User:Scepia/video games/Wii/name/controversy/2006/May

Isn't this Appropriate?

"After announcing the name, some criticism was received from English speaking countries because Wii sounds like the English word "wee" or the phrase "wee wee", common euphemisms for "urine" or "penis" respectively"

I noticed someone took the word "penis" out of this section and I'm wondering why. The majority of criticism I've seen has had to do with the fact that wii resmembles wee wee. Last time I checked, wikipedia was not censored so what gives? Ziiv 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See discussion above. Ashibaka tock 22:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know 'wee' is a euphemism for piss and 'wee wee' is a euphemism for 'to take a piss' and everthing else is a euphemism for penis.HappyVR 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Creepy Thing with the Name...

OKay. I mentioned this in another section, but let me exlpain the little bit more I need to. The name? Wii. Nintendo is promoting it as Wii, capital lowercase lowercase. Get it so far? BUt, capitalize it all, as I found by accidetally hitting the Caps Lock... and, WII. Creepily simmilar to WWII, World War 2. Maybe I'm paranoid because I just watched a documentary about WW2, but just want to put that out there. And yes, I made a typo in the other section I mentioned this in. User:Aido2002 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a polite way to call you a conspiracy nut and your observation a stretch undeserving of comment. If anyone else can come up with one, feel free to replace this comment with it. In the meantime, I would point out that original research isn't allowed in articles, and to include the observation in it would require another source to report on it. Sorry if I'm being harsh. --Maxamegalon2000 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a nutty observation, it's a copied one. "Aido" is just mimicking a South Park episode where a very Nintendo-like company tried to use "Chinpokomon" to restart World War II. If Aido is going to create a conspiracy theory, he should at least TRY to come up with one that hasn't already been done. Daniel Davis 03:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Which leads me to this (1st post)http://www.revo-europe.com/forum/showthread.php?s=7ca828fe82ce1400f7b1ce86a5fa3947&t=5942&page=2

HappyVR 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just read what is here on this, and I don't think I should be posting on the archiive, I'll copy/paste on current page as well... but anyway, let me just make it clear... I WAS KIDDING. And as far as Daniel Davis's observation is concerned, ironically enough, I saw that episode right after posting this... and the first thing I thought was that someone would say I was copying. Also, I did not intend for this to be in the article, just wanted to say it. Just wanted to make all this clear. aido2002 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Shortened name section to just the 'facts' - do we really need homonyms of euphemisms, outside links to trivial articles and comment - I suggest not.HappyVR 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We need the reference to urine, but not what Wii sounds like in a million different languages. -- Steel359 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to wikify urine. Plain English words should not be wikified. -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we shouldn't have information about what "wii" means in various languages. The name has been the subject of a lot of criticism, and it's relevant from a marketing point of view. --Lee Bailey 07:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What happen to Nintendo G0!?

>x<ino 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It was most likely a hoax like the Nintendo On. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

name

I made a change to the comment about the new name - I don't think 'wide criticism' is entirely accurate - more a combination of - why, Oh well, Great, No and 'time for some cheap jokes' - hence the change to the text.HappyVR 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:Also, I've noticed there seems to be a lot of wheel warring about the pronounciation. I've changed it so that it says the console is pronounced like "we", just like how it's used in the official press release. Others have changed it to "wee" or to say "we" and "wee". I don't understand the reasoning behind the other two versions, with the first being weasel wording and the second just being redundant since they're both pronounced exactly the same. Anyone making these changes want to explain? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (I hope you don't mind, I've moved the text above to the section "Pronuncation discussion: 'Wee' vs 'We' etc.", let's try to resolve it all there. - 81.182.142.141 12:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Pronuncation discussion: "Wee" vs "We" etc.

Ok people, as we obviously can't work it out on the article page, let's talk about it here. Do you think that we should keep it (and where?) or remove it? As this is supposed to be a discussion, please state a reason for your position. Ladlergo 02:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove it... any one that can read knows it sounds like Wee... if you cant read, What Are You Doing Here?!?!?!?--DivineShadow218 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest changing the text just to read 'pronounced like 'wee' - using the example of fed vs. feed - maybe this is why someone else keeps changing this bit?

