Talk:Super Mario Bros. 3/Archive 1

Misc
--hiro1112--

Ok, here is a link to a site that talks about the unused Games in SMB3. SOmeone else can write up the info about it on the main page.

http://bmf.rustedmagick.com/cr/supermariobros3.htm

-

Aside from being a "best selling game title of all time", this subject is not particularly substantial. Is this an encyclopedia for 10 year olds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoehorn (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 October 2002

--


 * No, it's an encyclopedia for all ages. If this doesn't interest you, go look up stewed prunes or something.


 * -- Jordan


 * Well said, Jordan. It's the best selling game of all time and the best game for its time. If any video game deserves mention, it's this, and all video games deserve mention. Go read up on Wikipedia's goal, it's about breadth and depth. Video games interest a lot of people, and they're a piece (albeit small) of human history. Better put up a request for deletion for The Olympic Games while you're at it. Some people. --65.94.204.171 04:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Headcase, not logged in)
 * What he said, though the best-selling game of all time is Super Mario Bros.; SMB3 is the best-selling game-that-was-not-packed-in-with-a-console of all time. ;P --Shadow Hog 04:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary Plot Notice
I am removing the following line, as I do not see the point in keeping it in the article.

"As in most Mario games, the plot is minimal, existing mainly to serve the functions of the gameplay." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.135.253 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kings
It would be nice to add the details of what where the kings turned onto depending on kingdom, normal shape and version (Piranha Plant or Yoshi? Depends who you ask)


 * Great, someone did put the kigns now... Althought just the original and the All Stars versio nare mentioned... What 'bout the Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3? If any one can fill that then that would be even greater... Thanks to anyone who filled the first part... Althought I thought the king was transformed into a spider in the 2nd level, I gonna check that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.121.144.52 (talk • contribs).


 * "Bird similar to Albatoss" and "Dinosaur" are "descriptions" which shall be improved by anyone who has first-hand access to the original game.--200.121.78.110 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have one of the original cartridges for the NES version of SMB3 and I can confirm that the King is a Spider in that version. This should not be an "Alleged variant".  I don't know any more details about this alternate version, so I will not change it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.119.1 (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I took your word for it and edited the section to say that the spider is confirmed. Anyone who wants to revert it because they disagree, go right ahead. -- Luigi Maniac  05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this (like all other information in Wikipedia) have a reliable source? An anonymous comment is NOT a reliable source. Chriswiki 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was tired when I did it, as I was about to head off to bed. I've been having second thoughts about it, so I think I'll just remove it. -- Luigi Maniac  13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who placed the kings in ints most primitive form and helped it evolve when others who knew better made it into a table... But I couldn't find evidences to support my memory which dictated it was a spider and not another creature the king was transformed into... So I placed it as an alleged variant... For sake of neutrality it must be brought back but remained as alleged variant until a reliable evidence can be quoted...Herle King 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently I should clarify my last comment. I didn't outright remove the alledged variants, I just removed what I added in my last edit to the article (that is, I removed that Spider was confirmed). Just out of curiousity, are you sure you weren't playing the Super Mario All-Stars version? The Hoopsters could be mistaken for spiders, unless I'm thinking of different enemy. -- Luigi Maniac  18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I never saw the All Stars version... And yep, I came to realize it was someone else who made the deletions... Why the hck someone thinks deletign data is contributing to thsi article? that's beyond me but the troll has done it again... I do recall the transformed king hanging from a web thread... But at the same time I recall the figure being much like a hoping spider, much like a hoopster, that's why it would, at least, be an unconfirmed variant. Herle King 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * TNN:

What an encyclopæida is:

"An encyclopædia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."

What abridgement is:

Abridgement or abridgment is a term defined as "shortening" or "condensing" and is most commonly used in reference to the act of reducing a written work, typically a book, into a shorter form.

A written work is mostly abridged for adaptation into an audio book, to make a more convenient companion to an already established work, or as part of censorship of the work

What do you want? An abridged encyclopæida that's such an oxymoron as "smart airhead" or "honest politician". Herle King 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Could you explain, using links to Wikipedia policies, what you are advocating or arguing against? ----Steve 13:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm arguing against the deletion on the "Japanese Vs. US version differences" And "King Transformations", but not only not presenting himself in the talk page the deleter moves from "you do nto know the policies" to "you know but misuse the policies"... While he can't even explain in which way is this data non-pertinent to an encyclopedic entry on the subject at hand in a context such as Wikipedia, and he rather just call me a noob and go on with senseless ad hominems instead of making a true argument for his position that is his and his alone.Herle King 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are absolutely zero references for this information. Regardless of how notable/ pertinent it is, if it isn't referenced it should go. Remember Wikipedia isn't for writing about "What I saw" or "What I remember" unless you can find somewhere that someone else has written about it. Chriswiki 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Although, you should note that the only information that would go back up are the audio notes. The rest, even if sourced, is far too trivial. Seriously, read up on the policies before saying something is important. If I have to list all of the certain ones this information fails, you won't understand why it fails them. Nemu 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Actually provide a well backed argument (which won't happen)." or "If I have to list all of the certain ones this information fails, you won't understand why it fails them." Wow, you've got no bias there I can see... Want arguments? Curiously I want that from you too... You claim there are reasons why your position isn't wrong, but "wont list them 'cause they are so true they do not need to be presented"... LOL... That's really funny, but before I fall in the same level of "you are TEH stupeed" I will get the arguments; I was suggested that this was "original research"; Nope it is not, the game exists and has the information in plain view of the player, no better source that the game itself. About the rest being trivial...


