I was beginning to worry that it was no longer being considered a Mario game among the community. I've got a story to tell.
A few months back, I got into a spat on Wikipedia relating to the "Mario (franchise)" article that had to do with whether Donkey Kong or Mario Bros should be considered the first Mario game. It started when an editor changed the infobox at the top of the page to say that Mario Bros is the first Mario game. Their reasoning was that a franchise is determined by naming, and that Mario Bros was the first game with Mario in the name. I reverted the edit, stating that Mario's debut was the start of the series, only to have it reverted back by someone else, who stated that a character's debut wasn't necessarily the start of a franchise, and that it was determined by naming.
This went back-and-forth for quite some time, so I started a new section on the talk page, stating my view that Mario's debut should be considered the start of the Mario games. One editor responded, stating that it wasn't about the debut of Mario the character, but the franchise branding. Another editor concurred, saying that inducting any other criteria amounted to personal interpretation. I responded by saying that their standards for branding were inconsistent and based on their own personal interpretation--namely that the arcade Mario Bros wasn't even the first game named Mario Bros to come out that year and that Wikipedia correctly stated Mario debuted in Donkey Kong despite being branded as Jumpman. I went to state my case as to why Donkey Kong should be considered the first game, but it was based mostly on things such as the Mario franchise gaining its eventual shape starting in Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong being remade and referenced in the Mario franchise, basically my opinion of what the Mario franchise should be. They simply said that franchises were determined by branding, offering no counterarguments. Here's the thing: while that's technically true, the notion of franchise branding contains many things beyond just the naming of the entries, such as character appearances, story continuity, gameplay, and of course the universe the game takes place in. The idea that a franchise should solely be determined by naming is itself a form of personal interpretation and is not explicitly supported by Wikipedia policy, and it wasn't even supported by other Wikipedia articles. There is a difference between what a franchise should be and what a franchise is, and if a source explicitly states that a given entry is part of a franchise, that overrides any sort of naming or any other opinions on what criteria should determine that franchise.
Eventually, an admin stepped in and asked us to provide sources that proved our claims. The original guy who made the first edit entered the conversation, claiming it was "pretty cut-and-dry" to him that Mario Bros was the first Mario game and provided some sources that he thought proved his case. Problem is, those sources only said that Mario Bros was the first game Mario got his name on the title. They didn't actually say that that made Mario Bros the first game. He made a very specific claim: the fact that Mario Bros was the first game with Mario in the title made it the first Mario game. But the sources he provided didn't explicitly state that, he was just projecting his assumptions about what a franchise should be onto the sources. That was a form of original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia. At best, those sources are ambiguous and didn't prove anything definitive. I pointed this out and in response I posted sources that directly stated Donkey Kong was a Mario game. Now I should mention for the sake of honesty that initially, I didn't check to see if my sources were considered reliable, and that may have hurt my cause. (For example, I quoted CBR, which I later found out was considered unreliable.) But when I specifically checked among reliable sources, I found many reliable sources approaching a consensus that pretty much stated my case. I did a careful vetting of every source, asking to myself what a person could reasonably conclude from the source using common sense. The editors on the other side claimed that the sources they had proved Mario Bros was the first game because they said Mario Bros was the first Mario-named game and people would think that made it the first Mario game. But if that were the case, I could have used sources that simply said Donkey Kong was Mario's first appearance and that would have proved Donkey Kong was the first Mario game because people would reasonably think it's the first game due to being Mario's debut. After all, the franchise is named after Mario, so it would logically follow that his first appearance is the first game of the franchise, right?
Another editor came in and said that Super Smash Bros was not considered a Sonic or Final Fantasy game even though Sonic and Cloud appeared in those games. But the problem here, which I didn't explicitly point out in the discussion, was that reliable sources themselves classify Super Smash Bros as its own franchise. Specifically, it's a crossover series in which none of the characters are considered the "main" character. The editor was trying to compare a situation in which sources explicitly stated something to one in which sources did not say it.
I should mention that there was another side-debate going on related to the main one, which dealt with whether Donkey Kong was a Mario sub-series or its own franchise. The original guy clearly thought Donkey Kong was its own thing, and most importantly, that because Donkey Kong was considered the first game in that series, it should not be considered the first game of the Mario series. However, I found many reliable sources that treated Donkey Kong properties as part of the Mario series while the other guy's only evidence for his case was that the "Donkey Kong" Wikipedia article said that Mario and Donkey Kong were separate series. Using a Wikipedia article as a source goes against Wikipedia policy, and I called him on that. Remember, he and his supporters were making the specific claim that because Mario Bros was the first game because it had Mario in the name, that meant Donkey Kong was not a Mario game. But--and I didn't point this out--there were no sources provided that explicitly stated that the original Donkey Kong was its own separate thing from the Mario series. While it's not original research to state that Donkey Kong is a Donkey Kong game, it is original research to state that it must mean that Donkey Kong is not a Mario game. At best, those sources are ambiguous and prove no definite conclusion one way or the other. After a while, I started a request for comment to get more voices and while I did get one more guy on my side, it turned out just the same way. Many editors chose to focus on the opinions rather than the facts being presented, and I got outvoted. Throughout all this, the admin kept telling me I was making long comments and that no one agreed with me. I don't put all the blame on him, because he was right about the comments and he told me to use my best sources, but I felt like he was more interested in ending the conversation than addressing the issues presented.
