Talk:Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development

Full breakdown on teams

Resolved

 – Needs to be reliably sourced to be added to the article. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 19:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we got a lead on what divisions make what:

EPD Production Group No. 1 Arms (2017) Mario Kart 8 (2014) Mario Kart 7 (2011) Nintendogs + Cats (2011) Nintendo DSi Sound (2008) Mario Kart Wii (2008) Mario Kart DS (2005) Nintendogs (2005)

EPD Production Group No. 2 Splatoon 2 (2017) Animal Crossing: New Leaf - Welcome Amiibo (2016) Splatoon (2015) Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer (2015) Wii Sports Club (2013) Animal Crossing: New Leaf (2012) Nintendo Land (2012) WaraWara Plaza (2012) Wii Sports Resort (2009) Wii Music (2008) Animal Crossing: City Folk (2008)

EPD Production Group No. 3 The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017) The Legend of Zelda: TriForce Heroes (2015) The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (2013) The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD (2013) The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (2011)

EPD Production Group No. 4 Super Mario Maker (2015) Pikmin 3 (2013) New Super Luigi U (2013) New Super Mario Bros. U (2012) New Super Mario Bros. 2 (2012) New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2009) New Play Control! Pikmin 2 (2009) New Play Control! Pikmin (2008) Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree (2007) New Super Mario Bros. (2006) Big Brain Academy (2005)

EPD Production Group No. 5 Tank Troopers (2016) Star Fox Guard (2016) Star Fox Zero (2016) Steel Diver: Sub Wars (2014) Wii Fit U (2013) Steel Diver (2011) Wii Fit Plus (2009) Wii Fit (2007)

EPD Production Group No. 6 1-2 Switch (2017) Miitopia (2016) Nintendo Badge Arcade (2014) Rusty's Real Deal Baseball (2013)

EPD Production Group No. 7 Miitomo (2016) Rhythm Heaven Megamix (2015)

EPD Smart Device Production Group Super Mario Run (2016) Miitomo (2016)

As you can see, there hasn't been that many changes from EAD. The Mario Kart team is making ARMS. 2602:306:C47E:DB60:D1FF:DDDE:9625:3F72 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Needs reliable sources to support. We don't add original research to articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• This is 100% unofficial and not how Nintendo themselves brand themselves. Besides, I see games on this list that had nothing to do with Nintendo. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• "games on this list that had nothing to do with Nintendo" - They are all Nintendo game. Developed and published (2 out of 2), not sure what you are implying. But the list isn't accurate. So far KR Database has a few of them figured out. But there is much more research to go. JapanGames (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)'
  • I meant by EAD/EPD. Badge Arcade and Megamix's credits clearly show that it was developed by SPD. And again, these "group numbers" have always been unofficial and made up by the Nintendo fan community, so unless you can find an internal Nintendo document that proves they are arranged this way, it doesn't belong. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

    Over half a decade later and we still no concrete proof for all of these groups. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Game List