 * I must guess you are coming from the position that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, well I must tell you, the list of transformations undergone by the kings throughout the game are not among the list of unwanted excesses... Your censorship stems from the fact you assume it is a paper encyclopedia, with physical limits and such; well it is not so. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite. As Wikipedia grows, so will computing power, storage capacity, and bandwidth; THIS GAME IS ALL ABOUT ITS LEVELS; EVERY LEVEL WITH A DISTINCTIVE FLAVOUR AND THUS A MATCHING KOOPA KID AND A MATCHING KING TRANSFORMATION. Not listing these kings is like not listing the elements in the article on classical elements. Or like not listing the 12 talismans in the article on the cartoon "Jackie Chan Adventures". Or like not having a list of Clow Cards (even if in an independent article) for Cardcaptor Sakura.


 * Likewise the diference between the Japanese and the US versions (better said; the famicom and the super nes version) is also important; There's "Differences between Film and Book" in the article on The Ring (Suzuki novel), likewise the Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings shows the differenes between the book version and the adaptations in their entries. "In other media" in the article of Batman and, surely, any other character from comics or any source out there is also likewise oriented... DIFFERENCES ARE ALSO A SUBJECT TO BE PRESENTED... Now that I've given my prime arguments I wait for your...Undead Herle King 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at Final Fantasy X. As a featured article, that is what all video game articles should eventually end up being like. Do you see any trivial lists? No. That is all I need to say; I don't need to bring policy or even my arguments into this. Nemu 23:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, not only you cannot argue but make this easier by strengthening my point; The article goes farther than what I intended by linking to a whole article on its characters alone... Just what the kings are. Why doesn't it compares Superfamicom and SuperNes differences? Nowadays as far as I understand it the console aren't region-specific... Therefore there's no Japanese/Us opposition between versions... Thanks for insisting on never using arguments, (sar.)it makes your case so well(/sarcasm)Undead Herle King 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, if you don't even get that simple point, there is no point in even speaking with you. You are just another fan that doesn't get policy, and will not get it no matter how many time you are told to read it. Nemu 10:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll try one more time. Look here; all of the video games there are featured articles. Once again, are any trivial lists? No. Listing the kings' transformations is not like listing characters. They are just a very minor part of the gameplay. There are plenty of differences between versions of a lot of those games. There are not listed because, again, they are very minor; they have no reliable sources to back them. Ask anyone experienced, and they will tell you that all of that information basically encompasses original research. I hate having to yield to one editor like this. Nemu 10:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the agressive talk? Oh I see, 'cause all you can do is take arguments from others... Ok, since you've finally attempted to give arguments I will concede there's something to work with... Kings in the game are characters, as essential as Princess Toadstool is in previous and some subsequent games; The goal is to rescue them, since their character is not developed to any extent beyond the transformation they are seen to have and the level they belong to that's all that must and can be said about them; That is easily simplified in a chart as the one used...


 * About no reliable sources to back up the data... The games themselves are reliable sources... With the amount of traffic the page gets there ought to be enough people to see and agree that the games do have the characteristics described. Teh game is no myth but an existing object found in cartridges throughout the world. Said that... THIS IS NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH; SOURCES ARE EVERYWHERE. About the differences between the US and Japanese games; I insist and correct; Famicom (not Super Famicom) and Nes (Not Super Nes) cause sufficient differences to deserve a part in the article... At least in a videogame as Super Mario Bros 3 that is well above every other videogames (with some few exceptions) in overall ranking in relation to popularity and such measurements involving importance.Undead Herle King 03:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why I didn't want to bother with you. It's just laughable. How many people telling you how wrong you are is it going to take to get you to stop? TTN 04:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's only one comment besides your own agreeing on this... And said comment gave you the only argument you have given and the one who gave the argument has not replied to the answer to HIS argument, you haven't answered either, just gone on with your "I'm not going to debate but stand here like a fool laughing at you" attitude... Appearing as "Nemu" instead of TTN fools no one... The other, Candidhq-Steve, is neutral as he hasn't identified any position in the debate. Said that, you are pretty much alone and look more like a troll for your bullying behaviour rather than willingness to defend your point. You make claims BUT CANNOT BACK THEM UP!!! I'm the Herle King, definitely not an undead, can I fool people like Nemu/TTN? 11:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can back them up just fine, but you being totally ignorant of policy, and absorbed in your little world will never get it. You will just continue to push that you're right even when faced with policy and the such. It is impossible to argue with people like you, so again, I ask how many people will it take to shut you up? TTN 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is claiming to have arguments AND NOT USING THEM!!!!! Just making the claim and insults... ou're pretty mature I can see... How old are you? 9 already? You are growing fast!!!! Undead Herle King 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is impossible to even talk to you. I deal with people like you very often, so I would just like to end this without dealing with your twisted logic, and ignorance towards the policies and guidelines of this site. With that said, how many people? TTN 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL!!!! That's why I laugh at you so much!!!! You've not even dealt with me!!! Twisted logic? Call it a you want... Better logic than what you have... (NOTHING; That's what you've got) About how many? All I need is two with brains!!! Or maybe one... Undead Herle King 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FROM BACK ALLEY;

I don't know if I'll be able to do this for long, but I'll give it a try. Please read over WP:OR, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. After you do that, read the rest of this.

