Talk:List of Mario role-playing games

Delete

There is no need for a general character list because we have three game articles that cover the single game characters, and this one can easily handle a few paragraphs describing the recurring characters and the general trends (various party members, explorer stereotype, ect). Please remember that this isn't a vote, so only reasons involving the addition of non-trivial creation and development information will help your case. TTN 17:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, a merge is not needed, because each game has a different variety of characters, each with different personalities, and characteristics. The general character list, is needed. C. Pineda (クリス) 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two reasons to make a list. The first is because real world information is available. That is not the case here. The second is that it is totally impossible to cover the topic within the series. This is also not the case. Each game has a fairly trivial cast of characters compared to other games, and there is no need for a separate article to deal with them when each game has a plot and characters section. TTN 01:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

These are not trivial characters. They are characters needed to guide the plot. Without them, there is no storyline. They ARE the storyline. C. Pineda (クリス) 04:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "compared to other games." The Characters of Final Fantasy VIII are notable and important enough to require an article, while this series's characters can be summarized in the text of the main articles. TTN 14:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no infromation about ANY of the other characters! There's only four other mentioned characters, Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser! There's more than FOUR important characters! C. Pineda (クリス) 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

no merger/keep-Whereas a merger to incorporate the character list into the series, may be feasible, I feel such a merger would be too long for the Paper Mario (series) article. Merging in the fashion of User:TTN, I do no feel is valid or appropriate after the recent decision of AfD of the Paper Mario characters, on Aug. 27 2007. which resulted no concensus. 66.109.248.114 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The main four characters and the two or so recurring characters (Kammy, Merlon, others?) will be summarized here, and the general trends can also be described afterwards. The rest of the characters belong in their respective games. No consensus is not binding at all; it can go either way afterwards. TTN 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article could go either way afterwards, it would be prudent to let discussion complete discussion before making sweeping changes to the Paper Mario characters list. There is clearly a validity to the article as it still exist versus being deleted. How that article should appear should be led in the discussion, rather than a blanket fold into an article. 66.109.248.114 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I support having a separate characters article. Merging imposes a needless restriction on the content. Everyking 04:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully concur, a this point there is only one vocal advocate of the merge and three listed in this discussion against such. 66.109.248.114 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The characters are covered in the game articles, and only two or three characters jump between games. There is no reason that they cannot be covered there, so this cannot act as a special case to bypass WP:FICT. Numbers do not matter in this case. TTN 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of these characters exist throughout the games, in addition games that have sold million of copies and brought in million of dollars, begin to edge in to notariety. Chiefly, the character list could be incorporated into this article, if it weren't for it size, which as part of that derivative aspect merits its own article. The argument that numbers do not matter is an easy statement when tryin to endorse your point; however there seem to be quite a few vocal editors who feel this is a valid article. Currently the previous edits, in contrast to this talk page are not harmonious, and appear to be a bit cavalier. 66.109.248.114 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The games are notable, but that doesn't extend to the characters without real world information based on the characters. The only way that the list would not require real world information is if the articles could not cover the characters. The main four, Kammy, and Merlon are the only ones that play actual roles (not cameos) in multiple games. They are the only ones that would need to be covered here. The rest appear only in one game, and they easily fit in one article. Unless you provide real world information, numbers are irrelevant. TTN 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN, I think you're alone on this. This article is backed up by many editors, several wiki friends of mine (notably User:Malcolm, a gentlemen who tried to delete this article but failed and then helped make it better) and also the WikiProject Nintendo. In one day, I'm going to revert it, and, if necessary, protect it, so you don't tamper with it anymore. Just give up, you've stated your case, and no one agrees with it. C. Pineda (クリス) 03:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is viewed from a large scale, not three people defending an article. The article does not satisfy WP:FICT (therefor failing WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS), so unless you can provide ways to make it fit the guideline or a reason that makes it a special case, that consensus overrules this small one. TTN 14:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been vocal support both against a merge and deletion of this article by the wiki community. There then is not a clear consensus in regards to the articles, and the must be a more harmonious edit that can be done that the current blanket merge. Guidlines are guides, but that can be adjust to fit certain circumstances, thus the difference between guidline and policy. Policy being to discuss prior to making dramtic edits, without discussion first. 