Talk:Super Mario Bros. 2

Everyone freeze...

It's clear Anon was reverting for the sake of reverting (revenge? Lol? Wild claim, but still...), but Dr. Pain has a point. I'm inclined to believe him since that's what I know as well. As for the image, it does not belong, as it is not relevant. We're not the Super Mario Wiki. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

OK first of all what's wrong with the official art? Second of all, about the Luigi jumping thing, this. Thirdly, according to the one revert rule, technically BNK violated it first, although I admit I too went out of line. Anon 02:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about policy violations don't belong here. They belong on user talk pages. And how is box art irrelevant? If you want an in-game pic, upload one yourself and quit whining. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:42, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

And, uh, I cant find it on that page Anon. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep looking. Also, about the art thing, it's especially useful in this case as there are two games with this title. Mr. Anon teh awsome 02:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

In the "differences" section, it says "Luigi can jump 1 block higher than Mario". And about the edit war thing, sorry about that. Sir Anon the great 02:47, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Pain, please read the release date in the infobox. It really isn't hard. Really!

Secondly, no one is "whining". Come on.

Third, I do rest my case on the origin of Luigi's higher origin.

Last, we do not need box art here. Try Gamehiker if you like looking at the image, and I can't magically obtain software needed to take and upload a picture of the SMB2 masterpiece. BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I meant "the origin of Luigi's higher jump". BNK ^[E|T|C] 02:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

About the boxart, you are right, it's not absolutely necessary, but it's helpful to viewers who wish to look at the page, as well as for the reason I stated above. Mr. Anon teh awsome 02:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it the way it is guys. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

BNK, boxart is better than no image. If you want some sort of screenshot fine, but we should leave the boxart up until one is available. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 03:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a pic from the Dojo of SMB2's masterpiece, but no offense BNK but how is a box art of the video game irrelevant? I mean all the other video games get a box art on this site so why not SMB2? Unknown the Hedgehog 03:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

You do? Upload it! BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't fully understand how the box art is considered irrelevant when the definition of relevant fits it perfectly,"bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand". The matter that is in hand is Super Mario Bros. 2. Wouldn't that mean as long as I post the box art and not something completely different like a movie poster or a different video game wouldn't that mean it's relevant? I agree it may not be necessary, but it is consistent (considering all the other articles of games get a box art). Unknown the Hedgehog 03:25, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

That's the point; it isn't necessary. It (the boxart) was never in a Super Smash Bros. game and the image was likely copied from the Mario Wiki anyway. How would a movie poster be relative? You're losing... still, it's the same with articles on trophy characters (before the purge) when people started uploading official artwork for said characters when all that was needed was a picture of the trophy. In this case, a screenshot suffices. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I meant "you're losing me". BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

A screenshot of gameplay isn't necessary either, yet it is there. While official artwork hasn't appeared in SSB, the game has, and as the box cover reperesents the game, it belongs on the article. Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:40, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

You failed (yet again) to read my post, and you STILL implement the same unreasonable logic. The screenshot is actually from the game, whereas the box art is not. Come on, Mr. Anon, are you being serious? I don't need to respond to you at all, but I am. Stop being ridiculous. :$ BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

This still leaves the unanswered question of why this article isn't allowed to have a box art while the other games are... Unknown the Hedgehog 03:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Those games have been purged, recently, but there are still left-over ones that need the box art removed. Someone (I, maybe?) will/should eventually get to it. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:59, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

And personally, if all those articles had the boxes that said who the developers were, the release date, and yes the box art that they would look more proper. Like when I go to Wikipedia and type in a game thats what I'd expect. Yes the box art isn't in the game itself, but many other website (including wikias) do use the box art of the game to represent the game, so why not here? If the developers wanted to they could have just took a screenshot of a random spot in the game (like the picture up now) and put that as the box art. Unknown the Hedgehog 04:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Stopped reading your post at "Like when I go to Wikipedia [...]" because this is SmashWiki, not Wikipedia, and while we use them universally as lead example, we don't implement (been using that word a lot) their tactics with articles. They document games because that is standard procedure there, not here. We only need articles on games from the Super Smash Bros. series, not every other game in the world. :$ BNK ^[E|T|C] 04:13, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I know we don't need articles from every other game in the world (That's not what I was suggesting).