Let's please keep the game list clean on this one. No need to list the 5 composers or any staff on each game, with the exception of maybe the group manager / production group (Aonuma / Konno / etc). The more detailed info can be for the individual game pages. Clean list with game name, platform, and release date. That's it! Like the other normal wiki pages. NOAWiki (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, just list the director/producers for the games, as they are the most important. But will there still be "Group 2" and such, or have they be restructured as well? I don't think Nintendo ever actually stated which group a game was developed by (just if it was the Kyoto or Tokyo branch), so maybe we'll just list any new game in a single list? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It will be the old EAD groups (Konno, Nogami, Aonuma, Kimura, Sugiyama) and (Shimizu, Hayashida) under supervision of Eguchi/Koizumi/Takahashi. Of course they also added the development side of SPD groups, so we can expect to see probably the Rhythm Heaven, WarioWare, Brain Age, and Tomodachi Collection staff form 2-3 groups to the fold. At least all the main internal staff will be easier to track now. NOAWiki (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So, will the SPD groups become "Group 6 and 7"? Also, for unreleased games such as Zelda Wii U, do we still consider EAD to be the developer, even though the game wasn't released before the corporate restructure? This would effect the EAD article page, the game's page, and this article, if we decide that's the best way to go about it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say anything after 9/16/15 is EPD. Looking at the credits, EAD/SPD have been sharing resources on games the last few years from all the Zeldas, Animal Crossing, Wii Sports Club to Super Mario Maker. As far as the groups.. I actually don't think they are using Tokyo in the name anymore (as judging from Koizumi's new title). Probably just a Group 1-10 system regardless if Kyoto or Tokyo. We will see how many teams they get out of SPD, Tomodachi Collection team, Rhythm Tengoku, WarioWare from Sakamoto were separate teams under him. Then you have Kawamoto's Brain Age / Rusty's Real Deal Baseball team. And other random internal groups that were making small games and apps. I also think the Animal Crossing team might split from Nogami. But we will have to see. We have no idea how the external SPD production groups fit into this.. do they go to Business Division? Or sub-department in EPD for external production. NOAWiki (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well for now, I've made EPD the developer for Tri Force Heroes, Zelda Wii U, Star Fox Zero, and Amiibo Festival articles. Should these also be removed from the EAD game's list, or is it fine to keep them? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I say keep them, but just mark them with asterisk maybe? NOAWiki (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the director(s) and producer(s) are significant enough to be listed here, but I think it may make more sense for the director column to come before the producer column for the same reason the director is listed first in the video game infobox. Of course, that would be inconsistent with the Nintendo EAD and SPD articles... Thoughts? —zziccardi (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to list it that way as well, but would require the EAD and SPD articles to also be listed that way (which I can do). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should try to reach consensus for those articles first, seeing as their tables have been organized with the producer column first for some time. —zziccardi (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, that's probably unnecessary. I just went through a bunch of the divisions listed in the navbox—there doesn't seem to be any consistency regarding column ordering. —zziccardi (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should do away with the "co-developed" stuff on the EPD page. No other game list does it if you look around other wikipedia developer pages (for example Platinum Games wikipedia doesn't bother mentioning all the Hexadrive and Beetribe co-developments throughout their games). We can leave the other developers involved at best in the individual game pages. Also why don't we do collapsible "producer" and "director" so only the lead person is mentioned at first glance while the rest are viewable upon collapsing the name? I mean EPD may have 2-3 "senior" producers on every game but we know the real producer is the Group Manager (Konno, Aonuma, etc) NOAWiki (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We also need to add that 4th wing; Development Administration & Support Division from Keizo Kato (old EAD producer). This looks like an important development wing that either handles outsourced games - or and - manages the temps / freelancers / contracted assistants that fill out the production teams on first party games. Lastly, should we add a section in the developers where Namco-Bandai and Gung-Ho are mentioned because of Nintendo owning small stakes in them. Not sure what you would classify them under, but I think that's interesting. NOAWiki (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a notes field listing major co-developers, but if consensus says it could be removed, I'm fine with that. As for listing more that one producer/director, again, I don't see anything wrong with it. "Senior/General/Executive Producers" aren't supposed to be mentioned in the infobox for the articles, so they shouldn't be listed here either (just the normal producer, which is normally one or two guys.) As for Development Administration & Support Division, that seems like it would bloat the article, and become what the SPD article did. We should only list games actually developed by EPD, and keep any special group separate. And what you say (mentioning Bandai Namco) kinda goes against what you said about listed co-developers, or am I wrong? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Namco-Bandai and Gung-Ho mention was for that "Nintendo Development Teams" breakdown infobox at the bottom that accompanies most Nintendo developer pages. Not the actual EPD page. As for the co-development, I dislike it because it's not consistent with other developer pages, and because it always makes it seem like 50/50 or that Nintendo didn't do any internal work. If we made a notes section it would be better like "Star Fox Zero was prototyped internally, then assisted by Platinum etc". Every game has a different story and almost every game has multiple external agencies in the production cycle nowadays. The producer / director collapsible suggestion was because it would keep everything in single line format unless you wanted to click on the name and see the other senior / sub producers. Many wikipedians do this on the developer infobox where all the small assistant companies show up after you click the collapsible link. We have to keep in mind that this game list is going to be very long with all the additional production groups now. We need an even cleaner and concise format. I'm still excited! NOAWiki (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no reason to remove the notes, nor any additional directors or producers. I'd also be against introducing unnecessary collapsibility. As an aside, I think the {{efn}} template would be preferable here, as spelling out "codeveloped" in the superscript takes up extra space (and lowercase letters are more distinguishable from ordinary citation footnotes). —zziccardi (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is unless we boil the list down to "lead director" or "lead producer", or collapsible, there are definitely going to be games with 3 producers, 2 senior producers, and a general producer. What do we do play favoritism then? Because the list will definitely get distorted. Back to co-developments, my vote is still no, but if i get outvoted, then let's at least find a cleaner way to do it then. Again, this is going to be a LONG list and we don't want what happened back at the old EAD page lol. NOAWiki (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to list senior or general producers, just the main three (in that example). Also, saying "Star Fox Zero was prototyped internally, then assisted by Platinum etc" is way worse than just having a note that they helped in development, stuff like that is meant for the game's article itself. And it's going to take a few years for the games list to become big anyway, EAD's was still respectable after 12 years and 7 groups, wasn't it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well let's hope that the external production groups don't fall under EPD as well, that would be a nightmare. I still think multiple producers and directors are too bloated for this page, and also just service to extremist Nintendo fans (like ourselves lol) rather than what is normally on a Wikipedia developer page. Again standardization is important, and this method seems a bit outlandish. Or maybe we can do a cleaner format on this page, and a linkable "All Games Developed by EPD" page. I guess we will continue discussing that. NOAWiki (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should only list the games EPD themselves directly developed for, and I don't see how listing 1-3 guys for each game will bloat this article any. (if anything, it's the genre that could be removed) Go look at SPD for what we're trying to prevent here (all the unneeded "supervising only" roles makes that article twice as big as it should be, even if it's technically correct.) If we have to list the external production groups, I say we just make that a collapsible list under the games NPD actually developed, but only when the time comes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree we should do away with the "co-developed" tags mainly since the SPD division, which formerly primarily worked with outside developers by only managing staffs, design direction, art, etc., has now been merged with EAD. This means that listing a game that the new EPD has only managed/supervised its development and not list its co-developer would potentially mislead readers into thinking that EPD has been the main developer of said game. However, I don't agree that we should list all small developers, like the ones you listed, only the major ones.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 09:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

