Talk:Super Mario Bros.

Individual reassessment

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario Bros./GA1. 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.

---

This article was promoted to GA way back in 2007, when a lot of VG-related Wikipedia articles were filled with stuff that could now fail at WP:GAMECRUFT. For this reason, the article appears to have a ton of issues: some of the "Alternate versions" section (not all) is completely unsourced, the article is way too detailed and poorly written, and the "Reception" section is short and somewhat vague. Another major concern I have is that too much of the article is sourced to TheMushroomKingdom, which is an unreliable source (it is used on All Nippon Night SMB, SMBDX, and the "ports" section). For these reasons, I think Super Mario Bros. doesn't really meet the standards for GA today. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

To help, I'm pinging a number of contributors to this page: @Dissident93:, @Anonymous from the 21st century:, @Richardcavell:, and @ProDuct0339:. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with your concerns. Super Mario Bros must have been exhaustively documented in print media - but we need access to the magazines etc to write an article. I simply don't have the resources to do that. In my view, this article falls short of Wikipedia's present standards for a satisfying article on such a notable subject. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree. Just look at what I've removed from the article in the not so distant past. (#1) and (#2). This article should really be removed from GA status until it's modernized. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, so sad to see my hard work (did a loooooot of work to get this to GA way back then) go to shit over the years thanks to fancruft. That's the internet for you. Xenon54 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If the issue was only "the Internet's fancruft", we could revert to the reviewed (2007) version, but WP's sourcing and prose standards have changed significantly in the last decade... czar 15:40, 24 June 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.

Development Lore

Based on the 6 new levels for Vs. Super Mario Bros., I think the arcade port of Super Mario Bros. was more or less an early prototype of Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels. 2601:203:C281:28F0:E152:4930:7CB:616E (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

That first link for the North American release for super Mario bros. is not too reliable for the exact date since for every game listed, it includes the month and year for their release, including the games that had a confirmed launch day in North American. So I suggest we remove that first source and keep the second one as its from Nintendo themselves. 1ArcticDude (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

about the US release date of Super Mario Bros.

I was looking around on the Nintendo Switch Online app on Nintendo Switch and I found out it tells you what time the games were released when going to the classic games menu on the app. According to that it tells us the US release date was 10/18/1985. I think this is good information to use MadeForLosers (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This release date should not be used. There is no attestation to this exact date and Nintendo has been known to contradict primary sources that attest or sometimes outright prove earlier or later release dates. See their official dates for Pac-Man or Zelda II versus numerous attestations to the contrary for an example.

An investigation into the date of Mario's first sale in the US was conducted by Video Game History Foundation founder Frank Cifaldi in 2012. He discovered several pieces of evidence that contradict Nintendo's given date.

A newspaper column from October 5, 1985 lists the NES (and Mario) as launching "next Tuesday," meaning either October 8th or October 15th depending on how you infer context.

On top of that, Gail Tilden--a former Nintendo employee responsible for the NES launch in New York City--said she was "certain" that the first sale of the NES (and Mario) did not occur on October 18th. Tilden instead believes the sale would have been on either October 12th or October 19th.

None of this is to say we need to pick one of these other dates as being the "correct" one, but I believe it is clear that there is no compelling reason to believe that Nintendo's provided date is true either. There's enough evidence to the contrary to provide reasonable doubt, and I believe we should return to stating a general release of 'October 1985' until more compelling evidence is discovered. Zach Arani (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

For all we know, the game could have been released as late as November 17, 1985. I think one of the following options to state the date would be best:

1. "Oct/Nov 1985"
2. "Q4 1985"
3. "October 18, 1985" (with a note that the date is disputed)

Dexxor (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Those of us who research this stuff know plenty more than that.

• In his October 5, 1985, column in the Milwaukee Journal, Ed Semrad reports that the NES is launching in New York with 2 bundled games and 15 additional titles. Super Mario Bros. is mentioned by name, as are all the other titles.

• An October 30, 1985, ad in Newsday by an appliance store advertises the NES with 15 games sold separately, which means they had Mario.

• The November issue of Computer Entertainer reports the NES is available in the New York area with 15 games sold separately. As a monthly, it always reports on happenings from the month before to make it’s street date. For example, it’s June CES coverage is always in the July issue.

• The in-store displays used from day one of the launch all feature Super Mario Bros. and say nothing about it coming later than the rest.

In short, no contemporary reports on the system ever recorded a delay for any of the launch titles, and every report and advertisement related to the launch mentions 15 titles. This little controversy happened because a long time ago some incredibly misinformed people decided it was released in 1986, so other people had to search for evidence using limited research tools to prove the obvious that it was released in 1985. The November Macy’s ad was found to illustrate this point. We have better tools and more sources today. So no, any attempt to point to November as a potential launch month for Super Mario Bros. would not be correct. Indrian (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with these points.

But what should be done about the dating on the infobox? I feel like we can't give a specific date in October in good faith--at least considering how complex and unverified a lot of this history is. I still personally prefer reverting back to 'October 1985,' although I am unable to modify the infobox myself. Zach Arani (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is the best course. We can give it a few days for others to respond, then I can make the change if there is no serious objection. Indrian (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been awhile, but would someone with edit permissions make this edit--presuming there are no objections? ConduitForSale! (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I went ahead and changed this to October 1985 per the consensus here. Indrian (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Or at least I meant to, but edited the wrong spot. But someone else was nice enough to fix it. Indrian (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Our princess is in another castle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Our princess is in another castle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Our princess is in another castle until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)