Talk:Wii/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Archives

Requested Move to Nintendo Wii (17th-22nd May 2006 - consensus: Not Moved) Archive 1 (May 2005 - July 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 - September 2005) Archive 3 (September 2005 - December 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005 - March 2006) Archive 5 (March 2006 - April 2006) Archive 6 (April 2006) Archive 7 (Pre-E3 2006) Archive 8 (E3 2006) Archive 9 (Post E3 2006 up to 20th May 2006) Archive 10 (20th May 2006 - 31st May 2006) Archive 11 (June 2006) Archive 12 (July 2006)

July archive

I've created the July archive and removed any discussions not posted to in the last week. Hope I didn't cut out anything too important. --Stratadrake 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean "Nintendo Wii"?

If anyone is going to ask this question, don't even bother -- the answer is no and we've discussed this aspect of the article countless times and time again. times. See the Talk archives (pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) and the "Move to Nintendo Wii" survey for all the gory details. It is just "Wii", and "Wii" alone. --Stratadrake 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Specs You're missing

The Revolution runs on an extension of the Gekko and Flipper architectures that also power the GameCube. The Revolution’s IBM “Broadway” CPU is clocked at 729MHz (the GameCube Gekko CPU ran at 485MHz). The Revolution GPU, the ATI “Hollywood” chip, clocks in at 243MHz (the GameCube GPU ran at 162MHz), and will feature 3MB of texture memory. IGN says it is unlikely the GPU will feature any added shaders. The Rev uses 24MB of “main” 1T-SRAM with an additional 64MB of “external” 1T-SRAM (total system RAM is 88MBs not including the 3MB GPU texture buffer). GameCube featured 40MBs of RAM (again, not counting the GPU’s on-board 3MB). This “external” RAM can be accessed just as quickly as the main RAM. (http://www.wiicentre.com/86/ign-reveals-some-revolution-technical-info/)

Renegadeviking 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The origin of that information is http://wii.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html this IGN article, the veracity of which is has been disputed before here. As for whether the specs were posted at wii.nintendo.com, I can find no evidence of that. I'm sure that if that is true, a reliable source can be found reporting it. Concerning your other claims, whether you were right or not, you have yet to demonstrate that the information is both relevant and directly attributable to a reputable external source, and that it is not a personal analysis of disparate information (original research, which is not allowed). Dancter 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets use the specs from IGN, people will love Wikipedia more, and lets use the specs from IGN! Three reasons to use the specs from IGN! Look, the fact anyone puts 729 MHz CPU/243 MHz GPU in the article won't make the gfx look any worst than they already are. Be a man and tell the world the specs. It's all over the net and Wikipedia is the last place to have the information. Renegadeviking

And let's publish rumours about the Wii being able to interface directly with a person's brain. That will make the Wikipedia more popular as well! Did you read that talk page archive? Half of the rumours IGN distributes are BS, and there's no particular reason that we should blindly trust these, especially when no other semi-reliable sources collaborate it (though many sits simply copy and redistribute those specs). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Any opinions on the (http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=8802) Maxconsole specs that have been added recently? I've looked them over, and they seem technically sound, and consistent with what we know. I'm not saying we state it as fact, but I'm wondering if this is a rumor worth mentioning. I certainly trust this more than I did IGN, or any of the sources Renegadeviking provided. Dancter 16:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All the sources claiming the clock speed to be 729 MHz are from rumor mills! Once IGN claimed that the Nintendo DS was going to be faster than the PSP. Even though 729 may be the real clock speed of the nintendo - this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip page! We need hard evidence before saying something is a fact. It might be ok to write that 'some sources speculate the speed is this...'. but no one outside Nintendo or IBM circles will really know for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.44.35 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. There was a discussion previously on the IGN one, and this was agreed on. Generally, specs are incredibly touchy and I don't think that any should be added to the article without confirmation from multiple solid sources or one very solid one. Maxconsole is not a very solid source. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then that's that. I declare the Maxconsole rumor officially discussed and settled. Just point anyone who tries to add those specs again right here. Better yet, point them (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060802-7407.html) here. Dancter 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I say the leaked specs are out, confirmed by IGN or http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=8802 (Maxconsole.com). Nintendo doesn't want it to affect sales just by looking at it they're probably right, because it's nothing really advanced or mind-blowing like the PS3 or my PC. Renegadeviking 09:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For real, or do you just say that to pick up women? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.241.73 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah I think leave the cyber-boasting out. Unless you have a supercomputer, in which case go and boast on the gigaflops page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will83 (talk • contribs) .

Discussion about Wee (urine) refrence

I think it is best to discuss if there should be a reference to urine in the critisim section. Can people please share their thoughts on this issue. 67.71.78.172 06:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Build a Criticism section and post it here, if it is good and neutral enough, it could be inserted. Just remember not linking to urine, as it is not correct per WP:CONTEXT. -- ReyBrujo 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one already. I remember refrences to urine were removed in the past so my goal is find out what the current consensus on the issue is. Sorry for not making that clear. To clearify I do not plan to do anything to the section until a consensus if formed. 67.71.78.172 07:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion this section should be removed completely. Yeah people didnt like the name very much, but oh woopty doo. Unless there is a solid reference stating lots of critisims that were received, not just what people observed themselves.Sir hugo 11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't just "what people observed." There were quite a few articles within the gaming community bemoaning the choice of name. Ladlergo 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The urine reference was removed a long time ago, after someone who had also added a toilet (or was it urinal) as an image to this article had tried to keep it there by reverting people's removal of the reference all the time. Who added it back, and why is it still there? --Ritarri 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was added back in a few days ago, people who have more time in this article edited that section around it and left it so until today I left it as well. But today I commented it out for the time being.Sir hugo 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If people are divided over whether to explain why it was considered an unfortunate choice of name, I suggest adding a selection of references (IGN, Gamespot, etc) that elaborate. Ladlergo 17:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but i always thught Wii sounded like a euphemism for penis, not urine... hence the "playing with your Wii" jokes. 69.19.14.38 03:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange association to make. Is that everyone's or just yours? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.44.35 (talk • contribs) .

No, it showed up in a few articles. Slang: wee-wee. Ladlergo 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just stupid, and irrelivant. Sc7 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Potty humor about Wii is just plain stupid. Link 486 16:15, 27 August, 2006

If Wikipedia is going to become more respected, we have to keep stupid references like this out of articles. If you looked up the French word "oui" online or in a physical reference book, you would not find a blurb referencing bodily functions or anatomy. For future reference, if it doesn't have anything technical to do with the article, leave it out. DestradoZero 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New press Release had release date hidden?

Did anyone figure it out from the press release?

link:http://games.ign.com/articles/720/720863p1.html

Superway25 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

October 2? November 20? 27? FullMetal Falcon 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did!!! The improper use of the word "pore" suggests something to it. After a bit of calander searching, I found that Yom Kippur is on Octobor 2nd this year. JONJONAUG 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1) That's original research and thus cannot be included.

2) "Pore over" is indeed the right phrase.

Just FYI. Ladlergo 02:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

GAH!!! Never mind...I need to improve my vocabulary again...and stop shooting the gun before a bullet is loaded. Now if you excuse me *goes to commit seppuku* JONJONAUG 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo already said before thanksgiving so that rules out Nov 27

Nov 20 is the estimated PS3 launch and Nintendo wants Wii out before then.

The only day left is Oct 2 right the the 4th fiscal quarter begins. Superway25 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all original research. You can't assume that one interpretation is correct. The link to an article attempting to explain the release should therefore be removed. Oh, and nothing so far has dealth with the capitalization of FINAL FANTASY V. This could hint at a release date of the fifth of one month or another. Or it could just be Nintendo claiming to have concealed the launch date in the message to create pre-launch hype, as they themselves suggested.

