Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Think about this

I haven't really been active in this argument, but I've skimmed it over, and I can't believe you guys would fight so much over such a simple issue. Seeing as how there are only 2 games out of over 100 that don't fit into the normal 500-600-800-1000 (NES-TG-SNES/GEN-N64) points system, there is absolutely no need to list the points amount for each game. It does make sense to have the necessary points noted in or right below the header of each section, of course... and there can be an asterisk (*) next to the 2 games whose points costs are exceptions, wit hthe (*) explained at the bottom of the section.

By having an edit war over such a simple matter, you're preventing the article from being as good as possible, and I'm sure tons of people reference this article quite often... all you're doing is making the article worse by being stubborn. Miles Blues 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What you describe was actually a compromise version before the most recent edit war. At this point, editors need to decide what's more important: "winning" the war or providing an article that serves as a useful reference to our readers. -- MisterHand 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is more concerned about winning an edit war than helping Wikipedia, they don't belong here. Miles Blues 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like some people need to go then.(76.188.20.246 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Which people and why? Drumpler 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If no one has a problem with my proposal (the way it used ot be), I will request unprotection at the end of this week, since it's really just causing this article to be updated a lot slower each week than it should be. Miles Blues 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of the people here think that the Wii Points is good to have, so we cannot get the article unprotected, or else people will keep going back and forth. People who don't listen to the discussion board, and those trying to correct the other people. LN3000 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are good to have, but they are not needed to be listed next to each game title, as I explained above. Miles Blues 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Define correcting and not listening, LN3000. Are these people who disagree? Are they those who believe that consensus can't change. You're fond of throwing out accusations, so I'm just interested in the substance behind them. Drumpler 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Miles Blues IF we add the asterisks. Without the asterisks, it's garbage. Briggity Brak 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, when the exceptions list grows, it will become a problem itself. It is best to head off that issue by keeping the points column as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamename3000 (talk • contribs)

oops, I didn't mean to forget to sign. LN3000 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, it's not exactly viable to list exceptions in the introductory paragraph, especially if the list only grows over time. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Nintendo Wii AND Wikipedia fan/user/lover I'd like to offer my perspective as someone who for the past few months has frequented the page to learn what new titles were out for the Virtual Console. It has been frustrating to come to a page that is re-formatted so frequently by these edit wars. While Nintendo's site is probably the most authoritative source for what they have released for the Virtual Console, and intelligent fans will bookmark their site, I spend a lot of time in Wikipedia, so it makes sense for me just to check it here. Lamename3000 made a comment about "when" Nintendo adds more exceptions to the point cost, but I think that should be more of a big "if." Since there is a stated normal point value for each system, and the exceptions are rare, it is harder to find one use of a number other than "500" in a column with seventeen of them. IF Nintendo changes their policy and begins to put out a higher number of exceptions, THEN it would make more sense to have the point value column. There is no need to clutter the page with repetitive information, it is an inefficient use of whitespace. By making a blanket statement, "All NES titles except those asterisked are 500 points", etc., we are providing the information completely and succinctly. IMHO, Until Nintendo produces a greater variety, something they do not appear to be up to, the column is not necessary, so long as, the blanket statement and asterisks are there. This allows for complete information, in an easier to read format. Duckingham 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we don't have to worry about what might happen down the line. We can make the article readable for now, and if things happen to change and there are more exceptions released we can revisit the issue. -- MisterHand 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of a single table which shows the points for each VC console. I think if the list became so variable then we can add change it showing the points as a range like 500-600 or some such. The point of showing the points is not to help people figure out what game to buy, but to give relevant information about the state of affairs of the VC. For historical context it may be prudent to add dates when there were significant changes in VC pricing. Such as on this date NES started to add games 100 points more or less than previously. --Dharh 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NO!!! NO dates. If things like that happen (which I doubt) then the points will need to be removed entirely. Until then, the Points should be Ok.

That's a really good idea Dharh! Also, Wikipedia articles are not suppossed to assume/guess what will happen in the future, but to state what has happened, or what the current and past states of something are. So, until there are more exception, a points value column is unnecessary, which it seems we agree on. I will request for the page to be unprotected. Miles Blues 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the general consensus is that the points should be included in the table. So don't say we agree on it when you are in the extremely small minority. TJ Spyke 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that as long as people continue the discussion and don't take it into their own hands to remove the Wii Points, this discussion can continue civily until an understandment can be reached. But as TJ Spyke said, a significant majority of the regular editors of this page feel the points should stay. LN3000 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding double-minded, I would like to say that regardless the method of signifying Wii point cost per title, I appreciate the info in some fashion, and more importantly I appreciate the newly unlockedness of the article. Whenever an article is locked it is an embarrasment to the principles, editors, and users of Wikipedia. The point of this article is to contain a historical, factual, and (most importantly) current, up-to-date list of VC titles for NA. Kudos. Duckingham 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How about where it says the name of the game system in the header, we put the Wii Points up there? Like: Nintendo Entertainment System (500 Wii Points) Then for games like TMNT, we can have: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles* and R-Type** and at the bottom of the page or the table: *This title costs 600 Wii Points. **This title costs 800 Wii Points. Never mind. It seems someone else had the same idea! :) Libertyernie2 00:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested unprotection earlier, and it got unprotected, so I went ahead and took int oaccoutn everyone's suggestions and edited the old table and created a new section (with a table) for the points cost. Hope the new format of the article suits everyone's preferences. Miles Blues 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's not wise to do something that only a few people have even said anything about. I really disliked your "additions." Really, the article needs to be locked again if you and other people are going to force your changes. No changes should be made unless everyone agrees. So the article should stay the way it was before this whole thing started. LN3000 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to list points in the table. Why was the article reverted? Miles Blues 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the above sections, the consensus IS to list the points in the tables. TJ Spyke 02:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my first statement, this is not about what the editors want, nor what us (a small group of people) want. It is about what serves the users of Wikipedia best, and a list of points in every table is unnecessary, since there are only 2 exceptions to the general rule. The way I had it once I was done editing, the points cost was included, there was no list of repetitious values, and the exceptions were mentioned - how is that not a good solution to the problem? Miles Blues 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But that was not a great way to present the information, as it was more clutter than good. What serves the users of Wikipedia best? That really is what is up for debate, so please no more random editing. LN3000 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do remember what Wikipedia is not. It is not meant for listing prices of items currently for sale. WP:NOT (#4) Also, Wikipedia is not meant to contain "long and sprawling lists of statistics," and with over 100 games in those tables, and more to come, the list of points costs is most certainly long. WP:NOT#INFO (#4) Also, quoted from that section, is "...articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader," which a small table and small list of exceptions would provide for readers. We cann all state our opinion on the matter, but we have to remember to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Miles Blues 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is a "long and sprawling list" and removing the Wii Points will not help that, so your argument is sorta thin-grounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamename3000 (talk • contribs)

Still, prices should not even be listed in the first place. Also, please sign your username on comments. Miles Blues 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? It's not violating any policy or guideline, and the points are an informative and enccylopedic piece of information. And as LN3000 pointed out, that WP:NOT is about the tables themselves, not part of the tables. The second part of the statement just says that the article should make sure people can understand the points, which it does. TJ Spyke 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is where I have been misunderstood and I think I would like to say that, for now, I can deal with the Wii Points in the table, but am generally opposed to their addition. Drumpler 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide reasoning why you think it should be one way or another... opinions aren't important, but reasoning is. Miles Blues 03:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to be "neutral" until another related matter is resolved. Drumpler 06:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because people like something, doesn't mean it should remain. People claim there is no "good arguments for not listing the points". But to turn it around: there is no good arguments for listing the points. Comments such as "they aren't hurting the article" and "it's encyclopedic" and other similar ones, aren't considered good arguments to me. Back it up with some actual proof it's useful, instead of just wanting it to remain because you like it. A group of editors just liking it, but have no concrete evidence for it to stay, isn't enough proof to keep it here. Also I want to point out: compromises should happen here, but some users just refuse any compromise no matter what. A compromise isn't about getting everything you want. This shouldn't be an "all or nothing" situation if it doesn't have to be. RobJ1981 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob. This is not about what we want, but how to best serve the readers' needs. Also, I felt my edit was good because it was a compromise - it still included the points, but did not list them for each and every game... it was the middle-ground between points for every game and no points at all. Miles Blues 03:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much stayed out of this whole debacle, but in the interest of trying to restore some sort of sanity, here's my attempt at a compromise. It's not as cluttered as Miles Blues's attempt, but it eliminates the redundancy and as an added bonus the point information is still in the tables themselves. Not to mention sidestepping the problem of the (potentially) ever-expanding "Exceptions" section. -Arcanelore 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Miles's "compromise" is unacceptable. Sorry, but I will not accept that. LN3000 04:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