66.109.248.114 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN, Don't throw policy around, because you ignored it once before. Merging an article without discussion is against policy, but you did it anyway. I chose the higher route and made a discussion about it. Check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo#Paper_Mario_Characters and you will see that the project, specifically aimed at this, is supporting of our case, not yours. I chose the higher route, and made a discussion, as I said before, and people have voiced their opinions, whether it be 3 people or a million people the point is, more than one person agrees to something, compared to the one person who feels they have more of a right than anyone else. not long from now, it's unmerged, and you need to leave it alone. Or else I will have an admin knock on your dorr faster than you can even receive this message. Discussion, is over. C. Pineda (クリス) 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I placed a merge tag, and left it for ten days, so there was plenty of time to attend. You would have been the only one attending the discussion if I had bothered to contact you, so nothing would be different. I see one user agreeing with you over at that project, and he is one of the three that I counted. Again, this has nothing to do with numbers as long as your side has nothing based in policy; you could have ten people on your side, and it wouldn't make a difference. TTN 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah I love this, time to use your words against you. You say that it fails verifiability? That article has resources, and I'm on my way to looking for more, in fact, I found some, so there we go. Notability, this is one of the biggest games of N64. This game did what rarely happens in the video game world, it was a hit near the end of that system's life. I think all it's characters are mention worthy, even if they do follow the "same standard" (like nothing else does that? give me a break.) And reliable sources? I think gamespot, one of the biggest gaming websites, is a reliable source. I don't know what your definition is, but its one of the best reliable sources out there. So, I believe i covered the three things this article "failed at". Secondly, if no one discusses, then that doesn't give you the right to just do what you will, that's called no consensus. An un-discussed merge isn't enough to merge, you need to wait, wait until people start talking. I see no merit on your side, and I see no reason why I should be stopped from reviving this article. The time is nearing when I will revert it. Say whatever last words you want to, they will probably mean nothing. C. Pineda (クリス) 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sigh..." You need to verify the article's topic with reliable, secondary sources that deal directly with the characters, not primary sources that have to do with just the games. The notability of the games has nothing to do with the notability of the characters at this site per WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence. You need to show that the topic is its own topic using the sources. Gamespot can give information on the games, but not the characters. You need to get down off of your high horse; you're not only rejecting our core principals, but you believe three editors and an anon can actually be considered a consensus. TTN 00:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Gamespot not enough? well then...how about this website? "http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/n64/papermario/characternpc.shtml" See, I found this a long time ago, and I was going to put it in the article, but lo and behold it was gone, but I still have it. Hm....lets see....AH! All NPC characters in the first game! Wow, I'm so happy I found this. Also, just because someone's an anon, doesn't give anyone the right to put them down for it. This member has over 2500 edits, and is constantly encouraged to get an account, but doesn't (to the extent of my knowledge). Probably because that person doesn't want to deal with certain, unpleasant members of this website. Also, a 4:1 should be considered majority vote, as it is a 4:1 decision. C. Pineda (クリス) 00:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That site is not a reliable source and it does not provide secondary information. An anon can be anyone, so it is hard to actually count them in a discussion, even if they edit a lot. As I have said, this is not a vote. Unless you actually provide something to fit the policies and guidelines, you have no case. TTN 01:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A) Provide reason why is isn't reliable, and B), who are you to say whether it is or not? And also, I may not have a case, but neither do you, as I have given you evidence, to the contrary of everything you say. C. Pineda (クリス) 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look over WP:RS. The site is not a published, "scholarly" work (i.e. it's a fan site). Actually, you are the one that has yet to counter any of my points. If you want to argue over policies and guidelines, please actually be familiar with them. TTN 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the bottom of the page, it shows a Copyright Symbol, meaning that it is published. And, no it's not a fan site. A fan site does not give details of all materials in said game. I know this because I am subscribed to tons of fan sites for Nintendo. Please check all your facts before making claims. C. Pineda (クリス) 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Published in this case means professionally (such as IGN and Gamespot). Each separate game "shrine" on that site is maintain by one person. No editorial oversight goes into it, and because of that it is a fan site (or fan "sub-site" if you want to be correct). That doesn't even include the fact that it does not provide secondary information. Please follow that link, and actually read what it says. TTN 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be professionally. That sounds like a capitalistic propaganda if i ever heard it! Just because it is not renowned across the country, doesn't mean it's not worthy. And ok, reading this list you handed me, Creator? Ok, easily verifiable. Foreign translations? yes we have that in our article, japanese names of characters, and I can just as easily obtain that somewhere else. Influence? oh yes, easily, because the Paper Mario Characters set the mold for the later characters for the Mario and Luigi games. so, all i need is simple websites to verify, and hm, i think we got that covered C. Pineda (クリス) 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, please read over WP:RS. If you're going to claim that a fan site is reliable, it shows that you haven't even read the "In a nutshell part." The first two parts are examples that cannot build an article on their own, and you need reputable sources to compare to another series (the creators, major reviewers). You likely won't find that at all. TTN 02:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's merely a guideline, it's not policy. it's not set in stone, and can be flexible. C. Pineda (クリス) 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that TTN thinks he is doing what is best for the encyclopedia but his overly strict interpretation of guidelines is contrary to this project's spirit of collaboration. A similar discussion is happening at this section of the WikiProject Pokémon talk page. I concur with Everyking, merging imposes a needless restriction on the content.