And I understand that we're not Wikipedia, but does that mean we should "fix something that isn't broken?" Does the box art take away the main focus of the article? Not really, But neither does taking the box art away. Does the box art edify the article? Not really, but neither does taking the box art away. Unknown the Hedgehog 04:34, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

BNK, your entire argument has been on "why does it need to be there". However, the box art was on the article (and numerous other game article) long before you removed it for the first time. Thus, it is you who needs to explain why it doesn't need to be there. Sir Anon the great 04:47, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

To head it off, just because the Box art isn't absolutely necessary doesn't make it unnecessary. I would argue that the box art is the best image we can give for game articles. If we are going to have the articles on the games (as we've decided for masterpieces) they should at least have a good amount of information, and the box art is a very valuable piece of information when it comes to a game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinet Hawk (talk • contribs)

Could you provide valid reasons as to why box art is necessary, when it is never (ever) seen in any Super Smash Bros. game? I don't understand. It would be like having an article on Bowser Jr. and having every artwork image uploaded and placed in his article. There would be no reason for A) the article to exist) and B) the images to be uploaded. BNK ^[E|T|C] 04:59, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Compare it to characters like Mario. They have official art on their pages, even though that official art has never been seen in SSB. Furthermore, we have box art of every Super Smash Bros game. Since Super Mario Bros 2 (and all other Masterpieces) are playable games in Brawl, they deserve at the least some official art. They have far more priority than trophies, so you cannot compare them like that. Anon 05:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the consensus is that boxart should stay, with you being the only opposition. Mr. Anon teh awsome 05:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare a game to a character unless the former is definitely equal to the latter. :P

We shouldn't have official artwork anyway, but I go with such because if I opposed, everyone would attack me with "NO YOUR DUMB, I LIKE IT THAT WAY SO IT STAYS" or something similar to the given quote. No article "deserves" anything that isn't at all necessary, either, so what are you talking about?

No real consensus, just "it looks better the way I want it" etc. Stop trying to close the discussion. BNK ^[E|T|C] 05:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Further reading shows that UtH, Dr. Pain, and C. Hawk are neutral on the matter, so disregard that comment, although your statement on consensus is still false. BNK ^[E|T|C] 05:29, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, we are an encyclopedia, and it's our job to provide as detailed information as possible to things related to the Smash Series without the information becoming irrelevent. Now, as I've said above, SMB2 is very related to SSB, actually appearing in Brawl as a playable (mini) game, and giving an entire stage in Melee. As are most other Masterpieces. Also as stated above, boxart is relevent to to the article. Your argument is about the information being unncecessary. Well what do you define as necessary? If we agree that the definition is "valuable information relevent to the article" then yes, the boxart fits that definition. Can you provide a better definition than that? Anon 05:33, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

As a final note, the boxart image completely fits the guidelines of SW:IMG. Sir Anon the great 05:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. :P

You're still recycling the "we're a wiki so we need articles on and images of everything" which is entirely ridiculous.

OK, features from Super Mario Bros. 2 appear in Melee and some in Brawl, but how does that make official box art for the game relevant? Please answer my question and use better logic when doing such.

Overall, stop misinterpreting my argument. Seriously, it's not funny. BNK ^[E|T|C] 05:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

It appears the general argument is like this:

1. We are a Smash Bros. encyclopedia, which covers all notable elements of the Smash Bros. series. Games that appear as Masterpieces are a notable element. The boxart of such games is therefore relevant.
2. We are a Smash Bros. encyclopedia, which covers all notable elements of the Smash Bros. series. Games that appear as Masterpieces are only relevent in the context in which they are presented - namely, limited gameplay time. The boxart of such games is therefore irrelevant.

Now, the thing is this: What does the average user expect to see on a page about a game on a wiki? The boxart, of course. Every game-based wiki (as well as Wikipedia) prominently places box art on the page. Not only that, but this is also true for pretty much every other game-based website - if there are no other images available, they have the boxart, and if they don't have that, they make a placeholder one. So users will expect to see it, especially since we have boxarts for the Smash Bros. games. And if people expect to see it, they'll continue to put it up until they are told of a solid reason why we don't need it, which - considering that most game articles are small, Wikia has practically infinite space, images generally make articles look better, and there is no comparable advantage to not having boxart - makes having boxart a good idea.

Summary: since both arguments are essentially the same other than one's opinion of how relevant boxart is, I have introduced a new consideration (that basically all other websites put boxart first and foremost) that appears to tip the argument to keeping boxart. Toomai Glittershine 13:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

So is that settled? Box art?

Becuase I agree with Toomai that whenever people do go to an article of a video game that's what they would expect.