Most of the information that you readd is original research. Some of it happens in the game, but the game cannot be used to source it. The game can be used for "Mario can jump", but it cannot cite changes between versions. Besides that, we don't cover indiscriminate bits of info. They need to be able to be verified by reliable sources (going right back to the OR). The others like "Graphics" and "Music and sound" are also complete OR. The kings have already been removed by someone else, so I hope you'll leave those alone. TTN 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are finally giving an argument!!! Finally!!! Was it that hard? But your whole behaviour and posting history betrays you know... I wont read right now 'cause I'm kinda busy... But I've adressed this issue elsewhere and will get back to it... I'm not sure either whether your back-up is following the policies... So it seems you recognize you are busted and thus finally make an attempt to make an argument... But it is too late already. Undead Herle King 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous Dave
There should be something about this on this page:, I think. 81.70.123.72 16:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Okay, I don't know who posted the "true story" crap into the trivia section of the Super Mario Bros. 3 game, but I'm glad it was edited out. I'd report this incident, but I'm not entirely sure that it wasn't someone else using my home computer. I'm going to increase security here at my end, but if it was someone at Wikipedia or anyone other than one of my friends, you can bet I'll report this if and when I find out. Fair warning. --Corvun 18:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It was done using your username, so there is nothing to report. Andre ( talk )A| 20:30, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

That would be exactly what I'd want to report. If it wasn't done by someone at my end then that means I got hacked. Although now that I think about it, Wikipedia wouldn't really have any possible way to deal with that situation, so never mind.

Pretty good...
This is a pretty good article on mario. Very nicely written

Wonderful writing about one my favourite games of all time. Its the best selling game of all time and the fad of mario was very large and deserves to be talked about. Mario's poularity back then is ten times more then the big games today like Grand theft auto and halo and such

Lost Levels in Super Mario Bros. 3
There are some lost levels hidden in this game. Could you find some information about those levels?

I'm pretty sure there is informatuion about what you are talking about over at http://www.classicgaming.com/tmk/ so feel free to add said information to this article yourself.

The lost levels are now in the article along with a link to maps and more information about them.
 * Dead linkDshibshm (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anchor
The page's information about the Anchor is dead wrong, and needs heavy revision. What are these "white airships" that appear when you collect every coin? The mechanaics for the coin ships appearance is not based on collecting every coin!--198.37.25.93 06:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/nes/code/525245.html explains about the white ghost houses much better than we do. All of that stuff should be on this page. Just not in a way the violates the copyrights of the dudes who wrote those hints. --Carl 09:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sales figures
In the beginning paragraph it says that SMB 3 has sold about 18 million copies, compared to SMB1's 40 million - these 40 million are worldwide sales according to the Guinness Book of Records site. So one can assume that the 18 million for SMB3 also refers to worldwide sales. However, in the popularity section it says SMB3 has sold 30 million, with 18 million in the US. So what is correct? Does anyone have any sources that specifically mention whether the 18 million are US or worldwide sales? TerokNor 2 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
 * Worldwide. -- A Link to the Past July 7, 2005 23:06 (UTC)

That seems correct, my research also indicates this. I wonder where the 30 million figure comes from? I will change it in the article. TerokNor 8 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's 18 million worldwide. Mega Man 5 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Release date
(copied from User_talk:TerokNor) Development did not begin on Super Mario Bros. 3 until 1988. It was not completed until December 1989 and not released for the first time until February 12, 1990. It was not in development in 1986 or 1987. The information added by whatever user who posted it did not make it up; I'm sure of that. The information you added might have been made up over the Internet. Marcus2 20:54, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but do you have any source for that? The Japanese are very thorough in cataloging their release dates and everywhere on the Internet you can see the Japanese date of October 1988. Don't you think someone would have corrected this if this was wrong? Also, I have a print magazine from 1989 that says SMB3 was "recently" released in Japan. This was definitely before December 1989 and certainly not made up over the Internet. Also check out this Newsgroup posting from someone who played the Japanese version in June 1989 or earlier: BTW, no one says that the game was in development in 1986 or 1987. It could very much have begun development in early 1988 and then be released in October. Also, why should the game be delayed for 2 months after it was finished? That doesn't make any sense. Unless you think Nintendo, a Japanese company, would delay the game for a big commercial (The Wizard) that would only be seen in the USA, anyway. The game could appear in that movie because it had been out in Japan for a year! If you don't have any sources for your statements (other than "I'm sure of that"), I will change this back. TerokNor 21:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * See Nintendo's Webpage.202.61.30.203 20:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm Japanese, I played this game in 1988. The release date (1988) is printed on the rom which I still have now.  In 1988-1990, Shigeru Miyamoto and his team was already developing Super Mario World(Super Mario Bros.4). 202.61.30.203 05:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

