Template talk:Bandai Namco franchises

Banpresto games?

Would Banpresto games be fine for adding to this template? The company is owned by Bandai Namco, after all. --Namcokid47 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Namcokid47

No problem, they can be added. After all, Summon Night is already added. Just add it into the template if it qualifies as a franchise. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions about adding franchises

Hello. I'm asking some questions on what makes a franchise that can be added to this template.

• Do remakes, spin-offs, special versions or drastically altered ports count?
• Should the game be video game only, not mechanical games?
• Must the game be developed by either Namco or Bandai to qualify for this list?

I'm simply asking these questions so that everyone won't have to go back and undo edits about these in the future. Thanks! --Namcokid47 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb that dictates as to whether a publisher owns a particular franchise (therein being more than one entry) is the following.

• (1) The game is copyrighted by a company (e.g: Klonoa (C) Bandai Namco Entertainment).
• (2) The game is continuously published by a specific company, (e.g: Dark Souls is developed by FromSoftware but has always been published by Bandai Namco)
• (3) The most recent publishing rights have been provided exclusively to said company (e.g: JoJo's Bizzare Adventures, Power Rangers etc.).

Now to answer the bullet points that you've provided,

• No, ports and remakes don't count because they are alternate variations of a singular product. For example, Ducktales and DuckTales Remastered are not new entries to the DuckTales video game series. They're just alternate variations of the same game.
• Yes, this is specifically video game software. If you want to add hardware video games relating to Bandai Namco, edit the template

• No, Project X Zone 2 was solely developed by Monolith Soft (a Nintendo subsidiary), yet the publishing and ownership rights of the franchise belongs to Bandai Namco.

Hope that all helps. By the way, you don't need to be timid and apologetic with your edits. If someone feels that the edit is incorrect or necessary then they'll let you know. Edit to your hearts content (provided that the information you're editing is as objective and as correct as possible) Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• In general, the Wikipedia guideline for having a "series" was to have three full games (spinoffs count, while remakes and remasters do not). Also, who developed a game doesn't matter, if the game was published by Bandai Namco, they most likely fully own the IP rights, as is the case with series like Ni no Kuni and Dark Souls. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Conceptually, you're correct, but I don't think Ni No Kuni is a good example. Bandai Namco really just published one iterate of the series in the West. It's really a Level-5 franchise, who has developed and published most entries, but at the time at least, had no Western branch for publishing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this person be banned from editing this template?

There is some random IP address who is adding games that have almost nothing to do with Bandai Namco. I wouldn't immediately ban him, but just keep an eye on him. Namcokid47 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up buddy, I'll keep an eye on him and report him to a moderator if he ends up being troublesome. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone already blocked him for two weeks, apparently. I've seen him list MOSS as a Bandai Namco subsidiary when he doesn't have any evidence to back it up. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please ban this person.

Please ban or at least block the IP address "95.151.2.0". I've been watching this IP though the last few weeks, and he's been removing a bunch of games from the template when they are clearly owned by Bandai Namco. Not only that but he is continuously adding games that are not franchises or were never made or published by Bandai Namco or any Bandai Namco-owned subsidiary. Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your best option would be to read this particular page Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban and take things from there. Thanks for letting us know about his suspicious activity. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Strategy Wiki version of this template?

Is it alright to make a similar template for Strategy Wiki to easily access different Namco franchises? Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Most likely not. And why didn't you provide a link to it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't provide a link since I haven't made it yet; I preferred to ask permission before doing so. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • You don't mind clarifying what you mean by "Strategy Wiki", is it a type of Wikia or something directly associated with Wikipedia? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Not sure I understand then. The current format doesn't need some major change, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
      • That's alright. Now that I think about it, this template should be on Wikipedia and Wikipedia only. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: To answer your actual question, most content on Wikipedia (including templates) is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. This means that you can use the content on another wiki, but you have to attribute where you got it (i.e. Wikipedia). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I just realized this question was posted a year ago, but it still may be helpful. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mirai Ninja