All compromises seem unacceptable to the people for the points. Points in the article isn't a compromise, points not in the article isn't a compromise: those are given things. At this point, it's an "all or nothing" situation (as I stated before), which is a bit petty in my opinion. People are willing to compromise, but due to people not accepting anything, this article wont get anywhere. RobJ1981 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you "accept" it is out of the question. The only thing that is acceptable is Wikipedia rules and protocol. Drumpler 06:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is all petty, then why do you and a few other people keep removing the Wii Points? LN3000 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please state why it is necessary for the Wii Points to be listed next to every game in the table. Also, if my compromise is unacceptable, please provide another idea on how to solve the dispute.Miles Blues 04:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said everything was petty. I clearly said "all or nothing" is petty. All or nothing has been explained before: people want their way (all) or nothing, hence the name "all or nothing". I had the right to revert, as Miles' compromise was perfectly fine. In my opinion, people need to accept compromises instead of assuming they should get their way. This article is being held hostage by people refusing to compromise in my opinion. This will go in circles until either: a guideline is made that says "no listing prices", one side just completely gives up, or admins step in and rule on this. (I left out compromise, because it's pretty clear people refuse to do it at the moment at least). So, the first or third thing are the most likely to happen, I believe. RobJ1981 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Miles's idea is the best thing I've heard in this discussion. It cleans up the page while retaining all fo the data. Libertyernie2 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Rob, you talk about compromise all the time, but then you went ahead and killed the mediation. Do you have an actual reason, or are you just being as stubborn as you claim everyone else is? DurinsBane87 07:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a wise idea to sound so conniving towards Rob. I don't know why Rob declined, but I do know that this will not end unless both sides are on the same side, in some form or another. And at this rate, that's not going to happen. One side wants the Wii Points to remain in place, while the other side wants them removed. There have been attempted 'compromises' but they obviously have not worked for various reasons.

I'm sure that we can find a resolution, if everyone is willing to listen to each other's 'side' of things, without attacking each other. Everyone needs to agree that this article stays locked until this is resolved, and that none of the related articles will be 'messed' with either.

Both 'sides' have good intentions, and there should be no denying that. However, we need to talk about this in a more constructive fashion.

I know that I have a bit of a bias, but I am willing to sorta put my 'agenda' on hold, and hold a mock mediation of my own, since normal attempts have not worked. Maybe this would help both 'sides' understand exactly where the other side is coming from.

If you allow me, I would like everyone to send me an email (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Lamename3000) stating their view, and I promise I will not be 'swaying' anything. I just want organization. I don't suggest posting directly here, since then there will be a flood of "no, you're wrong" from both 'parties', and obviously that has not worked so far.

I hope that no one thinks I'm spouting garbage, as I really do care about this article, as I'm sure most people here would say the same, and this whole thing has gone on far too long, and if the conventional means for resolution do not work, then we need to do something a bit unconventional, that's why I suggest the email. After that, we can work on the next step. You do not have to participate if you don't want to, but I strongly suggest that everyone contribute, so that each 'side' understands the other.

I'd like just a simple e-mail, with subject "Virtual Console" and a body consisting of your username, and a short (or long, whatever) paragraph saying exactly what you feel about this issue, and why. I will not be participating this way, as I'll be the "host", and will strive to be neutral if we follow through with this idea.

I hope no one has objections, and I hope that any rules have not been broken, and that people understand why I'm doing this. And so, ends my post. LN3000 08:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be doing this in good faith, but it isn't part of the dispute resolution process. What is it, exactly, that you're planning to accomplish here, that can't already be hammered out and worked out on the talk page? Drumpler 08:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, taking a good, hard look at the current condition of this talk page, I'd say that any dispute resolution will not work the way it's intended, and so a different approach may work. Give it a shot instead of shooting it down. LN3000 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd advise a blog or your own wiki, as experienced Wiki editors and admins are not very likely to smile favourably on this venture. Just stating policy. Drumpler 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I posted on Miles Blues talk page about the mediation: Sorry, I refuse to mediate with Lamename and TJ Spyke. This might be considered "bad faith" by them or whatever, but frankly this wont get far on mediation either. They will bring up the same things they always do: "its not hurting the article", "consensus is for the points", and so on. A policy change or addition seems to be the only way to go here, and it's currently being discussed. Not to mention: they are going to encourage their friends to join in, and try to get a so called "consensus" (which they already claim at the talk page of the list). Simply put: they need to compromise on the list talk page with everyone else. I have yet to see any recent compromises they are willing to go with. The points in the article isn't a compromise, they should know this by now. Frankly, people need to learn to accept some kind of compromise. Miles Blues compromise: rejected, but why? I didn't see anything about why people hated it. He put it in the article: people hated it, and reverted it off. Then there is Arcanelore's compromise: [1]. What's wrong with that one? Either of these 2 compromises are just fine. As I stated before: the points listed how they are now, isn't a compromise period. If people continue to refuse to compromise, I think some admins need to just handle this. As it's not helpful for some people willing to compromise, while others basically hold the article "hostage" in a way. They refuse to let their favorite version go, and anything else is reverted, hated and ignored because of the apparent "consensus to keep the points" line people always throw out there. But either way: I'm starting to think this wont end until a guideline about prices is officially made. RobJ1981 10:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what keeps rubbing me the wrong way. There isn't a guideline. All there is is you throwing a fuss every day saying there should be a guideline. There's nothing wrong with a points column, except it conflicts with your personal preferences, and you WANT them to be policy, sure, but it's NOT. THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE A COMPROMISE. It seems like the entire problem would dissapear if you just LET THE WHOLE THING GO and GOT OVER IT. That said, please don't interpret this as an attack on you. I'm just tired of this article not being able to go a full freaking day without having to be edit protected, and I think everyone involved in this debate (with the exception of LN3K, who is at least trying to help) lately has been acting like children.-Thores 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

People disagree, that happens on Wikipedia. Things can't just be "let go" as you put it. Letting one side get their way, to end this... isn't a solution at all. No one is forcing you to come here: I wanted to make that clear. There is other places online to find the information, so if you hate this article's content disputes so much... I suggest you just visit other sites. LN3000 isn't the only one trying to help, people have offered compromises, but they've been rejected (for basically no good reason in my opinion). Lastly, things can't just easily be fixed, sorry to break that to you. RobJ1981 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry LN, but I won't do a mediation through a user who ahs already stated that they have a strong opinion on the matter. Also, Thores, I don't appreciate being called a child, as I've been trying to find a middleground so the article can be opened - I thought the middleground would be fine, and had the article unprotected, but I guess it was not. Miles Blues 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, first of all, I have NEVER said that I'd "drag my friends into this" never once, and it'd be wise to take back that accusation. There have been other people I could accuse of that, but it's not me, and it's not TJ, to my knowledge. The reason Miles' 'compromise' was unacceptable, was because it added too much clutter. A reason why the current system is best, is that it does not make the article any longer than it already is, it blends in with the list, it keeps all the information together, etc, etc. And if people are not willing to go for mediation, no matter how unorthodox it could be, then how do you expect this to end? You expect people to just magically say "Oh, we were wrong, you were 100% correct, we are sorry."? That will not happen from either side. You can't say "compromise" if it's not a compromise that both sides can agree on, and so far, there has not been anything acceptable. LN3000 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Protocol vs. usefulness

It was stated somewhere above that "the only thing that is acceptable is Wikipedia rules and policy." Is that so? I believe the usefulness of the article should shape rules and policy, not the other way around. I won't give my opinion on the matter at hand -- I couldn't care less whether the points are in the article -- but really, shouldn't you guys be deciding what's more useful, then possibly instituting policy changes if need be? I understand the need to keep the "big picture" correct, but sometimes the big picture needs changing. 63.163.61.3 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting anarchy over night, good luck, its not going to happen. ;) Rules and policies exist as the result of the experience of several editors who have shaped them to insure that Wikipedia is the useful resource that it is. If policy is an issue, one brings it to the appropriate policy talk page and attempts to make recommendations to change it until consensus is reached. The articles themselves must rely on existing policies, however. Otherwise, we'd have editors doing whatever they want.

