Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/List of Wii games: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:40, 4 April 2007

List of Wii games

I'm hoping to get this list to Featured status, as I feel that it is well done. I appreciate any feedback and comments you may have for improving it. Digiwrld1 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator

I am still not convinced the 'exclusive' column belongs in this list. It could be moved to Comparison of Wii games.
Sometimes the terms TBA and Unreleased are used in a confusing manner. For example, the game Healing Type has the release date TBA for Japan, but the other regions simply state Unreleased. Improve consistency here.
Overall, there is too much TBA and Unreleased there. Maybe it would be good to use some graphic instead of just repeating those to terms over and over again. Some slightly lighter colour would do - what about #EEEEE or #F1F1F1. This is a suggestion, not a remark.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"TBA" and "Unreleased" have two different meanings: TBA means that the game will be eventually released in that region, and unreleased means that there are currently no plans to release the game in that region. So Healing Type is a Japan-only game that hasn't been released yet. --Conti|✉ 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. This is a bit unclear for the reader without interest in video games besides playing them. Might explain in the introduction. --User:Krator (t c) 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Link to the Past

Consider changing to this style (using the A section as an example). If possible, all sources should be of Nintendo Europe, which covers both being official and being accessible by more people than Nintendo.com is (because of flash). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but that style has less information and does't use a sortable table. Why should we do that? --Conti|✉ 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as well. References on the list page are bad and clutter up the page. --User:Krator (t c) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I can't imagine how my list is more cluttered than this one. Why should we give each and every date for games? And wow, how in the world does this article become an A-class (ie, the best it can be without getting featured)? There isn't one single thing on this entire list to even imply that anything about it is the least bit factual or accurate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, tell me - why is Australia less important? Or New Zealand? South Korea? China? The set-up of the DS list on my user page represents more countries and wastes less space. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is referenced in the articles of the entries themselves. If something is not, it should be. List of Final Fantasy titles, a Featured List, only references some of the notes (this page has none) and the release dates of some (about 1/3) of the games. Adding 100+ references to this page would be not useful because of the extreme size of this list.
If the information is not factual, the article of the game should be deleted (better: improved), and therefore the entry of that game in this list.
Market share, getting the overall picture, and geographical coordination. (i.e: "North America" instead of "USA") Why are Brazil, Iran, Russia, and Togo not listed? Why does the front page list a student protest in Teheran, but not the dissolving of the Ukrainian parliament? There is no room for every country, so a choice has to be made.
This is not an attack on your list in any way - it is a much smaller list (fewer columns) so references could possibly be listed. If you want it to be assessed or peer reviewed, make a request and I'll do it. Now, back on topic, shall we?

--User:Krator (t c) 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were attacking the facts of the list, not the list, and I was rebutting it. Tell me - why is it better to give columns for the "main" countries? Similar to how you argue that the main article shows no need for references, the main article also shows the release dates. There is absolutely no need to list release dates. And I assure you, this won't pass as a GA with as much information as it has. The fact of the matter is that having release dates and a column for only main countries is more "wild and unruly" than a small number surrounded by columns next to an article's name that gets in the way of nothing. If we go your way, we get a retread of information found in the article and less basic information - such as "is this game released in Australia, a country which is not considered minor by any definition of the word?". - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deckiller

This list will fail criterion 1c until all references are moved back into the article. Also, the lead section is quite informal, even for a list; the List of Untitled Wii projects belongs more in the See also section, and we should not use the word "please" in our prose. — Deckill er 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oscarthecat

Should the article make use of italics for game names? Also, all references to dates should be wikified perhaps (including the lead section)? --Oscarthecat 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Digiwrld1

First, thank you for your comments. I've read each suggestion carefully.

Krator-I will try to explain the difference between TBA and Unreleased in the lead section to the best of my ability, but I fear that I am not a good WP:LEAD writer. I had originally vouched to remove the Exclusive column as no other list had it, but it seemed that the consensus was to keep it. I have no preference as to where it should go and would like to defer to the consensus about this.
Oscarthecat-I'm not sure what the standard is concerning italicization, but another contributer has already begun work in italicizing each title. I will Wikify the dates in the lead section as well. As per games that do not have a set release date, the TBA template that is used does not wikilink for some reason.
Deckiller-We need a standard here. This list (and all the time and effort of the contributors) does not benefit from the arguments that members of the CVG project have concerning references. The List of Virtual Boy games and the List of Nintendo 64 games are both featured lists, neither of which have their references cited on the page. We spent a lot of time creating stubs and moving references from the list to the article based upon previous suggestions to make the list more Print Friendly and cleaner, and do not want to continue this shuffling back and forth due to changes in policy. I think you will agree that it is unfair. As per the Lead section, I would like to improve it; currently it is based on the Lead section of the List of Nintendo 64 games, again, a FL. Could you refer me to a list which contains a lead section that is more appropriate for a FL perhaps? That would be really helpful.
A Link to the Past-I shall address your concerns some other time. Just know that I have looked through your suggestions carefully and am opposed to them. I also feel that your comments are more focused on belittling the current list than it is on constructive criticism.

