Talk:Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Hello, article creator

I am FerDeLancer. I attempted to create an article for this myself, but my computer decided to crash on me. My pc literally caused me not to be able to type, and I lost everything. I would be happy to help with the growth of this page, to avenge my fallen stub article. FerDeLancer (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You can help by just working on the article like everyone else, no need to make some statement about it FishandChipper 🐟🍟 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Details are scarce right now, but please refrain from adding speculation and ensure information is verifiable within citations themselves. I'll do my best to check any new additions for accuracy. Dotfarside (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding repetition

The phrase "It is the first traditional side-scrolling Super Mario game since New Super Mario Bros. U (2012)" is in both the introduction and the "Release" section. I have tried on 2 occasions to remove it but it keeps getting reverted. Is it really needed to be mentioned twice? It doesn't seem necessary. Thanks. Nintentoad125 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read over how WP:LEAD works. We could probably try varying the wording a bit, but some repetition between the intro (lead) and the article body is required - its how its supposed to be done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the Citation Request for Number of Characters

a few days ago, I made a request for citation of the idea that there are exactly 6 player characters, as - as far as I know - this information has never been given by official sources. Only 6 characters have been shown, but it has not been confirmed that there aren't more

today, I checked to see if a citation had been added, but one had not. Not only had one not been added, my cn had also been removed and the page edit locked

I am making a post here now in place of that removed cn as I cannot readd it. Citation is needed here, and none had been added at all Nolshru (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a source for that in this edit. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I was sure to read that before making this comment, as well as just now in this reply in case I missed something

The source makes no indication that these are the only characters playable in the game, as the article states, and thus a citation, or removal, is required as the information is entirely unsourced Nolshru (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of "only" six either, it just lists the six that have been announced. We likely won't know the final number until the game is released, so I don't think that it makes sense to ask for a citation that likely doesn't exist yet. It would probably make more sense to tweak the wording to be correct to what we can verify now. Feel free to suggest wording to clarify things. Sergecross73 msg me 11:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I would personally change it to something along the lines of

> "the player takes control of one of a number of playable characters, such as:"

as opposed to the current wording

> "As one of the six"

the latter implying the existence of only 6

sorry for my confusion with this wording Nolshru (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Super Mario Bros. Wonder Direct posted on August 31st by Nintendo of America on Youtube shows a character select screen with 13 total characters: 7 "standard" characters (Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Princess Daisy, Blue Toad, Yellow Toad, Toadette), 4 Yoshis (Yoshi, Red Yoshi, Yellow Yoshi, Light-Blue Yoshi), and Nabbit (Both Nabbit and the yoshis can't be hurt by enemies, but the latter group can also swallow enemies and flutter jump). While there's always the possibility of a secret character being tucked away somewhere in the final release, it's probably safe to mention these newly revealed additions in the article. There's also a "Random" option at the bottom of the select screen to choose a random character.

[Here's the Direct in question; the character select screen show up at the 11:24 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0m_uNaSres] 23.228.173.149 (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What about the recent leak.

Should we add plot details to the page or wait until release to add details? WonderFinale (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd wait until the game is out. It's only a few days away, and it's not like this is a plot heavy game. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok WonderFinale (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sonic Superstars commentary

See also: Talk:Sonic Superstars § Super Mario Bros. Wonder release date coincidence

Additions to this effect keep getting added:

Sonic Superstars, a similar 2D side-scrolling platform game by Sega, was released 3 days before Wonder. Takashi Tezuka called this "an interesting coincidence", and Sonic Superstars's director Takashi Iizuka noted that it had been a long time since either of the games' respective series had had a 2D entry.