Hope this clarifies. Drumpler 13:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(Wow, I wish some of the other talk pages I've posted on got attention that fast...)

I guess all I'm saying is the question at hand should NOT be "what would you as an EDITOR rather see in the article", but instead "what would you as a READER rather see in the article." I understand that policy has been created and modified over a long period of time by people with a lot of experience. (edit: removed giant can of worms) 63.163.61.3 13:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring policies and guidelines isn't the way to go here, period. RobJ1981 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, people going against consensus (i.e. removing the points despite consensus to keep them) isn't the right way to go. TJ Spyke 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant and you know it. Don't go throwing out the word "consensus" every chance you can get. There is a good number of people for and against the points, there is no clear consensus. The fact you wont admit it: very bad faith. RobJ1981 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When a strong majority (almost everyone) feels one way, that is a consensus. TJ Spyke 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not neccessarily. Review WP:DEMOCRACY. I think even if the majority agrees the points belong, if a sizable minority disagrees, compromise should still be attempted. Drumpler 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Think what you want TJ, it certainly hasn't helped you yet, has it? Strong majority is nonsense, period (others have clearly pointed out flaws in your consensus, so its just redundant to list it again). If a guideline was made against pricing: you would use consensus as an excuse still, but whatever. I'm not going to argue about this anymore with you. RobJ1981 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't helped because you have continued to bring the issue up over and over for the last 2 months despite repeated cases of no consensus or consensus to keep the points. As for you other point, it's just that; there is no guideline or policy against them. TJ Spyke 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no policy against them. So for now, I don't think the inclusion of the Wii Points is an issue until there is a policy (hence why I haven't directly edited the article). However, I still would recommend reading the policy page and considering my proposal in my comment above, in this section. A sizeable minority still does not believe they belong, hence the reason I think some compromise needs to be considered. I think Miles Blues's has been the best to date. Drumpler 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, consider this statement from Jimbo Wales, the final authority on all things related to Wikipedia. This link comes from the WP:DEMOCRACY policy. Drumpler 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the statement that polls/votes "may not be treated as binding" makes the vote from a couple months ago irrelevant to the current discussion. Miles Blues 22:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is really poor sportsmanship to go attacking the credibility of a user, like what has been happening to me since yesterday. It's pretty sad that you feel you need to attack my credibility to get 'your way.' LN3000 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think everyone should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CREEP and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering as I see that there are good points that may apply to this whole thing. LN3000 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of which are policies. The first explains a policy in detail. The second is an essay and states its the opinion of its author. Regarding the first, I would argue that a list of "requirements" based upon what one person will or will not "accept" is a form of instruction creeping. I've yet to see a citation of actual policy, although I may be mistaken Drumpler 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the actual policy being referred to in the first essay (WP:BURO):

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

And here we are, having a consensus-based discussion. However, we need to define exactly what "consensus" means and as WP:DEMOCRACY states, it is not a democracy. See the catch-22 here? Drumpler 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments based on "consensus" are not plausible if there is no clear definition of what "consensus" even means. In order to do that, we need a "consensus" on "consensus". This issue is far more problematic than you may even realize. Drumpler 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter what we define "consensus" as, we need to figure out which version of the article is the best. Miles Blues 00:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pros and Cons of listing the Wii Points

Wow, the edit war is going again. One thing I've noticed after re-reading through a lot of these is that there are a few of your guys who put a lot of time into editing the article, and I must say that appreciate your efforts; anyone who edits an article feels a sense of ownership, and it is hard to submit to someone else's ideas when you think that yours are better. I've seen a lot of blanket statements such as "Wii points are better" and "the article is better without the points" but I haven't seen a whole lot of, "this is why." I'm not sure if "Pros and Cons" have been covered in previous archives (I didn't go back that far), but perhaps it would behoove us to state REASONS, why or why not the Wii points should be included. List them as a pro or a con. I'll start off with a couple. Also, ONCE the various pros and cons have been listed, then it should be easier to agree upon the next course of action.Duckingham 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro: Listing the points in a column is a quick-and-easy reference guide for interested consumers. Duckingham 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Con: The column is cluttery because it contains redundant information that can easily be summarized in a different way. Duckingham 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Haven taken both of those pros/cons into mind, I made the edit yesterday afternoon, in which the points were not listed for every game, but rather in a seperate table (see my last edit in the history). This makes the article a lot less redundant, but keeps the points in, making the article as useful as possible. No one has told me why my edit was reverted, yet. Miles Blues 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Read #4, it's about prices. But to make a good point, here is what Carcharoth said on his talk page about the matter: The trouble is, quoting that policy page at people won't always work. You still have to engage in talk page discussion with people who object. The best argument, in my opinion, is saying that prices are ephemeral trivia. The only reason people want to know the Wii Points (or whatever) is so they can buy the games. It doesn't contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the games. Just ask for sources that discuss the price of the games, and reject simple listing of data. ie. Prose about prices and why they are important, not lists of prices for the sake of prices Frankly Carcharoth has a good point here, that shouldn't be ignored or disregarded by the people that want the points. RobJ1981 16:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob, do you want to accept the compromise or not? Because it's starting to sound like you really don't want one. LN3000 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wii points are not ephemeral, nor are points on XBLA. The entire point of both schemes is that the products have a static virtual "price". If Nintendo or Microsoft wants to change the real price, they do it "behind the scenes" by changing the cost to buy the points themselves. If, in the future, this changes and we find Microsoft and/or Nintendo rapidly changing the points values to the point where things do become ephemeral we can revisit the issue. -- MisterHand 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with RobJ1981, however, for the time being, I am for the compromise regarding Miles Blues's version. Although I think he did a fine job with the exceptions column. Drumpler 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Actually, no. RobJ1981 quoted a policy. It is for this reason that I retract this statement. The people who are interested in maintaining the points are owners of a Nintendo Wii (which is probably pretty much everyone on this article). I retract my statement. I think a simple link to the company's official pages should be enough. Drumpler 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the policy from WP:NOT#DIR:

Wikipedia is not . . . A sales catalogue, therefore prices of a product should not be quoted in an article unless there is a justified and sourced reason for mentioning the price. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. Everyday, street prices on the other hand are an example of ephemeral trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. Therefore lists of products currently on sale should not quote prices.

This definitely rules the Wii Points out. Drumpler 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not rule the Wii Points out. I think it is painfully obvious that no one really wants a compromise, and that even if everyone agrees to a compromise, you guys will still complain about the compromise, and so on and so forth. I have already stated that I do not think that Wii Points transform the article into a price guide, and I will continue to argue that. LN3000 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is nullified by this one statement: "Therefore lists of products currently on sale should not quote prices." Virtual Console games are currently on sale. They compete with one another (different companies release different games for the Virtual Console. You can argue as you wish, but there comes a point where one must bend to policy. Drumpler 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that that policy was actually enacted as a reaction to this very page! Ironically, I don't personally think it encompasses Wii points. -- MisterHand 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If people want to compromise I'm all for it, but as of now I am changing my position to not including prices if it is possible to link directly to Nintendo's page where this further information would be gotten. I still view points as a valid piece of information that I would want to see if ever I came to this page in the first place, however it need not actually on the page. I clearly visible link to a place which has that information would suffice for me.

Otherwise, a single table listing each console and their points range along with a very small exceptions (small font) section within the table on the bottom would due until their are enough exception to require changing the range of a given console.

