Template talk:Mario role-playing games

64?
The link to the first Paper Mario game has only "64" to identify it. With the way that the others were identified, ("Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door" as "The Thousand Year Door" and "Super Paper Mario" as "Super") what should be put for the original game since the official title was not "Paper Mario 64"
 * How about adding "(n64)" to the end, this way it's not part of the title but a qualifier. Peter S. 13:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Luigi's mansion
Luigi's Mansion is include in this template for:

"Paper Mario 64" a reference in Luigi's diary to his winning a mansion, and in Thousand-Year Door, there are references to the game "Luigi's Mansion" (such as a crow in Twilight Town proposing a website called "Luigi's Mansion," and another crow telling him that the name has been used already). The "Mario & Luigi" games includes several reference a Luigi's Mansion
 * This is not an RPG title, and it's definitey not in the scope of the Paper Mario series (or Mario RPG). Andre (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario
This game technically isn't an RPG, but a platformer. Does it really belong here? You have no proof it was me. 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has RPG elements, and qualifies for falling under the Paper Mario series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization changes
Since change comments only have a limited amount of space:

What is the reasoning for turning the template into a single line? It appears to have had 3 lines since early 2007, even before the VG navbox policy was overturned. If the Paper Mario series and Mario & Luigi series have no direct link, doesn't it make more sense to separate the series in the navbox? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

2010 changes
If I may make a point:

The navbox's main article currently separates the games into three sections: Mario_role-playing_games

Also see: User_talk:New_Age_Retro_Hippie/Archive_16

TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There should not need to be a reason to do what is standard for templates. Being Mario RPGs connects them, and having an original research separation calling one traditional. There's no reason to split them apart like that; a single line should suffice. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Traditional" caption was what you suggested back in 2008: "Two lines, one for traditional RPGs, the other for Paper Mario." If WP:OR applies so much to navigational templates, and your original caption actually counts as such, then it can easily be changed to say something like "Made by Squaresoft" or "non-series" or the like. A single line is not very representative of the different styles/gameplay/titles of the games. The main article, linked at the top of the navbox, also separates the games into three sections: SM:RPG, Paper Mario series, and Mario & Luigi series. If this is useful in separating and organizing the games on that page, then we should remain consistent with the accompanying navbox. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not here to represent the styles/gameplay/titles of the game at all. We're here to say "these games are Mario role-playing games". There's no point in differentiating it - we're working to appeal to navigation's sake, not fans. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying. Sectioning appeals to navigation. You can easily navigate among each series. Similar to how the Mega Man template has a section per series. By placing them in one line, and making them display their full titles, you're effectively destroying ease of navigation for unnecessary minimalism. Why doesn't the main article say "there are Mario role-playing games"? It says, "These are the MRPG series and what games exists in each series". TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 05:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sectioning confuses readers. Sectioning should be based on "drastic difference", not "different developer". And citing "what other articles do" is not valid in any respect. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I was merely pointing out a similarity. But anyway, sectioning doesn't confuses readers, at least not something as clearly defined as 'related series' and/or 'related title'. It seems to work in articles, including the Mario role-playing games article, and works better with navigation since it allows users to quickly pick out the links more related to the article they're currently reading. So I really don't know how you can say sectioning will confuse readers...


 * And why should sectioning be based on "drastic difference"? Was this ever discussed somewhere? TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 14:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because if all it requires is a different developer, we'd end up seeing irrationally long sections. The least necessary thing ever is having a section for a single game. Why should we NOT do one line? Does one line hurt anyone who isn't a fan of these games? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's not just going by developer. It's going by name and type/gameplay. It's also not "irrationally long", it only has groups of 1, 3, and 3. And the use of a single link in a line is used as overflow since it does not belong to the other two series. This was why you originally wanted it grouped with the Paper Mario series in the old compromise version. I've never seen any discussion that has been made regarding the use of a single link in a single line in a navbox; there must not be any consensus that it is the "lease necessary thing ever".


 * The use of three lines easily allows users, who do not know the games well, to jump to the next game in a series rather than having to look for it among a group of seven links that may not be ordered horizontally by game (i.e. it may be ordered chronologically by release date). This way they can easily spot the bolded link (for the current page) and then go the whats next to it, without actually having to read any of the links if they didn't need to.


 * If you are just arguing that the template should be a single line because you don't want SMRPG to be a lone link in a section (which was your argument in 2008), then you'll need to point out a discussion or established consensus before I'll agree with you. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 15:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way would it be confusing for ANYONE who has never experienced the series? Chances are they simply don't care. The gameplay being different and the developer being different are two things that are only of interest to people who actually play the games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless, of course, somebody may enjoy the M&L series and just hates the Paper Mario series. Frankly, I don't get how someone "simply [wont] care" about the articles, yet are interested enough to not only read the article but also consider using the corresponding navbox. Simply put, it's much easier to navigate games within a particular series if they are sectioned by those series, not by overall genre. I'm sure this is the same reason the main article is sectioned by series. Example: I want to quickly jump to another article so I'll use the navbox, read all the article titles, and choose where to go VS I want to quickly jump to the next Paper Mario game, so I'll read all of the titles in the navbox and figure out which article is the next one in the series. In the latter case, someone really would benefit from having a sectioned navbox.
 * You also can't assume what people will only be interested in when they are looking up an article, or series, or genre, or developer, or etc. Now that original research. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mario Golf: Advance Tour?
Why only that one, when the Game Boy Color one is just as much an RPG, and the GBC and GBA Mario Tennis games are even more RPG-ish? If we're going to include one of the Game Boy Camelot sports games, we should include all four. 100.4.156.19 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)