To TerokNor: "Unless you think Nintendo, a Japanese company, would delay the game for a big commercial (The Wizard) that would only be seen in the USA, anyway. The game could appear in that movie because it had been out in Japan for a year!" What does this statement mean? And, to 202.61.30.203: I don't believe that you played Super Mario Bros. 3 precisely in 1988. And I repeat, I don't believe Super Mario 3 was developed in 1986 or 1987. And you shouldn't refer to Super Mario World as Super Mario Bros. 4 because there has already been a pirate Super Mario 4 and a PC game called Super Mario Bros. 4. And, to both of you:  Why do you think that someone would make something up like that. And, have you ever heard the expression, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear?! Marcus2 15:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, would you please stop changing what others have wrote? I put the SMB4 mention back. BTW, it was the official title in Japan (it's on the box). Next: I repeat, no one says that SMB3 was in development in 1986/1987. Next: Why would someone make something like this up? I can see where your argumentation is coming from: SMB3 has a 1988 copyright in-game - so apparently you think that's when development begun. Then, it appears in December 1989 in the movie The Wizard. So apparently that's when it was finished. Then, it is released in February 1990 in the US - so apparently is was held back until February. But the evidence (i.e. the link 202.61.30.203 posted) doesn't support this theory. Do you really want to doubt the home page of Nintendo, the creators of the game? It says there that SMB3 was released on 23 October 1988 in Japan. End of discussion. TerokNor 15:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I can confirm the SMB4 thing - I've seen scans. It's definitely on there. Lemme whip up an image for ya...
 * http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/superfamicom/mario4box.JPG
 * It's a bit blurry, but you can make out "Super Mario Bros. 4" there. --Shadow Hog 17:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Marcus, if I'm to believe half of what I see and none of what I hear, then I'll believe none of what I hear from you. You've provided no sources to back up your claim, they have. You can say "No, this is true, they're actually lying!" all you want, but we thrive on facts, not the opinion of a person who enjoys shoving it down everyone's throat (like the BS where you claimed Baby Mario was not Mario, when it was painfully obvious). Stop editing it. They provided sources showing it to be true, and so removing it is vandalism. -- A Link to the Past 20:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Super_Mario_World_Japan_cover.jpg210.0.200.2 13:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Lost Levels Screenshots
Can somebody include screenshots (or a screenshot gallery) for the lost levels of Super Mario Bros. 3 on the article for the Super Mario Bros. 3 video game?

simultaneous play
Why does the article say that there is no simultaneous play? I remember spending lots of time in the head-to-head mini levels. Did I have a special edition or something? -Arctic.gnome 18:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It mentions in the article that the game is a multiplayer play game. The refrence may refer to playing the actual game levels(although this is very unlikely due to the cost of animating it) not the one head-2-head level. i cant remeber 100% and it not worth watching the movie beethoven again so unless its proven ima deleting it. --Whywhywhy 15:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

other lost game elements
There should also be a mention of missing bonus games in this game. I can't find the source, but I guess there was gonna be another card game and the other I can't remember. I remember seeing a lost sprite of a hammer brother to be used in a bonus level screen.Buzda 08:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's your source. If you are still checking this page, take it up with the others to add it. Mattbash 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Super Monk Bros?
This piece isn't really relevant or noteworthy. There is a dearth of mods and rom hacks for SMB3 out there, and although I haven't played the aforementioned mod, I doubt much of anything about it warrants its inclusion in this article. I'm deleting it.Trotskylite

SMB 3 a pack-in game
The assertion that Super Mario Bros. 3 is the best selling non-pack-in game is incorrect. In the early '90s Nintendo packaged it with the control deck and 2 controllers and called it the "Challenge Set". This inaccuracy is widely published on other websites, and I for one would be interested in finding concrete sales figues somewhere for all games. Hunter103 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, it was. Fixed the article. Komdori 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Outdated Speed Run?
Does anyone have any thoughts on the speed run on the page? The one currently linked to seems to be a 'legit' speed run; there are faster runs available, but that one is tool-assisted. Which one should we link to? Should both be posted, stating that one is tool-assisted and the other is not? The chuck 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedrun
The speedrun linked to at the bottom of the page has been confirmed to be tool-assisted, so the link should be marked as such. I assume the person who posted it on Youtube found it somewhere else on the internet (it's circulated around a lot) and didn't realize it was tool-assisted.

Tool-assisted speedruns exist for a variety of games. However, in most cases they are made by people with the intent of entertainment, not hoodwinking the masses; in fact, most TASes you can find explicitly state, "This is a tool-assisted speedrun" somewhere at the beginning of the video. Unfortunately this one did not, and there are clearly people who still believe it to be honest. You can find more information at Tasvideos' "Using Emulator Tools" page.

A lot of people have used the word "fake" to describe this video, but this is a bad word choice. It is not fake in any way, it was simply made by using tools to remove the factor of human limitation to create a near-perfect and highly entertaining video.

Oh, and this is the source I found that says it is tool-assisted.

--Curtmack 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

can you
can you download super mario 3 bros. for computer?? if not why??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.159.241 (talk • contribs).
 * Because Nintendo is against piracy, including downloading ROMs of games to be played with emulators. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But on the contrary, if you emulate the game onto your computer using an emulator, then that ROM is legal since you own that game, as long as you don't distribute it throughout the Internet or anywhere else. That would be illegal. --Plainnym 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There IS a website called consoleclassix.com where you can download it legally for a smalll fee.... --Plainnym 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nintendo disagrees with the "legal" status of that, though they haven't followed up on it. Are we considering adding this information to the page?  Or is it just random thoughts? Komdori 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mario All-Stars Screenshots
The second half of this article seems to rely entire on screenshots from the SNES remake of SMB3 as opposed to the original classic. Why is this? The game's legacy and impact are entirely dependent on the NES version and that is the version whose screenshots we should be using. All-Stars was a travesty and use of its screenshots should be reserved for a wiki on that game. 24.147.174.105 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian release date incorrect
On the side panel, it lists the Australian release date as January 1992. I know this to be incorrect, because in 1991 I rented this game from our local video store. I could not be mistaken, because we left the country in December 1991. Since I do not know the actual release date, I am removing it altogether until someone can add the correct date. (I believe the date is probably about the same as Europe, though).Davez621 09:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that my friend got it for his birthday, and when he unwrapped it I couldn't believe it because I didn't know it was out yet (I was a big Mario fan.) His birthday falls on August 31st so I'm assuming it was the same as Europe (August 29.)  The KZA 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