If we decide to remove the prices I believe we should also do so for XBLA. I want to follow a clear guideline of including prices. So far that boils down to if the product is currently for sale by the original creator it should not be included. This leaves room for Playstation, XBox, and Nintendo products to retain the prices for those consoles currently not for sale (including discontinued versions of a current console due to price drops?). -- Dharh 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On further research there is already a place on wikipedia that lists VC points, Wii_Points. If one were to argue that prices are not a valid thing on wikipedia the article should be removed. However if it meets the guidelines, then there is no reason why points are necessary on this page. The link suffices. --Dharh 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be true, except Wii points do not vary from place to place. I can go to any part of America and Super Mario Bros. will still be 500 points. Nintendo has all but promised that the prices will not change, so since it is worth 500 points after 20 years, it will still be worth 500 points 3 years from now. Everyone needs to calm down, and not take little things like this so seriously. It really isn't a make it or break it issue. If this arguement is never going to be ended, let's just remove the whole section since lists are also against the Wiki rules, and this is essentially just one large list. BTW, I am MikeM. , but I am at work and can't log in on this computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk • contribs)

Where has Nintendo promised this? Where have they promised the prices won't change after 20 years? If there's no source, that's crystal balling. Likewise, I don't think lists in and of themselves are against Wiki rules as some lists have held "featured" status. Drumpler 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the prices haven't changed. That's all that matters for the current status of the article. Again, if down the line it turns out that these prices do become more volatile, we can revisit the "ephemeral" issue. -- MisterHand 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore lists of products currently on sale should not quote prices." Drumpler 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Miles Blues' version is worthless. Arcanelore's Version would be absolutely perfect if it brings back the default prices at the top with an "unless otherwise denoted" disclaimer. Briggity Brak 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate my work being called worthless with no reasoning provided. It doesn't matter what people think, unless they provide reasons... why do you think Arcane's is better? Miles Blues 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, here - it's uncalled for to call someone else's work worthless. All it does is tear down the other person and discredit you before your peers. If you want to make a point, objectively state why one version is better than the other. Good grief! Duckingham 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tee Hee. I was afraid that was going to happen. I apologize for my bluntness. I do appreciate your attempt to create a compromise that might get this article unlocked once and for all, but i just don't think your version really did what it was trying to do. It had the same problem as the last "compromise," but i think it was even worse because the exception information was buried at the bottom of the page (where i never would've found it if i weren't specifically looking for it) as opposed to the top. I think Arcanelore's Version (with the aforementioned addition of default wii point values in the introduction) solves all our problems by removing the repetitive wii points column while keeping the exception information in the table where it will actually be viewed. Again, i'm sorry. That definitely wasn't meant as a personal attack. Thanks for the effort. Briggity Brak 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I am the only person who REALLY TRULY CARES about this article. No one else is really trying to end this. All Drumpler does is search for ways to throw something in everybody's face about why the points don't belong. Everyone else is calling this worthless or that not. I already said that I would accept Miles' version with a few modifications. Brak, I think you need to reconsider your opinion of Miles' version. It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than the version that had the text in the intro, with the small changes I suggested before. Now, I think everyone should grow up, and agree to this, and then we can all go about the rest of our pathetic lives. Please?!?! LN3000 20:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all glad that you really do care for this article, however, I was citing a Wikipedia policy. Is this article an exception? Drumpler 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

LN, I am the one who sparked this whole discussion about trying to find a compromise so the article could be reopened, so please do not put words in my mouth saying I don't care about the article. Miles Blues 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Relax Miles. I don't think he meant it as an attack. So many of us have so mcuh anger bulit up that it seems like the slightest comment is making everyone mad.  :) Neo Samus 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a few comments (some of which have been said before). It doesn't matter if the price is the same or not: it's still a price. Online currencies such as Wii Points are still pricing when you look at it. From Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory (#4): Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. Obviously the first part doesn't apply, as there is no one else offering downloads for the Virtual Console. The second part applies perfectly to this. It's a single product: game downloads, and it's across different regions (as there is list pages for North America, Europe, Japan and Australia). So simply put: what was previously in the article isn't acceptable anymore. A compromise would've been the answer, but this policy is pretty clear. This article shouldn't become a policy and/or guideline violation, just because people want the points listed so badly. Overall: the points in the article just encourages people to come here to find prices of games, which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia. A link to Nintendo's site on this article (as well as the others): and this is all solved. People have access to the official source, and then the article has no more disputes over this pricing. RobJ1981 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who haven't been following this from the beginning, I just want to point out (again) that the policy in question (which is still under discussion, by the way) was boldly added as a reaction to this very article. It's not as if this article (or any of the related articles) were created in violation of any guidelines and policies.

I think the policy, as written, needs some work, and I'm not fond of changing policies as a way to win content disputes -- but overall I agree that Wikipedia is not a price guide. However, I disagree that including Wii points in this article constitutes a price guide. In other words, it seems we may have a new debate on our hands (one that may be more suited to a new section), namely "does this article violate the new WP:NOT policy on price guides?" (once that policy is more firmly established at least) -- MisterHand 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please focus?!? Focus on trying to agree to this compromise before we nitpick. OK? LN3000 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If the policy isn't established, what's it doing on the policy page? Sounds officialish to me. Drumpler 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing. 'Officialish' is not OFFICIAL. LN3000 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you missed the underlying sarcasm irony. Its on the policy page. If it isn't official, it shouldn't be on there. Drumpler 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the enlightenment LN3000 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The point, however, is not whether I'm "enlightened" or not, but what the policy actually is. That's the policy until it is off the policy page. It should not have been up there if it wasn't even agreed upon. Drumpler 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted it, but your comment about me "not being so sweet yourself" was ironic LN3000 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I was trying to be nice. Drumpler 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it called when prices are listed, and it lets people know the price? Answer: price guide (or buyers guide). People come here to find out prices (I believe I've seen at least 2 posts by people saying they do visit the article to find out prices before they decide to buy it). Or in other words: it's buyer's guide. It's helping people decide on what game to buy, depending on price (or other aspects). But the other aspects aren't causing problems (except for the table issue, which in general: isn't related to the guide aspect, as it's just for how people view and can navigate the article itself). Just because all aspects aren't prices, doesn't make it justified to list prices with the other content that is useful and encyclopedic. Open up a paper price guide: it compares things. People have suggested one table, so prices of games can be compared. That would indeed be more of a price guide (compared to the protected version and/or other versions with the points listed over and over). The one table issue isn't actively being discussed (that I know of), so that's not an issue anymore (or for the moment at least). Even if the note at the What Wikipedia is Not page is removed, people need to think about their views a bit more. There needs to be justified and reliable reasons to keep the points. So far, all I've seen is comments such as: "it doesn't hurt the article", "it completes the table" and so on. They seem more like defensive comments, and not actual reasons to me. Lastly, one clear result should happen. Not a compromise which people could change their minds about. But frankly... one clear result seems to be impossible because people refuse to budge (and refuse to go elsewhere to find prices/points of the games), in my opinion. RobJ1981 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis above. If people come here to look at prices, it fits the definition of a "price guide". Personally, I am back to where I started -- I think a table for each game should be included with a link to the Virtual Console list. This conforms it to policy (I'm assuming as long as its on the "policy page", it is policy) and still includes the information -- from an official source. Drumpler 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be removing information from articles because we don't like how some people are using it. Exceptions would be if the information could be used in a harmful way, such as a bomb-making guide. -- MisterHand 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA!! I really like your example MisterHand! LN3000 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes there are things that just don't fit into a policy. You can bring up any policy, but there will always be at least one case that that policy does not work for. And it also bothers me that Drumpler keeps acting like the WikiPolice, bringing up every policy he can think of to get his way. There will be plenty of arguments and possible policies to defend either argument in one way or another. This is getting rather annoying. LN3000 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you've noticed, I've tried to be reasonable and I've changed my mind a few times. My current argument is that if that's on the policy page, it is policy and we shouldn't violate it. If it weren't policy, then I'd be in support of MilesBlues's version. Regarding MisterHand's comment above, I'd have to equally argue that we shouldn't include information just because we do like it. Let's restate the question: Why do people want the points to begin with? Drumpler 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you stop worrying about "policy" interpretations for the time being and worry about getting a compromise that everyone can accept for now? LN3000 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer this. Actually, I'm not here for a compromise that "everyone" can accept. I'm here to state my beliefs as to why I either do or don't find a compromise acceptable. If my opinion is in the minority, that's fine. You can all move along without my say-so so long as the consensus is legit. I do have a genuine concern, though, as to whether or not Wii Points actually belong. I have not really touched nor edited the article much nor do I plan to make it an active project as I think this is something that needs to be addressed elsewhere. However, what I do not respect is that you seem to have a disregard for any rules but your own. I've seen you tell several editors on here that you "will" or "will not accept" certain proposals, that certain contributions are "useless" and things of that nature, plus a tendency to seem to "bully" people into a consensus or opinion of your own choosing. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your tone. However, I am just stating what I perceive when I read it and if others feel the same, then maybe my perception is closer to the money. It personally wouldn't bother me either way (in the end) if the Wii Points were included, but I'm wondering should they be included? I'd actually love to come to Wikipedia and read the prices, as I have a Wii myself and play the Virtual Console, but the question isn't what I do or don't like, but what is best for Wikipedia. So I am not going to make a decision unless I feel comfortable with it. And right now, my suggestion is that the link to the official site is sufficient and that Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide.