It's pronounced "We" not "Wee", so in essence it's a factual error to keep it there. Also, I would like to remove "..Wii sounds exactly like the English word "wee", which usually means urine. [6]" from the article aswell, seeing as there is no word "Wee" for urine in the english language, it's a type of slang used by children to say urine, or piss. Wee in it's own way meens "little", "tiny". Havok (T/C) 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced wee as well as we - it's the same sound. Don't say that's a "factual error", because it clearly isn't.

The problem is here that Nintendo fanboys are doing nothing more than POV-pushing, trying to keep the reference out of the article.

Yes, it is a real word. See http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=wee or the wee article. --Col. Hauler 12:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, here's a comment from above (I striked it through there to move it here) - 81.182.142.141 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC) :

Also, I've noticed there seems to be a lot of wheel warring about the pronounciation. I've changed it so that it says the console is pronounced like "we", just like how it's used in the official press release. Others have changed it to "wee" or to say "we" and "wee". I don't understand the reasoning behind the other two versions, with the first being weasel wording and the second just being redundant since they're both pronounced exactly the same. Anyone making these changes want to explain? --TheKoG ([[User

talk:TheKoG|talk]]|contribs) 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to remove it, but it keeps getting added by Col. Hauler. It has nothing to do with fanboyism, it is clearly faulty and redundent. I say remove it. Either we solve this or I take it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation Havok (T/C) 12:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Redundant" is spelt like that. Your user page is full of spelling mistakes. Why are you even editing an encyclopedia? Please see Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially civility policy.

It's clearly NOT "faulty" or "redundant", it's a major point as the name looks ridiculous (and even offensive to some most likely) to many people in English speaking countries - You're removing it again and again with very little cause yet telling me I need to go to the talk page.

• Sigh*. Col. Hauler 12:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have requested Wikipedia:Requests for mediation to take a look at this, anyone who wish to comment on the situasion can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Wee_vs_Wii_vs_Urine. Col. Hauler, I hope you know about the Three-Revert rule. Havok (T/C) 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict

Col. Hauler, it's difficult to take your arguements seriously when you're willing to go so far as to violate WP:POINT with this vandalism edit of the article. Is there a reason for the redundancy you continue to insert into the article by stating that it's pronounced both as "we" and "wee" when they're both pronounced the same way? Is there a problem with just stating that it's pronounced as "we" just as it's used in the official press release? Also, keep in mind the WP:3RR rule. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's forget "Wee". Nintendo intended the name to sound "We" because it emphasises multiplayer and all that. Nintendo did not intend for it to mean piss, or small, so saying the name sounds like "Wee" is silly. -- Steel359 13:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How they intended it is not the issue, how it sounds IS. It was unlikely intended, but it is a serious point since it makes the name of the console look like a big joke in any country where wee is used.

Example: "I'm going to play with my Wii (sounding EXACTLY like wee), mum"

. . . --Col. Hauler 13:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And "We" illustrates that. As someone said below, why don't we go all out and add "Wee", along with "Weee", "Weeee", and "Weeeee"? We don't need to list every word the name sounds like. -- Steel359 13:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict again :p

But that doesn't explain why it's better to use "wee" over "we". Why would we use a childish euphemism over the official intention? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not "over" at all, it's saying BOTH versions. That's all I'm trying to keep, sheer NPOV. It's blindingly obvious to anyone where the word is in use, so it definitely should be mentioned. It's an important, controversial point. --Col. Hauler 13:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To me it sounds more like you want it there because you think "Wii" is some sort of joke to be made. It has been stated by everyone other then you that "We" and "Wee" sound the same. You are just adamant it having it there for your own amusement. You even revert my edits made to the article Wee. I have requested for mediation and will not revert anymore of your edits. I will leave it up to the others who contribute to this article to have their say and then maybe you will give up. And btw, thank you for calling me a Sock puppet, you forgot to add me to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, so I did it myself, seeing as I am innocent. Havok (T/C) 13:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Col. Hauler's vandalism speaks for itself. I don't understand why we are even discussing this with him. -Ritarri 13:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I did that DAYS AGO when people didn't seem to understand what I was getting at all. It was instantly reverted, but at least people understood a bit more. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

