# Talk:New Super Mario Bros. Wii

There is a complete lack of sources in the beginning section of the article, just wanted to point that out. Also this talk page is really desolate right now UnifiedUltra 3:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Why can't I add a list of worlds and bosses? (Someone deleted it after I edited) --Ice Mario!!! 22:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"If a player's character dies, he will re-emerge encased inside a bubble, and can resume play once another player frees him (the player can also shake the Wii Remote to free him/herself)."
According to Bill what's-his-face from the Nintendo Week of 11/02 video on the Wii's Nintendo Channel, that is not quite true.  You can use (shake?) the Wii remote to move your character's bubble, like to move toward another player, but you are never freed unless another player touches you. Codemonkey85 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2009 (EST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.118.135 (talk)  

Is this worth mentioning in a reception section? TheLeftorium 12:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"It will be the first game in the Super Mario Bros. series to feature simultaneous multiplayer gameplay.[4]" Does Super Mario Galaxy not count? I admit it doesn't have what you might call "true" multiplayer, but it is still simultaneous multiplayer gameplay, technically. --MarauderIIC (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be a stretch, but my best guess is that Super Mario Galaxy is not technically in the Super Mario Bros. series because it doesn't have Bros. in the title. By that logic, Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, New Super Mario Bros., and this title are the only games in the series, in which this game is the only one which features simultaneous multiplayer gameplay. But if anyone knows for certain, please speak up. Epass (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Actully Super Mario galaxy WAS the first however New Super Mario Bros for Wii is the first 4 PLAYER Mario game. and SMG technically doesnt count cause P2 is just a Star Cursor. (FallOutBoyFan123 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC))FalOutBoyFan123

If so, shouldn't the article be changed to say four player, because otherwise it is incorrect? Epass (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but actually Super Mario Bros: Deluxe for GBC was the first Mario Bros game that had simultaneous multiplayer. I just wanted to throw that in there. (Kristoc)
Actually the original Mario Bros.  is the first game to have multiplayer.Commandr Cody (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Any questions about what games are and are not part of the main series can be answered by looking at the template at the bottom of the article. By that definition of the main series, Mario Bros. is the first in the series to have simultaneous multiplayer. It is also the last in series when neglecting Super Mario Bros. Deluxe (not part of main series) and Super Mario Galaxy (it's multiplayer but cannot be considered simultaneous because player 2 has limited interaction with the actual game mechanics). DKqwerty (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
How about Super Mario Bros. 3 when the players challenge each other to a Mario Bros. style battle and play for cards and the current turn?  Jeadly (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the new screenshots on the official New Super Mario Bros. Wii site(mariobroswii.com), and it looks like Player 3(Blue Toad) and Player 4(Yellow Toad) have now switched places.
Yellow Toad looks to be Player 3, with Blue Toad as Player 4. Of course I remember the E3 build being the other way, but like I've said, it might have been changed now.  Maybe for now, the part about which one of the Toad players 3 and 4 will be using can be altered in a way, until we know for sure?  I don't know, maybe I'm making too much of a big deal about it.Rock200X (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have played it myself and you can choose which character you want to be in multiplayer. But player one is always Mario. Davie247 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In the final game (PAL / NZ), Mario is always P1, and subsequent players are given Luigi first, then Yellow Toad directly to the right, then Blue Toad furthest to the right (last).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.148.63 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 

Why is the top of the boxart red? On the official Nintendo website, the top is white, like all other Wii games. 72.241.19.67 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The official web site probably didn't update it yet. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Got the game a couple of days ago. The red box color certainly sticks out amongst every other game in my collection. Does anyone know why this is? If so, I would say that even though it is not that big of a deal, it bears mentioning. WesUGAdawg (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
See the reference on the page. Nintendo felt this game is special, so they made the box red. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

About the non-white borders, the article says this is one of three Wii games to do so, but is it notable that the Wii version of Twilight: Scene It? also doesn't have the white borders? And just for the record I've never played it, I just see it sitting at HMV all the time! Digitelle (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What's going on here? I didn't know whether to revert or not because I don't understand the point of that edit. Geoff B (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty silly editing there. Unless someone wanted to state the toads in alphabetical order, which is still unneccessary, because it is not affecting the article in any way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.102.215 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think someone wanted to indicate their order as playable (choosable) characters. Incorrectly, by the way, but I'm not touching it, since the order is not discussed here. --oKtosiTe talk 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How does the game play on its own while paused? Keyboard mouse (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a section noting the changes between the previous game, new super mario bros., outlining what's new, what got taken out, and what stays. Yeah? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
They are 100% completely different games.... 69.128.116.190 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)anon
A list of the differences is very trivial and will end up being fan cruft. The Super Mario Wiki takes care of that. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Miyamoto has said Princess Peach will not be a playable character because of her dress, since it would require "special processing and programming to handle how her skirt is handled within the gameplay."[25]"
Miyamoto wasn't serious when he said that; I think the line should either be removed, or have something along the lines of "Miyamoto jokingly said that-" added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.249.54 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 

yeah, seems like it has a comedic undertone. Just remove the whole thing I reacon. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Or do the reviews that rate the game around the 7/10 mark and mentioning criticism keep getting deleted? Reviews by Edge and Games Radar rated the game at 7/10, but those seem to have been removed. Case of the fanboys?

