Talk:Super Mario Bros./Archive 2

Multiplayer?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain that the NES version of Super Mario Bros., the definitive version, doesn't have multiplayer. "2 player" just refers to playing as the second playable character, Luigi. Again, I might be wrong. I know Super Mario Bros. Deluxe had some form of multiplayer and that the VS. system game did, but I'm sure (or pretty sure) that the NES version didn't. --Bentendo24 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a few years since I played on my neighbour's (still-working) NES, but I do remember there being a multiplayer mode in each of the 3 SMB games. There were two options on the title screen. Hitting "2 Player Game" starts the first controller as Mario. When Mario dies, the second controller takes over as Luigi. When Luigi dies, Mario takes over and so-on. I guess it's a race to see who finishes first or has a higher score. Split-screen was still a technical impossibility (it wouldn't be around until StH 2, I think) and so it isn't technically multiplayer as you would think of it today. Here is a list of all NES multiplayer games, and sure enough it's listed. Xenon54 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, my bad! That's actually a really cool idea. --Bentendo24 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Minus World Level
People say it's really world 36, because that's the 36th tile in the ROM, but after counting up (using Mario's lives as a way to count to 36), I have found the 36th tile is "Z", NOT " ". The " " is the 37th tile! I went online, and found the graphics tiles, and if you count them, the 0-9 are 10 and the A-Z are 26, THEN you have the space tile, that's the 37th (THIRTY-SEVENTH) tile!! Here's a link that shows the graphic tiles for the game:

http://www.nesplayer.com/database/info/emulation/doc/romdoc.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.82.227 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The first tile, which is a zero, is considered to be tile 0 (or the "zeroth" tile) by the game; thus, the blank tile is indeed tile 36. Only when the tile that represents "0" is considered to be tile 1 (or the "first" tile) does the blank space end up being tile 37. Usually, computers begin to count from zero, rather than one. Xenon54 / talk / 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"king cooper"?!
i'm sure the name i remember was bowser, not sure if this was mentioned in the game itself though and i don't have the instruction manual availible.
 * It's 'King Koopa' Babrook 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The "hardest level ever" video
You've all probably seen this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6204903272262158881

It looks like a mod of some kind. Does anyone of you know it? Shinobu 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the same thing. I also think that the video's famous enough on Google Video and various forums to warrant a mention in the article. Does it fulfill notability requirements? --Safe-Keeper 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That video is of an ips hack of the game, it is well known as Super Mario Forever, it is a challenge or kaizo hack. -- hdofu 16:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

According to (which came first, Arcade or Famicom)
Steven Kent's "The Ultimate History of Video Games", Super Mario Bros. was an arcade game first, then ported to the NES. --Imax80 21:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't true. VS Super Mario bros was in fact based on the NES version. Else why call it VS Super Mario Bros, like all the other NES "remakes" appearing on the VS Arcade System? --Dez26 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so we're all on the same page: Kent's claim was that Super Mario Bros. was originally released in Japan as an arcade game, then ported to the Famicom. That port was then released in the US with the NES. The VS Arcade version then followed. Druff 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I belive that Mario Bros. was an arcade game first. Maybe we're getting SUPER Mario Bros. confused with Mario Bros.Chaoman42 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know for a fact that the arcade version of Super Mario Bros. was released before the NES in the US. I remember being able to beat Super Mario Brothers on one quarter without warping prior to the NES being released in the US.  I also remember getting a NES (with the dumb robot) within a week of its release and how dissapointed I was with how much easier Super Mario Brothers was.  I'm not sure what the Japan release schedule was, but I can tell you that the arcade Super Mario Brothers was definitely released before the NES in the US.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.62 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I also played the arcade version of Super Mario Brothers prior to the NES being released in the US and the NES version was much easier. The most glaring difference was in the X-4 worlds, where you could land on the hammer when the clock hit zero and it would grant you the full time bonus.  There was at least a year in between when I first played the arcade version and when I first saw the NES advertised.  The fact that it had Super Mario Brothers made me want to get the NES.  The later versions of the arcade game were the dumbed down ones from the NES and even had different clock speeds. 216.171.129.224 (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Super Mario Bros. was released in America on October 18, 1985! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.82.148 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. That's an error and has already been exhaustively researched and discussed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Chalk me up as yet another person who DISTINCTLY remembers Super Mario Bros. first as an Arcade Game, and then a NES staple (at least in the US). @Dez: IIRC, the "vs" Games -as opposed to Super Mario Bros. proper in its own cabinet -were on a stupid (IMO) arcade system called Play-Choice 10 or something like that, where a whole bunch of Nintendo Games were in the same Arcade Cabinet (IIRC "Goonies," "Punch Out," "Duck Hunt," et al.), and a quarter only allowed you to play a game on a crappy timer. Thanos777 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot say, which came first in the US, and it is quite possible that the arcade version dropped before the cartridge version, but if we are discussing which version was designed first, that is clearly the Famicom version. I have two bits of evidence for this, one suitable for sourcing in wikipedia and one not.  The first is the "Iwata Asks" entry for New Super Mario Bros. Wii in which the history of the series is discussed and Miyamoto clearly describes how the original game was designed for Famicom and that development started at the same time as The Legend of Zelda.  The second source, not suitable for Wikipedia, is an interview I conducted with Frank Ballouz, at the time the marketing director for Nintendo of America's coin-op division, in which he states that he was the one that told Japan that they had to make a Super Mario coin-op after he played the consumer game. Indrian (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia in opening paragraphs
I really don't think the opening paragraphs are the appropriate place to mention things like All Night Nippon and the PC-8801 port. This are obscure side-notes and should be relegated thusly. Renfield (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The material you mention is sourced and relevant to the article. In the lead is it appropriately mentioned in the broader context of ports and alternate versions and their success in relation to the success of the original game. It is not given undue weight or prominence; its about-10-word mention in the lead is roughly proportional to the three body sentences devoted to the topic. Therefore, it (in my opinion) satisfies Lead section: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight," and I do not see any reason for it to be removed. However, the specific mention of the NEC PC-8801 could be genericised to "the home computer" or "non-Nintendo systems". Xenon54 / talk / 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion
In the article there is no mention of any of the other console versions of Super Mario Bros. (Such as Super Mario World on the SNES or Super Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64) as sequels. Is this intentional? If so please explain why.

Also I was wondering why there is no mention of the warp pipes (other than the one for world -1). I believe the fact that you can beat the game by playing only 8 total levels (using the warp pipes) is more than relevant in the gameplay section, or another section, esspecially for when the game was made.

