Template talk:Nintendo franchises

"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 (talk • contributions) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 (talk • contributions) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

See my comment above; how are either appropriate? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Are you saying #3 is too strict or too loose of a criteria? Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, forgot about this. It's been removed now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoblade is First Party

[edit]

Nintendo completely owns Monolithsoft, and thus, they are a first party developer.

Despite its title, Xenoblade is completely unrelated to the rest of the Xeno- franchise, and was only named so to honor one of the creators. I don't know why Xenoblade is listed under the second- and third-party section, but that is false.

Likewise, Baten Kaitos should be under the second- and third-party section, and not first-party, since only Origins was published by Nintendo, and only in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.88.107 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-franchises

[edit]

Should we split up a few of the ones listed in "other" and move them above? Pokemon, for example, can be split into a few general topics: Main Series (X & Y, Black & White, etc), Mystery Dungeon, and Spin-Offs, and they're different enough that they could be listed as separate ones, in a way similar to Mario and Donkey Kong.

Also, how is it decided what specific games to include and which ones not to? I hardly think that Four Swords and Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland are the two most notable Zelda games. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon

[edit]

Why was Pokémon moved to "First party"? It's a second party franchise created and developed by Game Freak. Nepse (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (and I'm not certain, nor do I have any reliable sources to back me up, so take this as you will) that Nintendo technically owns the rights to Pokemon, even though it's developed by Game Freak. Various forum threads and the like across the web don't agree as to whether it's first- or second-party, and I can't find any actual articles about it. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon is owned by The Pokémon Company, which, according to their official Japanese site, was established through "joint investment by the three businesses holding the copyright on Pokémon: Nintendo Co., Ltd., Creatures Inc., and GAME FREAK inc.". While it is somewhat vague, we atleast know that Nintendo does not own a majority (which is why you also see Pokémon games on non-Ninetndo hardware like PC and iOS). So no, Nintendo does not "own" Pokémon it is definitely not first party. Besides, as far as I know the definition of a first party game is a game that is made by a company exclusively for their own platform (though please correct me if I'm wrong), Game Freak is an independent company. Nepse (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I'll change it then. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

[edit]

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

  • {{Nintendo franchises|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
  • {{Nintendo franchises|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.


Baten Kaitos?

[edit]

Are we sure this is a Nintendo franchise? I mean, Nintendo now owns Monolith Soft entirely, but this franchise was trademarked by Namco long before Nintendo bought the company. NP Chilla (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears exclusively on Nintendo platforms, it would still meet the criteria of being a second/third party franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta

[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't The Wonderful 101 be included under the second- and third-party section? It was developed by Platinum, but was funded entirely by Nintendo and the IP itself is owned by Nintendo. Other non-series games in this boat like Odama and Endless Ocean are included in the category.

Speaking of Platinum, would Bayonetta be considered a second/third-party Nintendo franchise at this point? I'm pretty sure Platinum themselves own the character, while SEGA owns the first game and Nintendo owns the second (with Nintendo funding development for it and publishing both it and a Wii U port of the first). It's definitely much less concrete than W101's situation, but the section already includes several tenuous links (Tetris, Dragon Quest, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.154.186 (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W101 - No, because the template documents series, and there's only one game. Bayonetta, I suppose could be argued to be meeting the criteria though. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamtaro isn't owned by Nintendo, but by Shogakugan

[edit]

Shogakugan and Riverdeep published and developed the Hamtaro games, plus there was a Hamtaro game on the PC and iPhone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuruuseiyo (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Nintendo did make games for Hamtaro, but should this series be considered a part of this template, when for instance Hamtaro was created as an ongoing manga and an anime.Uuruuseiyo (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection for 2nd-party franchises?

[edit]

I noticed Golden Sun was placed at the end of the template before I made my edit. Is it because Golden Sun (made by Camelot) is a 2nd party series? If that's the case, should there be a section for Nintendo's 2nd party games such as Custom Robo (made by Noise), Kirby (made by HAL Laboratories), and Pokemon (made by Game Freak)? Uuruuseiyo (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look through the page history. There was a 2nd/3rd part up until days ago. I'm torn- the trimming was pretty heavy handed, but then again, some of it was definitely necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, second-party is a fan-made idea. Nintendo owns Golden Sun, so it is a first-party game made by a third-party developer. No different from Mario Tennis. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Age

[edit]

