th 2019,...” A space is needed at the beginning of the sentence and the date needs changing to be consistent with the rest. Thanks. - 109.249.185.101 ( talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think one of the two copyrighted images should be the worldmap, since it's a big feature of the game. 205.175.106.39 ( talk) 23:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Super Mario Brothers 2 Advance and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Super Mario Brothers 2 Advance until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
12:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
3 up moon and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#3 up moon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Pizzaplayer219
Talk
Contribs
12:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Can someone confirm to me why this article uses British English instead of American English? Nothing negative, just surprised. The articles for Super Mario Bros. 1, 2, 3, The Lost Levels, and All-Stars use American English, but not this. Carlinal ( talk) 18:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
While I am certain that this could be linked back to the 2020 Nintendo Gigaleak, should this be touched upon in brief in regards to the Beta Assets? While I'm not sure how much we could talk about in regards to this topic I was wondering if it was worth going into discussion about. DioShiba ( talk) 15:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)