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

ESRB Crackdown

Most of our knowledge of future games is from the ESRB site. However, developers can now request that the ESRB state when a game can be listed so as not to "leak" info about a game. This of course means that Nintendo is very likely to request that VC games not be listed on their website until release date. Here's the source. I'm just stating this because it is possible some listings on the ESRB site may be removed at Nintendo's request. They might not, but I just wanted to say just in case it does happen. Thunderforge (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So in the case that it gets removed from the ESRB we have to remove the game from out list, correct? I'm making sure the rules haven't changed. Neo Samus (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if one game is removed, then yes, we should take it off. If a large chunk are removed (or if they are all removed), then I think we'd keep them. What may be more likely for Nintendo is that they will keep the ones that are already on the list, but from now on, ones that are rated will not appear until the day they are released. So to sum it up, the rules haven't changed yet. The point I was trying to make was that if Nintendo removes all unreleased games from the database, then we may have to change the rules. Thunderforge (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Where to put new releases?

When the Wii-kly update comes out on Nintendo of America's media site but the new games aren't available for download yet, should the new VC releases be listed under Available titles, since they will be for sale in a few hours, or should they be listed under Future releases and then changed when they are available? What are people's preferences? - N zonar (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just as soon see it under "Available." It seems silly to put it in "Future releases" (and include the release date, which would be that same day, and a source), then switch it to available titles a few hours later. Thunderforge (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that wouldn't be factually accurate. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've felt since the beginning that when Nintendo posts the Press Release, we should put it under "Available". --LN30http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29&action=edit&section=2800 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not available if you can't download it. The article shouldn't be factually incorrect, due to impatience. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as "Nintendo adds new and classic games to the Wii Shop Channel at 9 a.m. Pacific time every Monday.[1]" we should wait until that time to add them to the available section. -Zomic13 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we came to an agreemnet to post the titles as avaiable when it goes live at 9 am PDT months ago?? Or was that just a couple of people? Neo Samus (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alongside Phantasy Star IV, four other games have been rated.

Just in case you may not notice when adding PSIV to the future releases list due to its recent ESRB rating:

Fatal Fury Special is listed, though Wii has been simply tagged onto the Xbox 360 rating of T.
Clayfighter 63 1/3 is listed with the same situation as above, except its been tagged onto the Playstation rating of T.
Finally, Earthworm Jim and Boogerman have both been given E ratings, and have been added to the end of the list, much like Harvest Moon was.121.208.168.177 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Super C NES?

Hi! Um, I was looking for Super C for NES in my Wii and it didn't appeard. Did Nintendo took it down? Shouldn't this change be noted in the page?189.136.37.181 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the game is still on the Wii Shop Channel, so no note should be made on the article about its removal. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about this lately, but I don't know why. I had no trouble finding it just now. (And I've never purchased it before, so it's not like it's just letting me redownload it as was apparently possible while SMB:LL was retired in Europe.) -Arcanelore (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG

Is this legitimate?

http://wii.ign.com/objects/865/865240.html#aboutThisGame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.15.78 (talk • contribs) 19:38, August 3, 2008

The game's listed at the site's "top 10 retro DLC games" wishlist, which makes the whole story look really weird. Litis (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate, but not reliable. Anyone with common sense can figure out that it'll be released soon; it's already been released in both Japan and Europe. Common sense is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, though, so it won't appear on this page until it's either confirmed or released. VDZ (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A "wishlist" doesn't mean anything. It's just that, a list of games they WISH would appear on the service. Hell, it's not even just for Nintendo. It's a list of all systems that are "dead" (i.e. not still getting new games on a regular basis). Being released in other territories does help the chances, but it won't be listed on this page without a reliable source (i.e. ESRB listing, Nintendo announcing, etc.). TJ Spyke 16:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that was exactly the point. If it's on a wishlist, that would suggest that there hasn't been any announcement of it coming to the Virtual Console, contradicting the first link, which suggests that it IS coming to the Virtual Console. It's quite simple; the guy writing the stuff in the first link used common sense to tell that it'll be coming to the US soon, while the guy writing the stuff in the second link is not sure if it'll be released in the US, and put it on his wishlist.VDZ (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ESRB rating for Parodius? (TG16/PCE import)

Judging from a recent ESRB rating (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp?searchType=title&platformsCriteria=Wii&titleOrPublisher=Star%20Parodius) we could potentially be seeing the PC Engine port of Parodius. I didn't put this up on the main page because the name given on the rating is peculiar, and doesn't coincide with the original title (why is there an unneeded "Star" there on the ESRB rating?). Although the game is from Konami, Hudson has been listed for all of the TG16 ESRB ratings, even if they're actually from other companies. Star Parodier has already been rated, so it likely isn't an error from that prior rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.6.187 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I can think of two things that might have happened. First, ESRB missed marked it or thought it was from the same series; or That is what Konami and Hudson will call the series in North America. I say it's a go to add it and I'll put the title that the ESRB shows but link it to the original title. Neo Samus (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Earthbound

I really want Earthbound for my Virtual Console and I wasn't even released that it was coming out why do u guys have that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MovieDirector299 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been rated via ESRB, that's why it's on the Future Releases section (source). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, any game that has been rated by the ESRB (and is still listed) or announced by Nintendo or the games publisher will be listed. Hell, Vectorman was first confirmed in April 2007 and only got released this month (other games will get released with no notice). TJ Spyke 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

None of the ESRB links work, or is it just my computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.5.150 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the entire ESRB site seems to be down at the moment. -Arcanelore (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You guy's know that the ESRB rating was a mistake right? It's not coming to the Virtual Console. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a source that it is just a mistake? Especially since it is still up on their site. TJ Spyke 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It was information from Starmen.net. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't lie about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about future releases section

I was wondering about the criteria for listing a game in the Future releases section. For many of them, the "source" seems to be that the ESRB have given the game a rating. How does this mean that the game will be released? It doesn't seem like a logical connection.

Of the 26 games in the section, 12 have been in the list for at least 6 months, and 4 have been in the list for at least a year. All but 4 of them have a release date as "Unknown." --Bando26 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Only games that get rated by the ESRB are eligible for release on the Virtual Console. It's one of the requirements of a game's release. While that doesn't necessarily mean a game will be eventually released (it is ultimately up to the game's publisher(s)), it is a strong indication that it will be. A majority of the games revealed on the ESRB's website have eventually been released. The ones you mention are just the few stragglers. -Zomic13 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be something in place: if the game has been listed for at least 6 months and no release date or year has been mentioned: remove the game. It doesn't do harm to the article. Being rated by the ESRB isn't a 100 percent guarantee that the game will come out. Just because several games listed on ESRB's website came out: doesn't instantly mean all will be. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Being rated by the ESRB means that a VC version is ready and planned. We don't change Duke Nuke Forever to being cancelled even though it was supposed to come out back in 1997 (and the developers continue saying it will come out). TJ Spyke 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ready and planned? I don't think so, considering many of the titles have been on the future list a while (as Bando stated in the start of this discussion). If they were ready: Nintendo would've put them on the Virtual Console by now. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

TJ Skype, do you have any evidence to support that a game being given an ESRB rating means that it's "ready and planned"? I never thought of an ESRB rating as being the "final stamp" put on a game before distribution.