As for Havok, he's just being no more than childish, trying to protect "his" console against "bad words". --Col. Hauler 13:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

ha, irrespective of anything else, that article version (scroll down here) is hilarious! Completely inappropriate though :) Guy should make a web site with that version, I'm sure the ad revenue would be worth the trouble. GFDL after all. :) -81.182.142.141 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reported to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism Havok (T/C) 13:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to start this all over again, just to get more information on the table. The said, even on the website, Wii sounds like we, as in us. Wee is not us, Wè is pronouned Wee, not Wii or We. Proper English.--DivineShadow218 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe im crazy but "we" and"wee" are pronunced the same way. But N says to pronunce "wii" as "we".Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz 12:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

the word "like"

Please don't remove this word from the non-IPA transcription, even until we've reached a concensus here. I've added an invisible comment to this effect to the main body. 81.182.142.141 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the comment I added to the main body as a comment. However Havok removed it:

PRONUNCIATION NOTE:

THERE IS CURRENTLY A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER TO

GIVE THE TRANSCRIPTION "WE" OR "WEE" OR BOTH.

HOWEVER, IN BOTH CASES THE WORD "LIKE" NEEDS TO REMAIN.

please realize that without "like", you are not making

reference to the known word "we" or the word "wee", and

instead are giving an ad-lib transcription, however without

resorting to IPA, and therefore the transcription is ambiguous.

since the transcription "we" could rhyme with "beh" or

even "weigh", depending on the system somebody thinks you're

transcribing by! However by saying "like 'we'" you are making

a reference to the very common English word.)

Examples:

pronounced "we" <== ambiguous transcription (missing "like")

pronounced like "we" <== OK

pronounced like "wee" <== OK

pronoucned like the word "we" <== OK

pronoucned like the word "wee" <== OK

pronounced like "we" or "wee" <== OK

pronounced like the word "we" or "wee" <== OK

pronounced "we" or "wee" <== ambiguous! (missing "like")

81.182.142.141 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Really give all possibilities?

The above should apply to everything, but I will say my own preference: I think it's ridiculous to list all possibilities, why not WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (sleigh ride), which is an English exclamation written "whee!". :)

I vote for "pronounced like 'we'", (important to keep the word like), just like their product announcement, since the word "we" is very common and immediately understood. 81.182.142.141 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Possibility: wē (non-IPA dictionary transcription)

What about giving wē, which is a common transcription (not IPA) used by many English dictionaries, at least in America. This is the transcription the [| Wiktionary page for we] page gives, and if our pronunciation is the same, we might as well give the same transcription. I bet they have a bunch of linguists too all fretting over the pronoun (what normal person looks up or works on "we (pronoun)"?, so they're more qualified than we are about good transcriptions, in IPA and otherwise.

81.182.142.141 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have only been removing the text or "Wee". Nothing more. Havok (T/C) 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"However, Nintendo has been heavily criticized for the name, as Wii sounds like the slang "wee" (meaning urine)." Opinions, please. Ladlergo 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was hardly "heavy criticism"; no-one really said the name was awful per-se, but the name was heavily derided on internet forums for a couple of days. Plus, the Wii-Wee thing is almost exclusive to the US & UK; French, Japanese, German, Russian etc. Nintendo fans must far outnumber English speaking fans, and no other Wikipedia mentions this co-incidence. If the quote has to go in, I'd suggest "However, the name earned some derision from English speaking commentators for it's similarity to the word "wee", a slang term for urine" (incidently, as We & Wee are homonyms, saying "Pronounced like "we" or "wee"" is redundant). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Other than the "wee" jokes, there was still a bit of confusion. Most people said that the name was a poor choice for reasons like a) "Wii" is meaningless, b) the reasons for picking it must be explained and c)the pronunciation is unintuitive to most English-speaking people. If we have a section for criticism of the name, I'd also like to see those points. Ladlergo 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Urine