I think you are under this belief, though, that the article needs to be perfect right way. But remember, the world will not end tomorrow. Drumpler 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not recall calling anything useless, but I have called something unacceptable. I feel I have been less of a bully than most people here. And I have a right to say if I will or not accept something as a compromise, just as everyone has the right to their view of what is "best" for Wikipedia. LN3000 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And I am saying that it doesn't matter what you will or will not accept, but what Wikipedia policy allows, which has been my entire argumentation this entire time. :) Drumpler 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But I don't see a policy that describes exactly what the argument is about. I've read everything that you've shown, but I still don't see how they would be of any use to this discussion LN3000 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the points should be included in the tables. If I were to agree to any compromise though, it would be Arcanelore's version. TJ Spyke 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall Arcanelore's version, if I recall correctly. It was where the Points were mentioned at the top of the table, with the console name. I like that. How exceptions could be handled, if needed, could be to have the Point value listed in () next to the name of the game. I'd go with that, as well. That'd be optimal. LN3000 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what I really have to agree. I do like Arcanlore's better. Can we use that as a compromise?? Neo Samus 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that helps Arcanlore's version is that it is able to solve the problem without resorting to another table, and it helps integrate it into the table that already exists.LN3000 00:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here it is again, User:Arcanelore/Sandbox I really, really, really like this version as a compromise. Thoughts anyone? Neo Samus 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, I say we should use it. DurinsBane87 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Miles Blues Version

Been away from this page for a few days and looks like nothing at all has changed. This version by Miles Blues looks like the best to date. I think I'd prefer a range (NES: 500-600 pts) instead of an exceptions column, but I'd accept this version as a compromise. Chaz ^Beckett 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you accept that as a compromise, since it's yet another table, and people have been complaining about too many tables. LN3000 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If people are complaining about too many tables in a list article then perhaps there should be no article in the first place. --Dharh 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Are we arguing about the inclusion of the Wii Points or the table itself? If the table, why not accept the compromise, as the information found in the table is already within the article text itself? Drumpler 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The version by Miles Blues summarizes the point costs in 5 rows (1 per system). That's acceptable to me. I'd prefer to eliminate the "exception" column and use a point range instead, but I'd take this version "as-is" if it would put an end to the arguing. Chaz ^Beckett 19:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure how I feel about the prices, I do prefer Miles Blues's compromise. The information is still there, so I can't see why there's a reason to fuss. Drumpler 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, as one who personally gets irked when someone hijacks a section with unrelated discussion, mightn't it be best to move this discussion to another section, as this section particularly deals with the pros and cons of listing the Wii Points and not Miles Blues's contributions in particular? Drumpler 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I split out the comments discussing the Miles Blues version into a new section. Chaz ^Beckett 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it could be pros and cons of my compromise as well. I think you guys are right that in the small points table with the points, there shouldn't be an exceptions column, but rather just list exceptions below the table. Miles Blues 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Posting the same information in the table over and over again is redundant. An explanatory paragraph, at the very least, is all that's needed, and I think your version handles that best. Drumpler 22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this revision? I prefer this because your revision is a mostly empty table, whereas this paragraph contains the same information without spending far more kilobytes on yet another table. Garrett^Talk 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I think a points column would be more beneficial (since it's another means by which we can sort the games), I would accept Mile's compromise version if he moved the table to the top of the article, and removed the exceptions column; the only other thing I can think of that might be necessary is if we indicate what system a game is on for each bulleted exception (such as NES for TMNT, and so on). I certainly favor listing exceptions as bullet points over listing them in the intro paragraph any day of the week.--PeanutCheeseBar 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the points cost table would fit quite nicely towards the beginning of the article. I think the list of exceptions should go towards the bottom, though. Miles Blues 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will give my opinion tomorrow (i'm heading off to bed right now). TJ Spyke 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, this appears to be an ideal solution and IMO should be the format used from now, it removes unnecessary redundancy while still maintaining all important informationJebus0 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Miles; table at the beginning of the article, and bulleted exceptions at the end. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what TJ and LN have to say about this. Miles Blues 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already said what I think of this, but what I will say is that if this will really make 'everybody happy' then fine. I am sick and tired of this whole thing, and I know that neither 'side' will back down, so someone has to budge. I don't think the exceptions needs to be listed, however. A big concern of having the points out of the main table(s) is that the exceptions list has the potential to be huge. Think about how many Virtual Console games there are now, and it's only been a few months. When the Wii has been out, not to mention WiiWare, for 3-4 years, the possibility for exceptions is huge. So, I will agree to this if you strip the exceptions references, (we can figure out how to handle those later, for now, I think it's ok to ignore them). And also, you guys needs to promise that after we agree to this, and it's been implemented, your next plan won't be to lobby to remove the compromise as well. Deal? LN3000 16:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to assume what will happen in the future. Right now, there are 2 exceptions, which should be fine to list. Also, when WiiWare is out, which is at the very least half a year, the table for WiiWare games can have points listed if each game is a different amount. Miles Blues 16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I said that without trying to predict the future. I said possibility, not that it was definite. I gave my opinion, it's up to you now to listen. LN3000 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right that we skip exceptions. We probably should just say, "There are a few exceptions which can be found at ***some official website***." Then we'd never have to worry about exceptions.Miles Blues 20:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Miles, I think (actually I think we all are) fusterated at this point. I was questionable about Miles version at first, but now viewing it a few more times I can see it as a reasonable compromise. This "so called debate" has pissed....er... made me so mad (and others as well) over the past few weeks, that I can see Miles version as a solution. On another note, I also like Arcanelore's version as well. I thought it was very clean and professional looking. But again, Miles version is just as good. LN, don't worry, you are not the only one who cares about this article.  ;) Neo Samus 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. For now, I don't think we need to list exceptions at all. My imagined final version of the page looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lamename3000/VCNA

Because there are only two exceptions, we really don't need a new table or anything just for those. If a substantial amount of exceptions appear in the future, I will then insist we re-wrap the points back into the main table. This page does not need a separate list of exceptions. LN3000 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we don'tr need a table for them, but something like:

• Game (NES) is 800 points, instead of the regular 500
• Game 2 (GEN) is 1000 points, etc. etc.

Would be quite useful for the article. Miles Blues 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Compatability Section

This should be a new section Miles Blues 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While we are doing face make-overs, we should also discuss the Controller Compatibility sub-section. That sentence really doesn't need it's own sub-section, so let's figure out how to deal with that, as well. Why don't we zap the subsection, and add a link to the controller compatibility into the intro paragraph? LN3000 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be deleted or changed. I think we ought to just put the table from the main article in that section, but move it to the bottom of the article. Miles Blues 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we already removed it from here once, we don't need to re-add it. LN3000 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We initially had columns to indicate which games worked with which controllers; despite what everyone is saying about having too many columns, I think a few more might be better than making a whole new table or tables. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, those columns should absolutely not be re-added. They were removed for a reason, being that it was highly-redundant data already listed on the main Virtual Console article. Furthermore, additional debates should not be undertaken while a show-stopper has yet to be resolved. --Cheesemeister3k 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about re-adding columns. This is about what's best for the page. And an annoying subsection with no real use doesn't need to be there. I suggested that it be merged into the intro or something. LN3000 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It might come across as "original research", but listing what controllers work with what games could be potentially useful, especially since it is not listed on the official Nintendo site (unlike the Wii point values for each game), and would be useful for anyone who does not own a Wii, or is currently unable to access their own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs).

Consensus?

