Talk:GameCube/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Interesting image

I was browsing and stunbled onto this[1] image, a close up of the gpu, with a dolphin logo. Think it fits the article?--Henke37 (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The copyright holder have cooperated with wikipedia before, see Image:ChipWorksLandShark.jpg, so fixing the licensing should be no issue.--Henke37 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube Memory Card

Nintendo GameCube Memory Card redirects here, but no information about GameCube Memory Cards is provided.--Hhielscher (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some details: official sizes, block counts, etc; are now provided. Kolano (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

original price?

I don't see it anywhere. Also the $99 dollar price drop Nintendo link is dead. 96.226.112.38 (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Does anyone know why the Nintendo GameCube is abbreviated GCN?209.90.141.186 (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a legal issue of some sort, so it has since become the standard abbreviation. I'm not entirely sure, but it's best to keep to official abbreviations instead of other ones. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also the way Nintendo abbreviates things. Nintendo 64 (N64), and they might just be going with the same pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.46.127 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that N64 is meant to be like that, because it's Nintendo 64. I think the OP meant that if it was a normal abbreviation, it'd be NGC, for Nintendo GameCube, not GCN. I found it weird too. However, after some looking into the matter, I think it's due to the Neo-Geo Colour, and the fact that it had already taken the name NGC, so it had to be GCN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.126.219 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's funny though. If you look up NGC here on Wikipedia, it does suggest the Nintendo Gamecube, but not the Neo Geo Color. 82.73.195.228 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because there is no "Neo Geo Colour", and therefore the disambiguation page does not cover it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Handle

Surely the handle on the back of the console (to enable easy transport to a friends house) is unique enough to warrant a mention in this article? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except for "to enable easy transport to a friends house", which isn't really verifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause and effects

In April 2008, Nintendo released a white controller exclusively in Japan, possibly as a result of owners of the Wii game Super Smash Bros. Brawl preferring the controller as the primary method of control.

How could it be Nintendo know that Brawl players prefered the GC controller when the white controler is for Japan only AND was beginning to be sold AT THE SAME TIME as the game(and to boot as photos showed there was a huge load of them at the time)? Aren't we getting cause and effects mixed here? I say it was more Nintendo anticipating that Brawl players would prefer playing with the gc controller more than Nintendo REACTING to that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.239.162 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Backward compatible with Gameboy & Gameboy Color games?

I seem to remember hearing that the Nintendo GameCube is backward compatible with Gameboy & Gameboy Color games. Is this correct? If so this would be a technical feature to add and would have been a marketting point. 203.219.161.145 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "backward compatible" but there is an adapter, called the GameBoy Player, which can plug into the bottom of a GC and allow you to play GB, GBC, and GBA games on your TV.99.155.223.30 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Details need to be added

The following things should be added:

• In the intro and in the main text as well as the infobox, when was the console discontinued by Nintendo? I believe they stopped production around January 2007, but I could be wrong.
• In the hardware section: When did Nintendo stop manufacturing the Gamecube with the Component Video port? Also, what models did this change affect? I know it was towards the end of the lifespan of the console. This is pertinent info that should be included. Nintendo's website says it was cut out because they felt no-one used it.

--65.31.110.13 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Best system ever--Pikmin fan 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.155.206 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Curved Surface Generation ?

I recall an article about the Flipper having Curved Surface Generation... Would this be HOS, Tessellation or something else? Has this been confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What? This is really confusing

"In addition, the GameCube also introduced a variety of connectivity options to Nintendo consoles, and was the third Nintendo console, after the Nintendo 64DD, to officially support online play."

If GC is the third console to support online, is 64DD the first or second? And regardless of which, what is the other one that predates the GC?99.155.223.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

This is the first. -sesuPRIME 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Satellaview was a satellite reciever. That's a one way data transfer, it's not online. The Famicom however, did have a modem. That was the first. eyeball226 (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Backwards/Forwards Compatability

Can you play Wii Games on a Gamecube? 209.255.28.227 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... Wii discs won't even fit in a Gamecube... BAPACop (converse) 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's the stupidest question ever. Of course not! ResMar 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Discontinued" being removed...

Someone (unregistered IP) keeps removing the "Discontinued" section of the info bar. They have also claimed that it isn't true because Nintendo still has a support page for them. I thought I should probably bring this up here for a consensus to be met, so that we can either correct the information, prevent it from being removed if it is correct, or remove it if it can be show to be inaccurate. As I have no further info, for the time being I vote to keep it with citation needed tags. If any more info turns up, that is subject to change however. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I have found citation for it. It doesn't give an exact date, but they were at least discontinued by Feb 2007. If anyone has better info (more detailed, like exact date of discontinuation) it is welcome. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd, X-Play says August 14, 2007. @1:06 « ₣M₣ » 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is odd. The article only says 2007 anyway (as we had no definite date) so I don't really think it matters at this point. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube is NOT DISCONTINUED!

Nintendo GC is not discontinued. In NA, you can find it at GameStop, GamesPlus, more! Beamer103 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are pre-owned units, or possibly (unlikely at this point) old stock. The console is no longer produced, i.e. discontinued. Nintendo themselves have said that it was discontinued as per the ref that you removed. Your edit to the page has been reverted. If you can provide some kind of proof that they are still produced, I for one am all ears. Until then we have a reference from Nintendo themselves which says they are discontinued, so that is to be taken as the official opinion. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreamcast

The claim that all competitors are notable strikes me as ludicrous. By that argument, the article for John Kerry should make a point of the fact that he came in ahead of the candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party and the Nazi Party in the 2004 election. By specifically pointing out the GameCube's outselling the Dreamcast, you are implying that there was doubt that it would do so. Taking care to mention the short time the Dreamcast was supported makes it even worse, as you're effectively suggesting that if Sega had supported the system for longer, it likely would have outsold the GameCube. This is analogous to adding to the article for Mortal Kombat 2: "Mortal Kombat 2 managed to outsell Ultra Vortek for the Jaguar. It should be noted however that only 250,000 units of Ultra Vortek's supporting console were ever produced, while over 10 million Playstations had already been sold at the time MK2 was released."

In short, making deliberate mention of the GameCube's performance against the Dreamcast is extremely misleading and dangerously akin to WP: Coatrack.--24.60.220.148 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, those comparisons are useless.

I am not from the US, but as far as I understand it the US Nazi Party and the Peace and Freedom Party are significantly less relevent in American politics than the Republicans or Democrats. By significantly I mean they receive at least a few orders of magnitude fewer votes and have almost zero chance of being elected at even the state level. US polotics is described as two-party system as it has 2 major parties. The 6th gen of consoles could, in the same way, be described as a 4-console generation. I am not aware of any minor consoles of the 6th gen, but there were a few in the 5th gen that I know of - for example the Apple Bandai Pippin, Amiga CD32, Atari Jaguar, PC-FX etc. None of these would be notable in, say, the PS1 article, but may be notable when compared to each other. Heck, in the PS1 article even the Saturn might not be relevant, depending on the context. It would however be relevant in the N64 article. The Dreamcast on the other hand sold about half the GameCube, so is a useful comparison.