References to the game in game?
There have been many references to how important the game was to it's designers. The secret room in World 1-1 has coins arranged in a 3. There is a roman numeral 3 in the fire bro place in World 2. The king in world 3 looks a lot like Mario. Know of any others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankyboy5 (talk • contribs).


 * What is a "fire bro place"?Dshibshm (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He's referring to the rightmost screen of World 2 with a "III" and Fire Bros. pacing back and forth. --jh51681 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true
From the article:

''The first ship encountered at the beginning of World 8 has a small difference at the very end. In the Japanese version, if Mario drops into the mud and manages to do a trick to swim all the way to the right of the final pipe, he will not be able to get back up because the wall is a single block too high. A block was removed from the U.S. version, at the very top of the right wall. Thus, even if Mario falls into the mud, he will be able to get back up and continue on. This change was not done for the versions featured in Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance 4; however, in the Advance version, Mario and Luigi share their Super Mario Bros. 2 differences, so if the player enters Mario and Luigi mode, Luigi can jump the ship's end.''

I swam through all the level in the GBA version with Mario and went to the end safely. I'm reverting it. It may be easier with Luigi because I had to swim a bit(equivalent to running and jumping) to get onto it.Frankyboy5 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope I did right...
An IP address has tried to insert some asterisks at the end in the "see also" section twice. The first time it was reverted by a bot, and I reverted it this second time. I hope I did the right thing. If I didn't, let me know on my talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candidhq (talk • contribs).

Removed "Graphics" section
I removed this stuff:

''Although technology was primitive at the time, the developers were able to implement some 3D effects into the game. Various sprite rotation effects were made such as Mario moving his head from side to side when he is walking and Bowser turning around. There is also some parallax scrolling in the airship levels and when Mario falls out of the sky with a wand after beating a world.''

There are no "3D Effects" at all. What someone referred to "moving his head from side to side" is nothing more than hand-made animation, not a generated 3D effect. The airship levels also contain no paralax scrolling. Having a couple cloud sprites moving around at a slower speed than the screen scrolls is nowhere near paralax scrolling, it's moving sprites around. I will count Gemini Man's stage from Mega Man 3 which also moves sprites around as paralax scrolling though, since the sprites are evenly distributed throughout the screen, and give a closer effect. --Dwedit 02:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but they are trying to simulate parallax scrolling. But although it's not, it's still like it. It still gives a feel of 3D though. The rotation creates 3D effects too. I meant to say pseudo-3d effects. Frankyboy5 07:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing Items
I've seen the Item section and there are some items missing. Boomerang and Feather. Somebody add them please.
 * I don't think either of those are items in SMB3. The feather is from Super Mario World, and I have no idea what the boomerang is from. Andre (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In Super Mario Advance 4 (the GBA port of this game), you can use E-reader cards for those two power-up items. Of course this information wouldn't belong in this article because this article is on the NES version (& we have an article for the GBA version). SNS 17:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whistles?
Just wondering if anyone is going to write about the the secret whistles that are found in the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.179.82 (talk • contribs).

I cant understand the section on whistles that well, so I havnt done any editing (Because it may already be saying what I am going to say: In the first world there are 2 whistles (not 1) and more through the game. User:cs1kh

FAIR USE DISPUTED
The all caps is to get attention, anyway I'm just alerting people to know that fair use for a few of the screenshots in this article is disputed because the licensing requires a "detailed fair use rationale for each use". Please provide detailed rationales to keep them. Thanks, --WikiSlasher 04:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hammer Bros. Suit correction
It was claimed in the article that with the Hammer Bros. Suit the player could defeat Bowser with a single hammer. This is not true, correction made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.128.169.73 (talk • contribs).

World 9 Warp Zone debate
Because it is just a warp zone, it does not count as a sepearte world. The World indicator says World 9 because the developers didn't want the world indicator to be blank, so they put a 9 there. It is not necessarily another world; the 9 is simply a "place holder." World 9 does not need to be listed in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.42.70 (talk • contribs).
 * And how do you know this? What is your source for that information? They could have called it World W or World Z or World 0... (Fryguy64 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
 * I strongly disagree with 70's assessment of the Warp Zone. If the developers didn't want to call it World 9, they could have called it something else.  --myselfalso 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