I think some people remove those scores because they don't Wikipedia showing that the game is bad or something :/ Just revert it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that happening too, the most recent case being the GameCentral 7/10 review. Also, only one of the 7/10 reviews is in the review scores table near the end of the main page. Seems that some people don't like to see a Mario game being openly 'criticised' on Wikipedia --Gaunt (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It may not necessarily be about the game, I think maybe people aren't happy with with Edge consistently giving popular Mario titles "low" scores. --86.6.117.26 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Edge is terrible at reviewing. They are too picky and cynical.

Edge's now-defunct www.next-gen.biz website did an investigation if game reviews actually matter. I wish I knew where to get the article, but gist of it being that no, people don't care. Anyways, too bad the person who put the remark about Edge didn't sign it. Coffee5binky (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying for a while, but I can't quite do it.  I don't know what I'm doing wrong.  Trying to insert this block of code:

|AV Club = C+ <ref name="AVClubReview">{{cite web | title=New Super Mario Bros Wii | publisher=[[The A.V. Club]] | url=http://origin.avclub.com/articles/new-super-mario-bros-wii,35648/ | accessdate=2009-12-02}}</ref>

Could someone please help!  Thx -76.28.168.5 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The template has only some sites predefined to work. Others, like this one, have to use a custom "rev1=xx, rev1score=xx" format. I added it in for you. Mario777Zelda (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No where in the credits of New Super Mario Bros. Wii does it credit Shigeru Miyamoto as the designer. He is only listed as the General Producer. I have no doubt that Mr. Miyamoto played a significant role in developing the title, but he isn't listed anywhere in the credits as a lead designer or designer of any description - only General Producer.--LostOverThere (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Many have cited the minor faults in the game when in multiplayer mode. The first being when one of the players dies or does a specific kind of action the game 'freezes' or hesitates for a few tenths of a second. This is a really annoying problem because of the nature of platform games and the timing of jumps, etc. Often players will press jump while running full speed to a cliff and another player will die the moment you press jump and you will find yourself running off the cliff.
The second fault of multiplayer mode is the way the characters interact with each other. Characters will bounce, bump, and push other characters. This is a double-edged sword because on one hand you can use this to launch players higher or further than they would normally be able to get by themselves using teamwork, but on the other hand you will very often find yourselves bumbling around on a small precarious platform and very often killing each other on accident. The same applies to characters in the bubbles. These bubbles are not directly controlled, so they can very often get in the way of an important jump or float themselves into a dangerous spot and be popped on accident by a living player's fire/ice ball or jump. Players can also shake the Wii remote to move them towards a player and create situations where it is impossible to dodge death.
The final fault with the game (which some might consider a new concept feature in this game) is how the characters don't stop on a dime and seem to slide in order to stop (like ice in other mario games). This is especially difficult to control when you are in an ice level without a penguin suit. The game also plays at a much slower pace than previous Mario games so it seems like the slightly unresponsive controls may have been added to compensate for the lack of challenge when compared to other games in the Mario universe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.216.52 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 

We dont just add anything anybody says. Nobody cares what Phil, Bob, and Frank thought of the game. Only reliable sources such as IGN, 1UP.com, and GamesRadar count. Find a site like that talking about the game and we will add it. User created content such as wikis and forums do not count. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we add a section about that whole piracy deal with that one guy? I mean, Nintendo sued him for 1 million dollars and he's going to jail for life too, apparently. At the very least we could add something to the Development section maybe.--71.74.144.123 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if you had a source to back it up, it probably wouldn't be something to add. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some better images for this game? Surely someone can get a high res shot of the game rather than the 400x300 pictures currently on the page.--173.59.190.183 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

HERE Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the lead in paragraphs it says that there this game is the 6th best selling Wii games while under the Reception section it is written as the 5th best selling. Which is true? Derild4921 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the article to agree with the List of best-selling Wii video games (meaning NSMBW is #6). Mario777Zelda (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"New Super Mario Bros. 2" redirects here, but I thought there already was a New Super Mario Bros. 2! Is there? Will you please answer me?--Souvalou (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is none. Only NSMB for DS and NSMBW for Wii. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Cite problem fixed
There was a problem with one of the citations.  The old citation #6 used to support the 20-plus-million sales actually showed 14M sales for NSMB Wii, and 22M for NSMB DS.  However, the figure is actually accurate with the latest information in the new citation #6.  So I corrected the citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LrdDimwit (talk • contribs) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC) bubbles when in a bubble, mario says "get me out of here"!

