Template talk:Nintendo franchises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 

"Main" franchises[edit]

Shouldn't this include all franchises (or at least those with separate articles) rather than just those that fall under the completely arbitrary classification of being "main"? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't include spin-offs like Mario Kart and Mario Party as they all are one universe. Mario, wario, Yoshi and Donkey Kong series are under one since they are in one uinverse though different main series. Plus the Mario universe is Nintendo's main franchise plus main mascot series. --Victory93 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, how are any of these series "main"? This is just a completely arbitrary definition and therefore constitutes original research. I don't see where you got this "the Mario universe is Nintendo's main franchise" idea from, either. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, Haipa, the word "main" is pretty subjective. Also, I don't see how series like Magical Starsign or Balloon Fight can be considered more main or relevant than Golden Sun or others that are excluded. POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 21:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to define "main" and stick with that. I have a few proposals, but I figured I'd bring them up here instead of starting an edit war.

  • Balloon Fight - While a classic, it is not exactly a franchise, since any installment besides the original has just been a remake or enhancement of some kind.
  • EarthBound - EarthBound consists of just three titles, only one of which has been released outside of Japan, and only one of which has been released in the last decade. It is also not known very well outside its fanbase.
  • Famicom Tantei Club - Why this one is even on the radar puzzles me. Two real installments were released in the 80's. In 1997, there was one of those cheap-o Satelleview versions, too. All has gone quiet for 12 years now.
  • Game & Watch - For all intents and purposes, this series is dead. It may have quite a bit of history, but its only use now is cameo appearances in other franchises.
  • Kid Icarus - Just because Pit was in Super Smash Bros. Brawl doesn't make Kid Icarus a flagship title. There were two games in this series, the second having been released in 1991.
  • Also, Excitebike may need a different name. The series has been revived on the Wii, but "bike" has been dropped from the title. Maybe the series should be referred to simply as Excite?
  • If Magical Starsign is on this list, why isn't Golden Sun?

So let me hear the ideas. POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply rename the template "Nintendo franchises"? POOF! There goes the WP:OR. As for which franchises should be included, well that could get pretty sticky. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, all of the above is essentially still original research. As long as series are covered on Wikipedia, they are relevant to this template, and there's no need to narrow the subject unless the template really bloats up with links. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I've changed it to just franchises since making more sense. Golden Sun series be happy if maybe someone would create this article: Golden Sun (series). Now could someone create this article please. And also these ones:

--Victory93 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Echoing what Haipa Doragon said, all of Nintendo's first- and second-party franchises with a series page should be included in the template. If anyone feels one of said pages isn't notable enough, then bring it up on that page's talk and wait for the process to decide the outcome, but as long as it remains on Wikipedia, it should be included in this template.
And by the way, why is this template only two days old? Anyone have any insight as to why a similar template wasn't created long before then? Just curious. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 14:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but thanks to me it got created. I even created one for franchises of Konami. So could anyone create an article for:

--Victory93 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add the Wii Series to the template.--Claude (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got a couple suggestions for franchises to add, wanted to see what you guys thought: Another Code/Trace Memory, StarTropics, PilotWings, Puzzle League, 1080 Snowboarding, Chibi-Robo, Rhythm Heaven, Elite Beat Agents/Ouendan. What do you guys think? --El cubo

It fundamentally depends if they are already covered. Remember that this is a navigation template, not a complete list of Nintendo franchises, and we shouldn't link to what doesn't exist yet or what is already covered in another link on the same template. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well also if possible, could anyone create like articles which is about the series like Golden Sun (series). Like have StarTropics (series) and others. --Victory93 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Main" or "Flagship"?[edit]

Hello everyone. The heading says it all; wouldn't "Flagship franchises" be more appropriate than "Main franchises"? Also, I added the Smash Bros. series to the template. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above; how are either appropriate? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 02:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

how are half of these even franchises[edit]

don't franchises usually involve multiple forms of media 174.111.86.246 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you here-- a media franchise only needs to be in one particular medium, so technically all of these properties are franchises. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the template should be changed to Nintendo SERIES, because as it is, it's a total mess. Right now, it seems to not only include franchises with one installment, but several games which had minimal Nintendo involvement beyond publishing, and at least one (Dragon Quest) that Nintendo doesn't even own the rights to, but just releases some of the games on it's consoles. If one were to include every "franchise" by that definition, the template would grow exponentially. To be blunt, it looks absolutely embarrassing. 66.222.187.196 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

definition of franchise[edit]

i think there needs to be a greater distinction between "franchise" and "sequel". two of the current series listed -Big Brain Academy- and -Magical Starsign- have only had two games released. there are other series listed that have also only had two games released (e.g. -Brain Age-, -Pikmin-) but in those cases there have been significant cameos and/or rereleases (e.g. -Brain Age-'s appearances on DSiWare, -Pikmin-'s rereleases on Wii). 98.216.50.159 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Quest as a Nintendo franchise?[edit]