I think I'll also point out that the ESRB web site is not a a reliable secondary source, which is what Wikipedia policy best suggests citing. Primary sources are acceptable to cite in Wikipedia (and the ESRB would be a primary source), but there are warnings against original research, especially with regard to the use of primary sources. I believe that using the ESRB's web site to support the idea that a game will be released soon is original research. Just because games must have a rating to be released doesn't automatically mean that a game will be released simply because it has a rating. --Bando26 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only evidence anyone has that ESRB is reliable: games that have been rated in the past have came out for the Virtual Console. Just based on that simply isn't enough in my view. If there is no other sources provided in a week or so, I will be removing the games that have been listed for a while. This issue was brought up in the past (at least once, if not more), and people never solved the problem. Just assuming that "ESRB = game sometime" isn't the way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

By that measure, the Turrican games and many others would've dropped off the radar long before their releases. An extremely reliable precedent has been set by dozens and dozens of classic titles first appearing as ESRB ratings for the Wii, with subsequent VC releases. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've brought this matter up at the Video Game project. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea of if its been there for six months and hasn't got a release date then rip it off, is a good way to tackle this. The above logic about duke nukem game is flawed, i think that the developers saying its coming out and the ESRB rating a "future" game is on completely different wavelengths. So yeh get rid of them if they have been there to long. Salavat (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty arbitrary cutoff date. This article lists facts, and picking and choosing which facts to list or leave off seems very odd. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to draw the line somewhere, 6 months is just an idea put foward. Salavat (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You really don't have to. There's no compelling reason to disavow knowledge of classic games that have been ESRB rated for Wii. If you arbitrarily draw a line somewhere, titles will be removed that will still eventually be released, leaving no indication that they're still on the way. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You act like Wikipedia is the only place to get video game news, which isn't even close to being true. If people want to read about ESRB rated games (with no other sourcing) they can do it elsewhere. This encyclopedia shouldn't be the place for it. 6 months (or longer) is a good idea, which I will be putting in place once I look through the history and figure out which games have been on the list that long. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem unwilling to listen to others' points of view, insistent upon being the ultimate authority. You always get your way, and know how to win every argument. If you really think fewer facts is better -- even though it'd be more cumbersome to maintain -- then by all means. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you all forgotten Vectorman? That game was on the Future release list for OVER a year and a half, and guess what? It saw release. The reason for such a massive delay, we may never find out, but all that matters is that it did get released. Just because a game has been on the list for 6 months or more does not mean it will never come out. Why even go through the trouble of getting the game rated if they (the publisher) have no intention of releasing it? Think about it. Neo Samus (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheesemeister, knock it off. That was very uncivil and not needed. As the old saying goes: if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all. Getting rated isn't a trouble. You don't work for Nintendo and you can't predict the future, Neo Samus. I don't think you can guarantee all rated games will come out. Nintendo could've cancelled games, and never said anything. So you "think about it" when it comes to that. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a publisher have to pay the ESRB in order to have a game rated. I doubt one would invest the money and then not release the game. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just remove all (or almost all) the games that have only been posted/announced by ESRB? That will only leave a few games from IGN and in a Nintendo Power issue. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, those games have a right to be on the page. They have a source. Rob, I really think you are over analyzing the issue. Please calm down. I'm asking this in the nice possible way I can over the internet. I never said that I work for Nintendo, and no one here ever said that they can predict the future. Please understand that I'm not attacking you. I'm responding to your "comments" to me, which if I wanted to, could also say are somewhat uncivil as well. Anyway, of course no one can guarantee anything. But if we have a source, it's only logical to use it if is a trustworthy. Neo Samus (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. If a game hasn't come out within 6 months of it being ESRB rated, it's not coming out at all. That's a fact. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheesemeister, STOP already. If you don't like the discussion: don't post in it, problem solved. Your sarcasm isn't helping. Neo Samus, don't tell me to calm down. You two editors are a big reason that changes never seem to happen to the article. Anytime someone suggests something, or brings up an issue, or whatever: you instantly reply and turn it down in most cases. I think if you had your way, the article would never change, except for on the days games come out, and days games are announced. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be logical and rational, then. What is the purpose of this article? To inform people of facts regarding current and future VC titles. Who would read it? People who want to be informed of these facts. Aren't there other places that have similar lists? Sure, but what purpose does this article serve if not to deliver the facts available? How do we know ESRB-rated classic titles in the Wii category will be released as VC titles? We have hundreds of examples of this listed: a publisher wishes to re-release a classic title for the VC, and as a part of the process of doing so, has the title rated by the ESRB. The title is later released on the VC. But what if a particular title is canceled? Titles like Zombies Ate My Neighbors have been removed from the ESRB website, and as such, have also been removed here. But what if it's been a long time since a particular title has been listed? Some titles are held in the release queue longer than others for marketing, licensing, strategic, or other reasons; NOA is not very transparent about it.

However, given that it costs publishers actual money to pay for a title to be rated by the ESRB, and there isn't a title synonymous with a classic in the works (i.e. Sonic the Hedgehog), we can then conclude based on the ESRB rating that a classic title is due to be released on the VC. One might complain that the ESRB isn't a primary source, and that this is all speculation. The ESRB was established by the video game industry itself, and as such, can be considered a primary source. Ratings that appear in its database are there at the behest of publishers preparing titles for release. To say that a game is not slated for future release with facts from a game industry-established entity saying otherwise is, in fact, a contradiction. Vectorman and Super Turrican 1 & 2 are just a couple obvious examples of games that were ESRB-rated for over 6 months before VC release. Denying the facts listed on the ESRB website would only serve to confuse readers and prompt them to re-add titles missing on the article. If this article does not list some upcoming titles that are supported by the evidence, it does the readers of this article a disservice. Bottom line: list the facts, don't hide them. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it Cheese, but wait, we hate change. I'm sorry Rob, but that is far from the truth. I love change. Change is what helps us, as a race, evolve. But this change that we are argu...."ahem"....discussing about is, I truly believe, not for the better. Actually I agreed with you on a couple of different occasions. The one I can really remember is about what time the new releases get added to the available list. That was a change that was "better" for the article. So please don't assume that I'm anti change. Neo Samus (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All Nintendo 64 games are rated by the ESRB currently (due to their original releases), so by your logic: all of those should be in the future releases section. Past games or not: they have ESRB ratings, and that's the only source for many of the future releases listed in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All VC games have to be re-rated for release on Wii. Look it up. Any game that was rated previously on their past system has to be rated again and will show for the Wii. For example; do a search on F-Zero X and you will see the game pop-up twice, one for N64 and one for the Wii. Neo Samus (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Two ratings for F-Zero X. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a block column

This new column would let people know how many blocks a certain game is. That way, people who download a ton of games can research how big it is and decide if they want to have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennAwesome (talk • contribs) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source that has the info, I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would have to be the actual block size (the number of blocks a game actually takes up is lower than what is shown in the Wii Shop Channel). TJ Spyke 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A block column isn't notable. Video game articles rarely have sections listing how much memory they take up, this is no different. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Other articles that discuss downloadable content, like Sony's Playstation Network, Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade, and Nintendo's WiiWare list's are listing the file size data. I'm all for it as long as we can source it, but now that I think about it I wonder if the other articles source the info? Oh TJ, that only occured for the titles that were released within the first 6 months or so. All current titles show the proper file size. Neo Samus (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The last game I bought was Paper Mario (although someone gifted my Phantasy Star II back in February). TJ Spyke 15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, games that were posted prior to August 27, 2007 are listed on the Shop roughly 72 blocks over their actual size. Those posted after that date are within a block or two of their actual size, not counting save data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.6.230 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've brought this matter up at the Video Game project here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#File_sizes_for_games:_needed_or_not.3F. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

File sizes for downloadable games are highly trivial and unnecessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove all titles referred to as future releases by their ESRB rating.