I recently found out about a Namco title named Mirai Ninja, and I later read that Namco also produced a film of the game around the same time. Since Namco made both the film and the arcade game would that count as an entry to the template or not? Just my thoughts. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's a standalone product then it doesn't count regardless if other media has been produced for it. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Digimon & Gundam

Digimon was created by Bandai, it's owned by Bandai Namco. Gundam was created & owned by Sunrise which itself is owned by Bandai Namco. Neither are liscensed properties. N/A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6140:2D00:BCA9:6C6C:1CDE:2E9F (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this fact. The navigation box will be updated with this change. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lower number of entries

I've noticed that this template is starting to overflow a lot, and I'm considering to trim down the amount of franchises to only the ones that have series pages, so something like this:

This, in my opinion, would significantly lower the amount of franchises on the template, and any franchises without series page could just be moved to the List of Bandai Namco franchises page instead. What are everyone's thoughts on this? I'd be curious to know. Namcokid47 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC) I now completely disagree with my older statement. This would cause more problems than solutions, at least if you ask me. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my biggest concern about this franchise template box too. Sega and Namco produced follow-ups for quite a lot of their arcade games, so I am wondering as to whether we should re-calibrate the criterion to what's considered a "franchise", or alternatively, consider removing obscure arcade titles that have not been recently released by Bandai Namco. @Sergecross73:, @Ferret:, @Dissident93:, do you guys have anything to add to this? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess the main problem with my edit is that we would be removing a lot of notable franchises like Dig Dug, Galaxian and Xevious, unless at one point they get a series page dedicated to them. Maybe we should exclude the franchises that haven't gotten a sequel since 2015? Namcokid47 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Per my previous responses on the same thing over on the Sega franchises template, I think we should only include links to franchise/series pages and get rid of any that don't fit that. A category is better fit for listing every single game in a single location; these navboxes do not need to be all-encompassing. So I think this edit is way better than the current version, and should be applied to all similar navboxes. One question though, why specifically 2015? Because of the name change from Games to Entertainment? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking 2015 since that is the year when the company changed from Games to Entertainment, as I like to keep info like this as updated as possible. I'm happy to hear that you appreciate my edit, and, again, any franchises that still meet qualifications that don't have series pages could simply be stuck onto the List of Bandai Namco franchises page. I will also make a category to list each separate franchise as well. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Namco Museum

I've been seeing this get added here a bit often, so I'll just add a sort of notice here; Namco Museum (and really any compilation) is not a series, as they only repackage pre-existing IPs into one solitary game. Please stop adding it here, it is starting to get pretty annoying. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd still say its a series that belongs here. It has its own article and has been released in various different forms. It's a series and brand of a games compilation, the exact content shouldn't matter. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Haven't you removed those games from the template numerous times in the past? Regardless, it's really only just a package of existing properties and nothing original in it. Besides, if we were to include Namco Museum, then we would also need to include Namco Anthology, Namco Collection and Namco History in there too, which would further bloat the template. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: and @Iftekharahmed96:, what are your thoughts on this? I'm kinda curious. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

