Talk:Everybody Votes Channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2004. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Deletion[edit]

This channel for the Wii was only launched a few minutes ago. I don't understand why it needs to be deleted. I know more information will be added once we know its exact purpose, so give it time for people to put more information up. I only put 1 sentence of information to set a placeholder for the page. Therefore, its deletion should be reconsidered. Steve HP 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not every channel needs its own article. I support this being deleted. IF it expands enough to deserve an article, it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure I see what it hurts by existing. It's not like it's cluttering up Wikipedia. Besides, the article WILL expand eventually, so I see no reason to delete it.Steve HP 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, that argument never works. Also, the "it will be notable/expanded eventually" doesn't work either. If/when it can be covered by more than a small paragraph (which I doubt), it can be recreated. For now, the entire article is already covered in the Wii Channels page. Besides, you didn't even name the article correctly. TJ Spyke
I just don't understand the logic of you deletionists. You destroy pages that have information that could be important for someone out there, yet you still insist on deleting it. Not saying that this is one of those pages, but I have seen it happen (such as "The Game"). I thought Wikipedia was about providing information, not restricting it.Steve HP 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing this article says that isn't covered on Wii Channels. EVERYTHING is important to someone, but that doesn't mean it deserved an article. For now, there is nothing about this channel that can't be covered in Wii Channels. TJ Spyke 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TJ Spyke. It's easy to say that the article will have more information in the future, but that's little more than speculation. As for the present moment, as TJ Spyke says, the information in this article can be (and already is) better displayed in the Wii Channels article. I understand Steve HP wants to improve the quality of the article, but that will be much easier to do at the more notable Wii Channels. -- Exitmoose 04:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want another "Cube World" or "Scary Movie 5" Incident happening. I SAY KEEP!Pendo 4 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? TJ Spyke 02:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The reverting back and forth for about an hour really wasn't needed. I've reported that to an admin. Editing like that, isn't helping matters. RobJ1981 04:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The page is probably not worth having at the moment. What would be best would be a redirect when someone searches for it to the Wii Channel's page. If it ever becomes a significant channel that has a ton of information about it then its own page should be created. WizTermy 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would we delete this? It needs to be fixed up a bit (and this will happen over time)... but deleted? No, it provides encyclopedic information. Sure, every channel should have it's own article, or at least a much more detailed sub article. I vote no. (I'm downloading the channel as we speak). Don't delete please (It's already helped me learn a bit about the channel while the system update is downloading, and that is the purpose of wikipedia). Leif902 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at all the info that got added to prove that you should not delete the article. Once more:Keep ArticlePendo 4 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: This provides information, and will quickly become a very good article. I think maybe every Official Nintendo channel (excluding the default channels such as the News and Weather and Photo channels) merits its own article just as every individual piece of software in a series merits its own article. You wouldn't just make one article for every game in the Legend of Zelda series would you? No. So don't just make one article for all of the Wii Channels. They are individual items, and information on them will be needed and easier to find if they have their own articles. Leif902 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Haha. I guess this page did kick off! This is what I was talking about when I said more information would be added! I now think this article has enough info to have its own page. Oh, and for the interested (and if you didn't realize it), I wasn't entirely serious about all my revisions last night (Check my userpage for proof). Late night boredom is a terrible thing. I am glad to see the page got more information, though! Steve HP 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: This is my third time I say kepp and I am continuing. Thhis boat load info is to big to not be an article. Even though it started samll it grew massive.65.10.162.29 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here that isn't already covered at Wii Channels once you trim down the guide (which is not allowed). TJ Spyke 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I read the arguement against it and none are legimet. For example "not every channel needs its own article" this is true, they don't NEED an article but WHY would it hurt to have one. I think it would increase the amount of information o wikipedia and therefor be helpful. Penubag 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that this is not the page for discussing this? There is a link for this issue. Also, the fact that everything relevant about the channel is already discussed on the Wii Channels page is a valid and legitimate reason to turn this page into a redirect. TJ Spyke 08:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why in the hell would you delete something that's real when you all keep countless PS3 game pages up that don't even exist/have no info whatsoever/have been cancelled? 131.247.23.205 12:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) JR 15 February 2007

