Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Before this starts getting out of hand ...[edit]

Per WP:NOPRICES, pricing information for Virtual Console or 3D Classics software is not encyclopedic and therefore should not be added to this article. Even if there is only one purveyor of such material (that being Nintendo itself), it's still not appropriate. --McDoobAU93 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, delete the prices column on the list of dsiware games, too? :P Sontuk96 (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES applies there, as well, so yes. --McDoobAU93 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:NOPRICES: "Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." The prices can absolutely be sourced and their mention is certainly justifiable. Prices should be added shortly. (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you're overlooking the "justified reason" part. A justified reason, for example, would be mentioning that the Playstation 3 was originally priced at 600 bucks, far above any other successful system at the time, or that N64 game cartridges typically cost 60 bucks in a time when all other games were 50 bucks or less. These prices are considered noteworthy, because reliable sources considered them to substantially affect the product. The prices of every little random 3DS VC game is not noteworthy, or "justified". It'll be reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia is not a catalog; there are plenty of other ways to find out about pricing. You are of course free to post your reasons and attempt to change consensus, but as of now, consensus is "no pricing". --McDoobAU93 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Developer" field[edit]

I've seen this in some lists but not in others. I'm certainly not married to it, since the main article for the game has this information. About the only exception I would make (thus far) is for the 3D Classics, because it looks like the conversions may be done by other companies not related to the previous release; for example, 3D Excitebike was developed by Arika, which is not connected to the original NES title. --McDoobAU93 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ambassador" Program games[edit]

I was as surprised as anyone seeing Nintendo slash the price of the 3DS and announce a bunch of free games as make-goods for those who already have the system. To that end, how should we distinguish the GBA games that are supposedly only for those who are "ambassadors" (fancy marketing-speak for those who log into eShop by a certain date)? --McDoobAU93 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You could add a footnote detailing that those games are only available to those in the Ambassador program. Blake (Talk·Edits)

Correcting the Ambassador release dates[edit]

Technically, the games were pushed to the eShop on August 31st, even though the announced release date was September 1st. Should we correct this? -Crimsonseiko (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That would require a published source to indicate that. Just saying "I was able to download them on August 31" is technically original research. If a reliable source (not a blog or forum post) says they were up on August 31, I'm fine with that being added. --McDoobAU93 02:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda: Four Swords[edit]

As this has been attempted by at least two anons, I figure it's time to add a section for this, as I have a feeling that we'll see it attempted again and again for a while, even after release. OK, at E3 Nintendo announced that it would be making Legend of Zelda: Four Swords available as a free download in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Legend of Zelda franchise. Some editors, in good faith, have added this game to the list of Virtual Console releases for the Nintendo 3DS. It sort of makes sense, since the game was originally on the Game Boy Advance and the 3DS' Virtual Console will have GBA support soon (at least for Ambassadors), but there's technically a problem with that ...

At the time of the announcement, and in recent press announcements, Nintendo has said that this is a "DSiWare version" of the game and not necessarily a Virtual Console port of the original GBA version. Since it's DSiWare and not Virtual Console, it wouldn't belong here. Further, it would be misleading to show it here since the game will be available to any DSiWare-compatible system, including the Nintendo DSi and Nintendo DSi XL, neither of which have access to the 3DS' Virtual Console service. --McDoobAU93 00:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a port of the GBA version Since multiple sources have confirmed that there was going to be a new 1 player mode and that new areas were added.[1] As far as I know no Virtual Console game (for either system) has ever added new content like this. The only game that even came close was Pokemon Snap which allowed people to send pictures to the Wii message board. This however was added to emulate content from the original game (taking game cartridges to special kiosks to print stickers of the player's in-game photos) and not the creation of brand new content as it is here.-- (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs track of # of games for GB, GBC, NES, 3D Classics, etc[edit]