If you have any questions or concerns contact me Tough_guy223 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughguy223 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Super Mario World is considered to be a direct sequel. It was released in Japan as Super Mario Bros. 4. Super Mario 64 is really only related to Super Mario Bros. because the main playable characters and "baddies" are largely the same in both games. SM64's gameplay, however, is completely different from that of SMB, therefore it's hard to justify calling SM64 a direct sequel. For all other concerns, Wikipedia is not a game guide. The article should focus on the "real world" aspects of the game, such as development history and reception. Xenon54 / talk / 13:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not playing exactly the same doesn't make Super Mario 64 any less of a sequel, but that is beside the point.  TJ   Spyke   14:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's certainly a sequel, but it's not a DIRECT sequel. SM64 is part of the "Mario series" that started with SMB, but it is not directly descended from SMB in terms of gameplay and such. That timeline of games that directly descend from SMB is SMB -> SMB2 -> SMB3 -> SMW -> NSMB -> NSMBW. These can be considered SMB's direct sequels, where as other "Mario series" games can be considered "indirect sequels" or, for some games, "spinoffs". Xenon54 / talk / 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "direct sequel" and "indirect sequel", just "sequel". This has nothing to do with the topic though, so let's get back on track.  TJ   Spyke   15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am digressing quite a bit. Apologies. (The only reason I brought up the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" was because I think the article was specifically worded that way a long time ago -- pre-NSMB, the lead said "SMB spawned four direct sequels and numerous spin-offs.")
 * Toughguy, the reason why gameplay tips and secrets don't belong here is because this is an encyclopaedia. We aim to give a general overview of the topic at hand -- a summary of the information required to understand the topic without going too in-depth -- just as a paper encyclopaedia would. Someone who knows nothing about Super Mario Bros. won't care that if he were to play it, he could beat the game in 8 levels, nor would he care that by discovering a hidden area he can skip around the level structure as he pleases. He would want basic information about how the game works, plus maybe a little information of the timeline of the game's development, and then he would want to know how critics and the general public received the game. All articles are supposed to focus on those three points, but the most text should be put toward the last one. Xenon54 / talk / 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If "gameplay secrets" don't belong here, why is there mention of world -1, that is much more of a secret as it was a mistake. The warp tunnels were put in intentionally. While I don't disagree with your comment about the gameplay secrets, why is a reletivly unknown secret (world -1)in rather than a well known. Toughguy223 / talk / 15:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Minus World is widely known and and is the subject of material published by reliable sources; therefore, any information someone writes about it is theoretically verifiable. The warp zones, meanwhile, do not have the same level or amount of information available, and, again, in the past editors of this page have come to a consensus that their mention would be too game-guidey. Xenon54 / talk / 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

'Titular' character (opening paragraph)?
Why not change this to 'lead' character? Chevymontecarlo. 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "lead" is subjective; the word "titular" is not. Simply calling Mario the "lead" character is technically synthesis -- you're using information given in the article, or gleaned from playing the game, to draw your own conclusion -- unless a reliable source can be found, of course, that refers to him as the "lead" character. Changing the word to "lead" would also, in theory, require a discussion to examine sources and establish a consensus that Mario is actually the "lead" character. Conversely, since the title is obviously Super Mario Bros., Mario can safely be called the "titular" character without any issues regarding original research.
 * Finally: yes, I know, the word "titular" contains the word "tit" and is pronounced "tit-ular" (well, at least I pronounce it that way). Still, those are not good reasons for the word to be changed. Xenon54 / talk / 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

profanity in introduction
Somebody might want to re-check the first sentence of the third paragraph.
 * Removed; it was vandalism. Remember Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so please don't hesitate to remove any vandalism you come across by clicking "history" at the top of the page, then clicking "undo" next to the edit that contains vandalism. Xenon54 / talk / 10:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does it require a citation?
I don't get why a citation is required for the Super Mario Bros. stage in Brawl...its an observation of the game there is no citation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.228.89 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Original research. In short, anything gained from personal observation or research is inherently not verifiable by other editors and those who are reading the article. Britannica wouldn't take your word for it and neither do we. Xenon54 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros Deluxe save
I want to add that SMB DX added the possibility to save the game. Is there any reason why this wasn't in the article and I shouldn't put it? Can I use giantbomb.com as a source?--ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that I can see why that should not be written. Do you have the link to a specific page which you were planning to cite as a source? A top-level domain is not enough; someone who is reading the article should be able to find the exact page where you got the information from. Xenon54 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a reason I asked you to post the link to the source. Citing other user-editable sites are strictly disallowed; the information there is completely unverifiable, so citing another wiki is not much of an improvement over not citing a source at all. Xenon54 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice the huge "Edit Article" button. I'll see if I can get a better source.--ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NA release date, again
Sorry to bother everyone, but I found this recently: http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol1_page3.jsp. Looks to be a series of interviews of Shigeru Miyamoto by Satoru Iwata. But what's more important is this footnote:

Super Mario Bros. was a platform game on the Nintendo Entertainment System released in Japan in September 1985 and in the US in March 1986.

