Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Scope re: publisher

Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix excludes games from its scope that only list Square/Enix as the publisher and not the developer. A few series are exceptions. They had a thread a few years ago to decide what subsidiaries should be included in their scope. Should NIN do the same? I've been including any game that Nintendo has developed or produced, but it might make more sense to just stick to Nintendo series and games Nintendo itself developed. (Like is Hamtaro: Ham-Hams Unite! really part of our scope?) – czar 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, it really gets bloated trying to list every single game, both obscure or not, that Nintendo (and any other major game company) has simply published or supervised. There is already an article (List of products published by Nintendo) that should be used instead. This should be standard for all game companies, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, wouldn't you agree all Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong games should absolutely be within the scope of the TF? Because a large proportion of them weren't developped by Nintendo directly, while all were published by Nintendo. The Mario franchise itself, the mascot of Nintendo, has had over a dozen different developpers. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I think we'd all agree. (That's what WPSE does with its main franchises.) How about this:

This project's scope includes games, hardware, and other products developed by Nintendo or within one of its franchises, and the characters, media, lists, people, and publications exclusively affiliated with its products.

My real question would then be whether we're leaving off all of the "second-party" devs (Electroplankton, Vegas Stakes, had EarthBound not been in the Mother franchise, etc.) I would think yes per the above, but it's a major change. Nintendo's a lot cozier with second-party devs than SE, but I think the project has enough ground to cover without them. – czar 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, for main stuff like Mario and Zelda games, sure. It's just the games that simply had Nintendo distribute the game, without any developmental assistant or supervision, that shouldn't be covered. (like the Hamtaro: Ham-Hams Unite! example.) Games like Hyrule Warriors, Mario Party 10, and the Super Smash Bros. series would absolutely be covered. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re: second-party devs, what about Electroplankton, Vegas Stakes, Anticipation, and Faxanadu—should they be included in our scope or not? – czar 08:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93 and Salvidrim!, thoughts? – czar 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if everybody else is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with including or excluding them? Second-party status gets murky so I suggest we drop stuff like Blast Corps unless we have a clear scope of who constitutes the second-party developers – czar 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with including them if consensus does to, since they were published by Nintendo (can't deny that). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, but we're back to Hamtaro: Ham-Hams Unite!—Nintendo produced that too. I would say, at least for now, we only include games developed by Nintendo itself and games within a Nintendo franchise (e.g., with Rare as the developer, keep Donkey Kong Country but exclude Banjo-Kazooie and Blast Corps). I haven't found a clear distinction of Nintendo's second party devs and think it would be a mess to individually delineate which non-franchise games should be within our scope (e.g., all HAL games, or only those of a certain era). czar 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

See, I'm not comfortable with excluding Banjo-Kazooie... seems arbiratry and judgment-call-y, as opposed to just "all games published by Nintendo". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't so much excluding BK as excluding all Rare-developed games that aren't Nintendo franchises. If we include BK, we include Anticipation, Faxanadu, etc. and then what constitutes a second-party publisher and why not include everything Nintendo has published (and we're back to Hamtaro)? Setting the line at my bolded suggestion above should make the distinction clear and easily delineated. (BK is no more a "Nintendo game" than Anticipation or Faxanadu.) czar 20:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism/Self-promotion on Bob's Game

An account by the name of Bobsgame has been making extensive edits to the Bob's Game article. While some of the article's original content is still there, it is drowned out by extensive and bizarre edits with superfluous details and an overabundance of images.

I do not know if this page is the correct place to report this. Sorry if it is not. 24.148.57.62 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo related CfD

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 11#Category:Media from The Legend of Zelda series, input appreciated (though mostly uncontroversial I daresay) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

NF Magazine (Nintendo Force)

Hi! I'm cross-posting a notification to WT:NIN and WT:VG about the fact that I've started a page in our reference library for Nintendo Force (Nintendo Power's spiritual successor)! Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Nintendo Force. So far I only have the latest issue, but I plan on continuing to subscribe and will document future ones as well. If you have previous issues feel free to add your name to the list and possibly to document the contents. Just in the latest issues there is a lot of content that be used to improve or create articles; Nintendo Force has already been vetted as a reliable source (WP:VG/S). The Nintendo fanboy in me is immeasurably happy. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fire Emblem collaboration: anyone interested?

Note: This conversation is also in place at WikiProject Video Games due to the series' nature.