Such A Strong Keep I Am Not Being Funny: Hey everyone. If you want to keep this go to the article debating on it.Pendo 4 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So far there has not been any reason why this article should exist. All the RELEVANT info (i.e. not cruft or instructions) is already covered at Wii Channels, so there is no reason this should not just be a redirect. TJ Spyke 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already voted above, but I have another statement to make. If all the Wii Channels simply have all their information on the Wii Channels page, then eventually that page will be crowded and hard to read and manage, very un encycolpedic (if that's a word). Also, information will have to be limited due to space constraints, and this will result in poor quality information. All in all, every Wii Channel that has some significance (Minus Virtual Console channels and built in wii channels, and any trivial channels) deserves it's own article, as this is the mission of wikipedia, to be a global knowledge repository, to provide the masses with an easy to use, and reliable encyclopedia, to give the gift of information, even on something so trivial as a ballot. That's my take anyways. Leif902 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the future it will deserve an article, but as of right now the entire channel can be covered in 1 or 2 paragraphs. TJ Spyke 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There are now over 7 paragraphs of coverage (I didn't really want to count single paragraph sentances, so maybe more like 5)... Just mark it as a stub and it will continue to grow. Besides, what's the point of taking it out even if it was as short as you say if it provides information for the user, like wikipedia is supposed to? Leif902 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do peope use that "it provides info" argument for articles that are at AFD? Check out Wii Channels#Everybody Votes Channel, all the relevant info is already covered there. TJ Spyke 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete: There's no guarantee Nintendo will ever stop making Wii Channels. If we continually make pages for each, then things would get ridiculous. You have no proof it was me. 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Screen Shot[edit]

Someone who has the hardware needs to take a new screenshot, the current ones copyright is not verified and will be removed in one week. Also, a screen of a poll being voted on should be included to show the voting system. Info on the updated firmware should be included too, the change merely lets the user set the region, but it should be documented as it is information about how the channel affected Wii development. Leif902 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded a HQ screenshot of it and put it under the Public Use for Software Screenshots, so it should not violate rules. WatashiNoAiken 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, please add the copyright info though... (I'll look at it and see if I can change it...) Leif902 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite your sources....[edit]

Sorry to start another section, but really, if you don't want this page deleted, please cite your sources. I'm in the process of updating some of them (or trying to find the information to update some of them)... But please, new information MUST be cited. Thank you, Leif902 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Results? Aaargh![edit]

Just saw that the article has a heading called "Results" and it lists the result of a poll. PLEASE tell me you are not going to keep a score of all the polls in this article! Surely, that kind of trivia is not suitable for Wikipedia. Mausy5043 16:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I came to Wikipedia to see if the questions and results were posted or not. Until someone starts a separate webpage to cover this part of the topic, I don't see why that isn't of interest here. It's like saying sales information for music albums is trivia that isn't suitable for Wikipedia. It's part of the history of this Wii Channel and could serve someone writing a story or article about the channel. Misterinvisible 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sorry! I was the person who put the result Headline part. I think it should stay.Pendo 4 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Mausy. It seems too trivial, and a continual list like that would eventually grow pretty big. I say take it out. Tinlion09 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Take it out, this type of information is not what wikipedia is made for. It will grow, and grow, and grow, and will be too big and does not provide much usefull information. Any administrator or moderator will tell you that this kind of content does not belong on wikipedia. Leif902 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the results aren't really necessary. It doesn't really tell what the channel does. It's only trivial. Steve HP 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The poll about the number of US states that people visit is fairly interesting. A large part of the central US travels more but it stops at the coasts and the south. I don't care enough to sign my post though.

Release date[edit]

Are you sure it was released on 13th February? The WiiConnect message announcing it certainly wasn't sent to European Wiis until after midnight on the 14th. Tim 16:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely available for download in the US on February 13th around 10PM Eastern time. http://www.infendo.com/2007/02/nintendo-launches-everybody-votes.html Misterinvisible 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete it[edit]

I don't think it should be deleted. I just came here explicitly looking for this page, and I found it, which is exactly how Wikipedia should be. None of the arguments for deletion are particularly compelling. --Shinyplasticbag 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use the page specifically for this purpose to discus deletion (see the link in the notification). 71.29.121.239 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a guide to everything Wii related (no matter what people want to think). A voting channel is still too small. RobJ1981 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Restored talk page for proper discussion[edit]

Previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Votes and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 19. No consensus was reached, partially because the size and scope of the page changed significantly during the discussion.

I've restored this talk page so that we can discuss the future of this page on it, rather than constant revert wars. My opinion: it's a full article which does not simply repeat information held elsewhere. It should be kept and expanded. Tim 12:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that User:TJ Spyke isn't willing to discuss this and has instead asked for a redirect and protect, ignoring the deletion review which he had previously commented on. Hopefully the page will be back soon. Tim 14:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's back. Now, can we have a civil conversation about why people believe the page should be deleted? Tim 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This page should be a redirect (and protected, so edit/revert wars don't have over it). It's a voting channel, and there isn't much to it (even if people claim there is). 1 paragraph (possibly 2) should be on the Wii Channels article, that's all that is needed at this point (in my opinion at least). In the future: the channel might be more notable, but until then: it doesn't need an article. Also: I hope this page doesn't become a listcruft target. I somehow bet people will add poll results and other cruft that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. RobJ1981 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Results lists have already been started and removed. What do you think is currently on the page that shouldn't be? It's currently far too big to just be merged. Tim 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
didn't see the deletion review (and no one bothered to tell me about it) until after it had closed, so don't say I ignored it. Rob pretty much nailed the it. It's just a voting channel, and right now everything notable about it can be (and already is) explained on the Wii Channels article. Also, no one is is saying it should be deleted, just a redirect to Wii Channels. TJ Spyke 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You did see the deletion review before you went to the admins asking for the redirect to be protected. Such a redirect is an effective deletion for this page, which contains significantly more information than the single paragraph on Wii Channels. Tim 12:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Going to stay?[edit]

Is the page going to be an article?Pendo 4 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, no. There is no reason for the article to exist, it would still be a protected redirect if a certain user hadn't requested a deletion review (and not tell anyone about it). TJ Spyke 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Most likely, yes. It contains a substantial amount of information which is useful and informative. The deletion review (which was, handily, linked to from the AfD) showed significant support for the deletion to be overturned. Tim 12:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Significant? Hahahaha, it was 3-2 in favor of restoring it. All the RELEVANT (not fluff info) is already covered in the Wii Channels page. This article is going to be redirected eventually, either by consensus here of nominating it again. TJ Spyke 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So you'll keep on attempting to redirect it until everyone else gets fed up and leaves? Great technique. I'm afraid that your opinion on what is "fluff" and what is "relevant" is not law. Tim 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A mod has already decided to keep it, that should be good enough for you. This is a type of vandalism, don't repeat the argument all over again. Leif902 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, an admin has not decided to keep it ... an admin has decided that the previous deletion and merge was not adequately debated. Tim 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There was also some admins who agreed it should be merged. The discussion to bring it back was 3-2. TJ Spyke 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, I Just have one question for you... are u some Nintendo or Wii Hater?Pendo 4 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the userboxes on his userpage. He LOVES Nintendo. Tinlion09 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, I just don't think this channel needs a page yet. TJ Spyke 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

I think we could do with some illustrative pictures. In particular:

  • showing how you vote
  • showing the pie chart of Miis
  • showing a regional breakdown of results

The last of these could be good from several regions to see how it's broken down. Tim 11:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for "suggest a question"[edit]

It actually says this when you submit a question. How can you show this as a citation? Tim (Xevious) 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the citation is that Nintendo will actually look at the question (which I doubt they look at all of the questions they get considering they probably recieve thousands every day). TJ Spyke 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Merger with Wii Channels[edit]