Should the NA release date therefore be changed from "by March 1986" to definitively "March 1986"? Nintendo's main website still (unhelpfully) says just "1985". Xenon54 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that it's not Miyamoto stating it, only a footnote by the article's author. Plus it would be an example of one of several different dates given by Nintendo and Nintendo people, which is what lead us to have to do the consensus last time of "by 1986".  And I get the feeling that the author of the page is referencing the Wikipedia article since none of their material to date has ever stated specifically March 1986 before or anything around that date, only we have. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To throw some potential confusion on to the fire, I was just made aware of this Oct 5, 1985 article in the Milwaukee Journal that lists Super Mario Bros. amongst the 17 titles that are going to be available in 1985. It's the first detailed contemporaneous source that I can really remember seeing about the NES launch. The article promises more information will also be in the Oct 19 & Oct 26 issues of the same paper. Do we have the means to track them down? Brideck (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) All the Journal articles are online through google news. 2) That's simply an announcement of intended availability and not a statement of it actually being available.  Its accuracy on forward looking statements is not implied, and in fact that's further illustrated by how it says "next Tuesday" (which would have been October 8th) for the NES unveiling when it wasn't until the 18th.  3) Even the US copyright database shows SMB was not available on the 18th as the package was first finished on the 19th and the manual not until the 31st.  One would expect them to be promoting a game already launched in Japan, but not finished yet for the US, in their US press releases which is what Semrad was repeating along with his personal experience playing the proto NES at the June '85 CES in Chicago. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Are they? I wasn't able to track them down.  Could you provide links?  I'd like to read them even if they're not useful in this discussion.  2) Agree with both of these points.  I do find it interesting that it would ever have been promoted as "coming in 1985" given that according to the other sources listed above a localized version hadn't even been produced yet.  Maybe it just turned out to be a bigger job than Nintendo had planned.  3) The US Copyright database doesn't always seem to be 100% accurate when it comes to these things.  For example, Pinball's box has a date of 10/1 while its manual is 10/31.  Kung Fu's box is 10/31 and its manual is 10/15.  I don't think anyone has ever argued that those two titles weren't available at launch.  4) I know it would constitute original research, but I might try to get some folks on various Nintendo forums to examine the date codes on their copies of SMB.  I've personally not seen any from 1985, although I've probably only looked at a dozen or so.  It would be interesting to see if anyone could find one. Brideck (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Unfortunately google news doesn't let you directly look up by dates (at least none that I know). You have to try a roundabout way of looking up something from that day or week and hoping its indexed. I also happen to live in Milwaukee and can look up the stuff on microfiche locally.  2) I don't recall it seeing promoted as "coming in 1985", rather just as one of the games planned to be available for the system in general once the system is available.  Most likely they didn't plan on it taking longer or it was a last minute addition to the NES initial titles based on the rising popularity of it in Japan with its release just less than a month before (which seems more likely given the sources).  4) The US Copyright dates are literally by the dates filled out by the applicant (Nintendo) at the time.  The publication date is defined as "Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public.".  So no, according to what Nintendo filled out, those dates are when the said material (box and manual) were first available to the public (i.e. outside Nintendo.).  There is nothing inaccurate about them, they are 100% percent accurate on the information filed.  What may be inaccurate is people's perception of "launch" and what it was.  October 18th is simply when they did the publicity of the official "unveiling" and started approaching stores and locations in the New York area to carry it for the test market.  That doesn't mean, boom! they were available throughout the New York area on the 18th.  Sales didn't really start until after Thanksgiving in to November, when the actual Christmas season sales started, which is when the first ads started appearing in New York newspapers (I have copies from several news services).  It is entirely possible to have not had Kung Fu and Pinball ready for physical sales until the beginning of November, which it appears more and more that these dates are lining up for an end of October date for completion of the game materials (manuals and such).   The copyright filing is about protecting those works, which companies take very seriously, because it protects their works.  A company is not going to put material out there before a copyright filing, and when it does file it has to take that publication date very serious or it screws with their defense should someone claim it to have something earlier than the filing or granting dates.  5) Which date codes?  On the chips or the label?  The label is always going to say 1985 because the copyright application for the game itself was filed off the Japanese version and Japanese publication date of 9/14/85.  How copyright of actual games works is usually a representation of the game itself (usually a VHS tape of it in those games) is sent in to provide a representation of the visual works.  Unfortunately that's what's screwing us up with having an actual US publication date for SMB.  Likewise, the Kung Fu packaging filing also states its purpose is "New Matter: some artwork, text & ill." which means they could have had the box done earlier (and been going off the Famicom version) and that was just a filing based on changes.  Such is the case with Pinball as well, whose initial copyright is followed off the audio visual works off the Vs arcade release on 7-26-84 with a supplement filing sometime in 1985.  Remember, for the June CES showing and the subsequent press they didn't need to have boxes and manuals done, just the games themselves - most of which were already released Famicom games.  Its when you go to actual sales that you have to have that material complete of course.   --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) If they're accurate, doesn't this dispute the 1986 date for SMB? Like you said, the copyright DB has 10/19 & 10/31, and if it's accurate that would mean that it was "made available to the public" in some form in the tail end of 1985.  5) Date codes on the actual chips.  For example, I have a Wrecking Crew where the codes for the three chips are PRG: 8542, CHR: 8542, CIC: 8541.  That tells me that it was likely assembled in the 42nd week of 1985.  This corresponds to the end of October.  The earliest chip code I've seen for each game generally corresponds to its estimated street date within a week or so.  Looking at codes for the oldest looking copies of SMB would provide more (albeit inadmissable) evidence one way or the other. Brideck (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) No, as stated it does not state release date. Just that the material needed to actually sell the game (box and manual) was not available before that date hence release for sales would have to be after it.  It does not list the actual release date of the NA version of the game is stated, which is why we have to go by the direct interviews and such (which I'm not going to go over again, it's was a very long discussion process at the video game project page that continued from here, and is fully archived).  Secondly, the date in this article says "by March 1986" not "1986", leaving it open for a possibly earlier date.  If something supporting an earlier date can be found (advertisements, etc.) that can still be changed, but 1986 were the earliest advertisements at the time of the discussion that could be found.  5) Yes, chip dates would help - however it still would not provide an actual sales date.  My guess is at some point it's going to be found it was available for sales in November of '85 or later.   --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the kind folks over at NA has found an SMB from the 42nd week of 1985 which is consistent with anything I've ever seen for any of the other October launch titles. If that's the case, I wonder what all the documented recollections of SMB not being ready are all about?  The chip info, plus the copyright db info for the box/instructions, and 1985 news article seem pretty conclusive to me.  Unless you're proposing that they had everything printed, games manufactured, etc. and just kept their best game sitting in a storeroom for some reason. Brideck (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, once again the Milwaukee article states planned releases not actual relesaes. The documented recollections are from the people who were actually in charge of NOA at the time and hands on in the October launch - and they are factual  - the chips just backed it up even further.  Chip info is not release info, it's fabrication info of the chips - when the bulk run of chips were created, not used.  It does not state the manufacturing date of the cartridge itself, which (having been involved in this on a professional level) happens anywhere from a few weeks to several months later.  The way it works is chips and pcbs are ordered and manufactured seperately, their availability and arrival depending on the materials demand in the market.  Then they each get shipped, then whoever is doing the manufacturing of the cartridge itself puts them together.  And once again it disproves being ready for Oct. 18th and backs up the documented recollections, as the 42nd week of 1985 was the work week of Oct. 21-25th.  First being fabricated during that time, combined with the box and manual dates all support it was not ready for the claimed Oct 18th launch.  As previously stated, my guess is at some point it's going to be found it was available for sales in November of '85 or later.  And please, leave the  grandstanding commentary "Unless you're proposing that they had everything printed, games manufactured, etc. and just kept their best game sitting in a storeroom for some reason." out of the discussion, that's not what was being stated, and a complete missinterpretation of the facts and previous commentary to even try and state that --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Grandstanding"... love it. Especially that you had to link to it to show me what it meant as if I were a 7-year old child.  Anyway, not attempting to do so... just stating that with all the evidence in hand, it would make the case of SMB truly exceptional when compared to every other NES game manufactured during this era.  As I stated, the 42nd week of 1985 is as early as I've ever seen any other CIC chips to be dated.  Granted those dates are not in time for the Oct 18th launch, as you stated, but would still line up decently for a 1985 availability which is all I've ever specifically been arguing for.  Either way, those dates pretty strongly contradict the linchpin quote from Kent's book that "it took a few months to create an American version of the game".  At the least it contradicts the notion that those few months came after the game had already been released in Japan.  Just not sure why all of this evidence is deemed worse than a series of quotes from a book that may have been recollected incorrectly, especially when faced with a concrete cartridge from that period.  I didn't come in here with a particular agenda, as I understand the rationale behind the 1986 date, and I wasn't even expecting to actually find a copy manufactured so early.  