It keeps being removed, and I don't understand why. It's made by Nintendo. It's a series - there's many iterations of it. It has been a multi-million selling series, so it's not like its obscure. What is the rationale? Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first time I removed it, I thought Brain Age wasn't important to list on the template, and the more recent edit I removed it again and added in Touch! Generations because Brain Age is a part of that franchise. In other words, I didn't think Brain Age was that noteworthy to be on the template for reasons being that if you're going to add it, at least add other series like it by Nintendo such as Art Academy, Big Brain Academy, and Personal Trainer or don't add it at all. Uuruuseiyo (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, up until very recently, a number of those were included. New Age Retro Hippie recently cut it down in a rather heavy-handed fashion, so maybe direct your questions towards him, though I can say that you haven't presented a valid reason to remove Brain Age - there's no reason to have a "all or nothing" type mentality. I believe he cut a number of entries because they didn't actually have a series/franchise type article. Brain Age does have one of these. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss it, I'm all ears! What do you take issue with? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My only specific problem was the removal of Brain Age, and that was done by the other user, not you. You may want to document/explain your approach though, or it'll probably just bloat back out again, and I personally wouldn't understand how to maintain it. Editors have a tendency to bloat out the template like crazy with just about every game Nintendo was ever published. While some are objectively wrong (ie Splatoon is a single, upcoming game, not yet a series/franchise) there's so many others that fall into more of a gray area. I've given up on efforts to clean it up in the past, because everyone's got a different opinion on it. You've gotten it down to a more manageable size, but it may help to maintain it if we define some inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could add a notice at the top of the template for people who are planning on editing it to make sure that any articles added must be a series/franchise article? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defining franchises

[edit]

I don't think we should be including "franchises" that do not have a dedicated article on the series. That should be a safe bar to set (though even better would be only including series that have been cited as such in secondary sources). – czar 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I really think we need to establish something at the WikiProject level or something. An established editor or two operate off of that mindset, but there's really no instructions or guidelines that inform newbies, and it leads to non-stop tinkering with the template. I keep an eye on the template, and remove overtly incorrect ones (Splatoon) but honestly I get burned out trying to enforce anything else with no point of reference to point to... Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Heaven

[edit]

isn't it unneccesary to state 'Rhythm Tengoku'? why not have Rhythm Heaven just be 'Rhythm Heaven'? Spinnny (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing because the first game in the series was Rhythm Tengoku. The fact that it wasn't released in English doesn't change that. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light, the first Fire Emblem game, was never released in English and Fire Emblem isn't down in this template as 'Fire Emblem/Fire Emuburemu'. 'Tengoku' literally translates to 'Heaven', stating "Rhythm Heaven/Rhythm Tengoku" because of a first release not being overseas (something that happens with quite a few franchises) just sticks out and seems incredibly unnecessary. --Spinnny (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have the series name be displayed as Rhythm Heaven on the template as well, even if the first game wasn't localized outside of Japan (because if you're going by that statement, Pokemon should be labelled as Pocket Monsters since America and Europe's version of Red and Blue is based off the Japanese Blue version, we never got the original Red and Green version, and a similar example would be that wouldn't the entire Mario series would be named Donkey Kong because Mario first appeared in Donkey Kong the game), all the other games in the series have Rhythm Heaven (Rhythm Paradise in PAL regions) in the title, even the series template has it labelled as Rhythm Heaven.

Uuruuseiyo (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

[edit]

Can someone add Yo-kai Watch under the Nintendo franchises template, or is that not considered an official Nintendo owned franchise?


2601:2C5:C301:8F7B:6C32:C34D:ECFA:C36 (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the game's currently appear on Nintendo consoles, but it is not Nintendo owned. It is a Level-5 (company) franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Color TV Game

[edit]

Would Color TV Game count as an entry? I know it's a series of dedicated consoles, but we also have Game & Watch in there as well. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure either should be on there. We really ought to create some inclusion criteria, so we can stop these endless cycles of bloating and trimming these templates... Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Fighters

[edit]

I think Fossil Fighters deserves a spot on this, seeing how there's now 3 games in the series. TurtleLover99Wikipedia (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't know if this would count as a "source", per se, but... It has 3 installments, the first 2 games were developed by Nintendo SPD, and all 3 games were published by Nintendo. Not to mention that the 3rd game got a Trophy in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS. Isn't that enough to warrant a spot on the list? TurtleLover99Wikipedia (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several questions

[edit]

I've got a few questions that I would like answered before I poke around with the template:

-Should we be able to add HAL Laboratory franchises, such as the Eggerland series? They seem to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo, and Kirby seems to be part of this list too, which they created.

-I don't really think Game & Watch should be part of the list, since that seems to be just a series of handheld LCD games, not really a "franchise" per say, but more of just some sort of brand name.