We actually don't know if the external production SPD groups were merged into EPD or the other two divisions (BUS or ASD). There is clear evidence that the internal SPD development groups were collaborating with EAD the last 2 years so it coincides with this merger. There could be a separate list for EPD Internal Groups and EPD External Groups if that scenario were the case. Eitherway. I think it would be best to have a more concise list of the Production Groups and the franchises they handle here, and a more thorough list on a separate page titled "All Games Developed / Produced by EPD". NOAWiki (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a good example of how the SEGA page handles the development studios on the managers. It would absolutely work with the EPD Groups. It's concise in that we list the Group Label, the Manager/Producer, and the games they've produced. Listing things like director and producer, especially when we start including co- and subs gets messy and is quite frankly just too much. Not too mention we also won't always know the director and producer, and the fine details of the games. We should do that format on an "All Games Developed by EPD" if you want to go overboard on the details. But for the main EPD page, it should be a more concise structure. But look at how it's done on the SEGA page for example. I mean geez, we know that Aonuma is going to be a producer on all the Zelda games, and that Konno is going to be a producer on all the Mario Kart games because it's specific groups that always handle the IP.

I reverted Arkhandar's edit adding all the production groups because for one, are we even sure this is how Nintendo has structured it? Are there any internal reports we can use as a source, because this seems like original research otherwise. And two, there are only nine games currently listed, so there is really no reason to add 10 different groups, with half of them being empty, bloating the page for no real reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We kind of have a good idea at Kyoto Report about most of the production groups - but it's all unofficial. There are undoubtedly some new production groups and leads we will slowly learn about. We still don't know how they will divide or combine the more external production groups from the internal production groups. NOAWiki (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well since it's not official, we shouldn't be listing them on Wikipedia that way. Not to mention, I really did not see the point in having more groups than games, at least in this point in time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted that in support of your move. Not disagreeing at all. By the way, we are missing the 4th major section in the Nintendo divisions box "Development Administration & Support Division". I'm actually wondering if DAS will now handle the completely external first-party published games. NOAWiki (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Takahashi is listed as a supervisor of the division, but is anything else known about it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Takahashi is supervising the Business Development Division (Yusuke Beppu) and the Development Administration & Support Division (Keizo Kato). I guess it's just a short transitional thing before Beppu and Kato fully take control. Iwata actually did the same thing to Takahashi at the SPD Division, only for much longer. Both BUS and DAS are mysterious at the moment, but the fact that Takahashi is temporarily supervising, leads me to believe they will do some of the things EAD/SPD used to do outside of internal game development. NOAWiki (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Studio list