--Barnyard animals 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion. There is not "limit" on content here. There are four available articles that can contain this information. The articles are nowhere near the point where they need to be split. If your only argument is "It's just a guideline", you admit that you have no actual case. Unless a reason is given, guidelines should be followed as you would follow any policy. This especially applies to RS, as it goes hand in hand with WP:V and WP:N. TTN 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you are wrong to keep redirecting the page with consensus. Perhaps this article will remain whole or perhaps it will be split up and put into the pages for the individual games. Regardless, you are wrong to keep editing the page to redirect to a simple list of main characters that have no descriptions, pictures, or anything else. You are completely disregarding all of the information that has been compiled on this article. Most of all you are disregarding the rules of discussion and collaboration that Wikipedia is built upon, by acting by your own will and against the will of many other editors. -Zomic13 08:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose a formal survey for future discussion purposes, in the advent another discussion to merge would rise, and to clarify opinions at this point. 66.109.248.114 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote; this is not a vote; this is not a vote; this is NOT a vote; ect. You are four or five editors against two policies and various guidelines. It is not like you are twenty people, and I am one stubborn editor that hates the real kind of consensus. You either provide real world information, or this doesn't come back. That is it. TTN 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are minimalizing the concerns of some editors. I want a survey to have a clear idea of where opinions are at this point. 66.109.248.114 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am. I have no interest in the opinions of fans. The Mario wiki is right over here. This is a tertiary source built mainly off of secondary sources, so unless you provide information from secondary sources, you cannot have a topic. TTN 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article/list looks terrible. I suggest either writing it in the same style as e.g. Characters of Kingdom Hearts or Organization XIII with real world info and reliable sources and a reception section. The Prince 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles about characters in a series are not uncommon. This page is extensive and warrants staying. Perhaps it needs to be reformatted as Prince stated, but it should not simply be deleted and redirected to a list of just a few major characters who don't even feature descriptions. -Zomic13 21:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are created by people that do not think about the policies and guidelines doesn't make it the correct thing to do. There are two reasons to have a list. The first is if it is modeled like Characters of Kingdom Hearts. If it would be possible to do that, I would not be trying to remove it. The second is if it would be impossible to cover the topic in other articles. I have already shown that that is not the case. We are not a fan site, so you need to meet one of those two criteria. TTN 21:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We should also note that TTN is not arguing for the merging of the articles, TTN is arguing for the deletion of the article. -Zomic13 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A change if format or style does not equate in to the essential deletion of an article. 66.109.248.114 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please actually read what I have written? "Noteworthiness" (follow the link) on this site requires sources to assert it. Can you please respond directly to this point: Throwing all other arguments away, why is there a need for a character article when there are four different articles that can easily contain the information? If you can add sources that provide real world information, then the article can stay. TTN 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we would listen to your more if you weren't so adamant on deleting the article. No one, but you wants it deleted. If it is not notable enough for its own article, it still shouldn't be deleted. -Zomic13 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also changes on Wikipedia are based upon discussion, collaboration, and consensus. I don't believe we can ever move forward on this issue, especially when you claim "I am one stubborn editor that hates the real kind of consensus." That is not what Wikipedia is about. -Zomic13 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to merge some of the information into the four articles, feel free. The article doesn't have to be around for you to do that. Most of the information already exists, so there is no need for a large merge effort. TTN 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to merge the information into four articles, we want the article whole. Spreading the info across four articles is unnecessary (and it will only result in duplicate information being posted on multiple pages). -Zomic13 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is how I know that you're not even reading my posts. I said that I am not that kind of editor (Well, I am stubborn). I like the real kind of consensus, which is based in policy. A lower consensus will never override that of the community. If you want to make this kind of article stay, you need to change WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS.