Far too many titles have come and gone after having been rated by the ESRB. Just being rated doesn't mean that the titles are going to be released, since it's common practice to plan ahead just in case they decide to release them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Look two sections above. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess this means Chrono Break is coming out, since Square Enix likely had to pay to file a patent for the name Chrono Break. And Viewtiful Joe 3, since Capcom registered the domain name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've looked through the history, and noticed several titles that were once listed on esrb.com, but was removed, such as Kirby Super Star. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a game is no longer listed on ESRB's site, it shouldn't be listed in the future releases section here. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be listed if it's still on. The history of games being rated by the ESRB and then being dropped tells us that just being rated doesn't mean it's going to be released in the future. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree (as I stated in the above section), but no one wanted to listen in that discussion. Perhaps we should bring this up at the Video Game Project for outside opinions on this matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were only commenting on past releases. But I agree, it should be brought up at WP:VG. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made this discussion about the matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Ongoing_issue_regarding_ESRB_as_a_source. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the problem is that people are equating the sourced statement "The ESRB has rated game X for the Y console" with the moderately more OR and CRYSTAL-esque statement "Game X is coming out for Y console's retro games service", often with the implication that it will come out real soon now. Just how OR and/or CBALL it is is up for debate, but I can't help but notice some games have been up there for an embarrassingly long time now (Pilotwings, Pro Wrestling, and Kirby's Dreamland 3 have all been on there since January of freakin' '07), which IMO is grounds for removal. Nifboy (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added ESRB-rated titles under a separate table, with a disclaimer stating that they're not guaranteed. If you don't agree with this proposed compromise version, please discuss it and reach a consensus before editing. Thank you. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's not guaranteed (which you admitted to in your post): that's crystal balling, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Also, putting something into the article...then telling people to discuss instead of editing is a bit hypocritical. You didn't discuss before you added that new table in. Next time use your user space, and post it here for people to agree on. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about following policy to the letter, you should argue for the deletion of all such list pages per WP:NOTDIR. ESRB-rated titles are relevant to this list. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ESRB-rated titles table, we all (or most) have to agree in the discussion page, which most do not. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to throw in my two cents. I have for a long time been vocal on my opinion that the ESRB-as-a-source was very un-wikipedia-like. I am glad that this issue is being brought up, and me vote remains to leave the "Upcoming Releases" to be about ones where we actually have a source, other than "It's rated! *thumbs up* " LN3000 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. It was discussed at WP:VG. No one in support of the list of games rated by the ESRB explained why the ESRB was enough of a reliable source to list them here. Should we also list Viewtiful Joe 3 on List of Capcom games because Capcom registered [2]? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No one for the ESRB list has given a decent reason for it to remain. As Link stated (here, as well as on the discussion at the Video Game Project): several games have been rated, then not even came out. This proves ESRB isn't accurate and shouldn't be used. Here's a good suggestion for people that want to see an ESRB list: post it in a word document or on your personal website: then you have it to view whenever you want. It's simply not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Registering a domain name is very different from registering an ESRB rating: any ol' domain squatter can decide to register something based on an IP, so the IP-holder may register it out of the possibility that it may someday create a game with such a title. New domain names can be had for $10.[3] ESRB ratings, as of June 1st, 2003, cost $250 for re-ratings and $1500 for new ratings.[4] All classic titles from before the establishment of the ESRB would need new ratings. No sensible company would spend $1500 left and right on needless "what-ifs." --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So because certain games didn't get released, that means ESRB is unreliable as a source? What if they come out tomorrow? Does that mean it's suddenly reliable again? I think EA, Capcom, Namco, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, Sega, and others have announced a few games in the past that ended up never coming out. Does that mean any data from them is unreliable now and unacceptable for Wikipedia? On top of this, game sites like IGN often have game pages for games that get canceled or weren't even announced for a certain system in the first place. That must mean they are really unreliable, right? -Zomic13 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So, just wondering, why is it that your argument only works with speculation? So, ESRB rating a game means it's coming out. Yeah, that'd be a good source if ESRB themselves said that EVER. Nintendo makes tons of money. I'm kind of skeptical that a company that makes nearly a billion dollars every quarter of a year would not register titles that they may localize. A game being rated is not a reliable source of information in any capacity. The ESRB is not listed on WP:VG's Sources page, and until it's listed, it's not a reliable source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Future Release section outdated!

The links provided in the future release section from the website IGN are out of date, and I motion for them to be removed. The website clearly states that the games will release in 2008. As it is now 2009 it is no more than CONJECTURE to say that they will be released this year, if at all. To put it bluntly to say that these titles are being re-released for the Wii Virtual Console in 2009 contradicts the link information and is complete speculation at this point. Even if the games do appear, as we've discovered with the ESRB ratings we may not get the games in 2009, 2010 or 2011! Please remove this article, as it is no longer based on facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.124.190 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Games get delayed. Nintendo has final say over when Wii Shop Channel games come out. The list is already inaccurate as it is since some editors had something crawl up their rectum and complained until ESRB rated games were removed. TJ Spyke 21:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Original release dates

Would it be a good idea to add give the tables separate "Original release" and "VC release" release date columns? --68.44.13.218 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I would like to hear the general opinion. TJ Spyke 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many possible fields of data that could hypothetically be slapped on there. Developer, number of players, types of compatible controllers, Wii Points, you name it. For detailed information on a game, click on the link to its article. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of developer, maybe we should talk with the people who edit the PAL VC list and come up with 1 unified format. We use publisher (the current publisher, I think we should use the original publisher) while they list the developer instead. TJ Spyke 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All three seem abitrary to me, but developer seems like the one most likely to tell the reader something about the actual game. --DocumentN (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wii Points would be a good inclusion too, since it'd be a step toward merging all the lists into one, which could then be sorted any way a user wanted. --DocumentN (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Each section has the Wii Points added though. Versus22 _talk 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that putting the prices into the actual tables would reduce the need to have multiple separate tables with separate commentary. --DocumentN (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to putting in the developer? There doesn't seem to be much discussion, so maybe in about 24 hours I will start putting them in if there are no objections. TJ Spyke 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of the publishers or in addition? --DocumentN (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition. TJ Spyke 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I only object if it's going to crowd out the information I'm more interested in (original release date and price). --DocumentN (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Original release date is trivial information at best. If people want to see that information so badly, they can go to the game article. I don't see a major issue with developer information, but wasn't that here before...and then removed? Check the archive, I believe that's the case with this list (as well as other game lists). RobJ1981 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The article originally used the developer (which the PAL article still does), then it switched to publisher. I can't find a time when both were used though. TJ Spyke 01:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From as far as I can remember, there was never a time where we the article had both publisher and developer in the table, it went from dev to pub. I like this addition because it informs the reader who might be unfamiliar with the orginial game, and shows how much things have changed sinces the titles original release. Neo Samus (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A vast swath of entries have an identical publisher and developer. It's just taking up extra space that it doesn't need to. As I said before, particular details are best left to individual articles. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Majora's Mask

Does anyone have information on Majora's Mask. It was one of the most critically acclaimed games for the N64 and I'm surprised Nintendo has not released it yet. Legend6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

It was recently announced to become available in Japan in April. While no announcements have been made about other regions, it will probably be released everywhere else some time this year. Jebus0 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but so? If you are worried about people adding it to this list, don't. Unsourced titles will be removed. We all know Super Smash Bros. will eventually be released here but it's not on the list because it hasn't been confirmed. TJ Spyke 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

News

I guess the original Final Fantasy is coming to the VC. Heres the link.[5] Some one should put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabbethx (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Put what in? All that is confirmed is that some Final Fantasy games will eventually be added. We don't know which ones, when, what they will be rated, etc. Midway said the same thing about Mortal Kombat games back in early 2007. TJ Spyke 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IGN as a source

I disagree on IGN being a source. They're only a news site and they post news articles related to video games, such as the Final Fantasy article also sourced. The listing for Genghis Khan II has no news article and is listed among such inaccuracies as Goldeneye 007 (Which I notice is now listed as rumoured). IGN also lists many Japanese VC games as well. The only reason IGN has it on their site, to my knowledge is the ESRB rating it got recently, which isn't a reliable source for this list. Unless there's an actual announcement from Nintendo or Koei themselves, it should be removed. Cloud789 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with this. IGN is only playing the guessing game. They know just as much ahead of time about the Wii Shop as we do. Several times they have stamped release dates for Wii Shop games that did not have an official announcement and they have always come out wrong. Although I'd hate to shorten the list as I feel the ESRB should still be considered a reliable source. 98.213.36.235 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • If you're not counting IGN as a source, then why are most of the future releases IGN sourced? 76.126.21.16 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried editing out the IGN sources but they keep getting re-added. Someone is really adamant in thinking IGN is a reliable source. A couple of those Arcade games don't even have ESRB ratings and Clayfighter 63 1/3 was a mistake listing on the ESRB's part that was later corrected. The ESRB is more reliable but I'd rather have no listings outside of company PR rather than IGN's guesses. Isn't there anything that can be done? 98.212.99.78 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this would probably defeat the purpose of having a future releases section, as my proposal would make the list almost empty, but if we are really worried about reliability, shouldn't we rule out both IGN and ESRB as sources, unless it is a published article stating a specific game is being released on a specific date? If the whole idea is to not predict what is coming out in the future, then we should really only use the sources that have never given false information. S275ironman (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IGN is a credible and reliable source, so they are allowed. As for ESRB, that is also reliable as the publisher submitted the game to the ESRB (and paid the fee) to have it rated; while the company could then decide not to release it, getting it rated means they intend to. Not to bring up other pages, but you should take a look at List of Xbox Live Arcade games (where they even list RUMORED games, games not even confirmed to actually be coming). TJ Spyke 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

But WHY is IGN a credible source? They really aren't. Some of those games they list aren't even ESRB rated like their pages claim. It's not like their getting VC release data ahead of time and witholding it from us. IGN should only be a source if they break the news of a confirmed VC Release timeframe. Either the ESRB should be our main source or we're stuck with whatever's directly confirmed. Wariofan63 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not like them, but IGN IS a reliable source (even though it's common sense, it is also approved by WP:VG). If a game on this list has the wrong ERSB rating, feel free to correct it. As for your last statement, no. If a reliable source confirmed a game will be released, we will add it. If you find a source that says a game won't come out, that can be discussed. Th bottom line is that if a reliable source confirms a games release, there really isn't a reason to not include the game on the list. Would you also care to explain why you think the list should only include games already released in other regions? There have been many occasions where North America was the first region to get the VC version of a game. TJ Spyke 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit that was a boneheaded decision based on the fiasco awhile back based on people not wanting the ESRB as source. I wanted to add the others. I thought as long as the game was available elsewhere, the ESRB couldn't be credited as making a mistake. And I know IGN can be a reliable source for news and the like, but in matters like these I really don't think that just because they make a game page for it confirms it. Especially since stuff like Clayfighter 63 1/3 and World Heroes 2 were definitely based on ESRB ratings that have since been removed. Should they really be granted that kind of immunity? Wariofan63 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying IGN doesn't make mistakes (even the most reliable sources and news sites make mistakes from time to time), I just think it's a bad idea to remove all of them. TJ Spyke 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry for acting rashly. I thought ESRB not being a source was still in effect and I was pretty sour from that. Are you giving the green light that we can use ESRB ratings as a source again? Also, can we at least remove Clayfighter 63 1/3 and Strider? The only hint Clayfighter was coming was based on a mistake the ESRB made. Strider is likely there because of it's European ratings so at the moment theres no American release confirmed. Wariofan63 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always been in favor of including games listed by the ESRB, it was others who were against. What makes you think ClayFighters was a mistake though? It's not like it can't happen (since the Genesis version of the first game is already on the VC). TJ Spyke 17:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the possibility that it could, just as of right now our only lead on that was that old rating. When Clayfighter 63 1/3 had a Wii listing, the original Clayfighter did not. While at the same time, everything else that Interplay announced had a rating. When the Genesis Clayfighter finally got a Wii rating the 63 1/3 rating dissapeared. Wariofan63 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Saving

Could someone please add to the chart whether or not you can save? 70.24.18.221 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, why? That is cruft and has more to do with the whether the game original had a save feature or not and has nothing to do with the VC. TJ Spyke 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Street

Fighting Street was released weeks ago. The list needs to be updated. 169.233.59.10 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is scheduled to come out later this month. -Zomic13 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy II rated by ESRB

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=27768

I don't know if it is the SNES or NES Final Fantasy II, but judging from the mentioning of "crystals" and the "jump" command, I'm guessing it is the US release. Could someone add this plz? 75.107.162.133 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't use the ESRB website as a source. If any other source confirms it, it may be added depending on how reputable the source is. S275ironman (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Street Fighter Alpha 2

http://wii.ign.com/objects/038/038485.html

76.126.21.16 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

is super smash bros.coming out next week

is super smash bros. coming out out monday 14th. and if not whats the released date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So far 2 games have been announced for next Monday: "Rubik's Puzzle Galaxy: Rush" for WiiWare, and "Blaster Master" (from the NES) for VC. TJ Spyke 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

where do the information about future virtual console games release dates come from?

can someone tell me where it come from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Each game has a reference column that says the source of the info. TJ Spyke 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

what will be new in the wii shop channel tomarrow

will super smash bros.be released tomarrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

is there a chance it will be released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things: 1)Sign your posts. 2)There is no need to make 2 sections asking the same thing. As for your question, yes it's possible. Just a friendly reminder though, this is NOT a messageboard. The talkpage of an article is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of the subject. TJ Spyke 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo Life as a source

--Koopas rulez (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)nintendo life announce north american titles and someone should add it as a source p.s. the future titles release dates need to be edit.

--Super Smash Bros. Fan1994 (User talk:Super Smash Bros. Fan1994) Nintendo Life is accurate in most cases, so they are work looking over (Although there are exceptions such as Tetris Attack where the game is mistaken for Panel De Pon). I personally go there myself and they are very trustworthy. Try adding those games to the Wikipedia list that have an ESRB rating or have been announced for our region, but nothing more.

ESRB

Someone has added various future releases with ESRB as a source. If that is considered an invalid source, please remove them. Thank you. Retromaniac (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

ESRB is considered a reliable source, so games cited using it ARE allowed and SHOULD be added in. TJ Spyke 03:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, apparently not being included as a reliable source for video games on the reliable sources page of the Video games WikiProject, and a discussion for including it, which you participated in, failing, isn't important in determining what makes a source reliable. And not to mention the discussion on this very talk page, or the discussion on the Video games WikiProject talk page that resulted in the ESRB not being declared usable. What does it require for the ESRB to be removed? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- Publishers get ESRBs for many games that never get released. They should not be considered reliable in terms of whether something is released. Given the consensus in multiple areas future additions of this manner should probably be taken as vandalism, as they outright defy the consensus. --Teancum (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the ESRB has limits as a reliable source. The organization's sole purpose is to rate games, and that's what I think should be its limit. In short, if the website says that a game has been submitted to the ESRB or submitted and received a rating, then that's all that should be cited. Release dates should be cited from press releases or news articles on gaming websites.