Nintendo had only handled the publication of Dragon Warrior, Dragon Quest IX, the remake of Dragon Quest VI, and the handheld game Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 outside of Japan, while the rest of the games in the franchise were all published by Enix/Eidos/Square Enix. Is that enough to consider Dragon Quest a Nintendo franchise? 69.118.251.148 (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Restructering[edit]

I separated second and first party games, and added in former second party franchises. I may have messed up on Eternal Darkness and a few of the Second party ones and former ones, so please fix those if you see them. Also, I included Kameo since it was originally to be released on the GameCube, so when Nintendo owned part of Rareware, it was in the creation process. Umbreon00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria[edit]

So, every time I come across this template, it seems it has been cluttered with just about anything and everything remotely related to Nintendo. I feel that, in order to keep this clean and accurate, there should be inclusion criteria set up.

  1. The word Franchise implies that it's at least a series. As such, no one-time game releases should be included. Two games is an absolute minimum. (So, something like Eternal Darkness does not belong, for example.)
  2. The game should be released for Nintendo consoles, and/or be developed or published by Nintendo. This one should be obvious, but people keep on adding Kameo: Elements of Power, so it seems necessary to clarify. This is neither Nintendo nor franchise, by the definition of the two words.
  3. The series should be Nintendo-focused. Majority of the games should be released on, on associated with, Nintendo consoles. (For example, Xenoblade, while part of the Xeno series, the rest of the series is largely not on Nintendo systems, and doesn't belong here.)

So please consider these before adding to the template. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I exactly agree with number 3, mostly due to the reason of precision. How many games is enough? That said, {{documentation}} is your friend. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying #3 is too strict or too loose of a criteria? Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying it's not specific. How much is a majority of the games? 50%+1? More? --Izno (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's the definition of majority, so yes. I'm all for making it far stricter, I just wanted to keep it it somewhat lenient at first to see how much opposition there would be. The standards were FAR too lax before now, I'm trying to keep off stuff like DQ, Xeno, Etc, off, which I feel is far from qualifying as a "Nintendo Franchise" Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't really think Touch Generations is much of a franchise, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it merely a brand name or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.214.251 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral on it. I may have added it originally, to replace a game that was within the series, but actually a series itself, but I'm not sure. Anyways, it could also be considered redundant, as, according to it's article, Nintendogs and Brain Academy are also part of it and already on the template, and probably more known by their own series names rather than as part of Touch Generations. I wouldn't oppose anyone removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming article?[edit]

It doesn't seem many people really understand the term "franchise". Would it be better to rename it something regarding "series" maybe? Or is there more for a precedent for using Franchise? For example, I see "Sony" doesn't even have one, but they do have one outlining dev studios, and a related subsection is called "Franchises". So, it's hard to compare really... Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sony_Franchises L0L

anyway, I guess that would be a bit better of an idea. I'm still trying to comprehend how Nintendo has third-party franchises.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:DC40:19A9:51CA:F388 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Whoops, I went to the Sony Computer Entertainment article and figured such a template would be there.
  • As far as third party franchises go, well it would be ones like Chibi-Robo!, which is developed by a third party company, Skip Ltd., or Golden Sun, which is developed by third party Camelot Software Planning. Nintendo has no ownership or control over the company, so they're not second party companies. However, Nintendo publishes them, and they only appear on Nintendo systems, so they still fall under "Nintendo Franchises". It's different from, for example, Dragon Quest, which Nintendo has very little input on, and appear largely on other systems. That's my interpretation of it at least. Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Info[edit]

Please people, this is wrong info. I keep notes of this kind of thing. Stop deleting things. Nintendo NEVER published a Conker game. Not even Conker's Pocket Tails. Don't believe me? Look at it's page! Also, why is Fatal Frame not on here? Sure, they didn't publish EVERY game, but that was before Nintendo bought it out! Only Nintendo can put their names on it now. Don't believe me? Look at the fatal Frame page! This is what the table should look like:

Please people, I know what I'm talking about. I was providing info and cleaning this up before most of you even started protecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Some thoughts:
    • I support removing Conker, that's fine. I'm not the one who originally put it in, and if I've ever put it back in, it's because you made a ton of changes at once, and I disagreed with those ones, not especially Conker.
    • Nintendo didn't "Buy Xenosaga", they bought the company that made Xenosaga, Monolith Soft. There are six games currently in the Xeno series - five original Xenogears, Xenosaga 1, Xenosaga 2, Xenosaga 3 and Xenoblade, and one remake, Xenosaga 1 & 2. Four of the six were released on non-Nintendo platforms with zero input from Nintendo, and 1+2 had zero input from Nintendo at the time of release. The only one developed/published by Nintendo was Xenoblade. I don't feel that makes it a "Nintendo Franchise/Series".
    • Same with Fatal Frame. Is it really a "Nintendo Franchise" if it's partially owned by Tecmo, and over half the entries have appeared on other systems like PS2 or Xbox with zero input from Nintendo. According to this source, Nintendo only owns Spirit Camera, and only has partial stake in Fatal Frame as a whole...
    • Super Mario is a series, yes, but the Mario franchise is the bigger picture. If you switch it to Super Mario, then you'd have to add Mario Party, Mario Kart, etc, as they do not fall without the Super Mario scope. I feel like Mario covers it most efficiently, but that can be a different sub-discussion if you want to start that up.
    • I don't believe Brain Academy, Big Brain, and Art Academy all fall under separate franchises. I'm sure they can be consolidated one way or another.
    • The fact that you were "here before anyone else" does not give you any sort of authority. In fact, if anything, I'd say it hurts your credibility, as this template was in completely terrible shape before I started cleaning it up. I don't usually deal with templates that much, but I started to here, because it was in such a rough state... Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Nintendo owns Monolith Soft, now, meaning they have the rights to Xeno now. But, they haven't published a second game (I thought Xenosaga 1+2 they published, I was wrong.), so that was a mistake, I'll admit that. I meant to say Monolith Soft was bought out, but 'm not really sure that was the case either. I was kind of in a hurry at the moment, but that was no reason to act immaturely.173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Nintendo owns a large share in Fatal Frame. They haven't published just Spirit Camera! They published Fatal Frame IV, which other territories refused to publish, and they published the port of Fatal Frame II. Within the past years, no other company has published it, not even Tecmo. Still, I guess it doesn't technically make it one, and I won't include it without permission. Just so you know, Nintendo of Japan has had the rights to Fatal Frame IV since 2008, and Nintendo of every other country had the right to publish it, but did not.173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can't argue with Super Mario, though I looked on the back of Fortune Street (a spin-off) and the name Super Mario seems to be the one trademarked.173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I CAN argue that Big Brain Academy, Brain Age, and Art Academy are different things, because they are different names, different franchises, and different games altogether. This is wikipedia. It's our job to give facts.173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I know that it was a wreck. Some random guy kept coming in and adding things that don't even belong, including single games. I kept cleaning it, but he kept adding them. (Not trying to be a tattle-tail, though, just telling you what was happening) I know I don't have any authority, I'm just making suggestions. I will admit that was a childish thing to say.173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Alright, so it sounds like we're mostly on the same page here then. In regards to Brain Age/Big Brain/Art Academy argument: By itself, it doesn't seem like "Art Academy" is much of a franchise. From what I gather, it looks like there was a physical release and a few digital ones, but the digital ones were largely taken from the physical release. Or vice versa. Either way, it seems more like it was largely one game released in different chunks. As far as the other two, I had always assumed they were part of the same series, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to classify them as such. I guess maybe it was because of the similarity in names? Anyways, unless someone else introduces a new, convincing argument, I guess I won't oppose having BA and BB on there. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

One last thing: Art Academy wasn't just 2 downloads and one retail, it actually has 2 retail titles, one for the DS and one for the 3DS. I'm very confused why it hasn't been updated (probably due to lack of interest), but the 3DS game, Art Academy: Lessons for Everyone, was released as a retail title and on the Nintendo eShop. I know because I have a 3DS, and because I've seen it on store shelves. You may want to google that. Also, Big Brain Academy is aimed at a younger audience, is cartoony, and not very serious. Brain Age on the other hand, is arguably aimed at an older audience, and is not cartoony, basically pretty serious, and unlike BBA, it is focused on training brain skills (such as reactions), rather than making you smarter.173.53.83.234 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)173.53.83.234 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention, even if I am late, that I believe the BBA series has more than two games for the DS and then the downloadable DSi?/3DS game. :) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo Land[edit]