Digiwrld1 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ...Huh? Because I suggest that the way the list is set up is poor and then providing you with a suitable alternative, I'm belittling it? I'm sorry for unconstructively criticizing this list by telling you why I thought it wouldn't make FL and then suggesting a way to fix that. I forgot, constructive criticism isn't about giving a method to fix what is being criticized. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Likn to the Past, perhaps you should notice that several of the main contributors of this article oppose this change, and yourself aside, noone supports it. It conflicts with the sortable tables that are in place, and while covering more countries, provides less information. All of this is on top of the fact that no other featured article uses this format, furthermore the actual List of DS games article doesn't even use it. It seems like you are more concerned with pushing your personal preference than a fair discussion about improvements. - Jmeriot 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Good point. Because people don't like what I have to say about their article, my opinion is bad and I should be quiet. And you know what? Let's add short leads to each game on the list. And multiplayer info. Online info. Price. Visual style. Gameplay style. Genre. Developer. Designer. Why not? If we don't, we provide less information. And I wish more people followed Assume bad faith as well as you do. I mean, the very idea that I could be pushing this because I feel it improves the quality is just silly. Clearly, it is a simple matter of me = someone who wants to dominate this article and you = trying to protect this article, and I was totally in the wrong for daring to criticize anything of this article. My SINCEREST apologies - I forgot, Wikipedia's about making articles the way you want, regardless of how good it ends up as. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Did not claim ownership of article. 2. Didn't say you should be quiet, I said that you are not listening to anyones discussion on the matter. Anyone who disagrees with you, you change their words around and make it seem like a personal attack on yourself. 3. You're being ridiculous with the less information subject and you know it. 4. It's not bad faith, it's a track record anyone can see by looking through your edits and talk pages. 5. Didn't say you shouldn't criticize the article, I was just saying that you've made your point, noone agrees, let's move on. 6. Clearly you didn't forget that its about "making articles the way you want, regardless of how good it ends up as."

Can we move on now? - Jmeriot 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as I can tell, both of those examples contain reference sections. As for a lead section, the Nintendo 64 example is fine. If it's consolidated into one or two paragraphs, and the "please note" is removed, then it should be fine. — Deckill er 04:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved From Talk Page

(Moved to Peer Review as it is the central location to suggest improvements to the article right now)

The article needs citations for everything that can be challenged (which, in the case of lists, is most material), preferably checked with one or two other sources to ensure verifiability. Otherwise, it might not even pass the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Format and content looks good, though. — Deckill er 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on strong suggestions from the previous sugestions, all references were moved from the list itself to the individual game pages. [1] is how it looked before. Personaly, i think it was a better referenced article before the links were moved, but the previous reviewers were fairly adament about removing the references to somewhere else. -Telvin 3d 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this cannot be considered for FL status. I'll make a note on the peer review page. — Deckill er 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again, we do not need to see the release dates. The way this list is set up with release dates is a better way - it covers more countries, and takes less space. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with converting to the release date system used for the DS list. Yes it takes up less space, but at the cost of actual dates, which are needed for a sortable list such as this. - Jmeriot 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - who cares about billions of people who may want to look up if the game is in their country? We should cater to less people just so we can give more content. Since when did this list become a mini article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only area the list does not cover is Austraila, and as far as I know, their release dates are very close to the European ones, so there's no real information lost compared to using flags. Not mentioning that using flags will make the sorting feature moot. --Conti|✉ 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Digiwrld1

Krator: I removed the 'Exclusive' column from the table as suggested. I also 'grayed out' the word Unreleased, so it is more apparent that the title is not to be released in that region. I also added a line in the introduction about this. A sample of this table is below; let me know what you think and if it is okay then I'll start adding this to the actual table.
Deckiller: I consolidated the lead as you suggested, although I'm sure it can still be improved. Please let me know if I am on the right track here, and what else I can do to improve it. Please take a look below at the lead. Also, I was unaware that, indeed, a reference section existed at the bottom for each of the Featured Lists--I was expecting in-line citations or a large number of footnotes. Wouldn't it be extremely convenient if Nintendo released a giant PDF of every title for the Wii? :)
A Link to the Past: Conti is right, the Australian dates correlate pretty closely to the European release dates, with titles releasing within a week of each other for the most part. This is due to both continents being of PAL settings. I realize that you don't want any one particular to be left out, but remember that the Wii has been released in a number of countries; it is a conscience decision, then to decide which countries to feature and which to leave out. On a sidenote, the columns are not titled by a specific country, but rather by region. All countries in North America and South America fall under the region 'Americas'; all PAL regions fall under 'Europe'; and East Asia falls under 'Japan'. When creating this list, we used the List of Nintendo 64 games as a starting point; in fact, I'm sure you'll remember when this list look like a deformed version of that list, complete with green checks and red 'X's. It was from this list that the three regions were established, not anywhere else. What was apparent, however, was that what worked for one system would not necessarily work for another. A number of users wanted to know which titles had been released, which titles were going to be released, etc. From there a number of us started suggesting ways to improve the list until it took on it's current form. I want you to know that although I disagree with your suggestion to reformat the list, I appreciate and value the feedback.
- To see when a game is coming out is unnecessary. My way saves space and removes info that is not necessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations: Clearly we need to move back (ugh) the sources from the article to the list. How should we do this? Do we use footnotes and have a very large Reference section? Do we use in line citations with arrows as it was before? Or something else?