It's been suggested above that this version be made the compromise for the article. Several editors have agreed to this, including LN3000, Neo Samus, TJ Spyke, DurinsBane87, and of course the version's author, Arcanelore. This would be able to apply to the 4 regional VC lists, but would leave open the question of the XBLA list article. Even so, do we have a consensus for this version on the VC lists going forward? --Cheesemeister3k 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say 'YES'. I also think that everything above this topic section should be archived, because this page is FAAAR too long. DurinsBane87 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Neo Samus asked me to bring this up again, but it seems that won't be necessary. Obviously I'd prefer my version, but I can live with Miles's as well if it'll stop the warring. (I'll archive some of the older stuff in a bit.) -Arcanelore 01:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Sounds good. Miles Blues 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall Rob also liking Arcanelore's version on Arcanelore's talk-page yesterday. But I guess I'll let Rob say it here for 'officialish'ness. :D LN3000 01:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be a :) Duckingham 01:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would hold off on applying it to the other 3 regions since the editors of those articles haven't been involved in any discussion (since they didn't have anybody trying to remove the Wii Points), but yes it seems to be the accepted version for this page. Off topic, but this weeks Japanese sales brought the Wii up above 8 million (as far as confirmed sales go, the last European numbers we got were in late April). TJ Spyke 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we ought to mention on the other talk pages (EUR, JAP, AUS) what we decided for this page, and talk to the main editors of that page, and see what they think of a uniform style for the lists of VC games. Miles Blues 03:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps we should wait for any remaining editors to chime in... hopefully in agreement. --Cheesemeister3k 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

After this is unprotected and agreed on and everything, of course. Miles Blues 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. The Wii points are listed, but not in a conspicuous way. -- MisterHand 03:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So are we in agreement with Arcanelore's version then? I am so glad that this is almost over. Thank you everyone. Neo Samus 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I voted for Mile's version. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get that new one up soon, right? This isn't an issue of protocol vs. usefulness; the current page isn't useful while that one is useful simply because if you don't know that there are different prices for some games, you're likely never going to notice the exceptions (as an example, the only way I knew that there were any differences was because I saw the page was locked and checked the talk page to see why--I've looked through the list many times, but always worked under the 500-800-1000-800-600 guidelines so never noticed any difference). If you need to be told from an outside source that there are exceptions so you can actually find the exceptions in the list, then we've all failed miserably, especially when it would be so easy to make the information stand out on the page. Scm621 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the compromise, however when/if a policy change happens: it shouldn't just be ignored. The compromise is a short term fix, and not a permanent fix. RobJ1981 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like Arcanelore's, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why exactly was this argument started in light of this compromise. Because Wikipedia isn't a so-called "price guide"... yet prices are still listed. I really find it ridiculous that prices are still listed, yet those that were against them being listed are willing to compromise, because they got rid of a "redundant" price column. Consensus is supposed to be found through discussion, I'm certain I don't need to quote the repetitious reminder of the policy Drumpler overused, not concession to a noisy few who just admitted by accepting this compromise that they, as I said all along, had no argument on which to stand. A discussion completely missing from the XBLA talk page, oddly enough, because policy is universal and I don't see why just this page was targeted. That is, after all, not the purpose of Wikipedia and most doubtfully its policy, just like edit warring to get your way. There is no justification for this compromise. Ryuzx 17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so it seems like we might need to compromise one verison we want. Or, could we merger the two ideas somehow? Rob, I realize that this is a "temp fix" but if it ever becomes a actually policy you need to discuss it with every page that is invlovled. you can't just point at one page and think everyone will follow. That's not how it works. You have to look at the bigger picture. I cannot strees that enough. I do not want to see it escalate like it did these past two months. Neo Samus 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarize thus far, all editors have endorsed Arcanelore's version, except for one who preferred another proposed compromise. Some editors have expressed some reservations going forward as to whether this solves the dispute or not, to which I'd say that the center of the argument was really around the existence of the column itself. If further action on this topic is desired, I would recommend that it be taken up with the policy-makers on Wikipedia for a ruling to clarify precisely what is meant by "prices" in no uncertain terms in regards to Wii Points. For now, however, it would appear safe to go with the agreed-upon compromise. Unlock and set to that version? --Cheesemeister3k 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction; I endorsed Mile's version. --PeanutCheeseBar 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No correction necessary. "...except for one who preferred another proposed compromise." --Cheesemeister3k 06:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes me mad knowing that even though we are trying to find a compromise to appease a few people, that as soon as we make the compromise in the article, they will start attacking that, and get THAT to be removed. Very uncivil, very inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially when they are the ones who are saying "What's best for Wikipedia?!?" Sorry, I had to bring this up, since I know, and they know I'm right. LN3000 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is done. Please be civil and do not change the agreed-upon compromise for the Wii Points scheme. Thank you. --Cheesemeister3k 19:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Darn you beat me too it Cheesemeister3k! :D I so glad it's fianlly over (for the time being). Neo Samus 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks Great!!! Duckingham 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For external link

I think we ought to add Official Nintendo VC page, since each game's page has a video, small write-up about the game, and how many points it costs. Miles Blues 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested this some time ago. To add it as an external link at the bottom would also clear up this whole Wii Point thing, in my opinion, and make the article less controversial. Drumpler 06:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. 2

In the August issue of Nintendo Power, it stated that Super Mario Bros. 2 would be released on the virtual console. Could you please list it.--Scotty12 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, It needs to go in the Upcoming releases section. To clarify, the picture that appeared next to the listing was clearly of the US SMB2. Hopefully we'll get "The Lost Levels", however that's doubtful, as it was only released in "Super Mario: All Stars" for the SNES, and it's doubtful that Nintendo will release that for the Virtual console, since they will probably try to sell all the games individually. LN3000 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: Dragon Spirit for TG-16. --Cheesemeister3k 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added both to my Sandbox version. If someone could supply the exact NP issue and page numbers I'd appreciate it. --Arcanelore 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get that info for you in about 10 minutes. LN3000 05:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It's the August issue. Volume 218 on page 23. Same page it also lists Donkey Kong Jr. Math for the NES. LN3000 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, this issue they clarify why certain games were not released closer to when they announce them.

"It's always the case that games may slip from their expected release window after we go to print. We strive to present the new games in as timely a manner as possible, but these things happen." (Volume 218 page 10)

Thank you. :D LN3000 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guess that also confirmed Donkey Kong Jr. Math, although I doubt any one is looking forward to it (based on my time "playing" it in Animal Crossing, even $1 would be overcharging for it). SMB2 for Monday (that's me hoping, not saying it will happen). TJ Spyke 06:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. They usually write their magazines a few months ahead of schedule. Drumpler 06:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey, woah! Don't be so harsh, man. Donkey Kong Jr. Math is the cooled edutainment game starring an annoying gorilla ever! LN3000 06:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to have the old player's guide "Mario Mania" (which gave a history of Super Mario Bros. games and products with a Super Mario World walkthrough at the end) and I think they mentioned this game. I do know I've seen it before, at least. And I must admit, I thought it was cringe-worthy as well. Not relevant to the topic, but eh . . .

I suck at math, but it looked like easy math. However, I didn't like DK Jr. much to begin with, although between it and DK, its arguable as to which I prefer.

Okay, back on topic. :) Drumpler 06:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, truth-be-told, I couldn't figure out the menus and stuff on the game. I don't understand why Nintendo would release this game on the VC when there are much better games needed to be released. I want my Mario RPG! I just find it funny that on the Shop Channel, it says that the games are "hand picked masterpieces"... oh please... Who wants to play China Warrior? LN3000 07:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to reiterate, but this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Try here. --Cheesemeister3k 07:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it isn't, that's why I ended it early. Sorry. ;) Drumpler 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

vc-pce

vc-pce.com has revealed next month's TG16 titles: Air Zonk, Devil's Crush, Drop Off, and Silent Debuggers (but strangely not Dragon Spirit, which is listed on Hudson's NA site.) -Arcanelore 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, here's Dragon Spirit. -Arcanelore 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My girlfriend wants Devil's Crush badly. Now if only they would release The Legendary Axe, I would have no reason to buy a TG16 anymore.SashaNein 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

???