For the record, I don't have a problem with the argument itself that a game other than Donkey Kong should be considered the first game in the Mario series. I can understand why other people would believe Mario Bros should be the first game, even if I disagree. The problem was that the editors in favor of Mario Bros failed to provide sufficient evidence that a consensus existed that stated that Mario Bros is the first game in the series because it was the first Mario-named game. There is a difference between what a franchise should be and what a franchise is as stated by sources. Many people will have disagreements over whether certain entries should be considered part of certain series. But according to Wikipedia policy, if a consensus of sources states that a given entry is part of a franchise, that's what should be stated. If there was sufficient evidence provided in support of the specific claim that Mario Bros was the first game because it was the first game with Mario in the name, I would have let it go. The whole thing felt like ideologues trying to force their interpretation of what the Mario franchise should be onto the page and excluding Donkey Kong from the Mario series, and were willing to violate the site's own policies to do so. I cared about accuracy and getting things right, while they cared more about winning the argument. Even worse, when closing the discussion, the admin had the gall to claim the sources for Mario Bros were "more direct" when there were at least ten sources literally stating Donkey Kong was a Mario game.
This whole discussion wasn't just about one edit or article, but about how the Mario franchise should be covered. There was talk of serious issues related to the coverage of the franchise, and reasonable people would disagree on how to cover which stuff. So I want to ask all of you here: is Donkey Kong considered to be the start of the Mario series? Is it not actually a Mario game and I've had it all wrong? Or am I right and the Wikipedia editors royally screwed up? It's entirely possible that I screwed up here. Maybe I'm wrong and Donkey Kong is not a Mario property. But the way the conversation went and how the editors acted has made me really angry and confused.
Here is the link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...n_Mario_franchise_(Donkey_Kong_vs_Mario_Bros). I will say that I made a lot of long comments and repeated my points as I got increasingly frustrated with the direction of the conversation. I apologize if it feels excessive.
A few months back, I got into a spat on Wikipedia relating to the "Mario (franchise)" article that had to do with whether Donkey Kong or Mario Bros should be considered the first Mario game. It started when an editor changed the infobox at the top of the page to say that Mario Bros is the first Mario game. Their reasoning was that a franchise is determined by naming, and that Mario Bros was the first game with Mario in the name. I reverted the edit, stating that Mario's debut was the start of the series, only to have it reverted back by someone else, who stated that a character's debut wasn't necessarily the start of a franchise, and that it was determined by naming.
This went back-and-forth for quite some time, so I started a new section on the talk page, stating my view that Mario's debut should be considered the start of the Mario games. One editor responded, stating that it wasn't about the debut of Mario the character, but the franchise branding. Another editor concurred, saying that inducting any other criteria amounted to personal interpretation. I responded by saying that their standards for branding were inconsistent and based on their own personal interpretation--namely that the arcade Mario Bros wasn't even the first game named Mario Bros to come out that year and that Wikipedia correctly stated Mario debuted in Donkey Kong despite being branded as Jumpman. I went to state my case as to why Donkey Kong should be considered the first game, but it was based mostly on things such as the Mario franchise gaining its eventual shape starting in Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong being remade and referenced in the Mario franchise, basically my opinion of what the Mario franchise should be. They simply said that franchises were determined by branding, offering no counterarguments. Here's the thing: while that's technically true, the notion of franchise branding contains many things beyond just the naming of the entries, such as character appearances, story continuity, gameplay, and of course the universe the game takes place in. The idea that a franchise should solely be determined by naming is itself a form of personal interpretation and is not explicitly supported by Wikipedia policy, and it wasn't even supported by other Wikipedia articles. There is a difference between what a franchise should be and what a franchise is, and if a source explicitly states that a given entry is part of a franchise, that overrides any sort of naming or any other opinions on what criteria should determine that franchise.