Is it possible to cut the references to wii sounding like urine once and for all, or indeed whether or not people 'liked' it - it just doesn't seem necessary to have this in the article - at all - the name is contentious but - so what. I'm suggesting maybe a vote or perhaps some feedback from anyone who feels it really needs to stay.HappyVR 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to start this all over again, just to get more information on the table. The said, even on the website, Wii sounds like we, as in us. Wee is not us, Wè is pronouned Wee, not Wii or We. Proper English.--DivineShadow218 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to parse what you have written. I am a native English speaker, and in every version of English I have ever heard, the two words "we" (pronoun) and "wee" (adjective) are pronounced identically. If "Wii" sounds like either of them, then it sounds like both. --Saforrest 03:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo's choice to go with this particular name in spite of its connotations was extremely unconventional and highly interesting from a marketing view. How this name will be perceived in the long run, and how it will (if at all) impact sales, is equally interesting and significant. Removing all reference to the controversy eliminates knowledge upon which to build more knowledge. It may not be relevant to Wii fans, but it is certainly relevant to any large company which makes a decision about a new product name. Perhaps, a year from now, we'll at least be able to sneak in a reference to an economics paper without one of the Nintendo fans removing it.--Eloquence* 23:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wee

Seriously Col. Hauler, everyone contributing to this article has all stated that they do not want "or wee" at the beginning of this article. Why do you keep re-adding it? Havok (T/C) 07:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone else have a view on where the name section should be in the article, what it should be like, or whether it should be there at all or have a separate page or any other view ?HappyVR 09:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another comment on the name, how many of you "Nnintendo Boy's" prefer this name? I can see it both ways. It's "Wii" which honestly is wierd and will really get annoying due to confusions of Wii/We. On the other hand it's new and fresh and probably the oddest name for a console. Being a 360 fanboy, I honestly cannot buy this console if it's called "Wii". If it was called "Revolution", however I would buy it. Hieros 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Col. Hauler

User:Col. Hauler has issues with the name section. For some reason he/she/it keeps reverting my talk page as well and amusingly has called me a sockpuppet, I left a message on User:Col. Hauler's talk page but that was deleted with no response. If this user will not respond the could something be done about it?HappyVR 10:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The changes to this article constitute an edit conflict; if either of you go over the 3RR you could be blocked for it. The personal attacks, "vandalism" claims and sockpuppet accusations extend the conflict beyond the article- Col. Hauler has been politely requested to stop at this time; hopefully he will calm down slightly and realize that blowing up is not the best way to resolve this. Daniel Davis 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems relevant to the name issue - http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ConflictParadox

HappyVR 10:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the following vandalism edit by Col. Hauler... -Numbnumb 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I have made an edit in an attempt to find a compromise to this situation. Let me make clear that I, for one, do not see any vandalism in this content dispute; however, several editors have violated WP:3RR. I also find accusations of sockpuppetry to be unlikely after reviewing the users' contributions. I would ask all of the editors involved in the dispute to read (or reread) WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT, and let's get back to writing an encyclopedia. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that, after having read the article before my attempted compromise, under no circumstances should the "Name" section be at the top. It is not nearly the paramount issue or data to be presented, and moving it topside suggests POV-pushing. Its current location seems correct. RadioKirk talk to me 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing something about this. I will look at the edits you have made and give feedback on it. Havok (T/C) 17:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about keeping 'name' in 'miscellaneous' in terms of its relative importance. However I'm not too keen on having 'what people think of the name' in the article - lots of reasons.. It's more 'bloggy' and not very 'encyclopaedeic', also what internet sites report is not necessarily a true reflection of what people think - I saw a poll of what people thought of the name and the results were very approximately 30% don't like, 20% like, 40% not bothered, 10% don't care. (I could try to find a url for this if it's relavent but I can't even guarantee the accuracy of it), also I'm not questioning the authority of 'Forbes' but the article seems very much of the type to fill a little space on a page - ie not exactly cutting edge journalism, also I think the issue is not important enough for inclusion on the page - after all (to quote inexactly - 'wikipedia is not a repository of everything ever written on a subject')