Hello, anyone whose interested. I've been doing steady work improving the various Fire Emblem articles, with the intention of bringing them to GA status, and creating a Good Topic. I've done rewrites on the main series article and Radiant Dawn so they remain GA, brought Awakening, The Sacred Stones and Path of Radiance to GA status, am in the process of bringing Fates to GA status (if someone will take it up as it's being hanging around for I've forgotten how long...), created and brought to GA an article for New Mystery of the Emblem, recently done extensive work on expanding Gaiden, Mystery of the Emblem and Thracia 776, and am in the process of doing a rewrite of Shadow Dragon. All that's left now for major work is Binding Blade, Rekka no Ken, Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light and Genealogy of the Holy War. Here's my proposed future aim (image is, of course, just placeholder to help with illustration):

Fire Emblem

15 articles

Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light

Fire Emblem Gaiden

Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War

Fire Emblem: Thracia 776

Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade

Fire Emblem (video game)

Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones

Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn

Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon

Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem

Fire Emblem Awakening

Fire Emblem Fates

Now there's still work to do on some of the others. Thracia 776 and Gaiden need plot synopses, and Mystery of the Emblem needs tidying. Then there's the sheer scale of the project. Even with those which are already at GA, it's still seven articles. I'm more than willing to do the work remodeling the articles for the more difficult things like development and reception and gameplay, but I'd seriously like help on things like the plots for those which have only cursory summaries. I'd also be more than willing for help with actually completing the GAs, as doing it all on my own would be a momentous task even without the editing work beforehand.

This is a long-term project. I've been at it for several months now since I got bitten by the Fire Emblem bug, but I realize that I'd dearly like some help in rescuing these long-neglected articles and giving them the recognition they deserve. I'd be willing to help someone else in return, as long as there was no conflict of interest with their project. So, anyone interested in helping here? --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Boy article's lead needs expansion

If anyone in this group is interested in improving an article but does not know what, Virtual Boy's lengthy article's lead needs expansion. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Updating "Major game articles by franchise"

Hey everyone!

A new generation of Nintendo systems have come and gone, and in that, so have some new IPs for Nintendo, such as Splatoon. With a sequel on its way, Splatoon and other games should be given representation in this taskforce, as they are a part of the Nintendo library. There should also be an 'Other' or 'Miscellaneous' section, showing Nintendo's so-far one-off games, like ARMS.

I would do this myself, but I'm not exactly experienced with the source editor in terms of actual coding.

The King of Prosecutors (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done for Splatoon. I don't know enough of Nintendo's "one-off" games to make that section. --haha169 (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! Could you do the same thing for:

• The Legendary Starfy

• Densetsu no Starfy
• Densetsu no Starfy 2
• Densetsu no Starfy 3
• Densetsu no Starfy 4
• The Legendary Starfy

• Xenoblade Chronicles

• Xenoblade Chronicles
• 3D
• X
• 2

• Sin and Punishment

• Sin and Punishment
• 2

• Rhythm Heaven

• Rhythm Tengoku
• Fever
• Megamix

If done, you'll definitely be commended for it! As usual, queries on my talk page! Manfred (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, its done. :) --haha169 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Golden Sun GT

Hey all, I'm trying to get the Golden Sun (series) into a good topic. I've polished and nominated the remaining two articles that need GA, Golden Sun: Dark Dawn and the Golden Sun (series) articles to GAN. Years ago, I shepherded The Lost Age past GAN and I'd like to credit the tireless work of @David Fuchs: who got the ball rolling by FA-ing the original Golden Sun a decade ago. In the meantime, if taskforce members have some time and would be able to look over my work so that whoever picks up my GAN review sees the best possible work, I would really appreciate it!

Golden Sun titles

4 articles

Golden Sun

The Lost Age

Dark Dawn

--haha169 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would... but... admittedly I haven't played the Golden Sun games. I'm still able to help out with Reception and Legacy sections if you need. Just hit me on my talk page. Manfred (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey @Manfred von Karma:, it doesn't matter if you've played the game or not. :) If you can just give it a quick copyedit, catch spelling and grammar mistakes, instances where sentences don't flow well, etc., would be helpful! --haha169 (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, sounds good. I'll look through Golden Sun, The Lost Age, Dark Dawn and Golden Sun (series) for grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors, etc. Manfred (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your help! Much appreciated! --haha169 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I have the Golden Sun series page fully grammatically analysed by both a grammar checker and my own linguistics nerd eyes. I'll get to editing the other pages soon enough. (Side Note: Listening to the track 'Lying Coldly' from the Miles Edgeworth Investigations games really helps you with your productivity). Manfred (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
        • @Haha169: Aaaaaand all of the articles' grammatical analysations should be all done now. They weren't very in-depth checks but they got the job done... There were a lot of errors in spelling 'instalment'. Manfred (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
          • @Manfred von Karma: "instalment" vice "installment" is a WP:ENGVAR. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I really didn't know that. I'm Australian and we speak British English here. That's my bad. Manfred (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Updating the Nintendo eShop page

Hi all, I've recently been working on a new version of the Nintendo eShop article - I've mainly wanted to improve the important parts of the article and remove anything that might not be considered particularly useful, such as the list of available content, which is discussed and included in much of the page anyway. I'm at a little bit of an impasse with the draft at the moment - not sure how to further improve it or if there's anything I've missed out - and it would be great if you could take a look at Draft:Nintendo eShop and share your thoughts as to what could be done with it in the future. Thanks! Jack talk 19:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/Archive 13/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Video games.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Video games, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fire Emblem GT nomination

The Fire Emblem good topic nomination is languishing due to lack of consensus. If you have the time to review the topic nomination and leave some comments, I would appreciate it! --haha169 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Xenoblade series article