It's not this page's job to provide up-to-date release date information about video games. On Wikipedia, we merely chronicle video game information after the fact. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Rondo of Blood

According to IGN Dracula X Rondo of Blood (Castlevania) on the PC Engine is coming to the Virtual Console... http://wii.ign.com/objects/056/056022.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.183.238 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pricing should be removed

Since Wikipedia is not a catalog, there is no need to include what the games cost. This should be removed as soon as possible. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 17:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

3DS Virtual Console

Resolved

 – The new article has been started. --McDoobAU93 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the information regarding 3DS Virtual Console games should be moved to a page of its own as it's an entirely different entity. Having them in the same place here is almost the same as having a page with Virtual Console and XBLA games. Briggity Brak (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe at some point, but not right now. There's still very little information on 3DS Virtual Console, and certainly not enough to support its own article at this time. --McDoobAU93 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For right now, I've separated out the planned 3DS Virtual Console games into their own table with their own subhead. I've also added a new field, one that can be carried over eventually to the separate article, to indicate if the game will have 3D upgrades. --McDoobAU93 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is NO confirmation or proof that any Virtual Console games will be in 3D. As far as I know they will be just as they were on their original consoles, i.e. 2D. It appears that multiple sources got the wrong message, and that what Nintendo meant was that the eShop would contain a Virtual Console AND 3D Classics ("classic games in 3D"), but people misinterpreted that as meaning that there'd be 3D Game Boy Games. Another question regarding this. In the name of all insanity, how the heck can a 2D flat non-parallactic games have any autostereoscopy? I mean what is there to have depth? For starters the background would have to scroll at a slower speed, to show it's farther away than the foreground--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also Nintendo stated that "As with the Virtual Console service on Wii, all Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS will be in their original 2D format."--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but if you could please provide a link to this interview of which you speak instead of simply saying it is, it might solve all this. The cited sources for the two potentially-3D releases say they will be converted and then can be restored to the original 2D version with the 3DS' depth slider. About the only thing that will trump a published source is a more recent published source, not "as far as I know" or "what Nintendo meant" without anything to back it up. --McDoobAU93 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a source. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuxox2MuDu4#t=2m --The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from additional reading from Nintendo, it looks like we're both right, in a way. While the actual Virtual Console games won't be upgraded to 3D, certain games will have upgraded versions that are sold separately, so that merits inclusion. --McDoobAU93 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So, should we have a seperate table for the so-called "3D Classics"?

To answer the response from an unknown poster, the answer is yes, we should. These are modified games and not the original software, and are being marketed under a separate name, and thus should be considered separately. --McDoobAU93 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

3DS Virtual Console launch

An anon IP attempts to add info stating that the Virtual Console service for Nintendo 3DS will be available at system launch. After a couple of attempts to add this without citing a source, the IP returned with a good-faith effort, citing a piece on Nintendo Life. The NL story provides, as its source, an article on IGN.

The problem, specifically, is in the excerpted paragraph from the IGN piece used in the NL piece. As of the time of this post, the statement on IGN doesn't match what NL has posted. If you compare, the first sentences match, but where NL says "Nintendo has clarified that the Virtual Console will be available immediately upon the launch of the 3DS", IGN says "Nintendo has revealed that a worldwide update, scheduled for late May, will enable some of this functionality, most notably the eShop (including the Virtual Console) and DSi-to-3DS data transfer." NL is supposedly quoting IGN, and NL even links directly the cited page on IGN, but they aren't matching. In such a case, it would appear that the NL story is incorrect, and thus isn't a reliable source. Going a bit further, NL says that Nintendo America has said it would launch with the system, but their own website hasn't been updated to reflect this (click on "Download Classic Games & More").

Again, in all fairness, this is at the time I'm posting this. I'm guessing it's potentially possible that an update to IGN's story (which makes the statement that NL is attributing to it) hasn't made it to the server from which my browser pulled the story. But, in much the same way as a improperly quoted source is handled here, I'm afraid I'd have to do the same with the Nintendo Life story, since its source doesn't say what NL says it does.

--McDoobAU93 07:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Console Not a Network

Resolved

 – The new article has been started. --McDoobAU93 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As Virtual Console is not a subscription network like XBox Live or PSN and is system specific (seperate for Wii & DS), I feel the two sections should be seperated on this site. Deusamator (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm kinda confused as to your suggestion, but I think it has to do with the fact that we are currently listing the 3DS Virtual Console here, instead of its own article. As there is not enough information to merit a separate 3DS list article (yet), this would seem like the most logical place to discuss it. Some day (quite likely before the end of the 3rd quarter of this year), there will be enough to separate it. However, maybe the information here could be included in the appropriate section of the main 3DS article, instead. --McDoobAU93 00:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article should remain as is until more games are released, or at least until the service launches. For now, I think it's good. 65.31.176.72 (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree mostly with commenter #2 (McDoobAU93). But maybe since people will be looking in both the main 3DS article, as well as the List of Virtual Console games (North America) for that information, wherever we decide to locate the primary info, we should be sure to have a Wikilink to it in the place that doesn't get chosen. My 2 cents. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Console import prices removed

Whoever removed the "import" prices on the NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafix-16, NeoGeo, and Sega Master System better put them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.188.237 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I did, because Wikipedia is not a catalog. Please read the cited section before responding. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 02:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that wikipedia is not a catalog, but the motivation behind that is that wikipedia is not a price comparison service. There isn't a multitude of vendors here, there is just nintendo. I actually came here to look up the virtual console prices and was miffed that they were gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.88.214 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, surely that info is available elsewhere. It doesn't belong here. It is useful is not a valid reason for keeping info on there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The information is surprisingly hard to find. I found one website that gives approximate prices, but for the life of me I cannot find it on the official nintendo website. That's why I came here; I'm sure the information is out there somewhere on the internet but I'm not sure where to go to find it. The wikipedia entry was far and away the easiest way to search these things. I'm pretty new to wikipedia so if everyone is adamant it shouldn't be here, I'll suck it up and deal. Bigbenbt (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Had to go to the nintendo wiki to find it. Would it be out of line to put a link on this page? http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Virtual_Console_titles_%28North_America%29 Bigbenbt (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually WP:ELNO item #12 discourages other wikis as external links. But there's some wiggle room ... would the Nintendo wiki meet the description for "substantially stable" and "substantial number of editors"? --McDoobAU93 04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be acceptable to mention which games are priced as imports without giving any numbers for the prices? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a thought. It would be notable to show which games have not been released in North America previously. How would you suggest we show that in the table? --McDoobAU93 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

ERSB 2

This is more of an note of commentary of the article's sources; We have Final fantasy III listed as a future release. While i full heartedly agree it will eventually be released in North America- and many websites speculate this, the reference used; [6] is basing its immenant release on the fact that ERSB has rated the game. I know in the past we have brought up the issue of ERSB not being an indicator for inclusion in the list of up coming games, but we are using sources that use ERSB as an indication for release without apparent objection. Would not that make ERSB reliable in that context if we use sources that use ERSB? Personally I am under the opinion that unless Nintendo or the publisher itself sets a date for the game we shouldnt be listing them in upcoming releases unless we want to accept ERSB as a source. Just a thought Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons Arcade Game

I noticed that the page for The_Simpsons_Arcade_Game states that it will be released for Wii virtual console, though provides no good source to back that up. Indeed if does a google search for "Simpsons arcade game wii" you find a link to the wikipedia entry for the game, as well as various assorted blog entries by people citing it.