-This could just be me, but I feel as if the "co-owned" section is unnessecary. I think Fatal Frame should just be moved directly to the Koei Tecmo template while Cruisi'n could be put somewhere else. Having that section seems a bit too complicated, and I think Nintendo simply published a few entries in both series and doesn't exactly "own" them (although correct me if I'm wrong).

Any feedback would be very appreciative. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Pokémon technically belong in the "co-owned" category?

[edit]

From what I've been told multiple times, Pokémon (And The Pokémon Company, as well) is co-owned by three companies: Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures inc. Should that be enough to include it there? TurtleLover99Wikipedia (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the opening paragraph at Pokemon, which is consistent with how I've always understood it. (It's managed by multiple companies, but Nintendo is the sole actual owner.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. I just thought Nintendo only had, like, 30% of the share (Especially since the Pokémon amiibo weren't allowed compatibility in some games like Yoshi's Woolly World or Chibi-Robo: Zip Lash). TurtleLover99Wikipedia (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've heard similar things when people discussing revenue coming in for things like Pokemon Go. But I think there's a difference between where the money goes/who does work on things, and who has the hard actual ownership of it all. (I don't think Amiibo compatibility is going to be a convincing on a Wikipedia level though - that sort of reasoning is going to violate Wikipedia's policy on original research. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name change, template change, or new page.

[edit]

So I had a discussion with someone about an edit I made, and after discussing, it made me realize that calling this "Nintendo FRANCHISES" is a bit of a stretch. Some of these listed (Which I'll admit I added some myself, but only because certain similar series were listed) shouldn't really classify as "franchises". Some of these, such as Touch! Generations or bit Generations/Art Style, are more brand names than actual franchises. Plus, the list is PRETTY bloated.

Despite this, I still feel there is a place for these lesser known series.

So my ideas are:

1. Change the template name to something that would make a little more sense.
2. Bring back the "First-party" and "Second and third party" template groups. If not, atleast create different template groups that would organize the game series or brands a little more neatly.
Or 3. Make a "List of Nintendo franchises and brands" page. I know there's a "List of Nintendo products" page, but that's more of a list of everything Nintendo produced and/or published rather than a "List of IPs" page.

Hope this helps. TurtleLover99Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about making a page for Nintendo franchises (as seen here), as I already made a whole page for Bandai Namco franchises, but I later scrapped the idea. To address your other two points:
1. I don't see what you mean by this. The template is called "Nintendo franchises", I don't see how you could be more specific on that.
2. This doesn't seem like a good idea, at least to me. This template has enough sections already, so adding onto that would make the template more complex and bloated further.

Other than that, I agree this template needs to be trimmed somehow, but I don't really know what to do... admittedly much of this is my fault as I added an enormous amount of entries, further expanding the template. I have tried cleaning up some of it, but it will need a lot more work. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What belongs on here?

[edit]

There has been a dispute over what content should be included on this template, and so I would like to form a consensus on what is appropriate.

A decently large number of items on this template are individual video game articles rather than series articles, and thus it feels like their inclusion is treating this template as a list of series rather than as a way to nagivate to articles about Nintendo series. Thus, I think that any articles that are not about the series of games itself should be removed from the template. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These templates should not list "notable Nintendo franchises" or "Nintendo franchises that have a series page". It should list all of them, regardless if they have a direct series page or not - something like BoxBoy doesn't have a series page yet it has four entries, so it definitely counts, where as something like ARMS only has one game and is not a franchise. Although I like the idea of cutting these things down, this cuts down on the list too much, as something like Splatoon is a notable Nintendo IP - not having it there would both seem strange and would cause a bunch of other editors to keep adding it in. I've made the same arguments at the Sega template countless times beforehand, so at this point I feel as if I just keep repeating myself. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a navigational page. It is meant to navigate people to articles, not to serve as a list of Nintendo franchises. An actual list can suffice for that. By the standards you employ, we should list the following:
  1. Fluidity
  2. Magnetica
  3. Big Brain Academy
  4. Fatal Frame
  5. Sin & Punishment
  6. Hotel Dusk: Room 215
  7. Endless Ocean
  8. Itoi Shigesato no Bass Tsuri No. 1
  9. Picross
  10. Battle Clash
  11. StarTropics
  12. Balloon Fight
  13. R.O.B.
  14. Adventures of Lolo
  15. Mach Rider
  16. Color TV-Game
  17. Yakuman
  18. Trade & Battle: Card Hero
  19. Magical Vacation
  20. bit Generations
  21. Jam with the Band
  22. Clubhouse Games
  23. Personal Trainer
  24. Glory of Heracles
  25. Crosswords DS
  26. Tomodachi Life
  27. Find Mii