In general I am thinking do news items claiming 'the name has not be well received' really have any basis in truth - I honestly believe they are just written for something to say on a minor news item. Additionally does the Xbox 360 have any reference to it having a 'dumb' name or the PS3 article contain references to the name utilising the 'spiderman font' - there were edits like this but they are no longer in those articles. Sorry for taking so long - but I think I have now included all my points for keeping the name section as short as possible and not including references to 'consumer reactions'.Thanks.HappyVR 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you are syaing, but I would have to dissagree, the reason I started removing the "or wee." part of the article is that it has no place there. Then we could as one editor said, insert "or weee or wiiii, or weeeee" etc. It's the same sound. I also rewrote the section about the name which was removed and edited to death aswell. The thing is, the fact that people think of it as "wee" is encyclopedic, seeing as it is a branding name which Nintendo most likely have and will spend billions on. And as such it has some merrit to be in the article. But as Kirk said, it has no place at the top, and should not have several paragraphs written about it. One consistent sentence is enough, just to recognize that the name is a strange one for a company to chose. Havok (T/C) 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I, too, disagree, if I may. Primarily, if the choice of the name is newsworthy, then the reaction thereto is equally so—in other words, the entire "Name" section would have to be purged. Of nearly equal importance, Forbes is either the preeminent business magazine on the planet, or awfully close; we're not linking to a blog, but to a business analysis by a recognized expert (the magazine)—filler or otherwise. Finally, this entire section may someday be deemed irrelevant to Wikipedia; since, however, this is a living document on a fluid subject, I (for one) find the information important. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - ok - your second to last sentence sums it up for me - that is that it (the section or parts of it) may/might not stand the test of time - my philosophy would be (and is in editing) - if so remove it now. I get your point though.HappyVR 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "if it won't stand the test of time, remove it now" in principle, but there always exceptions; the largest one being, "we don't yet know for sure." I personally find this to be one of those cases. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The new "compromise" copy reads well to me. My objection was opening the article (which has substantial actual facts) with what's turning out to be a short-lived internet meme. Sphivo 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To follow up: The closest Featured article approximations to this issue include Apple Macintosh, where Advertising is well into the article; and Commodore 64, in which Winning the market war places relatively high in a chronological narrative. In any event, as one reads the best of the best at Wikipedia, the lead text should always answer the reader's question, "(what/who) is this?" and, since this is an article about the product, not about its name (which would likely be merged here, anyway, unless somehow a controversy ballooned), "Name" is unquestionably not that text. RadioKirk talk to me 18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have invited User:Col. Hauler to take part in this discussion, as all parties should be involved. Please read the invitation here. RadioKirk talk to me 18:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting non-noteable references