Department	Members From	Headed By	Titles
WOW Entertainment	Sega AM1 R&D	Rikiya Nakagawa	The House of the Dead 2 (1999) Zombie Revenge (1999) Dynamite Cop (1999) Brave Fire Fighters (1999) Airline Pilots (1999) Sega Strike Fighter (2000) The Typing of the Dead (2000) Sega GT (2000) Sega Marine Fishing (2000) "Vampire Night" (2000) Walk the Dog (arcade game) (2001) Lupin the 3rd: The Shooting (2001) Wave Runner GP (2001) Virtua Golf (2001) Alien Front (2001) Wild Riders (2001) Sega GT 2002 (2002) Lupin the 3rd: The Typing (2002) The Pinball of the Dead (2002) The House of the Dead III (2003)
Sega AM2	same as before	Yu Suzuki	Shenmue (1999) Ferrari F355 Challenge (2000) Outtrigger (2000) 18 Wheeler: American Pro Trucker (2000) Shenmue II (2001) Beach Spikers (2001) Virtua Fighter 4 (2001-2004) Propeller Arena (2001) (cancelled) The King of Route 66 (2002) Virtua Cop 3 (2003) OutRun 2 (2003-2004) Virtua Quest (2004) Ghost Squad (2004)
Hitmaker	Sega AM3 R&D	Mie Kumagai	Crazy Taxi (1999) Jambo! Safari (1999) Virtua Tennis (1999) Crackin DJ (2000) Derby Owners Club (2000) (series) Confidential Mission (2001) Airtrix (2001) Cyber Troopers Virtual-On Force (2001) Crazy Taxi 2 (2001) Virtua Tennis 2 (2001) Segagaga (2001) The Maze of the Kings (2002) Club Kart (2001) World Club Champion Football (2002) (series) Virtua Athlete (2002) Crazy Taxi 3: High Roller (2002) NOAWiki (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I actually prefer the way the Nintendo game lists are set up, they tell you more information with less space (because of less games?) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Splatoon / Animal Crossing

Resolved

 – When using primary sources, games should be added based on their original and first release date. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we add Splatoon and Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer? Obviously the exact Production Group is in the EPD Division, but more importantly Splatoon DLC is being worked on as EPD, and Happy Home Designer international versions were handled by EPD.

NOAWiki (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I say no, we just go with the original release date, which both predate the formation of EPD. Only exception I could see being accepted are named expansion packs, which Nintendo doesn't do. Just them having some update/patches isn't enough to warrant their inclusion on the list. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the reference section

Resolved

 – Gameography entries should be referenced. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 19:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we retroactively find the announcement articles of the other games in the list, or is that not really needed? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's not really needed, per se, since readers can go to each game's article to find references, but it feels wrong to add anything to a page without citing a source to me. I'll probably add references for the other games, because it otherwise becomes a pain to verify information in the future. Take Nintendo EAD—when an article gets that big and nothing in its tables is cited, it's hard to find any mistakes regarding the original years of releases, directors and producers, etc. It's also much easier to find sources and add them one at a time when new information becomes available than it is to find sources a few years after the fact. (Plus, who would ever spend the time adding sources for the dozens of games in those tables years later? They'll likely go forever uncited.) —zziccardi (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

New Games Discussion

Pikmin for Nintendo 3DS, Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS, Tank Troopers, and Miitopia all announced for Nintendo 3DS. Copyrights from Nintendo hint to them being internal games. But what about something like Mario Sports Superstars? Should it be included? NOAWiki (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The only two games that should even be considered at the moment for being first party are Pikmin and Super Mario Maker. Tank Troopers, Miitopia, and Mario Sports Superstars could all easily be some other company like Nintendo Software Technology, HAL, or Camelot. We should simply just wait until official websites (or IR reports) state the developer before we add them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But Miitopia has the StreetPass: Find Mii title influence (RPG game) that was developed in-house by Kawamoto-sans team like Puzzle Swap and unlike the other DLC games. The copyrights in the Japanese direct also so far look first-party for Miitopia, Tank Troopers, Super Mario Maker 3DS, and Pikmin 3DS. But I agree, let's wait for more info. I just wanted to start the analysis. Mario Sports Superstar looks like a Wii Play Motion affair, where multiple developers contributed to the minigames, while Nintendo programmed the hub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOAWiki (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

If the trailer music is any indication for Sports Superstar, it's going to be developed by Camelot (due to Motoi Sakuraba). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Mario Sports Superstar is developed by Camelot and Namco-Bandai according to Australian Classification Board. But Animal Crossing: New Leaf - Welcome Amiibo is also being registered as a new SKU developed by Nintendo EPD. Ajcalderon13 (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the Australian Classification Board considered reliable? And what's this about New Leaf? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