As for the the MK2/Ultra Vortek one, well that's just stupid. In this article, the "generation" is a superset of both the Dreamcast and the GameCube. In your example the superset of Ultra Vortek is Atari Jaguar games, while MK2s is Arcade, Amiga, Game Boy, Game Gear, PC, PlayStation, PS3, Master System, Mega Drive/Genesis, Sega 32X, Saturn and SNES games. A rough equivalent of that example would be more along the lines of comparing the GameCube to the PS1 or the SNES, as you are juming up an extra level and comparing between sets (i.e. where the sets in the venn diagram do not intersect). You have to compare like with like.

Second, why is it ludicrous to compare all of a set? Without the Dreamcast, it is implied that the GameCube was the least successful console of the generation, which is at best unbalanced. If it were a "minor" console, like mentioned earlier, then I you might have a point, but by your logic we shouldn't include the PS2 either since it is still being sold. You also seem to have missed the point that the Dreamcasts lifespan was short because of its low sales, not the other way around.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also the Dreamcast was supported for quite a long time with new arcade ports being released for the Dreamcast in Japan up to 2007, and let's be clear that Sega's last console, which is rated highly and remembered fondly, is a significant one and that the difference in sales numbers between the Gamecube and the Dreamcast pale in comparison to the difference in numbers between the Gamecube and PS2.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, Alphathon, you're taking both sides of the issue here. Your first point is an attempt to counter 24.60.220.148's argument, but with your second one you argue that the Dreamcast's lifespan had nothing to do with its low sales, when it was you who edited in a sentence implying just the contrary and 24.60.220.148 who is clearly arguing against that. Please make up your mind which position you want to argue for before posting or editing this article further. Arguing both positions gives people the impression that you have no real opinion on the issue and are simply here to start a fight.

While I'm here, I'll point out that your first point is simply that the magnitudes in 24.60.220.148's analogies are different, which misses the entire point, not just of his specific analogies, but of analogies in general. The point of an analogy is to look past magnitudes to the true nature of the issue. In this case, what I get out of the analogy(not saying this is what 24.60.220.148 meant) is that just as John Kerry was not personally responsible for the various reasons why minor party candidates stand no chance in a presidential election, the GameCube is not responsible for Sega completely losing consumer confidence, alienating some of their most talented developers into leaving, and pushing the Dreamcast out in hopes of making back some of their investment rather than in hopes of being a contender for most successful console of the generation. Thus, discussions of the Dreamcast's commercial failure are off-topic in a GameCube article. We already have History of Video Game Consoles (sixth generation) and the Dreamcast's own article for that.

Also, I can't help but note that all of you, 24.60.220.148 included, seem to be assuming the Dreamcast and Gamecube were on the market for the same time frame. In fact, the Dreamcast was just a few months shy of being taken off the market in every nation but Japan by the time the GameCube launched. It was a competitor to the Gamecube, but only for a VERY brief time.

By the way, lest anyone reading this thread fall prey to misinformation: Wikiposter 0123's above post is loaded with factual errors. You can find correct information on the Dreamcast and its games on most reliable gaming sites.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"First and foremost, Alphathon, you're taking both sides of the issue here. Your first point is an attempt to counter 24.60.220.148's argument, but with your second one you argue that the Dreamcast's lifespan had nothing to do with its low sales, when it was you who edited in a sentence implying just the contrary and 24.60.220.148 who is clearly arguing against that. Please make up your mind which position you want to argue for before posting or editing this article further. Arguing both positions gives people the impression that you have no real opinion on the issue and are simply here to start a fight."

No, I am not taking both sides; you seem to have misinterpreted my addition within the article. The addition of the line within the article was put there to show that the two were not on sale for the same length of time and are therefore not to be measured against the same scale i.e. on average for every year they were on sale, the GameCube did not sell double the units that the Dreamcast sold in a year. I do not know the figures off hand, but if the Dreamcast was on the market for, say, half as long as the GameCube, it sold at roughly same speed. On the same level, a similar disclaimer about the PS2s lifespan may be in order (possibly while noting the number of sales during the GmaeCube's lifespan if such data is available, but I doubt it is, at least no readily). My reply to 24.60.220.148 was merely to point out that the low sales were not a result of its short lifespan, but rather that it was the other way around.

"While I'm here, I'll point out that your first point is simply that the magnitudes in 24.60.220.148's analogies are different, which misses the entire point, not just of his specific analogies, but of analogies in general."

Again, no it doesn't (and by "it doesn't" I mean "I don't" - it was supposedly me who missed the point, not my post; please use grammar properly). Analogies cannot be drawn for any two things. I see that it was an attempt at an analogy, but the two situations are not analogous so no analogy can be drawn. As I said in my post, the difference between the Dreamcast and the GameCube are in no way the same to the difference between the Apple Bandai Pippin and the N64 say. The Pippin/N64 comparison is roughly analogous to what 24.60.220.148 said due to the huge difference in numbers (42 thousand vs. 32 million) - the Dreamcast/GameCube is not (11 million vs. 22 million). The whole point of that analogy was to show that the Dreamcast was small and insignificant in the same way that those fringe parties are, which simply isn't the case. As far as I can tell, there is no analogy between the Dreamcast/GameCube and US politics that can be logically drawn. Now, if it were compared to UK politics, it could possibly be compared, with the Dreamcast being the Liberal Democrats and the GameCube being Labour, since the Lib Dems are the 3rd party in our system which, while they only got a ~23% vote share and 57 seats in the last election, are considered a major party (compared in this example to Labour's 29%, 258 seats - it is quite a complicated system that is based on the number of seats overall rather than vote share - based on seats Labour ≈ 5× Lib Dems, but the vote share pushes them up in influence etc). It's quite a complicated analogy to make (and not one I would draw if it hadn't been drawn to politics to begin with) but hopefully you see the point - in a 4 console system, which is what the 6th Gen was, the Dreamcast was the 4th console, not a "fringe" or "minor" console like the Pippin was in the 5th Gen.

"The point of an analogy is to look past magnitudes to the true nature of the issue."

Not when the analogy being drawn is based on the magnitudes.

"what I get out of the analogy(not saying this is what 24.60.220.148 meant) is that just as John Kerry was not personally responsible for the various reasons why minor party candidates stand no chance in a presidential election, the GameCube is not responsible for Sega completely losing consumer confidence, alienating some of their most talented developers into leaving, and pushing the Dreamcast out in hopes of making back some of their investment rather than in hopes of being a contender for most successful console of the generation."

Really? That's how you interpret it? To me it seems to simply be saying "The Dreamcast is like a small, 'irrelevant' political party - a comparison with a big, 'major' one like the GameCube should not be drawn". I think this is possibly why you think I have missed the analogy - we have interpreted completely differently. In the article there isn't (and wasn't) any implication that the GameCube caused the Dreamcasts poor sales, only that it performed favourably when compared.

"...discussions of the Dreamcast's commercial failure are off-topic in a GameCube article. We already have History of Video Game Consoles (sixth generation) and the Dreamcast's own article for that"

It is not off topic when the topic is a sales comparison with other consoles. If it is off-topic to compare it to the Dreamcast, it is also off-topic to compare it to the PS2 and the Xbox. It should be noted that nowhere was the Dreamcast's "failure" mentioned, only the number of units sold and its relatively short lifespan, and causation between the GC and the poor results was made.

