Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 4

Must the reference be free and online?

"A reference must be provided for all titles -- All items on this list should currently have at least one reference link."

Does this mean that if a game is confirmed in a print source or in a subscription-only online source, it does not belong in the article? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not - but obviously it's more helpful if everyone can read the reference if they want to.HappyVR 09:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a game was confirmed in writing then I can assure you that somewhere on the internet has something about it. Jedi6 -(need help?) 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you couldn't add it, as long as you say where it comes from, and replace it with a reliable online link when one appears. -- VederJuda 02:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with adding sources from print material, even if a game is confirmed on the net or anywhere else. Add a reference to it anyways. Here's some more info about citations. That print material might even be a better source of information than most websites. Ceros 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game Pages vs. Actual Articles

I think the actual announcement article is preferable to a game page (such as those from IGN that everybody always uses). I think an announcement article is more indicative of what is known about the game at the time of announcement and the nature of the announcement itself. And that's kind of what this list should do; accurately list which games currently exist for Wii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enbob89 (talk • contribs) 16:45, May 1, 2006

I think game pages are better because they link to all resources concerning the game: news, media, et al. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thought had occurred to me. But I think the reference links for this article are only here to confirm that these games exist. A game page would be better suited for each game's own article. Also, game pages can sometimes be set up prematurely. Sometimes game pages are set up for games that are only speculated to exist. --enbob89 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards Compatible Games

Some people have been adding old games to the list, going by the asumption that since the Revolution will have old NES/SNES/N64 games available for download, so these games will appear on the system (i.e. Donkey Kong Jr., Balloon Fight, Clu Clu Land, etc…). Should we add a note that says that only games developed for the Revolution directly should be on the list, and older games for download (even if they may be altered or fine-tuned in any way, are not considered Revolution games. -- VederJuda 14:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Older games are for older systems. Just look and the PlayStation series. PlayStation 3 plays PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games, yet none of those are counted as PS3 games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rumored Games

Considering a game like "No End Soon" has been allowed to stay on this list of games, I readded NiGHTS into Dreams and Trama Center to the list, one of which was rumored in Weekly Famitsu, and another of which was confirmed by IGN as coming out. Both are currently listed as rumored games until an official announcement is made. Fro81 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NiGHTS should be listed, there is no actual evidence to support that it is being developed, and that being listed here might just get people's hopes up. I think there should be more than just an article on a website about a rumor in a Japanese magazine to justify NiGHTS 2 being listed here. Gopherbassist 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu is notable enough to have a page in Wikipedia, and is one of the oldest magazines about videogames. However, I would not add "NiGHTS into Dreams", but instead, "unnamed xxxx project". -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that the age of the magazine or it's having an article in Wikipedia have anything to do with the validity of a rumor, after all, it's still a rumor according to the magazine its self. Other than that, I agree.Gopherbassist 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you about the general inclusion guideline: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. And more specifically: One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. In other words, it doesn't matter if it is a rumour, as long as you can verify it with reliable sources. Can you verify it? Yes, it is in the magazine. Is it a reliable source? Yes, Famitsu is _the_ japanese bible of gaming. If you still don't trust Famitsu, we can use this IGN link as reference. Note how IGN treats the rumour with more respect just because it comes from Famitsu. Nothing wrong about your point of view, but if only "truth" could be allowed in Wikipedia, this would be Encyclopaedia Britannica ;-) -- ReyBrujo 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think truth has anything to do with it, and from what I read there is no proof that this game is NiGHTS, it said there was a flying clown. Plus, it is still a rumor. Now, I have no problem with it saying NiGHTS, but it needs to say some thing like "Unspecified _______ project, possibly NiGHTS."Gopherbassist 04:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Rumored Games

I've taken the liberty to remove a number of games that are supposedly coming out for the Wii. Often times the sources could not be verified. Some upcoming multiplatform games (i.e. 100 bullets and Alive) I removed as there needs to be a confirmation that the game is coming out for the Wii, not just next-generation consoles in general. I will be glad to put these back on the list when a confirmation arrives, but until then please do not re-add them back to this list.

Also MoH: Airborne still has not been confirmed for the Wii, only Vanguard has been. I've also updated the source links whenever necessary. Thanks-Digiwrld1 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, 90% of the stuff off of gonintendo.com is junk. This is not a rumour page. I completly suport your move there. -Telvin 3d 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a couple of your deletions but not most of them. 100 Bullets, Dance Factory, Digimon (which you can also find on IGN[1]) and Alive were confirmed in the Gamepro list which I was skeptical of, but has proven legitimate[2] (it got Space Station Tycoon right and a couple of games that came out in the Nintendo list last week[3]). Dance Factory was also confirmed once before [4]. Spyro, Crash Jackin, Ben 10 and Dream Pinball were confirmed in Codename Revolution's list, a site that has a nearly flawless track record and does not publish unconfirmed reports without labeling them as such. Hail to the Chimp is a little more iffy, but Wideload games was confirmed to be developing a Wii game[5] and it appears as if this is it because Wideload isn't working on any other games.