But now that I have, my thinking has changed.Brideck (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Take it how you want it, you appear to not be very involved at Wikipedia so I pointed you towards guidelines as I would for anyone else. And no, they don't contradict the "linchpin", they're clearly supported here.  The agrument here has always been was whether it was available for the Oct 18th launch as the current Nintendo claimed, and it has once again been proven it was not.  The "linchpin quote" and time period is a direct quote from NOA president Arakawa and Lincoln who were hands on involved with the New York launch and directly stated when they went to New York it had not yet been introduced.  That's not an "incorrect recollection", an individual recollection is something an indvidual makes.  Kent, who I verified with for the discussion on this over at the video game project pages, interviewed Arakawa, Licncoln, and the rest of the main players of NOA for this information - a group.  And sorry but from a professional research standpoint, information directly from the group of people involved (including quotes), always trumps guessing and surmising.  That's why we took their info over the current NOA's information, who we found simply comes from a canned database that everyone there uses with no idea where it came from.  For the third time, I'm sure we'll find that it was available sometime in November or December '85 - but without concrete citable verification of it's actual availability, we can't fully state that yet.  That's why we went with the by March '86 date because that was the soonest we could find an actual store advertisement for the game.  I'm still hunting for a verifiable New York area one for SMB, and when that occurs I'll be more than happy to have the date changed to whatever month the advertisement is from.  But none of Kent's quotes from Arakawa and Lincoln have been disproven so far, including the few months one which simply states that it took a few months to develop a US version and certainly available by the National launch in '86 - it was not stating or implying it was not available before that.  What the previous issue with late '85 was with the few months statement, is to whether it was a pack-in during the '85 launch (which the current NOA has erroneously claimed), or not (which of course it was not).  Japan didn't start packing it in until several months after SMB's Japanese introduction because of how quick it became a hit, and the packin of SMB came in '86.  It gets tiresome going around and around on here in various articles with people similar to you who pop in and do this, becuase I have to keep typing more and more and longer to further explain things that are part of a professional research process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're projecting the launch argument on to me. I've never once argued for it being a launch title, just that it was released in 1985 given the evidence.  We're going around in circles here so I clearly just need to get out of here.  I was only looking to interject new concrete materials to the 17-page debate which I think I've done as I don't think I saw the Oct '85 article, the copyright database, or chip mfg dates mentioned anywhere in here.  If you feel you need to find a circular or receipt from 1985 showing that someone bought the thing in NYC in that period, more power to you.75.72.206.27 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't change October 18, 1985 to March 1986! It says in Super Smash Bros. Melee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.162.122 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. You clearly did not read or participate in the countless hours of discussion, e-mailing and searching that pretty definitively prove that October 18, 1985 cannot possibly be correct. There's a reason it says Don't change without discussing first!. Xenon54 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1986 NA release date
Umm...could someone sum up those discussions above? Where the March 1986 release date comes from, in particular. I find it a bit ludicrous that the release date includes the warning notice "Don't change without discussing first", but at the same time fails to be verifiable for editors. Prime Blue (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially, October 18, 1985 was the date that Nintendo began attempting to sell the NES to stores in New York. They only sold half of them, so in early 1986 they moved to Los Angeles to try again. Meanwhile, a couple of months earlier (December 1985, maybe) SMB had been selling well in Japan, so Hiroshi Yamauchi and Minoru Arakawa decided to start development of an English version. At the same time SMB became a Famicom pack-in game. The first physical evidence for a US release is an ad in the March 13, 1986 Los Angeles Times for SMB, Tennis and Kung Fu. (Search Google News for the ad's preview.) But that only confirms that Nintendo went to Los Angeles, not necessarily a national release, which we really want. Full-blown articles begin around July-August 1986 in the Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer and other papers. Most of this comes from The Ultimate History Of Video Games by Steven Kent. E-mails to Nintendo have proved fruitless, as they don't know or (less likely) don't want to tell us where they got October 18, 1985.
 * Since the last time we went through this, this press release was also issued: "Since the series' debut in North America on the NES in 1986, more than 222 million Super Mario Bros. games have been sold worldwide. Mario remains one of the most recognizable characters in the entertainment world, and stands as a symbol of fun worldwide." Surely Nintendo has better editorial practices than to get that date from us.
 * Also, Boys' Life volume 77, issue 4, page 10 (Google Books), in an article about SMB, mentions the NES as going on sale in September 1986 "after testing the waters of New York and Los Angeles."
 * The New York Times Guide To Essential Knowledge (2007, Google Books): "Quantities of the NES were shipped into the New York market in time for Christmas 1985, with national distribution following early in 1986."
 * Those two last sources seem to back up Kent's account. In any case, it would be a little difficult to release a game nationally before its console. I defer to Marty Goldberg for further questions relating to sources. Xenon54 (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Summing it up besides what Xenon already stated (and there was a much longer discussion at the video game project page), the US copyright database also showed the box and manual were not complete until the end of October - after the claimed Oct 18th release for it, showing it could not have been released until at least November '85. Likewise no actual ad could be found for SMB in available resources before early March '86.  With all this and what Xenon stated, it was decided by consensus (at the project) that putting "by March 1986" was the right thing to do.  As I also stated in the latest round, above, my feeling is we'll find something eventually for a November or December '85 availability.  But until verifiable/reliable material for that time is found, early March '86 was the earliest a verifiable/reliable source could be found.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
New developments: an e-mail from a second level support agent at Nintendo partially proves and partially disproves Steven Kent's account and the conclusions that were made at the end of discussion a year ago. October 18, 1985 was the day that the NES -- and, according to the agent, SMB -- was sent to "22 retailers in the New York tri-state area". But I assume we are interested in general availability, for which the agent gave me a month but not a day -- January 1986. Just a minute ago I asked if he was sure that they didn't know the day. I will forward a copy of the e-mail to anyone who asks me via e-mail. Now, the bigger concerns are: should we accept this as gospel? Can e-mails even be cited here? Xenon54 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that does not really help at all. Nintendo has always claimed the game came to the U.S. at the same time the NES was launched in New York City, but all the discussion here has been about how that official line may be in error.  Until a contemporary advertisement, newspaper article, or internal company memo surfaces showing a 1985 date, doubt will remain.  Indrian (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct, doesn't matter if it's secondary level or any level or various different departments. They all get their information to the same internal database.  Likewise, they were not Kent's account, but rather directly Arakawa's and Lincoln's via interview.  And once again the copyright database entries for the box and manual back it up as well.  Xenon, feel free to email me (Special:EmailUser/Wgungfu)a copy of the email regardless if you like, I'd like to talk to this agent further - hopefully it's not the usual woman that answers their email questions.  She appears to take everything in their database as gospel.  So I'm clear, you're stating that the agent said SMB was sent as an evaluation/promo copy to the retailers in Oct. of '85 but that the game itself wasn't available for sale to the general public until January of '86?  If it turns out to be true, that would simply change the context of Arakwa's statement to not being available - for sale - at the launch.  And it would also fit in to why the manual and box were first being completed yet.  The problem I have now as well is that we've now got three different dates and contexts from out of Nintendo.  1) Oct. 18th, 1985. 2) Oct. 18th to retaliers with sales in January of '86. 3) 1986. Which further complicates their reliability as a resource.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter which date is given, I think it should definitely be sourced (probably with multiple sources, even) as there obviously still is disagreement over this. Else, users would be left in the dark as to why this date was used as soon as this section is archived. The original consensus also implied that the ambiguity of the North American release date should be explained in the article as well. I would appreciate if either Xenon54 or Wgungfu could add this with references, as you two are probably the most competent editors on the subject. I guess the explanation could be based on Mario777Zelda's rough outline. Prime Blue (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How is that information off-topic?
It's information, direct from the developer, about why a certain mechanic is the way it is, and why it changed from the previous game. occono (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be better suited in Mario Bros., I believe. Change the "Reception" section to "Reception and legacy" and tie it in somehow -- "In Mario Bros., jumping on turtles caused Mario to die. In subsequent games in the Mario series, jumping on turtles is the only way to attack them, and this is why..." The Gameplay section here has to be a description of gameplay that is as basic and concise as possible, in order to give someone who has never played before basic context in reading the rest of the article. Adding text that is largely a description of differences from a previous game may confuse readers and is outside the scope of the section anyway. You could create a "Development" section, but with just that one bit I don't think there's enough substance to warrant another section. Xenon54 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there's more information about development in the interview I cited, plus some Iwata Asks interviews and other things. I think I can pull together enough for a development section at some point. Thanks for the reply. occono (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a bit of a problem with the new part because as soon as you start talking about tricks and that, it ventures in to game guide material. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's really detailed enough to be considered a game guide, it's just detailing why the mechanics of the game came to be. occono (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Super Mario 25 Picture ::

