Talk:Mario

Mario Bros. as his second appearance

Wasn't Donkey Kong Jr. his second appearance and the game he appeared in before Mario Bros. The page mentions nothing about it and it just says "after Donkey Kong, Mario starred in "Mario Bros." 104.218.129.50 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes Mario did appear DKJR and the mario bros (arcade) Monster 1954 (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I know, right! It's like they don't know Donkey Kong Jr. existed. Jackson200 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

he hardly made a “cameo appearance” in Mario Bros. ‘83 for heck’s sake! 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:C8C5:8EE1:BC74:48E8 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

I did not see the Mario Wonder powerups I think that should happen.

Mario (character)?

I think the article for Mario the character should be changed to Mario (character) and the overall franchise should be called just Mario, like most other video game character articles like Sonic and Crash Bandicoot. 2601:243:C901:4600:4006:2415:2EF7:D279 (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey it just weird to see that Mario the character is just titled Mario while other titular video game mascots such as Donkey Kong and Pac-Man have character disambiguation however, you could see the previous discussion about it and it requested move so be happy. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Different articles have different disambiguation for different reasons. Keeping them all the same isn't a valid reason by itself. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but for a different reason. Nintendo didn't invent the name Mario after all, and it's kind of strange the page simply titled Mario isn't about the given name or a disambiguation page. I guess this is the same with Luigi too. If long term significance is the reason here, I don't really see it, as the Mario character has only been around for like 43 years, while the name is much older. I remember I requested the Minions (Despicable Me) page to be moved to Minions a long time ago and it didn't get approved due to it not be long term significant. What do you all think? Thomasfan1000 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It generally comes down to a case by case basis - see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for more info. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Metal Mario" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Metal Mario 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 July 29 § Metal Mario until a consensus is reached. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Image

Any objections if I change the infobox image to this 2D Club Nintendo art? My rationale:

1. It shows Mario doing his iconic jump pose, which appears on most Super Mario cover art, so it's more recognizable.
2. It faces the text, which from what I've gathered is preferred for images of characters / people on Wikipedia.
3. Generally, I think 2D art is better for representing long-running characters; it doesn't age like 3D renders do.
4. Personally, I think it looks more interesting and does a better job grabbing the reader's attention.

JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection, though in the articles like this that I maintain, it feels like an uphill battle, as there's always another newbie adding a new image "because it's newer", as if it's important to use the newest image available all the time. I'm sure a 2D image will be seen as "outdated", even if it's wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll be bold and replace it to see how it goes. Will leave a note telling people to go to talk before changing and see how that works. I have the page watchlisted, so I'll be keeping an eye. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The key art chosen is personally more generic and less visual interesting than the original render used, even for promotional art standards. If there weren't better 2D images of the character the original render we used from New Super Mario Bros. U would be a better fit for the tonal consistency of the article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

According to what? What are you citing here? Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's my opinion on this but I don't have a problem with the image for the time being and won't revert it unless the discussion evolves further. MimirIsSmart (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the 3D better represents Mario, as Mario is usually portrayed as a 3D character and not a 2D one, even in 2D games. The 2D art is only used for promos. I agree that 2D ages better than 3D, but I think the 3D art works better for the games themselves. Besides, if you want an image of Mario jumping, there's plenty of images of 3D Mario jumping. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's better even though it's too cartoony! 2603:7000:B800:1992:1953:E3A0:C702:A655 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I believe the 3D picture worked better. Sure, it doesn't depict Mario in the "iconic jump pose", but it's more advanced and shows the nuances of video game animation. Leader Vladimir (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that this promotional art lacks the nuance and does not take into account Mario's appearance in both the 2D and 3D games, which the previous render does with a more widely used depiction in the main games. While the images that replaced the renders in this article, Luigi and Princess Peach are acceptable in depicting their respective characters, the ones at Bowser and Donkey Kong (character) simply look terrible. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, why do we keep trying fix something that's not even broken? The old picture worked for years. It wasn't a problem until people here made it a problem. Leader Vladimir (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo has been using 2D art to promote Mario far longer than they have used 3D art. In infoboxes, we want to show an image that will represent the characters for years to come. I think a large part of the reason you get so many editors who want to replace art every single time a new game comes out is because the 3D renders tend to look out of date within a few years. 2D art defeats that, and using stock promotional art rather than art tied to a specific game also ensures that it doesn't fall out-of-date. (Additionally, I've talked to multiple editors off-wiki who said they despised the old renders and are glad they were changed.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally believe that the 2D promotional art makes the age problem even worse with its lack of visual appeal. Generic promotional renders from Nintendo's websites are better in being up-to-date as they certainly will not change in the near future and are not game-based (which is the prime reason images go out of date) while be expressive enough to show the characters well enough. A better choice than stock illustrations created for a children's website [1]. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