As for the criticism of Go Nintendo, their original content isn't that great and the site's design does come off as a little cheap, but their info is spot on. --enbob89 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I love GoNintendo; I visit the site everyday for all my Nintendo going-ons. For Wikipedia articles, I'm a firm believer in 'Assume Nothing. Verify Everything.' Clicking the source link for these games did not convince me that this game was actually in development for the Wii. I then proceeded to try and find a better source and searched Google for each of these games. I only then removed the games from the list if a Google search didn't satisfy either. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't just deleting based off of suspicions of a blog entry.

I don't know how good of a track record GamePro has at properly predicting Nintendo release titles, but once again I'd like a title to be confirmed by the developer or publisher themselves. Also a quick look at the magazine scan at GoNintendo reveals that they have Disaster:DOC listed for release in March, which really hurts its credibility. In the case of GamePro, as they are a legitimate magazine, I'm more lenient, but my point is presented. I'm wary of 'Alive' though-it's in development for Next-Gen Consoles, but should they elect to use the Unreal3 Engine or something of the sort, it would have to exclude the Wii. As per CodenameRevolution's games, I'm more cautious here. The list of 4 games they give isn't verifiable at all-not even a scan. We have to take his word for it that his local distributor, whoever that may be, gave him accurate information. Way too shifty. Of course, should these titles actually be confirmed, I will immediately add them onto the list, but until then I'm in favor of keeping it off.

Quick note-'Ken the Survivor' is the exact same game as 'Jissen Pachi-Slot Pachinko Hisshôhô ! Hokuto no Ken' The latter is just the full title, the former is the English translation. As the game is to be released in Japan only, most likely, I had deleted the entry for 'Ken the Survivor'. If you feel that GoNintendo and CodenameRevolution are reliable, legitimate sources and these games should remain on the list, then that's fine with me. I just wanted to bring up my thoughts and I thank you for telling us your opinion on the matter. I'm trying to push the quality and content of this list to something that can attain Featured Article status one day-if the List of Virtual Boy games could attain it, then I see no reason why an awesome one with a sortable list can't as well. -Digiwrld1 [I forgot to sign in]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.181.225.103 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that there's nothing better than a confirmation from the developer or publisher, but if a source is credible enough, I think it's also acceptable. I typically avoid titles that aren't completely confirmed even when they sound extremely likely (such as EA's rhythm game for Wii[6]). But I make exception for sites that can back their stories up. Go Nintendo and Codename Revolution always explain where their info came from and will only print unconfirmed stories when they are labeled as such. On several occasions, they've broken stories ahead of time. I see them as credible, legitimate sources; I don't know if that alone qualifies them as acceptable. The GamePro list has some oddities, especially the release dates, but I think the games it lists are all real. As for making this list the best article it can be, I'm all for it. The article has changed a lot recently and I'm glad to say it's changed for the better. As for Alive, you're right; it hasn't been confirmed for Wii except for the GamePro list. If you think that isn't enough, remove it, but I don't think enough is known about it to dismiss it based on the Wii's limitations. And if Ken the Survivor is a duplicate, by all means remove it. It's good to see someone who's looking at this list constructively and taking it places. I don't know how to do much besides populating it as comprehensively as possible. Thank you for your input. --enbob89 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for your input. As I mentioned before the GoNintendo titles have a greater weight because it has a GamePro scan, and although this may or may not be correct I guess it's still a source. Codename Revolution's games, however, I took down because there is absolutely no source on this other than themselves. In addition, for each of those titles we have 'TBA' across the entire row; at least for the GamePro articles we have a more concrete idea of who's publishing and around when it's coming out. For these reasons I've taken down the CNR articles and kept the GamePro articles. Perhaps you can call it a sorta compromise :) . I personally have no problem with CNR's credibility--whenever GoNintendo links to them their info is usually spot on. However, I don't think that it's an acceptable source by Wikipedia, although I may be wrong. Once again, thanks for all your input and help--if you feel that the removal was unjustified just post here (no need to restate your reasons), and I'll leave them be until the next update on these games. -Digiwrld1 05:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about games based on movies on the list

I've noticed this on this list and other pages as well. People list the film article instead of the game article's redlink. If the article isn't made for the game yet, there is no reason to link to the film, period. It confuses people for one thing, and for another it makes it seem like the game has an article already. So just list the game as a redlink, and let it be. A film article shouldn't be on a video game list page. RobJ1981 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North America Sort?

for some reason I can't sort by North American release date. Anybody else having this problem? --enbob89 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I can't either--I'll look into it. Maybe it's something I messed up. -Digiwrld1 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I looked up and down the page in edit mode to try and figure out what was wrong and I can't spot anything. It was working quite fine a little whiles ago. Can someone who has more experience check this out please? Thanks! -Digiwrld1 02:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7] seems to be the last version where the sort works. I compared that to the not working versions, but did not see anything obvious. -Telvin 3d 06:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted it back to the last working issue and re-updated whatever information I remembered had changed. Thanks for the help Telvin and Enbob98. Though I still don't know what exactly caused the problem...-Digiwrld1 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]