They're re-released under every platform under the sun, but it doesn't strike me as a series. Haven't they mostly been the same outside of adding or removing some titles based on platform and storage medium? Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've stated above, all these compilations are just repackages of older IPs. Besides, there is a large gap between brand names and franchises. Namcokid47 (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. I just meant, didn't they put less games on the N64 or Game Boy iteration due to cartridges or something? Not that it matters much - I just meant that I could see the argument in there being some slight deviations between releases, but they were all still pretty close to the same. It's the same as how I wouldnt put a Sonic Mega Collection or a more general Sonic Collection on the Sega series/franchise template either. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, actually looking over the article, it looks like there were a lot more releases than I thought. Guess I lost interest in it back in the N64 days and stopped paying attention. Still, not sure I'd call it a series itself if they're all just collections of pre-existing games. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Namcokid47 and Sergecross73 are correct, it's just a branded compilation series, Namco Museum in-an-of-itself is not a series. It's just a regular collection of compiled games. A series is defined as a set of related media, outside of the games being solely published by Bandai Namco and going under the Namco museum brand, the packages themselves are standalone in nature. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So a IP brand that spans nearly 20 years with numerous releases should not be considered a series/franchise? It just seems a bit odd to omit this, but something that only ever had a main game or two plus a spin off gets added. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's only a brand because it's a labelled compilation of standalone games. The content inside Namco museum goes against the definition of what is considered as a series. None of the content in Namco museum was birthed from Namco museum, they originated elsewhere. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but those still qualify because they are original properties. Something like Cyber Sled or Yokai Dochuki still qualify because they follow the guidelines for what makes a franchise, and Namco Museum doesn't. I don't really know what else there is to say about this. Namcokid47 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, in cleaning up the list of video game franchises article, I've been using the inclusion criteria of "do sources call it a franchise?" My quick search on this was mostly false positives - they didn't call it the "Namco Museum franchise", but rather things more like "Namco Museum, the collection featuring franchises like Pac-Man, etc". Which, like I've mentioned before, seems consistent though - no one seems to list Sonic Mega Collection or Super Mario All-Stars compilations as a separate franchises either, despite multiple releases on multiple platforms. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Idea for trimming down entries

This template is enormous, so here’s my idea of trying to trim it down. I’ve decided to keep the ones that are either notable (ex. Pole Position, Bosconian, Rally-X, Point Blank, etc.), the ones that have had several releases spanning several years (ex. World Stadium, Smash Court, Rolling Thunder, etc.), and of course the notable ones like Pac-Man, Klonoa and the likes. All other entries would be removed from the template, which can help remove tiny, one off entries. This is what I was able to come up with:

Obvious entries: Ace Combat, Babylonian Castle Saga, Dark Souls, Dig Dug, Dragon Ball, Galaxian, Katamari, Klonoa, One Piece, Pac-Man, Ridge Racer, Soulcalibur, Splatterhouse, Tekken, THE iDOLM@STER, Time Crisis, Xenosaga, Xevious

Long-spanning entries: Alpine Racer, Ar Tonelico, Kotoba no Puzzle: Mojipittan, Mr. Driller, Rolling Thunder, Shooting Medal, Smash Court, Winning Run, World Stadium

Notable entries: Bosconian, Cyber Sled, Final Lap, Point Blank, Pole Position, Rally-X, Sky Kid, Star Luster

I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts and concerns with this, as I hope I can make an example of a template that everyone, including myself, can agree on. I haven't sorted through every single entry, but I hope this can give a good idea of what this thing should look like. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96:, @Sergecross73: and @Dissident93:, I'm tagging you here, as I'm interested to hear your input on this. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Just deciding what is and isn't notable is more WP:OR than anything, even if you aren't wrong, which is why I still think we should only include them if they are a series article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My problem with your idea is that it cuts down on the template way too much, removing notable entries like Dig Dug and Galaxian, and I feel like this will simply lead to people making poor-quality, rushed "series" pages just to add them to this template. Not to mention the amount of users that will continue to add entries that don't have a series article to begin with. It creates way more work for us to do and seems to just create more problems for all of us. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Dark Souls

I'm starting to get iffy on Dark Souls / Souls being listed in the template, as well as List of Bandai Namco video game franchises. The franchise is developed by FromSoftware, and they also publish it in Japan. As far as I know, Bandai Namco only publishes the series in North America, similar to Ni no Kuni (which although published by BN in the US, its owned by Level-5). What does everyone else think about this? Namcokid47 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, they fully own the Dark Souls IP, and don't just act as a regional publisher. I believe the same is the case with Ni no Kuni, but I can't really confirm that in the same way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)