Just because it's got a link to Forbes doesn't automatically make it noteable. If you actually visited the link, you would notice that it merely talks about message board postings. Message boards are, by their very composition, filled with a large segment of the younger population, Nintendo's boards especially. Thus, it would stand to reason that a name like Wii would cause a group of the more immature population to react in this way. It's not a noteable thing, anymore than it would be noteable to mention a post on GameFAQs, or on another message board. -- Daniel Davis 18:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to prove non-notability. If you would like I can add other references from widely published media which showcase its criticism.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to PROVE noteability- it's a "news" story talking about a group of children calling a game system pee. That's about the most un-noteable thing one could imagine on wiki, and it's unencylopedic too. What's next, a dissertation on the poetry of said rhyming word? -- Daniel Davis 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Daniel Davis is correct about this: It is incumbent on the editor including the data to demonstrate its notability and reliability. See WP:V and WP:RS. RadioKirk talk to me 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just a value judgement. We don't need to make value judgements. We're just reporting what Forbes said. Where's the problem? Friday (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not neccesary or useful to post about everything that children on message boards say- you know, if you really want it in there that badly, why don't you do that? I mean, put in some references to developers, or reviewers or whatnot and their reaction to the name. That might change th tone of the paragraph away from the "some kids called it pee" appearance. -- Daniel Davis 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to this post on this page. RadioKirk talk to me 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "Forbes is big"- the extent of their reporting was on the content of children on a message board, as was stated earlier. You're elevating Forbes content merely based upon name, and not upon noteability of the articie within. As I suggested earlier, why not replace the message board stuff with actual noteable quotes? Oni Ookami says he has other published sources, so why not use them? -- Daniel Davis 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Forbes needs no elevation. This article was a business analysis by one of the world's most respected publications that included information from Nintendo's own message boards, not some random board. I have no issue with Oni Ookami adding information, but I for one find the current information relevant—for the moment. As you'll see in my comments above, this may eventually disappear, but its purpose in a living document is clear to me. RadioKirk talk to me 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on - you can't seriously call the article 'a business analysis'.HappyVR 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"One way or another, Nintendo will hope that gamers and techies alike will eschew the tongue-in-cheek rhetoric and open their wallets for the next-generation device. Profits will depend on it, and that's no wee matter." Yes, I do. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm starting to find this funny - so 'Nintendo are hoping people will buy their product' is business analysis - it's not a bad article (at all) - almost worth reading.HappyVR 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, with all respect, this is a value judgment. Light and fluffy (as it's called in newsrooms) though it may be, it's still a business analysis. RadioKirk talk to me 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The public reaction to the name "Wii" is very clearly relevant to the article. So relevant, in fact, that Forbes magazine mentioned it. So, we report what they said here. We're not using message board postings directly as a source- we're using Forbes magazine. Sure, we can find other sources talking about reaction to the name also, but that doesn't make Forbes a bad source. Please, stop repeatedly removing sourced info. Friday (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, It doesn't matter that "Forbes is big"- the extent of their reporting was on the content of children on a message board, as was stated earlier. You ARE using message board postings as a source- just because you're for some reason hiding behind the fact that a minor Forbes article was the one who first noted it doesn't make it any better of a source. -- Daniel Davis 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To explain this another way- if you don't like what Forbes is saying, take it up with Forbes. Here, we use reliable sources- and Forbes is certainly a reliable source. We don't make value judgements on what our sources are saying- we report the facts, objectively. Friday (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that this other user, this Joe Muz may be a sockpuppet of yours... its edits have a noticeable trend towards reinforcing your arguements out of nowhere, starting today. I cannot myself add the other publications at this time due to the 3RR rule, since adding them would constitute another reversion on my part. If the section were put back in however I could add to it in effect not breaking it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't make accusations. I'm willing to keep it a certain way until we work out this argument, and I don't know who Joe is- most likely related to the anon who keeps vandalizing this page. -- Daniel Davis 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote should be put back in while it's being discussed. Removal of sourced information typically requires good consensus, which we certainly do not have here. Friday (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC) I see this is already done, thank you. Friday (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the extent of my concerns towards this article lean towards the fact that the assistant editor who wrote the Forbes article relied entirely on message boards, instead of using the space to mention a few more reputable sources. If you or Ookami could add in some links to a few more reliable media or public statistics or whatnot, I think it might very well fix this debate. -- Daniel Davis 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that both Forbes, the Grauniad and even the [BBC] have all covered this story. It doesn't matter that the news may be coming from small forums; the big news networks all think this is notable enough news to mention. There are no other sources because the forums are the news! Smurrayinchester 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. ANYone who's talking about public reaction to the name is likely to use public sources- message boards, man-on-the-street interviews, etc. We don't use these things as sources ourselves, but if Forbes uses them, so be it. We are not in the business of second-guessing our sources. Friday (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Objecting to "what Forbes said"? I'm not sure where you got THAT from, I just don't believe that message boards are a proper news source, no matter who uses them. I've seen the kinds of things said on forums- the anonymity gives people an arena for crude behavior they otherwise might not utilize. The best representation is a source that can provide a concrete foundation for its arguments, and forums are at best a soft clay foundation, prone to shifts whenever the mood hits. -- Daniel Davis 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