You're thinking backwards with managing the information. The information will always be present in the four articles, so the list is the redundant part here. Where would there be repeated information? Only six characters have more than cameos in other games, and all of them will have space in the main article. The rest are one game characters, so there will be no overlapping. TTN 23:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't go against the notability guidelines like you're doing, Zomic13. If you can provide the things I mentioned earlier, the article stays. If not, it gets deleted. It's as simple as that. The Prince 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I want this article to stay and do well, but as I stated below, I think the article needs to be worked on and possibly redone though. That can't happen though while it is locked and it can't be unlocked until there's a guarantee that it won't constantly be reverted back and forth.
Proposal: We agree to unlock it for one week so that those of us who want the article and can be given a chance to fix the issues. If at the end of the week it still does not meet the requirements, we merge it somehow. Sound fair?-Zomic13 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that under the condition that you will not try to wikilawyer around the issues. To bring it up to standards, you will need to provide real world information that combines both words from the creators and reviewers. This information will have to directly relate to the characters as a whole, and it will need to be of good size and quality. That needs to be very, very clear. After that, you will need to condense the information down into succinct paragraphs for groups of characters, but work on the real world information first. Contact the administrator if you're fine with that. TTN 23:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap people why do you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.243.126.208 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actions to Take

We really need to decide what action to take, as otherwise this edit war will never end. Here are the options:

1. Delete the article (the action that has been causing the edit war)
2. Merge the article with Paper Mario (series)
3. Keep the article as it is
4. Keep the article, but rewrite and/or reform it

Please post your top option (and only post your option with a small comment as to why). Keep other discussion to the conversation above. -Zomic13 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

4 - It is noteworthy (and long enough) to warrant its own article - but it needs to be redone. Merging it would make the other article too long and deleting it (as has been done) is unwarranted. -Zomic13 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

4 - The icon nature of Mario warrants that major video games and series featuring the character are noteworthy. The length of the current subarticle is too long to be incorporated fully, but deletion some of this valuable information of these characters is not requeired. 66.109.248.114 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

4 - I guess it could have more sources. But I really don't know what else it could use. (P.S. Forgive my absence. I'm rather busy these days, and don't have time to edit Wikipedia everyday. Darn robots take up all my time. ) C. Pineda (クリス) 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

2 - this either needs to be refer3enced and heavily rewritten in the next few weeks, or it will go back to AFD and it will almost certainly get deleted. Neil ☎ 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