I'm trying to understand the purpose of adding this content to the article. I'd understand if there was something else going on here. Like it being done strategically, or if one beats it in sales or something. But there's nothing of importance here. The source brings it up, and the response is more or less "Yeah man crazy coincidence." Outside of maybe a much shorter, more streamlined sentence noting it was a coincidental, I don't see the need for all this here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This would probably work better in a trivia section, but either way you are half right the comment is unnecessary but it should not be trimmed THAT much Alice was Mad (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alice was Mad WP:TRIVIA NegativeMP1 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA should generally be deleted outright, which I already tried, but was reverted, so I was seeing if a compromise was more appropriate. But trimming it too far? What else would you have it say? Similar games released in similar time frames, but there was no particular reason for it. Such a basic concept doesn't require a lengthy direct quote. We're really only supposed to be using direct quotes when there's an idea that can't properly be conveyed through paraphrasing. There's nothing like that here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This information is covered in reliable sources and was commented on by both games' producers. For both of those reasons, I believe that the information warrants inclusion in some capacity, so I had added it. I do realize that I may have gotten too carried away though. To set the record straight, I only added this information twice; this thread's wording almost makes my behavior seem disruptive. The first time, I included a whole paragraph about the coincidence, but when Sergecross73 reverted it, leaving an edit summary that said "[...] There might be something to mention here, but [...]", I was encouraged to try again by writing something more concise, saying in my edit summary that "[...] if this gets reverted again, I'll just take it to the talk page instead of making another bold edit". My question now is: how much of the information from the given sources belongs in this article? I included the information just because I supposed that something mentioned by reliable sources and by both games' producers is important enough, but perhaps I was wrong, and if so I am willing to learn why. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh and sorry, you wanted to put a silly comment and it has devolved into chaos lol. Alice was Mad (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that the wording has been changed somewhat, and I fully support the new wording. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC), edited 18:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm fine too then. I'm okay with a brief mention, I just felt the original version was an awful lot of text and quotes to essentially say "it was a coincidence". Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose consensus has been reached for the current wording then? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless Alice gives more specifics, I'd say we're all set for now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The small note works good enough I guess, my initial issue was that I was trimmed wayyy to much but as a small kinda "hey look at this fun thing" works for me. Alice was Mad (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sergecross73, what do you think of the similar paragraph currently at Sonic Superstars § Release written by TheJoebro64? Right now, the two articles are inconsistent in their levels of detail about the subject, with Sonic Superstars providing much more, along the lines of what I was envisioning, citing more sources and even including a comparison to the 1990s console wars, which I had considered doing. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC), edited 23:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting the old rivalry helps explain why it's brought up in the first place, but the rest is just the same old drawn out wording for saying it was a coincidence. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I take back what I said earlier about fully supporting the current wording. What I meant to say is that I am satisfied with it for now, but I do not regard this discussion as entirely settled. There are two facts I would still like to gain consensus for adding to this article:

1. Both producers commented on the coincidence. This is worth mentioning because it gives weight to what is already stated. Right now, the information may be read as though it was simply mentioned by media organizations, not brought up in an interview with people significant to both games.
2. Journalists compared the situation to the rivalry from the 1990s. As Sergecross73 said, "[n]oting the old rivalry helps explain why it's brought up in the first place".

I understand the point being made about "drawn out wording"; the original was quite excessive; I guess I was just too excited. If there are no objections, once consensus is gained for including or excluding the above facts, I will also update the Sonic Superstars article accordingly. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 02:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what extensions you'd like to add, and what purpose it serves to the reader? So much of the argument seems to hinge on "well they published it" rather than what its actual benefit is to the reader? Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Dude why are we still arguing, I thought that we already settled everything what Alice was Mad (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so too, I'm also confused and tired of this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In the ordered list in my above comment, I did explain what I want added and why, using arguments other that the mere fact that it was published. I would like you to respond to those arguments. I am very sorry for the confusion I caused when I falsely said that "I fully support the new wording"; I do like it, but I think it could be expanded upon with the two things mentioned above. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I support briefly noting the rivalry. I don't see much potential for misunderstandings about the coincidence part when the "coincidence" part in this situation essentially means "there's no real story nor planning behind this release timeframe" here, but if you feel compelled to include "per Tezuka and Iizuka" at then end then I guess? Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sergecross73, what do you think of something like this? If you accept it, consider adding it yourself per WP:BRD#Bold (again).

Sonic Superstars, a similar 2D side-scrolling platform game by Sega, was released 3 days before Wonder. Tezuka and Sonic Superstars's producer Takashi Iizuka revealed that this was a coincidence, despite how long it had been since either franchise had had a 2D entry. It was the first time a Super Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog game had been released close to one another since the 1990s Nintendo–Sega console war.

–CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done on both articles. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 14:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

At the article Sonic Superstars, TheJoebro64 has reverted my edit, so I started a discussion there. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 19:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes the sequel of the exact same argument lol. Alice was Mad (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on MetaCritic since New Super Mario Bros./Super Mario Advance 4

Regarding this addition to the reception, can't we just leave it as

"It is the highest rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic since New Super Mario Bros. (2006)"

instead of

"It is the second highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic, behind Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3."