I have no idea how pictures work on Wikipedia. I think it'd be nice if someone could take a picture similar to this one: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/10/500x_mario252.jpg So we could showcase the graphical change in this edition. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.27 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

36th tile?
The only way for the 36th tile to be a blank is if the number 0 and the letter o are used for both. That's because there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and 10 numbers from 0 to 9, which add up to 36. You'd have to have 35 (1-9 and 26 alphabet letters) for the 36th to be a blank. If you look closely, the o and the 0 in Super Mario Brothers differ slightly (notice on the Thank you MariO while there's a ZERO in your score, and you'll see the difference). So, is it really the 36th, or the 37th tile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.25.16 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the basic rules of computer science is that if you need to count, you start counting from 0. So, yes, the space is the 37th tile -- if "0" is the first tile. But "0" is actually the zeroth tile, making the space the 36th tile. Xenon54 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why no development section?
Considering how much development information exists, it seems odd that there is nothing in the way of it here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've since written one. It's coming along nicely :) occono (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/mario25th/vol5_page1.jsp [More info here, if anyone'll add it.]-- occono (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible Confirmation of 1985 Release Date
Well, after all the discussion and digging that has been done here and at the video games project page, I may have just found the smoking gun for a 1985 release date. Unfortunately, it is in a paid database and cannot be reporduced here for copyright reasons. What I have discovered is a Macy's ad that appeared on page 29 of the November 17, 1985 issue of the New York Times for the Nintendo Entertainment System in the ProQuest Historical New York Times database. For reference purposes, this ad is called "Display Ad 23 -- No Title" in the database. This ad lists all the games available for the NES and includes an entry for "Super Mario." While I cannot reproduce the ad itself here, I have all the information I need to cite it in the article itself. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a problem just citing the info for the ad. If that's the case, then it falls in line with what I stated earlier - that we'd most likely find some kind of ad for a November release.  A November release of course supports the copyright database info that the box and manual were not finished until the end of October.  Figuring in manufacturing and distribution, mid November seems about right. I would say a date change to November 17th, 1985 sounds good with a reference to the Macy's ad. Macy's in NY were of course major launch site for the NES as is was for most console and home computer test marketing/launches in that early through mid-80's era.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job! I searched a couple of databases that I access to (including Proquest) several times, but unfortunately since ads are not well indexed I had to limit my searches to actual articles. I just searched again and indeed I found the same ad without any trouble. The ad says "Video Robots" with a large picture of ROB in the center. "Super Mario" is listed as retailing for $25. I would go for November 17, 1985 as well -- but is it usual for video games to be released on a Sunday? Xenon54 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, there were no release standards back then as far as a certain time of the week etc. And a weekend would have been common for a department store promo like this - especially a Sunday, which is traditionally a family day in the US.