4 - The article is prominent enough to stay, but some information is just not needed. Some of the information is also too confusing, hence the reason for a rewrite. Amazeedayzee (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the article includes most of the Mario role-playing games. Although, it is missing a section for "Puzzle & Dragon: Super Mario Bros. Edition". FallenWallet (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

DS

I heard somewhere that the series will be coming to the DS as New Paper Mario. Can someone verify this? 76.126.29.36 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about it on major sites. Where did you hear it? -Zomic13 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember. Perhaps Nintendopedia once. Fansites create these rumors. People have even photoshopped a DS version of Paper Mario that's already been uploaded to Google. 76.126.29.36 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heah, I've seen this rumor on a lot of sites, including mario wiki. It was supposed to come out in July, but it never happened--SeQel (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself references it here. 71.182.145.40 (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoax. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We now have a 3DS Paper Mario, but it doesn't seem to be very detailed in the article. Im wondering, should someone add that partners are returning in this one? since there was this pic I saw with a Chain-Chomp behind Mario, kinda looking like the series original style. HELLSRIDER (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Doopliss?

Who is Doopliss? He/she was mentioned in a character quiz, and whenever I try looking him/her up, it redirects me here. However, there's no mention of any Doopliss on this page. --DanMat6288 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't redirect here. Doopliss is a character in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Split

I move that this article be split into two articles covering the each respective series. Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One major problem with that - the first game, Super Mario RPG, fits neither category. Digifiend (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first guy. We can work something out, and make an article on each series. As for the super mario rpg, is doesn't need to be in a series, it can be by itself in it's own article. Ramesty (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been over a decade since this split request, and the Mario & Luigi series now has two more games and two remakes, while the Paper Mario series now has three more games. They're both full-fledged, distinct series now, and I see no reason not to split this article. Jcharlesk (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

On what grounds, really? The list is hardly lengthy. -- ferret (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

All the grounds. I don't think length matters here. They're two very distinct series with huge followings and combining the two series into one nonspecific list article just feels like a generalization. Jcharlesk (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mario role-playing games

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mario role-playing games's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IGN review":

• From Paper Mario: Lucas M. Thomas (2007-07-20). "Paper Mario (Virtual Console) review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-08-17.
• From Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time: Craig Harris (2005-11-28). "Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time Review – IGN". IGN. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
• From Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door: Schneider, Peer (2004-10-11). "Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
• From Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga: Harris, Craig (2003-11-17). "'Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga Review – IGN'". IGN. Retrieved 2008-01-26.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG 2: The Return of the Stars

What is this supposed game, and why was an article created for it solely to be a redirect for this article? 75.43.41.165 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Super Mario RPG 2: The Return of the Stars is a redirect to Paper Mario, which is normal since it is the development title of the intended sequel to Super Mario RPG, which became Paper Mario. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam series

Technically, I think it's both a Paper Mario game and a Mario & Luigi game. I don't know the Wikipedia standard for this situation, though, but it somehow seems wrong to only have it in the Mario & Luigi section. (MMStinks was here. You can come yell at me for this if you'd like) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Mortimermcmirestinks: Have you seen gameplay of it? It's a Mario & Luigi game with some Paper Mario cameos/assets. Do we consider Super Smash Bros. to be in the Mario series as well? Same thing, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Paper Mario: Color Splash wiki page

I heard that there was a page created for the upcoming Paper Mario game for Wii U. But unfortunately, when I researched it, the page redirected to the List of Mario & Luigi role-playing games page. Can anyone tell me if the page will be back up? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• CZAR removed it, stating that the only source was the announcement article, which I disagree with. The article will just be recreated in the future anyway, so why waste time doing this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protect request.

Could we issue a page protection against numerous actions by anonymous users and use it for registered users and admins? Is this possible? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Puzzle & Dragons confusion.