Eventually, an admin stepped in and asked us to provide sources that proved our claims. The original guy who made the first edit entered the conversation, claiming it was "pretty cut-and-dry" to him that Mario Bros was the first Mario game and provided some sources that he thought proved his case. Problem is, those sources only said that Mario Bros was the first game Mario got his name on the title. They didn't actually say that that made Mario Bros the first game. He made a very specific claim: the fact that Mario Bros was the first game with Mario in the title made it the first Mario game. But the sources he provided didn't explicitly state that, he was just projecting his assumptions about what a franchise should be onto the sources. That was a form of original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia. At best, those sources are ambiguous and didn't prove anything definitive. I pointed this out and in response I posted sources that directly stated Donkey Kong was a Mario game. Now I should mention for the sake of honesty that initially, I didn't check to see if my sources were considered reliable, and that may have hurt my cause. (For example, I quoted CBR, which I later found out was considered unreliable.) But when I specifically checked among reliable sources, I found many reliable sources approaching a consensus that pretty much stated my case. I did a careful vetting of every source, asking to myself what a person could reasonably conclude from the source using common sense. The editors on the other side claimed that the sources they had proved Mario Bros was the first game because they said Mario Bros was the first Mario-named game and people would think that made it the first Mario game. But if that were the case, I could have used sources that simply said Donkey Kong was Mario's first appearance and that would have proved Donkey Kong was the first Mario game because people would reasonably think it's the first game due to being Mario's debut. After all, the franchise is named after Mario, so it would logically follow that his first appearance is the first game of the franchise, right?
Another editor came in and said that Super Smash Bros was not considered a Sonic or Final Fantasy game even though Sonic and Cloud appeared in those games. But the problem here, which I didn't explicitly point out in the discussion, was that reliable sources themselves classify Super Smash Bros as its own franchise. Specifically, it's a crossover series in which none of the characters are considered the "main" character. The editor was trying to compare a situation in which sources explicitly stated something to one in which sources did not say it.
I should mention that there was another side-debate going on related to the main one, which dealt with whether Donkey Kong was a Mario sub-series or its own franchise. The original guy clearly thought Donkey Kong was its own thing, and most importantly, that because Donkey Kong was considered the first game in that series, it should not be considered the first game of the Mario series. However, I found many reliable sources that treated Donkey Kong properties as part of the Mario series while the other guy's only evidence for his case was that the "Donkey Kong" Wikipedia article said that Mario and Donkey Kong were separate series. Using a Wikipedia article as a source goes against Wikipedia policy, and I called him on that. Remember, he and his supporters were making the specific claim that because Mario Bros was the first game because it had Mario in the name, that meant Donkey Kong was not a Mario game. But--and I didn't point this out--there were no sources provided that explicitly stated that the original Donkey Kong was its own separate thing from the Mario series. While it's not original research to state that Donkey Kong is a Donkey Kong game, it is original research to state that it must mean that Donkey Kong is not a Mario game. At best, those sources are ambiguous and prove no definite conclusion one way or the other. After a while, I started a request for comment to get more voices and while I did get one more guy on my side, it turned out just the same way. Many editors chose to focus on the opinions rather than the facts being presented, and I got outvoted. Throughout all this, the admin kept telling me I was making long comments and that no one agreed with me. I don't put all the blame on him, because he was right about the comments and he told me to use my best sources, but I felt like he was more interested in ending the conversation than addressing the issues presented.
For the record, I don't have a problem with the argument itself that a game other than Donkey Kong should be considered the first game in the Mario series. I can understand why other people would believe Mario Bros should be the first game, even if I disagree. The problem was that the editors in favor of Mario Bros failed to provide sufficient evidence that a consensus existed that stated that Mario Bros is the first game in the series because it was the first Mario-named game. There is a difference between what a franchise should be and what a franchise is as stated by sources. Many people will have disagreements over whether certain entries should be considered part of certain series. But according to Wikipedia policy, if a consensus of sources states that a given entry is part of a franchise, that's what should be stated. If there was sufficient evidence provided in support of the specific claim that Mario Bros was the first game because it was the first game with Mario in the name, I would have let it go. The whole thing felt like ideologues trying to force their interpretation of what the Mario franchise should be onto the page and excluding Donkey Kong from the Mario series, and were willing to violate the site's own policies to do so. I cared about accuracy and getting things right, while they cared more about winning the argument. Even worse, when closing the discussion, the admin had the gall to claim the sources for Mario Bros were "more direct" when there were at least ten sources literally stating Donkey Kong was a Mario game.
This whole discussion wasn't just about one edit or article, but about how the Mario franchise should be covered. There was talk of serious issues related to the coverage of the franchise, and reasonable people would disagree on how to cover which stuff. So I want to ask all of you here: is Donkey Kong considered to be the start of the Mario series? Is it not actually a Mario game and I've had it all wrong? Or am I right and the Wikipedia editors royally screwed up? It's entirely possible that I screwed up here. Maybe I'm wrong and Donkey Kong is not a Mario property. But the way the conversation went and how the editors acted has made me really angry and confused.
Here is the link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:...n_Mario_franchise_(Donkey_Kong_vs_Mario_Bros). I will say that I made a lot of long comments and repeated my points as I got increasingly frustrated with the direction of the conversation. I apologize if it feels excessive.
Last edited:
