Talk:Wii/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Gamecube Media

Do Gamecube discs go into a drawer that opens? That draw-looking rectangle that is to the left/under the slot for Wii media? I haven't seen a slot-loading drive that can take smaller discs. Is this a special new drive or are there two drives in the Wii? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.42 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

The fact that this question has been asked before points to the need for this to be clarified in the article. The slot-loading drive does indeed take smaller discs. What is behind the flap next to the slot has not been revealed, but it is widely believed that there is at least an SD card slot there. Dancter 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Disregard that. This had been addressed in the article for some time before your comment was written. Please restrict use of the talk page to discussion related to improving the article. Dancter 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived the talk page - too long - apologies if any unfinished discussions were interupted.HappyVR 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that archiving is only supposed to take place on inactive discussion, right?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - was there a discussion that wasn't?HappyVR 08:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally its bad to archive anything less than 3 or 4 days old (since the last comment). You archived things that were posted to quite recently. This isn't a user talk page. Its extremely bad form to flush an entire talk page as it leads to just this kind of problem. I brought two things back specifically. One, because It was removed, led to an immediate reversal of a descision, the other was a VOTE/POLL IN PROGRESS regarding the page name. As asinine as the vote may be, there is no excuse for interrupting it until it has lived out its specified timeframe per the requested moves page.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I see - next time I will ask if it is ok to archive before doing it as I usually or sometimes do. My attitude has got sloppy, please accept my apologies.HappyVR 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Analog controller

There is some disagreement between spellings 'nunchuk' and 'nunchaku' etc - as Nintendo's Wii page uses the spelling 'Nunchuk' maybe the article should too.HappyVR 13:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia article on Nunchuk redirects to Nunchaku, so I would suggest sticking to Nunchaku regardless of the Nintendo page. --Elliot ^(talk) 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Since we are talking about names (the Nunchuk is the actual name of the controller, as Nintendo of America has been careful to indicate in its capitalization), I think the English variant takes precedent on an English article. Dancter 14:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's their controller, they're allowed to call it what that want. As part of an encyclopedia, this article should reflect the facts, proper normal spelling by a company or not. It's part of the same reason we don't re-title this page "We". Dannybu2001 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Nintendo Co. in Japan has called it the Nunchaku. Nintendo of America calls it the Nunchuk controller. I was just saying that since this is an English page, the NOA spelling is more appropriate. Dancter 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) My apologies. It is spelled Nunchuk on the Japanese Nintendo page as well. But in the past, Japanese Nintendo execs have referred to it as the Nunchaku. Dancter 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I recall from E3, they were calling it the "Nunchaku" in the in-game English instructions. But maybe they're going with "Nunchuk" because it'd be hard to get a copyright on "Nunchaku". I'd probably include both spellings as Nintendo appears to be using both. 72.130.21.164 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the odds would be about equal for Nintendo to get a copyright on either spelling (which is to say I don't know how possible either is). But I think that including both spellings is a good idea for now. The confusion should be cleared up soon enough, anyway. Dancter 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and to sign your posts, just add four tildes to the end. The software does all the work. ;) Dancter 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of spelling disagreements, I've noticed that the nickname of the Remote can be spelt "wii-mote" or "wiimote". Is there any evidence to suggest which of these is predominant? The Wii Remote article uses the hyphanated spelling but the Wii article uses the un-hypanated version. S.Skinner 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Searching on Google, Wii-mote gave 583,000 results and Wiimote gave 130,000. Havok (T/C/c) 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But if you look at the results, searching for "wii-mote" gives results for both the dashed and undashed versions. --Maxamegalon2000 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it is the other way around. Wiimote 583,000 and Wii-mote 130,000. Havok (T/C/c) 21:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Key Titles

So, can someone please defend the inclusion of "Key first-party titles" and "Key second-party titles" as being other than arbitrary? None of them have been released, so saying what is "key" is rather silly. It's also a few more lists, and we already have the list of Wii titles. Ladlergo 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The only people that would have a key listing of sites before they launched would be sites that were speculative, and not encyclopedic. Move to delete "Key" lists and re-include once they have sold. 72.130.21.164 19:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, even though products are not released yet does not mean that there is no hype behind them. It is not speculative with the series' conformed to come out, such as Mario, and Super Smash Bro. Where these titles not confirmed, is there not hype behind these titles, what about the new Resident Evil... these key titles are all about the hype... All key titles are, are games with ether allot of hype of did well in sales. I think even when these titles are released, with out hype, cannot be added to the list until we see the top selling games after the holiday season. I also think that Deleting them just for the sake of adding them later is foolish, especially with the hype surrounding them. --DivineShadow218 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that hype belongs in an encyclopedia. If people wish to learn about high-profile games, they can go to a gaming site, or they can look through the list of Wii games. Once again, Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, a collection of indiscriminate information, or a crystal ball. Ladlergo 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hype is what makes the title key... there are alot of good games out there tha has not gotten alight of hype. Hype for a game or a system makes them popular and that is what makes the titles key. For example, there is alot of hype surrounding the Twilight Princess, the same can be said about the Wind Waker. But if you notice that the Twillight princess is indead in the key first title list on the GCN article. My second point being is that there was no hype surround the Zelda games on CD-i and you do not see those on any key list, even though the series is popular. You show me a list of Key titles with titles that do not have any hype, Then I will stop with this argument.--DivineShadow218 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you define a key title as one that would have hype, I find no way to satisfy your request. For a list of high-hype titles all one needs to do is go to IGN, and the link is already there. There's no need for prognostication on Wikipedia, time will tell which titles were key and which weren't, and that is really all that belongs in an encyclopedia.72.130.21.164 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Any one would define key titles as titles that have hype. If software does not have hype, it does not sell well, and if it does not sell well, the console does not sell well. There is no 'High-hype list on IGN whatsoever, just a list of games. I suppose you could say that gamespot has a top 10 list of games for each system but the lists have a lack-luster quality to them b/c it depends on how many people actually have an account there and track a certain game.

An encyclopedia is a culmination of useful information, so since you proclaim that IGN has a high-hype list and Gamespot has a list, what not at least combine them and add them to the article, instead of waiting till launch day to upload the exact same list I posted before?--DivineShadow218 05:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While an encyclopedia is a collection of information, Wikipedia specifically states that it is not a collection of arbitrary information. I would suggest that a "best-sellers" list could be added to the list of Wii titles, once the system has been released for some time, but I would caution against adding it based on crystal ball type information.

Btw, I would not classify key titles as ones that have hype. There are plenty of titles that have hype, but don't sell consoles, or even sell well at all (if the game's quality is poor, for instance). For me, a key title is one that causes people to buy the system on the power of the game alone. Ladlergo 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Such as??--DivineShadow218 10:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Brain Age. In Japan it was released without making waves. -- ReyBrujo 11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

B/c it was the 4th one, and plus we can always add more to the list. The launch titles and titles around the launch are not the only games comming out for the Wii. The list might grow, shrink, whatever, but I still dong think we need to wait 6 months to add them b/c there are some games we know that will do well --DivineShadow218 14:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! was the first one. It's an educational title (reaction: Who cares?), sold only 43,000 copies the first week, yet has sold over 2,000,000 by now. No hype in Japan when it came out, but it sold systems. Ladlergo 14:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why you can add games like that, but why wait 6 months to add the list I had already created? as far as hype for Brain Age... this is from the Brain age article here on Wiki note it is talking about the release in Japan.Nintendo secured near 70,000 orders for the first shipment, an amount above most expectations. In comparison, the sequel had over 850,000 orders placed before launching. To me... it had hype. All I am asking is for us to find a common ground.--DivineShadow218 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The second one had hype. The first did not. What about games that have hype but are panned by reviewers to the point that gamers actually shun the title? See Pac Man and Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness. They had plenty of hype and a decent number of copies were sold, but I don't believe that anyone would refer to them as "key titles." I also object to the idea of using hype because it cannot be objectively measured, making it arbitrary. Ladlergo 15:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then can we atleast agree and key titles to put in a list now? Titles like The Legend of Zelda: Wii, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and possibly Duck Hunt Wii--DivineShadow218 18:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be amenable to a short section that mentions highly anticipated franchises that are known as having games in production. Something like "Many widely-known franchises have games under production for the Wii. These include X, Y and Z" where X/Y/Z can include Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Resident Evil, Soul Calibur, and other major franchise listed on the List of Wii games page. And no, I don't consider Duck Hunt an appropriate mention, since the last game was in the mid-eighties and there's no way to gauge actual interest in the product. Ladlergo 18:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "Many widely-known franchises have games under production for the Wii. These include: First, second, third party titles sub lists of games" like Mario, Zelda, Trauma Center, RE. basically games series that have been made for the Gamecube or the ds that are coming to the wii--DivineShadow218 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I need to ask: is the plan to put this in the software section, or the launch titles section? Dancter 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see it under the software section. After all, they're not launch titles. Ladlergo 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see them named rather than listed, in the interest of saving space and preventing this article from being a collection of lists. Not listing all of them would also save space. After all, if you look at the list of confirmed games, there are already quite a few franchises. Ladlergo 18:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just do want a huge paragragh of wikilinks. The reason I woul like 3 lists, one for each party, we could limit the lists to about 5 games, give or take. Just putting the major fanchises in there and not any of the new ones like Project Hammer.

How about we start working on the lists on the talk page and pare it down until we've hit the top tier? I'd rather see fewer than 5, but I understand that reducing the first and second party games down to the top few could be problematic. 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I will make a new discution for it. --DivineShadow218 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, I don't think a "key titles" section is a very good idea. The selections seem incredibly arbitrary, and the list takes up quite a bit of space with so little information. Dancter 16:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea, but I'm willing to have a small section as a compromise. If another person objects, I think it's time to take a vote. Ladlergo 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Nintendo Wii

The result of the debate was Not moved RN 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wii" vs. "Nintendo Wii" has been something of a recurring issue with this article. I archived the section to Talk:Wii/Move to Nintendo Wii and listed it in the archivebox so that others will be able to see it in the future, to help avoid this issue coming up again... hope it doesn't have to. --Stratadrake 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor note that on Nintendo's own Wii page: [1], the header actually says "Nintendo Wii". Not sure if this means anything in relation to everything else, or if it's just a programming mistake, but I thought everyone should know about it. Danny 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

I question the validity of this section. Is there anything in the manual of style about this? As far as I can tell this seems way to fancrufty and probably doesn't really need to there. I have yet to see an article that needs such a gallery. And no such console article that I have seen so far has one. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed everyday. Some people delete the gallery because it is an infraction to the Fair use policy (images should be used to showcase a certain point of the article and not only as decoration). However, others reinsert them as they provide a quick overview of the console capabilities (so that with a simple look you can determine a NES console has better graphics than an Atari 2600). My own opinion is that a small gallery may be accepted. When more than 8 images are being used (especially when the object hasn't yet been released), I tend to agree with the people who think it is just decorative. See PlayStation, Xbox, Xbox 360 and SNES in example. Note that PlayStation Portable has a very small screenshot gallery.

In those edits, it is stated that the images are under fair use in the game article but not in the console. -- ReyBrujo 04:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that fair use or not (and I do believe this is stretching fair use a bit far), its also somewhat of a vanity play that is not really needed. Perhaps since this issue is coming up on all consoles it needs a batch discussion/survey. If anyone feels its would be appropriate I will create a project page, probably through the Videogame wikiproject, and invite users from all console pages to partake in the discussion. Hopefully by handling this with appropriate consideration it will be dealt with once and forall. With a consensus community outcome it would be easy to establish a standard of style for the future. Unless anyone objects I will get around to this best case today(5-17 UTC), worse case friday(5-19 UTC). Here's one for the wiki process. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is to describe the Wii - both the inards, what it does and also what it looks like - in terms of what the thing looks like the gallery is indispensible - I can't imagine trying to describe in words any of the components of the system - with pictures people will be able to recognise a Wii when they see one - so in the absence of detailed technical drawings I would suggest the gallery needs to stay - "a picture tells a thousand words" HappyVR 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case a style precident needs to be set. I am going to get something moving on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. I will post on every Major Console talk page requesting people to come debate this issue at a central article since this is by far not the only page to have this problem. Per ReyBrujo's provided links, this is an issue that is not going to be settled until all related articles are considered.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Until a need AND a fair use qualification is established in at least one article, or a heavy enough debate arises, I am keeping a version of the would-be project page on standby in my userspace. User:Oni Ookami Alfador\Console gallery page please do not make edits to this page, I will move it to the project space if the time comes to use it. In the meantime I am removing the gallery here as no other articles have seen a fuss from there removal and I am inclined to agree with ReyBrujo's views on the issue of vanity. As I see the matter, it is also far from the established fair use policies. Those would need to be tackled before using it here is even to be considered. If this is questioned I will provide the relevant text from image use tags and so on.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

Removing the link to Wiire, again. This was already discuessed in the archived discussion, that ALL external unofficial links should be removed so that nobody would try and justify their unofficial links. I am removing Wiire again, and it should not be re-added unless discussion occurs here, first.72.130.21.164 06:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I agree for the most part that independent websites like the Wiire, that are basically just glorified fan pages, have no place on the external links (though there is exception even to this if they have notable info.) But to not only delete ones like IGN and Gamespot, but to place a warning specifically prohibiting their re-inclusion, is kind of ridiculous. IGN and Gamespot are official online media outlets with heavy dedication to gaming, not just some random folks getting together to talk about whatever. Considering that Wikipedia relies upon such outside sources for citing information, I don't see how anyone can justify excluding them from the list. Frankly, IGN has been more informative that Nintendo's own website. I will be re-adding IGN and Gamespot. See Wikipedia:External links for a number of reasons why it's okay under Wiki-policy. If you disagree with this decision or have better reasoning why they should not be included, please discuss it here before making rash, uncommented reverts. Dannybu2001 16:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in IGN and Gamespot except press releases for unreleased games (overstated - nothing new)- suggest these links would be better suited to the article 'list of Wii games'. No idea how you use WP:EL (guidelines for inclusion of external links) to justify IGN and gamespot. Which of the points in subsection 'What should be linked to' do these sites satisfy - I don't think any particularily. Also 'Links that are added to promote a site' are a no no. In what way is IGN 'official'? or gamespot 'official'. Give an example of information on IGN's website. Also I can't see why you reject 'the Wiire' as a glorified fan page either.HappyVR 17:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)HappyVR 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving everything off until it gets released. I think Danny's point about single console sites like the Wiire is that they invariably trend have a bias towards that console. Even if they don't at this point, it's quite like they're going to developone during the lifespan of the consol, and thus, sending Wiki readers there would be a disservice. I'm all for removing all links until the time comes when the console gets released, then adding the Big 2 or even better, only Metacritic, because they'll have a list of reviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.21.164 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

Leaving off IGN and Gamespot? That's rather silly if you ask me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think having only Metacritic seems the sillier idea. Metacritic just aggregates game reviews. It's focus is very narrow and specific. If we're linking to external sites, we'd better be linking to sites that can get people to console-related news. I'd think Metacritic would be nice for something like List of Wii games. Dancter 15:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is leaving off ign and gamespot silly?HappyVR 18:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)HappyVR 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest removing gamespot - reason - 'Links that are added to promote a site' (wp:el), already have links to relevant articles on gamespot. Also no further relevant info on this site.
Suggest removing IGN - reason - 'Links that are added to promote a site','Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research' (wp:el). Already have links to relevant articles on IGN. Also no further relevant info on this site.
Suggest current content of these two sites makes them possibly suitable as links for List of Wii games.HappyVR 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

IGN and Gamespot are legitimate, established online news sources for gaming, it's not 'promoting' them to simply direct people to their sites to get more info (which, is kind of the one of the main points of external links.) While we have a number of sections referenced from these sites, there is a wealth of other information not included here that may be of interest and informative to readers that wouldn't be constructive to add to the article for sizing reasons. Or, as it says at Wikipedia:External links, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." IGN and Gamespot get a lot of their info straight from Nintendo, so I don't understand the reasoning that because the Wii isn't out yet we shouldn't have these links. It is very likely that IGN and/or Gamespot will be one of the first places to find out the price/launch date after the official Nintendo site (if not before) which will translate into its addition here. Not giving readers a quick place to find the site is a disservice until all the official information is released. If anything, once the Wii is out, then we may not need IGN/Gamespot links, as speculation will (hopefully) be over and the only "new" things will be games, and that (as mentioned) would go with the Wii games list. But removing them "for now" really doesn't make any sense. Dannybu2001 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Still no info on what this crucial info they contain is. Suggest Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms eg highly influential/respected etc - it doesn't really help. Also as I have mentioned before most of the ign site (and gamespot) is concerned with games not the hardware - as a result much of the content (presently with no games actually available) is trailers, screenshots, videos of games in development - in fact advertising for games. Also part of the site requires payment. See WP:EL Links to normally avoid. Also what 'neutral and accurate material already in the article'. Could you give an example.HappyVR 22:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy is a tricky issue. In the archived discussion, some points were made that, in many cases, the "big 2" of IGN and GameSpot are no more accurate or informative than some of the smaller indie gaming news sites out there. One example that comes to mind is the news about a Duck Hunt sequel for Wii. IGN reported that it was happening, and that it was probably going to use the gun shell seen on the show floor at E3, and many of the other news outlets ran with it. It wasn't until I came across an article at N-Sider that I learned that it was a misunderstanding stemming from a controller demonstration. IGN quietly changed their article some time afterward, but issued no retraction. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people out there who still think that they're going to be able to shoot clay pigeons with that controller shell soon. As I mentioned in that archived discussion, at article at The Wiire has provided better information about the Wii Remote battery issue than either of the "legitimate" sites. So how do we determine what should be listed and what shouldn't? We can't just include every site that has a useful article. Dancter 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

to me there are 4 lagitimate sites... please tell me if you agree or dissagree. the list is: Gamespot.com, IGN.com, TheWiire.com, and Cubed3.com I will readd the wiire for now... but please discuss in here. The reason for me readding it is b/c a good number of referances in the article lead the that site, so if it shouldnt be in the external links, then why use it as a reverance.--DivineShadow218 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As stated above your post, we cannot add every site that has a useful article. Just becase it's used for one reference, it doesn't means it gets re-added. At this point the only discussion is whether or not to add Gamespot and IGN. The Wiire is out, as are all other single-console, single-company dedicated sites.72.130.21.164 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was familiar with Thewiire.com when it was Revolution Report, and I would like to see it in the external links. They seem to have enough original content to justify their inclusion. As a seperate question, why are we opposed to single-console sites? --Maxamegalon2000 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because a single console site would develop a bias towards the console it was covering. This pretty much makes is as unsuitable as possible for an encyclopedic link. I mean, would you put a link to "JackThompsonIsAJerk.com" on the Jack Thompson page? The Wiire is obviously going to be a pro-Wii site, which is essentially what we're getting by having the official Wii links up there anyway.72.130.21.164 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So no links to elephant sites on the elephant page then? What are you on about?HappyVR 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming such a bias to be obvious leads me to question whether it isn't a bias to assume that a single-console site would be biased. I assume that you've visited the site, and I don't know where you would get the idea that The Wiire is going to report inaccurately or hyperbolize. Anyway, WP:EL says that "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." If The Wiire is considered a biased news source, it certainly would count as an appropriate fansite. And as for JackThompsonIsAJerk.com, I've always been concerned that there hasn't been enough coverage of the Internet gaming community's strong dislike of him. The difference here, though, would be that The Wiire is considered an acceptable source, whereas the Jack Thompson article would not accept any "news" from such a site. --Maxamegalon2000 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jack Thompson site, I just made up. I honestly have no idea whether it exists. Anyway, I wouldn't even classify The Wiire as a "major" fansite. It doesn't show up in the first 10 pages of Google links related to Wii either as "The Wiire" or as the Revolution Report. There isn't any way for us to determine what is "major" at this point, and everyone could come in and argue that their site was just as important, and try to leverage the Wikipedia link into recognition. That's why I figure we should keep the section empty, for now.72.130.21.164 00:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The site doesn't exist; I checked. Anyway, we're only two people, and that's all I've got left to say. --Maxamegalon2000 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

72.130.21.164 it looks to me like you are the only one that doesnt aprove of TheWiire.com... So here is the deal. I will make a new section in the talk page for it to ceep it organized.--DivineShadow218 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you not counting? HappyVR wants to get rid of all sites, DannyBu2001 says remove Wiire, I say remove Wiire, and Dancter says we can't include every site that provides one useful link, which is what he described Wiire as. That's clearly the majority of people commenting here. Don't re-add it.72.130.21.164 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's seems funny to downplay a gaming site's importance by proclaiming it only really talks about video games (after all, other than every five years when the newest consoles come out, what is there to talk about?) However, IGN and Gamespot both have a number of articles about the Wii itself (mainly the new control scheme as Nintendo has been tight-lipped about the full system specs of the box itself.) I'm not going to take the time to run through every one of their articles that isn't somehow represented in this article just to satisfy the non-use of Peacock terminology to make a case (something applicable to article formatting, not article discussions by the way. These talk pages are for working out the bugs, there are few standards beyond that they be about the article at hand.) IGN and Gamespot are both well-known sites on the subject of gaming, that fact can be easily established by their mere presence on the Internet (search "Wii" on Google, when I checked, IGN's Wii page was 6th and Gamespot's was 7th, this very article was 8th) and by their mention on virtually every other gaming console page on Wikipedia (whether as sources or external links; see Xbox 360 and Nintendo GameCube among others. And I know we're not supposed to self cite via Wikipedia, but again, this is a Talk page after all not the article itself.) IGN's unique hits to their Wii pages alone were in the millions per day during E3, that should say enough. Dannybu2001 04:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No - re peacock words - so can fluff as much as you like on the talk page then? but not in the article. Why don't you try answering one of the questions you've been asked.HappyVR 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just the fact that Wii brings up the Wiki entry on the first page, and The Wiire doesn't show up in the first 10 should let you know just how non-notable the site is. If people are hitting up Wikipedia as opposed to a site dedicated to Wii content, and site with "Wii" in the name, no less, that site is miniscule. It may have fantastic conent, but are we supposed to investigate and compare each and every one of the other sites that have a higher page rank in Google to see if they have better content if and when they are added? I have nothing against the site itself, aside from the fact that it presents a boat load of problems in the near future. This very discussion multiplied by 99, for example.72.130.21.164 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck does ranking have to do with it?HappyVR 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If say, someone on the 8th page of the Google list of sites came in and said, "Hey, if Wiire is here, we should be too, we have about the same content they have, and we're larger" what would we do in that case? Wouldn't we then have to check all their claims, and then decide again who to keep and who to cut?

Have you actually read what I've been saying about the content of the sites?HappyVR 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You want to remove all non-official links, which I'm in favor of. I agree with this because if we don't we end up in the situation we're currently in, trying to debate who has just cause to be added and who doesn't.72.130.21.164 07:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove all non official sites - just all non relevant sites.HappyVR 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, HappyVR, I haven't answered all of your questions because they really don't make sense (please note though, that I did answer or respond to several of your questions and comments, such as the one about the wiki-link policies I was referring to and I pointed out that it's strange for you to poo-poo a gaming site's inclusion on on gaming console page because it "is concerned with games not the hardware", which isn't even fully accurate as they have a lot of info about the console itself.) "No - re peacock words - so so can fluff as much as you like on the talk page then?" I'm not even sure what you're trying to say/ask there. And I also really cannot believe this discussion is even taking place. Bottom-line, I, and no one else should have to jump through hoops to prove that IGN and Gamespot, two of THE most popular sites about gaming on the 'net, are notable enough for external links to their dedicated Wii pages, especially when said sites are great resources for keeping this very article up-to-date (sorry, but Nintendo's own "Revolution" page had zero updates for months until they changed the name.) This "official links only" stuff seems like nothing more than a personal crusade to somehow keep the list "pure", and it does not truly follow wiki-policy on the subject (policy states that official links are required, but it doesn't say a word about them being exclusive.) I agree that most (if not all) fan sites and the like do not belong (unless the info is notable enough per wiki-policy), but to exclude obviously legitimate gaming news sites? As another user put it, that's just silly.

(Peacock words - calling ign - 'official' and 'legitimate' - what meaning do those adjectives have? why do you need to 'sugar' the sites you are promoting?) Do you accept the reasons I gave for not including IGN and gamespot - It's about keeping this page 'encyclopedaic' which means that links should be relavent to the subject of the article. I'm not sure if you regard this page as just another gaming resource? If it was then obviously linking to both these sites would make sense. I can't find and you haven't supplied any additional information not already linked to that is relevant to this article on these two sites. This article isn't about 'gaming news' though is it. Please just accept that. (I am being honest here it's not some bee in my bonnet - on both ign and gamespot as linked to on this page I could find no further information (not on this page already) about Wii - that's why I asked you to supply some if you could.) (Excluding games)HappyVR 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly "promoting" IGN and Gamespot, I don't see how pointing out that their presence on the Internet is notable and noticable is "sugaring" anything. It seems like you have some kind of pre-determined notion about my intentions. Let me make it clear, I don't give a crap about IGN or Gamespot on a personal level! In fact, I rarely visit Gamespot regularly (I mainly visit IGN), I'm simply familiar with their work. They are sources of information about video games and video game consoles, and this is a video game console page, you can't get any more relevent than that. You stated that they really only talk about games, which is simply not accurate, well, at least up until after E3, most of their Wii articles were about known, official-from-Nintendo Wii facts, with a number of speculative articles, true, but seeing as the Wii has not been released yet, I don't see how that's a problem at this time, by that reasoning, this very article shouldn't have existed before more than a few months ago. Regardless, a video game console is all about the games, so why shouldn't we have links to places that are constantly reporting on such? We can't make people go to the games list and then got to the link, especially if they happen to no have heard about the two. IGN and Gamespot will also be sources of information for the latest Wii accessories as they're released, and will be one of the first places to find out about the Wii successor about half a decade from now (assuming they're around then.)

To satisfy your question about content: [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]] and [[6]]. These are some (not all) of the articles whose content, in whole or in part, is not present on the Wii page (as far as I could tell) nor can it be easily integrated, but may be of interest to those wanting to know more about the Wii. Such as the Microsoft comment about PS3, interesting, but could be seen as bashing Sony. And Gamespot's impressions of the Wiimote is interesting, and while the technical side of things is present in the article, the opinions are not, and adding opinions to the page can be problematic, however, people may wish to know from a third-party how good the controller really is rather than always hearing from Nintendo that it's so great. And I included the article from today on purpose to point out that readers will be missing out on a resource for fresh content about the subject at hand, the very purpose of external links.

"This article isn't about 'gaming news' though is it." True, however news about the subject at hand is beneficial as it keeps readers up-to-date while the article is being worked on, again one of the points of external links. I'm not really trying to be rude here, but you seem to have your own personal rules about external links (i.e. "no non-official links"), that don't actually jive with the real policies and/or guidlines, and you appear to be trying to lord those opinions over everyone else, rather then going through the steps to make them official guidlines for the Wii article. We have a vote going about the "non-official links" thing, and I invite you to participate. Again, I'll be satisfied with the results no matter the outcome, but we need a consensus, not your say-so (Edit: or mine.) Dannybu2001 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If there was a way to integrate all of the information they have about the Wii into this article with refs, then there wouldn't be a problem. And yes the talk page is for expanding on what cannot go into the article until issues are worked out, it's not under any kind of strict regulations as you've seemed to place on them, so we can "fluff" all we want here to decide what should and should not go into the article and mention things that do not belong for the very sake of figuring out that they don't belong. Also, if sites like the Wiire end up being "larger" than IGN and Gamespot (unlikely, but you never know) then yes, their place on the page should be re-evaluated. Dannybu2001 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the points about ign I made though - the ign site had speculative and unconfirmed original research in it's articles - this is given on the WP:EL page as one of the things to avoid when choosing external links. You used WP:EL as a guidline to use - I'm applyinh it.HappyVR 17:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And I see, HappyVR, you have taken it upon yourself to re-remove the links, citing their irrelevance to the article. Do you honestly believe that? If so, then maybe we need to take this to a vote. I don't want to get into a revert-war, and I will be satisified with any outcome. But I am not accepting of one person's strange interpretation of wiki-policy as reason for excluding all "non-official" links (something not fully a part of wiki-policy.) Dannybu2001 16:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying some links - I really think this info. is just trivia. In terms of actual coverage of Wii both sites seem no better than an average fan site. I'm not against including non official external links at all. I don't know why you seem to think so. You mentioned not understanding my reference to 'peacock terms' . I meant your description of the sites using adjectives such as 'official' and 'legitimate'. The reason I object to this is because the reason a site should be linked to is because of it's content. I don't think the adjectives you used actually have any meaning in this context (if they do please explain).HappyVR 18:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not trivia to do news reports on something, I'm unsure how you've come to that definition of what they do. You seemed to be against any non-official links, not just IGN and Gamespot, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. I still don't understand why you don't think these gaming news site, with large amounts of related Wii content not contained in the article, aren't suitable to be included as sources of further information about the Wii. To me, as I've said, based on my understanding of external links on Wikipedia, that's the main purpose of external links, to point people in the direction of more information not necessarily suitable for inclusion in the article. And, yes, IGN and Gamespot do a much better job than fan sites, again, I'm unsure how you've arrived at that conclusion, have you evaluated the sites thouroughly, or did you just click a couple pages? I am honestly trying to be resonable here, but I'm just not grasping your reasoning behind not wanting to include, what to me (and several others) seems like two sites that should especially be included because of their content not in spite of it. At this point I feel like re-adding them, but I figure you'll just delete them, so I want to be clear what your stance is. Those links were there for a long time before they were deleted (I'm not sure if you did it originally or not), and they are, as mentioned, listed on several other game and game console pages. So, if anything, you need to be making a stronger case why they shouldn't be included, not me making a case why they should. Dannybu2001 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant the news reports you linked seem trivial. I have looked and couldn't find any further info on the wii. Could this be because there isn't hardly any further info to be had. I am thinking of this page in terms of a standard enclyclopedia page - as such I would recommend links that would expand upon knowledge of the subject beyond what is already in the article. I have also stated that ign is a site that has included non verified original research, that the links are there only to promote the site. I still have no objection to their inclusion on 'List of Wii games' page as they are good resources for Wii games.HappyVR 19:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can be okay with their being on the games list but not on the console page, just because you've concluded they only talk about games, which, is simply not accurate. By sheer numbers there are obiviously more games to talk about than consoles, but they simply do not neglect to talk about the hardware as you have implied. As far as you not finding anything more, honestly, did you look hard enough? In searching for articles to reference for this very discussion, three of them I had not read before today. And if they aren't in the article, then, that is "further info to be had." One was put up today! And stuff like the Microsoft guy backing up Wii is not what one would call trivial in a three-way console war of sorts (that Nintendo has ironically claimed to take no part in.) Like I've said, I think you are either applying your own POV to the rules here, or you have misintrpreted the guidlines about external links. Please, you're still not really making any sense here. The very standards you state they do not live up to for their inclusion, they actually do, and, somehow, you don't see it. Dannybu2001 20:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as consensus was reached about including TheWiire, I think we should re-instate IGN and Gamespot. I am very much apposed to most all External links, but if they are notable and have "original" information. Havok (T/C/c) 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The voting doesn't end until tomorrow, but they both don't have any opposes, so it's likely that they will. Danny 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Non-official external links accepted. New entries to be voted on

Vote: "Non-official" external links

Because it seems some people have decided for everyone that non-official external links aren't allowed, I believe an official consensus should be made. In this section, please vote if you support, oppose, or are indifferent towards "non-official" Nintendo external links being added to the external links of the Wii article. All new addition suggestions would be taken under advisement on this talk page with a majority ruling on each link (I will re-sumbit a proposal, not neccesarily a vote, for the re-inclusion of IGN and Gamespot later, depending on the results of this vote as for now this is what the issue is obviously really about.) Dannybu2001 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Support I do not believe excluding all "non-official" links solves any spam or other problems and it seems more like personal preference that goes against Wikipedia policy as written; they require "official" links, but do not exclude "non-official" links. Dannybu2001 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Support I believe that disregarding all unofficial links is silly. If we vote on each site individually, I see no reason why we can't come to a compromise regarding the sites to be included. Ladlergo 16:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Only if we vote on each site individually and not as a whole. --DivineShadow218 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Slight opposed, though. If we vote on each site, I don't mind so much, though, although it would take a while.72.130.21.164 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Support I find the assertion that GameSpot and IGN should not be listed here silly. Practically every article on individual games contains links to both, and the consoles should be no different. --Maxamegalon2000 16:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Could you say who exactly it is who has decided that 'non-official external links aren't allowed', and maybe why exactly you are doing this?HappyVR 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's all I'm asking is that "non-official" external links not be forcibly excluded by default as has been the case the last several days. Deciding on each addition could take awhile depending on a site's relevance, sure, but so do revert wars and related 3RR blockings, long arguments on the talk page, etc. And it's better than, "It can't go cause it not official," as a sole reason, or one or two people deciding they don't like a particular site. Dannybu2001 17:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I remind people that Wikipedia is not ruled by voting but consensus per democracy policy. You don't just count the votes and the side with the highest amount wins. You read the comments, find the one that represents you and support it. You talk with those who don't agree to find an average. -- ReyBrujo 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment True, but the disussions related to this are very long, frankly, and it's not always cut and dry to tell where everyone stands on this particular issue. This is simply to gauge where everyone stands on this issue and to go from there in conversing with those whose personal policy is not to allow non-official links, without really giving much reason beyond that for removing them. If majority opposes, then we'll know it's not just a couple of users' POV on the matter. Dannybu2001 18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am just helping understand some concepts. See this AFD discussion for a very good example of when the majority does not hold the reason. Even if TheWiire is dismissed as an external link, it does not stop it from being used as a reference, as they have a good number of exclusive interviews. -- ReyBrujo 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference links aren't the issue here, External links are different matter. Dannybu2001 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually a single instance of someone on this talk page saying that there should be no non official links or am I expected to vote for nothing?HappyVR 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

HappyVR, this is to make sure that there's a consensus that non-official links are acceptable. Once we have that, then we can move onto what non-official links are acceptable (the main problem here). Ladlergo 19:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See: Talk:Wii/archive9#External_links and Talk:Wii/archive9#Links. Which eventually led to all but official links and a link to the E3 2006 press conference being removed. This is why I assumed you, HappyVR, were against unofficial external links, because you made several of those removals yourself, and seemed to be doing so per those very discussions. We just want a consensus on the issue to know how to proceed, something not actually reached in the other discussion other than a couple users (yourself included) deciding to act. Also note: Talk:Wii#Links and Talk:Wii#External_Links for the most recent discussions on the matter. Dannybu2001 19:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but non official links were left after these edits (one to gamespot in fact). This vote is meaningless.HappyVR 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with this method of determining how people here feel about external links? Otherwise I don't understand why you are opposed to this. Ladlergo 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that nobody has said there should be no unofficial external links nor as far as I know has anyone suggested that either. I've stated on this talk page more than once that I do not believe that non official links should be 'banned'. User:Dannybu2001 seems to have the impression that I am against non official external links despite me stating more than once in reply that I am not against non official external links. Non official external links cannot be banned - nobody is suggesting that they should be - so what is the point of this vote?HappyVR 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were against non-offical external links based on the timing of your edits and comments you made. This was a misunderstanding on my part, as I have said twice already. But, there were users in the referenced discussions that did say no to unofficial links or else made ill-timed edits as you did. I will not point them out as I was not going to point out your work until you started belly-aching about something that's supposed to help us resolve this matter. Why are you so against this? You're just keeping up the conflict on an issue you aparently had no problem with, and that is getting rather tired. Vote or don't, but just stay out of it with comments that add nothing constructive to the issue at hand. I'm efforting to find out what people are thinking via this vote, so I and others don't step on people's toes; I don't really see what on earth the problem with that is. Dannybu2001 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with this, why not vote so we have a record of how the contributors feel about it? We can't start discussing which non-official links should be included before we come to a consensus about whether we should be including non-official links at all.

And, as has already been mentioned, there is atleast one contributor who would prefer not to have non-offiical links. It's not all about you, even though you might feel that's the case. Ladlergo 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, you are one of the people who has perpetuated this problem, HappyVR, with your seemingly POV reverts. I say "seemingly", because I really don't believe you've done them malicisouly to further your own agenda, but you haven't exactly obtained any kind of blessing from the community on this page, all the while acting like anyone who re-adds certain links is someone violating the guidlines, when really, it could be only your guidlines. This vote is to determine which is true. To abstain from the vote only makes me question your reasoning even more. As far as the one non-official link that remained, it was a video of an "official" Nintendo conference, as I already mentioned, so that example doesn't fly. I'm trying to be fair here by getting a consensus of what everyone thinks about this issue so we can avoid deleting and adding links over and over. Please, just stop complaining about it and vote. And no, this is not all about you, there were other users that led to this (at least one of which has voted), you're just the one who's making an issue out of voting on an issue, and that doesn't really solve anything. And this isn't just about IGN and Gamespot, the issues surrounding The Wiire led to this too. While I believe for now based on the quality of it's content it doesn't belong, it seemed the fact it wasn't "official" had more to do with it's exclusion. Dannybu2001 20:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what's the general protocol for how long voting stays up before closing and figuring out the consensus? One week? Shorter? Longer? Dannybu2001 21:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I should think that a week's long enough, but if we stop getting comments after 3 days, we could probably call it done. Ladlergo 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've only scan read this discussion so forgive me if I repeat what someone else has said or say something irrelevant. Anyway, people come to Wikipedia to find out more about a subject. If unofficial websites have original information not found on official websites then of course include them. GameSpot and IGN should definitely stay. I can't really comment on TheWiire, having not had a good look around the site (yet), but I can't see any immediate harm in including it. Forgive me for saying this, but this discussion is starting to get very petty. -- Steel359 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reactions

Is this supposed to be a general reactions to the Wii area, or just a section for reactions to the name being announced as Wii?72.130.21.164 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the area for discussing changes to the Wii article. Ladlergo 20:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant the "Reactions" section under "Name of the console" on the main Wii page. It's about reaction to the name of the console, hence is placement as a sub-heading of "Name of the console". Dannybu2001 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I think I understand now. Ladlergo 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We used it to separate out the reactions to the name "Wii" from the opening paragraphs (the original placement, IIRC). I take it from your comment that we should make it a bit more clear. Ladlergo 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, "Reaction to the name"? Oh wait, I tried that one and it got changed back because others thought it made sense as is. I'm for changing it back, but maybe we should get more input? Dannybu2001 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear right now ("Reaction" under "Name"), but I wouldn't have a problem with changing it. I just can't think of a good way to rewrite it without it sounding redundant (ie "Reaction to the name" under "Name"). Ladlergo 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. As with anything on wikipedia, it is only unclear if viewed rather quickly, and one might say, carelessly. I dont think it could be any more obvious without becoming obtuse and redundant. Before I changed it, it was its own section on the same tier as Name, but below it in order, which I admit was confusing, but I made it a subsection, which is all it really needs.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally think this section should be omitted, as it was just a silly, brief scare when the name was released. I think everyone pretty much accepts the name, and it seems absurd that some of the voiced opinions should be included in an informational enyclopedia about the Wii. Some other one 15:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wii" has had one of the biggest controversies over a console names that I've ever heard of. Did you hear much (if any) uproar simply over the names: GameCube, Playstation, Saturn, Genesis, Xbox, or even Dreamcast? I doubt it. This section probably will be deleted or condensed as time goes on. Especially after launch once the general, non-gaming public has had a chance to react to it. But for now it serves a purpose of noting that the name by itself had an impact (good or bad), and, while somewhat silly I know, it's pretty notable. Again, after launch this section needs to be re-evaluated, but we should leave it alone for now (adding or deleting.) Dannybu2001 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Non-Official" External Link Votes

Well it seems the votes above have slowed down and that there was only one that opposed. So in this section, we will put Non-Official Links in this section and vote on each one. Any one can add links that they think should be in the article here and I will start. if you have a link that you would like to add, please do it at the bottom of the list. If you would like to vote on a particular site, please vote Support, Oppose, or Indifferent below the appropriate link.

If you do not wish to participate directly in the vote, but have an opinion on particular sites, or have questions that will help you reach a voting decision, please place your comments under the discussion heading of the particular site's section.

IGN

This vote will end at 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Indifferent--DivineShadow218 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Call me biased, but I like that IGN stays current, has exlusives, has tons of images and video, and separates out articles by type (I don't have to wander around looking for new info). They also have an extensive collection of developer and producer info. Ladlergo 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Has fresh updates with intresting information about the Wii not contained in this article. The very purpose of external links! Dannybu2001 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support IGN is among the most reliable Sources--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support If one is included so should the other. Havok (T/C/c) 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Result

Add

Gamespot

This vote will end at 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

SupportHas a decent amount in aricles and info, as well as video's and screenshots, etc.--DivineShadow218 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Same reason as IGN. Dannybu2001 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent Good amount of media, guides, etc, but the organization is terrible. I can't sort out Wii news from either the Wii or News sections. Too many ads. I don't get the sense that they a) are comprehensive or b) offer unique content when it comes to the Wii. Ladlergo 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Best game site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Support If one is included so should the other. Havok (T/C/c) 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Result

Add

Cubed3

This vote will end at 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

SupportHas a few good articles, game lists and some developer info.--DivineShadow218 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent Well organized, stays current, and even lists games by release date. However, there seem to be gaping holes in their content. If they can fix those holes, I'll support in the future. Ladlergo 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent (Leaning Support) Seems okay. but as Ladlergo said, they seem to be missing something. I'm not sure what it is. Dannybu2001 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent Havok (T/C/c) 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I beleave that since we are getting closer and closer to the release date, that this site will fill in those gaps.--DivineShadow218 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Result

Add

Joystiq

This vote will end at 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose It doesnt have many good articles, only some. It does not have any game lists or developer info.--DivineShadow218 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Can't find any real info, news is mixed in with everything else. Attrocious organization makes it useless for sorting through the articles. Ladlergo 16:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and is highly unorganized. I'd rather see The Wiire re-added than this site. Dannybu2001 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Jostiq is too unreliable--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent Havok (T/C/c) 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Result

Do not add

TheWiire.com

In this section, please vote if you support, oppose, or indifferent towards TheWiire.com being added to the external links of the article. If you would take a look at the link, you will defenetely see original content and articles, as well see that members of this page have also attended E3 2006, TGS and I think GDC but not sure about that. Vote will end on 02:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To me that makes it an appropriate External Link.

Survey

Support--DivineShadow218 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Support per my discussion above. --Maxamegalon2000 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose if we keep the Wiire, there's no grounds not to keep every other site that adds itself. Also, the fact that you're only pushing for one site, and one site in particular leads me to believe that this is purely a site promotion issue, and that the Wiire is actually your site.72.130.21.164 03:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(side note, I also sugget we add Cubed3, but knowing you, you would probably delete them. BTW TheWiire.com is not my site.--DivineShadow218 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Support the wiire is a major news site and is a good source for all Wii info 72.130.21.164 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
Neutral, Leaning Oppose Only 250,000 alexa, and I sort of agree with 72.130.21.164. Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- (side note, it is actually 42,000 not 250,000, scorce: [7] You have to take in account that they just registerd TheWiire about 2 weeks ago. --DivineShadow218 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It seems premature for this as only one or two people by my count among the talk page wanted this. But for my 2-cents, The Wiire (and it's predecessor Revolution Report) simply doesn't have enough notable info to hold its place here. If it evolves and sticks around (with fresh, regular info) for a significant period of time beyond launch, perhaps it could be reconsidered for inclusion. It's one step above a fan site I'll grant, but that's not saying much for now. Dannybu2001 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose However, this vote only applies if we drop the links to other sites like GameSpot too (unless it contains something specific and useful like the current "E3 Nintendo Video" link). If we are going to add links to these major sites, I don't see why we shouldn't add TheWiire.com too. It is not just a lame blog set up yesterday to gather links. The site actually has exclusives, including interviews. Ritarri 11:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia's not a kitchen sink- we can't have every Tom, Rick and Harry's site up here, or the article would be insanely long. -- Daniel Davis 12:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Since I am new here and dont know much about the rules about posting links to othersites, I think if you post links to such site like Gamespot and IGN where you actually have to pay for to get the advanced features, why not also post a link to the wiire. If is free, you can donate poket change if you want, and it is one of the best fan sites on the internet. I would think it would be nice to see links to great fansites aswell as to those "corperate" sites mentioned erliear in my ramblings. So I have to support this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrainTheDog (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC).
Support, major news site. Ashibaka tock 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, I agree with Ashibaka that it is positivly a major news site, it also has lits of games and developers, unlike Joystiq.com Bill S. Preston, Esq. 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Support, I think we should include one unofficial site and I think this should be it. jaco♫plane 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The organization is very nice and there's lots of potential, but the games list has holes and parts of the site don't seem to exist yet. I'd be amenable to holding another vote when content is more complete. Ladlergo 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Although relativly new, still reliable.--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

comment to Ritarri, so what if Ign, and gamspot are still posted... would your vot be indifferent then? DivineShadow218 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If IGN and GameSpot are included, I wouldn't mind TheWiire being included too. It is not just a lame fansite as some seem to believe. Ritarri 07:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

TheWiire.com is not just a random fansite. It has been around for a long time, and it has had several exclusive interviews, they attended E3, and so on. At least get your facts straight before commenting. Ritarri 07:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I find it curious that we are having this discussion, as currently the Third party developer support section is using http://www.revolutionreport.com/nintendo_revolution_faq#faq19 as reference. In other words, if we can use it as reference, we should be able to use it as external link. Also, do not use Alexa ranking to test their notability. The site was known as RevolutionReport, which had an Alexa ranking of 42,375. -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That is no longer an issue. Why a reference was posted that was a repost of information with a different site of origin is beyond me. Though, I agree, with you, Alexa rank measurement is pointless.72.130.21.164 05:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's a decent enough site with relevant, original content, has an RSS feed, doesn't have pop-ups. If they go overboard with the ads we can reconsider, but for now I see no reason not to link it. Sure, it's small, but as long as we as editors find the information useful, that shouldn't make a difference. We link to plenty of very, very tiny sites if they usefully complement an article. See Wikipedia:External links for the relevant policy. And enough with the polling already, alright? We're here to discuss, polls are meant to be used only as a last resort.--Eloquence * 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence, I just want to make sure you've looked at the discussion above, as well as the one that was archived a few days ago, and point out that this issue has in the past few days led to a couple of 3RR bans. And for the record, I tried to discuss, and as you can see 72.130.21.164 and I didn't really get anywhere. --Maxamegalon2000 04:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason it led to 3RR bans was because it kept getting re-added sans discussion. Wikipedia isn't shooting for content first, then verification of veracity. It wants correctness over content, therefore the add would be the topic for discussion, not the removal. I agree that you and I got nowhere, but there was more parties to the discussion than just you and I, as evidenced by the more than 2 votes in the poll.72.130.21.164 04:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are using correctness as in verifiable information reliable sources (where the information can be a rumour that may never become true), then it is true. If you are referring to pure truth (leaving behind rumours even if they have been posted by verifiable sources), then I disagree. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This means that, if IGN posts a rumour stating that Microsoft and Sony will allow connectivity between their consoles and Wii, and that both will create a game for Nintendo DS about Halo 3 starring Solid Snake, then it can be included in Wikipedia. Just clarifying. -- ReyBrujo 06:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This was somewhat the point I was hoping to get across. There aren't really any Authoritative sites out there. Much of the problem for us editors working on these articles for these upcoming consoles is that we're having to wade through so much misinformation and hype, pore through ambiguous press statements, the noise of internet chatter and such, all to make an article that is encyclopedic. I'm not saying there aren't better or worse sites. I just think we are intelligent enough to be judicious about which sites we choose to direct our readers to in case they want to get their feet wet. I've thought a little bit on this, and for all this talk about setting a precedent for a glut of marginally useful sites, I think that's a bridge we can cross when we actually get to it. For now, I'm okay with The Wiire. Dancter 07:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment My name is Rob Galbreath, The Wiire's managing editor. I apologize if there's any difficulty with my listing on here as I don't really know how to update this site beyond edits. I identify myself, and list my IP address here (assuming my IP address is automatically identified on here? EDIT: Thank you 24.51.18.51 06:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ), so that I may further explain our staff's unbiased commitment to news. By performing an IP search, you may attest that we have never contributed, only watched, while our fans included our information on this Web site. Surely, we find this to be a remarkable outpouring of news gathering thanks to our board members and visitors, and our staff has always been amazed to see our content posted up on Wikipedia without us ever even thinking about seeing ourselves on here. My staff recently stumbled across this argument, noting that we may have been actively involved in reporting from every major Wii gaming conference and other lesser conferences to ensure that we have always had hands-on look at what Nintendo will bring. I would encourage all of you to indeed see that we were at E3 2006, Game Developers Conference 2006, D.I.C.E. Summit 2006, Tokyo Game Show 2005, and Leipzig 2005, among other events to meet Nintendo representatives and third-party developers. All of these travels have been purely independent and out of our own pockets to ensure we provide the best in gaming content. Evidence of this can be found in our news archives, which we encourage you all to view for yourselves. We not only have original content, but we have provided several exclusives to the video gaming community no other site could achieve. You may note such on our main page, or visit http://www.thewiire.com/news/328/1/E3_2006_Everything_You_Missed_And_More to note several sit-down exclusives contributing to the information on the World Wide Web. As a representative of The Wiire, we would be more than honored to be cited and contribute to this site's information database using our research and interviews. We are in no way a fan site, and have successfully avoided such harsh stigma with great strides using an unbiased approach towards the gaming industry. This was by no means an easy battle, and the number of developers (both listed and unlisted in our news section) should provide a good understanding of the connections we have made with the gaming industry. The Wiire staff has never had involvement with posting our content on this site, but we will be sure to watch the outcome and nevertheless thank all of our visitors for their support. Update: our site board members have recently stumbled on to this poll, and we have discouraged them from skewing any results made by this site. We respect the system made by Wikipedia and do not wish for our members to flood this poll. If you are a board member from our site and do not regularly visit Wikipedia, please respect their voting system and do not vote.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.51.18.51 (talk • contribs) .

Your IP address (or user name if logged in) can be inserted using four tildes (~~~~). AvB ÷ talk 06:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how I feel on linking to sites such as IGN, Gamespot, TheWiire.com, etc. If there are unofficial sites included among the links, I would prefer that we keep only the most informative and non-biased sites. Ladlergo 13:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment 72.130.21.164, who is by far the most verbal opposer here, has spent a great deal of his/her/its edits removing TheWiire.com from the Ext. Links and was blocked for 3h for violation of 3RR. Then again, so was DivineShadow218 since he kept re-adding TheWiire. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for that. I didn't realize there was a 3RR rule.72.130.21.164 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Result

Add

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

~~What was the result?--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)~~

Ah, now I see!--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

re - launch details before sotware

About change of order. Hello. Just to say that one of the reasonings behind the previous ordering was to have the sections in the order hardware(design and specs),middleware ie 'features' (built in software, external support eg internet), followed by software (the stuff people use), followed by other details eg price and launch, name comment. However since edtv has been moved to 'middleware' ie features this no longer makes as much sense. However the new order makes sense in another way too. Personally would have launch and pricing before hardware, features, and software. But any of the orders seem fine.HappyVR 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the new order. But what does everyone think about deleting the EDTV section altogether since we have mention of its 480p capabilites in the tech specs?. It seems like a non-issue at this point as there is no rule that it has to have HD support just because the 360 and PS3 do. We shouldn't have to give people an education in tv resolutions here. Dannybu2001 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this, too, but I'm afraid if we take it out now, people will just keep dumping it back in (and probably not as balanced), because it's still an issue to them. I say try it, and if someone makes a fuss over it, let them for the time being. Dancter 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's a good idea in general to have long lists in the middle of the article, but I don't quite know what to do. I can't think of a better place to put the tech specs section than where it currently is. And now that I moved the launch details section up, the poor name section is all orphaned underneath the titles list. If anyone has a good approach to organizing this, please share! Dancter 18:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion to remove edtv section. Although somehow the quote seems 'valuble'. I could suggest the (very) old ordering - intro,hardware,features,software followed by a miscellaneous section containing 'orphans' such as name, price, launch, and whatever else comes up that doesn't fit naturally into the other three sections. I don't think it matters where a long list is as long as it's in the right section - maybe it could be compressed a bit - less 'bullets' and new lines for each piece of info - more multiple fact lines? Tried this - didn't look good ie clear when I did it though..HappyVR 19:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that Wii is a future product, I think it's logical to put the launch info first for now. However, when it's been out for a few months (ie a physical product) and there's more technical information, I think it would work better to be moved back to the software section. What's relevant for most readers depends on how much they know about the system. Ladlergo 19:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we should try to create a page with ordering now that is the same as the 'final' version. Even for the least technically minded reader I'm sure it's a doddle to find the infomation on the page they want.HappyVR 20:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've condensed a few sections of the tech specs. Mainly redundant GameCube compatible issues already covered elsewhere in the article, we do not need a full listing of all the game ratings, that's what the... game rating pages are for. Also, by comparison, the Wii specs are in the neigborhood of half the size of the PS3 and Xbox, so it's not really all that long. Dannybu2001 22:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I like what you've done to the tech specs section. Now I don't feel the urge to just scroll right past it when I look at it. Dancter 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the USB 2.0 LAN adapter is the same as the one you use for the DS? If so, we should link to it. Dannybu2001 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. The discussion about it is in the archives. Dancter 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So, what is it then? I've looked here and elsewhere and can't find any info about it other than it exists. It sounds like it's either the same or similar device as the DS Wi-fi thing. Where you plug it into your computers USB port if you don't have a wireless network. Dannybu2001 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation was that it was different in that it would allow a direct wired Ethernet connection, without the need for a PC. Why mention Ethernet if the Wi-Fi Connector was involved? If it were referring to the same device, it wouldn't matter how the PC was connected to the Internet, just that it was. And Nintendo seems not to have enabled the Wi-Fi connector to work with Wi-Fi devices other than the DS (I think I mentioned that on the Wi-Fi Connector talk page), so that might be an issue. I mean, I could be wrong about everything, but I hope I'm not. The Wi-Fi connector hasn't exactly been a popular device. XP-only, compatibility complaints... Dancter 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That brings to mind: has anyone mentioned AOSS for Wii at all? Dancter 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Key Title list

Below are some titles that I think should be in the List on the Wii article. If you would like to add some, or change some, post in here and do not add untill most agree. It would look alittle like this

I'd rather see a list of franchises, rather than a list of games. After all, there will be multiple games for certain franchises.

Franchises that I think should be considered: Bomberman, Donkey Kong, Harvest Moon, Metroid, Need for Speed, Pokemon, Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur

Out of all the franchises you've listed, I think the one that least deserves to be there is Animal Crossing. It's a franchise with a much shorter history than, say, Donkey Kong. Ladlergo 13:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets build of the list and see how big it actually is. as far as putting to franchises in, how about this, we put the franchise name it but link them to the first Wii game? As far as Donkey Kong Wii, Bomberman land, PoP Wii, Harvest Moon (Wii), and Soul Calibur, lets wait till pages are created for them first. I updated the list below to show every one what it would look like. --DivineShadow218 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Any one have a problem with the list below?--DivineShadow218 06:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see this before, but yes, I do. The Second Party games list, to be specific. Wario Ware and Fire Emblem both are IS, which is, far as I know, now 100% owned by Nintendo, and functions as an internal team, even if it started life as an indepent split-off group of R&D1. Metroid is done by Retro, which is first party. Smash Bros. for Wii is an odd one, because, while HAL is a second party (they are not 100% Nintendo owned), Brawl is being developped by a new, possible temporary, team set up by Nintendo in Tokyo, with employees of an as of yet unnamed third party studio, being contracted to work there. And possible some HAL and EAD folks, and more outside contracted people. See here. While the people working in this team come from all sorts of places, the studio itself is set up by Nintendo, so it could qualify as first party.

Anyway I'm not sure about smash, but the other 3 are definitely first party. --Codemonkey 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If we can work out the 1st/2nd party confusion for some of the games, I think it's good to go. Ladlergo 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Like what... I do not think it should be how it is with both First and Second parties together b/c then the list is to long. --DivineShadow218 04:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the party status of some games and franchises is rather unclear and might change, could we redo the list in alphabetical order? I'm thinking something like this:

What do you think? I think that putting it in column instead of one vertical list is an advantage. Ladlergo 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about having columns instead of a vertical list, but I must dispute. The Party status is very clear. Yes, one or 2 might change but I doubt it b/c they are already in development. Its like... would Nintendo develop a Resident Evil game, would Capcom ever make a Zelda game... that is very doubtful. the only status that might change is the publisher, which is still unlikely. If it does happen, the only thing that will change on the list is if the game is a second or third party game. I suggest we keep it as is BUT if games are added later on, we put the games in columns of 4 or 5.--DivineShadow218 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to keep the party status, I see no problem with that. Let me poke around a bit and see if I can figure out how to add headers for each column. I think that would be a good compromise. Ladlergo 17:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this? I appolgize if my table code isn't proper, but it does do what I was looking for:

First Party

Second Party

Third Party

Party status is preserved, it's a set of columns, and it doesn't require shifting cell entries whenever we insert a new title. Ladlergo 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to full around with it a bit.--DivineShadow218 21:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Many widely-known franchises have games under production for the Wii. These include:

First Party

Second Party

Third Party

--DivineShadow218 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it might be better to put these titles in a table like the one the lauch titles are in. It would keep that section looking better and uniform. Any ideas/comments/objections? JQF 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent attempt to speedy delete Nintendo Wii

NicAgent is attempting to delete the article "Nintendo Wii" so that the article Wii can be moved to it. This has already been debated and the article should remain as Wii. -- VederJuda 02:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

~~Yes, the consensus was Not moved. Give him the link to the archived subpage.~~ (Nevermind, I gave him the link myself.) --Stratadrake 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

changes

I had to remove this -"Microsoft has teamed up with Nintendo on discouraging the sale of the PS3, suggesting customers purchase a Wii and an Xbox 360 instead of the PS3 due to its price.^[1]" - needs rewriting or just leaving out? Reason - microsift has not teamed up with nintendo - this was a statement from microsoft - there is as far as we know - no collaboration at all.

Also shortened wiiconnect24 and re-added stereo supportHappyVR 06:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard that one too. It's a sales tactic, Microsoft pointing out that for the cost of a single PS3, one could buy a Wii and a 360. They're pitching the fact that the 360 is cheaper to buy, of course (even though the Wii will be cheapter still). --Stratadrake 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

CPU info on EBGames

http://www.ebgames.com/gs/wii/wii_signup.asp EB has some info on the CPU. Shall we add it? Ladlergo 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust it. It says there are two SD card slots, and that the system memory is unknown. I'm betting its basing its information on stuff we've already encountered on the Internet, as opposed to some insider knowledge. Dancter 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

patent I removed

" Nintendo's patents reportedly also indicate the inclusion of a microphone in the Wii Remote.^[2]"

This is speculation (sort of) - first of all need a reference for the patent itself - secondly patent does not necessarily apply to Wii.HappyVR 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the patent being referred to. It was filed a year ago, but seems to have only turned up today. Quite a bit has changed from what is described in the patent, but it is very similar, and there is a microphone. Dancter 17:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I think that's DS. Dancter 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the problem with patents - they often don't mention 'what (product) it's for.HappyVR 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, the microphone thing has been added before, referencing the EGM article. Considering that EGM turned out to be right about the price point (for now), maybe it's okay now to add the microphone speculation back, maybe in the Wii Remote article? It is speculation, but fairly persistent speculation. I don't know if it's still there, but GameSpot's live coverage of the E3 press conference "confirmed" the microphone (even though I've seen the video, and I don't think a microphone was ever indicated). Perhaps that bit slipped because of some insider knowledge. Dancter 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it would have to say it's speculation and - I'd suggest a patent would be needed as a reference and/or if possible another article. Not sure about gamespot's coverage - if the microphone was confirmed surely it would be on nintendo's own page.HappyVR 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks GameSpot scrubbed their coverage of any mention of a microphone. I swear I read it, though. Maybe someone can find a web cache and prove that I wasn't just imagining it. Anyway, it's probably best to keep it out for now. True or not, it's obvious Nintendo doesn't want us to know it. Dancter 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be a logical thought. Speakers and microphones are two usages of the same tech. Ladlergo 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It is maddening, though. I'm sure it's happening, and there is plenty of evidence, but none of it is good enough for an include. I mean, they registered wiikaraoke.com. If that doesn't tip off the existence of a microphone, I don't know what does. Dancter 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that there could be an add-on, so I wouldn't add it just yet. Ladlergo 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to; I know better. But still... Dancter 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

opera browser in hardware section

I commented out a bit about the opera browser (assume it's free with the system maybe even on rom?) - would move it to the section for 'internet' but currently the nearest thing there is is 'wiiconnect24' which due to nintendo not being totally clear on this point is the subject of debate whether or not it actually is the name of the 'web service' - maybe they haven't decided yet. Anyway - the data on opera currently is a bit short in the article so where should it go.?HappyVR 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's not sold separately, then a) it's included in the price (hence Nintendo keeping mum?) or b) users have to pay to use it after some trial period ("You don't need to buy it if you don't want to!").

But back to the subject... We could make a "Internet Connectivity" section and mention that whatever Wiiconnect24 is, it hasn't been explained in full. We can write that there's some system for pushing content to users passively, and that the connection is used to buy the retro games that they'll be making available (and whatever small developers want to sell). Toss in the wireless networking, and I think that's enough to justify a section. Ladlergo 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a subsection "Internet Connectivity" to features section. And added the relevant info there. I have added that the opera browser will be included with the console as an assumption - is this too much of an assumption... Please edit to improve.HappyVR 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I read an interview yesterday wherein they said the Opera browser wouldn't neccessarily be included, but they also said Wii users wouldn't be charged for it either. Best guess is that it's going to be an optional download via Wiiconnect or something in case some people who don't want to use it don't have to sacrifice storage space for it. Not sure how to bring that across in the article without flat out guessing though. Danny 19:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read somewhere (maybe the same place) that the browser would be stored on the flash memory - and got the vague impression that it might be downloaded (the other option is pre-installed which makes sense as well) - we haven't been told it's free as well but it seems to be what people are assuming.HappyVR 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same article you read?: [8]. Right here is where is says it's free, it could be optional, but will not be sold seperately:

IGN Wii: Will Opera on Wii come standard with the console?

Scott Hedrick: Nintendo has not yet announced how Opera will be available on Wii, but I can confirm that it will not be sold as a separate item, as it is for Nintendo DS. Danny 20:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read that as that it won't be sold as a physical object, but you could be right. I'd rather keep it out, just in case we're wrong and users need to pay to "unlock" it or something similar. Ladlergo 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's crossed my mind that it might be stored on a disc or card. It would be nice if they gave out a bit more info. Ladlergo 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Price Of Wii

I heard information on SlashDot.org yesterday in regards to the Wii's price. It said that Nintendo revealed to Famitsu.com that the maximum price of 25,000 yen, or 225 dollars. This info was released at a press conference discussing Nintendo's financial status. Russian Sage 777 10:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's $250 dollars or less. We've already got that info. Ladlergo 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, IGN did a discussion on the price of the Wii, and made some good points. Perrin Kaplan said we would all be VERY pleased with the price, and $250 isn't exactly a crowd pleaser. Not to mention it's only $50 less than a 360, and the fact that the hardware shouldn't cost much of anything to produce. All things considered, it's likely $150-$200, especially when you see that Nintendo is selling Gamecubes for VERY cheap right now, and still making money. I'd mention this stuff in the article, but I try to avoid actually editing Wikipedia, only suggesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.166.141 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I think that interview is already linked to in the article. I'm thinking while this shouldn't be elaborated upon, a quote from Perrin may be okay. Dancter 13:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting a $150-200 price point would be crystall balling. We'll wait until there is confirmation. Ladlergo 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Big thanks to anyone who's redoing the references. Working with them gives me a headache. Ladlergo 13:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You've been doing some good edits, yourself. I keep forgetting to put the references after the punctuation. You're always good on fixing that for me. Dancter 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's congratulate ourselves after it's listed as a Good Article. ;) Ladlergo 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Once Nintendo.com has some more info, there shoul be less and less references, so once they do, I will perticapate in a reference clean up again. --DivineShadow218 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive?

I'm thinking it might be time to move a bunch of the older discussions and votes (such as external links) to an archive. The talk page is quite long, and much of it is taken up by threads that are no longer active. Ladlergo 13:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

~~Now that votes have ended, I think now is the best time. Dancter 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)~~ Wait, there's another two hours left, isn't there? Dancter 14:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's way too soon, we just had an archive prematurely made a mere few days ago; we don't need to do it once a week. In fact, once a month would be too often if you do the math (12 per year, think about it.) The votes have only been inactive for two days at the most. And we do kind of need to leave them up for some time so people can know the results. If we hide them, there could be problems again. Plus, we're already up to nine archives, if we do it too often, the archive list itself will need to be archived for being too long. My suggestion is that we wait to archive topics that have been dead for at least a month, otherwise this will get really goofy. Besides, our talk page isn't even all that long compared to many others on Wikipedia, why do you think it is? Danny 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you be ok with archiving the external links discussions (including the ones for individual links) in a few more weeks? Ladlergo 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

12 per year seems like a lot...until you realize that the edits will slow down once the system has been released. Once we settle some of these issues, we shouldn't have to bring them up again, but can simply refer to previous discussions if anyone asks. Ladlergo 15:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

lets just wait till the end of the month. The voting has taking up a lot of space an I am sorry for that, but it is all over now.--71.242.206.231 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wii Reaction

Do you think it would be a wise idea to talk about analysts/gamers reactions to the console, or would this be stepping beyond neutral? Mythi 01:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

that would be neutral if you also include reactions from the general public. --DivineShadow218 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find both critics and praisers, go ahead. Maybe it will be better to add the section here to show others how it would look like before inserting into the article, as there are some who have opposed before to such section. -- ReyBrujo 02:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Power supply - probably trivial question

In pictures of the rear of the Wii a power input is shown labelled 12V - now I know these are probably prototypes but isn't 12V a lot for electronics?HappyVR 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. While an electronic circuit can run on as little as 3V, 5V is a general standard, and moving electrical parts (such as disc drive motors) require more juice to operate properly, so they get fed higher voltages like 9V and 12V. --Stratadrake 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - are you suprised that the input is 'two pin' and not multi-pin - ie with a pin for each voltage needed - could easily put this down to 'pre-production' images..HappyVR 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really; stepping down from 110/230VAC to 12VDC requires more electronics than 12VDC to any other voltage. You have a power brick doing the AC->DC conversion, and then IC's in the console doing all other voltage conversions. Shaun Eccles-Smith 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Explanation

Editors User:The importer keeps re-adding this section, I do not feel it has anything to do with the article, atleast not in the state in which he keeps adding it. I have reverted three times, and will not revert again. Havok (T/C/c) 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

To the people who keep removing my 3 lines of text…

Wikipedia is an open source encyclopaedia. You, as a user, have no power over another and you do not own any page, not even if you have created it. Although I am all for removing false statements, you personal opinion on what truth should be there is not up to you.

I don't see why I need to ask your permission to add anything relevant information.

This is not your personal fan club nor are you the president of anything. I could also decide to remove stuff that I feel that is not necessary on the Wii page, but I won’t because I’m not a jack-ass. If you feel like reading something good, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_sucks

Yo Havok, you got something to say to me, then talk to me. Your abusing power here.

the_importer 21:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you check out WP:NOT, it states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I would also suggest you check out your talk page where you have been warned by two other editors, one of whos an admin. Havok (T/C/c) 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And, once again, you must read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and on verifiability, where it specifically states that the "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page, and any data that is not properly sourced is subject to removal at any time. RadioKirk talk to me 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And for good measure, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks aswell. Havok (T/C/c) 21:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, here's what's really going on. This is the English section of Wikipedia and chances are that you're American. You're basically rejecting any other cultural differences, in other words, you're being racist. If I would have stated that Wii, like any Nintendo console, is Japanese origin, you would have removed that as well.the_importer 21:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am Norwegian, far from American, I'm an editor on the english Wikipedia, and I am even an inclusionist. But some information is better suited some where else, and the information you added gave nothing to the article. Havok (T/C/c) 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not play phony race cards with me—now you need to read Wikipedia policy on personal attacks as well. If it is your intention to do whatever you want without ever reading policy so you can co-exist with your editors and work together to build an encyclopedia, tell me now. RadioKirk talk to me 21:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I wrote a long explanation with examples when I realized I speak spanish, and an "i" in spanish sounds like an "i", not like the english's "ai", and "e" being "e", not "i". Languages! Anyways, if you want to add japanese pronounciation, I suggest reading Next Generation editor, Tim Rogers' comments about it, since he speaks english and japanese fluently. -- ReyBrujo 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue, though. the_importer writes "Cultural Explanation ... In the Japanese language, the letter 'i' is pronounced like an 'e' in English (while an 'e' in Japanese is pronounced like the sound 'hey')." By using the phrase "cultural explanation", the text assumes this is the reason (or, at least, a reason) for Nintendo's choice for the name and spelling, and that cannot stand without a reliable source. The data also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and notability standards. Meantime, being called "racist" for pointing an editor to Wikipolicy is non sequitur. RadioKirk talk to me 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what, screw this; I’m blowing this taco stand. I grow weary of communities with power abusage.

BTW, I don’t know when, but you will eventually regret letting anyone edit the articles of this website. Anything could happen from vandal bombardment to a bombardment of page deletions. Keep pissing people off and you’ll end up with a group large enough to scrap everything. Think about it, it takes 1 minute or less to wipe a page. 100 users opening up bogus accounts could delete about 5000 articles in under an hour.

I personally don’t believe in anyone doing large projects and expecting nothing in return, so whatever your goals are, better get your act together.

Peace out

the_importer 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And the anti-vandal bots will revert them in half that. Anyway, good luck. Wikipedia is about collaborating with your fellow editors, when someone is in disagreement they discuss it. You are welcome back if you decide to join us again. Havok (T/C/c) 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"I can't be bothered with policy, so screw this"? And, who loses, exactly? RadioKirk talk to me 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheerio -- Steel359 21:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that this is not the only article he's been adding "information" to... Ritarri 10:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what's with the white background here?

It starts about halfway through the talk page. --Maxamegalon2000 21:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be time to archive this page. Could someone please do that? Havok (T/C/c) 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In 3 days...--DivineShadow218 06:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it, it was an unclosed wiki-table -th1rt3en 07:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'd just like to point that this article is so heavily vandalised, it is now 29th most heavily edited article, above God, abortion and intellegent design. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So is Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Havok (T/C/c) 08:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Such is Wikipedia. You can spend four hours crafting an article from scratch, researching data and culling together descriptive images, only to find that ten minutes later anonymous IPs have decided to replace the bulk of your work with "Farzzzzzzzzz"- because they think it's somehow funny. I would say a conservative estimate of Wiki's editing work is 10% article creation/improvement and 90% fending off stupid vandals. --

Daniel Davis 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why I think WP should be for people who register, much easier to "stop" vandalisme. But then again, it goes against everything WP stands for, and fending of vandals can be fun at times. Havok (T/C/c) 09:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is we have more revisions here than PS3 -erm sorry just ignore meHappyVR 10:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited doesnt = vandalized.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz

GC controller ports

Should we be saying that the Wii has Gamecube controller ports? The Classic Controller for the Wii has more buttons than the GC controller, and highly resembles the basic layout. The classic controller is to plug into the Wii Remote, and I am starting to have my doubts that the final Wii will have these ports. As a matter in fact, they never showed the Wii with these ports at E306. What am I suggesting? Simply that we state that the Revolution Prototype had these ports. For all we know, the Wii may not. Is this too POV to change in the article?MastrCake 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly interested in 'they never showed the Wii with these ports at E3 2006' is this true - I never noticed - it's certainly true that the Wii doesn't need these ports at all. Has the flap covering these ports dissapeared too.? If the flap wasn't on the E3 2006 Wii then its almost 100% certain that they're gone - the nintendo Wii website still appears to show the flap so unless you have more info. I guess it's too speculative to change - unless you have more info.. Thanks for raising that - good point - I can't help thinking these ports are made redundant by the classic controller.HappyVR 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the ports serve a function that the Classic Controller does not. That, of course, being that there are several peripherals that directly utilize the ports- peripherals such as the GBA to GameCube link and the Donkey Konga Bongos (not to mention any GameCube controllers themselves). If there isn't any concrete evidence that the "flap" was removed, we cannot assume that Nintendo has done away with it. --

Daniel Davis 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because they didn't show it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I recall, the Smash Bros. guy said that you may be able to hook up GCN controllers and use them to play Super Smash Bros. Brawl. --Optichan 20:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The point that I am trying to make here is that the article says that the Wii has those ports. Revolution did as a fact, but it is not concrete for the Wii. MastrCake 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly safe to assume that the GameCube ports are still a feature. The official Nintendo sites listed them on their E3 Wii pages. That's as concrete as it gets for a product that hasn't been released yet. Dancter 21:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dancter, for pointing that out. I missed that one, even though I am on that site all the time. MastrCake 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wii=has gc controller ports=fact=prolly.Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz

Technology Behind the Controller

The article says several times that the console is able to tell where the controller is in 3D space. That is simply not true, though the combined pieces of the technolgy produces a similiar effect.

The sensor bar and the front of the controller interact with IR which is how you point with percision, you point at the bar and not at the screen, the intensity of the signal lets them calculate distance changes if the remote is pointed at the bar, and the relative angle between the two lets you move a cursor around on the screen.

The controller contains two other internal sensors, one can detect the controllers tilt angle on any axis. And the other is an accelerometer that can detect motion through space independent of the controllers tilt.

Here are some references and it is not hard to find more if you read some articles that came out of E3...

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6151046/p-2.html

The main issue I noticed was with Metroid--it seems as though the sensor array you attach to the TV expects your hands to be on a certain horizontal plane before it will respond to your movements. If you drop or raise your arms below the "strike zone" for any reason (for example, you put down the controllers to go to the bathroom, or drop your hands in disappointment after dying, or just get a little tired and drop your arms), then reacquiring the signal can be a tricky affair. In the meantime, the screen goes crazy and constantly spins you around or points you in one direction, not unlike an optical mouse that's going haywire. This issue came up more than a couple of times during my 10 minutes or so playing Metroid. When the sensors are locked in, the aiming and action with the remote and nunchuk work just fine. But the casual and non-gamers that Nintendo is supposedly trying to attract with this device may become frustrated if the kinks aren't worked out of the remote sensor.

http://www.gamesarefun.com/e3/impression.php?id=104

The only problems I had, and this was true of all the Wii demos that involved any sort of cursor on screen that required a degree of fine control, was that it seemed like we were too close to the screen for the remote to function properly. Being only five feet away and aiming directly at the screen, you try and control the cursor much the way you'd control a lightgun, which isn't exactly how the device functions as it doesn't seem to interface with your screen at all but the sensor bar attached to your TV. The trace-a-shape challenge for instance asks you to hold the remote like you would hold a pen, or a dart you're getting ready to throw, and I naturally hold this in front of my face so I can line the tip of the remote up with my target on screen. Due to the nature of the remote, unless you're exactly the right height and distance, this doesn't work and I found myself glancing back and forth between the remote and the TV trying to figure out why my cursor was flying all over the place.

As it is, it seemed the better way to use the controller was to intentionally keep it out of your line of sight, and only look at the screen. I imagine the trick to using the controller effectively will be to train yourself out of the habit of trying to line up the controller and what you see on screen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.163.127 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I think your concerns are best addressed with simple wording change. Elaborating on the technology is best left to the Wii Remote page. Dancter 13:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"the combined pieces of the technolgy produces a similiar effect."? I'm not trying to be snarky here, but that's kind of how all technology works, the input communicates with the processing machine and creates a result, kind of like how you'd say a TV remote works, "It changes the channels/volume." While it's the sensor receiving the signal and the TV changing the channel/volume, it was the remote that sent the command. That's like saying cars don't really drive, "it's the combination of stuff like an internal combustion engine and gravity that creates the result of forward/backward movement." Plus, the examples cited have to do with how the games are programmed, not how the hardware functions.

Look at Zelda fishing, people were flinging their hand behind their head to cast a line with no problem, but turn around, and yes, Metroid had control issues. Also look at Mario, you point at the screen and your "star cursor" thing follows where you point. While on a technical level you are in fact interacting with the sensor bar, not the TV (which is currently impossible for in-home sets), the sensor bar is connected to the console which compensates so it looks like your are interacting with the TV, which makes stating that the console knows where the controller is in 3D space an accurate statement, what you've described are simply "bugs".

Even Metroid has "the box" around the screen where you point and once you reached the edges you turn (though slowly), it was when people really got outside the screen (and thusly, the sensor bar) that there were problems, plus, who sets down their controller without pausing the game when they go to the bathroom? I certainly don't, especially not an FPS (or a First Person Adventure as they call Metroid). On another note: on a marketing level, I believe Nintendo considers the sensor bar to be a part of the console setup itself, not just an accessory. If it was practical, I imagine they would've incorporated the sensor into the box itself, but due the nature of this technology, that's probably not very possible at this point (i.e. why the PS3 controller input, while incorporated directly into the box, is not the same thing.)

Bottom-line, it'll probably take about 5 seconds for anyone whose used a computer mouse to figure out the controller. Is it difficult to tell where your mouse cursor is because of where your mouse is physically on the pad? Not really. Again, it's an accurate statement, techincal and otherwise, it doesn't need any major wording changes. Like Dancter said, elaborating on the "how" is best left to the Wii Remote page. Danny 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. - unfortunately I found it difficult to take in as I've never used a Wii controller - could you clarify a bit - are you saying 'it doesn't work' or 'it's bugged' or 'it takes some getting used to'.

Also your point about 'the controller can sense it's position and orientation...' - I tend to agree - but exactly what it can and can't do - and how good at doing these things we don't seem to know for certain yet? - maybe it would be more accurate if it said 'the controller can calculate is position...'

Having read the article you linked to I get the impression that some people didn't 'get the hang of it' straight away - nothing more. Except the metroid prime 'spinning screen' problem which seems to be a software issue more likely than the hardware malfunctioning. So I think we probably don't have enough info yet for a big change. Thanks for the links though.HappyVR 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to leave any mention about detecting position out, and just leave it as sensing motion and tilt. I don't think there are any reliable sources confirming it, anyway. I think much of the dispute over position is a confusion of the pointing feature (determining the screen position to which the Remote is pointing) with the motion-sensing feature (sensing motion in space). At this point, I feel it is presumptuous to assume that the Wii Remote can maintain an accurate determination of its position, especially when taking to account the likely sensor drift of the accelerometers. The sensor bar can help a lot with this, but it seems, based on some controller experiences, that sort of sophistication isn't incorporated into the programming libraries, yet. Dancter 19:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - so what we need to avoid is statements such as 'can detect its position in 3d space' and possibly 'six degrees of freedom' - but the minimum assumption seems to be (based on what it's supposed to do) is yaw, tilt and 3 dimensions of acceleration. I've changed the wording (again) suspect there will be many more changes in the comming months. Is the current introduction ok in this respect.HappyVR 19:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure your minimum assumption is pretty safe, but I still think it's best not to get too technical without a real confirmation. As for the intro, I think it's good enough that we won't get complaints about overstating things. Dancter 20:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wii, not The Wii

When Nintendo first announced the name "Wii" on http://wii.nintendo.com/ they called it "Wii", not "The Wii". Remember "Wii wil change everything?". On the official page now it says "Thanks to our unique controller, anyone of any age or skill level can pick up and play games on Wii." I've recently changed it in the article, but now it's changed back to "The Wii" again. What are your thoughts on this? (Even worse, now "Wii" and "The Wii" is both used in the article. That's why I changed it in the first place, it's kinda weird.) 80.127.64.214 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed before (and you even brought it up yourself not too long ago), but it seems not everyone has gotten the message. Dancter 14:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

~~I know I brought that up, but then it got archived. Anyhow, are we going to stick with "Wii" now?80.127.64.214 15:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)~~

Ah, it's been changed now. Glad that's settled then. 80.127.64.214 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it isn't going to be changed back eventually, but I did the edit because I agree with you. HappyVR made a good point in the archived discussion, though. This issue is probably not worth getting into an edit war over. Dancter 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter either way to me, however, I must point out that if a sentence is obviously "uncomfortable" to say/read on a grammatical level without 'the', then we cannot simply throw said grammar out the window due to a marketing decision. It's the name of a thing, making it an object-based noun, which, I'm sorry, warrants the use of 'the' from time to time. Plus, it's not even a Nintendo thing, hardly any companies use 'the' anymore for their products, it doesn't change how they're supposed to be properly referenced to: do you say "Honda Civic" or "The Honda Civic", "iPod" or "The iPod" "Nintendo GameCube" or "The Nintendo GameCube"? It depends on the sentence it's used in and the nature thereof, just as you can flip-flop between "The Xbox 360", "Xbox 360", "The Playstation 3" and "Playstation 3". If, for example, (please!) the Wii ends up outselling PS3 and Xbox, and we add a sentence regarding this, it could go something like, "The Wii is the best selling console of the seventh generation, etc, etc, etc..." not "Wii is the best selling, blah, blah, blah..." It's a case-by-case decision to make per sentece, not a blanket usage per Nintendo's wishes. Fortunately, I don't believe any of the current writings warrant adding 'the', but this could resurface as an issue depending on what is added to the article in the future as more details emerge and the system actually launches. Danny 16:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Man, just open your DANG eyes and suspend unregistered users from editing, it's not that hard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.227.134.40 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, gee, you're unregistered, so do you want to be blocked? And next time you make a new topic on the talk page, please put it at the bottom. Letting everybody contribute is one of the principle thoughts behind the whole idea of Wikipedia. Sign your comments!--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 01:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I realised that was me. I'll check login staus next time. Anchor the Hedgehog

hehheh. Irony=funny. (P.S. I= use = sign too much)

WarioWare

User:Dannybu2001 just moved WarioWare from 1st to 2nd party, yet I'm pretty sure Wario Ware is first party. Does anybody have any proof to the contrary?--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I'm pretty sure it's first-party, but I'm not sure which team. I can't look through it right now, but this link may have some info. Goro Abe is probably working on it; he's been interviewed about Smooth Moves. Dancter 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is first party. Wario is a Nintendo copyrighted character, Nintendo has a page on their site dedicated to the game. Look on the boxes, it'll say stuff. Moved back to 1st. Bob EggHead

Wario Ware itself is a first-party franchise, created by Nintendo's R&D 1 [9]. Smooth Moves is being developed by Intelligent Systems, which is a second-party offshoot of that development group [10]. --

Daniel Davis 17:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone should change the Nintendo developers template, then. It says Intelligent Systems is first-party. Dancter 17:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hold on there for a second. While the franchise itself was concieved as a first party effort, if you're talking about the individual games, Smooth Moves is being developed by the second party Intelligent Systems offshoot- the one that came from R&D 1. --

Daniel Davis 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't confusing the franchise with the creator. I meant that the template lists Intelligent Systems as a first-party developer. And I just checked some of the other articles, and the second-party developer page uses Intelligent Systems as an example of a first-party developer often confused for second-party. So which is it? It seems there quite a bit of confusion concerning the issue. Dancter 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard definition for "Second Party" is "In the video game industry, a second-party developer is a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer."

Intelligent Systems USED to be R&D1, which was internal, but they are a seperate entity now, housed at Kyoto. They define themselves as being "partnered" with Nintendo [11], and they have their own corporate name, "Intelligent Systems Co. LTD". They're second party, in other words, although they are owned to a large extent by Nintendo. --

Daniel Davis 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So should we correct the pages, then? Dancter 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like it. --

Daniel Davis 17:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First Party I think. Maybe second(like fire emblem).

Wii coming out on November 6 2006 (target date)

Wii coming out on November 6 2006 (target date) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.213.160.23 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have an proof of that? -- VederJuda 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Retailer dates are not final dates. -- ReyBrujo 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link referenced in the recent edits cites an "industry source". I don't feel comfortable about including it, but if someone can make the case, I may be okay with someone adding it in, as long as its properly contextualized. Dancter 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable adding it. Crystal ball and all that. Ladlergo 18:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

download game library list

How do we feel about the new section on Virtual Console games being added? This seems a bit much; I'm still a little iffy on the "Key Titles" section. Dancter 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that an expalantion of the VC is appropriate, the list of games available for the VC should have its own article, just like the List of Wii games.

If you still disagree with the "Key Titles" section, feel free to create a poll. DivineShadow is by far the biggest supporter. I'd prefer not to have it, but right now I'm putting my effort into reducing the degree to which the page looks like a list. Ladlergo 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that strongly against it. While I'm against it, it's a bit of a low-priority issue, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Plus, a poll is a bit too much work, at least for me. And if people like the lists enough to expand them and add more, I'm afraid the answer has already been made. Dancter 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you ever feel that the list of key titles is getting too big, point it out. It could be an issue in the future. Ladlergo 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're with me on the download game library section, though. I feel a little bad about proposing removing it. Judging by their work on the list of Wii games, the editor has been putting quite a bit of honest effort into improving these articles. Dancter 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather that it wasn't included here. The list of consoles included is fine, and I'd say that mentioning the games that were shown at E3 on the VC is a reasonable inclusion, but I draw the line at adding the list of VC games to the Wii page. Ladlergo 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do?

The subsection 'reaction' of section 'name' has been renamed 'Reaction to The Console' and info relating to the controller etc added - this makes no sense in a section about the name - what should be done - delete, move or? Personally I'd like to cut the subsection 'Reaction to The Console' and possibly shorten or even delete 'name'. Should the Bill gates comment be moved to the controller section? I can't decide.HappyVR 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the section on the name itself should be kept, though I'm unsure about the reaction to the name. I think the paragraph about the reaction to the controller should be cut, although the sentence about Sony could be moved to the controller section. I'm going to do that now. Ladlergo 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Download Game Library

Section 3.4, listing six or seven games you can supposedly download with the Virtual Console. Looks suspicious. Take it out?--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Ladlergo 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

^ Daisuke Wakabayashi (2006-05-11). "Microsoft sides with Nintendo in fight vs Sony". Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-05-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Hello? Can you hear Wii?". T3. Retrieved 2006-05-25. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1] Daisuke Wakabayashi (2006-05-11). "Microsoft sides with Nintendo in fight vs Sony". Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-05-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[T3-2] "Hello? Can you hear Wii?". T3. Retrieved 2006-05-25. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]