They are highly accurate because the information is submitted by the region publisher. However, it doesn't tell the whole story always (sometimes only one developer is listed instead of 2-3). Yes, Animal Crossing: New Leaf - Welcome Amiibo is showing as a new SKU. "ANIMAL CROSSING: NEW LEAF - WELCOME AMIIBO". Not sure if because the DLC is an official named expansion, or if Nintendo is publishing physical copies with the expansion. Ajcalderon13 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering Nintendo has not announced it themselves, it should be considered a rumor. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Animal Crossing: New Leaf - Welcome Amiibo has now been confirmed multiple times as a standalone retail game (Nintendo.co.jp has the box art up) and / or a free update (that changes your title screen with the new name). Ajcalderon13 (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent adds after Direct

Shouldn't the list wait until the known developer is confirmed before these games like WarioWare are added? They could have been produced by 2nd party companies which isn't EPD. It's not like they gave a copyright with the developer in them like they did Smash Bros which clearly indicated HAL Laboratories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:658A:73FA:7DA9:33E1 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that we should wait until it's 100% confirmed too. And as for your HAL Labs thing, they were only credited due to the series being created by them, there is no confirmation of them directly working on the new Smash either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Given Sakurai's tweet/translation more likely than not that HAL may be more involved with this one, but since the translation is from fans, it's unknown if it's truly that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:2915:E8BF:7084:D453 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And this still remains an issue, with people adding games that haven't been released and therefore their credits can not be confirmed to include EPD personnel. Everything else is just assumptions unless a source directly states so. "Developer = Nintendo" does not automatically mean it was by EPD, and we've seen this in the past with Mario Party: Star Rush (said Nintendo at first, then changed to Nd Cube after release) and the 3DS port of Super Mario Maker (confirmed to be Nintendo Software Technology with the credits). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

An artist at Nintendo of America claimed that the port of Treasure Tracker was done by Nintendo Software Technology, not EPD. If you want to know why we should wait to add games here, this is why. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Table formatting

@Arkhandar: There are multiple issues with your recent edits, with the primary one being the table formatting style. You say its to "avoid wasting space/clutter", but then you added fixed width values that makes the table physically larger than before on some screens (with nothing new being added). On top of that, there is no reason to remove the dedicated ref columns; the MOS may not say its mandatory, but there is no valid reason to change it away from it here either. On top of this, the producers list needs to be discussed first, and the "founded in Kyoto" part is usually not given to divisions unless they were formed outside of the company's general headquarters, which is not the case here AFAIK. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I'll say this again, it's literally in WP:HEADERS that "title headers are often suitable places for reference citations (e.g., to source a specific row or column of data)". Just because other video game articles have the sort of layout you're defending, doesn't mean they're "right". For someone so worried about spacing, I see very little logic in defending creating an entire column just for references. And on the topic of spacing, although the "percentage" layout I introduce might enlarge the table in some screens, it's ideal because it maintains an importance hierarchy on smaller ones, instead of just defaulting to which ever cell has more characters. I'd also advise against further undos to avoid WP:EDITWAR. Arkhandar (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: "Often suitable places" doesn't mean they have to go there; dedicated ref columns are commonplace and go beyond just video games (just check any number of featured lists for an example). And the whole point of having auto width is to have it as small as possible, I don't see why you are against this? And since you are the one changing the established format based on nothing but a single sentence and personal preference, the edit warring starts with you. If you would like to make these changes however, then start a proper discussion at WT:VG, which would then apply to more lists than just this one if it garnered support. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I agree with you on the edit warring part, you're right. Now for the table situation, it's as simple as this. I'm guiding myself with what's on the WP:MOS; you're going by what's "commonplace". If anything, I'd advise you to start a discussion at WT:VG to standardize and formalize what's "commonplace" in video game articles. For now, however, I think we should just keep it to the MOS. Arkhandar (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: The problem is you are taking a small suggestion and basing the entire change on that. The MOS says nothing against having ref columns, and if you look at any number of featured lists, you will see that have dedicated ref columns, even in ones that they probably could be removed for space-saving reasons. I'll start the discussion however. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Yes, the MOS says nothing against having ref columns. But unless there's a valid reason to deviate from MOS (which there doesn't seem to be, besides what's commonplace or not), I see no point in deviating from the it, especially when there's a specific rule for what's in question. Thank you for starting the discussion. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 01:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: The MOS is simply suggesting it in the case that an established, dedicated column doesn't already exist. Take any further discussion about this to the WT:VG post. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing...
~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 20:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: Where exactly in MOS:DTT does it say that cell merging (in the platform column) creates unnecessary accessibility problems? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: "For more complex tables, summaries should be used to explain how the data is organised. They explain the data structure to inform navigation in a screen reader, especially to somewhat offset the accessibility problems associated with nested tables and with rowspan and colspan, if these are used despite the accessibility problems they pose." ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 23:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well it also says that is reserved for more complex tables, which I highly doubt a three column table constitutes as. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Either way, I see no reason to introduce potential accessibility problems without a good reason. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 22:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: Except it's really not? Not sure why you keep using single sentence suggestions in the MOS and arguing that it overrides established consensus. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: That's what the MOS is for... It's not something for you to nitpick and follow the things you like and ignore the things you don't. And it's hardly a consensus. User:PresN reverted a similar edit in this very page. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: But you are taking minor suggestions and using them as the basis for your whole argument. This is not a clear-cut guideline, so common sense should be used here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: And I'm using both the MOS's guidelines and common sense. In this case, it's pretty clear that this type of formatting can lead to accessibility issues, for example with text-to-speech technologies. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: But then where's the line for cell merging at all? We might as well get rid of the table if accessibility options are the primary goal here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: You're not being reasonable. If formatted in a simple and standard way, there should be no issues. And yes, accessibility is in the forefront. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Arkhandar: And I'm arguing that there should be no accessibility issues with the platforms being merged the way they were. Pinging @Izno and PresN: for more opinions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is an accessibility issue. Please revert your rowspans for the platform. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, rowspanning the platforms is both a) an accessibility issue and b) a content issue: it implies a connection between games that are otherwise unrelated. According to the table right now, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Arms, and Splatoon 2 are connected in some way, sharing a platform box, while Super Mario Odyssey is unrelated as it doesn't share the platform box, but in fact all 4 are unrelated. --PresN 03:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen it connected that way, but if it's an accessibility issue then that's fine. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Resolved Cell merging is an accessibility issue and should be used sparingly. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 20:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Please check the established consensus regarding formatting for filmography-type tables. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