The old cite #6 referred to an outdated investor report.  It showed 22M sales for the *DS* version of NSMB, not the Wii version.  However, the figure cited mostly agrees with the current investor report.  So I have updated the reference.
This may affect its status as to the sixth best-selling Wii game.  Someone should check.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LrdDimwit (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 

I was glancing at this talk page recently to see if this article was covered under the Nintendo task force, and I noticed that it had a fact on the main page "Did you know ... that New Super Mario Bros. Wii will have a feature that allows the game to play on its own while paused?" I own this game, and there is no feature like this. It may, however, be referring to the Super Guide. What do you guys think? --Nathan2055talk 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that is what it was referring to. Take note that DYK facts can only be done on very new pages. Thus, at that state in the article's life, it is possible that not much was known about the Super Guide. Some facts about it were foggy. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting source indicate $1.5M <> $1.3M , but are otherwise compatible.  Which should we use? Salvidrim (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Several reverts and two warnings (one for content, one for potential edit warring, issued to User:Sugarraydodge, as well as two requests to take it to talk.
I think Wonderpod Online, being a blog, doesn't qualify as a reliable source.  Please dicuss if you disagree. Salvidrim (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell your assessment is correct. Generally blogs are not considered reliable sources unless it can be demonstrated that they are run by an "expert" in a given field, and even then may not qualify in all circumstances. This verification must also be done before it can be used, not after. Apart from that though, I don't think it/they is/are notable anyway. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, seen on the user's talk, Masem has pointed out a possible COI, pointing out the possibility that the editor has strong ties with the blog in question. Salvidrim (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "In multiplayer mode, players can play up to four players simultaneously." needs to be sources so badly, as it is unlikely to be challenged/controversial, hence my removal of the ref altogether.  No ref for a statement not really needing one is better than an attempt at a ref leading to a dead link IMO.  Please let me know if you disagree, or we can agree to remove the dead ref. :) Salvidrim (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a policy that states that they be retained. I'm a little too busy to find it right now but I'll do so in a while. Basically, there are a three courses of action that are preferable to removing it:
leave it as it is with the dead link template
remove the dead link template but add an archiveurl parameter to the ref template which links to an archived version on Wayback Machine or similar. I have checked, and Wayback Machine doesn't seem to have it archived.
replace it with another ref which corroborates it. Given the nature of the content to be sourced, it shouldn't be that hard to find one.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Should be easy to find an alternate ref indeed -- I was mostly wondering if we really needed a ref that.  I'm pretty certain one of the existing refs contain the needed information, we can just add an in-line there. Salvidrim (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done With another ref which contained the same information. Cheers! Salvidrim (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does Super Mario Bros. 5 redirect here? Where was it said that this was part of the original series? -Disco dude rock (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There probably isn't any real reason. You could try asking the person who made the redirect. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Super Mario Bros. Wii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 06:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


### Review
Hi, I'll be starting a review. Thanks for your work on this article! ComputerJA (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

First part
Thanks for the great article. I have very few games for the Wii (SSBB being my favorite one), but reading the article made me want to buy this one! Anyways, I made several corrections as I went along while reading the article. Let me know if you disagree with any of my changes, and please check if I might have done a mistake. Here are some concerns I found:

"players can play up to four players simultaneously" – Sounds a bit redundant with the words play and players three times. Consider revising.
Please go back and cite the [Citation needed] requests (see after sources 22, 24, and 77)  and the templates with [By whom?] (after source 31) and [When?] (in the Sales section).
I'm going to have to say this. I don't think citations are necessary for an article's plot section. EditorE (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the first part of the review. Sometime tomorrow I will review sources one by one and see that all the information is cited. I'll also take a look at close-paraphrasing. Thanks again for your work on this one! ComputerJA (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


### Review Part 2
I thought the article was easily going to pass when I did my first review yesterday. But after reviewing each source, I have my doubts. I could easily quick fail this nomination, considering that there are a lot of unsupported information. However, I think the article has potential. If you guys need more time to work on this, please let me know. I'm willing to negotiate a date. But please address these issues found below--I do not want to fail this article, but I will if I have to. Thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

