Having feats far beyond what they did before does imply strenght growth
Exactly my point in regards to paper mario
It doesn't necessarily imply that. It can also just be that the character was never in a situation to prove being that strong until the feat occurred. This seems to be the case for
Paper Mario characters, due to his portrayal, which I elaborated on in subsequent points of this message.
They are galaxy as of now
That's their rank right now, but the information you wrote is something multi-solar system level. Either way, my point still stands. A lot of the time, the characters don't demonstrate feats in the league you have in mind. A lot of the time, it's just basic platforming or sports. It shows that this series has a wide variety of content, not caring about the consistency of power as much as you think it does. This paragraph is related to another one below, which will contain "

" to signify this.
It was a continuation of words you excluded from the quote. It wasn't its own point.
It gaves us evidence that they were this strong paper jam onwards, what is the proof that they scale that high before if they don't have feats even close to that?
We're trying to reach an agreement about this with the other points anyway so I think we should skip this point and see.
You are with the possitive "they were always this strong" so you kind of need to prove the positive
This isn't about positive or negative; it's about who's avoiding the need to provide evidence. As a comparison example, "Mario is tier 1 because you can't prove he's not" is the burden of proof fallacy, even if the person claiming that provides their more in depth ideas about why they think Mario is tier 1. Similarly, even though you're telling me why you think
Paper Mario characters grew in tier during
Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, your main point is still the idea that they must be so based on feats, which, in a fictional work like this, aren't that important to the chronological story, and that the only way to disprove your idea is the have evidence clearly demonstrating that the characters didn't increase in power, even though that should be the default interpretation when the evidence in favor of the alternative interpretation doesn't have a reliable justification.
the fictional work may not but we do, mainline is consistent in galaxy level, if paper isn't before paper jam, then we scale them to their feats, we are repeating ourselves at this point
The VS Battles Wiki gets its information based on the fictional work, including what the work cares about. We analyze context behind information, including feats, to get the most reliable conclusions, rather than giving ranks only based on what we care to look at in a fictional work.
that is not at all my point, mainline mario constantly defeats people empowered by galaxy level artifacts, so he scale, paper mario does not have that advantage on his side, gameplay mechanics or portray were never my argument
This part wasn't to claim that you were claiming it, just that this is what Mario is like. Even though he has defeated many characters with galaxy level amplifications, he's still a character whose power isn't a very important aspect of his personality and so on. My point is that, in the case that Paper Mario was always as strong as normal Mario, don't expect it to be obvious at all. This paragraph is related to the one with "

" from above.
Show proof of this and i will concede
My answer would be something like my answer about the burden of proof fallacy.