I want to clarify that the Puzzle & Dragons games is apart of the Puzzle and Dragons article and series of their own, not the Mario role-playing games. Sure, it is a Puzzle and role-playing style with Mario characters thrown in, but should not be included in the article as it is listed in it's own Puzzle and Dragons article itself. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I happen to agree. This list should be only for RPG games, not other genres featuring some RPG elements. But it has nothing to do with series, as Rabbids Kingdom Battle is its own thing and is allowed here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah. I don't mind Rabbids Kingdom Battle being in there, but then again Puzzle and Dragons has it own article of which I've listed above and should stay in that article. There's no reason for its inclusion here. But thanks for your opinion on the matter. I just thought you would have something similar to add to this. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

One more game!

If we get one more Paper Mario game, can it have its own article? Ramesty (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• If it can actually stand alone as one, it can have it now. Any exact number of games (as long as its more than three) doesn't automatically mean it gets an article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"List of Paper Mario series characters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Paper Mario series characters. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ミラP 21:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Paper Mario game for Nintendo Switch

Untitled Paper Mario game for Switch. It is the sixth game in the Paper Mario series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.143.128 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Informal peer review

Promised to look over this; starting now, and am for the sake of clarity specifying that I am basing it on this revision.

Lead

• The Mario franchise has inspired a variety of Mario role-playing video games to be released on multiple Nintendo video game consoles. All the games feature Mario as the protagonist, who is often accompanied by one or more playable characters, including existing Mario characters and original characters introduced in each game. lots of "Mario" here. In particular of Mario role-playing video games can be struck. Would also mention that the main Mario series are platformer video games, for those unfamiliar.

   Done.

• including existing Mario characters and original characters introduced in each game. - I know what you mean, but they are all existing Mario characters; Prince Peasley is no less of an "existing Mario character" than Bowser is.

   Done.

• The first game to introduce role-playing elements into the Mario franchise was Super Mario RPG, developed by Square and released in 1996 for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. - this is rather long. Would rephrase as "The first role-playing game in the series was Super Mario RPG (1996), developed by Square for the Super NES." or something similar (feel free to use my wording if you want)

  ...ctrl c ctrl v.  Done.

• Considered to be its thematic and spiritual sequels, two successive role-playing-themed Mario series, the Paper Mario series and the Mario & Luigi series, followed conventions established in the original. - also rather long, and I do not know what you mean by "successive".

  Most of this wording has been around for so long, so I kept it intact. Looks like this might need some workin' on.  Done.

• Considered to be its thematic and spiritual sequels can be struck, as essentially the same thing is also communicated with "followed conventions established in the original". Would also change "followed conventions..." to present tense, as at least the Paper Mario series is still ongoing.

  So sad (R.I.P.), but since its still ongoing I couldn't determine when or where the best place to use present-tense was. Bear with me.  Done.

• role-playing-themed Mario series - you don't need "Mario" here, and they're not role-playing-themed, they're just straight up role-playing games. You can change this entire construction to "role-playing game series".

   Done.

• The Paper Mario series is developed by Intelligent Systems and published by Nintendo, the first game being Paper Mario and was released for the Nintendo 64. The original Paper Mario games in series were role-playing games, including Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64 and Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door for the Nintendo Gamecube. Newer installments in the franchise, including Sticker Star, Color Splash, and The Origami King, are action-adventure games with RPG elements. - also a bit wordy. You mention that the first game was for the N64 twice for some reason, and you specify that PM and PM:TTYD are RPGs even though this is the base assumption given the scope of the list.

  Human error.  Done.

• Write out RPG as "role-playing game" (or just "role-playing" depending on context)

   Done.

• Link games both on their first mention in the lead, and on their first mention in the list proper.

   Done.

• The series receives "has received"

   Done.

• being praised for its paper-like graphics, "its paper-inspired aesthetic"

  Getting fancy here, are we?  Done.

• but receives mixed "has received". Additionally, "receive reception" is at best slightly silly-sounding.

   Done.

• the constant change of the overall format - "changes to the gameplay between games"

   Done.

• improper use of gimmicks. - this is really vague, and I'm unsure of the word "improper". It is already communicated that the gimmicks are criticized, so I think you can just strike "improper".

   Done.

• The Mario and Luigi series - "The Mario & Luigi series"

   Done.

