Talk:Wii Sports Club

Notability for its own article

I think this game is different enough for its own article. It easily passes notablility guidelines. There are already 8 in-depth, independent, and recognised as reliable sources presented in the article, and this topic has a large amount of coverage. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 11:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I also created a DYK nomination for it. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 09:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just going to throw my hat into the ring and support the article. There's already a fair number of sources that are or can be used out there; as more games are released in this series the article will only grow since every game will be given more attention than it would have as a bundled item. Plus, it might be viewed as disruptive if we try to pack too much into Wii Sports' main article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this topic definitely has notability and I agree it would be a bit confusing if it was kept in the other article. This is a different game to Wii Sports, so I felt the mixing of platforms and such in that article's infobox was really confusing. I'm currently looking at expanding the reception section, but once it's released, I guess we could add small segments for each sport. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I support it too. Partially because there's already so much at the prior articles, and partially because I'm certain the remakes have, and will definitely in the future, bring up much commentary/coverage based on its new cost structure, and how well these "casual" games hold up beyond the initial Wii craze around the 2006-09 period. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Developed by Namco Bandai?

Regarding this, I'd just like to clarify a few things. I doubt NAL would confuse Smash Bros. with Wii Sports, especially since it's way too early for them to bother getting the former classified. Secondly, NAL always list their games as Multi-platform, ever since around 2006 I believe. Any random 3DS or Wii U game from Nintendo is listed as multi-platform, which I believe is simply so they don't have to get games re-classified everytime they re-release them. Super Mario Bros. has the same classification used in its 3DS VC release as was in the Wii one, but if you look before that there was a GBA classification before that, so since then, I think they found it easier to call everything a multiplat and avoid having to pay the expensive fee again, so hence that wasn't an error. Also, the 'very mild impact violence' bit is obviously the boxing. Smash Bros. wouldn't be G, and the online caution bit is due to the exchange of player-written messages. Is there a source saying the classification was an error? Because surely Nintendo would've noticed and had it fixed/re-classified. Maybe.

However, we don't have a completely reliable source saying it was Namco Bandai either, just a few smaller sites making the observation I did. So, I guess I won't re-add it, since we don't have complete confirmation and the source was challenged. DarkToonLink 01:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It is developed Namco. I've reverted the edit. And User:NOAWiki, "research a bit more next time". It would be so much easier if some people on wikipedia weren't so arrogant.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 14:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an actual news site reporting this? Because some of the press copies might have it on the title screen credits. I'm not sure we should re-add it until absolute confirmation, since the slightly shaky source was challenged. DarkToonLink 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

NAL has made errors before. They classified Brain-Age: Concentration Training as an Intelligent Systems game for example. The author listings are not uniform by any means. Only time will tell if and what involvement Namco-Bandai has on Wii Sports Club, but I see irresponsible tags of "co-developers" all the time. For example, recently HexaDrive posted a Wind Waker HD scribe on their works page and everyone jumped the gun on listing them the "developer" or "co-developer". Meanwhile, it turns out 2 measly hexadrive employees assisted Digitalscape on the texture refinement. Digitalscape is the same company hired by every Japanese developer for small polish jobs like that. There are millions of small support companies on every video game, it doesn't mean you list them as co-developers. Things should be actually researched and fact checked, especially if they are out of the ordinary. NOAWiki (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

NAL have made errors on many things before, but I just wanted to point out I don't believe this was confusion with Smash Bros.. DarkToonLink 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Final word as provided by the Iwata Asks] is that Namco Bandai did contribute. DarkToonLink 06:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please edit the Post release section

Hello, not many improvements have been made in the section titled "Post-Release." Please help find more sources, and please edit the chart that I have inserted. Together, we can improve this article. Thank you, -Leo Aguado (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wii Sports Club/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 16:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Are you starting a Wii U Nintendo games Good Topic or something? lmao - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Looking at the release date info, why is only July 11 accounted for? It should clarify that it's for the complete edition and including July 17 and July 25 for Japan and NA.

• Added

1. The designer, programmer, artist, and composer are unsourced info, and without sources, there's nothing to suggest that their contribution to the game is considered notable.

• As for the infobox, no sources really cite the developers explicitly. To not include them because of this is ignoring details, though. In my FA, Paper Mario: Color Splash, I was instructed to cite the game's credits as citations for ones that did not have a secondary source. Do you recommend I do this?

Gameplay

1. The IGN source uses reimagining instead of remaster; while it's an arbitrary distinction, remaster tends to have a semi-specific meaning. I recommend finding a source calling it a remaster.

• Done

1. Doesn't seem important to say that Tennis and Bowling were the only ones at launch in this section.

• Cut

Design

1. I can't see where in the source it says that "Iwata enforced that online play should be possible". I also have trouble finding where it says that Tennis was the most challenging mode to develop in the game.

• It's derived from "You said in your e-mail that Bowling and Golf absolutely must have online gameplay, and work on the other sport activities if possible." I've rewritten the sentence to better clarify this.

1. Is there a reason why Nintendo Life is used instead of Iwata Asks?

• Just to get some variety beyond using a primary source over and over. Do you think I should switch it?

1. "Iwata delayed playtesting the game so he could do so during an Iwata Asks interview with the Wii Sports Club team in 2013, and personally enjoyed the Tennis demo." This sentence is a little confusing. "so he could do so" Do what? And what was delayed - the development of Golf or Wii Sports Club? Or is it Tennis?

• Clarified

1. "Other stats that were kept track of, such as the total amount of pins knocked over in Bowling, were kept that didn't involve winning to encourage the player to keep playing if they lost." I don't know what "were kept" means

• Accidental repetition, I'll cut that

Announcement and release

1. Giantbomb release dates take from GameFAQs, so these need to be replaced.

• As in, replace it with GameFAQs or a different source entirely?

1. "A bundle containing a Wii U and a copy of the game was released in Japan March 27, 2014" Is this bundle the same as the one that was later released? If so, it should clarify that it's "a copy containing all five minigames" and it should be clarified in the next line, with something like "This bundled copy was released separately..." as long as there are any sources regarding them being the same.

• Specified

Reception

1. "although more precise controls were noted." Noted in what way?

• Clarified

1. "Heidi considered the side minigames "a nice distraction"." What are the side minigames?

• As in, the side modes for each sport; I switched "minigames" to "modes".

1. I wonder if there isn't more that could be added to the reception. For example, I see some RSes in the Metacritic page that aren't cited.

• I looked through these as well but they seem to be different languages for RSes already in there, or ones that are unreliable. Do you see any RSes in there that I missed?

Images

1. Though I'd like it if the first screenshot clarified what the value for the article is, it and the lead image are acceptable rationales. However, the second screenshot's rational is fairly weak in my opinion. The first screenshot already shows communication between players, as well as competition, so the second screenshot doesn't do anything unique.

• I agree, which is why I removed it, but another user added it back.

@Panini!: Done. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Cukie Gherkin, I left some comments. Thanks for your review so far! Panini! • 🥪 20:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I swear I passed this. Either way, seems fine now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)