I bring this up here to point out the discrepancy between the two articles; I view this entry as more reliable and more likely to be correct on the matter. 74.79.62.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

I checked the article, and it looks like an editor there has already taken care of it. Someone added info suggesting it was going to not only Virtual Console, but also Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, none of which has been announced in reliable publications yet. --McDoobAU93 16:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Coming Soon

Why are most of those titles in the Future Releases still listed? A lot of them have been there since 2009. I think it's safe to say they were planned at one point but have been cancelled or, at the very least, are on indefinite hiatus. By keeping them on the list, they only give the hopes up of people waiting for those games. Really, the only ones I could see keeping are Double Dragon 2, Wonder Boy in Monster Land, and Super Street Fighter II (Genesis), because at least those sources are from this year. Sb2007 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about keeping people's hopes up. The reason they're there is that reliable information has said they're to be released. If, however, reliable information appears indicating the games are NOT to be released, then they should be removed. As I've seen on other articles, the only way to obsolete a cited bit of information is to have a newer cited bit of information to replace it. I edit an article that had a statistic sourced to a 1985 Time article. I tried to remove it using the same rationale (it's way too old), but since the source was still legitimate and there wasn't a newer version to replace it, the info was restored. To that end, I'd only advocate removing them if a source says they're canceled. Till then, they should stay as "TBA". --McDoobAU93 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

There's a lot of older discussions on here, and there appears to have been some previous manual archives made. Has anyone given thought to setting up MiszaBot to archive this page every 6 months or so? That way people could find more current discussions more quickly? Opinions? --McDoobAU93 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

M.U.S.H.A.

This article claims that MUSHA was published by SEGA in North America. MUSHA's own Wikipedia article claims that it was published by Seismic. I don't know which is true, but both articles can't be right. The VC itself claims that it was published by SEGA. But the title screen does mention a company called Seismic (and only says "licensed by SEGA"). And at least one version of the boxart has the Seismic logo on it. IGN says it was published by SEGA. And there was a different publisher in Japan. I'm not sure if Europe and North America had the same publisher or not. So, does anyone know if SEGA did or did not publish MUSHA in North America?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seismic published the game in North America for the Genesis. Sega apparently published the game for Virtual Console. A number of these older games have been purchased from their original developers as they've folded or been purchased, and this appears to be one of them. --McDoobAU93 04:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Was NES Ghost 'n Goblins restored to the Virtual Console?

Was delisted when the arcade game was added to the Virtual Console, but now isn't shown as being delisted like R-Type and TMNT are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.6.240 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit old. The game was removed but was added back.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Title Change?

Should the title be changed to "List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)" now that the 3DS games have their own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.44.112 (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad thought, actually ... especially with Wii U coming out later this year. --McDoobAU93 01:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Boldly Moved shortly before RM ending date; this is not as much as closure as it is a bold move, believed to be uncontroversial, especially in light of the expressed support; as such, I consider it subject to WP:BRD. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 04:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

List of Virtual Console games (North America) → List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America) –

Per an earlier discussion ... since Virtual Console appears on two different platforms, with the potential of a 3rd in the future, we should add the console to the full name of the article. The renaming avoids confusion and is not ambiguous.

• Support As nominator. --McDoobAU93 14:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the Wii? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Consistent with the 3DS equivalent and does not imply that it encompasses more than it currently does, like the current title does. --SnorlaxMonster 16:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support It makes sense. The current name was used when the Wii Virtual Console was the only one. We now have one for the 3DS and the Wii U will have one in the near future.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All C64 games are currently unavailable

They can no longer be purchased from the Wii Shop Channel and none of them appear at the list at Nintendo Official Site. It may not have an official announcement or an article in the press, but currently, these games are all unavailable, whether it's a glitch or not, they've been unavailable since August 1st, 2013.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.115.101 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No proof has been provided indicating this is a permanent situation. Websites update all the time, and glitches happen. What we're looking for in terms of a reliable source is a news article stating, for example "Nintendo has removed all Commodore 64 titles from its Virtual Console lineup due to (insert reason; licensing issues, lack of demand, etc.)". What you're presenting is original synthesis, which is not permitted. --McDoobAU93 15:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Official TurboGrafx-16 Virtual Console site link is defunct

The link takes you to a "Domain for sale" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.115.101 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the link and revised the sentence to show the remaining cited developers (Sega and SNK) as being examples of publishers who have also mentioned upcoming VC titles. --McDoobAU93 19:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The link for the Sega page, gives you info on games on other consoles, Wii VC returns 0 results

The page no longer provides info on released or upcoming Virtual Console games for Wii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.115.101 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph is meant to show examples of how/where Virtual Console games have been announced. It is not intended as a current repository of VC information. --McDoobAU93 15:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It may not provide a current repository of VC information, but if the URL is used for a quote that can no longer be cited, then the sentence is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.113.47 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

URLs die all the time. Cached copies can be located to provide the proof, for example. You appear to be taking things at absolutes, or taking things to the extreme. Please read my response to you below for more information. --McDoobAU93 15:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

About unavailability of the Commodore 64 games

Shouldn't there be a footnote or something at least about the current unavailability of the Commodore 64 games (August 2013)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.115.101 (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Immediate status of releases on Virtual Console is not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a gaming news site. Again, you will need to produce a reliable source indicating the games have been permanently removed from VC before ANY discussion of their absence (temporary or otherwise) is included in the article. --McDoobAU93 15:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Then if I upload a picture of the VC Channel showing the absence of such games and sections, will the information be accepted? Or even with such an evidence it would still not qualify. How much time has to pass before a fact can be considered "encyclopedic"? Is this article under an authorized edition scheme? If so, maybe it should be locked although I thought Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia. I'm not being aggressive, I need this questions to be answered so I can be sure if I can or can't edit anything else in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.113.47 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A picture would not help because that would reflect what you see when the photograph was taken and thus would be your interpretation that the games have been delisted, when the solution could just as easily be a temporary glitch or temporary removal. We also have no proof when the photograph was taken (i.e., it could have been taken before the games were even offered, for all we know). What we are looking for is a statement from Nintendo that the games have been removed and will not return, preferably indicating why (lack of demand for the software, licensing for the software has expired, etc.) the games have been removed. This statement can come from Nintendo itself, or it can be reported by a major reliable gaming news website, such as GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, etc. This does not include posts on forums, fan-produced blogs, and the like.