lack of visual appeal you seriously think an old render of Mario, expressionless, standing there, staring into the void had more "visual appeal"? The 2D art will always be up to date, 2D art does not age, that's literally the point of the change, and Mario is literally a children's character JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the 2D art won't always be up to date, lest we forget those 2D images from the '80s and the'90s that depicted Mario as chubbier than he is today. Who cares if it something needs to be updated? The only constant in life is changed. What? Are you gonna tell me that you don't wanna change something because you're too lazy? Some people embrace change easier than others. Leader Vladimir (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not what is being said. People are making the point that technologically, hand-drawn art of Mario remains the same, while a 3D model does not. And... laziness? Come on, relax a bit. It has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with picking an image that will remain acceptable barring significant design changes. Changing the image every time a new model or artwork is released is not healthy for the stability of the article. Not only does it mean that the image will be frequently changing, it also means that editors may disagree about whether the new image being proposed is better than the old one. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that 2D art can get outdated. I know that because images for articles for characters from comic books and animated shows have changed because they have become "oudated" even if they provide an accurate picture of the characters' basic designs. By now, Superman must be in his billionth picture or something. Leader Vladimir (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the situation. "Laziness" is absolutely not the issue, now or historically. The goal is to find a solid, representative, recognizable image that can stay in place long-term in an effort to minimize the amount of arguing and edit warring over their preferred image. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding the situation? Or perhaps I'm understanding it all too well? We can never get an agreement on this because we're human. What's okay for some might not seem okay for others. Even now, we're still arguing whether changing the image was a good idea. I'm tired of hearing this exact debate every 100 hundred years. If we have a system, we should stick to it. Leader Vladimir (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

So, if 2 out of 2 responders have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you're talking about "laziness", then no, you're probably not "understanding it all too well" (??). Please explain yourself better. How is laziness affecting things? Who is being lazy? Why would you say that? Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Because it's always the same. Whenever a new game gets released, people get into forums and discussion threads to talk about whether Mario's picture for this game should replace the old one in this article. Some accept, others don't, thus we have a discussion, but here is the thing: that discussion is good because we care about this article and we want it to be as good as possible. That's why I oppose the change from 3D to 2D. It would feel like a step backwards and, quite frankly, like an admission of defeat from us. If you continue in this direction, then I gotta tell you: consider yourselves lucky that Mario even has a 2D picture. Lots of characters don't even have that, like the Master Chief and Kratos, don't have that. Sonic the Hedgehog has a weird combination of his classic design and his modern design as the main image of his article. Leader Vladimir (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No part of that rambling response even began to address any of the questions I just asked you. I still have no idea who or what scenario "lazy" or why you said that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention it doesn't matter if another character doesn't have 2D artwork or not, that's basically an unrelated WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument if there ever was one?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This whole discussion is happening because you want to avoid the work of having to change a picture simply because the current picture is outdated. To the untrained observer, that would come off as laziness. Leader Vladimir (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I guess we've come full circle and I'm back to saying you're just 100% wrong. Your comment on laziness makes zero sense and you can't coherently explain it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Then just chalk it up to personal bias. I just think that switching from 3D to 2D would feel like a step backwards. Even if I can't properly vocalize my feelings about a topic, I still feel something strong about the topic. So; no. I don't support the switch, but on a personal level and for the impact it could have on the article in the future. Leader Vladimir (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So you want to condemn people who want to come up with a long-term solution as "lazy", and your solution is to...just go with your own personal preference. Unbelievable. It boggles my mind that you can't see the problems and complications that come with problem solving like this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Saying "the untrained observer" would think that when you were the person who said it is not a good look - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, then I don't know what do you want me to say. I don't even know what I can say. You people have already made up on your minds on this topic and you're only entertaining this discussion as a formality or something. Leader Vladimir (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The system is consistency and stability. People have explained the issues with the previous images, have explained why hand-drawn art has more stability than 3D models due to hand-drawn art not having technical limitations that can be eventually overcome, and frankly, I find the arguments in favor of keeping the image to be, quite honestly, extremely strange. Your argument that it shows the nuances of video game animation is a strange argument to make about a static image in a neutral pose, and the other argument about feeling more generic is even stranger to me, given that the comparison is, once again, to an image of Mario blank face doing nothing and expressing no emotion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with unnecessarily changing a 3D file to a 2D one, and with those who claim (such as Kung Fu Man) that there is a consensus in this current discussion to replace other Mario files with similar 2D versions. ภץאคгöร 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I vehemently agree with using art of Mario instead of a 3D model (and am honestly befuddled to hear someone describe a 3D model that's one step away from T-posing as appealing). As noted, hand-drawn art does not age, but 3D models inevitably do. Using hand-drawn art creates more stability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I second the idea of swapping out the 3D art for 2D one. The 2D art is consistent and reflects the Mario brand rather well. The 3D art, whilst more current, will constantly be needing to be updated, that's just the nature of the beast. Whereas the 2D will rarely need updating, and should a drastic design change happen, this will likely be reflected in the article itself rather than the thumbnail. Additionally, the 2D art is far more expressive than the 3D, which again I feel is more in-line with the Mario franchise and brand. And to address one of the talking points above, there is nothing wrong from pulling from up-to-date sources, even if they are a "children's website" (you're talking about Nintendo here). CaptainGalaxy 16:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This got posted while I was typing up my own response so I'm just going to reply here with the fact that I also support swapping the character art from the 3D renders to the 2D art. The 2D art is much more consistent and less likely to become "outdated," thus meaning we wouldn't have to worry about constantly updating a character's infobox image whenever a new release comes out. Additionally, no critical information is lost by switching to this more consistent artwork, as these artworks portray the visual information a person would need to know about a specific character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's more of a personal opinion of mine, I have no problem with this being the norm, though I still believe that Donkey Kong (character) likely does not work for this approach. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Undue infobox

Currently, the infobox lists nearly every person who has ever voiced Mario, whether it be in one commercial or even just a whistling soundbites in a singular game. Would there be any objections if I, following MOS:INFOBOX, remove all voice actors that aren't mentioned in the article body? DecafPotato (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support this. It should only be a few major ones. (Martinet, Pratt, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove a large sweep of cruft stuff from the page, hang tight. Panini! • 🥪 04:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)