A while ago, I attempted to create a page focusing on the Xenoblade series, but it was closed due to it not having enough games to be considered as a series. The members at the time also agreed that it was unnecessary because it was part of the Xeno meta series. Now that we're getting a third Xenoblade game (not including the 3DS port), I feel that the Xenoblade series has more than enough content to justify an article for the series apart from the Xeno (series) article. Even the Xenosaga trilogy has its own article, so I see no reason to not start a page. What are your thoughts? --MomoQca (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• If you can create a draft for it and it's more than just a few paragraphs long with proper sourcing, I say go for it. Otherwise, it's fine remaining in the Xeno series article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't feel like much has really changed since the last time you proposed it - there's still only 2 games actually out. It doesn't seem necessary when we've already got an overarching Xeno (series) article, and the individual game articles. You should probably propose this at the main WT:VG page though - there's way more participants there than here, and that's where the last one was held (or at least where input was requested from last time.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Marvelous: Another Treasure Island

I restored the article after it had been turned into a redirect. The most substantial English sources I can find is a 4 page overview in Nintendo Power. That should be used to expand the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for lead image change for Nintendo Switch-exclusive games

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Hey there! I have a proposal I want to bring to WikiProject video games, but I want to run it with you guys first. I'm paging all memebers of this task force using {{Hidden ping}}. I want to propose that the lead image for articles on Nintendo Switch exclusive games be the digital artwork (or icons) used on both the Nintendo eShop and the Nintendo Switch home screen. Here are my arguments:

• The artworks would be recognisable to literally every single person who owns a copy of a particular game regardless of format; physical owners would see the same artwork on their home screen as digital owners will. The icon for Xenoblade Chronicles 2 carries the exact same information as its physical box art, but with a more convenient crop, for example (Digital, Physical). This is also true for Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, Super Mario Party, Super Mario Odyssey, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, Mario Tennis Aces, and Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. Games such as Kirby Star Allies use the key art elements in a different manner between the two artworks, but still have the same elements nonetheless (Digital, Physical). Games such as Splatoon 2 have completely different artworks, though still are able to convey that it is a colourful shooter with a cartoon art style (Digital, Physical).

• If artwork for a physical release is more appropriate to use in order to provide a better visual association for the topic, the digital icon can easily be swapped out for the physical artwork, as would obviously be the case for Octopath Traveller (Digital, Physical).

• The more comfortable cropping would also help cut down on the vertical height of images to a more comfortable square ratio, so that {{Infobox video game}} is now less likely overlap thumbnail images or any kind of special formatting, such as a wikitable, used in an Nintendo Switch game article's first few sections. For a majority of the examples listed in my first point, no information would be lost in exchange for more space for the article itself to breathe, which is an obvious win-win that we should take, in my opinion.

• We wouldn't have to "photoshop" and/or crop images to try to best represent box art when no clean key art exists publicly, which is what I and other users such as Arkhandar have been doing for articles such as Kirby Star Allies, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, and Yoshi's Crafted World. The Switch's digital artworks have no labels and can be uploaded in its original 1:1, label-less, unedited form without having to be edited to imitate anything, so no conflicts have to be made over how to crop an image and where to put key art elements either.

So, what do you guys think? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, thanks for pinging me! You made a very strong case and personally, I like it very much. As a perfectionist myself, I like to see everything as standardized as possible, and this seems like an ideal solution. And not just for Switch games. IIRC, PS4 and Xbox One also use these "macro" icons, so we could extend that rule to those platforms as well. However, after thinking about it for a bit, I can see some serious problems with this approach. You said that "the artworks would be recognisable to literally every single person who owns a copy of a particular game". However, there's a problem right there. Most of the times, these icons are not used at all for marketing purposes, and as such, they would only be recognizable to people who actually own the game, and not the general public (which is what we should be aiming for). To make matters worse, the icons are not even used in the Nintendo eShop, opting instead for a 16:9 artwork piece. So, as is, for Switch games, I think that the packaging artwork for physical games is still the way to go. For digital exclusive games though, maybe the icons are ideal. Nevertheless, thanks for your suggestion and asking for my input! ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I love the amount of thought into this and your reasonings, but I agree in @Arkhandar:'s comment that the retail version would likely be more widely recognized. If this ever isn't the case or things change in the future, your observations about the digital artwork/icons should be kept in mind! Thanks for bringing this up. --Bchill53 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar and Bchill53: Okay then, maybe perhaps it’d be better to broker on a page-to-page basis, rather than attempting to introduce a default standard like I tried to, to weigh if a game’s digital artwork is better as a lead image than its box art? As I had cited above, there are certain cases where both the physical and digital artworks share the exact same information, with the 1:1 digital crops being better for an article’s Infobox. So, for those games at least, I think it’d make sense to change them. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I can't speak for everyone, but with that said, if you wanted to change the images that are the same digitally/physically, then I won't come to you with any pitchforks. The examples that you stated such as Octopath Traveller and Splatoon 2 are not ones that should likely be changed, but your reasons for the others are justified enough that I think you'd have support. --Bchill53 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bchill53: Alrighty! I'll be setting out to change the identical physical artworks to their digital counterparts with a lil' bit of boldness! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)