Why did the Wii Shop Server Topic get archived? That tpoic was still active? Neo Samus 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably a careless mistake; besides, it's not hard to start another. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest against a new one. Read my post near the bottom of the archived section here: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)/Archive 6#The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic. It might not do harm or anything, but frankly it's not about changing the article (as Arcanelore said: it's not relevant to the maintenance of the article anymore). Arcanelore has a point here. RobJ1981 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked it, but it stopped being useful once Nintendo stopped putting games up before Monday. TJ Spyke 01:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Controller Compat.. again

Can we please talk about consolidating the Controller Compat. section into the intro? I really think that'd look better than a little mini-section that takes up space. LN3000 03:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Like simply removing the section header? I have no problem with that. -Arcanelore 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Might as well clean up the whole intro. It looks like a mess, quite frankly. General VC info should really be relegated to the Virtual Console article and not repeated here. This is a list of games, or at least that's what the article title says. --Cheesemeister3k 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The intro needs to be cleaned up. Neo Samus 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Cheesemeister3k 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Brilliantly well done! Congrats on a job well done! LN3000 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Wow, I haven't seen the talk page this quiet in a long time. :D Neo Samus 03:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wii-kly update time

Please don't move games from upcoming releases to available titles until noon Eastern, as listing the games as available before they really are is factually inaccurate. Thanks. --Cheesemeister3k 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What, so now we are going to argue about when the best time to update is? Does it really matter? As soon as Nintendo puts out their press release, we should be able to update this article, so that it is up-to-date as quickly as possible. LN3000 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, just making a simple request. I don't really mind either way. --Cheesemeister3k 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Games shouldn't be added to the list until the moment they're up. Drumpler 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much either way, but I do want to point out that it's not one of the goals of Wikipedia to be "up-to-date as quickly as possible". There's no hurry to add information, especially if we're talking about waiting a matter of hours. Chaz ^Beckett 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to let whoever sees the press release update the page, that way at 9am, everyone isn't rushing to be the first to add them in. What's so bad about being a few hours early? LN3000 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, it doesn't hurt to be a few hours late either. Drumpler 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is a non-issue then. LN3000 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good grief everybody! Okay, one point I could put in favor of waiting until they are actually available for download would be IF Nintendo made a press release and then didn't actually deliver - for whatever reason. Has this happened? Have they proved unreliable? IF so, then that would be grounds to wait. If they have not, then this really should not be an issue. Duckingham 11:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If a game isn't available, then it shouldn't be in "Available titles" section. Is that really hard to understand? I always found out it annoying to log on and see that someone added them at like 9AM EST (6AM PST). This won't stop some people (believe me, it doesn't work for wrestling PPV articles either), but I support reverting the edits until the games are actually available. TJ Spyke 01:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no issue with editing it in as soon as the press release for that particular Monday is posted; otherwise, all that's going to happen is someone will revert the edit back to the version without the new games, and once the games actually DO come out on the VC, someone will just revert it to the version with the new games. It's been noted in the main VC article that VC games are "officially" released around 12 PM EST, but it's also been noted that they've been known to be released a few hours prior (as early as 10 AM EST, in some cases). If they're edited in (and left in) when the press release is given for that Monday, it will just save two reverts later down the line, and possibly prevent some ill will as well.--PeanutCheeseBar 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But it's false info though. If a game isn't available, then it shouldn't be in the AVAILALABLE titles section. TO me, that is just common sense. Just because somebody doesn't know how to edit doesn't mean we should humor them and let the edit stay. I don't log on until the afternoon, but if I were I would revert any such edits until the games are actually available. TJ Spyke 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think an edit war over how early someone adds information from a cited and reliable source is a good idea, or even acceptable? LN3000 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Let them add it and if they're wrong, we'll make asses of them later. ;) Drumpler 11:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The info won't be wrong though (unless Nintendo decides to switch titles literally at the last minute). LN, the issue is that the edits are wrong. If a title isn't available yet, then we shouldn't list it in the available titles section. Under your logic, why not add the games that are confirmed as soon as the clock hits 12:00 AM on Monday? I didn't think this would be an issue, it's so simple in my opinion (only available games should be in the available section). TJ Spyke 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after further review I'm going to disagree (and strikethrough) my previous post on this. YES, it makes sense to wait until they are released since the section is "titles currently available." If they're not really available then, well, they're not really available. If they are supposed to be released at 12, it shouldn't be an issue for someone to post the change at that time. Of course, if someone happens to be on the VC and sees they are available a couple hours sooner, it also should not be a problem to post that fact on Wikipedia sooner. Duckingham 12:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but doesn't the Virtual Console have some sort of "latest games" feature? If so, that makes the timeliness of the Wikipedia update irrelevant; those who have the VC might as well check there instead of here, and those who don't have it won't really care about a few hours' difference. Garrett^Talk 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Virtual Console doesn't always have all the newest games in the new releases section (there have been week where 2 are listed there, but the other isn't). I just don't see how we can list games as being available when they aren't. TJ Spyke 06:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, "available" could be changed to "current" (which goes better with future anyway). A subtle change of wording, but a definite change of meaning. Garrett^Talk 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, the titles wouldn't be current if they aren't out yet. TJ Spyke 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, what is the big deal? If you have the information, and everyone KNOWS it's right, why can't you add that to the list? Are a few hours early going to ruin the article? LN3000 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Possibility

I think that this game is coming. nintendo has hinted and I have heard from nintendo that this game may come for the Virtual COnsole. Do u add it to the list?Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No. This list is for confirmed games, not rumored games (and Nintendo has not said anything about SSB, and I haven't seen them even hint at it. TJ Spyke 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You say "nintendo has hinted and I have heard from nintendo that this game may come for the Virtual COnsole". Could you please provide a published source? It can be added if it was, for example, mentioned by a Nintendo exec in an interview, but it can't just be added as a wild rumor. Zomic_13 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont u think that it may be promoted for SSMBB? I mean it was on magazines that this as going to come out.72.153.203.118 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario 2 is out of order

Someone put Super Mario 2 before the June 18 release by mistake. This can only be determined thru sorting by release date. 198.5.255.10 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, i've fixed it. TJ Spyke 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Request From A Casual User

Please stop changing the format of the article over and over again. I know you're all fighting about Wii points this and Wii points that, but I like to check this article for the content from time to time, and seeing it in a different format is really annoying. As a suggestion, maybe the "regular" editors should leave this article; there are thousands of other articles out there that could benefit from your meticulous attention to detail and order. I'm just saying that if you all walked away from it, that might be the best service you could provide the article, it would help to stop the pointless and ceaseless arguing and reverts.70.131.82.143 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My comment above, unknowingly not logged in. MegaLegoChai 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There has not been any "arguing" in about a week or so. I also think that telling the regular editors to "go away" is a very poor idea. Another thing, because it is a Wiki, the format of an article will change along the way. You have to forgive the article. You really should take a look at the rest of a discussion page before commenting about "pointless and ceaseless arguing". LN3000 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed/ I've only been on the discussion for a few weeks, and the formatting ended over a week ago. I feel that everyone involved has been sorry that the disagreements have gone on, but that all "the regular editors" are satisfied with the compromise. If they left now, all that hard work would only go bak to "endless debate in the senate" amongst the newcoming editors who didn't already know where the article had been. And it would create *A LOT* more frustration for many more "casual users." It is the people who are willing to stick with an article who help keep it maintain the level of quality it should. The fact that there have been a number of editors engaged in "arguing and reverts" shows you that the people involved are passionate about the topic. I wouldn't have it any other way. :) Duckingham 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my own naivety that keeps me from realizing those involved would be able to see it any other way, i.e., I reject your reality and substitute my own.MegaLegoChai 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments continue to confuse me. (And I hope that's a Mythbusters reference! :D )LN3000 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he is trying to say that he can't see the regular editors of this article be willing to accept changes to the article that they don't like. TJ Spyke 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So the regular editors of an article should let anyone come and make major changes to the format of an article? It doesn't make sense to complain that there are people who care about the article. LN3000 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, LN, they should. It shouldn't matter who the editor is, since no one owns any article or runs any article, or anything of the sort on Wikipedia. Miles Blues 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Miles has a point, that I really think people need to realize more on this article (as well as every article): no one owns or runs the article. RobJ1981 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I SAY that the regular editors should 100% be in charge of the article? NO. Stop accusing me of saying that. What I SAID was that people who have not been regular editors shouldn't be able to come and demand a major change to the article. As in, pointless changes that serve no point. I did NOT say that changes are bad. But I DO think that if an article is stable, you should think twice before drastic changes. Am I talking directly about this article? NO. Articles in general. Now lighten up, and get off my back. LN3000 06:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, some "casual reader" complained about layout changes about a week after layout changes stopped. are we really gonna get into this? DurinsBane87 01:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, an article being "stable" or not is all in the eye of the person that views the article. What Miles said, is correct and simply isn't followed enough by editors on Wikipedia. He was making a point, and I highly doubt he was trying to single you out or attack you, or whatever you want to claim. I think you need to settle down about this. People have the right to voice their opinion, it doesn't mean you need to act rudely and just assume we are out to get you or whatever. RobJ1981 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Air Zonk

Air Zonk comes out on July 9th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk • contribs)

Where did you view it? On VC-PCE.com? Also Sign your posts. I would check the page but I'm at work and they block almost all game sites. 65.43.71.130 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that last post was me. Neo Samus 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's confirmed on vc-pce.com for Monday. TJ Spyke 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. My edit was appropriate. Neo Samus 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Super Mario Bros. II Japan" rated by ESRB

According to the ESRB website, a game by the name of Super Mario Bros. II Japan has been given an E rating. Listed below that is Super Mario Bros. II USA, which, one assumes, is Super Mario Bros. 2. Neither game received an ESRB rating for their initial releases, which means they would've been rated sometime after that. The respective ratings wouldn't be for their re-releases in Super Mario All-Stars since that game was rated K-A (and is listed separately, I believe). Furthermore, SMB2's rating wouldn't be for Super Mario Advance since that game is also rated separately. SMB2J's is listed as being for the "Nintendo" console (I assume this means the NES since other NES games are listed this way), but SMB2USA has the SNES listed as its console.