Oh and not to be pedantic, but try to follow some sort of posting format. It makes reading through the archives easier.--Super Genus 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You could use http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060725-7349.html, as it is a reputable source, however I would not include this kind of speculation. At least until other reliable sources publish a similar research. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on including this speculation either, but I don't really get what all the debate has been about. Except for the "pore"→Yom Kippur bit, everything mentioned here was already in the article or the cited references. Dancter 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Superway, Nintendo usually releases their systems on Sunday(N64,GCN,GBASP,DS) and October 2nd is a Monday. Besides, in that same press release Nintendo says that it could just be a joke to get people to look at their release schedule for other games(which is what I believe). TJ Spyke 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image gallery

Okay, do you think you could kindly add an image gallery if the pictures of the wii? I do not know how nor posses the time to do so. So please, if you have time, put an image gallery. Thanks penubag (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.55.64 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but we don't really need an image gallery of the pictures of the Wii. There are enough images already.--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 01:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then could you change the picture of the wii on the front page? that picture isn't professional looking. I'd like it to be changed to: http://www.britishgaming.co.uk/wp-content/wallpapers/wii.jpg please. thanks again penubag (UTC)

This can't be done because the current image is free, whereas the image you're proposing to use is copyrighted. Wikipedia is about free content and free access to information, so using a copyrighted picture instead of a free one is unacceptable. Mushroom (Talk) 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the current image better. It looks more realistic to me.--roger6106 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

I think that Revo-Europe.com, TheWiire.com and Cubed3.com should be removed since they are blogs, and blogs are never accepted as reliable sources. Sorry if I removed them without discussion but keeping them is against the policy, so I didn't think someone would put them back. I read those sites and find them interesting, but then why not add Nintendo Wii Fanboy or all those other Wii blogs out there? Answer: "because they aren't reliable sources". I think GameSpot and IGN could stay, though. Mushroom (Talk) 15:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Talk:Wii/archive10#External_Links for the reasons behind their inclusion. Sir hugo 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so there is a consensus about TheWiire.com and Cubed3.com (even if I don't agree). Can I remove Revo-Europe.com? Mushroom (Talk) 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That discussion is in Talk:Wii/archive11, I dont know if there was a full concensus or not but we have left it on there since that discussion and Dancter and Comsumed Crustacean are pretty adiment about only including things that should be there. --Sir hugo 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There doesn't seem to be a full consensus, and the article about Revo-Europe is getting deleted because it's not notable enough. Furthermore, the site is currently down. (back online now) For the record, neither TheWiire nor Cubed3 have articles on Wikipedia, but consensus is consensus, so I won't remove them again. I will instead remove the link to Revo-Europe, if no one objects in the next 24 hours. Mushroom (Talk) 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I generally remove new links when they are added, and then I add a message at the talk page of the user who added it, asking them to bring up the link here. Sometimes they do, but they usually get rejected. --Maxamegalon2000 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not lament the removal of Revo-Europe from the list. --Maxamegalon2000 17:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My edit restoring those external links was less about whether the links belonged, and more about reverting a slew of seemingly well-intentioned but misguided edits by an anon. And if I remember correctly, I stayed out of the Revo-Europe.com debate. Dancter 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also against the Revo-Europe addition, I just know it was discussed and then it stayed up. I personally would love to see it gone to clean up that part of the article. Like I stated in that discussion unless the unofficial links are of good status then I dont like including them and this one seems to be declining from what it used to be anyway.--Sir hugo 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think some unofficial links would be appropriate, but not every site that comes along. And, as long as we don't use them as sources, blogs too. Jaxad0127 16:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not just unacceptable as sources, they are not acceptable as external links as well. See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 9. However, there may be exceptions in cases where the website is of a particularly high standard. Mushroom (Talk) 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Should Revo-Europe.com be removed from the Unofficial Coverage External Links section.

• Remove, adds nothing that other links dont already cover--Sir hugo 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, as per my reasoning above. Mushroom (Talk) 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, I never understood how it got re-added in the first place. Danny 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, per above. --Maxamegalon2000 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, it just doesn't add anything above the others. I wasn't exactly for its addition in the first place, and there wasn't much discussion surrounding it. It's also ad-filled, and when taken against sites without ads, I'd rather go with those. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, filled with ads. No important info not covered by others. DrSatan 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove, per above. Ladlergo 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed

Since no one wants to keep it, I have removed the link to Revo-Europe. Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rayman Raving Rabbids

I noticed that this game's exclusivity status in the table of launch titles has been changed back to "Yes". This game is NOT an outright Wii exclusive; it is a timed exclusive, ie. it is being released on Wii first, and on other consoles later. As Ubisoft's Xavier Poix stated,

"The more we heard about the Wii, the more interested we became. Then when we got our development kits, we knew that everything we dreamed of doing on this was possible. That’s why we changed our minds. We decided, ‘Ok let’s just focus on Wii’. That’s it. The other versions can come later."

Source: http://dsrevolution.com/article.php?articleid=1322 --Lumina83 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just voice my opposition to having an "exclusive" column at all again? Kthxbye and all that stuff. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets remove it then. It has only cropped up in the last month or so and I dont care that much for it either. If a game is made by Nintendo it will be for only Nintendo if it is made by 3rd party it will probably not be only for Nintendo. Time for that column to make a graceful exit.--Sir hugo 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object. Exclusivity is useful information readers will want to know about. MrVoluntarist 16:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. How abotu some new categories for games like Raving Rabits (first on Wii, second on others) and TP (Wii exculsive content)? Jaxad0127 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At the offical Raving Rabbids site (http://raymanzone.us.ubi.com/ravingrabbids/) at the bottom of the page, it says that it will be released for other systems as well.Uturnaroun 00:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, it's being made as a Wii game and will be remade for other consoles later.Tuesday42 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is time exclusive by default. Not because of a contractual agreement but simply because they want to focus on the Wii version first. I don't think it should be listed as an exclusive simply because we'll have to remove at some poitn later anyway. That could be a few weeks, it could be a few months, we don't yet know enough.--The Viper 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive Column

Since this has taken over a topic with a completely different name I figured I would start our official Exclusivity Column discussion.--Sir hugo 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey #2

• Remove Column is not worthwhile to readers, if this was a list of all games on the Wii I could understand, but this is the launch titles only. Leave this to the article about all the games.--Sir hugo 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I have never understood its relevance to information about the Wii. It seems more like fanboy preference than encyclopedic material. Add the info to the Wii game list article if it's really that important, not here. Danny 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I believe keeping the column helps to organize some information. Since the DS and Wii differ diversely from the typical system I find it necessary to point out whether the title is or is not exclusive. WatashiNoAiken 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Information on exclusivity should be easily obtained through individual game articles, I don't think it really adds anything to the list other than extra trouble.  HeartofGold  ^(Searching) 18:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per two above. DrSatan 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. I've stated that I dislike this many times before. It creates confusion and isn't particularily useful. As with the example in the section above, Exclusivity is not always a permanent thing, but it also might become permanent even if a developer expresses interest in developing a title for another console. Therefore we're predicting the future somewhat. More importantly, many titles are largely reworked for the Wii because of its novel control scheme. Madden for the Wii might be an almost completely different game than Madden for the PS3 or for the DS or the PSP, and on and on. However, by judging how exclusive a game is by the title alone (as we pretty much have to in a lot of cases right now, since we don't know everything), we're completely disregarding this fact. It makes the list fairly useless at conveying information, honestly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Not particularly useful and, as per Consumed Crustacean, too open to interpretation. Mushroom (Talk) 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Only really useful if done with master game list. --DivineShadow218 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. I agree with Consumed Crustacean. Optichan 16:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed

Since only one fourth of the replies are listed as "Keep", and there is an obvious trend, I have removed the "Exclusive" column.WatashiNoAiken 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stand?

So, the Wii sits on a stand right? It doesn't look like the Wii would lie very well on its side with the stand. And the stand gives it a tilt? Does the stand add any functionality to the console? It probably wouldn't hurt to add these things to the article.70.66.9.162 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is on a stand (fairly sure it's been shown being held off the stand), but the fuction of the stand is completely unknown from what I've seen. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The stand's function is just that, to stand the console up. An article from Nintendo of Europe actually stated that the stand would double as the system's power supply, but later turned it down saying that it was an error. Months later, the actual power supply was shown (and also proven to be much smaller than the Xbox 360 Power "Brick") and all the battery speculation was put to an end.WatashiNoAiken 18:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That could possibly be useful article material then. Do you have linkses? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I searched their English site (UK & Ireland) for "Wii" and none of the article titles looked relevant. Jaxad0127 22:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, Nintendo has proven it false and other objects have already taken the fuctionality that it could have offered, making it useless. It was interesting though, perhaps you can find one on the NSider forums?WatashiNoAiken 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed/Contradictory statements

I was skimming the article when I happened to stumble upon a certain line which bothered me.

"Nintendo has stated that the Wii will have a standard interface for Wi-Fi".

Where and when? I recall, at no point, Nintendo saying this; in fact, if I remember correctly, Nintendo said that there would be no standard interface. The article is here http://revolution.ign.com/articles/707/707865p1.html.

Then another line I noticed seems to contain another oversight.

"On July 18, 2006, it was discovered that a page was posted on Nintendo's official website indicating that Wii would use the Nintendo Wi-Fi connection in much the same way as the Nintendo DS does, with a Friend Code system and no charge to play".

The DS lacks a standard interface, and should the Wii have one, in which case the previous statement is incorrect, this statement is misleading. An edit is needed.--Super Genus 03:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1. It is generally good etiquette to star ta title bar with 2 equals signs (the level one (one equal sign) is usually reserved for the title.
2. If you find something ewrong with the article, then fix it! I would reccomend deleting both of these statements! 69.19.14.26 15:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)_{This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in}

Or just click the "+" button at the top of all talk pages. Jaxad0127 15:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, a minor syntax error. And also, I wanted to mention it in the talk page so that

a) any revisions I may (in the future) make will have been rationalised

b) somebody could take the initiative, improving the article better than I myself could and

b) if I was mistaking in my logic, for whatever reason, namely a lack of sleep in this case, then no adverse action would be taken in regards to this article based on faulty reasoning.

I do know that you're trying to help, but I just felt the need to justify the posting of it in the 'Talk' section. Oh, and if the statements haven't been removed allready, then I'll do it now.--Super Genus 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the statements aren't contradictory, just talking about different things. As we already know that Wii will have some network functionality without a game being inserted, it will need to have some kind of interface for configuring wi-fi access; once inside a game, it appears that you'll use Friend Codes, as with the DS. So, yes, it will have a "standard interface for Wi-Fi", but apparently not a universal interface for arranging online games, as with some other consoles. Does this make sense? Dpmarshall 21:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Backward compatability

An anony brought this up. Should the Wii be said to be backward compatible with the consoles listed? Or should the consoles be shortened and a mention to the Virtual Console given, only? Or should the virtual console not be mentioned at all? The point is that the virtual console is emulation, and not actual binary compatability. The PS2, for instance, has actual PS1 hardware in it that lets it do the compatibility.

Unfortunately, we have two other pages that seem to be at odds on this issue, so using precedence may be difficult. Playstation 3 has both the PS1 and PS2 listed as compatible, while it seems likely that the PS1 is emulated and the PS2 is not but will be in the future. The Xbox 360 article on the other hand does not list backward compatbility, though it plays Xbox games through emulation. This may just be because the editors there have not thought of including it in the infobox, or because of talks in the talk page on the topic (they're in the archive somewhere).

Apologies if this is incoherent, I'm off to bed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be listed, even as Virtual Console. Listing them makes it seem like you can use their cartridges, controllers, etc, when that is not how it's done. Thats how Gamecube compatibility is done. Listing them would be like listing NES compatibility on the GBA because several games have been redone (in a series no less) for that hardware. Even though the Wii won't require the games to be redone (as far as we know), their original hardware will have to be emulated to run on the Wii's new hardware. This is a very sticky subject. Jaxad0127 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can use the original media in the new console, nevertheless if the compatibility layer is software or hardware, it is backwards compatible. Otherwise, I could say my PC is backwards compatible with NES, SNES, Megadrive, Saturn, PlayStation, N64, GB, GBA... and I could continue. -- ReyBrujo 07:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But we're not using the original media. The original media is on cartridges, while the Virtual Console will be distributing them via the Internet, hence my second sentance. Its the same with emulation on a personal computer, you're not using the original hardware (media), but instead something different to work on your system. Even though the games' program is identical, it's not being used the same way. The Gamecube compatibility is there because it will be done with Gamecube discs, controllers, etc, not with new peripherals (unless you want to use them). Repackaging and emulation are not the same as backward compatibility. Jaxad0127 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jax on this one. Backwards compatable to me means that I can take the game I own from X console and use it in Y console. Paying no fee and being able to use atleast most of the external equipment that that game requires whether it was remade for the new console or still uses the old hardware. The Wii will allow me to use my bongos to play Jungle Beat and will allow me to use the Double Dash disk without having to pay for it. The virtual console, while worth its own section, is not backwards compatability. First of all not all games will be available, second I will have to buy these games that I might have already paid for years ago and lastly I dont forsee a running mat being made for the Wii right now, though it would be the ultimate in nostalgic.--Sir hugo 11:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I daresay this definition ought to apply to the Xbox 360 article as well. --69.154.199.166 12:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Having looked in on the Xbox360 article and the Backward compatibility article I found that there seems to be a clear definition that is not being used correctly. In the article about being compatable it states that:

"In technology, especially computing, a product is said to be backward compatible (or downward compatible) when it is able to take the place of an older product, by interoperating with other products that were designed for the older product." It then explains an example. The list of examples though is a bit confusing as some of the examples, including the Wii, dont really fit the bill for this. The way I see it for a system to be backward compatable the original media has to be used, me as the client needs to not feel a difference except possibly an upgraded interface to an upgraded server. Yes Emulation is a large part of this, when I put an original Game Boy game into a a Game Boy Advance the GBA doesnt have the exact hardware of the GB inside it that it switches over too, it uses emulation instead.--Sir hugo 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with ReyBrujo, Jax, Sir Hugo. (I had written more, until I finished reading everything. --Stratadrake 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

All makes sense, I agree with, what, everything said here? It's not compatible with original console discs or cartridges, and therefore isn't truly "backward compatible", going by the proper definition. Even if the PS3 does use emulation, it is using original discs. The Xbox 360 article should show as being (at least partially) backward compatible with the Xbox though. I'll raise it in the talk page there. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was already in there, just using the wrong word to show it in the infobox. :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Wii can use original media when it comes to Gamecube games. In fact it basically has to beacuse the included drive doesn't have space for a full Gamecube game. Because my current PC can play games that were designed when current hardware wasn't even in development, and it's not generally considered emulation, for me the defining line is whether or not you're using the original media. It's backwards compatible with the Gamecube because it takes the old media and the hardware isn't terribly different, and the virtual console stuff is emulation because the hardware is considerably more advanced/different than the consoles (it's more emulation than a step up, as it is with Gamecube hardware), and the media is different. Just my take on it. --Twile 21:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, thats what most of us are saying, becuase Wii can take gamecube discs and peripherals, it's backwards compatible with Gamecube, but not with the virtual console because only the game programs are the same. Jaxad0127 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree.. Removed from infobox70.101.201.248 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Need for Speed: Carbon

Shouldn't this be included in the list of games around launch. (November 10) 74.137.230.39 13:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another title(while only in Japan I guess) is Bleach. 74.137.230.39 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a list of games to be available around launch. --Maxamegalon2000 13:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of expected titles is here, the second subsection of the first section. Jaxad0127 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those are games to be available at launch, not around launch, and certainly not by November 10th. --Maxamegalon2000 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That depends on when launch is. Jaxad0127 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. We should only be listing games available "at launch" in the list of games available at launch, not games with dates independent of launch. I think we might be in agreement here. --Maxamegalon2000 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Games that come out after the launch should not be listed with launch games. Even if a game comes out 1 day after the system it is not a launch game(and I HATE the term "launch window", either a game is a launch game or it comes out after the launch). TJ Spyke 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Release

I don't see any source for the launch release of FF:CC. I looked around, and the suggested source on FF:CC's page is just a link to media, as far as I know. I do not think it is a launch title. I'll do some more searching, though, and if I find anything that points to it's release at launch, I'll put up the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.207.255.146 (talk • contribs) .

http://wii.ign.com/articles/705/705607p1.html Ladlergo 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a RUMOR from 2 1/2 months ago. That is not proof. TJ Spyke 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy Launch title?

The article says that super mario galaxy is going to be a launch title it has no reference and many sites have stated that it will be released within the first 6 months not be available at launch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citizen erased (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for pointing that out. I went ahead and reverted those recent edits. --Maxamegalon2000 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Wii is a bad name?

Is it? It homophonous with "wee" meaning "urine" in the UK. Wiimote 02:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the existing discussion: Talk:Wii/Archive 13#Discussion about Wee (urine) refrence. Jaxad0127 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this is meant for discussion changes for ths article and not a message board. --Edgelord 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anascape Lawsuit

I wonder where can I find a section or article relating to Nintendo that has this lawsuit. I know it first started in 'The Inquirer', but soon it spread to more reliable sources like IGN and GameSpot. So if there is no mention of this incident please help record it in Wikipedia.(This topic is already posted on Nintendo discussion page)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.84.199 (talk • contribs)

Could you give us a source to this lawsuit? Oh, and please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 03:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33466 It's here. Anything from the Inquirer should be taken with a grain of salt, and anything lawsuit related probably doesn't warrant inclusion in the article unless the lawsuit ends (or is settled) against Nintendo's favour and requires that the console be changed in some way. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it has been picked up by more reliable sources http://xbox.ign.com/articles/723/723560p1.html IGN and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6155238.html GameSpot (those link to the articles). They each have info the other two don't. We'll just have to wait for it's conclusion. Jaxad0127 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros

Super Smash Bros. Brawl is a first party title. Nintendo set up the studio thats doing all the development for Smash Bros now. It's no longer being made by Hal Interactive. Jaxad0127 04:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about that. Erik 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a stickler, but the name of the studio was HAL Laboratory and not Hal Interactive(i'm a stickler for details). TJ Spyke 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, the point is, it's being developed by Nintendo now, and so it's a first party title. Jaxad0127 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was just having a little fun and pointing out HAL's correct name. TJ Spyke 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a debate on the brawl article over who's actually making the game. It's currently posted as "unknown" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.136.139 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the debate there is between HAL and Sora, though. I'm not certain.Tuesday42 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still Hal Laboratory. http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/DSC_3390.jpg--The Viper 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just a copyright notice, not a sign that they are developing it. TJ Spyke 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, the development will be from a new studio in Tokyo designed specifically for the development of SSBB, though one source claims they just completely a alrge scale though unknown title. Putting a few things together here. Nintendo EAD Tokyo was recently formed and only has one game completed thus far, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. Though they are also working on mario Galaxy, it's possible another team at the Tokyo studio is tackling SSBB. I'm now in agreement that SSBB is a Nintendo 1st party internally developed title.--The Viper 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding template

What is the rule ragarding removing a template up for Deletion during the debate. I noticed that the Wii template has been removed twice since the TFD discussion started. --Edgelord 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates should not be orphaned while a discussion is being held. -- ReyBrujo 03:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

if the templete is not deleted, then I see no reason not to add it. But untill then lets keep it out of the article. --DivineShadow218 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is being considred for detetion. While that process is going, it should remain on every article it was on before. Jaxad0127 00:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless that article has no reason to be in that template (XBox 360 in the Wii Template for example) then I completely agree. part of the reason to delete a template is that it isnt being used. By deleting it from the pages it was on it affects the discussion on the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir hugo (talk • contribs) .

In that case I will add the template for now. I think we can all wait a few days to see if the tfd resuls in a deletion or not. --Edgelord 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless if the template is deleted or not, it's redundant on this page.

• The first few links (Wii Remote (Nunchuk | Classic Controller | Wii Zapper)) are on the page here
• The next line is covered here
• The 3rd line is shown here and again here
• The only thing in that template not in the article is the category Wii-only games, which could be added as a see also.

It would be much more efficeint to just add that single link somewhere on the page instead of taking up space with redundant links.70.101.201.248 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not much space, and is a concise/clear way of getting to those things. Besides, this argument is best saved for the TfD page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the template so its with the others and changed the note there to not remove it and review this discussion. Jaxad0127 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Brazilian Release Date & Pricing

The Wii release date and pricing in Brazil has (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/07/wii-to-tango-with-latin-america-in-december-price-is-high/) just been announced by Nintendo's affiliate in Brazil. Should we go ahead and add this to the article, or wait until Nintendo officially announces global release dates and pricing before adding it? -- Masamunecyrus^(talk)_(contribs) 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumor Pricing

http://news.spong.com/article/10526?cb=123

Supposed pricing, should we put it on the main article? --Metalbladex4 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If we do, let's use the (http://wii.ign.com/articles/723/723894p1.html) IGN article as a reference, and not SPOnG. SPOnG is one of the worst rumor sites out there. Dancter 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah used ign link, i just posted spong because it was on digg.com. --Metalbladex4 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Call of Duty 3 - launch title?

Instead of arguing through the comments on the main article, discuss the problem here instead. Now, the article User:Tullyano7 put into the comment as proof that Call of Duty 3 is a launch title (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=5023) does say that "Activision did announce that the game will be a launch title for the Wii", however Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/callofduty3/news.html) and IGN (http://wii.ign.com/objects/815/815492.html) both list the release date as "TBA 2007". I don't know if the first source is reliable or not; that I'll leave to the regular editors of this page. But I do know that it's better to have a calm, rational discussion on the talk page than the name-calling going on on the article. BryanG^(talk) 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well one of the news items on IGN(http://wii.ign.com/articles/705/705624p1.html) from May is saying that it will be a launch title but I couldn't find any confirmation on Gamespot. It's strange that "TBA 2007" would still be there, even in an article from July(http://wii.ign.com/articles/717/717777p1.html) they stated it "is scheduled for a fall 2006 release".  HeartofGold  ^(Searching) 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of is that they're using fiscal years or something - technically November 2006 would be in FY 2007. Seems weird to do that, though. BryanG^(talk) 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Obvious compromise: It belongs on the "Reported" list. Ladlergo 15:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

IGN has also confirmed it here, http://wii.ign.com/articles/724/724202p1.html, so Yes it is a Launch Title—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.97.29 (talk • contribs)

Price for Wii games at $60?

I went to GameStop and looked up "Wii" in its search engine and they were all listed at $60.00 I know Nintendo said they would most likely be $50 but does GameStop know something we don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.81.189 (talk • contribs)

Never trust retailers until the console actually comes out.--DivineShadow218 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Gamestop nor EBgames... espcelly EBgames. I agree with DivineShadow218, wait abit. --Metalbladex4 20:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That would really suck if Wii games were $60. But when you look at the amazing technology they incorporate into their games, when you think about it, even $70 would be a good deal in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiura22 (talk • contribs)

Stores used placeholder dates and prices. Not to mention that video game stores are not reliable sources of info. TJ Spyke 02:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the mention of gamestops price should be removed

Number of Ubisoft Titles in development

The article lists 7 which is erroneous. There are 7 launch titles in the works, Prince of Persia which was recently announced was not included in this list of 7. So ther eare actually 8 games being made by ubisoft. I know I read this somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.94.140 (talk • contribs)

[http://www.gamespot.com/news/6155462.html Here], perhaps? I'll go update the article. BryanG^(talk) 08:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the lead?!?!?

Before there was more in the first paragraph and a mention of its success at E3. I mean it won both Best of Show and Best Hardware, and now that has been scrubbed entirely - seems like a huge point to gloss over. (and yes, it had a source :\) RN 18:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed byUser:FunnyGuyAlex. --Shadow Hog 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading the removed section the part before the soruce stated that the Wii had the longest lines in E3 history. It appears that when that bit of unsourced information was removed the link to the best of show and best of hardware info was removed as well. I see no problem with putting the link back with the correct information. --Edgelord 01:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a IBM PowerPC 750 CL

Just copy the 750 CL tech specs to the article now that it's confirmed. Renegadeviking

Um, that's a microprocessor datasheet from 2002, and it doesn't mention Nintendo anywhere. I don't know anything about technical specifications, but let's remember that even if we know that A is B, and that B is C, the conclusion that A is C is original research. Feel free to ignore me if I'm missing something here. --Maxamegalon2000 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

750 CL is a low powered version of PPC 750 CX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.88.246 (talk • contribs)

Are you talking about [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113517 this]? It's not exactly a confirmation if it has been redacted. And to me, that Broadway is "allegedly in the 750 CL line," even if true, does not mean that the spec sheet is exactly the same. Gekko had differences from the 750CXe, as well. Also, I can't find anything on a "750 CL". Are you sure we're not talking about a 750GL? Dancter 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt Cassamassina, editor of IGN Wii, has stressed that these specs are not confirmed and were never presented as anything but rumors. HarlingtoxAD

Other Languages

In English, Wii sounds like "we". In Frech, "oui", or, yes. In German, it sounds like "wie", how. Does anyone know any other languages where Wii sounds like a real word? 152.163.100.130 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in spanish, portuguese (I think) and japanese. Note that this is not a forum for these kind of questions. -- ReyBrujo 05:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese, Wii stands for "good". SmegEd 07:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wii didn't mean anything in Japanese, or that it at the most has a resemblance to a deprecated word/character. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In japanese, ii means good. wii means nothing. -- ReyBrujo 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere on Wikipedia that the Japanese often use the letter "W" (or "dabaru") to mean "double"-whatever comes after. So wouldn't that make "Wii" mean "double good"? MrVoluntarist 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have never heard that. In any case, one thing would be how it is read and another how it is pronounced. In Tim Roger's analysis (found at http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3047&Itemid=2) he never says it means good. In fact, he describes it as a difficult word in japanese because there is no correct way of pronouncing it. -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is one place on wikipedia that mentions it: [1]. Scroll down to the mention of Japan. If that's not right, you may want to correct it. (I don't know how much you know about Japanese.) MrVoluntarist 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I could survive a week in Japan ;-) But I can't correct that, it is slang which I never studied. -- ReyBrujo 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In English Wii written as is would sound like "why" but Nintendo told us to pronounce it "we".Sir hugo 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what's the precedent for pronunciation of a double-i? MrVoluntarist 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Radii, as in there being more than one radius, has an 'ee-aye' sound to it. If the Wii were to follow suit, it would read as 'we-aye', or even 'why', but Nintendo said it's 'we'. Also, someone said that 'Wii' is hard to say for the Japanese, wasn't one of the major reasons they changed the name becuase it's hard for Japanese poeple to say 'revolution'? --Thaddius 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wii" does not sound like "wie" in German. "Wii" has one pronunciation, the one Nintendo gave it, which is different from "vee" (how Germans say "wie"). Now, as a practical matter, Germans have difficulty saying "we" and unless they want to sound like English speaking superstars, they'll probably pronounce it as "vee" ("wie"), but that doesn't mean "wii sounds like wie in German". Just a clarification. MrVoluntarist 13:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, in most European languages, i is pronounced as an English e. There is a precendant for i'i, but I don't one for ii. Jaxad0127 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Backwards Compatibility

Wouldn't consoles featured in the Virtual Console also be considered backwards-compatible with the Wii? I think that it deserves some sort of mention that you can play games from other systems in the Wii, besides the Gamecube that is directly compatible with it. 216.227.94.94 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you can download games from them. Backwards compatible means you would be able to play the physical cartridges on the Wii, which you can't. TJ Spyke 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Virtual Console is infact an emulater... if there is a way to put that in the infobox. Go ahead.--DivineShadow218 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your not playing games from other systems on the Wii. Your playing games that were first released on other systems on it; through emulation. I won't be able to play Genesis and PlayStation games on my 360. But I will be able to play games(Eg. Sonic, Castlevania:SotN) that were released on those systems on it.70.101.201.248 11:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Release date

How does nintendo's little joke press release add to the article? And having 6 differant dates from six differant sources is utterly pointless, no one knows the date and linking to speculation after speculation is just cluttering the article.70.101.201.248 11:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic but still the most relevant location to state the following. Do not revert the 'as of' date August again until August is over. You cannot say, "As of August, no release date is known" until August is over. July is the appropriate month.--The Viper 07:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, "As of August" is the correct phrase because it's August and as of today we don't know the info yet. TJ Spyke 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In here, "As of" means we are talking about the present, which is August. "As of 2006" is used in a lot of articles as well. Grandmasterka 07:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue the issue as it's not really a major topic for the page but I thought the same thing as you until I got it wrong in Journalism class at UGA. I don't think it's closely followed by many publications though. I personally don't care either way; just trying to keep the ghost of Prof Kelser from haunting me.--The Viper 07:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your professor got it wrong, wouldn't be the first time a teacher was wrong. I agree that it's not a big deal, just that "As of" usually means the present(at least everywhere i've seen it). TJ Spyke 07:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Price and Release Date

That section is getting a little long. Right now any "info" about the date or price are just rumors and I don't see the need to have so many rumors right there since they do nothing to help the article. The newest rumor being from that Japanese analyst company(with analyst companies usually being wrong when it comes to video games). TJ Spyke 20:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If people want recent news, they complain if we don't have reports of the latest price estimates. If people want only official information, they complain that we give too much credence to rumors.

If you can find some way to shorten it but leave in all the references with their proper context, go ahead. However, just snipping bits is going to lead to bickering. Again. Ladlergo 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How about something like.

• "Although Nintendo hasn't confirmed a release date; Date A<ref>[http://www.referancewebsite]</ref>, Date B<ref>[http://www.referancewebsite]</ref>, Date C<ref>[http://www.referancewebsite]</ref>, Date D<ref>[http://www.referancewebsite]</ref> and Date E<ref>[http://www.referancewebsite]</ref> have all been suggested."

Cuts everything down to a single sentence, while retaining all information.70.101.201.248 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too shabby to me. Maybe use "rumoured" or "speculated" rather than "suggested"? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and I suggest "speculated by the gaming media" (or "gaming press", if you prefer). "Rumored" makes it sound too much like people making it up on a message board, and "by the gaming media" emphasizes that the dates have been suggested by people who actually write about games for a living. Ladlergo 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated, used speculated instead of suggested.70.101.201.248 13:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I just fixed two small things. Ladlergo 13:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please place the "speculative release dates" in order to make it easier. I've tried, but the code is just too confusing. Thanks.Uturnaroun 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What sort of placement do you have in mind? Ladlergo 13:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

"Although no official information has been given other than this, directly after the Tokyo Game Show (which ends September 24), October 2, November 2, November 6, November 12, and the first week of December have all been mentioned as possible launch dates by the gaming press."

That would make it much more easier to understand, since the dates are in order.Uturnaroun 20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The code really is quite a mess, but now it's in order. Ladlergo 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

December needs to be removed from that list. Nintendo has said the Wii will be released before Thanksgiving in the US (Nov 32). Jaxad0127 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The December rumor referred to the release in Brazil. I feel a little too much information is lost with the statement in its current state, even more so by ordering it according to rumored release time, rather than by when the rumor started. Dancter 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That brings up the problem of which release date rumors to use. With so many countries the Wii is going to be released in, whcih do we use and which do we not mention? Jaxad0127 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I only mentioned the Brazil thing to clarify. I wasn't trying to say that we should keep it. But I do want to change back to the previous ordering, with perhaps some tweaking. The passive voice really hurts, especially with such a long list. Dancter 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the one section of the Wii page that I'm having real trouble parsing every time I read it. Would it be worth starting a table of (theorized) release dates for different territories, as they have over at PlayStation 3? Dpmarshall 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the PlayStation 3 article, the dates are all confirmed. Quite a few of the prices, though, are unofficial, based on preliminary retailer price settings. With fewer models and fewer territories, doing this for Wii would result in a very small table, but given the ugliness of the PS3 table, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Concerning the launch date rumors, was it okay when ordered by the rumored time of launch? I had just changed the ordering after getting no response to my comment. Dancter 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My main problem now is that it's just a list of dates - I can't see which rumour applies to *my* country (if any). It conveys a lot of information, but none of it is actually useful in informing me, if that makes any sense... Dpmarshall 15:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem, I believe, is that hardly any of the rumors are clear about a region. Most of them are America-oriented, so it can be inferred that those rumors refer to an American release. But really, some of them could just as well refer to Japan. The only rumor I can recall specifying another territory is the Brazil rumor. Dancter 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. Perhaps explicitly stating they're rumours for US release, and adding a seperate statement about rumoured Brazil release (with then the option of adding other territories as more rumours appear) is the way forward? Sorry I'm not being constructive here - I can see a problem, but have no idea how to solve it. Hopefully this will all be moot on 14 September anyway. Dpmarshall 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that, should that event be mentioned in the article? The invitation doesn't really specify that it has to do with Wii, but I think it's pretty safe to assume, considering that there is a Wii image displayed. If so, where would be the best place? Dancter 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it probably should be mentioned as it's likely to be significant. Perhaps the addition of a paragraph about the event to the "Release date and price" section, maintaining chronological order? If more info is given out at the event, it should then be straightforward to amend and adapt the section further. Dpmarshall 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just speculation that they will announce the price and/or release date there. People also assumed that would announce it at the LGC because their conference was called "Wii prove our promise". TJ Spyke 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add anything incorrect. Everything is attributed to external sources, and I left it ambiguous, as "details". If you still think it's inappropriate, go ahead and delete it. Dancter 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Software Library List

Just a thought, technically Sonic and Call of Duty are NOT Nintendo First Party games. DevAnubis 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has said that they are 1st party games, and they are not, and never have been, listed as such. WatashiNoAiken 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They were... but it's pointless arguing about it nowDevAnubis 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Online section

It should be written similar to Layman's terms.

If someone is confused with a term there, they could always look up its corresponding article. But the Simple Wikipedia specializes in "Layman's terms." Oh, and please sign your name with four tildes (~~~~).--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Expected launch titles sources

The citations are all outdated, and the games remain unsourced. I think it would be better if a source was included along side each one. Oh, and are their any reliable sources for the System 3 games coming out on the Wii on launch day? 74.137.230.39 20:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Outdated means nothing if there are no new stories to cite. dposse 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The point being that the outdated information doesn't match the information in the article. Clearly, the editors were using other citations. And still has System 3 announced that their games was coming to Wii on launch day. Otherwise it belongs in the reported for launch. 74.137.230.39 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable websites have said System 3 announced them as launch games, I can't seem to find their website(if they have one). TJ Spyke 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has just claimed [2] that none of the launch titles will have online play. There is no reference to back this up. Should it be removed? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should be removed, right now it's nothing more than a rumor. TJ Spyke 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be sourced, see http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10627 -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So? I can find links for almost every rumor. That doesn't mean it's true, this is still just a rumor. TJ Spyke 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as information comes from a reliable news outlet, and is clearly marked as being a "widely-reported rumour", there shouldn't be a problem including it in this article at the moment. When information firms up - and this article ceases to have a big "It may contain unverified or unreliable information" disclaimer at the top - rumours can most likely be replaced with facts, one way or the other. But at the moment, I think they're worth including as they can be informative. Dpmarshall 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, please read verifiability and reliable source, especially we don't care if it is true or a rumour, as long as it can be sourced. -- ReyBrujo 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and secondly it is not meant for indefinite info. Every rumor should not be on here. Lots of rumors end up in respectable news sources, but that doesn't make them true. On the System 3, I saw their webpage the other day so I'll try to find it again. It wasn't of much use though. 74.137.230.39 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The crystal ball clause does not apply here. The event is going to happen in two, three or four months, and we have sources for the speculation. What we are not allowed is to include our speculation. If Gamasutra, IGN or GameSpot want to speculate, we can include that information if it enhances the article. -- ReyBrujo 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Call of Duty 3 Reportly Delayed Into 2007

Hey guys, I just recieved word that Call of Duty 3 has been delayed into 2007. This comes from EDGE Magazine. However, Nintendo Power will have new information on CoD 3 soon, so keep an eye on that.

Not a confirmed delay, but keep an eye out guys!

--72.134.47.212 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the same thing, i've had to revert some edits until we have official word from Activision or Nintendo. TJ Spyke 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I know some guys working on the title at Treyarch and if they are delaying they title, not even they know about it yet. I just asked my staff and none of them knew the source of the rumor so unfortunately I can't track it down for confirmation tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up though.--The Viper 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Power just confirmed it for launch. I will add it back to the list.--The Viper 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wii to remake GC games

I found here that Nintendo is going to remake some gamecube games for wii, and make them newer, so they use the wiimote. Here's the link http://wii.ign.com/articles/726/726749p1.html

No, all that happened was Miyamoto said that would be a good idea and some games would work better with the Wii Remote, Nintendo has not announced that they would actually do it. TJ Spyke 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rampage World Tour is currently the only title known at this time that will get the Wii treatment. If it is successful, expect many more to follow and a section may be relevant by that time.--The Viper 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres [http://wii.ign.com/articles/726/726749p1.html an article on it] on IGN. Jaxad0127 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rampage: World Tour came out like 10 years ago, I think you mean Rampage: Total Destruction. I don't think it's being remade though, just a new version(I could be wrong since I have seen almost no mention of the Wii version). That link was posted already, read my response(all that happened was Miyamoto said that would be a good idea and some games would work better with the Wii Remote, Nintendo has not announced that they would actually do it). Nintendo has not said they would do re-makes. TJ Spyke 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Miyamoto said that TP for the Wii is essentially a remake of the GCN version. Jaxad0127 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Total Destruction was what I was refering to. http://wii.ign.com/objects/765/765492.html--The Viper 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link is giving me a "404 Page not Found" error. TJ Spyke 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Gamespot instead. http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/rampagetotaldestruction/news.html?sid=6155184 --The Viper 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Important info from [http://wii.ign.com/articles/726/726749p1.html the article]:

1. Wii is based on GCN hardware and APIs.
2. Twilight Princess is the first game developed as such a remake.
3. Extra dev time for TP is for added content, not visual polish.
4. Remade titles could be sold at bargain prices.

Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Virtual Console

Since The Viper keeps putting it in, should the Sega and NEC be listed with the Genesis and TurboGrafx-16 in the VC section? I don't think they need to, but I figured I would see what other people think. TJ Spyke 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Written as Sega Genesis and NEC TurboGrafx-16? Genesis should be written that way since it's usually called that. I don't know about TurboGrafx-16.Tuesday42 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean that that could just be written "Mega Drive/Genesis" and "TurboGrafx-16" rather than "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" and "NEC TurboGrafx-16". TJ Spyke 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding Sega and NEC is only required the first time the consoles are listed in an article. After that, they can be listed by model name. You'll find this writing rule in all major print forms. Take a look at a car magazine and note how the car manaufacturer is listed with the model the first time it's typed in the article. For example: The new 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 kicks ass....[further into the article]...the Corvette Z06[typed without Chevy]. It's a minor detail but one that adds respectability to the article.--The Viper 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

^Sounds good (makes mental note)Tuesday42 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wireless LAN

The Wii will have wireless LAN, enabling local wireless multiplayer between two or more Wii's without the need for splitscreen. I've already inputed this features in the main article, no need to thank me. http://wii.ign.com/articles/727/727651p1.html McMeaty 24.205.95.42 01:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi 2

Do not add this game to the rumored lauch list. Here [http://www.thewiire.com/news/418/1/Dragon_Ball_Z_Tenkaichi_2_Misses_Japanese_Launch] is an article stating so. --DivineShadow218 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the JAPANESE launch, the link even says they don't know how it will affect the US date, so it stays in for now. TJ Spyke 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats ALL launches....--DivineShadow218 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumoured EA Launch titles

Hiere is an article stating that The Godfather, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2007, Madden NFL 2007, Need for Speed: Carbon, Harry Potter and SSX 5 are in lauch window and not at launch. [http://www.thewiire.com/news/423/1/EA_Planning_Six_for_Launch_Window]

Technically the launch window includes the launch, and it's almost guaranteed that Madden will be a launch game. TJ Spyke 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically no the launch is the day of the launch... Launch window is after launch. --DivineShadow218 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically YES, the launch window includes the launch date as well, so those games haven't been confirmed as NOT being launch games either. TJ Spyke 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a list of confirmed launch games, not a list of games that haven't been confirmed to be not for launch. --Maxamegalon2000 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why they are in the "Reported for launch" section and not the "Confirmed for launch" section. TJ Spyke 00:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No it does not...Launch is Launch... not launch window... if Launch window is launch then why not at Mario Galaxy to the list too... oh wait... we decided not to b/c it is in the launch window.--DivineShadow218 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know if Super Mario Galaxy is in the launch window, all we know is it will come out within 6 months. TJ Spyke 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They said Launch window --DivineShadow218 00:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen Nintendo say "launch window" for it, link please. TJ Spyke 00:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me a link where launch window includes launch.--DivineShadow218 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Launch window" means the first 90 days(about, some companies have it shorter or longer) of the systems life. TJ Spyke 00:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumored leak of reggies presentation

Expect a huge edit war in the near future over this crap. remember Nintendo Go and nintendo ON?

http://alnk.org/violentcode

Zazaban 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is so obviously fake, but yeah I think some people will try to add it in to the Wii article. TJ Spyke 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Photoshop fun? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Too many things already prove how false it is. An internal document would not have the consumer hotline listed as public relations. I know Reggies extension and I'm not media on the same level as IGN and if the maker of the document doesn't know any of the internal numbers, it's an obvious fake. Sales figures are also way off. I could continue on to prove the matter but I think we can all agree it's fake and has no warrant for inclusion on the Wii page.--The Viper 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's referred to as "Nintendo Wii" rather than just "Wii" :) Not to mention the contradiction when "he" talks about the Blue Ocean strategy - not lashing out at competitors - and then "he" starts lashing out in the very next paragraph. Ritarri 13:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

MiB vs. MB for the flash memory

Which is more appropriate? I know that Nintendo uses MB, but Sony and Microsoft were overriden in the Xbox 360 / PS3 articles because MiB is technically more correct. That was in reference to system RAM though, which is definately measured in MiB. But what about this flash memory? I think it's possibly properly measured in MiB, but I have no real solid knowledge. It's also good to note that we don't know exactly what type of flash memory is being used; I have no idea if the standard for measurement changes between varieties. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I mostly bring this up because an anony has tried changing it twice. It deserves talkin' about rather than just repeatedly reverting it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This comes from wii.nintendo.com(Nintenod's official website for the Wii): The Specs: Wii boasts 512 megabytes of internal flash memory, TJ Spyke 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but, as I said, Microsoft and Sony use megabytes instead of mebibytes too. Their usage of that unit is incorrect though, so they're overriden in the appropriate articles. The Manual of Style has a section on binary prefixes, and encourages using MiB/etc. where correct. Basically, MB should techically refer to a decimal unit (1000 KB), whereas MiB is binary (1024 KiB). System memory uses MiB (even if it refers to it as MB), hard drives and DVDs use MB. Personally, I'd rather leave it as MB as I don't know which way this type of media goes, but that's why I asked the question here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between MB and MiB is a recent invention (dating only to 1998), and is not widely used in industry (indeed, derided by many as a sop to hard disk manufacturers who were only aiming to deceive) despite the strong support of IEC, IEEE, NIST, etc. However, as Wikipedia has a great need to disambiguate, and has a reliable rule on how it should be communicated, I believe "industry's numbers" should be translated into the unambiguous terminology when reported in an article. As previous posters suspected, yes, flash (as with main memory) is all power-of-two based. So, it's fine as it is, but would be equally correct as MiB. Dpmarshall 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I for one HATE MiB. MB refers to Megabyte which is properly 1024 kB it is only because some people use the 10^6 bytes version of this that MiB had to be established for the non computer people to deciver what it really means. When I see MB I assume 2^20 unless it is in marketing material (HD space, flash drive size, etc.). This is the reason why when you buy a 200GB HD your OS reports it as being smaller the manufactuer is using 10^6 vs the 2^20 where the OS uses the proper conversion. RAM though is different it is marketed as being exactly what it is. I would say then that in the case of flash memory any numbers put out will be in 10^6 not 2^20 to make the flash drive seem larger then it atually is.Sir hugo 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because flash drive manufacturers tend also to be memory manufacturers, they appear to be keeping it honest. Also the nature of flash memory addressing means it *has* to be power-of-two based really. The snag comes when you put a filesystem on a flash drive - and lose a whole chunk of available space there and then. Flash drives tend to be marketed as 512meg, 1gig, etc. and will have a real unformatted capacity of 536,870,912 bytes, 1,073,741,824 bytes, etc. The only time to be skeptical is if you see someone claiming a flash drive capacity that isn't a power of two (or a clean multiple of one) - then they're most likely trying the same trick as HD manufacturers. 536meg flash drive, anyone? Dpmarshall 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you notice those little disclaimers on hard drive boxes and hard drive MP3 players and such that say, specifically, that they're using a power of 10 instead of 2? I realize that this would be fine either as MB or MiB because of the ambiguity, but the Manual of Style does now say that MiB should be used in all cases where it's a binary (^2) unit. The Wikipedia tries to keep things as standard as possible across articles. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then use MiB for this article if that is policy. By the way, I have actually only ever bought one hard drive that didnt come with my computer and I bought that off the net so I didnt pay attention to the box as I already knew about this marketing scheme.Sir hugo 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sensor Bar

There is some new information on the sensor bar from the Leipzig Games Convention (from a German article on Heise-Newsticker: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77260). The sensor bar is approximately 30cm long (instead of the 20cm mentioned in the article), and contains 8 IR (infrared) LEDs that are used by the controller to guage direction and distance to the display. This is easily visible on a digital camera picture. This also means that the controller needs line-of-sight to the sensor bar to use the pointer-functionality. Now, I was unsure on how add this information to the article as I couldn't figure out how to source the article.... :) [maven] 09:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The information isn't actually new. I believe 30cm was length was the length previously used, before IGN published their "Unlocking the Secrets" article (http://wii.ign.com/articles/718/718946p1.html), which stated 20cm. The presence of 8 IR LEDs is also not new, dating back to E3 (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3386246&postcount=69). I believe this was also noted in the article once, but the IGN article stated that the sensor bar featured two sensors on each end. I have my opinions on what information can be trusted by whom, but there are disagreements. Dancter 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LOZ release date hint?

Someone want to check out this website: [http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nUaGscF3FLQJ:www.sears.ca/gp/product/B000GBGU9I%3FsearsBrand%3Dcore+site:www.sears.ca+Legend+of+Zelda&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12|sears wishlist Google snapshot] This page has since expired. Since the Google snapshot data claims that the picture was taken in July '06, the 2005 date is presumably wrong. So, possibility of a slight 5-6 typo.