To answer your final statements, Wikipedia is indeed a free encyclopedia, but all articles work this way. Edits require some basis in fact from reliable and verifiable sources in order to remain in place. We cannot accept someone's personal interpretation of events (for example, "I've seen it so it must be true"). I do hope this answers your question, but if you still have concerns about what you can and can't edit, please direct them to my talk page instead and I'll be glad to expand on my responses. If your questions have to do with this particular article, please continue to post here. --McDoobAU93 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, many reliable news sources took a joke about Mario and Luigi being gay lovers, it appeared in some news papers and some didn't rectify their mistake; GameSpot, IGN, 1UP have been known to make biased articles. Maybe this article and many others that aren't yet should be locked and only edited by people who can be sure they are taking the information from the very sources, not news sites, I'm just saying. Maybe it's time Wikipedia has an established review board to avoid all this in the future and no corrections or edits should be seen until this review board approves them, it's whats been happening here after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.113.47 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review Board, as you describe it, is already in place ... it's called the tens of thousands of editors, both registered and anonymous, who edit the millions of articles here each and every day. If a source appears accurate, the information remains in place. If there's a problem (such as a potential hoax or parody article), it's removed and discussion takes place to determine if the information is flawed or indeed accurate. That process is called bold, revert, discuss. And on a number of very contentious articles, such as American Idol for example, there is a process called pending changes where changes by anonymous or new users are hidden until checked by an established editor. --McDoobAU93 17:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You and only you have been deleting it, I haven't seen any of those tens of thousands refuting my edits, block this IP, it's clear to me that I can't edit this or anything else even if I input true data. Just one last thing, If your in North America, get a Wii and try to access that section, since you are the only one qualified to edit, call Nintendo directly after you see by yourself that what I say is true so you can finally quote a reliable source before you commit the same mistake I've been doing. That's all, I will no longer contribute at Wikipedia, I know I'm not logged but I'm someone that thought was part of those tens of thousands, I'm so disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.113.47 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Geo VC games reference link

D4 Enterprise is the responsible for the Neo-Geo games in the Virtual Console, SNK Playmore USA never announced games at their site, this is what should be linked: http://www.vc-neogeo-us.d4e.co.jp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.118.122 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to be bold and make such changes yourself. Thanks for the tip. --McDoobAU93 02:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Commodore 64

Although the gonintendo.com article is from August 12th, that does not mean it was the date of the discontinuation of the games, I was aware of it since August 2nd. There are other posts in other forums that confirm the removal days before August 12th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.118.122 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Forum posts are not reliable sources. Neither are articles whose only basis is the response of two individuals who may well be encountering the same error. Now, if/when one of these sites decides to contact Nintendo and publish Nintendo's response to the matter (which I am surprised NOBODY has done yet, if this has indeed happened), then we would have a reliable source that would back up the edit. --McDoobAU93 18:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Then if a reliable scientist say that the sky looks red in daylight, then it is red despite what all the people in the world would say, ¿am I right? ¿Is this the way everything in Wikipedia works? I've seen articles with no source of things that are not quite true and they remain unedited. I don't get it. By the way, this time it wasn't me the one who made the August 12th removal edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.118.122 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Never said it was you, but let's take on the question at hand. Here's the fallacy in your scenario. Let's say a famous, notable scientist does indeed say that. In order for his statement to appear in an article in Wikipedia, it will need to be published in a reliable source, such as a scientific journal. Scientific and other scholarly journals are edited and peer reviewed, which means that the likelihood of such a claim making it into such a journal would be very remote, unless the journal wants to toss its credibility away. So let's say a major newspaper carries the claim. Again, newspapers are edited and reporters will seek out commentary from other scientists who would rebuke the claim. Even if the newspaper still ran it, at that point you enter fringe territory. I hope this answers your question. --McDoobAU93 20:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Commodore 64

Let it go already. They've been gone for over a month. There's no reason for any reasonable doubt at this point that this is just a oversight and a mix up in their system. Furthermore, there is zero precedence of such an occurrence happening on the Wii Shop since launch in 2006 with further lends credibility to the obvious.

Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that a formal announcement from Nintendo is some sort of a guarantee when a platform is removed from the Virtual Console, there's no basis for your stance. And since you can't and it has now been about 6 weeks since they disappeared, it's time to give up the nitpicking and allow their 6 week absence to speak for itself.

If you continue to revert edits that are done in good faith and furthermore accurately reflect the status of these titles on the Wii Shop as any Wii owner can see for themselves, Wikipedia users are going to have to go over your head to end what at this point is becoming vandalism.

You can't hold a Wikipedia entry hostage from the truth indefinitely. It's simply unreasonable at this point to not allow the status of this section of the Virtual Console to be correctly reflected just because you lack an official press release on the subject or some sort of nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Nintendo itself announced the removal of the Donkey Kong Country series from Virtual Console, and Sega itself announced the removal of its Sega Master System port of R-Type before the other Irem games were removed, I'd say there is precedent, and it is in favor of needing a source to back it up. Again, the simple proof is this - if this has happened, why has no member of the gaming press picked it up and ran with it? All we've seen are forum posts and stories based on forum posts, neither of which rise to reliability. Any speculation is pure and simple original research. --McDoobAU93 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Restored TurboGrfx 16 Irem games

Come on, delete my changes, I know you wanna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.113.193 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your tone is coming across as combative and disruptive, almost POINT-y, which can land you in hot water if you're not careful. That said, I did actually find a source for the removal of R-Type for the Sega Master System from Sega itself. To answer the long-winded post above this one, that is indeed what I'm looking for, so I'm starting to look again for information that fits the proper criteria and is reliable. --McDoobAU93 17:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And in more news you probably won't like ... you actually did the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reason. The games weren't de-listed. They're still available. Now, while my finding it definitely still qualifies as original research, the fact that the delistings were themselves not cited falls back to Wikipedia's policy on unsourced changes, that such information can be challenged and removed at anytime. --McDoobAU93 04:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So how long until you acknowledge reality?

The games aren't there on the Wii Virtual Console and haven't been there for nearly two months now. Just how much time has to pass before their status is allowed to be correctly reflected here? Or do you intend to keep this page inaccurate for as long as you hang around here since it's not only safe to assume at this point that these games are gone, but also that Nintendo or the IP holder isn't going to publicly acknowledge it?

You do realize that they could remove content and not release some sort of an official comment on it, right? This isn't a complicated concept to grasp. I'd of been 100% behind you had this been just a day or two after their disappearance had been noticed since there's no reason to be too hasty to reflect something that might just be technical issue.

But more than enough time has passed for due diligence where their absence should be allowed to speak for itself. The content is unavailable as anyone that owns a Wii or Wii U can attest to and has been unavailable for many weeks now. That should be allowed to be correctly reflected here.

Listing it as available like you insist is 100% inaccurate. At this point, if you want to insist on not reflecting their status here, get us proof from Nintendo. Until then, the only evidence we have one way or another is that they're unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true, why was I able to find a reliable source for individual games' removal? If a single game's removal is notable enough for a news story, would not an entire library's removal be the same? Again, if you have a source that says the games have been removed that meets WP:RS standards, feel free to include it. If you have one you're not sure of, or believe it is, present it here on the talk page and let it be discussed. Lastly, any one or even any several editors' experience cannot be used as a basis for an edit because that would both be original analysis and un-verifiable. So please stop creating new threads each time you'd like to post a point ... keep the discussion in one of them and let's solve this dilemma. I do keep searching for sources but keep finding only forum posts, which isn't enough. --McDoobAU93 14:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: more interesting, one of the sources people keep using apparently hasn't acknowledged anything has changed either. Witness this site. --McDoobAU93 21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? We don't know how up to date they keep their database. Further, Wikipedia standards aren't behind you on this. Do yourself a favor and actually read through that.

At this point, if nothing else, explain to us just when is reality allowed to speak for itself? Are you going to not ever allow the status of these games to be correctly reflected unless you get official word from the IP holder or Nintendo?

If that's how this goes, I guess you better go show games like SimCity as available since most of these delistings have been without any sort of official word unlike the advance warning via the Wii Shop news feed that the Donkey Kong Country trilogy saw. And I guess it's time for me to find a more reliable source of information on the Virtual Console since you've single handily have destroyed any credibility that these listings here have.