The conclusion I've come to is this: Nintendo is listing these games as being for different consoles so that when the ESRB lists them on their website, fans won't immediately assume the game is being scheduled for a Virtual Console release (since VC games have been listed under Wii rather than their original systems). There is no listing for Super Mario Bros. 2 (US version) or any variant thereof for release on the Wii, but since the game has already been released with an ESRB rating, it must've been listed under a different system--the Super Nintendo. Likewise, it appears Super Mario Bros. 2 Japan is scheduled for a North American Virtual Console release sometime in the future.

My question is this: is this too speculative to justify listing Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) in the article? I mean, we're already doing quite a bit of speculation the way it is; Metroid may be listed in the ESRB database for a Wii release, but we're just assuming that that's referring to the NES original and not a whole new Wii title. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's much less speculative to assume that when the ESRB lists Super Mario Bros. II Japan as having been rated E for a discontinued console for which it never saw release, it's actually being released for Virtual Console. Jeff Silvers 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

*cough* -Arcanelore 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By that explanation, the game listed on the ESRB website as being Super Mario Bros. II USA and having an E rating would have to be either from All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, except that each of these games received a separate rating, and there is no listing for a Wii or Virtual Console version of Super Mario Bros. 2. In other words, the game the ESRB calls SMBIIUSA that is supposedly for Super Nintendo is, in all likelihood, the Virtual Console version. The fact that the ESRB rated Super Mario Bros. II Japan means that the game is receiving or has received some kind of North American release for which it was given this rating. It can't be for Super Mario Bros. Deluxe as that game received a separate rating (and Super Mario Bros. wasn't rated for it individually, either). It can't be for All-Stars for largely the same reason. As the game was never released in any other format in North America, it can be safely assumed that this is a new North American re-release, and since the bulk of the "future releases" section is based on "safe assumptions" about what an ESRB listing means, we should at least consider listing Super Mario Bros. II Japan. Jeff Silvers 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well damn, I may've been wrong about All-Stars being listed separately. I was pretty sure it was, but I don't see it there. I still say Super Mario Bros. II USA and Super Mario Bros. II Japan likely refer to Virtual Console re-releases since there isn't any reference to SMB2's VC re-release under the Wii system. Jeff Silvers 22:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...yet. It's not at all unusual for the ESRB to be a little slow in getting game ratings up. -Arcanelore 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is true. It's entirely possible this is all just wishful thinking on my part. :( Still, I wouldn't be too surprised now to see the Japanese version of SMB2 released on Virtual Console in the coming months. Anyway, yeah, this pretty much ends the discussion of whether or not to include SMB2J in the "future releases" section for now, though this whole process has made me wonder if perhaps we should completely re-evaluate the manner by which we decide to list games in the "future releases" section. If the ESRB really is as unreliable as you've hinted (both in listing games in a timely manner and in the way they actually list them), it's possible we should disregard their rating listings as credible sources for upcoming releases. As I've noted above, it's very likely that the Metroid listed by the ESRB as being for the Wii is the NES original in a VC re-release, but there's also the possibility that it isn't. Jeff Silvers 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is mostly that erroneous "Nintendo" category, which has existed for the better part of a decade without anyone noticing until the VC came about. Anyway, I dug this up; both SMB2s listed as of 2004. I'm pretty sure this isn't a VC re-rating (and is just the original All-Stars rating; at the time the ESRB did individually rate every game on a compilation.) -Arcanelore 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...and SMB2 for Wii has finally appeared on ESRB. -Arcanelore 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it means anything, but Super Mario Bros. 2 Japan probably refers to the The Lost Levels game found on the Super Mario All-Stars compilation. The Super Mario Bros. 2 we received here initially, both on the Virtual Console and the original NES, is actually a remake of a Japanese game titled Doki Doki Panic. Since the original Super Mario Bros. 2 had English text in it, this could be one of the first Japanese ports for a United States Virtual Console.

I would list the game on the table as it appears on the ESRB. We shouldn't make assumptions that they're The Lost Levels yet (per WP:CRYSTAL), but it would seem the ESRB is treating them as separate titles and the above explains the justification for including them. Drumpler 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. This link provided by Arcanelore states that the games were rated back in 1996. There's no telling why the game received a rating, but apparently it was canned. It couldn't have been the All-Stars version, since that was released back in 1993. I'm kind've hesitant to rely on ESRB data, unless of course an old game receives a newer rating. As such, the ESRB section would need to state that these are old games which have received new ratings but there's no official confirmation that they will have a Virtual Console release.

Or one could consider not having such a section. It kind've borders on WP:CRYSTAL. Just because an old game is mentioned on the site doesn't mean its being considered for Virtual Console. It could be for Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS or even PSP. We have no way of knowing these things. Drumpler 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I've mentioned before, All-Stars would have to have gotten an ESRB rating when it got re-issued under the Player's Choice label. (I suspect that the dates the archived ESRB pages listed were when the games got entered in the database, not necessarily the game's actual release.) Also, at the time, the ESRB rated games on compilations individually; hence the four separate listings (three of which got misplaced into the infamous "Nintendo" category) instead of just one "Super Mario All-Stars" listing. They apparently dropped this practice very quickly, as Ninja Gaiden Trilogy is the only other example I'm aware of. -Arcanelore 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lately I've noticed that when they rate a VC title they put the games in the catagory "Wii". But I wonder why they didn't put up Paper Mario for VC? Neo Samus 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe its a courtesy. The game already has received a rating and relatively recently (when we compare it to other titles). Drumpler 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But then why re-rate the other 64 games and post them under the "Wii" category? Maybe because they had an old rating? I.E. K-A instead of E. Not putting the question to anyone per se. It's more open ended Neo Samus 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably the most likely. Since they were under the older rating system, they probably needed to be rerated. Drumpler 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

July 9 Update

Why does the July 9 update keep disappearing? 67.188.172.165 04:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. Maybe it's a problem on your end? Lrrr IV 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paper Mario

I can't find anything anywhere about a NA release date for Paper Mario. Is there one? If not, then my bets is that since Paper Mario was released in just about all the other regions this week, we can expect it on Monday. I'm not trying to say that it will, or that we should add that date or anything. I just want to see if I'm wrong in expecting the game on Monday. LN3000 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No date has been announced to my knowledge. -Arcanelore 04:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

F-Zero X didn't come out on the Monday after the other regions got it, let's hope the same thing doesn't happen with Paper Mario. Lrrr IV 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It very well could come out on Monday (I'm really hoping) but that would be considered speculation. The only thing we can do is wait. Neo Samus 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nintendo.com forum-goers, please stop adding as-yet rumored titles for today until the press release is posted by a reputable site. Blog sites like The Bell Tree need not apply. --Cheesemeister3k 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks used

It's readily available on the Virtual Console browser on the Wii, do you think it would be a good idea to list the amount of "blocks" used in the Wii system memory to download each game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.114.54 (talk • contribs)

Nope, it's not notable. We don't list how much memory regular games use, download games aren't any different. RobJ1981 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that we shouldn't list them, but for a different reason; when you're downloading them from the VC Shop, the blocks it has listed as taking up space is different than what amount of space it actually uses. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it's a good idea in theory, there's too many variables. Blocks listed on the Shop Channel, Blocks actually used, etc. LN3000 03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not notable, I've never seen this aspect of the game mentioned anywhere except as a technical detail when it's time to download. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Galaga '88

Why is it listed as Galaga '90? Dartheyegouger 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what they changed the title to when it was originally released outside of Japan (apparently a process that took two years), and it seems we're still going to be stuck with it. -Arcanelore 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)