Talk:Game Freak

I strongly support per tag. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 19:45, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Unless new information is found to help keep it as an article, I give it weak support. After all, they actually own the franchise and all its respective properties. BaconMaster 19:48, 13 February 2016 (EST)

100% oppose, they are co-owners of playable characters and are credited as such all over official Smash media. Miles (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2016 (EST)

PlatinumGames co-owns Bayonetta (proven by the fact that she's in basically all of their games) and are credited as such in the only Smash media they are in. Also, uh, you basically just said what is on the tag except ignoring the part that PG is not getting a page for the same reason. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 19:53, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Didn't we just go over this? PG developed Bayonetta, they don't co-own as far as I know. Serpent King 19:55, 13 February 2016 (EST)

As far as I can tell (given this is an amateur understanding of copyrights with information on Google), PG's "ownership" of Bayonetta is no different than GF's "ownership" of Pikachu. They developed it and it is their intellectual property, but Sega/Nintendo has all control over it.

I'm not saying PG owns Bayonetta, I'm saying they have as much ownership of her as Game Freak has over Pikachu and other Pokemon. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 19:59, 13 February 2016 (EST)

You're not correct, Nutty. A quick glance here or at the copyrights on the SSB4 title screen will tell you as much. Miles (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2016 (EST)

...interesting. (returns to google)

Still, I'm not convinced partial ownership of a character makes them page-worthy. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:07, 13 February 2016 (EST)

On the contrary, that's exactly why they're notable enough. Hence why, of our current company pages, Rare is the only one I'd be willing to drop. Intelligent Systems co-owns the Fire Emblem characters; Game Freak/Creatures co-own Pokemon characters; Monolith Soft co-owns Xenoblade characters, etc. We also kept Shigesato Itoi when pruning other "people" articles for the same reason, since he co-owns the Mother characters. Miles (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Full oppose for what it's worth. Serpent King 20:12, 13 February 2016 (EST)

50/50 The tag mentioned other dev companies that have questionable use on the wiki. So I have a suggestion: Instead of keeping or deleting said pages, let's merge them into a list of companies involved in games that are featured in Smash (would need a better title than that tho). Redirects can be made as well for the old articles to the new one. Most of them seem permanent stub. Think about when people were trying to add pages on swords some fighters use, so an article of a list of swords was made to compensate. In a nutshell: take the navigation template and turn it into a article. RobSir zx 20:15, 13 February 2016 (EST)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. BaconMaster 20:16, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Merging perma-stubs while keeping relevant information is always a good plan, so yeah, I'd say this is a good idea. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)

I think some of these can and should be fleshed out enough to stand alone, so I'm personally not in favor of handling this case in that fashion. Miles (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)

So, shall we expand upon all possible articles and merge the rest? BaconMaster 20:18, 13 February 2016 (EST)

I can't think of any other information that can be added that's Smash-relevant and isn't already on other pages. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:19, 13 February 2016 (EST)

If we redid the pages a la Rare's page, we could probably add more information. BaconMaster 20:22, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Rare is mostly large-looking because it's all in bullet lists, which makes for a lot of lines. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:24, 13 February 2016 (EST)

However, it still contains more information (characters, items, stages, stickers, music, etc.) If we added these sorts of sections to the other pages we may be able to lengthen each one of them at least a little bit. BaconMaster 20:26, 13 February 2016 (EST)

But that could fit just as well in a subsection on this type of list. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:34, 13 February 2016 (EST)

I am a little shaky on the merging thing. It could work (most of these articles are pretty short/stubby anyway), but I do believe that GF and MS at least should get separate pages based on general notability. Serpent King 20:38, 13 February 2016 (EST)

That's pretty flawed logic. I mean, that's kind of how we ended up with a page on Charles Martinet for awhile, because he was the most recognizable voice actor. We can't merge some pages and keep Game Freak and Monolith Soft, we either need to keep them all or merge them all. It's not like the leaks and rumors. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by cupid♥. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:51, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Alright, if a merger isn't something to fully consider, I really do believe that an article based on the navigation template would be a great investment. It could actually create a place for first, second, and third party companies being mentioned in various articles linked + redirected. It could have short summaries of larger pages like Nintendo and out right replace permanent stubs (if they aren't eventually fleshed out that is). RobSir zx 20:40, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Oppose, Game Freak owns playable characters (plus some assist/trophy only ones) and is listed on the copyright screen. Not extremely relevant, but they also worked on Yoshi (game). I find Monolith's deletion even more questionable since they worked on Brawl. Not sure about a merge. -Menshay (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Oppose, it's really dumb that thinking that since PG shouldn't get a page, the rest shouldn't get a page. It seems the cutoff, the threshold, is purely ownership. But, I think that we can live with PG having a page even though they don't have ownership, as they are the peeps who actually created Bayonetta and made both games. Now, I wonder why Rare has a page when it doesn't even have ownership over anything in Smash anymore. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 11:59, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Because past games with their content still exist and as such are relevant to the wiki, plus Diddy and some Donkey Kong Country content (owned by Nintendo but created by Rare) are still in. Sort of the same as PlatinumGames, I guess. (By the way, I'm neutral about both of those existing.) -Menshay (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Hmmm good points. I forgot that they made Diddy Kong and the DKC universe. It's a larger-scale case than Camelot making Waluigi, Tose making Starfy, etc. This is hard. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 14:06, 14 February 2016 (EST)