I think that is an unnecessary change that means the same thing in the end (counting 2D Super Mario games only, New Super Mario Bros. (89) was released right after Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 (94), with no other games released in between, it's the same claim). And I worded it like that because comparing it with a new game instead of a port is much more notable, and what readers would like to know the most is how it compares to those games.

Also frankly I believe this small line is causing unnecessary drama, it's ridiculous to claim that it was "incorrect" when saying "it is the highest rated since" and "the highest rated behind" means the same thing in the end and just changing that and the source from searching "Super Mario Bros" to searching "Super Mario" automatically makes it correct. Also Super Mario Bros. is how Nintendo officially names the 2D Mario games as seen here. And I may remind you that this doesn't count as WP:OR (instead it counts as WP:COUNTSORT) and the first editor who reverted due to claiming it was such was wrong, that's why I first reverted it. Only to have it reverted again due to a false claim of it being "incorrect", which is why I reverted it again.

Well, now I'm all ears, I won't change it further until a consensus is hopefully reached. Now please, give me a good reason why it can't stay like that if there is one. MateoEditor (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, another editor is adamant on removing the line that says that it has "a "Mighty" approval rating on OpenCritic". What's the point of that? It's just describing what how the website itself rates it like the "universal acclaim" on Metacritic. It's a pointless removal. For the record, other pages such as Sonic Superstars also mention it. MateoEditor (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:VG/REC for how to handle Open Critic. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:VG/REC says

• OpenCritic is useful for newer games. Only use OpenCritic's Critics Recommend metric normally. Do not include OpenCritic's Top Critic Average metric in articles that have a Metacritic score.

I take it that Critics Recommend metric normally means only listing the percentage, then, using Sonic Superstars as an example again, that "a "Strong" approval rating on OpenCritic" should be changed to "On OpenCritic, 57% of critics recommend", shouldn't it? Otherwise it's strange that the website rating description is listed there but not here. MateoEditor (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, I'm just saying following the guidance is the way to go. I'd stop using Sonic Superstars as some sort of standard to aspire to though. Much like this article (and any popular new release) there's a wide variety of both good and misguided edits happening because the games just came out. Look to WP:GAs and WP:FAs for articles that are generally good stardards to work towards. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Well, I checked some recent game WP:GAs and WP:FAs, and there really isn't any standard on whether OpenCritic should only list the percentage or both that and the website rating description, some do, others don't (and several don't list OpenCritic), so then either way is fine so the "and a "Mighty" approval rating on OpenCritic, where 98% of reviews recommend the game" could both be mentioned and be added back if anyone wants (for the record, either way is fine by me, I'm interested in the other change, but this being removed for no reason caught my eye as well). MateoEditor (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC), edited 03:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the latter. What reason is there to only compare Wonder to games released within some arbitrary time frame, when it could be compared to all Super Mario games? I'm quite sure that kind of chronocentrism falls under WP:SYNTH. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 02:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not an arbitrary period of time or chronocentrism under WP:SYNTH. As mentioned before it's just "the highest since", meaning just that fact, that could have been under any other period of time. Also saying that the latter is compared to all Super Mario games is flawed because MC only covers 2D games since the GBA era so the NES/SNES/GB games are not represented.

That said, I'll go with the consensus, just mentioning that for the record. MateoEditor (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Also I believe "highest rated since" sounds better than "second highest rated". MateoEditor (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right about the latter not representing all Super Mario games; thank you for correcting me on that. My problem with the former—while it may not be chronocentric—is that it leaves more room for speculation; it doesn't say what happened before New Super Mario Bros., and it links to the article as if it is important rather than the unmentioned game that preceded it. As far as the reader knows, every single Super Mario game released prior to New Super Mario Bros. could have outperformed Wonder on Metacritic. The latter, however, dispels any such ambiguity. It may sound a bit less cool, but it communicates the information far better. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 03:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, you mentioned a good point. Just one thing though, I have to point out that both statements link to their respective articles:

"It is the highest rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic since New Super Mario Bros."

"It is the second highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic, behind Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3"

So both are equally important in that sense.

Maybe it could be worded in a better/more important (or cooler) way that emphasizes how big the milestone is, that was my intention when I added it in the first place anyway, to show how great the reviews were, but I don't think saying it like that conveys that.

How about something like

"It is the highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic, after Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" MateoEditor (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it could be worded in a better/more important (or cooler) way that emphasizes how big the milestone is, that was my intention when I added it in the first place anyway, to show how great the reviews were, but I don't think saying it like that conveys that.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says it far better than I can, but you should not be trying to write in a way that "emphasizes" anything that reliable sources do not. I do not support the proposed wording, because it is factually incorrect; someone who reads only the first part of that sentence would walk away misinformed, and even someone who reads the whole sentence may still be confused. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 03:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC), edited 03:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's still factually correct, as it also is saying the same thing.