History
I'm suprised it hasn't been mentioned (I may have missed it though) but it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere about why this game was released two years later in North America. The so called chip shortage, use of The Wizard (film) as a promotion tool all delayed the release! ManyStars50 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, they needed some time after the release of Super Mario Bros. 2, I guess. ManyStars50 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Page Shortening
I'm surprised to see there's a lot of edit history over huge chucks of this page going missing with no discussion whatsoever about it here. Can someone please discuss the changes with a bit more then 'policy' in an summary, please? While I see a lot of what could be seen to be non-wiki material on there, there's also a fair bit of relevant stuff that's being removed with no discussion Spugmeister 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about king transformations and differences between Super famicon and SNES versions, then the discussion is above, with the subheading "kings". I've been watching it with morbid fascination for quite a while, not wanting to get involved, but I think I will get involved now.  The kings' transformations are, in my opinion, trivial.  I will vote for their removal.  The differences between the famicon version and SNES version is interesting, but it's not the kind of thing I'd look up in an encyclopedia.  I would vote for it's removal, but wouldn't be too upset if it was kept.  All-in-all, neither of these is the kind of dispute I would get all that upset about.  ----Steve 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the info about the game graphics, hidden levels and the like I'm talking about. Surely that's the kind of thing you'd want on this page? Spugmeister 13:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, in that case, I misspoke. Oops. On hidden levels, we have to be careful about it sounding like a game guide.  Other than that, yeah, I'd want it.  ----Steve 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest of those sections are filled with OR. They likely don't have information that can be verified by reliable sources. TTN 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then surely what you need is cite tags for a while, not a wholesale deletion with no talk page warning, and a revert war? Spugmeister 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite tags work if the information is iffy. This information is just plain OR. TTN 18:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's true in the game, and it is, the information is probably cited somewhere. Even if it's not, it deserves a mention in the talk page. You really shouldn't be doing wholesale deletion of information without explaining it on the talk page, no matter how dumb you think the information is Spugmeister 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing that is pure to the game is being talked about. Everything here requires sources to remain, and there are none. You won't find anything official talking about the hidden levels, the minor changes, the minor graphic details, or the OR music comparisons. There is no need to put a cleanup on the talk page (plus it is already up there). TTN 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Virutal Console
This is listed as a Virtual Console game, but has yet to be released to the Virtual Console. Could someone provide some info as to when and/or where it will be released to the VC? 67.188.172.165 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurbio's Shoe
In the orginal release, Princess Toadstool refers to the green shoes worn by Goombas in level 5-2 as Kurbio's shoe; this is in the letter she sends to Mario after completing level 2. In later releases, she refers to it as Goomba's shoe. Apparently there was some sort of copyright infringement in the original release. Does anyone have information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzcrandall (talk • contribs)


 * Translation error, not copyright infringement. Goomba is Kuribo in Japan. --74.105.94.99 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION:

is it true that when you play mario advance four, you can only save the game once per world? because when i played the world one, after i finish stage 1, i saved the game, then after awhile, i played stage 2 of world 1 and finish the stage 2, then i save the game again and shut my gameboy sp off, and then when i was going play for the stage 3 of world 1, my saved file were corrupted or should i say i repeated the stages 1 and 2 of world 1 in mario advance four.

Fair use rationale for Image:SMA4box.jpg
Image:SMA4box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs more sources
This article looks well written, but needs more sources and citations. This is my all time favorite video game, I'd love to see it get Good Article or Featured Article treatment. FamicomJL 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. For the best selling game on the NES this article is surprisingly poor. I've just done my best correcting the grammar of the "Reception" section, which is still far from perfect. I'm not familiar with this game myself, so I will tamper no further, but the article is presently seriously unbalanced. Nothing is said about the new power ups, for instance, whereas there's a huge amount on bonus cards and Japanese / NTSC comparison. Am I mistaken in thinking that this game introduced the iconic Raccoon powerup? Surely this deserves a mention? I think the comparison section is interesting and I'm not saying it should be removed, but may I remind you of a place called Europe? It is unfair to neglect the PAL version. GM Pink Elephant —Preceding comment was added at 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtual console?
This game has recived a rating from PEGI recentley. Could this mean that it could see a release on virtual console soon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.252.178 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC) They did. On the 5th. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed copied text
I removed the following paragraph from the History section, since it was copied from vgchartz.com:

Although widely regarded as being the best-selling video game of all time, the original Super Mario Bros. is actually the best-selling video game, at 40.23 million copies compared to Super Mario Bros. 3 ' s 17.28 million (as recognized by the Guinness Book of Records, based on data given by Nintendo). Many figures put the sales at over 18 million copies sold. Because of the confusion that bundling causes with sales figures, Super Mario Bros. 3's achievement is often given more weight. When combined with its Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 versions, Super Mario Bros. 3 has sold over 33 million copies. The game was on the NES Top 20 list in Nintendo Power from its release until the NES list was discontinued in 1995.

See: http://vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=6458

Miles Blues 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

veggies
Ok,I've played the GBA port on my DS. Are there really tossable vegetables in the E-Reader part of it,or is it vandalism? Question posted by 99.230.152.143 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
 * There are, but you need to download it through Ereader on gameboy. Theres a special card for it. 72.84.195.137 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 99.230.152.143 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

End of level box
The article says that whatever is on the box when Mario hits it is what he gets, but doesn't it depend on HOW you hit the box? For example, I always run (to maximum power) and jump to hit the box and it always gives me a star, and I think if you aren't running at all it will always give you a mushroom. Can anyone else shine some light on this? The KZA 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's random. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I vaguely remember reading in the official Nintendo Power Player's Guide that if you run at full speed and hit a corner of the box you'll get a Star. --jh51681 (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Other than that it's random. Sometimes I get a flower. You didn't mention them. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can tell you from experience it IS timing based. If you run from fully offscreen at full power and jump at the same moment, you will easily and always get the Star. My gaming friends notice the same trend, that it is timing. Also, recording play and playing it back in slow motion has shown us this trend. Very rarely will you get something seemingly "random" from what is displayed, and I blame this on the image changing the instant you hit it.