• Each of the games follow the role-playing game genre. Already communicated by how this is a list of RPGs

   Done

• Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story were re-released on the Nintendo 3DS, the latter of which the final game released by AlphaDream before declaring bankruptcy and closing in 2019. - another quite long sentence. Considering you don't mention every individual M&L game in the lead, I don't know if the 3DS port of MLSS is important enough to warrant mentioning... this is also the first time BIS is mentioned, which is not reflected in the phrasing. I would re-write this whole sentence as something like "The Nintendo 3DS release of Bowser's Inside Story was AlphaDream's final game before declaring bankruptcy in 2019."

   Done.

• For the infobox: "Mario role-playing games" is not the name of a major work or series - the only part of it that should be italicized is "Mario".

  The infobox uses the "italic title=no" parameter, but this doesn't work. I put in "force", but this resulted in an error. I don't know how to fix this, but I'll get back to it.

Single role-playing games

• This section should be renamed - The Thousand-Year Door is also a "single role-playing game", and all the games in this list are RPGs. I would suggest something like "Independent games" or "Stand-alone games".

   Done.

• You don't need WW when there is only one single international release date
•  Done.
• You should mention that the Rabbids game is a tactical RPG

   Done

Paper Mario series

• Instead of using double-newlines for the release years by system, use {{Ubl}}
• We typically don't list things like Virtual Console, PlayStation Classics, etc as separate systems, as these are just emulated re-releases

   Done

• Add romanization of Japanese titles ("Mario Sutōrī" etc)
• All information (including all release dates) need to be backed up by RSs
• Originally called Super Mario RPG 2 - you mean "Originally planned to be called".

   Done

• Released a soundtrack in 2000 and was distributed by Famitsu does not mean what you want it to - it currently reads as if "The game, on its own, published a soundtrack, and the game itself was published by Famitsu"

   Done

• Originally titled Mario Story 2 in Japan - so was it originally called Paper Mario RPG or Mario Story 2? You're currently claiming both, and I assume one of the two was a planned-but-unused title

   Done

• Is "Your So Cool" actually spelled like that, not "You're So Cool"?

  Oops, no.  Done

• First Paper Mario game to have Kensuke Tanabe as the lead producer, continuing to be the lead producer to date - "Paper Mario lead producer" is not a continuous position one holds between games. Change to ", who has produced all Paper Mario games since"

   Done

• Bestselling Paper Mario game in the series - "Highest selling Paper Mario game". Also, you use a 2016 source for this, meaning it does not take Origami King into account - is SPM still the highest selling?

  Yes, but TOK is getting pretty close. I added another source, though.  Done

• The first game in the series to remove partners alongside Mario; this trend was later continued in the next game - long and kinda confusing. This game does not remove partners per se - each game is developed on its own, and so this game in particular did never have partners in the first place. Re: "was later continued in the next game", the word "later" is unnecessary as it is impossible to continue it "earlier".

   Done

• The first game in the series to start the trend of differentiating gameplay from other games in the series, later continued into other games in the franchise this is simultaneously long and super vague, and as someone who has only played the first two Paper Mario games I have no idea what it means.

  Well, The Origami King is really good, you should get on that.  Done

• First Paper Mario game in High Definition - not a proper noun, so should not be capitalized

   Done

• If Color Splash was released on the same date in EU and NA, you should combine them into a single EU/NA note. You also have a stray < here.

   Done

• The game was leaked in early 2020 - vague. Were all the game files leaked? If it's just the game's existence, I question if this is important enough to note - that type of leak happens all the time.

   Done

• Shigeru Miyamoto was barely involved in the game's development - this is the first time you mention Miyamoto; someone not familiar with Mario will not even know who he is.

  I was gonna add info in the leads about developers, and will get to this eventually.

• Features collectible spirits in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate this will be completely unintelligible for readers not familiar with Smash Bros, and you've got it written backwards anyway - it's Smash that features the spirits, not Origami King. tbh, I question if this is particularly relevant for this list.