However, this does not really add any significant information; all the dates on this wiki page are before the 14^th anyways. However, this acknowledges the fact that LOZ, and therefore the Wii, will be available before November 14. - oobug^talk/_contrib 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is confirmation of nothing. All major online retailers use 'placeholder' dates. Go to EB online, Best Buy and others and you'll get varying release dates. It's a public relations move as it looks better to have a fake date that can be changed instead of listing it as TBA/TBD or having no date at all.--The Viper 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Smash Bros

It was mentioned that Smash Bros Brawl has been announced by nintendo as being a first party game. I am wondering about that because I have not heard anything about that and the Smash Bros Brawl page lists the developer as unknown and does not state anything to that effect. It seems odd that this page would have this info and the page for the game would not. Can someone please post a link showing where they got this info from. --Edgelord 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Its status is disputed. This page just hasn't been updated to reflect that. Jaxad0127 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. My sources are as follows. http://cube.ign.com/articles/673/673312p1.html http://wii.ign.com/objects/748/748545.html http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supersmashbros/news.html?sid=6140706 http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=462446&page=0 http://wii.advancedmn.com/game.php?gameid=1468 http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025047.html http://wii.qj.net/Super-Mario-Galaxy-Team-Announced/pg/49/aid/38177 Or how about right here on Wiki, HAL_Laboratory --The Viper 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the dispute was that we don't know if HAL is the developer for SSBB since Sakurai formed a new team for it and Sakurai is at Sora now and not HAL. TJ Spyke 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sakurai is head of a new EAD team at EAD Tokyo. Hal is not developeing this title. I can contact them later for direct proof if need be but I don't know how official that would still be unless I posted it on my site and that's not really news worthy in itself (which is probably why it's tough to validate).--The Viper 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that would not be acceptable under WP:OR. --My old username 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tecmo games on Virtual Console rumour

Apparently, Tecmo classics may appear in the Virtual Console (http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/08/29/tecmo-games-to-appear-on-virtual-console/). This is by no means confirmed. I tried reading the briefing (found [http://www.tecmo.co.jp/company/sc0302.htm here]) but it is too technical for my level. Just pointing out in case someone with a better japanese understanding can find any hint in the company's documentation. -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a rumor. [http://wii.ign.com/articles/729/729152p1.html] --The Viper 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added my blog

Hello everyone. I really felt that I should add my blog ([http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com]), since the article also links to The Wiire. I am a German television news editor and often have insider info on all things Wii which I share on my blog. My page impressions (well above a million clicks since June 2005) do show that it is one of the most popular and reputable sites for Wii information. So I believe that noone will object if I add it to the list. I am confident that my blog is easily as good a resource as The Wiire (who I respect, of course). Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.208.208.15 (talk • contribs) .

Hello! In Wikipedia we look for consensus. In other words, in this article before adding an external link, it is discussed to see if the link should or should not be added to the article. I suggest waiting for others to say what they think about it before adding it. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for adding the link too soon. I have received a message from someone saying my link had to be removed because private blogs are not allowed as external links. I do have to insist, though, that my site is as professional as The Wiire and Cubed 3, if not more so. I am a professional games journalist working for German tv and use the site as an outlet for the insider information I gather. The Wiire and Cubed 3 are no more professional in the sense that they do not earn any money with their site (not much anyway). So I would ask you all to have a look at my site again, please ([http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com]) and either add it to the list or remove the other two sites as well. Sorry to insist, thanks for your time.

Insist all you like. Although that's not typically the best way to accomplish things. Nandesuka 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Just to clarify: I don´t mean to kick up a fuss. I am just kindly asking you all to consider adding my site. Because what is the difference between it and Cubed 3? Is it the fact that mine is hosted by Blogger.com and uses their templates? That is the only difference I see. In terms of professionality, I do have to point out that I have been to every E3 since 2000, interviewed Miyamoto and Iwata numerous times and just got back from the Games Convention in Leipzig. I also played Red Steel in early April (just after Game Informer and well before IGN even got to see the game) and will be attending the NOE event on the 15th, so I really do see myself on one level with sites like Wiire or Cubed3. Please just have a look at my site and judge for yourself. It really is a professional site, since I am an industry professional. Thanks for your attention.

We have had these kinds of discussions before, in example, Talk:Wii/archive10#External Links. Your link will be proposed, and we will see what others editors think. Note that we are deliberately trying to keep as few non official links as possible per External links suggestions. -- ReyBrujo 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Sorry if I´m not familiar with the usual protocol. I have never edited anything on Wikipedia before. So, again, sorry for simply adding my link and thanks for considering my site. If anyone would like me to provide any kind of credentials (press card, testimonials by Nintendo or the like) just drop me a line at andreas.garbe@rtl.de, which is my work mail.

Now that the administration stuff is out of the way. What does everyone think about this site, keeping in mind the following: Is the information covered in our other links? Is the information sourced to reliable sources or is it just heresay? Is the writer verifiable to be who he says he is? Etc. Sir hugo 16:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you nailed one of the biggest reasons why it should not be included; redundancy. A majority news of the information contained in your blog can already be found at the other sites already listed. I also noted many times you use the first person perspective as in writing an editorial or rebuttal (I did note the mass of commentary pieces) instead of news. It would seem that the problem is a combination of redundant information already offered in the other links and format. Just for the record, we get over 1.5 million monthly page views as well and I don't even consider our site (we're in your list for Nintendo News sites of which we appreciate) for inclusion based on the fact that what we report is mostly already getting reported at the big sites (IGN/Gamespot) and they get far more exclusive news than anyone.--The Viper 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I really don´t think you´re being fair. Almost none of my posts are commentaries only. 99% are exclusives, news or rumours. I always separate commentary from factual information (which hardly any other sites does). Also, out of my last ten posts, six were based on exclusive information (conservatively speaking). That is more than half. I hardly think that can be called redundancy. I hope I can get you to reconsider your opinion.

I thank you for your attempts to help improve wikipedia, however you may not add your own blog due to Wp:or. Also, I would ask that you refrain from advocating the inclusion of your blog as it compromises WP:NPOV. Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia, and I hope that you continue to contribute constructively in the future. Altair 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to those rules. As I said, I am not too familiar with Wikipedia and the rules governing it. However, allow me to point out that I am not in any way conducting original research. I call people up or interview them and quote them on my page. So although a lot of this stuff is exclusive, I always cite tangible sources. And also, I am a professional journalist. So my work necessitates that I write without bias. If I did exhibit any kind of preference for Nintendo products, my contacts at Sony or Microsoft would not like it one single bit. I understand you don´t want a link list that is a mile long, but I think - and please don´t misunderstand me, I´m only trying to point this out from a user´s perspective - you are also being a little too bureaucratic about including links. Anyway, being linked here is really not that important to me. There are other sites - like Codenamerevolution.com or GoNintendo.com - that should be linked to rather than my site.

Size of list of games

Hi. I'm visiting here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, a project to reduce the number of laundry lists in articles that are hurt by them. The list of third party games looks a bit unbalanced to me -- it's large, and likely to grow larger. I'd like to help develop a consensus as to what size this list shoudl be capped off at. Since there's already a link there to List of Wii games, it seems to me that 8 titles would be plenty; that would put it in balance with the first party titles, which is visually pleasing, and would reduce the temptation for everyone in the world to add "just one more title!" because their favorite game isn't listed. What do people think? Nandesuka 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

An arbitrary number of list titles wouldn't eliminate the "just one more title" syndrome. Since there is already a list of expected launch titles and a seperate list of Wii games, why not just cut the whole section? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a small "Examples" section is needed with a link to the main list. These should include the top X games from each category based on discussion on the talk page. Yes it wont eliminate the tendancy of people adding one more but we would have justification to revert it till it was discussed.Sir hugo 16:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Only listing the major game(s) in each category would keep the list small and give a good representation of the types of games the console will have. Jaxad0127 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Every console will have roughly the same games: there'll be RPGs, Sports games, platformers, FPS'ers, etc. A small list would by no means be comprehensive, but it would definitely be subjective and prescribe to someone's POV. On the other hand, anyone can get a great idea of the games available for the Wii by checking out the list of Wii games. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First vs Second Party of Super Smash

Since there is a budding revert war going on I wanted to start a discussion on whether this is a first or second party title. It seems to me that the source given shows it is/was being developed by a division of Nintendo therefore it is a first party title.Sir hugo 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's second party. The previous two titles were second party, and the debate about who is making it on the Brawl page was between HAL and Sora.Tuesday42 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Second party, see the discussion on the brawl page. Someone found a source that clearly states that it is a second party title. Altair 19:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked that page, it even says that Nintendo is creating the game with this passage. " It turned out that Nintendo would build a new team around me in Tokyo. In other words, we would create a new studio."[http://www.smashbros.com/en/story/page_3.html]

This corroborates the story from IGN that says the game is being developed in Tokyo at a new Nintendo studio. [http://cube.ign.com/articles/673/673312p1.html]--The Viper 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we even bothering with who's developing the titles? The section is for franchises. Just go by whoever controls the franchise, which in this case would be Nintendo. Just put it under first-party. Dancter 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Common sense would agree with you, and I support you. Someone will just revert it though, but I won't. TJ Spyke 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)