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. Sir Anon the great 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. Anon 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 were'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) {{{2}}}

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. Mr. Anon teh awsome 05:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the consensus is that boxart should stay, with you being the only opposition. Anon 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)