• "It is the highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic after Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3"
• "It is the second highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic, behind Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3."

But I understand your point, that readers that only the first part of that sentence would walk away misinformed. Also I believe it follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it's the same thing worded differently, it's not sugarcoating it or mentioning anything untrue.

Well, let's wait and see if anyone can come up with something else. MateoEditor (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If there's no better alterative I'll leave the Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 statement, but it doesn't fully convince me. I don't think comparing it to a port is as noteworthy as comparing it to a new game, when both statements mean the same thing and it's just the implication that is changed. And even then, wording the comparison like that doesn't comprehend all 2D games because Metacritic doesn't cover them all. MateoEditor (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Really? You were actually insisting on this being correct: "It is the highest rated side-scrolling Super Mario game on Metacritic since New Super Mario Bros. (2006)." You realized your mistake after I added the source verifying your "ridiculous" "false claim", changed it here, and try to make it look like you are correct now. You will leave it that way anyway if there is a consensus/users who disagree with you (and they do). You can't change the information because you don't like the fact that what is listed is a "port". ภץאคгöร 06:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have never changed my what I said about that subject, it's still correct and there's no "mistake":

From the sources in the mentioned revision:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231018225906/https://www.metacritic.com/search/%22Super%20Mario%20Bros.%22/?page=1&sortBy=META_SCORE&category=13

This one shows the games in the Super Mario Bros. series, which like I said is how Nintendo treats the 2D Mario games.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231018225907/https://www.metacritic.com/search/%22Super%20Mario%20Maker%22/?page=1&sortBy=META_SCORE&category=1

This one shows the games in the Super Mario Maker series, which are the other kind of 2D Mario games.

There's also Super Mario Run mobile game and Super Mario Advance ports, and I kept them mind too but didn't put another source to it's page as to not clutter the page (I guess this is the "mistake" you're so keen on), but I did check them and their scores when I first made that edit, the hard fact still stands, this game is the highest rated game since New Super Mario Bros./after Super Mario Advance 3, no mistake.

Also, you could have changed it if you knew the "mistake" but you didn't. Another editor had to do that, and now you're just criticizing the addition I made in the first place, you're so helpful. I have noticed your aggressiveness, that's why I called it ridiculous. But I'll leave it at that, I do not plan to engage in that behavior.

And yes, I plan to go with the consensus either way, and yes I'd prefer the way it was initially worded because of what I said before but it doesn't matter to me that much, what matters to me the most is that it stays (and it will stay) because it is a proven fact regardless. MateoEditor (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

When someone actually proves your "false claim" with a source and uses your edit diff to show your mistake, you should not keep trying what you are doing right now. That link showing your edit is definitely you (which changed from "It is the highest rated side-scrolling Super Mario game on Metacritic since New Super Mario Bros. (2006)." to other editor's correct addition: "It is the highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website/Metacritic after Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" [again, notice the bold text to see your changes]). I'm not obliged to correct every mistake made by other editors. The other editor added correct info without a source and then I added the source for it. You are falsely blaming others' actions and "aggressive"ness instead of admitting your mistake and pretend like you didn't change anything while trying to mislead the situation when this game is not "the highest rated side-scrolling Super Mario game" or "the highest rated game" on MC since New Super Mario Bros.. It is, however, the (second) highest-rated 2D Super Mario game on the website (behind) since Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3. ภץאคгöร 10:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed that I didn't change anything. In fact, the very first thing I said at the beginning was: "it's ridiculous to claim that it was "incorrect" when saying "it is the highest rated since" and "the highest rated behind" means the same thing in the end" Again, I'll mention it for you, for one last time: It is the same claim in the end. The highest rated game since New Super Mario Bros./second highest rated game after Super Mario Advance 3, it's the same placement and and same score. Not incorrect and not a mistake. If anything it's just the changing the wording and what was searched, which means the same thing.

Also I'm not blaming anyone or refusing to acknowledge a mistake. You should look in a mirror before claiming that.

