Non-nintendo Independent wikis | SONIC DOESN'T APPLY

[KidIcarus]

So Kirby is the only pureblood?

I wouldn't exactly call it a pureblood because it is a second-party game. But yeah, it comes as close as a non-Nintendo developed franchise can.

[TurtwigA]

Actually HAL is a first party developer, not second, because it is a subsidiary of Nintendo. Second party is when Nintendo agrees with them to publish their games, and third party is pretty self-explanatory from there.

[KidIcarus]

HAL Laboratory isn't a subsidiary of Nintendo. It is an independent company.

[Axiomist]

The current president of Nintendo is from HAL. So... that means something. And I can't think of a HAL title on any other modern system.

[tacopill]

it's a second-party developer

So says IGN.

[TurtwigA]

HAL Laboratory isn't a subsidiary of Nintendo. It is an independent company.

That must mean that Wikipedia has lied to me yet again!

[Metechar]

Anyone think that a Bomberman Wiki is possible? It's made by Hudson, which is a company who works with Nintendo on the Mario Party series. I don't have much knowledge myself of Bomberman, and I have forgotten if it was exclusive on Nintendo consoles. I only remember Bomberman 64. Is it still acceptable? Just asking.

[Tucayo]

I don't know if it would be acceptable, I guess it would. It isn't Nintendo-only, BTW. And a concern I have, would there be enough stuff to cover?

[KidIcarus]

HAL Laboratory isn't a subsidiary of Nintendo. It is an independent company.

That must mean that Wikipedia has lied to me yet again!

Yeah, usually Wikipedia is a great source, but the HAL Laboratory article contradicts itself. The infobox says it is a subsidiary of Nintendo, and the navigation box says it is a second-party developer.

[tacopill]

HAL Laboratory isn't a subsidiary of Nintendo. It is an independent company.

That must mean that Wikipedia has lied to me yet again!

Yeah, usually Wikipedia is a great source, but the HAL Laboratory article contradicts itself. The infobox says it is a subsidiary of Nintendo, and the navigation box says it is a second-party developer.

considering it is wikipedia. Any of us can go in and correct it.


Also, a secondary development doesn't have to be  have to be independent company, nor does it have to be a Subsidiary. Although, being independent is rare for a second party developer to be.

What is important:

1) first party is developed inside Nintendo itself.
2) Second party is developed by an outside studio, even if the studio is owned by Nintendo.
3) third party is entirely independent. Nintendo may licence the game, but they don't own the company. They may have a minor stock share, though.

[KidIcarus]

I would, so long as it is as the brand or franchise is recognized as a Nintendo brand or franchise.

I agree with that statement, and I think most of us do. The only problem is determining what is and what isn't a "recognized Nintendo brand/franchise". People's opinions seem to be all over the spectrum. I think a lot of us are looking for a basic formula that sums everything up, and I'm not sure such a formula exists. If anyone can think of one that everyone agrees on though, that would be more than great.

Also: Check out this post

I would just like to note that there are Pokémon games on non-Nintendo consoles. See this Bulbapedia template. There are 6 for PC, 2 for mobile phone, then there is even one for Sega Pico.

Minor anomalies like this are why it is next to impossible to create an absolute set of policies for admission into NIWA. We can make guidelines (and I very much support making guidelines), but in the end, everything will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Earlier, I said that coming up with a formula for inclusion would be next-to-impossible because nearly every series has some random anomaly. I think I have found a pretty good way to make a black-and-white guideline though. I call my suggestion the 90/75 Rule - I just give it that name because it is easy to modify as one sees fit. Basically, for a series to qualify, 90% of its commercial software (this includes non-game software such as Mario Paint; it does not include non-commercial software such as demos) must be available on Nintendo consoles, and 75% of its commercial software must be exclusive to Nintendo consoles.

The reason this formula works is because it leaves room for minor anomalies without having to define what those anomalies may be. It allows series such as Ace Attorney and Trauma Center into the alliance while preventing a flood of wikis on Call of Duty, Madden, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Rock Band, Street Fighter, etc. All of these franchises have consistently appeared on Nintendo consoles, but few people would argue that they are Nintendo franchises. Again, the numbers could always be changed. It would also be up to NIWA whether or not they mark PC/iPhone ports against the Nintendo-exclusivity requirement.

These are only my suggestions, and the most important requirement would remain independence. I would love to hear some thoughts.

[tacopill]

I would, so long as it is as the brand or franchise is recognized as a Nintendo brand or franchise.

I agree with that statement, and I think most of us do. The only problem is determining what is and what isn't a "recognized Nintendo brand/franchise". People's opinions seem to be all over the spectrum. I think a lot of us are looking for a basic formula that sums everything up, and I'm not sure such a formula exists. If anyone can think of one that everyone agrees on though, that would be more than great.

Also: Check out this post

I would just like to note that there are Pokémon games on non-Nintendo consoles. See this Bulbapedia template. There are 6 for PC, 2 for mobile phone, then there is even one for Sega Pico.

Minor anomalies like this are why it is next to impossible to create an absolute set of policies for admission into NIWA. We can make guidelines (and I very much support making guidelines), but in the end, everything will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Earlier, I said that coming up with a formula for inclusion would be next-to-impossible because nearly every series has some random anomaly. I think I have found a pretty good way to make a black-and-white guideline though. I call my suggestion the 90/75 Rule - I just give it that name because it is easy to modify as one sees fit. Basically, for a series to qualify, 90% of its commercial software (this includes non-game software such as Mario Paint; it does not include non-commercial software such as demos) must be available on Nintendo consoles, and 75% of its commercial software must be exclusive to Nintendo consoles.