Rather than giving citations for every single game, use the method all the other featured lists use - a few references which are lists of Wii games too. [2] [3] are both good references and contain upcoming games as well. I don't see why a different citation for every single game is needed to get this to FL while other lists of games do not need that. Citing those Nintendo and Gamespot lists is enough IMHO. --User:Krator (t c) 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes to Lead/Table

This is a sortable list of the 210 games that are in development or have been released for Nintendo's Wii video game console. The Wii is the fifth video game console from Nintendo, succeeding the Nintendo GameCube. It was first released in North America on November 19 2006 with 23 launch titles (including Wii Sports), followed by a release in Japan and Europe on December 2 2006 and December 8 2006, respectively. For additional information on the Wii's release, including the list of launch titles and the regions they were released in, see Wii launch.

A title is listed as 'Unreleased' if there are no plans to sell the game in that region.

Title	Developer	Publisher	Japan	Europe	Americas
Earache: Extreme Metal Racing	Data Design Int.	Metro 3D	Unreleased	2007	Hoverboard!
Elebits Eledees ^EUR	Konami	Konami	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31
Elviz: Rock n Roll Adventure	Data Design Int.	Metro 3D	Unreleased	2007	Unreleased
Emergency Mayhem	Codemasters	Codemasters	TBA	TBA	TBA
Ennichi no Tatsujin	Namco Bandai	Namco Bandai	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	Unreleased	Unreleased
Escape from Bug Island Necro-Nesia ^JP	Spike	Eidos^NA Spike^JP	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	TBA	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31
Excite Truck	Monster Games	Nintendo	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31
Eyeshield 21: Field no Saikyou Senshi Tachi	Nintendo	Nintendo	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31	Unreleased	Unreleased

Your comments are appreciated here -Digiwrld1 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --User:Krator (t c) 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ::A Likn to the Past, perhaps you should notice that several of the main contributors of this article oppose this change, and yourself aside, noone supports it.  It conflicts with the sortable tables that are in place, and while covering more countries, provides ''less information''.  All of this is on top of the fact that no other featured article uses this format, furthermore the actual List of DS games article doesn't even use it.  It seems like you are more concerned with pushing your personal preference than a fair discussion about improvements. - [[User:Jmeriot|Jmeriot]] 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 :::Oh, right. Good point. Because people don't like what I have to say about [[WP:OWN|their]] article, my opinion is bad and I should be quiet. And you know what? Let's add short leads to each game on the list. And multiplayer info. Online info. Price. Visual style. Gameplay style. Genre. Developer. Designer. Why not? If we don't, we provide '''less information'''. And I wish more people followed [[Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|Assume bad faith]] as well as you do. I mean, the very idea that I could be pushing this because I feel it improves the quality is just silly. Clearly, it is a simple matter of me = someone who wants to dominate this article and you = trying to protect this article, and I was totally in the wrong for daring to criticize anything of this article. My SINCEREST apologies - I forgot, Wikipedia's about making articles the way you want, regardless of how good it ends up as. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] [[User talk:A Link to the Past|(talk)]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
+::::1. Did not claim ownership of article.  2. Didn't say you should be quiet, I said that you are not listening to anyones discussion on the matter.  Anyone who disagrees with you, you change their words around and make it seem like a personal attack on yourself.  3.  You're being ridiculous with the less information subject and you know it.  4. It's not bad faith, it's a track record anyone can see by looking through your edits and talk pages.  5. Didn't say you shouldn't criticize the article, I was just saying that you've made your point, noone agrees, let's move on.  6. Clearly you didn't forget that its about "making articles the way '''you''' want, regardless of how good it ends up as."
+::::Can we move on now?  -  [[User:Jmeriot|Jmeriot]] 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 **As far as I can tell, both of those examples contain reference sections. As for a lead section, the Nintendo 64 example is fine. If it's consolidated into one or two paragraphs, and the "please note" is removed, then it should be fine. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 04:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)