KurisuYamato (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like the box has a predictable rotation, and there's no "special" programming for whether you hit it at full speed. The box probably just starts counting off the different powerups the moment it scrolls on screen. When you come in at a full run, you will always reach it (or at least the corner) in nearly the same number of frames. 68.0.226.163 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Best Selling Not Originally Bundled Game
Isn't the game the best-selling not ORIGINALLY bundled console game? If not, should it not at least be noted that for a long time the game was said to be the best selling standalone game? I've thought this for years, and it seems like this was/is the popular belief. Also, wasn't it mentioned in Guinness Book of World Records at some point? Super Spike (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SMB3 and satanism?
This is kinda absurd but watch this video and go to the middle end and you'll see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.132.130 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I came here to look up if there was anything about it....I think they put this stuff in just as a joke. -Tenguman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.246.82 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon
There was a short lived cartoon called The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 which deserves some mention. It was based heavily on the video game and used much of the original music and sound effects from the game.--RedKnight (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Best-selling non-bundled game"
Should this statement be modified? To name an example, Nintendogs as a whole has sold nearly 18,000,000 by the end of last year, and has been selling fairly consistently. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the statement can be properly sourced, change it to whatever it should be. Lumaga (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this article is fairly unsourced. I've done a bit of cleanup, could someone fill in the citation tags? Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Release dates
It's the exact same game. Comparing a game with numerous ports over dozens of platforms over decades to a game that's been re-released three times. That Tetris and Space Invaders can't fit dozens of re-releases in the infobox does not establish that SMB3 can't fit two. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, Pac-Man and Space Invaders don't list them because it was decided the infobox is for the main platform (the platform release being discussed) only. I was directly involved in the process of both of those articles, including moving Space Invaders to FAC. That is also why for the past year various members of the video game project (including my self) have been clearing out the lists of ports so the infobox reflects the main focus of the article.  There's a reason for the standard ports section. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The NES version IS the main game. The Wii explicitly states that the VC version is the NES version. There is absolutely no difference between them, and the fact of the matter is that Nintendo calls the VC release the NES version. That it is available on a different platform is irrelevant - the VC's point is to download the NES game, so the VC release dates are the NES version's release dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct, the NES release is the main game. The Wii emulation is an emulation, a port of the game.  No different than game roms being re-released in arcade or console collections on any other platform - they're ports to the new platform. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wii version? Um, hi, it's the NES version. Nintendo never calls it a "Wii version", it's the NES version made available through a download service with a name. The VC isn't a platform. No one calls it "the VC version", it's the "VC release".
 * And, I don't define standards? You're right, but you don't either, which makes me ask why you blatantly violate the standard of "CRD" (change, revert, discuss). If you change something, and someone opposes the change, you have to discuss it. If your logic were correct, anyone could come in, change something, and demand that you establish why it SHOULDN'T be changed every other day. You're the one proposing we remove something from the article, so you are the sole person responsible for forming a discussion on this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It specifically calls this an NES game. This, right here, is a reliable source that establishes the VC release to be the NES release. The VC isn't a platform, it's a download service with "virtual platforms". There's an NES emulator that runs these games, it's not like they ported it - they're emulating the same game. It's an NES release of the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actully, the press releases and announcements Nintendo send out and put up on their own website, specifically refer to them as "Virtual console releases". There's several such announcements on their front page right now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's never been up for dispute. It WAS released on the Virtual Console, so it IS a Virtual Console release. But it's not a Virtual Console version. It's the NES version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the virtual console version doesn't have its own article, it stands to reason that the VC release date should be in the infobox. cf. Duke Nukem 3D & Mega Man 9 which both list the XBLA release date. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no, that's what the ports section is for. If the port itself is not notable enough to have its own article (such as 2600 pac-man), it gets listed in the main game's port section.  i.e. like Pac-Man, Space Invaders (a recent passed FAC which sets precedence for the practice), and a plethora of other articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's partially true, but it doesn't address the problem that Space Invaders and Pac-Man are about all sorts of ports, but don't list them. However, the main problem with his argument is that the VC release is not a separate version, it's the NES version released through a different medium. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The process of which is called a port. And once again, Pac-Man and Space Invaders (And Donkey Kong, and others) don't list them specifically because of this reason. I was involved in the process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's NOT a port, it's EMULATION. It's the NES game. It is a release of the NES game. The release date for the VC release is also a release date for the NES release. To limit the release date to only the original release makes no sense. So, just explain to me how this is a port. They did nothing to port it, they just emulated it. It's still an NES release. And may I remind you that what other articles do has nothing to do with this one? If there isn't a guideline that causes those changes, you can't require other articles to follow them. Especially when each of your examples has many release dates, which would otherwise make the infobox WAY too big. As it stands, two people oppose your decision, and you don't have so much as an essay to back you up on this, so you also have no right to demand the article remain in your preferred format, so I suggest you revert back. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, the process of moving a game from one platform to another is refered to as porting. It does not denote how the process is accomplished, it denotes the action of moving the game from the original platform (in this case the NES) to another (in this case the Wii).  Its very simple.  