Talk:Super Mario All-Stars

Plus

ThomasO1989, hey there. Since the "+" sign is not in the title on the box, and you didn't say where it's stated, I need to ask where exactly you see it. I'm just curious. Thanks a lot. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's on the game's title screen. A quick Google search shows the plus on at least the NA box art front and back. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Super Mario All-Stars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very close to passing, just need to address a few issues.

1. The article does not mention the addition of the ability to go to scroll the screen backwards in SMB1/SMBLL. Are there any sources that would corroborate this change?

   Could you backtrack in them? I have the game and IIRC you still can't go backwards in SMB/The Lost Levels, only in 2 and 3. I can double check if you'd like me to. JOEBRO64 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   Oh my gosh you're right. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

2. One quotation feels a little long. Would it be possible to turn it into prose?

   Which one in particular are you referring to? JOEBRO64 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   "[I]f the best cart around is a compilation of old eight-bit games," wrote Edge, "it doesn't say much for the standard of new games, does it?" I don't know why I didn't specify. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

3. I think it'd be beneficial to add a blurb to note that SMB2 is drastically different than other games in the collection.

   Done. JOEBRO64 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

4. The text implies that Mario Bros. was added to Super Mario Bros. 3 as part of All-Stars, when in fact it has been in there from the beginning.

   Really? I was always under the impression that the minigame wasn't in the NES version. Fixed. JOEBRO64 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

5. Looking it up, it seems as though Super Mario Advance is also based on the Super Mario All-Stars version. Is that accurate?

   It is, but unfortunately I couldn't find any sources that connected Mario Advance to All-Stars, only Advance 4, and knew stating it in the article without a source would be WP:SYNTH at best. JOEBRO64 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   Well that's a damn shame. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Abryn, thank you for the review! I've responded to all your points (only one I didn't address, just need clarification). JOEBRO64 18:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for putting quick effort into getting the issues fixed! The quotation part still remains, but it's not the biggest issue, so I'll defer to you as to whether you want to change it or not. Congratulations! - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Release is part of development"

No it isn't, and I speak from professional experience there. After a game is finished with development it gets released. ((Updates are often developed and released after that, but we're talking about the main development here.) Development is, by definition, developing the game. Releasing a game is not developing a game.

I seriously don't understand why WP:VG articles lump these together. Movie articles do not combine production and release. Music articles don't combine recording and release. It wouldn't make any damn sense. If there isn't enough info to have split sections fine, but we have plenty here.

On top of that, this section is long enough that splitting them simply aids readability anyway. It helps users scan the article and find information. Why have a long section called "Development and release" when you can have two shorter sections called "Development" and "Release"? There is absolutely no reason to group the information the way it's currently arranged, it's bananas.

Incidentally, regarding this: "the stuff about the compilation's title has nothing to do with its release" correct, and this is a structural problem with the article before you even get into Release/Development sections. Information about working titles belongs with information about development, because they're working titles. I was already moving that information but abandoned it because of an edit conflict. Popcornfud (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and while I don't entirely agree (I think the information was fine as it was) I've gone ahead and made the change. My issue is that they're still related concepts; games can't be released until they're developed, and development affects release and vice versa. Perhaps this is something we should bring to MOS:VG? JOEBRO64 22:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, thanks for that, changing your mind is incredibly rare on Wikipedia (and that goes for me too). Regarding "games can't be released until they're developed", they also can't be reviewed, but Reception sections don't go in Development either, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I generally merge the two when there’s not much of either just because their more related to each other than any other topics. Release info is often the last step in the creation process, is all. It works with chronologically documenting the games creation from inception to getting it out the door. It’s often with more obscure/JRPG games I do it with though. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it makes sense to merge them when there isn't much to say about either, but there's enough for separate sections here. Popcornfud (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to merge the sections for games that are real obscure or there's not much developer info to be found; in that case, it makes sense to merge them because releasing a game is still part of the development process. If there's a significant amount of info that warrants such a split, like this article, then by all means make it a separate section. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Power Ranking

The Nintendo Power score has been added at least twice now with an "overall" ranking. However, this is misleading as when the review was published, Nintendo Power didn't give overall rankings, they just ranked certain elements. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." I believe stating that Nintendo Power gave the game a certain ranking to this game is misleading to readers and should not be added and breaks the rule above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Cross-posting what I said on my talk page: it's pretty common practice across the video game article sphere to average the scores of magazines that gave multiple scores rather than one individual one—in fact, I don't think publications like EGM, Nintendo Power, and GamePro would be in Template:Video game reviews if we didn't allow that. My understanding is that it reflects how review aggregators like Metacritic and GameRankings document the scores. Not to mention, it's a simple average, which would fall under WP:CALC, which WP:NOR outright states still constitutes "a meaningful reflection of the sources". JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ita not a reflection of the source if it's an interpretation. Nintendo Power did later give out "overall scores" for some of their later issues but WP:STICKTOSOURCE says "be sure to not go above and beyond what the source says". Yes your averages are correct per WP:CALC but anyone reading these articles would assume "Oh Nintendo Power gave it a whatever out of whatever rating" which is flat out incorrect and misleading. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Continued this on my talk page JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably going to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games if that's alright @TheJoebro64:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)