Nintendo Land is a game based entirely off of Nintendo Franchises, but is not a franchise itself. How shall we handle it? My thoughts were to maybe make a third subsection, something along the lines of "Related" or "Other", and put it in there. The downfall of that though is that it would probably be a magnet for unrelated/unnecessary additions in the future. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it'll become a franchise in the future, but I feel for the time being it should be left out. While it celebrates Nintendo franchises, this is a template listing franchises owned by Nintendo, not ones that celebrate franchises. Plus, like you said, it'll attract other unwanted things. If there were to be a third category, I think it would include Touch Generations and Game & Watch, since those aren't really franchises, but seem to be listed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:55B6:7E1E:8832:CC52 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fatal Frame[edit]

I kinda feel this needs to be discussed, as to whether Fatal Frame should be included or not, I mean. I personally think yes it should be included, because Nintendo owns part of the franchise and have been publishing the last few games, as well as keeping them exclusive, and most likely will stay like that for the future. Please discuss your thoughts here for the consensus. Umbreon00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been some discussion on this in the sections above. I'm against inclusion, considering over half of the games were released without any input from Nintendo on other company's systems. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Killer Instinct[edit]

Why is KI still listed as second-party? When Rare left, they took the rights to the property with them; the game no longer has any ties to Nintendo. Could someone please remove this? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily a "current Nintendo franchises" template, just "Nintendo franchises". It was one at a point. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The franchise currently belongs to Microsoft. If we're not going to list other "former" properties like Banjo-Kazooie and Perfect Dark, why should this one qualify? -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually thought they were in, but it looks like this edit removed them, and I supposed that is a valid reason. So yeah, I see what you mean, and for the sake of consistency, it should be removed. Lets see if any else objects. If not, I'll remove it for you shortly. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been a good two weeks, and no one's raised any objections. I'd say it's fine to remove. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot about this. It's been removed now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And a few hours later, a new KI gets announced for Xbox One. I'd say that's the final nail in the coffin. :P -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Second-Party" franchises[edit]

I've noticed Arkhandar added a lot of games under the second party banner despite the franchises not actually being owned by Nintendo. Specifically, A Boy and His Blob, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Guild, Jett Rocket, the Mighty series, Nano Assault, Ninja Gaiden, Shantae, and The Denpa Men have no place on the list. Just because a series appears primarily on Nintendo platforms or Nintendo might have published one or two entries in a series does not mean they own the franchise, and thus, it does not belong here. (By the same token, Professor Layton probably shouldn't be on either since Nintendo only publishes it in English regions while Level-5 retains ownership of the IP and publishes it in Japan, whereas something like Fatal Frame deserves inclusion since Nintendo now co-owns the franchise.) Could someone take care of this? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he was a little too ready to add some of those on there. I'll remove some, though I think Layton should stay, and Fatal Frame should not. (Still over half of the titles don't fall on Nintendo platforms...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but like I said, wether or not they own the property should be the operative factor, as it literally determines what is and isn't a Nintendo franchise. It's like how Killer Instinct has had more games on Nintendo systems than on Microsoft systems, but now that they own that franchise, it's not listed here anymore. By the same token, Fatal Frame is now partially owned by Nintendo, and while there haven't been many games released for Nintendo systems since the purchase, there haven't been ANY for the other consoles because Nintendo now has a stake. There have been four main FF entries and two spinoffs, and half of each have now been on Nintendo systems (2, 4, and Camera). Its inclusion is justified. Layton, however, has already has one release on iOS, with another on the way. Nintendo may publish the games released on their systems, but they don't retain any ownership. I'm not WHOLLY opposed to its inclusion, but I'm leaning more on the side of leaving it out. (Also, Dillon should probably be added back since it's had more than one entry now, making it a series and not a single entry.) -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I really messed things up.. But I'm 90% sure that Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and Fatal Frame is co-owned by Nintendo, so I don't think they should be excluded from the list. The other ones you mentioned can be deleted though, since they're not Nintendo properties. Thank you for noticing.--Arkhandar (TalkContribs) 23:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, but Crystal Chronicles is not owned by Nintendo. They only published the first one on GameCube; the rest were published solely by Square-Enix. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014[edit]

  • Baten Kaitos should be removed from Other. It is not a first party franchise.

72.37.248.47 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)