I work in the industry, I *do* ports via recoding the game from scratch and via emulations, that's what the process is refered to as in contracts, bids, etc. There are other industry people on Wikipedia as well, I suggest bringing them here to help define the term for you as well if you still want to ignore it and confuse a porting method for the porting itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't really see why this precludes listing the release date in the infobox. I can understand why every single port of PacMan isn't listed: the infobox would be huge, but including the release date of SMB3 on the VC seems like a fairly obvious thing to include in the infobox. Where is the discussion re Pacman et al. ? – xeno  ( talk ) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If general consensus here is to add the Wii VC port in to the infobox, I'll be happy to concede, if anything just to save everyone going around more and more with Link on the same issues.  The discussions should be archived across several different pages, I'll see if I can dig them up yet. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So a rom of SMB3 is a port because it's been moved to the PC? I don't think anyone would agree with that (ever). Please explain how it's a Wii game when Nintendo.com referred to it as an NES game. It doesn't say "Original platform: NES", it says "Platform: NES". If you suggest bringing them here, I suggest you follow through with your own idea. This is your own idea which two people have opposed and no one has supported, and demanding it stay. You specifically stated that the standards for release dates should be different from what they are, but that doesn't become a ticket for you to define standards of article quality. Until it is a quality guideline, removing all but the original dates, especially when doing so is clearly controversial, your actions are clearly in bad faith and you're in clear violation of WP:OWN.
 * Watch it on WP:Civil Link. Likewise, it is a *ported* NES game running on the Wii via the Virtual Console, a multi-system emulator Nintendo uses.  The platform is a Wii, unless you're somehow magically not playing through the virtual console on a Wii?  Once again, their own front page defines the releases as Virtual Console Games. The whole idea behind the virtual console is to allow the Wii to run original game roms from several systems - ON THE WII.  Hence stating you're running the original NES, TG16, ETc. ETc. game ON THE WII.  You're confusing two separate things here.  As far as definition of a port, that's the term the industry uses, which you're obviously not familiar with and certainly far from being able to say "nobody would ever agree".  Porting = moving a game property from one platform to another.  I'm on a contract right now with porting a major game company's game properties to two different platforms, iPhone and Sony Home.  The contract is for *porting* the game there, with the option for doing so via emulation or complete rewrite, whatever suits the given platforms best. If you want to continue to say it isn't so when it is, that's up to you.  I'll continue working with the terminology actually used by people in the industry and on my industry contracts. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors do not have to establish a consensus to NOT change the article. Where is your consensus to change this article? The Wii VC release has been in the infobox since it was announced back in the day. If you want it gone, you have to establish consensus. That you think the editors have the obligation to find a consensus on every change the article makes that they find controversial shows your minuscule knowledge of Wikipedia (that and the fact that you have almost no understanding of 3RR that you think you're allowed to just barely avoid making more than three reverts and get away with it). - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines seems to support including it in the infobox. (if we consider the VC version a "remake" - the language should be clarified). – xeno  ( talk ) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that certainly validates adding the GBA version back to the infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-added all the release dates per the guideline page, further clarification may need to be sought at WT:WPVG. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that ends that discussion, hopefully. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does not, its clearly discussing about multiple release dates of the launch title. I.E. if the game was originally released on several platforms. "If the game is available for multiple platforms, group release dates first by platform, then by country. Thus, a game that may come out for the Xbox 360 then later for the PlayStation 3, group all the Xbox 360 release dates under one heading, then all the PlayStation 3 releases under a second. If a remake is covered within the same article as its original game, further group release dates by original and remakes, then by console, then by country." At most, I could see it stretching to include ports of the roms to other platforms, but even then that's a slippery slope of evolving in to a large list again when you have certain companies that release and re-release game roms in multiple packages over the years. And Wikipedia has clear policies on lists. I agree with Xeno however on the fact that this needs to be clarified further at WT:WPVG, which I've been suggesting for the entire conversation. There are problems, especially when the infobox is discussing an arcade platform, including details of the arcade hardware, when it goes in to an unrelated list of other platforms. Lastly, it also clearly states that if later releases are included in the listing to make sure to differentiate by grouping original vs. remake. I see no attempt to do that, just a straight listing of platforms and their release dates. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All that needs clarification is if the ports can be counted in remakes, and there's no reason why not. It counts remakes as well, so the GBA and SNES versions are 100% acceptable, and since the VC release IS the NES release, it should be listed as well. And to discuss your examples of articles you did such a thing on, you bring up arcade games, when they were probably made this way because all of your examples have too many release dates to list, so I doubt it's because you were fighting the system. Really, you should have come in demanding change because quality guidelines suggest it, not because you're a maverick trying to change the system, it be damned. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not McCain and there were no attempts or claims at trying to be a maverick. Though the humor was not last, and it was a funny comparison considering I'm supporting who he referred to as "that one".  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You act like it - defying the majority to fight for what you think is right. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is your opinion. Once again, I'll remind you of WP:Civil, and to keep personal attacks out of the discussion. At this point, I'm done addressing your flame bait material.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny how you comment on civility when you removed my messages on your user talk page, referring to them as "nonsense" (because apparently, it's nonsense to point out that you were in clear violation of a guideline you had attempted to enforce not more than 15 minutes before said statement). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bowser's Castle
does it matter which path you take (top, middle, bottom)? I took the middle path, and after defeating Bowser, all I get from the Princess is a joke!! is it different if I took the top route?