The reason this formula works is because it leaves room for minor anomalies without having to define what those anomalies may be. It allows series such as Ace Attorney and Trauma Center into the alliance while preventing a flood of wikis on Call of Duty, Madden, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Rock Band, Street Fighter, etc. All of these franchises have consistently appeared on Nintendo consoles, but few people would argue that they are Nintendo franchises. Again, the numbers could always be changed. It would also be up to NIWA whether or not they mark PC/iPhone ports against the Nintendo-exclusivity requirement.

These are only my suggestions, and the most important requirement would remain independence. I would love to hear some thoughts.

I think this will work well. It defines a guide number, but has a built-in exception support.

Good job! 

[KidIcarus]

Thanks! There are a couple flaws, though, now that I think about it. For example, one non-Nintendo game can mess up the percentages for a franchise with nine or less games.

Under the 75/90 Rule, I think Mega Man would qualify. Basically, an historically Nintendo franchise would qualify despite the fact that  they support every console equally in recent times. Yeah, you could raise the numbers, but you would have to raise them pretty high considering how many Mega Man titles Capcom has released for the NES, SNES, Game Boy, and Nintendo DS.  Maybe an additional requirement that at least one title has been developed, published, or distributed by Nintendo could solve this problem... or maybe it's not a problem at all.

NIWA's decision on a franchise like Mega Man will really say a lot about what direction NIWA is going in. It basically answers whether NIWA will be like the United Nations or the European Union - not everyone will understand the comparison, but those who do will realize the big fork in the road.

[Moydow]

It basically answers whether NIWA will be like the United Nations or the European Union (not everyone will understand the comparison, but those who do will realize the big fork in the road).

From the viewpoint of one living in a member state of the European Union, I don't agree with NIWA following either one.

• If NIWA follows the path of the United Nations, it will remain a peaceful garden of wikis with self-autonomy, but will incorporate possibly a larger number of wikis than some may want.
• If NIWA follows the European Union, it will include only wikis with a relatively strong Nintendo connection, but those wikis will gradually lose autonomy to NIWA as time passes.

I'm thinking, take only the inclusion policy of the EU, with the "full self-control" of the UN, and I think this is probably the idea you originally had when you compared the two.

[Maxite]

A 90/75 rule could have some unforeseen consequences. For one, smaller franchises would take a heavy hit if one of their games (or spinoff games) went onto another console. Secondly, it would leave certain franchises stranded without any decent IWA (unless we get random IWAs forming that have no themes).

I think the rule of best fit should apply: Are there other (possible) IWAs that franchise could fit in? If the answer is no, and the franchise is mostly based on Nintendo systems, then they would join NIWA. If the answer is yes, and the franchise best fits with NIWA, then it goes with NIWA, otherwise it goes the other IWA.

[tacopill]

I think the rule of best fit should apply: Are there other (possible) IWAs that franchise could fit in? If the answer is no, and the franchise is mostly based on Nintendo systems, then they would join NIWA. If the answer is yes, and the franchise best fits with NIWA, then it goes with NIWA, otherwise it goes the other IWA.

Currently, there are no other IWA's out there to begin with. So, you'd be stuck thinking of a wiki joining Hypothetical other iwa's, vs. joining us.

Now, i'm not saying that we would kick out a wiki we feel has better options out there; instead i think it would be up to the wiki. Should they join, then a better IWA comes along, will they:

1) Stay with NIWA
2) Leave NIWA for the other IWA
3) Stay with NIWA and Join the other IWA.

Personally, i like option #3; but that may make things more complex than other people out there may want.

[Xizor]

I like this discussion, but one thing I must say is that there is far too much metaphorical comparison. We should not try to emulate the UN or the EU or anything else. We should be what we are and nothing more.

I have to get going in a few minutes, but I encourage this discussion to keep going, sans political minutia.

[tacopill]

I like this discussion, but one thing I must say is that there is far too much metaphorical comparison. We should not try to emulate the UN or the EU or anything else. We should be what we are and nothing more.

I have to get going in a few minutes, but I encourage this discussion to keep going, sans political minutia.

Then what are we? 

[TurtwigA]

I like this discussion, but one thing I must say is that there is far too much metaphorical comparison. We should not try to emulate the UN or the EU or anything else. We should be what we are and nothing more.

I have to get going in a few minutes, but I encourage this discussion to keep going, sans political minutia.

Then what are we? 

A garden of independent wikis, brought together by being independent, aiming to bring wikis to their freedom by giving them independency! And helping them grow a bit by letting them join a garden that the wiki fits in.

[tacopill]

I like this discussion, but one thing I must say is that there is far too much metaphorical comparison. We should not try to emulate the UN or the EU or anything else. We should be what we are and nothing more.

I have to get going in a few minutes, but I encourage this discussion to keep going, sans political minutia.

Then what are we? 

A garden of independent wikis, brought together by being independent, aiming to bring wikis to their freedom by giving them independency! And helping them grow a bit by letting them join a garden that the wiki fits in.

A-Ha! you just used a metaphor!