But we have our own MOS:VG and no other games list follows this (unless you have started to go around changing them). And wasn't some table-related MOS example you brought up considered incorrect by Izno or something? I've been busy the last few weeks and can't remember exactly what it was, but I don't remember seeing consensus for the way you are trying to format it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Where in MOS:VG does it state that gameography tables have to be the way you're arguing for? And yes, Izno mentioned that the MOS was wrong regarding row header cells location, but he was wrong. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 01:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And where does it say that the way you are doing it is right too? Are you saying every member of WP:VG has been doing this incorrectly for years then? And was there another discussion about @Izno: being wrong that I missed? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: 1. It doesn't, so we default to the regular MOS; 2. Yes, they have; 3. Here. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 20:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe

Resolved

 – Wait for reliable source before adding New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 20:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@L ke: The staff credits for New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe seem to be the exact same listed for New Super Mario Bros. U (even naming Satoru Iwata as executive producer). I think it's safe to assume that it was handled by EPD, although I doubt we'll get any tertiary sources on that. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 14:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Are they 100% the same? If so, then I'd argue they are only crediting the original design team and not of any new porters. We already have a few cases where old EAD games were ported to the 3DS/Switch by NST instead, so I wouldn't just assume EPD did this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: As far as I was able to see, yes. Which is odd since they added Toadette and made other small changes. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 19:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd just hold off on them unless we can find something else that correlates to EPD doing the port themselves. 1:1 credits mean that people who have left the company since then are being credited in this port, which wouldn't make sense if they didn't work on it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Logo

2nd opinion requested

I recently added the Nintendo logo to the article's infobox as this is an article about a division of Nintendo and according to MOS:LEADIMAGE images should be added "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". According to Wikipedia:Logos#Placement, the logo's choice should be exclusive to one, and that one should be the best that identifies the article's subject. Now, ideally, Nintendo EPD would have its own unique logo, but since that isn't the case I defaulted to the "main" one. @Dissident93: reverted this change, but on the edit logs only mentioned that the Nintendo logo only belonged on theNintendo article. Given the information above, and the fact that the Nintendo logo is in the public domain, I think the logo should be included. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 16:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean that makes sense, but usually the main logo is reserved for the main company's article, not any of its divisions. But then again, I guess it doesn't really hurt anything either, so it's probably not worth arguing over. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Great! Let's wait some time to hear any further opinions though before making any changes. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that many people watch this page, so it may be worth asking at WT:VG again as it could apply to other similar studio division pages. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Production Groups at Nintendo EPD

