Talk:Super Mario All-Stars

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Release is part of development" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Continued this on my talk page JOEBRO64 16:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably going to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games if that's alright . Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo Power Ranking 

message: I don't see a single thing about Mario world on the all stars+Mario world cart. We should fix this Fall guys rules (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See Super Mario All-Stars#Release. SMW is covered there. ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smw?