User talk:SuperMarioSuperShow

RE: Sourced material

Rather than going back and forth with the edits, talk it out on the talk page first, which is what you two are doing now, but continuing to revert each other's edits is edit warring. Looking at the source myself, I don't know if either of you understand Japanese and are not just Google-Translating the page (it's not always accurate, so you shouldn't entirely rely on that for translations) but the line does say that one of the pipes of New York leads to the setting of Super Mario Bros., but I agree with BubbleRevolution that, while it may imply Mario got there via said pipe, it's a loose backstory and not part of the actual plot, and I think how it is presented now on the article is fine (if anything it gives more information, with the connection to Mario Bros.). Also, "relocating to where the user thinks is a more suitable location" is not "removing" content like you keep saying. Mario JC 23:27, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Thanks for the mediation Mario JC, an edit war is what I wanted to avoid and I accept your relocation. This raises a consistency question, if 裏設定 "background setting" is not part of the plot, should "Donkey Kong is set in New York" under the same pretext remain in the Donkey Kong plot? I'd also like to clarify, it wasn't just removing it from the section that was done but an altering of the original quote (which you seemed to have fixed) and weird (-1) (+1) edits, the second messing the grammar and made undos not possible for standard users without doing it manually. Thanks again for your time. SuperMarioSuperShow (talk) 02:50, May 6, 2023 (EDT)

As mentioned before, all that was said was its tie-in with Mario Bros. with the the pipe(s) connecting to SMB, not how or when Mario got there, so it doesn't really fit in the plot section unlike with DK, which is a straightforward "This game was set in this location" that can easily be incorporated to its plot section. Mario JC 04:21, May 6, 2023 (EDT)

Charles Martinet "Voicing Mario Until He Drops Dead"

I probably should have gone here first, but I couldn't pinpoint exactly who added the "I want to voice Mario until I drop dead" quote to Charles Martinet's page, so I ended up removing it with a note which reads similar to what I'm about to say here:

Charles DID say that… but you left out the second half of his quote, which was included in the same article that you cited:

"And when another fan asked how long he would keep doing Mario, [Charles] unequivocally retorted: ‘I want to voice Mario until I drop dead’ much to the audience’s relief. However, he added a caveat: 'If someday I think I am no longer capable of doing it, I will tell Nintendo to look into finding someone else.’"

Translation: He said he WANTED to do the voice until he died. However, he also acknowledged that there may come a day where he wouldn't be able to anymore. That's a VERY different context than merely stating he wants to voice Mario until he drops dead. People who play sports also "want" to play forever, but are also fully aware that their bodies give out at a certain point and are forced to retire. That doesn't automatically mean that there's something sinister going on behind the scenes.

Furthermore, that out-of-context quote being placed as a caveat right before the paragraph gets into Nintendo's official announcement of Charles's retirement just stirs people's emotions the wrong way. It gives people the false idea that there was this grand conspiracy behind the scenes to fire Charles. Yet, there isn't the slightest trace of evidence to support this. The only "evidence" people can come up with are the above out-of-context quote (which I just debunked with your own citation) and his interaction with Tara Strong on Twitter/X leading up to the release of the Mario movie… which doesn't really prove anything. People are really reading into that whole interaction the wrong way.

The rest of the "evidence" are just personal anecdotes of people claiming they met Charles at an event and bombarded him with questions about retiring, to which he "reacted strangely." Of course he's not going to be the happiest to discuss this. Even if he chose to leave voluntarily, it's something he'd been doing for the past three decades, so it's totally understandable for him to have bittersweet feelings on the whole matter.

tl;dr: It's important to check your sources more carefully, you don't want to spread misinformation.