And probably a few more that I am missing. To be clear, would you agree that this is bloating the template? If so, what limitations would you propose to prevent all of these from being added? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even trying to accomplish with this is my question, considering that most of those are standalone games or are vaguely related to each other but are not direct sequels - some of them aren't even by Nintendo, like Fatal Frame. Stuff like Wild Gunman and Pinball are not even close to being franchises, so I can't think of any reason why you would even list those here. Ports are not sequels, remakes are not sequels - nearly all of these are either one-off games or have gotten a somewhat-related title later on - only ones here I could consider being franchises are StarTropics, Sin & Punishment and Battle Clash. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fatal Frame is currently a Nintendo/Koei-Tecmo IP, Wild Gunman and Pinball have multiple incarnations. But if you would like me to trim it down, I shall. As far as your contention that only StarTropics, Sin & Punishment, and Battle Clash count? That's patently untrue.
  1. Find Mii - Two entries
  2. Tomodachi Life - Two entries
  3. Crosswords DS - Two entries
  4. Glory of Heracles - Six entries
  5. Personal Trainer - Two entries
  6. Jam with the Band - Three entries
  7. bit Generations Seven entries
  8. Trade & Battle: Card Hero - Two entries
  9. Yakuman - Two entries
  10. Color TV-Game - Five entries
  11. Mach Rider - One game plus a toy from 1973 called Mach Rider
  12. Adventures of Lolo - Three entries
  13. R.O.B. - Two entries
  14. Itoi Shigesato no Bass Tsuri No. 1 - Two entries
  15. Fluidity - Two entries
  16. Magnetica - Two entries
  17. Big Brain Academy - Two entries
  18. Fatal Frame - Two entries under Nintendo
  19. Hotel Dusk: Room 215 - Two entries
  20. Endless Ocean - Two entries
  21. Balloon Fight - Three entries
  22. Picross - 18 entries

I mean, come on. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Gunman is not a franchise. Pinball is not a franchise. R.O.B is not a franchise (they're two games that are unrelated except for the fact you use the robot with both of them). Toys do not count as franchise entries like you put on Mach Rider. Fatal Frame is Koei Tecmo, Adventures of Lolo/Eggerland is HAL Laboratory. Color TV Game is a series of consoles, not video games - same with Game & Watch (not listed, but same deal). Hotel Dusk is not a franchise,.Bass Tsuri is not a franchise. Yakuman is not a franchise. Find Mii is not a franchise (it's a minigame, for crying out loud, in another game). Glory of Heracles is Paon. None of Nintendo's Yakuman or Picross or Crosswords games are related to each other - neither one of them lists these in the articles. Bit Generations is already listed in the template. I guess the rest could count though? But from the amount of one-off games, it doesn't seem like you understand what a franchise/series even is - when did Wild Gunman get a sequel? Am I missing something here? Namcokid47 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very silly.

  1. Crosswords on DS and 3DS are explicitly related.
  2. Picross 3D and Picross 3D Round 2. Mario's Picross and Mario's Super Picross. The Picross-e series.
  3. Robot series is an official thing.
  4. Find Mii is not a "mini-game in another game," it's something you buy in what is essentially a storefront. StreetPass Mii Plaze is not a game.
  5. Entirely untrue about Yakuman, the Nintendo DS entry describes it as a follow-up.
  6. Hotel Dusk is, indeed, a franchise. Last Window: The Secret of Cape West is directly connected.

Like, a lot of what you said was explicitly untrue. If you don't know, that's like, super okay, but don't act like you do. It isn't beneficial to anyone. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You also argue against Fatal Frame for being Koei-Tecmo, ignoring me pointing out that it is co-owned by Nintendo. Do you plan to remove Pokemon from the template as well? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Article does indeed say they're related.
  2. The Mario Picross games would just be part of the Mario series then, not part of another series.
  3. Please show me a reliable source for where both of these games are actually called the "Robot Series". Wikia isn't reliable. See WP:VG/S for a list of reliable sources and which ones are unreliable.
  4. Yakuman DS page says it is a successor, not a sequel. Successor games are not direct sequels like you seem to imply.
  5. Article does indeed say they're related.