All discussion should take place on Talk:Wii Channels. Tim (Xevious) 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The merger was agreed several weeks ago, and it was never agreed to undo the merger. TJ Spyke 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The merger was not agreed weeks ago. Please point to me where such an agreement was made. Tim (Xevious) 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In the AFD, where the final result was "Merge". But then one of the people who opposed it kept whining and whining, and even filed a Deletion Review request, until an admin undid the merger (when that happens, they are supposed to let the people who participate in the AFD know so they can comment, but I was never told about it). TJ Spyke 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not what happened. One person asked the admins to reconsider the request, based on the fact that virtually all delete votes occured at a time when the article was new and not fully written. This deletion review does not need to let all those who took part know specifically - those who took part should be sufficiently interested to look out for themselves. The admins agreed that the deletion had been erroneous (thereby negating the original vote) and said that the debate should be reopened and restarted, based on the current article. This debate, outlined on the Wii Channels talk page, shows a current majority supporting seperate articles. Tim (Xevious) 11:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The only way any of us who voted would know about the deletion review is if we watch the deletion review page, which I doubt that many people do unless they are trying to get a page undeleted. Also, only some of the people in the deletion review agreed it should be reopened (there was some who thought they should stay merged). It doesn't change the fact that the merger was agreed on. TJ Spyke 11:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A merger was agreed on. It was agreed to merge the 3-line article. That article didn't exist by the time of the close of vote, and the majority of admins accepted that in the deletion review (which really, given that you were the one who originally put in the AfD, you ought to have kept track of). In fact, it seems as if the only person who doesn't accept that is you! Since that article doesn't exist any more, it's not possible to merge it. Instead, you've got a nice, long, comprehensive article, which is now being discussed whether to merge or not. And, going by what it says on Talk:Wii Channels, the majority don't want it to be merged. Tim (Xevious) 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep track of it? I had no idea that whiner would ask for a deletion review, nor would anyone else unless they look at the deletion review log every day (otherwise I would have commented in it). That is what pisses me off, this bitter user queitly files a deletion review and doesn't bother to inform anybody who participated in the AFD. TJ Spyke 12:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please keep your comments WP:CIVIL. It is standard procedure to keep an eye on deletion reviews when you file an AfD - I've done it enough times. In any case, your summary of why the EVC should (then) be deleted didn't apply to the EVC article that was actually deleted, so the overturning was a bit of a no-brainer. Tim (Xevious) 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have called him a whiners. Anyways, I don't know anybody else who watches DRV, and it is not standard procedure (and they don't mention it on the AFD page), especially since someone could file one weeks later. TJ Spyke 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HA[edit]

My friend made the first question.--Roxas 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Voter Deletion[edit]

If the voter can't be deleted because he or she submitted a response to a poll that hasn't ended, what does it mean "submit a response to a poll that hasn't ended"? --PJ Pete

Merge discussion[edit]

I am proposing a merge discussion on several Wii articles - the discussion to be, however, what to merge and where. If anyone would like to join in, please go to Talk:Wii. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Record of Questions[edit]

If the Check Mii Out Channel section keeps track of the contests, We should keep track of all the Everybody Votes Channel polls. But I can't find where I can get all the polls. All I need is the records,I will be happy to do all the work.. THX.Jonathan105 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)



There are some of the polls in the External links section under "Results of Everybody Votes Polls". However, it doesn't have all the polls from the time this channel launched. Versus22 (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a polls section in the article and will be including all the 2008 polls. If somebody knows how to get the whole entire poll history of the Everybody Votes Channel (Feb. 2007 - Present), Please reply... Versus22 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I thinking about asking Nintendo if they could send us the polls. Rough draft??

Dear Nintendo, I am a member from www.wikipedia.org and we would like to post all the past polls from the Everybody Votes Channel (wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Votes_Channel) on there. But the problem is..we haven't been keeping track from the start. So we are asking a big favor if you could gather all the past polls(just the polls) and email them to me.

Please edit to make better^^^^^^...Jonathan105 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • We've discussed this a number a times. Wikipedia is not somewhere to put rivial inormation, like a list of the polls. A link to the polls that have been carried out is the way to go, and we've already got that in place. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this... Versus22 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can put together a page on GamerWiki for this too! Tim (Xevious) (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I made the Everybody Votes Channel page on GamerWiki, so when you are ready Tim (Xevious) maybe we could add these poll questions in the article! Versus22 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent ... here we go ... [1] Tim (Xevious) (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong Channel Tim (Xevious). It goes under Everybody Votes Channel (Wii)...not ENC. Versus22 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops ... I'll move it later (I can't access GW from here). Any edits made to that page in the meantime will be carried over. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed! [2] (also corrected link above) Tim (Xevious) (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

People Against Delete[edit]

Please do not delete this page as it is very useful!!! 86.150.69.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)