I know we're not Smashwiki, but as I've said before:

• It's consistent with every other article. ("Why fix something that isn't broken")
• Does having the box art negatively affect the article? Not really, but I actually changed my view to where the box art could possibly edify the article if we could have both pics. What I'm suggesting is that the box art isn't making the article any worse and that we could have both a box art for any video game article currently up and have both the box art and a gameplay screenshot from the Dojo for the games that are "masterpieces" (including EarthBound and Fire Emblem).
• I do agree with Clarinet that the box art isn't completely necessary but that does not mean it's completely unnecessary.
• While it is true that the Smash games never feature the box arts, but that doesn't mean it's unnecessary for the article. like Zeldapedia features all three box arts for the Smash games and the Smash games aren't canonical to the Zelda series and the box arts never once appear in a Zelda game (the same for Wikitroid).
• It might sound like I'm repeating myself, but having box arts for the games is pretty much a constant. We don't have to show that we're different from Wikipedia or the other Wikias by not having box arts. Unknown the Hedgehog 15:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

So... is this settled? Can we put back the boxart? Mr. Anon teh awsome 19:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous.

"This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion."

Now I'm pretty sure this discussion has not reached a general agreement (consensus). This was more like:

"This is my view on why it shouldn't be here"

"This is my view on why it should stay"

-Discussion stops suddenly-

-Edit Warring-

Until an agreement is met we shouldn't be editing the articles (I did it just to clean it up. I may be the one who put the Dojo pics up, but I didn't replace the box arts with them which is making me wish I didn't upload those until after an agreement was met). Unknown the Hedgehog 01:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, masterpiece screenshots are not necessarilly the best way to represent the games, as they vary through versions. I know for a fact that the screenshot presented on the Ocarina of Time article is not the one presented in my copy of Brawl. Sir Anon the great 01:22, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

UtH, check my talk page, Toomai came to an agreement with me. Stop undoing my edit, no more edit wars. You guys are being ridiculous and I'm starting to feel that you're reverting everything for the sake of being annoying. BNK ^[E|T|C] 03:38, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't just talking about you BNK because both you and Anon were going back and forth on this one.
• Okay Toomai agrees with you. So that's two who want the box arts and two who are against. When there is no agreement between the two sides where does that leave off? Because I'm sure it isn't supposed to end with one side going ahead and editing the articles to how they want it while the other side reverts it and the two have an edit war.
• Personally, I thought having both the box art and the screenshot from the masterpiece was pretty fair. Both sides win something. One side gets there box arts and the other side gets there screenshot from the masterpiece. Both sides also lose something. One side has to deal with the box art and the other has the masterpiece (Because in all honesty I think most people would've been fine with the box art being the only picture...And they were for awhile now). Unknown the Hedgehog 03:56, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Um, Toomai never said he agreed with you. He just said he'd be Okay if it was removed, but that only means he's neutral. We're ridiculus and reverting for the reason of being annoying? Now you're argument is nothing but false jabs at us. Please don't put this on us, when you are the one changing everything. Anon 04:53, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

In any case, BNK hasn't responded to our points at all, but instead repeated over and over again his points. I call for an end to this. Anon 05:02, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I think it's time I weighed in on this. I'm in favor of keeping box-art up. First, box art is one of the most common images that is shown when discussing a game. It is clear what it refers to, and often it is immediately recognizable as being important to the game. Second, the argument that other wikis have box-art is exactly the reason we should as well. Box art is a simple thing that we can show, and while many things don't need to be on this wiki, simple ones such as publishing year and box art could stay for completeness. We could link people to other wikis, but why do this for such simple things that take up little to no code or space. Every time we link someone to another wiki, we risk them becoming more interested in editing that wiki then ours. Third, keeping the box art up on masterpieces fits the idea of the wiki and the games. Super Smash Bros. is, in many ways, a mini history of (Nintendo) video games. The masterpieces serve to show some of the games that the characters in the games came from. Someone who had never played these games before but became interested in them because of the masterpieces might very well be interested in the box art. Now, we could easily link them to wikipedia, et. al. but to what end? There were many things on this wiki that needed to be pruned down, but if we're going to have pages about the masterpieces (which we should), them not having box art is just silly. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 13:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

OHAISMASHWIKI OF '08! I'm gonna stay neutral on this one, but seriously? Is it that big of a deal either way whether or not the box art stays or goes? This is the same stuff that happened way back when little things get blown way out of proportion, and now, 2 years later, we've learned nothing. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying. Kperfekt ^{Talk Is Cheap... But I Am Not.} 20:12, August 20, 2010 (UTC) --User was warned for this post.

I'm pretty sure this has been settled. Sir Anon the great 02:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, about the previous debate about the subject, can you provide links to the argument? Anon 02:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

He's not talking about a debate about this issue, but just the nature that this debate was taking. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:41, August 21, 2010 (UTC)