"Also, I can't help but note that all of you, 24.60.220.148 included, seem to be assuming the Dreamcast and Gamecube were on the market for the same time frame. In fact, the Dreamcast was just a few months shy of being taken off the market in every nation but Japan by the time the GameCube launched. It was a competitor to the Gamecube, but only for a VERY brief time."

This is finally a worthwhile/valid point and one which I hadn't really considered. As a result I am unsure which side to take now (it should or shouldn't be in the article) as you are right - they didn't really compete. I would say that is possibly notable purely on the basis that they were sold at around the same time so were subject to similar market forces (size of the games industry etc) so is possibly a worthwhile comparison.

"By the way, lest anyone reading this thread fall prey to misinformation: Wikiposter 0123's above post is loaded with factual errors."

Well, I wouldn't disagree there. The only reason I didn't bring them up was because I got back here a day or so later and it would seem to have been resolved (24.60.220.148 hadn't reverted it back basically).

Another note, in your edit summary you mention that edit warring does not further your point (or something to that effect). Does your reversion not count in that respect? I don't know. It may be similar to a dispute currently on the Mega Drive article where edits during the discussion could be considered disruptive (as they were imposing the users will on the argument) and reversion of said edits (back to the original form) were simply undoing the disruption to the discussion.

P.S. I am not after a fight here. I think it is simply a case of misinterpretation of arguments (stemming from a misinterpretation of earlier arguments by 24.60.220.148). I really don't want to be part of dispute so I'll probably leave it be, for now at least.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lest anyone be deceived by someone who doesn't know anything about the Dreamcast. Taken from the lead of the Dreamcast article:

"However, support of the system continued in Europe and Oceania until the end of 2002, as well as in Japan, where consoles were still sold until 2007 and new licensed games continued to be released."Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ho boy, now Wikiposter0123's saying we should use a Wikipedia article as a source for a Wikipedia article. Please read WP: Citing Wikipedia. Incidentally, there's a difference between games being released for a system and the system being supported. Also, I can undo your edit warring for as long as you keep it up, so I advise you to stop wasting your time.

Anyway, Alphathon - While I'm speaking of the edit warring issue, Wikiposter0123's reverts were inappropriate for two reasons. First is that the edit in question was already under debate and no resolution had been reached. The second reason is that WP: STATUSQUO says "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." (So technically, Alpathon, your initial revert of your edit was against Wiki policies; however, it was understandable. You explained your reason for reverting the edit in the edit summary, which shows that you thought 24.60.220.148 didn't fully understand the reason behind your edit, and were not simply trying to force your edit through.) I agree that it seems suspicious when I happen to agree with the status quo, but I think I would have reverted Wikiposter0123's edit even if I agreed with the actual content of the edit. By the way, though it wouldn't qualify as a reason to revert his edit, the taunting mimicry used in his edit summary(and again in his post above) is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution either.

I apologize if I seemed to be accusing you of looking to start a fight. It's just that I abhor fights, so I got very nervous when I saw more than one self-contradiction in your first post.

Going over your post backwards now... No, I did mean that your post misses the point. Your post doesn't contain all of your thoughts. Besides, I'm fairly sure that picking at irrelevant grammar points is not in the spirit of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Also, you keep assuming that everyone else here is focused on the issue of magnitude, when I see nothing in 24.60.220.148's post to suggest that, and I made pretty clear that I believe discussion of magnitude overlooks the real issue, which is whether or not the Dreamcast has any significance with regard to the Gamecube. In general, it's not a good idea to assume that everyone is coming from the same viewpoint as you.

Yes, your edit says nothing of the Dreamcast's failure explicitly, but talk of the Gamecube outselling the Dreamcast is in essence a statement on the Dreamcast's failure. To use the analogy again, John Kerry got more votes because the third party candidates got fewer votes than a major party candidate could possibly get, not because John Kerry was a relatively successful major party candidate. Likewise, given that the Dreamcast sold only 10.6 million units, it's no surprise that the Gamecube sold more. 10.6 million is less than a console from a major developer like Nintendo was at all likely to get. And since the consoles were only briefly on the market at the same time, it can't be said that the Dreamcast sold so little because it was losing sales to the Gamecube.

Continuing along that line, I think you're a bit too concerned with how many consoles undersold the Gamecube. The fact that the Gamecube was such a close third to the Xbox in sales says a lot more about the GC's success than the fact that there exists a DOA console which undersold the GC. And really, the most meaningful point is its 22 million worldwide sales, which was a respectable figure. I think if we can get a sourced statement that 22 million was a decent amount of sales at the time, or better yet, that Nintendo made a profit on the Gamecube, I'd say that would be MUCH better than citing the Dreamcast's sales.

However, I don't have a source that says that at hand, and it's likely that you don't have such a source, either. And I do agree that though the two consoles didn't really compete with each other, the fact that they had similar capabilities and were sold on a similar market does arguably make a comparison of their sales relevant. So if you're not happy with leaving the article as is, I'd be okay with a more brief mention of the Dreamcast, say "The GameCube finished its generation slightly behind the Xbox, which sold 24 million units before being discontinued, and well ahead of the short-lived Dreamcast, which sold 10.6 million." That way it mentions the DC's sales without seeming to make a point of them. If 24.60.220.148 is still following this discussion, he too should chime in with whether or not he approves of that compromise. Looking at his contributions history, I suspect he hasn't been on Wikipedia since you posted your rebuttal, so we should at least give him a couple more days to voice his opinion. Assuming, of course, that you yourself don't object to my suggestion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Also, I can undo your edit warring for as long as you keep it up, so I advise you to stop wasting your time."

"Wikiposter0123's reverts were inappropriate for two reasons."

Actually, I never said that they were appropriate (here we go again with the interpretation issues), I was simply pointing out that you are also edit warring and was wondering if your reverts were any more appropriate. Edit warring doesn't necessarily have to be negative, it simply isn't punished (usually) if it isn't. <pedant>Also, technically you cannot undo edit warring; you can only undo edits made during an edit war.</pednat>

"First is that the edit in question was already under debate and no resolution had been reached.

Seems like pretty much what I said isn't it? ("...edits during the discussion could be considered disruptive (as they [are] imposing the users will on the argument) and reversion of said edits (back to the original form) [are] simply undoing the disruption to the discussion.")

"If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives."

Surely this means that my version (i.e. what was originally there) should remain. I don't quite know how status quo is being used here but it seems to me that since the Dreamcast info has been there for a while (AFAIK), it would be the status quo. I did not add the Dreamcast info - it was there already. 24.60.220.148 removed it out of the blue (note I do not mean without reason, only that it wasn't a revert of an addition.

Never mind, I checked and it would seem that the Dreamcast info was added by Wikiposter0123 on July 26th. I was not aware that this was the case and assumed when 24.60.220.148 made his/her edit that the Dreamcast info was the status quo. Also, I wasn't aware of that specific wikipedia rule, although it would seem I do adhere to it anyway (seems logical to me).

"Besides, I'm fairly sure that picking at irrelevant grammar points is not in the spirit of Wikipedia dispute resolution."

Probably not but I didn't mean anything by it. I'm a bit of a grammar nazi and it screws with my head when I have to reply to something like that (I can't stand to be grammatically incorrect like that, but in cases like that I have to be to make sense). It wasn't meant as an insult or anything.

"Also, you keep assuming that everyone else here is focused on the issue of magnitude, when I see nothing in 24.60.220.148's post to suggest that, and I made pretty clear that I believe discussion of magnitude overlooks the real issue, which is whether or not the Dreamcast has any significance with regard to the Gamecube. In general, it's not a good idea to assume that everyone is coming from the same viewpoint as you."

I did not make such an assumption. That is how I interpreted 24.60.220.148's original argument, nothing more; everything I said was a response to that, pointing out that the argument, as I interpret it, is invalid. I was not assuming that anyone other than 24.60.220.148 was taking issue with the magnitude, or even that 24.60.220.148 was, only that it was how the argument appeared to me. I do have a very "it is this way" way of talking (rather than "I think") so it's understandable if it came off like that. It's not something I am proud of but not something I can really help...not without giving every word a serious about of thought anyway (which really isn't worth it).

"To use the analogy again, John Kerry got more votes because the third party candidates got fewer votes than a major party candidate could possibly get, not because John Kerry was a relatively successful major party candidate."

That also seems an invalid analogy, at least up to a point. In an election you can only place one vote, but you can buy more than one console. To be fair most people don't unless their existing one is discontinued, but it does contribute to sales significantly. For example, of my friends, about ⅓ have an Xbox 360, ⅓ a PS3 and ⅓ both.

"Likewise, given that the Dreamcast sold only 10.6 million units, it's no surprise that the Gamecube sold more. 10.6 million is less than a console from a major developer like Nintendo was at all likely to get."

It was also less than a major developer like SEGA was likely to get, but the console flopped. Again, this is not about whether it is surprising once you know the figures, it's about what was to be expected before the event and about what was considered to be viable competition. To be sure the Sega Saturn didn't do very well, but neither did the GameCube compared to the Wii. At that point Sega could still be considered a major developer, which is why I called that console generation a 4 console generation.

"And since the consoles were only briefly on the market at the same time, it can't be said that the Dreamcast sold so little because it was losing sales to the Gamecube."

No, but that is not why the comparison is being drawn; or at least it's not the only reason. I've been over this already (which you acknowledge later on so I'll let it slide).

<Grammar Nazi>Please do not start sentences with "And" (unless the subject of the sentence is the word "And"). "And" is designed to join to things together; If "And" is required at the beginning of a sentence then it should not be a sentence; at least not in it's present form.</Grammar Nazi>

"Continuing along that line, I think you're a bit too concerned with how many consoles undersold the Gamecube. The fact that the Gamecube was such a close third to the Xbox in sales says a lot more about the GC's success than the fact that there exists a DOA console which undersold the GC."

True, the Xbox sales do say more about the GC's success than the DC's. That doesn't mean that the DC's aren't useful, simply that they are not as useful as the Xbox's. It doesn't have to be one or the other you know - we can have both.

"And really, the most meaningful point is its 22 million worldwide sales, which was a respectable figure. I think if we can get a sourced statement that 22 million was a decent amount of sales at the time, or better yet, that Nintendo made a profit on the Gamecube, I'd say that would be MUCH better than citing the Dreamcast's sales."

Again, you seem to think it is one or the other. There is nothing to say both cannot be useful.

<Grammar Nazi>*Rawr* Again, please do not start sentences with "And".</Grammar Nazi>

"However, I don't have a source that says that at hand, and it's likely that you don't have such a source, either."

Not to hand, no. I'll see if I can find one. Anyway, go on...

"And I do agree that though the two consoles didn't really compete with each other, the fact that they had similar capabilities and were sold on a similar market does arguably make a comparison of their sales relevant. So if you're not happy with leaving the article as is, I'd be okay with a more brief mention of the Dreamcast, say "The GameCube finished its generation slightly behind the Xbox, which sold 24 million units before being discontinued, and well ahead of the short-lived Dreamcast, which sold 10.6 million." That way it mentions the DC's sales without seeming to make a point of them."

I'd be more than happy with that. I don't really think that it needs the bit I added (or the bit about them being former rivals) but when I added it I thought that it was the reason for the removal (the lack of clarification about the lifespan), so I tried to clarify it.

<Grammar Nazi>*Rawr* "And I do agree..." *Rawr*</Grammar Nazi>

"If 24.60.220.148 is still following this discussion, he too should chime in with whether or not he approves of that compromise. Looking at his contributions history, I suspect he hasn't been on Wikipedia since you posted your rebuttal, so we should at least give him a couple more days to voice his opinion. Assuming, of course, that you yourself don't object to my suggestion."

Seems fair. I think it's fair to wait until maybe Saturday, or this time next week at most.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone who claims to dislike arguing your actions seem awfully contradictory)

"Incidentally, there's a difference between games being released for a system and the system being supported."

Um, no. Being supported pretty much means games are being released, and if you had even bothered to look at the last Dreamcast games that were released you would've noticed the sheer factual inaccuracies of your claims:

Triggerheart Exelica released in 2007

Last Hope released in 2007

Radium released in 2007

Karous released in 2007

DUX released 2009

Rush Rush Rally Racing released in 2009

As for your self-righteous justification for your reverts. I already explained that a sole IP address had complained, I didn't revert him, someone else did, then that IP reverted them so I reverted him. Hardly "edit warring". After a discussion had continued for 4 days without any response it appeared the IP address had withdrawn and being the only objector I reinserted the material. You seem to like to accuse people of edit warring and breaking the rules and being illogical and factually inaccurate(without even checking the facts for yourself I might add), but all that pales in comparison with how you do that with a self-righteous smug grin on your face and patting yourself on the back for not being argumentative. If you really want to continue arguing go ahead, I may or may not respond.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter0123, your lies are really pathetic. Do you not realize that anyone can tell that your claim of "After a discussion had continued for 4 days" is complete bull just by taking a glance at the history for this article? I won't even bother addressing your other lies. Since this matter has started you've done nothing but make disruptive edits, post false information, and otherwise flaunt your open disregard for Wikipedia's rules. I really hope you're not planning to keep working on Wikipedia for long, as behavior like yours tends to lead to getting indefinitely blocked.

— Martin IIIa , — (continues after insertion below.)

I'll admit to being mistaken about the time of my revert. But if I don't get a response promptly I just assume the person has left(and if you notice they had until just recently). As for my "other lies" which you won't even address. What exactly are those? You mean like my pointing out that you have continually mocked me for posting false information about the Dreamcast which I have just proven to be true and now you are blatantly claiming I am lying to avoid admitting you were wrong. That is one of the most dishonest things I've seen on Wikipedia, and you should just bow out to avoid further entangling yourself in your shameless dishonesty.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphathon - Actually, I did understand your question about edit warring, it's just that my answer was poorly worded and insufficient, something that hit me a half hour later. The reason reverting to the status quo is appropriate is, firstly, it prevents there from being a standard where the rules only apply to those who choose to follow them. So in this case, Wikiposter0123 would be able to force his edit through knowing that unless someone with the opposite viewpoint and a similar disregard for the rules decides to edit war with him, his edit is untouchable. Bypassing discussion on edits would thus be rewarded rather than punished. The second reason... Well, if something is status quo, that means its been accepted by the article's editors for some time. So while the status quo may be wrong, it's probably not so disastrously wrong that the article can't be allowed to stay that way until the dispute is resolved. Something that is not status quo doesn't contain any such reassurance. For instance, an editor might change an article to say Winston Churchill was one of Mussolini's top aides, and then dispute the reversion of that edit. So the rules have to go with defense of the status quo to prevent ludicrous edits from remaining in the article for an extended period of time. There is, incidentally, a forum where you can request that the status quo be enforced by temporarily locking the article, preventing it from being edited. I didn't think that necessary in this case since only one editor is causing problems.

— Martin IIIa , — (continues after insertion below.)

As I repeat, the IP was the one edit-warring he reverted my edit then he reverted someone else's revert of his edit. All I was doing was undoing his edit warring.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I know your grammar comment wasn't meant as an insult, but just as general advice, it's a good idea to avoid mentioning grammar in a debate on Wikipedia. For one thing, someone may either know more about grammar than you, or think they know more, which could start an extended debate over a grammatical point.

Yeah, until Saturday sounds like enough time for 24.60.220.148 to respond. We should check what Wikipedia policy says about that, though - we don't want 24.60.220.148 popping up later to revert the edit and fuming at us for breaking WP rules. Not saying that he would, mind you. I can't find a relevant policy right now, though, and I gotta run...--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, and here I thought this was an open-and-shut case! Yeah, the suggested compromise works for me. To be blunt, I think the Dreamcast shouldn't be mentioned in that section at all, but the compromise edit takes care of the main problem, and I don't want to have a debate over a minor quibble, especially since, if the compromise edit had been used in the first place, I'm not sure I'd have even been bothered by it enough to revert it. Anyway, as a show of no hard feelings, I'll do the job of editing it in as you guys have worded it.--24.60.220.148 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Glad that we were able to resolve this in a mutually agreeable manner.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Serial Port 2

Random curiosity has paid of and I have found commercial use of serial port 2 (a debug USB 2.0 port). I don't know how to contact the photographer to ask for a license for wikipedia though. http://s152.photobucket.com/albums/s192/ALCAMJI/Game%20Cube/?action=view&current=tdevbottom.jpg

More stuff here: http://www.pspx.ru/forum/showthread.php?p=776529#post776529 MrJRT (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

About the hardware

I have a gamecube that is a Zelda edition. It is mostly greenish, with a fort in the background. You can see thew wolf from...Twilight Princess, I believe, sticking out of the bottom left corner, just below the big black circle that's in the middle if the gamecube. What's the name of this, and should it be mentioned? Also, there is a another Twilight Princess edition gamecube, and a brown one with the Triforce on the cover...24.179.27.28 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Orignal naming?

The code name was starcube and dolphine.--Cooly123 01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Start ups

These are regular start ups I found when I start the system (with Youtube links):

• Press Z on 1 Controller - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU-WPMxun3Q&feature=related
• Press Z on 4 Controllers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icHT4R26ivo&feature=related
• Press A+B on 4 Controllers and Switch Memory Card A to B (Now With Viva La Vida for more cool actions!) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgPPwZ0qkro&feature=related

I don't know the rest -__-

Use this link to look at the rest (THE LAST ONE IS VERY SCARY! YOU WILL DIE IN THIS ONE OR BREAK THE SOUND! D: NO!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoMeBYe5DTs

Click here for 10 more (20th one is creepy, but you won't die oFTo): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxV2f2D6U8&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario324 2 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fake videos are fake. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?

So, 109.76.76.116 has a added a contradiction template; what exactly about this article contradicts PlayStation 2? Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the user's contributions, and it looks like all the edits entail random/irrelevant templates being added to articles. So to me, it looks like vandalism...(but it's that a weird/uncommon example of vandalism!) Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Seemed that way to me too, but it didn't seem blatant enough for a reversion… assume good faith and all that. I suppose if it was legit (I see you have reverted it) he/she can always re-add it, although hopefully with an explanation. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, assuming good faith was my first reaction too, not to mention most people who vandalize wikipedia briefly don't usually take the time to learn more obscure templates, but when I looked up the contribs, there seemed to be a trend. But as you said, if the IP did mean it, they can re-add it with an explanation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Official Abbreviation

The top of the article says: The official abreviation is GCN, which kind of doesn't make any sense. So, what's the source? NGC makes sense since it's called the Nintendo Gamecube. Robin.lemstra (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I myself always thought it was just an odd thing on Nintendo's part. Nope! Quite possibly a misreading that took off. AliceSKD (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how this site works but I know the source if somebody would be so kind as to include it. In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, if a Trophy mentions a GameCube game, it will display "GCN". 68.202.23.224 (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've read in the past, the Gamecube is abbreviated as "GCN" to avoid confusion to an earier gaming system, the Neo Geo Color, which is usually abbreviated as "NGC". It came out first, so it makes some sense, even though the Nintendo Gamecube is probably better known. Xenobound (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Neo Geo Color. It's Neo Geo POCKET Color, NGPC.76.226.131.88 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

32/64/128-bit

Recently, 74.176.223.2 has been adding data on the "bits" of the system to the lead. Initially, they called it a 128-bit system, but after being challenged instead added various 32/64-bit capabilities. The edits to me suggest that this editor either doesn't know what they are talking about in terms of hardware (and likely feels the system bits are important as they were back with the SNES & Mega Drive/Genesis) or has a poor grasp of English so is unable to communicate effectively what they mean.

What has been written seems like far too much of an oversimplification to me and I'm not even sure if it's correct (I am not knowledgeable enough about the GCs hardware to make a valid judgement). Regardless though, this isn't a technical article, so the systems capabilities in terms of the accepted bit values don't really belong in the lead (just as the amount of RAM or the controller protocol wouldn't), and certainly not in the first sentence like they were. If there is any legitimate reason to add it to the lead, it should at least be placed in its own sentence alongside the disk and connectivity info (the latter of which I'm not sure belongs in the lead either, or at least not in such a fleshed-out manner).

Since I am not all that familiar with the specifics of the hardware, someone else would have to chip-in on that front if it is decided that it does belong.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Article should include original price

This article should include the Gamecube's original price of $199 (source: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/faq/1787). I would add it myself, but I have no idea how to make a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanKroske (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturer = Nintendo?

Did Nintendo ever own manufacturing plants? As far as I can remember the manufacturing was done by Panasonic/Matsushita.

If there is no reference that Nintendo ever owned a manufacturing plant, it should be only listed as Developer. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:GameCube-Set.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:GameCube-Set.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The GameCube is a sixth generation video game console released by Nintendo beginning in 2001. Meant as a successor to the Nintendo 64, the GameCube sold approximately 22 million units worldwide. It was the third most-successful console of its generation, behind Sony's PlayStation 2 and Microsoft's Xbox. The GameCube was succeeded by the Wii in 2006.Photo: Evan Amos

Japanese script

I removed the Japanese script from the opening line under the assumption that GameCube is a term of English origin. I realize that it has a Japanese equivalent, but generally that's not the basis for using the script translation on Wikipedia. If WP:VG disagrees with this in any way, then we can restore it. I searched through past discussions, but it didn't seem like there was clear consensus on when to use it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Although GameCube derives from the English language I think it should be in the article because it gives the information of how it is spelled in its country/language (Japanese) of origin. For example, the word PlayStation also derives from English and I also agree agree that the japanese script should be in its article simply because it originated in a Japanese speaking country (Japan).--Arkhandar (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've restored it for now. Additional comments are still welcome, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:JAPAN, products from Japan should show it in its native language. DarkToonLink (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To be more confusing, I could also point out that the word in English GameCube comes from the Japanese word ゲームキューブ (Gēmukyūbu) which in turn came from English Game and Cube. I suppose it's like wasei-eigo. DarkToonLink (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Market share section

@Lukeno94:, When I approached the GameCube article a few months ago, it was clear that the article needed a lot of work. There was a lot of redundancy, missing information, and unsourced content. My intent is to get this article to GA status. The last remaining section is "Market share". Clearly, a lot of the information here is redundant and unnecessary, as it is already mentioned in the opening of "Reception and sales" section and/or in other sections throughout the article. My proposed change was to shorten this section keeping the most notable information and summarizing it. Regarding the sourced content I removed, it detailed events that may have mattered in late 2003 or early 2004, but does not contribute significantly to the overall lifespan of the console and it's market share performance. The next step is to request a peer review, so please explain your objection to the proposed change, and I'll be glad to work towards a compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, there were several unsourced statements in there that needed to go. However, I did object to the large removal of sourced content that you also engaged in without discussion. One major issue I have with your paragraph is that it doesn't really compare how the Gamecube sold against the XBox and PS2 - it's there in very vague terms, but certainly is insufficient; before, there was a little more there, and it was sourced. Although it is unsourced, I think the bit about the special GD-ROM discs being a problematic factor should've been kept, and sourced; I'd say the same for the sourced information on major publishers pulling support from the Gamecube, and similar things. You probably also should've left in some of the information about when the last games came out, although that was unsourced, so you'd have needed to sort that. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand it appears to be a drastic removal of content, but I should emphasize that some of the content removed is redundant.

• How the GameCube stacked up against the Xbox, PS2, and Dreamcast is explained directly above with specific numbers and an IGN ranking.
• Regarding the mini-disc format being an issue, my edit stated: "...the console's limited disc storage capacity led to higher video compression and missing content in many third-party releases". The previous text seems to state the same thing, only in more words. The technical section of the article discusses the capacity and how it differs from DVDs. Perhaps that can be expanded upon, but really that should happen earlier in the article and not under "Market share".
• Regarding third-party publishers pulling the plug, you've got a good point. Though the text needs some work, it should be left in some capacity.
• I'm not opposed to leaving in the information about when the last games were sold, but it should probably be moved out of "Market share" and perhaps directly above under "Reception and sales".

I'll work on a proposal and provide a link to it afterwards for review. Thanks for the feedback so far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the rankings of the consoles still needs to be more detailed, particularly in regards to the various markets (Europe/USA/Japan/other). I must admit, I thought moving the information about the later games would be a good idea. And not a problem, glad you're open to ideas :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to Nintendo GameCube

The article is called GameCube, but Nintendo GameCube would be the proper name. Should the article be moved or not?Darrman1 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. The article was moved unilaterally a while back, ignoring consensus established during a previous move request. The argument is that there is no other page at the name "GameCube" so there is no need to disambiguate. I think there's an argument there, but there should have been a discussion first, especially since consensus had already been established. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying he moved without discussion and against agreement? Isn't that a broken rule? Maybe there should be a move discussion. Darrman1 (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'Nintendo GameCube' is probably a better title... DarkToonLink (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the rationale is that we have a lot of other articles with names without the company name in them, e.g. Xbox 360 and PlayStation 2. Therefore some editors think if there's no page at the most primitive name e.g. "GameCube", they should automatically move it to the name without the company in it.  For Xbox and PlayStation, which rarely are referred to with Microsoft and Sony in the name, there is a cogent argument. For others like Sega Master System, of which the prominent acronym is SMS, I think there is less of a case (although my request to move it back was blocked). For this system, there's a good argument either way. NGC and GC are both commonly used acronyms and unlike the Wii, the company name has been commonly used in conjunction with "GameCube". So yeah, maybe there should be a move discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator Prototime. George Ho (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

GameCube → Nintendo GameCube – As noted above, the name of this console is the Nintendo GameCube, not merely "GameCube". See Nintendo.com List of Systems; note that, unlike "Wii" or "Game Boy Advance", the console is called "Nintendo GameCube", akin to the "Super NES" and "Nintendo 64". See also the official Nintendo GameCube logo, which is used at the top of this very article in the infobox. Furthermore, previous consensus—established during a previous move request—was that this article should be named "Nintendo GameCube". However, a user moved this article to the present title a few months ago unilaterally, ignoring the consensus without discussion. This article should thus be returned to its former, correct, consensus-supported title. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:PRECISE, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:UCN ; the current name is more common, and we are not beholden to official names, and the official name is just longer without need. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Although most people call GameCubes GameCubes, Nintendo GameCube is the full official name. Take Secure Digital for example; everyone calls them SD cards, but Secure Digital is the proper name. As well, 30 Wikipedias call this Nintendo GameCube, versus 9 who call it GameCube. My source? So, Nintendo GameCube is the more used name on Wikipedia. GameCube is the common name, but Nintendo GameCube is the official name, and the article should be moved. GameCube can exist as a redirect. Darrman (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  Please read WP:COMMON and WP:OFFICIAL. You have it exactly backwards. Powers ^T 13:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • A brief read later, and I saw examples like the UK being called the United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So, I checked the Nintendo website, and it says Nintendo GameCube, not GameCube. And just to show, the Wii is called the Wii, not the Nintendo Wii. [2] Darrman (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nintendo GameCube is its proper title, and many people do commonly refer to it as such. Simply GameCube is generally only used in context and as per the reasons above I agree it is better to give it its full title, Nintendo GameCube. That is the name of the console, after all. The Nintendo 3DS is commonly called simply 3DS, although its article includes the proper prefix of the brand name, even though it is sometimes dropped; the same principle applies here. DarkToonLink (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • the 3DS example is a bad one, considering how many uses there are to 3ds -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • So I checked the disambiguation, and I've never heard of any of the other meanings! I think it's fine. The Nintendo 3DS is more likely then not the most common meaning! The 3DS is often called the 3DS, in fact, I always drop the Nintendo myself. But Nintendo 3DS is the proper name, and that's why the article is called. Same deal here, the proper name is Nintendo GameCube, even though it's often called GameCube. That's why I said Support in the first place, in fact, I brought up the subject in February. If I offended you, sorry. Darrman (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unless someone can show that the full name is actually more common. Powers ^T 13:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody prove that GameCube is more common in a variety of contexts? DarkToonLink (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose GameCube isn't ambiguous, nor is "Nintendo GameCube" more commonly used. Hot Stop 15:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now – no other challenging topics yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." This Wikipedia guideline should help clear up some confusion. Nintendo GameCube is indeed the official name. But as evidenced in a majority of the article's references, GameCube is the common name and thus, an acceptable title. Unless it can be proven that the official name is more common, I oppose moving it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Withdraw - While Google searches (Web, News, and Scholar) do show that "GameCube" is a more common name, I question the value of strictly adhering to WP:COMMONNAME in an instance where the common name is as extremely similar to the official name as "GameCube" is to "Nintendo GameCube", and I lean in favor of using the official name in such an instance on an encyclopedia. I further disapprove of the action that created this situation—specifically, the action of a single editor who took action unilaterally against a previous, long-standing consensus that this article be titled "Nintendo GameCube". This action inappropriately necessitated that yet another consensus be obtained as to whether to revert that change. Despite the result of this discussion being favorable to that editor's unilateral action, I wish to strongly emphasize that, per WP:CONSENSUS, all editors should achieve a new consensus before taking action against a previous consensus (bearing in mind that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, no new consensus would result in either no change or a reversion to a longer-standing title). Nonetheless, it appears clear from this discussion that, between WP:COMMONNAME and the preferences of most editors in this discussion to strictly follow it, "GameCube" is now the consensus title. While I maintain my position otherwise, in an effort to conclude a discussion that now appears to have a clear outcome, I withdraw this move request. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Nintendo GameCube is the proper title and you guys are fucking stupid. Please change it back as every site I know of that links to this page links to "Nintendo GameCube", not "GameCube" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.191.164 (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't personally insult other editors. I agree with you about the page name but I can understand others disagree and have accepted that without having to direct profanity at them. Please also remember to sign your posts. DarkToonLink 07:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Nintendo GameCube is the official name regardless of popular belief

I would like to make a request for consensus on the subject. So, in every official Nintendo marketing, report ,labeling etc. you will find that the official name of the console is in fact, letter by letter, Nintendo GameCube. As such it is my point of view that Wikipedia should support support official naming rather than common slang, otherwise the original Nintendo Entertainment System article would be named just Nintendo, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article would be named Super Nintendo and the Nintendo DS and Nintendo 3DS ones would be simply DS and 3DS respectively, like media and the general consumer uses to call such consoles. Now, I find this rather unnecessary since we already have official naming at our dispose. As such, I aprove this article to be moved to Nintendo GameCube. What are your thoughts on this?--Arkhandar (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. This new discussion was created right below a discussion on this topic that just ended last month. I'd respect that clear community consensus (there are a plethora of arguments to choose from, though I think the last two summarize the requested move best) for a longer period of time before reasonably returning to the topic. Read GoneIn60's response above for a direct refutation of the central premise of your nomination. czar · · 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

By this line of though many other console article on Wikipedia should be changed too, including both the consoles I mentioned above and the entire PlayStation family which is more commonly refered as simply PS, PS2, PS3 and the more recent PS4 which doesn't even have a full PlayStation 4 like other PlayStation systems, only a PS4 one. You know where the difference here is? It's called and abbreviation. And although abbreviations are more commonly use I seriously object the use of them in Wikipedia articles. GameCube is merely an abbreviation of Nintendo GameCube. Likewise, SD card (much more commonly used) belong to the Secure Digital article title.--Arkhandar (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't decide article titles based on reading logos, but reliable sources. Please see the "WP" links from the previous discussion. Also I know what an abbreviation is, and I think you will find little argumentative traction in condescending to others. Enjoy your crusade czar · · 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Arkhandar, you do such good work when you're working on content and not argument type stuff like this. I wish you'd concentrate on that, considering people just got done arguing over this about a month ago... Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right and I'm sorry for bringing this up again, but that's just the way I tend to work, to give to much attention to details like this. Although I don't completely agree with the current consensus, I understand that there's no need for further discussion so soon, so I'm going to have to back down now. Thank you.--Arkhandar (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Failure

Many in the industry have called this a commercial failure, including Microsoft. Why is there no section to this being known as a commercial failure?2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:80C7:890E:F43:CF74 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. It sold 22 million units, Microsoft's Xbox sold 24 million units. How does that make the GC a 'commercial failure'? While it didn't get as high as expected it wasn't a flop like the Virtual Boy or N64DD, they're actual commercial failures... --DixieKongJD (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirects to this page on other articles

Hello. According to how the page is named simply GameCube, could I get help on using the same name on other gaming articles that says, 'Nintendo GameCube, adding a redirect to GameCube.

For example: On Shigeru Miyamoto's Wiki page, with the timeline with 2000-2011, the link pointing to Nintendo GameCube is a redirect of simply GameCube. There are obviously many other articles with the name 'Nintendo GameCube', and I want them named to GameCube.

The reason why I want any of your help is because I want to reduce the number of redirects to 0 possibly.

Thanks for any help. I really appreciate it. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about this to be honest, it's not a big deal. Redirects are fine, assuming they go to the correct target (which it does here). I did a quick filter on AutoWikiBrowser, and there 1331 pages linked to Nintendo GameCube, so it would take quite a while to change all those links to GameCube. I don't think worth spending that much time changes something that is rather minor and cosmetic. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Also see the guideline on redirects that are not broken czar 21:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wavebird

The Wavebird was an interesting device at the time. But I do not believe that it was the first Wireless controller as is being said in the article. The 2600 had wireless controllers, the CD-I had wireless controllers, the Tandy/Memorex VIS had wireless Controllers, there was a wireless controller option on the Commodore 64GS since it could use accessories from the original Commodore64. That's just a few examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeroyhim (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the operative word here is gamepad. The Atari 2600 had a wireless joystick and the CD-i something resembling a remote-control with a small control joystick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The term is irrelevant, if you are specific enough you can make everything a "first". Why not saying it was the first wireless GameCube controller? The GameCube was also the first console to be shaped and named after a solid and purple-colored. Should we say that too? The point is that it is not the first controller, and you also have to exclude third parties who made wireless gamepads for all consoles before. --II ARROWS (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You're replying to a 3 year old dead discussion. -- ferret (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Internet popularity

In 2009, around two years after the discontinuation of the console, the GameCube startup screen had a rise in popularity as an internet meme. The factors that contributed to this meme was where the startup screen was remixed in various ways. I don't know if this should be allowed on the article, and I cannot seem to find any reliable sources. CoolGamer23 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. No reliable sources, we can't do anything. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. This RM is clearly not going to pass. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

---

GameCube → Nintendo GameCube – The official name of the console is the Nintendo GameCube, as the system is referred to on boxes, controllers, ads, websites, and nearly every other official piece of GameCube-related anything. While it's true that several people call the system simply the "GameCube", the same is true for the "Switch", yet the official title for it is the Nintendo Switch and the name of the WP page is subsequently "Nintendo Switch", not just "Switch" or "Switch (console)". TheDisneyGamer (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed Per the discussion in 2013 that TheDisneyGamer already linked. The last move request for this was withdrawn after opposition was voiced. "GameCube" is the common name, regardless of official name, which was pointed out in that same discussion. As for Switch, "Nintendo Switch" is natural disambiguation that is preferred over something like "Switch (console)". GameCube has nothing it needs to be disambiguated from. -- ferret (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed, reluctantly. As the editor who proposed the last move to "Nintendo GameCube" in 2013 (link), I do still prefer that this article adhere to the official name and would be titled "Nintendo GameCube." But "GameCube" is undoubtedly the common name. I agree with Ferret that the Nintendo Switch's name isn't the best analogy for the reasons they stated. (That, and it's debatable whether "Switch" is more common than "Nintendo Switch" in popular usage. "Nintendo Switch" is much more common than "Nintendo GameCube.") –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use the "official name". We use the name that is most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), or the best balance whereof, per the naming criteria (article titles policy) and as identified in reliable sources. czar 08:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, as established by the use in reliable sources; WP:NATURAL, as there's no other GameCube article; WP:CONCISE, as we don't want to make titles unnecessarily long. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and mainly WP:COMMONNAME. Note the similarities with Sega Saturn and Dreamcast. JAGUAR  13:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Discontinued date

The article ref provided was written in 2007 but according to Nintendo's consolidated sales ref it was still being sold in 2008. I would generally go with the year the last until were sold but I believe I should get other editors thoughts beforehand.... Bang 🌑 14:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Move to “Nintendo GameCube”?

This is something that was previously discussed here, and I think it’s an issue worth bringing up again. I think that this page should be moved to “Nintendo GameCube”, which currently simply leads to a redirect here. Even if colloquially the console is called simply the GameCube, it has still been referred to as the Nintendo GameCube in advertising, logos, websites, and just about any other official Nintendo jargon that was released. I mean, people refer to Nintendo’s latest console as the Switch, yet it’s referred to in most advertising and whatnot as the Nintendo Switch, And that’s what that page is called. The page was actually moved here previously despite a consensus to do otherwise, so I really think that this should be discussed some more because it’s something that I’ve observed for a fair amount of time.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

True, this page should definitley be moved to Nintendo GameCube because in the Wikipedia, we call things how they are called officially. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Except, we don't, as the section immediately after this shows. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page doesn't have a content list

Can someone add a content list to this talk page? Sociable Song (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The page just added it automatically. Nvm. Sociable Song (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"Nintendo CameGube" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nintendo CameGube. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Qoob chip" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Qoob chip. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Portable GameCube and potential successor

This may fit better in the Switch talk page, and I don't expect the source link of all this to be acceptable or anything but I just wanted to get this out. According to the recent dump of the 'secret' Nintendo documents leaked throughout this year, there were plans for a portable version of the GameCube during its lifespan. It included a screen and a docking cradle. The machine would be playable using its built-in display, but could also be placed in the dock and connected to a TV.

Also, elsewhere in the leaked data there is "Tako", codename for a potential direct GameCube successor. Back when Nintendo was more or less still about "technological power", Tako was meant to rival with PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, have HDTV support and seamless compatibility with Nintendo's portable systems. Link.158.174.97.127 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The source isn't reliable. We need something from a reliable publication before it can be added in. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Add section about DOL-101?

See https://niwanetwork.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#DOL-101 Jesse Flynn (pseudonym) (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GameCube technical specifications mentions it. codl (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice. However, other consoles (eg Wii or Nintendo Switch) have a section about hardware revisions in the main article about the console. It makes it a bit easier to navigate. Jesse Flynn (pseudonym) (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

The nintendo gamecube was a cube like a rubki's cube but purple 107.206.192.52 (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There's nothing constructive here we can add to the article. -- ferret (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Develpment

This statement is wrong: "It is also the first Nintendo console since the Famicom not to accompany a Super Mario platform game at launch." The virtual boy was the first Nintendo console since the Famicom not to accompany a Super Mario platform game at launch.JYmasktape (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Virtual Boy is not seen as a home console launch. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The sentence just say "Nintendo console" not "home Nintendo console".JYmasktape (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I reedited it again because you didn't provide an answer to the fact that is just says "Nintendo console" and not "Nintendo home console".157.139.84.19 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Console Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While I have proposed moving the article in the past, I do not request it here. Instead, I would like to reference the console by its official name in the article's introduction with either of the following examples:

• "The Nintendo GameCube, commonly known as GameCube, is a home video game console developed and released by Nintendo in Japan on September 14, 2001, in North America on November 18, 2001, and in PAL territories in 2002. [...]"
  
• "The GameCube, officially known as Nintendo GameCube, is a home video game console developed and released by Nintendo in Japan on September 14, 2001, in North America on November 18, 2001, and in PAL territories in 2002. [...]"
  

Frankly, it would be unencyclopedic to only reference the console by its common name. The argument of comparing it to "Sony PlayStation" and "Microsoft Xbox" does not make sense, since Nintendo distinctly named Nintendo GameCube's successor "Wii" instead of "Nintendo Wii", and while many users call Nintendo's latest console merely the "Switch", it's obviously titled "Nintendo Switch" in any case.
I apologize for making unwanted edits in the past, but it's important to not mislead readers with unofficial names on Wikipedia.
--Sebsox6 (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the conclusion on whatever its "official" name is, there's no need to give both names in the article lead. Readers can see that GameCube is a shortening of Nintendo CameCube. Popcornfud (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Dolphin OS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dolphin OS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Dolphin OS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"NPDP Gamecube" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect NPDP Gamecube and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#NPDP Gamecube until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Starcube" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Starcube and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Starcube until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Gamecube technical problems" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gamecube technical problems and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Gamecube technical problems until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"DOL-001" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DOL-001 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#DOL-001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

nomenclature

Shouldn't this article be named "Nintendo GameCube"?

I'm certain it was, for many many years.

That's always been the official nomenclature of this product and it was styled as such since the day it was announced, and I for the longest time understood it to be a quite concrete rule that articles covering specific products should reflect their official nomenclature.

In a setting such as this, naming this article "GameCube" because that's what its frequently colloquially called would be as incorrect as calling the controller for Nintendo's 5th home console "Wiimote" when that too is a popular colloquialism that was never used by Nintendo, or like naming the article for Microsoft's first console "X-Box" because the it's frequently rendered as such by members of the public typing out the name, or like naming the article covering Apple's high performance laptop computer line "Macintosh Notebook Professional" merely because that's what the product line's official name "MacBook Pro" is derived from.

Should anyone argue that articles for Nintendo's Wii and Wii U consoles are also titled "Wii" and "Wii U" and not "Nintendo Wii" and "Nintendo Wii U", let me point out that those consoles were never branded in that manner by Nintendo, and were always in all official literature (press releases, promotional copy, etc.) descriptions by company employees, and that official style guides distributed to press and retailers as ONLY "Wii" and "Wii U". 74.137.148.37 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:GameCube/Archive 4#Move to Nintendo GameCube for further info. Thanks. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)