Talk:Super Mario World

Luigi Sprite

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

Room for Improvement

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)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario World/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 16:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I looked at the revision that was passed as GA and to be honest I don't really think it met the criteria. And seven years on, I think our standard have improved whereas the quality of this article has not. That said, if experienced editors are willing to chip in, it probably wouldn't take long to get it to GA. First priority should be fixing all the unsourced information. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Reception section, I notice that it almost only talks about how great the game was, rather than also talking about what aspects critics have praised and what aspects critics have criticized. I shall tag that section as incomplete, with the reason being that it does not provide enough information as to what aspects critics liked and disliked. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delist - I would agree that this does not meet Good Article criteria. In addition to what's been mentioned above, there are whole huge sections that are unreferenced. I'm not a fan of the lead's citations, either. It feels like someone is trying to force a point. --Teancum (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Gamingforfun365: It's been over 2 months since this reassessment was opened and it's probably due some closure. Are you aware that this is an individual reassessment? The closing decision should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment, which is you. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Closing sentence: Having been reminded of the review and having had a fairly quick glimpse at the article, I notice that it is still as bad as it appears to be, so after 2 months of waiting, I think that it is safe to close this reassessment and delist the article to a lower level. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731213541/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100?page=0%2C1 to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/japan-votes-all-time-top-100?page=0%2C1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/100greatestgames/default.asp?p=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e0912.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario World/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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. Slightlymad 04:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well written

• Overall: Y
• Lead section: Y
• Article layout: Y Observes MoS for video games
• Words to watch: Y
• Writing about fiction: Y Gameplay and plot are written in real-world lens
• List incorporation: Unchecked

• Verifiable

• Citations: Y
• Reliable sources: Y Have taken the veracity of the offline sources at face value. Online sources, OTOH, appears to be vetted as reliable per Video game resources.
• No Original Research: Y
• No Copyright Violations or Plagiarism: Y All good

• Broad in coverage

• All major aspects: Y
• No unnecessary detail: Y

• Neutral point of view

• Overall: Y
• Due weight given to topics: Y

• Stable: Y No edit wars as indicated in the article's edit history
• Images

• Well illustrated (if possible): Y
• Images tagged with copyright info: Y
• Fair use rationale given for non-free content: Y
• Images are relevant: Y

• Pass/Fail: To be determined...

• Comment: Since the criteria have been met as checked above, I'm happy to say that this is a pass given that there are no other problems with the article. It is already well-written and it would easily pass a FAN with little work. You may be interested in nominating it for WP:DYK as it's a newly-promoted GA. Props also to Indrian for chipping in this review. Slightlymad 08:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion from Indrian

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) Thanks for looking through this, Indrian. I've changed the IGN source to the original interview on the SNES Classic website. I wasn't aware of it piggybacking of two different sources. As for the Japanese booklet, I've indicated that I've used an English translation (the Shmuplations one—I didn't want to risk using a temperamental Google translate on the actual Japanese source) in the citation. I'm not sure if I've noted it correctly as I've got nothing to compare it to. As for the reception section's organisation; I've put the original reviews first but since there are only two of them I couldn't split them into separate paragraphs unfortunately. As I was looking for reviews I couldn't get access to any magazine scans from the era. The only ones I managed to find were CVG and EGM, but there are retrospective reviews aplenty. I own every issue of ONM but even they didn't give this game a proper review. It would be amazing if someone had access to a 1991 issue of Nintendo Power! Sadly though the lack of original reviews does give the reception section a bit of an imbalance. I've removed the part about Mario's lack of "coolness" in comparison to Sonic. You're right, we can't take IGN's word on that. Despite this I do think that we should make a small mention of the console wars since this game was released at the peak of Nintendo and Sega's rivalry (and effectively between the two mascots). Are there any other sources that can reflect on this? Thanks again for your input. JAGUAR  21:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC) 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. 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 {{ping}} if needed) czar 00:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC) No, that is entirely incorrect in this case. The articles in question by Kotaku and IGN exist solely to summarize the interview, largely through block quotes taken directly from the original source. They are not adding additional insight, and they are not the originators of the interview materials. Therefore, they are inferior sources to the original interview because they are merely transcribing portions of it. They do not in any way impart extra quality through transcription: at best they convey exactly the same information as the original, while at worst, they misquote or missummarize and thus introduce inaccuracy. No reputable author would use as a summary of a source rather than the source itself unless that original source were no longer available. If the original interview is not reliable (and really, it is) then the IGN and Kotaku parrotings are not either. Or do you think they had a reporter call up Nintendo and ask if the interview the company posted on its website was actually real? Is that the kind of fact-checking you are looking for? Indrian (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC) @Czar: what do you think? I'm leaning more on using the original Nintendo interview, but I was unsure if I should have used that as a primary source whereas Kotaku and IGN provided summaries as a secondary source. I went with Indrian's suggestion and replaced the IGN source with the original interview on the SNES Classic website, but I'm happy either way. JAGUAR  21:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC) I'm not arguing the case—I didn't compare the sourcing and I didn't challenge anyone's read of the secondary sources, so resolve as you please. I'm challenging the general advice and/or precedent that a quote is always best sourced from the primary source. Secondary sources tacitly corroborate by virtue of publishing alone, whether or not they have investigated the veracity of the primary source. So the NYT could pick up the claim in question—ideally, they'd go further and check the claim's veracity, but they also lend their outlet's credibility to the claim even when they don't fact-check (and the reader knows nary which claims were checked). As for what "reputable authors" do, they certainly prefer corroboration of a claim over a solitary interview source, but they also engage in original research above our quasi-anonymous pay grade. As a tertiary source (encyclopedia), we simply summarize the secondary sources and give readers the most reliable verification of claims. Now there's nothing against also providing the breadcrumbs to the original quote, but it's bad WP practice to recommend in generalities that secondary sources be reduced to their original primary source citations. czar 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC) I think because you did not read the sources you may have misunderstood my point. There is a difference between a secondary source that includes interviews as part of a larger point and an article that is nothing but a summary of a published interview. The former is using an interview in aid of making a larger point, while the latter is just parroting. When one source merely parrots another, whether primary or secondary, there is no good reason to use the parroting source. The only reason would be if the original is unpublished or lost. Indrian (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer comments