Nintendo has 11 Production Groups at Nintendo EPD, so what about changing the page focusing on each production group? I saw someone saying that it was fan made but it was never made, it was information from people who have sources at Nintendo, which for EPD we got those news again, including documents coming from Nintendo like in the first link I used where Kyogoku Aya is said to be the current manager of Production Group Number 5, which other employees of Nintendo had their pages updated like Nogami and Aonuma with their positions as Deputy General Manager and this information that appeared on other sites came from a user from resetera that saw it on the E3 Press site.

So personally, since we know all the production groups, I think we should make it like with the pages in EAD and SPD. What do you think?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/aya-kyogoku-hisashi-nogami-eiji-aonuma-and-yoshihito-ikebata-see-big-promotions-at-nintendo.123106/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/nintendo-first-party-thread-ot3-internal-x-external-x-publishing-whats-cooking.116419/

http://kyoto-report.wikidot.com/forum/t-12083248/ncl-personnel-tracker

http://kyoto-report.wikidot.com/forum/t-2240261/epd-development-structure-research

http://kyoto-report.wikidot.com/forum/t-8233840/possible-production-groups-staff-leak

• None of these are reliable sources and they should also be removed from the EAD and SPD pages (I would have did this years ago but those pages are a mess and continue to discourage me from getting started on them due to that). Where is this official Nintendo document and why isn't it being cited instead? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting. A post from this forum was also used to try and set Nintendo's European Research and Development division (NERD) as the primary developer for Super Mario 3D All Stars a few months back. More recently, the reality's been revealed to be different by way of elaboration from NERD themselves, which stacks as an example and reason to observe reliable sourcing guidelines.Fact Scanner (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    Fact Scanner, color me surprised. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    Fact Scanner Dissident93, Nintendo just released an interview where they used "Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development Production Group No. 4 in official way again, this time in public instead of listings of E3. Isn't it time to reconsider this? Here's the source: https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/2021/ask-the-developer-vol-1-game-builder-garage/ Boyohboy231 ^(talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    Boyohboy231, no because it would still be WP:OR unless you can source each game to an individual group. However this is still nice to know that the game was in fact done by EPD and not another one of their divisions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Co-developer sourcing concern

Has anyone else noticed the slew of unsourced developer credits regarding more recent titles that involve EPD? I first noticed it through 3D-All Stars with regard to the role of Nintendo's European Research & Development (NERD) division in development, but it's become evident that the matter extends to multiple recent games including Ring Fit Adventure, Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training for the Nintendo Switch, Pikmin 3 Deluxe, and even the upcoming Miitopia port. Some of these don't have evident reliable sources to work off of, but then there are cases where the development information does exist and can be sourced but is wholly disregarded.

As the lowest-common denominator catch all, I figured that this might be the most appropriate talk page to put forward the concern instead of asking about it independently for each case. I'll look into the best way to add what's relevant and available in a while, but I thought that it might be worth asking about the matter and making it apparent to the ends of preventing the likelihood of future instances going unnoticed.

Thanks. Fact Scanner (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact Scanner, the entire "production" table should be removed. What editors are basically doing is crediting EPD there if Nintendo (as the whole company) simply helped in some minor way on the game, which is going to be the majority of Nintendo-published games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's another issue to be sure, Dissident93. In this case, leaving that fundamental issue aside, even the secondary developers are either simply mentioned without citation despite it existing (indies 0 having a role in the development of Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training for the Nintendo Switch), being provided with explicit roles despite the lack of reference, or even being credited despite the information not existing in publicly accessible terms or credibly cited (NERD with 3D All Stars up until late February of this year).