While New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a 2D platformer, some of the characters and objects are 3D polygonal renderings on 2D backgrounds, resulting in a 2.5D effect (also seen inNew Super Mario Bros.) that visually simulates 3D computer graphics. – I could not find this information in source 1. Source one talks about the characters, but not about the graphics.
If players lose a life and do not have any more lives, they must use a Continue and start all over with 5 lives. – I could not find this in source 9. I did, however, find support for the bubble re-emergence.
If every character in a co-op session enters a bubble at the same time (whether through death or by pressing the A button), they will lose the level and must restart. – I might have missed it but this information is not found on source 10.
Players return to the map screen if they all run out of lives, or if all players lose their lives at the same time, leaving no one to free them … Reaching this goal will open up a new path on the map, leading to new stages on the overworld map and on occasion a warp cannon (which will blast the player off to a later world). – Source 14 does not touch on so many details on the gameplay. Please go back and cite this information with an appropriate source.
During single player mode, losing a life sends the player back to the map screen… Along with the usual Mario series items, like the Mini Mushroom from New Super Mario Bros., new items have been added, including: the Propeller Mushroom, which allows players to fly; the Ice Flower – Is the information backed up with a video? It is currently unavailable, at least on my laptop. The only video I can see is a 00:57 second one that starts with in Peach’s castle and ends with her abduction. Is it that one? If not, maybe you can check YouTube and see if Game Revolution has it in one of its channels. I can let this go as an offline citation, but I think an available video would suit this well.
All levels can be accessed via a map screen, and enemies are often roaming it …  location of a secret goal or how to gain infinite 1-ups. – Source 19 does not support all of this information.
At the 2011 E3 convention, a variation of New Super Mario Bros. Wii … – The rest of the information looks fine, but I could not find evidence on source 32 that it happened at that convention.
its sales increased to 1,401,558 in the following week – This is backed up by source 58. I do not think it is a reliable source. Please feel free to disagree and/or change it to a reliable one.
GamesRadar, who also scored the game of 7/10, argued that the game lacked the creativity of others in the series – Which of the three pages is it on source 70?


### Final decision
Given the lack of responses after several days and the large of amount of work needed to improve the article, I am going to have to fail this nomination. Please feel free to re-submit it after the issues have been addressed accordingly. When it is ready I might be able to review it again. Thanks and good luck. ComputerJA (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"New Super Mario Bros. 3" redirects here, but I thought there already was a New Super Mario Bros. 3! Is there? Will you please answer me?
Only NSMBW for Wii and NSMB2 for 3DS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.115.115 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 

There is a Super Mario Bros. 3, but no New Super Mario Bros. 3. TeraTIX 06:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@TeraTIX: While there’s no game with that title, New Super Mario Bros. 2 is the third New Super Mario Bros. game (contrary to its name).
By the way, the post you replied to is three years and eighth months old. I also noticed that changed  the indentation of 68.28.115.115’s post, but the second line is actually part of the post, not a reply to it (see this revision). Interqwark talk contribs 04:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328195510/http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6210810/new-super-mario-bros-wii-press-conference-impressions to http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6210810/new-super-mario-bros-wii-press-conference-impressions
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207102236/http://www.thereviewcrew.com/reviews/review-new-super-mario-bros-wii to http://www.thereviewcrew.com/reviews/review-new-super-mario-bros-wii
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202034056/http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=104111 to http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=104111
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ymm.co.jp/p/detail.php?code=GTP01085336&o=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229220901/http://origin.avclub.com/articles/new-super-mario-bros-wii,35648/ to http://origin.avclub.com/articles/new-super-mario-bros-wii,35648/
Added archive https://archive.is/20120721222519/http://andriasang.com/comez1/wii_and_ps3_sales_feats/ to http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2009/12/16/wii_and_ps3_sales_feats/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127070545/http://www.gamingunion.net/news/new-super-mario-bros-wii-passes-10-million-units-sold--917.html to http://www.gamingunion.net/news/new-super-mario-bros-wii-passes-10-million-units-sold--917.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229220901/http://origin.avclub.com/articles/new-super-mario-bros-wii,35648/ to http://origin.avclub.com/articles/new-super-mario-bros-wii,35648/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Super Mario Wii. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#Super Mario Wii until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  CaptainGalaxy 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a stub template. A brief explanation of these templates follows; for full details please consult Wikipedia:Stub. 


### What is a stub?
A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject.


### How is a stub identified?
If possible, try to find the most appropriate stub template for the article. A full list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs.
More than one stub template may be used, if necessary, though no more than four should be used on any article.
Place a stub template at the very end of the article, after the "External links" section, any navigation templates, and the category tags. As usual, templates are added by including their name inside double braces, e.g. {{New Super Mario Bros. Wii}}.


### Further information
Further information can be found at:

Wikipedia:Stub
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting
New stub templates and categories (collectively "stub types") should not be created without prior proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This allows for the proper coordination of all stub types across Wikipedia, and for the checking of any new stub type for possible problems prior to its creation.


### See also
Template:Empty section – To flag a section as completely empty
Template:Expand section – To flag sections selectively as incomplete
Template:Data missing – To flag missing information or other data
Wikipedia:Content assessment