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of how, for example, most movies are released on Friday and most DVDs on Tuesday. But after surveying several release dates there did not appear to be some sort of pattern back then. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that are we certain that this is the day? Should we be assuming that the ad ran on the day of release or within a couple of days? Xenon54 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we can only go by what we have and the release date of the ad itself is irrelevant in this regards since the ad is addressing a specific event/date. It's about when the game was actually first released.  We have verifiable confirmation it was being sold on that day of November 17th (and not just announced as a planned game, as a price was given for the day).  The ad/event is in regards to that day only, so we have no idea one way or the other if it was available a day or two earlier there.  We can only go by what we actually have, and knowing that Macy's is a major major test location - the kind you base an event around.  They (the small group of NOA in NY including Arakawa and Lincoln) were setting up and staffing these events themselves.  My thoughts are that if they were at that location sooner (Friday/Saturday), they would have made it a weekend event and stated more dates than just that Sunday in the ad.  They probably took Friday and Saturday as prep time for such an important location. And in the end, we are left with this as the earliest verifiable and reliable "the day" currently available.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Super Mario History Booklet from SMAS: LE says it was released on October 18, 1985. --Jayt55 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the HTML comment in the article said, please read the rest of the discussion before changing the date. Doubt has been cast on October 18th -- Nintendo doesn't know where they got that date from -- and our consensus at the current time is that the date is not correct. November 17th is the earliest date on which the game was verified as being available to the public. Xenon54 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Release date, part IV
This horse has been hanged, drawn and quartered by now, but nevertheless I came across this article by David Dayton of TMK, in which he settles on 31 October 1985 as the "most likely" release date. He references the copyright office and most of the articles and newspaper clippings that we've already been through, but he also sent an e-mail to Gail Tilden, who, according to Dayton, was head of marketing at the NES's New York launch, and who seems to confirm that SMB was available at some point during the launch, even if it wasn't on 18 October. Did anyone else see this? Perhaps this debate can be finally put to rest? Xenon54 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good article and repeats much of what we already uncovered here. The problem is it's still a guess.  He's assuming that's when it was first sold (i.e. released) because of the copyright filing, when what the copyright database states is when it was first made available for public consumption.  This can be off-press date, your shipping date, or your publication date (i.e. available for purchase).  We have no way of knowing which was intended and normally in video games you want to get the copyright done as early in the process as possible.  So I'm inclined to believe Oct. 31st is the off-press date (same with the slightly earlier date for the box).  Additionally it's still just the date given for the manual and not the entire product.  As shown by the earlier box publication date and the discussion about the chip manufacturing, it simply shows a timeline of when the reources for the finished product were being produced.  Not their assembly (as a single finished product), not their shipping and distribution, and not the selling of the finished product.  Regardless, we're still left with the only form of evidence that doesn't require any sort of interpretation being the Macy's launch as we discussed previously.  I'd be comfortable with changing the release date to that Macy's date as we previously discussed, but not the Oct. 31st because of the reasons I stated.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

pc version
i have played it myself so i know that it exists. could anybody find a source to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No PC version exists. ROMs played on PC emulators don't count. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mario Story
There isn't anything in the article regarding the story behind Mario/Luigi and how they got from Brooklyn to the Mushroom Kingdom. My knowledge isn't encyclopedic, but I would have thought that such a pivotal idea would at least be included, as well as how it was then contradicted in the opening story of Yoshi's Island. And yes, there's nothing in the Yoshi's Island entry which covers the disparity in the two stories either. As Baby Mario/Luigi have become (essentially) characters in their own right (as used in the Mario Kart games Double Dash and Mario Kart Wii) I think that something to tie up, or at least try to explain the thinking behind the change would be useful. It all depends on whether such information exists, but the bottom line is that the Mario story is one of the most important in the history of gaming, to just go from 'development' to 'gameplay' and omit the backstory puts a big hole in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.248.49 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. = Japanese inside sex joke?
"Ana no kyuodai" in Japanese slang means "hole brothers", two (or more) men who have had sex with the same woman. I wonder if Super Mario brothers have been a big inside joke all of this time: *plumbers* going down pipes, both rescuing the same princess. Maybe Japanese think "Ana no" sounds like Mario.. Kyuodai like Luigi. 216.227.117.35 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find independent, reliable sources making the same points, they possibly could be added. But this sounds like one person's interpretation, and thus original thought, which is not acceptable. -- McDoob  AU  93  02:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

PEGI Rating
Was just changed from 7+ to 3+, so I decided to do some research.

As seen from the PEGI Website:
 * The GBA NES Classicis rated 3+;
 * A Nintendo 3DS release is rated 3+, it is unclear whether this is a Virtual Console version or the one given as part of the Ambassador Program;
 * The Wii Virtual Console release is rated 7+.

It is not immediately clear what was the original NES release's rating (or if there was any). Salvidrim (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Top-Selling Game
I don´t think that the article should state that Wii sports has surpassed Mario in terms of sold copies. This is a highly discussed topic and there is no official data to clear it out. It is a matter of definition. I, personally, think it makes no sense whatsoever calling a 100% bundled game that has never even been sold alone outside of Japan the most-sold game of all time. And if we did, I´m pretty sure that the "best-selling game of all time" would be Solitaire. If Wii sports has to be mentioned, this whole argument should be mentioned, preferably in an own section. --77.10.93.159 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A side note -- I've bought Wii Sports as a standalone title in North America.  Salvidrim!   23:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed available for a time, but the stand-alone-purchases don´t come any close to Super Mario´s sales. Valid argument is valid. --77.10.106.190 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "No official data"? Nintendo of Japan President Satoru Iwata said so himself that Wii Sports outsold Mario. Most copies of Super Mario were sold bundled with the NES, so it's no different with Wii Sports being bundled with the Wii. I don't see what's wrong with stating this fact in the article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no official Data that compares the stand-alone sells of Mario to those of Wii Sports. But it is obvious who would be the winner. Even though there were NES/Mario bundles, the cartridge was also sold seperately and everywhere. I think it´s all about definitions, whether the total sales with bundles count, or only the stand-alone sales, and if it has to be sold seperately from the beginning and if Minesweeper and Solitaire count as a video game. Well, for me, they do. --77.10.113.201 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to compare unbundled sales without any evidence would be a violation of WP:OR and therefore not permissible. Since reliable sources as well as the company's president have said that Wii Sports has outsold this game we need to include that here unless there are reliable sources challenging the claim and so far that has yet to happen.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to the GameFaqs Page for Super Mario Bros. under External Links
I've been going through some of the NES/Famicom game pages that exist here in Wikipedia and seeing if they have links to their pages on GameFaqs in the External Links section. I've been using the standard GameFaqs template for making links, such as the following:



Which would look like this with the spaces removed, and a "name" added


 * Super Mario Bros. at GameFAQs

The template details can be found at its page here:

Template:GameFAQs

The GameFaqs page contains relevant information that may not be suitable for Wikipedia, but is suitable for GameFaqs. They contain detailed credits of who did what on the game, provide information on game cheats that I know many people have mentioned in Talk Archives before, and also contains release information for when the game, and ports of the game, were released globally.

I think it would help add to the Wikipedia article and provide an easy to access storage space for information that people may want, but is not suited for the purposes and guidelines of Wikipedia. What do you folks think?