  The consensus meter determines... it's not! Have a great day everybody!  Done

Mario & Luigi series

• Mario and Luigi both voiced by Charles Martinet - is this not the case with every Mario game since Super Mario 64? Is this important, especially considering the main dialogue is completely unvoiced?

  Removed.  Done

• The game received critical acclaim - this is wild to me. Partners in Time, like the rest of the series, for sure saw positive reviews, but its Metacritic score is lower than MLSS's and BIS', which actually are in the "universal acclaim" bracket.

  Yeah, I had to do my own research for this series; I read up on all of the Mario and Luigi articles, and Partners in Time is stylized as if the game received critical acclaim (it actually says that in the text. I removed this statement entirely.  Done

• The game is the highest rated Mario RPG video game, receiving critical acclaim - it has the exact same MC score as Superstar Saga.

  Then what the h e c k is the Bowser's Inside Story article talking about? Removed for now.  Done

• Included with a Mario and Luigi themed Nintendo 3DS XL - Mario & Luigi

   Done

Remakes

• Why are these a separate section, as if they're not part of M&L? If I were the one writing this list I would tbh just mention them as annotations in the list items for the original GBA/DS versions, since these "remakes" are so similar to the originals.

  For now, I simply combined the sections.  Done

This took a bit, so gonna take a break here - I will look at the references later.--Alexandra^IDV 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV, Thanks for the review! For now, I think it's best to hold off until I've got sources for everything. I'll get to addressing soon. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV, Hey, I took a break from this project until PMTOK gets promoted, but I've been busy doing other stuff. Got one more thing before I come back to this; I have two images of the Paper Mario and the Mario and Luigi logos, is there a way to display them both in the infobox? If not, should I put them somewhere else in the article, if at all? Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like {{Infobox video game series}} supports that. You could either add support for it to the template or remove the infobox from the list and just use {{Multiple image}} instead (there is no set standard for use of infoboxes in this type of list; I have not used them in any of my FLCs).--Alexandra^IDV 08:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You can put a br in between two image tags (see New Nintendo 3DS). redsparta^talk 08:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, I wasn't saying you should replace the infobox with {{Multiple image}}, just that it was a valid solution - as is the one Redsparta mentioned above, if you want to use an infobox.--Alexandra^IDV 05:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'll work on changes soon. Panini^🥪 17:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: I notice you didn't add the ref I mentioned on the PR for the European release of the BIS 3DS remake yet - might wanna do that before FLC reviews come in.--Alexandra^IDV 05:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC) ...Also, I noticed you forgot to add the FLC to the WP:FLC main page - FLC regulars won't see it until that is done.--Alexandra^IDV 06:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alexandra IDV, Looks like I forgot to add those. Panini^🥪 16:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Spliting Mario & Luigi series

Mario & Luigi series hasn't been for a long time. When they expanded the Mario & Luigi articles, they need to split this article. Longplay Watcher (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's no actual policy or guideline based rationale for splitting this given. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• There are so few Mario RPGs that I can't say a split feels warranted at this point.--Alexandra^IDV 14:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, (Longplay Watcher) not because the idea is a bad one but because I think you like I was, are getting two concepts mixed up. When you propose splitting this article, it's implying that the section of Mario & Luigi titles into a new article titled List of Mario & Luigi games. The list of Mario RPGs is short already so a split isn't necessary. What I believe your intentions are is for a series article to be created (Mario & Luigi) like there is Paper Mario. That would instead be a different discussion. Panini!^🥪 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Puniper" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Puniper and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Puniper until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Petuni" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Petuni and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Petuni until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Punio" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Punio and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Punio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Puni Elder" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Puni Elder and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Puni Elder until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Pungry" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pungry and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Pungry until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of characters in Super Paper Mario" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of characters in Super Paper Mario and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#List of characters in Super Paper Mario until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Paper Mario (Series) Characters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paper Mario (Series) Characters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Paper Mario (Series) Characters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Petuni" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Petuni and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Petuni until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)