User talk:Toa 95

What Happened?

Did I bring back this wiki? All I did is create an account and then it came back! ShyGuy8 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello and Thank you for all your work on this wiki. I am curious, are you presently staff on other wikis? if so, which ones? Tacopill (Talk) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions please

Hey, when you get a chance, could you give me your opinions on this template? Tacopill (Talk) 00:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting idea, though the sections that aren't games need some work (it isn't really obvious how some things are related to Nintendo in 2007).

-Toa 95 (talk)

Alright, how does that look? Tacopill (Talk) 00:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely better. So I guess Yoshiyuki Oyama was hired in 2007? That seems to be the only option I can think of...

-Toa 95 (talk)

He's listed as "Design Director" for Wii Fit, but I guess that isn't notable enough for listing in something like this. Feel free to add, remove, change, etc. to it, on that or anything else. Next I am thinking of doing 2005, and work my way down this category from highest member count to lowest. Tacopill (Talk) 01:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If we did that then people like Miyamoto should be listed on all of them.

And I guess that works, though there will obviously be more games released on Nintendo's stuff in each year then what we currently have articles for.

-Toa 95 (talk)

You do have a point there. And yea, all wikis are always work-in-progress. :). Tacopill (Talk) 01:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I more meant for years gone by rather than years to come; there were obviously more games released for the NES in 1985 than four (the NES had 18 titles at launch. In fact, perhaps that could be listed in the console template: number of games at launch?).

Also, after seeing that there are articles for both versions of The Simpsons Game, should we really go that in-depth as to cover individual versions of a game? It's one thing to cover Smash for 3DS and Smash for Wii U individually since they have been considered as being individual games, and even that's debatable at best, but for something like this that's less dubious do we really need it?

-Toa 95 (talk)

We could include in the template (are we talking about the infobox or navbox?).

We actually have pages that cover if something like this gets one or two pages, please see Release management and General rules#Coverage & Scope. If neither of them help, then my questions are: is there enough content to warrant two pages? are they largely the same game, with some minor, mostly hardware, differences? etc.

Tacopill (Talk) 22:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the infobox. I admit "console template" isn't exactly specific.

And policy is exactly what I'm getting at. Do we absolutely need to cover both versions of a game when the purpose of this wiki (from what I can gather) is just to provide a general overview? The pages you linked to really didn't help me, and there don't appear to be too many differences from what is put on the articles right now that warrant two separate pages.

And for third party games in general, I have to ask: is it really absolutely necessary that we cover literally every game officially released on a Nintendo console?

-Toa 95 (talk)

Ok, I added it to the Console Infobox.

If there aren't much of a difference between them, then merge the two, with the sections & templates aligning as needed.

Not everyone. We were just shooting for specific ones, like ones related to an affiliate, a best seller, player's choice, and/or one a editor requested.

Tacopill (Talk) 23:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is that editors can request literally anything, so "specific" once again becomes "literally everything".

-Toa 95 (talk)

That is true. I don't have the power to institute a wiki-wide policy, but if you want to bring it up here and see what other people think, I can see if I can get other people involved in the conversation.

Tacopill (Talk) 22:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure organizing the template by "eras" is the best idea for organization. I feel like there should be individual sections for teams, and the founder and presidents could get their own I suppose, but that doesn't solve everything.

As for the coverage thing, I'll try and bring something up on the main coverage thread, since that seems like the most appropriate place to put it (and no need to make a new thread when there's already a perfectly serviceable one).

EDIT: Really, though, this about sums up my thoughts: that the extent of game coverage should be anything that Nintendo's published. Though that still leaves a few gray areas.

-Toa 95 (talk)

As I said, it was just an idea. You could also make a lists of people in a specific poisition, like Presidents, COOs, CIOs, CEOs, various Heads of Depts., Founders, etc.

Yea, there's always going to be grey areas. And I can agree to that rule, it is the same as being part of NIWA: Nintendo published it at least once, in at least one region. Like Mega Man II for the Original GB, published in North America by Nintendo in 1991.

Tacopill (Talk) 00:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, there's also the CD-i stuff. Under this idea it would have to go since Nintendo had nothing to do with it outside of originally licensing their characters out to Philips, though I could see some arguing for it to stay because of what it is to Nintendo (or at least something like that, I guess. I don't really know...).

-Toa 95 (talk)