OtakuMan (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to picture of Macy's ad in the New York Times for US release of Super Mario Bros. for the NES
This is a link to the Macy's ad in the New York Times for the American release on the NES. The link is for this reference ---> '''New York Times: p. A29. November 17, 1985'''. Here is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lostlevels/5106061662/sizes/l/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.56.11 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't confirm the release date, though.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know why we list a specific day for the North American release, as the long discussion held on this topic previously could not produce a concrete source. Further attempts by a fan site and, most recently, a Gamasutra article added some first-hand recollections to the print and government sources previously unearthed by wikipedia editors, but this research only further proved there are no good sources, only conflicting pieces of circumstantial evidence.  The New York Times advertisement only demonstrates that Macy's was marketing the game on November 17, 1985 and makes no claim as to the first day of the game's availability.  In the previous discussion, this ad was discovered by and presented here by me to show that the game must have been released in 1985, since at the time many editors, myself included, were beginning to favor the idea of a 1986 release date due to a lack of 1985 sources, but I never intended to argue that the ad confirms a specific release day.  To use this as a source for the North American release date is deceptive and irresponsible. Indrian (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gamasutra Article suggesting either NA date as October 19 or November 17, 1985
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/167392/sad_but_true_we_cant_prove_when_.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.190.252 (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on suggesting. Drawing reasonable conclusions based on navigating a series of conflicting sources is a wonderful and informative intellectual exercise but does not, in fact, provide a factually certain release date. While those findings could certainly be discussed in the body of the article, they provide no help for the infobox, because even well-researched and well-reasoned speculation is still speculation. Indrian (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Maybe I should have discussed this here first, but I've added the above ref to the release date. The ref does back up the 1985 date given in the article and it is a listed RS unlike the Mushroom Kingdom (currently listed as situational) which uses Wikipedia in its list of sources (EDIT: To be fair, it's attributed and not taken as fact). The Gamasutra article was inspired by the Mushroom Kingdom piece so there may be a little redundancy, but overall I think it adds to the reader's understanding of the problem more than it detracts. If there is a problem with it then please remove it. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; it is a good piece with solid research. The only problem would be using this to add a specific date in the infobox since there is nothing definitive in the research.  In the body of the article or as an additional source for a 1985 release date is just fine. Indrian (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

when was it included with the NES, and how many copies did it sell before then?
Were its high sales figures only because it was freely included with the Nintendo after a certain time period? Did it sell well before then? This information would be good to have in the article if anyone knows the answer.  D r e a m Focus  09:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Release date, again...
I just reverted an edit saying that Super Mario Bros. came out on October 18th 1985, without discussing first. As there was a 'Don't change this without agreement' template, I deleted the info. If anyone has problems, leave it on my talk page. Darrman1 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Who developed Super Mario Bros. ?
According to allgame, it's "Nintendo R&D4" : http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=1320. According to Mobygames, it's "Nintendo Co., Ltd." and "Systems Research & Development Co., Ltd." : https://www.mobygames.com/game/nes/super-mario-bros. The other databases (such as Gamefaqs and Giant Bomb) only list "Nintendo". Which one should be listed here ? Hell Pé (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend checking Wikipedia's own article on Nintendo. It clearly lists all of Nintendo's Research & Development teams which fall under the umbrella of Nintendo EAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Peach or Toadstool?
Has there been a discussion on which names should be used already? Magicperson6969 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter? Princess Peach and Princess Toadstool lead to the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Toadstool was used in the official English localization for this game, as well as many others. It is more accurate to refer to her as "Toadstool" here. Also, as IP said, both names lead to the same article, so it would be unnecessary to write something like "Princess Toadstool (later renamed Princess Peach)..." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Fullscreenmario.com mention
Hi, over at Video game requests there was a request for fullscreenmario.com which has actually received coverage, both as a game and after the closure. I don't think it's enough to warrant a full article, but do you think it could be included in this article, perhaps as part of the 're-releases' section? Samwalton9 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the lack of response thus far I have added this to the article. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not an official re-release of Super Mario Bros. Fan projects, despite coverage, don't count as "re-releases." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my only concern. Where do you suggest it be added? Samwalton9 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

US Release officially found!
Click here

According to Gamasutra writer Frank Cifaldi, Super Mario Bros. was trial-released on 18 October 1985 in New York, and the national release was before early 1986. People are still confused, though. As of now, the predicted dates are:

October

 * 13th(from Super Mario All-Stars's prediction)
 * 18th
 * 31st

November

 * 17th

1986

 * 1986

That's all! :) -GLaDOS996 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With the exception of a couple of small quotes from interviews he conducted himself, Frank actually just took all of the stuff we dug up on this talk page and reproduced it for Gamasutra without any attribution, which I consider poor form. The article was an interesting read, but it does not add anything to what we already knew. Indrian (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact is left out that when Gail Tilden was questioned on The Mushroom Kingdom (which continued the research started here) and shown the copyright database info, she admitted she could be mistaken about her claimed assertion about it being available on the 18th at FAO. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

North American Release Date of Super Mario Bros. in NES
I think its real that the release date is Oct. 18. Stop undoing it. I found it on gamespot and that site is legit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloAgainstWiki (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * GameSpot may be a reliable source, but so are many others that have different release dates. Which one's correct? There in lies the problem. There are too many conflicting sources to give a definite release date in NA. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am sorry if I started a war just by a release date. I am not going to undo until we found the real release date... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EncycloAgainstWiki (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, Nintendo itself says October 18, as was published in its Super Mario History: 1985-2010 booklet that was included in Super Mario All-Stars 25th Anniversary Edition. I would think that would add some weight, even if it is a primary source for such information. -- McDoob AU  93  15:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, check the archives. There was a whole discussion regarding that already, there's nobody left there from back then, they just get their info from a canned database, and it conflicts with a host of other info including Nintnedo's own copyright filings from the time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That answers my question ... thanks! -- McDoob  AU  93  15:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm back with another legitimate source that I don't think has been mentioned in the discussion before. I'd looked at the copyright database before, but never at the US trademark database (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4801:atkahe.1.1). It's entry for Super Mario Bros. lists 19851018 as the first use in commerce, much like the entries for Nintendo Entertainment System itself and other searchable launch titles like Clu Clu Land, Wild Gunman, and Wrecking Crew. --Brideck (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The USPTO was covered in the original discussion here (see the archives). Couple of problems with that. a) That's in a trademark filed years later that's retroactively looking back and stating when it was first used vs. something from the actual time. As was established, the current Nintendo gets it's info from an in-house database that everyone quotes from vs. an actual source from the time. So it would make sense that any of these later filings would also claim that date. b) First use in commerce does not mean release date of a game. It simply means the first time the item that's being trademarked (in this case drawings of Mario and related game art) were used in a commercial setting. That would include things like promotional materials and the like. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lowest possible score
Don't know if this can be of use for the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

North American release in 1985
I seen the North American release but there was no month or date. It was released in North America in October 18, 1985. I will change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfaddenskyler (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Read the sources.  Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014
Let me edit your page pls ty

Cassartois (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

SMB Deluxe NA Virtual Console release
SMB Deluxe was released on December 25, 2014 in North America. (216.252.30.100 (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