Resolved

Gameplay *Is the 'st' in 'whomst' really necessary? While your mileage may vary, I think 'whom' is still what readers are familiar with the most. I also don't think it's a UK equivalent of whom. I really shouldn't have left this in there. Fixed. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Development and release *That quote box could probably just be a blockquote. Don't link from within quotes per MOS:LWQ I've removed the quote box altogether. I tried using a blockquote but I don't think it'll work well with the section. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) *For what it's worth, a photo of the game's director and producer would be a fine addition here. Place this where the quote box had once been, and supply it with better caption: File:Takashi Tezuka, Shigeru Miyamoto and Kōji Kondō.jpg Thanks, I replaced the blockquote with an image of game's staff. Looks much better! JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) *To maintain text-source integrity, supply that Yoshi sketch with a citation. I've added a citation after where it describes Miyamoto having sketches around his desk. It turns out the sketch comes from Mario Mania, a promotional book from 1991. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) *Don't really need the "on the other hand" statement (see WP:HOWEVER). Just leaving it as is gets the message across I think. Removed. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) *Super Mario World was released during the console wars—fuelled by the rivalry between Nintendo's SNES and Sega's two-year old Mega Drive - Can you come up with an alternative for the verb "fuelled"? It just strikes me a bit unencyclopedic. Replaced with "stemmed". JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Reception: I believe you have an outstanding concern raised by Indrian with regard to this section. Mine's relatively minor, however: *Each paragraph is signposted with unsourced topic sentences. Added appropriate citations. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) *There's an instance of 'on the other hand' here somewhere Removed. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Legacy: "In similar vein" → In similar way? Rephrased. JAGUAR  21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Slightlymad! I should have hopefully clarified all of the above. I was thinking of taking this to FAC in the future, but before I do so I suppose this could do with a bit of polishing before then. Hopefully I've addressed Indrian's points too. JAGUAR  22:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Now that my concerns have been addressed I should be able to pass the article to GA once the second opinion comments have also been sorted out. You did a fine job drastically improving it after having been delisted from GA several months ago. Slightlymad 04:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC) I am just waiting for a resolution on switching the Yoshi development info from the IGN article to the interview on Nintendo's website, then I will be satisfied. Another user has raised an objection to this change, but I do not consider it particularly valid myself. Of course, this is your review, not mine, so if you want to promote with that issue still outstanding, I certainly won't be hurt. Thanks for letting me add a bit of feedback! Indrian (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC) I've switched to the original interview on Nintendo's website on the basis that it contains straight up information, but I'm fine either way. You and czar make valid points—hopefully it's nothing too major as the interview does a good job of backing up what's being said in the article. JAGUAR  15:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Slightlymad That takes care of everything on my end, so if you were waiting for me, I am completely satisfied. Indrian (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @Czar: Is there anything else you like to add in this GAN? Think Indrian and I are satisfied with the article. Slightlymad 04:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC) @Slightlymad, nope, just a passing comment—thanks czar 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

30th Anniversary TFA:

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)

Save Points:

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)

"Super Maio Wolrd" listed at Redirects for discussion

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, SONIC678 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Recording for Spoken Wikipedia project

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)

I hope you're good at received pronunciation ;) JAGUAR 10:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Alas, you'll be *receiving* my Californian American English. A disappointment to the princess, I know. SimLibrarian (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Recording completed and added. This is my first article reading, so please let me know if anything's not right! SimLibrarian (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it's perfect! It seems Californian is not so unorthodox after all! JAGUAR 00:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

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)

 Done Dexxor (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

worldmap image

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)

"Super Mario Brothers 2 Advance" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

"3 up moon" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

British English

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)

Gigaleak Assets

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)