And wow, I was wrong about something. What a shocker. Sarcasm aside, I could go on and on about this entire ordeal, but I won't. I've got other projects here to finish (and ones I would rather be doing), so this will (maybe?) be my final reply here. If this thing bothers you that much, consider taking this to Wikiproject Video Games if you already haven't done so, or try making a list article to house all of them in, like "List of Nintendo video game franchises" or anything along the lines of that. Good luck with this discussion. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Why did you ignore the multiple other Picross series that aren't Mario's Picross?
  2. Gyromite and Stack-Up's Wikipedia articles feature cover art referring to them as being in the Robot Series.
  3. What is a successor versus a sequel, exactly? Is Final Fantasy VIII a direct sequel to VII? If not, does that mean that Final Fantasy isn't a series? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That doesn't matter. The original Super Mario Bros had the "Action Series" label on the box art, yet its listed as "Mario" and not "Action Series".
  2. This one really confuses me. FF VIII not being a direct sequel doesn't mean FF isn't a franchise since you have practically every other Final Fantasy video game alongside it. You've got me stumped here. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Robot Series is the classification of games that use R.O.B., much in the same way that Touch! Generations is the classification of casual-friendly (or intended to be casual-friendly) games).
  2. Final Fantasy II is not a direct sequel to I, III not to II, IV not to III, V not to IV, VI not to V, VII not to VI, VIII not to VII, IX not to VIII, X not to IX, etc. Whether a game is a direct sequel to another or not is not the determining factor of whether the two form a series. Final Fantasy was a series before Final Fantasy X-2 existed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the (reliable) source for the Robot series though? Namcokid47 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
High level, I agree that the template's purpose is navigation between Nintendo franchise pages, and thus should only list "franchise/series" pages. Save a list of all franchises for List of Nintendo franchises. TarkusABtalk 23:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is bloat, then as a random peanut gallery comment, separate the "Other" section into two: "Active" and "Inactive" franchises. Franchises that haven't received a new game on the past two platforms (3DS & Switch) go to "inactive". Don't count mobile games, cameos in Smash Bros., etc. Maybe count upcoming games if they are sufficiently well-sourced to have an article and have an official future release year. SnowFire (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approaches like this generally don’t work well with templates like this. There’s no room for context or prose, so they need to be intuitive and easily understood. Setting up arbitrary, otherwise unknown standards for common words like “active” or “inactive” is pretty much the opposite of that. It’d be a maintenance nightmare. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it seems like the template is already maintenance trouble. The advantage of my suggested approach is that there isn't as much of a pressing need to trim marginal properties; throw them all in the second category (whatever it's called) with less quibbling. SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. That just creates more work for all of us to do. Just labeling stuff as "inactive" or "active" is both vague and would seem to be WP:OR more than anything. Plus it wouldn't help trim the template down if others start adding more stuff to it later on, it would simply move them around and not remove them from the template itself. So it just creates another issue to deal with in the meantime. Namcokid47 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim to only series with series articles per NARH. The navbox's title is "Nintendo franchises". The purpose of navboxes is to aid navigation. Readers who use this navbox to navigate expect to reach series pages, not the page for the first game in the series. If you feel strongly that a series demands inclusion on this navbox, then it may be warranted to create the series page yourself and see if your conviction is supported by consensus. Haphazardly peppering this navbox with first-games-in-series is detrimental to navigation. The eventuality that there will be "too many" long-running Nintendo franchises to fit comfortably in the navbox in the future is a future problem that will demand a future solution from future editors. Aid navigation for the present reader, not a hypothetical future one. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NARH/series article only inclusion - per comments above, would be the best way to manage the omnipresent bloat problem. It also parallels the ideas within WP:NAV and WP:WTAF. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NARH and other comments - At this point I'm sick of people bloating these things out of proportions, so I vote in favor of this change. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonetta is not a Nintendo IP

[edit]

The intelectual project itself belongs to Sega. Nintendo is licensing the title for games. Saying Bayonetta is part of Nintendo is the same as saying the Alien franchise is part of Sega just because they released a series of Alien games, but in fact Alien belongs to Disney and Sega just licensed for games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rud-Johns (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don’t recall where we draw the line in these sorts of things, but it’s not quite as cut and dry as you say. It’s pretty well documented that after the initial title, Nintendo has stepped in and provided funding and performed publishing duties. Even Platinum has stated that 2 onward would not exist with Nintendo’s intervention. The template isn’t “Nintendo intellectual properties” either. That said, I’m not sure listing it is consistent with how we handle other similar games, so it could still be removed on those grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

[edit]

Add all known Nintendo franchises 2600:6C44:77F:FF91:45DF:8239:BE19:C34C (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The template is only for franchises with series articles, as indicated at the top of the page. Tollens (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Nintendo_franchises&oldid=1247107059"