The first response you made here was just plain vindictive and come across as plain aggressive, and that's why I answered the same way so you could see for yourself. You took that I mentioned the false claim was ridiculous (and still is) personally. You're not not obliged to correct anything, but you're not entitled to keep claiming something you think it's a "mistake" and not even point what the "mistake" is until you're pressed to do it. MateoEditor (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops! Looks like I started an argument. Anyways, I'd prefer the latter since New Super Mario Bros. only received favorable reviews. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not your fault at all, in fact it's the opposite, I thank you for your interest, recognizing its value, and actually trying to fix it, instead of just deleting the good faith edit and arbitrarily calling it "incorrect"/"a mistake".

You too @CopperyMarrow15. Your analysis was on point, and like I said I agree that the initial wording may have caused confusion and I'd be fine with the other way too. MateoEditor (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@MateoEditor The usual course of action here would be to use the aggregate percentage score and leave out any descriptive words from MetaCritic/OpenCritic such as "superb" or "terrible" etc,. because it gives readers a better understanding of what the overall reception was by seeing the aggregate percentage score since that's how we usually write these reception sections on video game articles. It promotes uniformity and clarity across the encyclopedia.

Also, I feel that the comparison to other unrelated Mario games developed by a much different development team for a totally different console is unnecessary and burdensome for the article. There's no real value in that information. Now, if there was another game within a series specifically that did either much better or poorer than this one, then I think it would be fair to make that comparison between those two titles. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

another game within a series specifically that did either much better or poorer than this one, then I think it would be fair to make that comparison between those two titles

That's also why I picked New Super Mario Bros., though it's labeled as it's own thing, this game shares staff members with it and the rest of the New Super Mario Bros. series, that's why I considered it noteworthy enough to put it that way.

Also, fair enough about what you mentioned in the first paragraph, that's fine. MateoEditor (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Highest-rated non-remake mainline 2D Mario game" how is this Serouj2000 (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• My two cents - there's too many exceptions to make this a noteworthy factoid. It's not highest rated Mario game. It's not highest rated Super Mario game. It's not even highest rated 2D Mario. It's highest 2D Mario since whatever past entry. And the claim is weaker further by the fact that often go years (or decades) without a new 2D entry. Trim the trivia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is reasonable as well. Even comparing Wonder to only the 2D Super Mario games is still arbitrary. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The reason why I compared it with the 2D games is because they're officially considered its own separate thing compared to the 3D games. I don't think there should be any problem with that because that's the way they're officially separated and consider noteworthy enough if a new game appears that surpasses the rest.

  Not the highest 2D Mario, highest 2D Mario since whatever past entry: that's correct and fair enough, that's why I worded it the way I worded at the start (alongside what I mentioned to the user just above), since the saying it's the second best comes across as not noteworthy enough. "Highest-rated non-remake mainline 2D Mario game" was good IMO too, remakes/ports are not as noteworthy as new games so I see the value in putting it that way.

  Anyway, while we were discussing things here, the same other editor that hasn't checked this discussion deleted it again due to once again claiming it's WP:OR (but it's not, it's WP:COUNTSORT, read the thing).

  My final two cents, after this no further input from me: Given the controversial nature of this point, frankly I'm okay with whatever. If anyone wants to restore it in any way, be my guest, that's fine by me. It was verified as correct and acknowledged regardless of the way it was written, which was what mattered the most (for me). Whether it remains in the article here or not is either fine by me too, it is trivia and it'd probably have a better home in other places like fan wikis/pages. People who would be interested in this would check those out too anyway. So, we can leave it like that as far as I am concerned. That's all I have to say. MateoEditor (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree the reverting editor should have been commenting here too, if we were following WP:BRD like we're supposed to, it shouldn't have been in the article, as it was contested by multiple editors and never found a consensus for inclusion. Just an FYI for next time. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros Wonder fastest selling Mario game in Europe.

According to Nintendo of Europe, the game had become the fastest selling Mario game in Europe. GuyUser81 (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was making the rounds in the news the other day. I didn't bother adding it since it didn't say how much it sold or how much the previous record holder sold. It's kind of an empty accomplishment without knowing any of the details. They'll likely release actual figures in the coming weeks/months. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

They said that they’re next financial report is on Monday, so we’ll see how much they sold then. GuyUser81 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Nintendo released their latest sales update, and it confirms that the game has 4.3 Million units worldwide. GuyUser81 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for 4.3 million sold? Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know how to do that, but there are reports claiming this. GuyUser81 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Just provide a link to a website reporting this. I can't find any sources saying this, so I'm asking you to show me where you got it from. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

[1] GuyUser81 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about that source, but other sources are reporting it now too so it's probably legit. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)