Infobox image
Currently, the North American and Australian artwork is used. The old European artwork uses the drawing design from the original Japanese release. If the 2nd infobox image is not allowed under WP:NFCC, shall the European artwork replace the American/Australian one instead? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:STOPCHANGINGIT --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Atari 2600
Was Super Mario Bros. also released on the Atari 2600? I think I saw a video of it. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe so. Maybe you're thinking of Mario Bros., which did come out on the Atari? ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 22:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MIT article on Super Mario Bros.
I wonder if this would be a useful reference for this article. It talks about some abstract sciency stuff that I am not understanding too well, but have a look... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardesty, Larry. "“Super Mario Brothers” is hard." MIT News. June 1, 2016.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016
Super Mario Bros. was a top hit game when it first came out. Over 1,800 was sold in one day. H5macste (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – //  Hounder4  // 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"Pseudo-sequel"
What exactly is a pseudo-sequel? 47.152.93.124 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It means "fake-sequel" pretty much, but this isn't needed as Super Mario Bros. is the direct successor to Mario Bros, so I removed it. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017
As a fan of the Mario series, I find this information inaccurate. First the "Bricks with a question marks" are called Question Mark Blocks and the Mushroom is colored Red and Orange, not Red and Yellow. I hope that you have taken my advice and Write back. I can be reached at. Thank you for our consideration.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Going Backwards
When I was a kid it was one of the most frustrating aspects of the game. As the screen scrolls you can't go back. I would really appreciate some mention of this in the article and a technical explanation, because it is one of the biggest aspects of game play and it's completely overlooked in the article. --The_stuart (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless a reliable source states the same issues, then it doesn't belong. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Speed Runs
Gamesdonequick is taking place at the moment and that made me wonder if top Speed Run times would be mentioned in games' articles. Apparently not. Has nobody thought of that or is it considered unencyclopedic to include these for some reason? OdinFK (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources mentioning that the game has a popular speed running community are allowed, but detailed info such as exact times, names, and high score totals are considered WP:GAMECRUFT and shouldn't be included. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming of the game
I would like a researcher to investigate the naming of this game. To me, it sounds like a poorly translated Japanese that ended up as nonsense in English. Could it mean Mario's super brother, Mario Brothers (improved)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.56.157 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2017‎ (UTC)
 * The game's official title is not up for debate, and if you are asking simply for discussion, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 07:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Vines
In the description of gameplay, the vines (which grow upwards from special blocks) are not mentioned. Yet, these are part of the iconic imagery of SMB. This game is one of the most important video games of all time, so I think the vines should be mentioned. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Source
JOE BRO  64  20:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104562-Miyamoto-Reveals-Super-Mario-Bros-Development-Secrets

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017
i would like to say how good this game was The Quinn Downs (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the user's other edits, its just opinion spam. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Super Mario Bros.. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol2_page2.jsp
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69rhpclDX?url=http://www.1up.com/features/mario-maestro to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3163588
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130104055353/http://kotaku.com/203229/japanese-famicom-smb-minus-world?tag=gamingsupermariobros to http://kotaku.com/gaming/super-mario-bros/japanese-famicom-smb-minus-world-203229.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gameboy.ign.com/index/choice.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128095218/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various23.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge plot section with gameplay section??
This article has a lot wrong with it that needs to be fixed, and one thing I noticed was that the plot section is extremely short and looks somewhat out-of-place because of that. I would suggest expanding and elaborating upon it, but thinking about it there really isn't much to expand, as the game has a fairly simple and no-so-prevalent storyline. Which begs the question- should we perhaps merge the plot section with the gameplay section?? I mean, as I said, the plot of Super Mario Bros. isn't very complex at all and isn't a large aspect of the game either, and as pertaining to WP:VGORDER, games that have smaller storylines can simply cover the subject at the beginning of the gameplay section, so maybe we should just do that here?? I know this is a fairly big change to enact out of nowhere so I wanted to make sure to bring this subject to the talk page before making such a considerably drastic move. I'd highly appreciate some input on this and perhaps a discussion on the subject. Cheers. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No Japanese reviews??
It seems a little Anglocentric to not include any Japanese reviews in the Critical Reception section. What are people's thoughts on this?--Coin945 (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this is an English encyclopedia, anglocentrism is to be somewhat expected, no? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

initially planned as a farewell to the Famicom
The second paragraph begins:

"The game was designed by Shigeru Miyamoto and Takashi Tezuka and was initially planned as a farewell to the Famicom in Japan before the release of the Famicom Disk System"

I've added a Citation needed as a statement of this sort surely must be backed up with a reference, but aside from that there's just the general problem that the statement is trivially wrong as currently worded.

The Famicom Disk System is an accessory to the Famicom. The Famicom Disk System was not in any way a replacement or a "next iteration", nor did it in any way represent any sort of end for the Famicom. The Famicom was clearly still climbing the heights of its fame and popularity (it hadn't even made it to North America yet, obviously, since SMB was a release title for it there).

The only intended meaning of this claim I can think of that wouldn't be trivially wrong, would be if it meant that it was meant to hail the end of Famicom cartridge games coming from Nintendo, as the ramped up the Famicom Disk System as the way of the future, to replace cartridges (and not, of course, the Famicom itself). This too would be a highly suspect claim to me, as I don't think they'd jump immediately to "no more carts" before the FDS has even been released yet - which is why I added the Citation needed - but at a minimum it would need to be reworded to say that, rather than the current incorrect assertion.

Micahcowan (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should just be removed anyway if it's not backed up by a source. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the CN tag because it's sourced in the article: Though not originally using any particular character, the very deliberate creative process of what would become their next game was motivated by their technical knowledge from previous games such as Excitebike, Devil World and Kung Fu, by a desire to give the ROM cartridge format "a final exclamation point" in light of the forthcoming Famicom Disk System which was expected to become the dominant new game delivery medium, and by continuing their legacy of "athletic games" with a character running and jumping with many obstacles. JOE BRO  64  11:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay - so it needs to say that then, instead of saying it's a "Farewell to the Famicom" (fixed). Micahcowan (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedrun World Record
The world record on the page is obsolete :

New WR : 4:55.796 by somewes on 22nd of october 2018

https://www.speedrun.com/smb1/run/yl47rgkm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdTLDDvmNFs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomygood (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't even be citing this on the page anyway... ~ Dissident93 (talk</b>) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Stuff that has to urgently be done on the article.

 * 1) The article is a SERIES OF VIDEOGAMES, not just a single one.

I'm not asking politely to do this, this HAS TO BE DONE ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercontributor (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Super Mario for the series. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this user has just been blocked as a sockpuppet of . <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  19:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019
Can you put in the Japanese title? Jalenjke (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's already there in a footnote. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  12:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019
Super Smash Bros Brawl in the chronicles section claims that it was a launch title for the NES. Although that may not be 100% accurate. Jakeconer (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    04:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)