...as is the man-on-the-street-interview-to-get-reaction format used by newspapers and television and radio stations the world over. Your objection still strikes as a value judgment of the data presented, and that's not what Wikipedia is here to do. RadioKirk talk to me 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A message board is going to get a less representative reaction than a "man-on-the-street" piece (although neither are as good as randomly picking people out of a national phonebook). People with little or no reaction are less likely to comment than those with strong feelings on the subject. Ladlergo 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as noted above, that landscape is changing. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that when the name was first revealed, Google News picked up quite a few articles published by gaming sites, and some of those had comments by various game developers. Someone can try hitting GN with "Wii name" or any other word combination that might pull up those articles. Ladlergo 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this on the PS3 talk page : "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." In addition - various new agencys 'have' to report notable news items - such as the naming of a new computer console - that doesn't make what they say/have written on the subject of any value - in this case it seems clear to me at least that this reference adds nothing to the article. Also I would assume that readers can think for themselves - to supply them with a list of possible responses to the name is insulting to them as well to us. Also where is the prood/information that shows what they have printed represents in any way a significant or majority response to the naming? Frankly saying 'forbes is a major site' shows lack of judgement - similar to saying 'Nixon is (was) the president of the united states..' or 'my big brother says' etc. This link can't be seen as more than a minor response to a minor news story - it's just not significant enough to merit inclusion. (I understand this was added in response to a edit conflict previously as a 'compromise' but I think we can do better). I would however be interested to see a more measured response to the name as a link - perhaps a poll of some sort?HappyVR 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with WP:NOT, and I (for one) don't find this to apply. Meantime, the addition by User:Dannybu2001 makes the passage even stronger. RadioKirk talk to me 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the new sub-section 'reaction' seems to make it a lot better - a lot more balanced - thanks for listening patiently (I assume) to us/me and improving it. ThanksHappyVR 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Preferred 'potty' over 'toilet' though - could this be changed back.HappyVR 19:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Used the direct quote from Forbes instead (mostly because the Wiki article is entitled "toilet humour"). Good job by everyone, I think, keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia and working together toward a solution. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is probably for the best. It is unfortunate when things degrade to this point. I've watched it happen many times in the past, and this time I decided it might be worthwhile to step in and try to prevent it, but to no avail. In any case, an interesting thought crossed my mind. I considered adding references to several of the more notable webcomics that had made references to the wii reaction since they are high-traffic and generally gauge a large portion of the gamer demographic's responses to these kinds of things. I figured it wasn't going to be encylopedic enough no matter how it was approached so I didn't. I just wanted to make sure that the general feeling is simmilar to mine before I drop it entirely.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Wii?

I'm just wondering why Nintendo named the system "Wii". Did someone need to take a leak at the time? Does it have Wi-Fi capibilities? I think that "Revolution" had a sort of ring to it that had a certain spark of hope in its name. Not Wii... and talk about a poor excuse for names... no offense to Nintendo, but making a pun of "we" wasn't their best idea. Words that actually exist and make sense to the thing they're describing are good names. The Revolution is a "revolution" in gameplay with their "revolutionary" controller and catolouge of old games. "Wii" can't really describe anything about the console unless they're talking about the thing you have to do every couple of hours in the bathroom. (Oh yeah, and if Nintendo named the controlers "ners" then you'd have a wii-ner! :P) --CherryT 00:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They had a reason, something to do with a meaning or abbreviation of sorts. But the Revolution was a better name though. 24.188.203.181 01:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Horray! Another question that is barely article related. Wikipedia's articles do not account for speculation so the talk pages really have no need to either. All the information is available in nintendo press releases. Some of which has been quoted here already.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 02:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the_importer 21:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace out

the_importer 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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