I just got back a reply to an inquiry I made at Nintendo Life. Current availability isn't denoted there. It's an all-time list with no special notations for titles that have been delisted so far. They're not burying their head in the sand, they simply don't include that information in their database. So that isn't an example of another outlet that isn't ready to believe a two month disappearance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Official word needs to come from a reliable source. Nintendo would be a primary source for the information, but primary sources are not as good as secondary, independent sources, such as 1-Up, GameSpot, IGN, etc. NintendoLife is acceptable, but the post in question in my opinion is not because it's basically a forum post with responses from two individuals. If you would like to state your belief as to why this source would be reliable, I'd be glad to listen to it, as would other editors, as I am not the only one that has removed attempts to add this, as much as you would like to think it's just me. That's the purpose of this page, to discuss changes that may not fit within Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

As to the other game removals, I actually have found sources that back up the removals, and have added them. You're welcome to do the same for the others, as long as the reliability criteria is met. After your post, I again searched Google and Bing for any news story, but everything is coming up a forum post. Now, if you'd like to discuss this rationally without hurling insults ("single handily have destroyed any credibility" and all that), we would be glad to do so.

--McDoobAU93 04:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A rational person would find the obvious as more than acceptable. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this category of games not being present on the Virtual Console for nearly two months at this point.

And you still haven't answered where we go from from here. If you're such a rational person, don't you think there's a real possibility at this point that our eyes aren't deceiving us that these games really aren't there on the Wii Virtual Console, that it isn't a technical issue, and that something "official" is highly unlikely to be forthcoming after all this time? When do the facts finally get reflected or do you intend to just keep it this way?

Furthermore, where do you think these "sources" have determined that for the vast majority of these other delisted games? You won't find anything official. News pieces about things like Sim City disappearing are originating from individuals that actually looked for themselves, a method you apparently find completely unacceptable. You will find zero official word from Maxis, Nintendo, or Electronic Arts on the removal of SimCity for the Super Nintendo from the Wii Virtual Console as well as for the vast majority of these other delisted games.

And if that facts aren't allowed to speak for themselves, you better get removing a ton of entries because a game like Super Mario Brothers for the NES Virtual Console can't officially exist on a Wikipedia list if there isn't an citation that proves it.

As for my comment that you didn't like, it's more more insulting than something like dismissing my post as "long-winded".

Hmmm, from each of my various posts, I've revealed exactly how we move forward ... we find a reliable source, or have discussion to determine why a source should be deemed reliable. Each time this comes up, I conduct another search for some news story, and somehow I've managed to find one for just about every delisting that's occurred to this point, except for the R-Type removals and, yes, the C64 library. However, it usually takes some rewording to uncover something new, which I have been able to do. As to "our eyes aren't deceiving us", individual observations fail both WP:OR and WP:V. It doesn't have to be official, just reported, and that report must be deemed reliable. That said, the GoNintendo source may be the best one we have for this. --McDoobAU93 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yawn

You have not explained how we go forward from here. How is this such a complex undertaking for you? These games have been gone for two months now. It's highly unlikely after all of this time that a source to your liking is going to come about since people don't cover two month old news stories. So just when do you give up and let reality be reflected here or are you actually claiming that everyone is incorrect and that these games are actually still available? If they are, I'd love to find out just how to buy them.

Furthermore, you haven't provided anything slightly official to explain games like Sim City being delisted. The information out there has came from original research for these games. People actually looked for themselves at the Wii Shop or read something originating from someone else that did, saw the game was no longer available, and it was reported. Why is original research (Gasp!) allowed in that context but not this one? And the closest we come to anything official for any of these delisted games is with the DKC series. Yet that was only a Wii Shop notice. Why is that any more admissible here as a source than say a screenshot of the available platforms on the Wii Shop that for two months now doesn't show the Commodore 64 as one?

And you still haven't answered what all these games are doing on this list without any citations. Why the double standard? Very convenient that you ignored that since the very fact that virtually, if not the entire list of Virtual Console content here is lacking any sort of source. For your useless standards to mean anything, they have to be applied across the board.

So start applying or I'm going to remove every bit of content here without a citation if you can't adequately follow your own standards for this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

At which point you would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, something that is highly frowned upon. --McDoobAU93 21:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If I did it to be disruptive. But you've won me over after giving it some more thought so I think I'll do it if necessary after a respectable length of time of a few weeks has passed, but only to help enforce policies that demand that information being presented here as fact has a reputable source cited to back it up.

Hopefully you or another Wikipedia editor around here can help start rectifying things soon. I'll even try to contribute a few, if for nothing else so there's a starting point here if the worst case scenario happens since there's not a single game here with a proper citation as evidence of it having been made available on the North American Wii Virtual Console.

Would be a shame if we're going to strictly follow policies like I fully agree we should that everything has to be deleted due to the lack of properly cited material. Even citations for removal here I'm very skeptical meet the policies. The Sim City citation for instance clearly shows that is has zero links to any official source of information and is fully based upon observation by an end user which we're clearly agreed isn't admissible here as a proper source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Before doing that, be sure to read WP:POINT. Secondly, have you read the article lately? --McDoobAU93 01:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That you've allowed the status of these games to be properly shown, I applaud you. But like I said upon giving this further thought, these policies are here for a reason. For something the scope of Wikipedia with so many individuals contributing, the only way to control quality is to stick to standards.

I won't summarily remove content, especially after what has happened on this talk page, but consider discussion to have been opened on holding this entire page to the same standards. Clearly, the vast majority of the information here is unsourced. And as a Wikipedia editor, I think it's your obligation if you're overseeing this to try to work to resolve that. I don't know what I can do except slowly contribute to fix this. I don't even know if I can flag this article for containing so much unverified information to bring it wider attention.

So I hope you do your duty. I'll certainly help by helping post sources in the talk page for you to utilize as references since I'm not familiar with the in's and out's of Wikipedia code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it's been "allowed", so to speak, but it was reviewed and checked against Wikipedia policy. As I noted, while it's not an ideal source, it's the best one available, and it has nothing to do with having any official statement from either Nintendo or whatever company/agency has control of the licenses for these titles. Before doing anything, it would behoove you to become more familiar with said ins and outs, most notably this section on sources and especially this section on why it may not be all that necessary to locate all those sources. Becoming more familiar with the ins and outs is essential for any Wikipedia editor. --McDoobAU93 02:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I could care less if I gained any sort of power around here. It's all about consistency in applying rules. What you linked to me was all about gaining consensus in edits upon disputes. So you might wish to refamiliarize yourself with what's on that page since it wasn't applicable.

As for the quality of the source, I'll quote multiple things from you that suggests you're not following what you claim are Wikipedia's standards.

"Again, you will need to produce a reliable source indicating the games have been permanently removed from VC before ANY discussion of their absence (temporary or otherwise) is included in the article."

"What we are looking for is a statement from Nintendo that the games have been removed and will not return, preferably indicating why (lack of demand for the software, licensing for the software has expired, etc.) the games have been removed. This statement can come from Nintendo itself, or it can be reported by a major reliable gaming news website, such as GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, etc. This does not include posts on forums, fan-produced blogs, and the like."

And especially pay attention to that last line which certainly these "sources" you're deeming acceptable are falling under.

"Forum posts are not reliable sources. Neither are articles whose only basis is the response of two individuals who may well be encountering the same error. Now, if/when one of these sites decides to contact Nintendo and publish Nintendo's response to the matter (which I am surprised NOBODY has done yet, if this has indeed happened), then we would have a reliable source that would back up the edit."

Yet you're utilizing a source here which falls exactly under this. You cite a page at a Nintendo fan site where a user emailed in letting them know about the C64 library no longer being available that was confirmed by another reader.

Again, I think the crux of disagreement here between contributors to this page and you is your failure at consistently interpreting and applying Wikipedia's standards.