Taken together, it's a wholesale mess where sourcing is concerned. The issue is prevalent here on the EPD page with insufficient references when they are provided for development and the "Produced" table in its entirety as you've already noted, but it also unfortunately webs out to being the case with many of the games that are listed as well. I feel like this whole thing needs to be dug into proper so that this doesn't stay on-going or result in further crack-slipping. Thanks for taking the time and further elaborating, Dissident93. I'll try to sort some things out where the individual games are concerned once a particular site's server issues are resolved and I can archive and reference the relevant info. Fact Scanner (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact Scanner, I've gone ahead and removed the "production" table per my earlier comments. I'm pretty sure the user(s) who originally added it are the ones that keep claiming they are a part of the "EPD Production Groups" yet for years have failed to provide a single, reliable source proving their existence. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The scrutiny and steps you've taken with the table and other smaller unsourced/falsely sourced details is very much appreciated, Dissident93! Thank you. I'll see about doing a pass of the page myself in the future. Hopefully, this lack of concern for proper citation by the user(s) can be resolved for the sake of future and present Nintendo pages. Fact Scanner (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact Scanner, it's really only a matter of time before more people from Kyoto Report come with their EPD production group claims and add tons of games back to the list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The ones doing this really shouldn't feel that they're somehow exempt from even the most basic standards of sourcing, Dissident93. Kyoto Report pretty apparently doesn't fit the bill as a reliable source, and they aren't even citing that. It'd be nice if we could bring these issues to more prominent editors/administrators of the project to try and establish effective push-back. I made mention of the issue on the Nintendo project talk page and the video game project afterwards by way of a suggestion from another user. Not much traction, unfortunately. We'll see about what can be managed without getting into revert wars with wordless editors. Very frustrating to see it happening. Fact Scanner (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Production table removal discussion

Relevant editors: Boyohboy231 | Dissident93 | Mistermanguy

Hello, Boyohboy231.

You've recently reverted Dissident93's removal of the produced table, which he justified by noting that the list was both a blanket collection of games published by Nintendo without any suitable references that explicitly establish them as being produced by EPD to begin with. Despite an exceptionally long span of time since the table's introduction, this has not changed, and citations have not been provided. You undid this change, saying "Nintendo EPD is involved on literally every single game published and funded by Nintendo with their production groups" and attempting to justify it by regarding their generalized role and listing production group designations that aren't and weren't a part of the article to begin with.

None of these statements of yours are cited reliably or otherwise in the page, and the closest to an attempt to do so lies in a section above on this very talk page using a source that is not reliable in terms of WP:RS.

For the table to reasonably stay included in the page, every title must be sourced as being produced by EPD - which is a stretch, as even the developed titles listed in the other table aren't correctly sourced and EPD itself is not even explicitly featured in the credits of these games, let alone external secondary sources. Alternatively, your statement of EPD's involvement as the producer of all titles published or funded by Nintendo should be included in the article, elaborated on thoroughly, and reliably sourced as per guidelines. If this can not be done, there are no grounds for the table to stay in the article.

This is far from the only major issue with this page, but it is an important one that should be decisively resolved. If you believe the table should be included, please provide resolutions to these fundamental concerns and establish consensus here in the talk page so a clear and satisfactory conclusion may be reached. Fact Scanner (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Almost like clockwork with the production group claims again huh? I've been waiting for years for somebody to provide actual citations linked back to official Nintendo sources that show that all of these groups both exist and what exact games they were responsible for. Instead, all we get are posts from groups of Nintendo fans on places like Kyoto Report and ResetEra speculating and assigning games and series based on certain producers. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, in this case at least, the relevant editor has seemingly recognized the issue, Dissident93. Any future repeats of the situation can be pinged to this section and discussed here, but it looks like the matter is resolved for now. I'll see about coming back to this article for the smaller sourcing issues after doing something for the EAD page. Smooth editing until then. Fact Scanner (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact Scanner, you would hope so, but this has been an ongoing issue for the past 5 years. At least now there are other active editors who oppose it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mistermanguy.

You've recently re-added the production table despite the established recognition of it lacking sources, claiming "We should include that games that EPD works on from outside studios as well. EPD isn't just in-house development" without substantiating it and seemingly without recognizing/making the distinction between 'produced' and 'developed'. Despite being informed of the issues and being invited to this talk page to argue the case for the table's re-inclusion, you added the table once more without discussing the matter, re-iterating on your stance. The table breaks WP:V guidelines on the requirement for all content necessarily being verifiable. Until the content is reliably sourced, which it has not been since its introduction, then it can not reasonably be included in the page. Two editors have made their case for removal on basis of policy and a third has effectively relented. More elaboration can be seen above in the message to Boyohboy231. Please pursue consensus here before making further attempts to re-insert the table.

It's also of note that Nintendo assigning individuals to co-produce external projects does not equate to the entirety of EPD being attributed to said projects and does not constitute the entire division being credited as such. Definitive references must be provided to back up such a sweeping and speculative suggestion, let alone every individual entry that is listed in those terms thereafter. Fact Scanner (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)