Talk:Intelligent Systems/Archives/2016

Article split

I'm proposing that the List of games developed section should be split off into its own article. There are enough titles made by the company that can keep such page notable. While the section itself does not have any references in it, obtaining them will not be a difficult task. The plan is to make it like List of Square video games or something along the lines of it. GamerPro64 15:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The idea crossed my mind when I published the revamped list and saw how large it was. I'd be happy to draw up a concept similar to the Square Enix list in the sandbox. As far as references are concerned, many - if not all - of the games should be listed as Intelligent Systems projects on at least one of the official Nintendo websites, so that would be no problem. My only concern would be that this page would be very short post-split, and I think it might be an idea to remove my request for the article's assessment until it is further expanded upon. Jack talk 16:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, removing it from the requests section may be a good idea since it looks stalled at the moment. Also, I can assist with the creation of the new list if you want. GamerPro64 16:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - I've still got the tables in my sandbox so I'll try working with them first, I'll update when I've worked a draft out as I'd be more than happy for you and others to take a look and make suggestions or changes. Jack talk 16:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've done a very basic first draft of a table. I haven't added or removed any information at this point; that can wait until there's a more concrete idea of what the final table should consist of. (Dates will be made sortable in the final table.) Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. Jack talk 17:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That draft seems great, but I'm still pondering if it justifies an article split. Wouldn't it be more practical to have everything in one place? I mean, if we do go by this draft (and I think we should) and publish it in Intelligent Systems, that would trim a lot of space, which wouldn't make it really that big to justify a split.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the draft only has five platforms in it so far, since I only included that many to form a basic example of its structure. The final table might not be much shorter than what's already on the Intelligent Systems page. We might have a better idea of that if all platforms were included in the draft table, so I'll work on getting that done tomorrow; that should give a better idea of how long or short it'll be. Jack talk 18:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The list needs some serious evaluation. Some of these games have smaller programming contributions (ports from FCD to NES for example, or FC to FCD). The NES, FC, and FCD were technically ported to each other, so you have to be careful what version you are saying Intelligent Systems was involved with. 2604:2000:B840:F100:E8FF:5731:1423:E834 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@2604:2000:B840:F100:E8FF:5731:1423:E834: Arkhandar considered companies supplying typefaces to Nintendo to be a 50/50 co-developer, so it's not surprising. You know which games only had small time input from IS? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)