Okay maybe the price of each type of game should be ignored but we need to keep track of how many games each console/handheld has added to the VC service since the Wii lists them for each of its own VC collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And why would we need to do such a thing? There are generally articles that cover exactly what you are talking about, such as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games. Trusilver 06:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Of what value is keeping track of the number of releases, especially when there are so few releases to count? Personally I don't know why they keep count on the Wii VC article, but consensus there is to leave it. However, consensus there =/= consensus here. If others believe it is necessary, to the point where the article is irreparably harmed without it, then consensus will go that way, as well. --McDoobAU93 06:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I would think it would be simple, and informative. Simply adding in the table's prose intro "There have been X games (...)" or the like would be more than enough, and it serves as a quick way to establish comparisons between platforms (and between the 3DS and Wii VC) for the readers. It can be counted manually by those seeking the information, indeed, however this is tedious and unneeded. While I can understand arguments that "it is probably not needed" and "its absence does not harm the article", I think there is no argument (at this point anyhow) against inclusion, as it can only be beneficial in my opinion. Salvidrim (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

5 New GBA Titles Revealed for the Ambassador Program[edit]

Good News:

They announced 5 new titles for the Game Boy Advance Ambassador Program, and we are going to have:

  1. The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
  2. Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
  3. F-Zero: Maximum Velocity
  4. Kirby and the Amazing Mirror
  5. Wario Land 4


DigiPen92 (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Done The info was added, with the Silicon Era citation. I didn't add the date, because while it's very likely the games will launch on Friday (December 16, per the articles), neither stated that was the release date for the games in North America. Leaving at is now should be fine, until Nintendo of America makes an announcement (very possible with tomorrow's normal eShop update) or the games launch (then they'll move into the normal tables). Thanks for finding this! --McDoobAU93 07:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Each VC category needs a # of games currently avalible to purchse[edit]

It makes it look more intelligent to the person seeing how many Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Gear, NES, and 3D Classics are available to download. Both PAL and Japan has the # of each platform available so why not North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I see it the exact opposite. I would say we're insulting their intelligence when there are clearly 3-4 items and we're telling them there are 3-4 items. I think readers are more than able to count for themselves, and it eliminates the need to change it continually as games are added. Further, as noted in the previous thread, that's fine for there. Consensus here appears to go in a different direction. --McDoobAU93 05:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Good god is anyone smart enough to realise that PAL and Japan's VC keep track of games but not NA? What the hell?

Okay look at this:

Nintendo Entertainment System

There are currently 91 titles available from the Nintendo Entertainment System, which was launched in 1985.

from the List of Wii VC Games (North America) Wikipedia page.

How hard is it to do that for the 3DS VC? (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First, please be sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Second, watch the personal attacks. Third, there are many more titles for Wii's Virtual Console than for 3DS' at this time. It's too early to do it here; frankly, I'm not a fan of it there, either, but again, consensus there is to include it. Consensus here is not to ... yet. --McDoobAU93 05:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There I put the "tildes" in but please tell me why PAL and Japan have their's numbered. Japan I understand but PAL has 33 GB games, 4 GBC games, 4 GG games, 4 NES games, etc. Why does PAL have numbered entries but not NA? (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess because the editors there want to go through the extra work to change such minutiae whenever a new game is added? --McDoobAU93 06:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's dumb that NA can't do the same? Wow, are people really this lazy anymore? (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And there's another personal attack ... discuss content instead of fellow editors. --McDoobAU93 06:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Why does it keep on coming down to it being about being hard, people being lazy, or not smart? At no point has anyone responded "No, I can't figure out how to do this" or "No, that's too hard". You're not going to get anywhere if you don't discuss this seriously. Not everything in Wikipedia is uniform across different articles. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This space is reserved for McDoobAU93 to state why s/he think my edits to make the make the page more compact and readable cause "an issue"[edit]

All s/he has done so far is send me useless automatic messages. (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's easy. Your change basically swapped out one footnote for another. The revised version changes dates to "Unknown" when, for all we know, no release date other than that which has been given will ever been made. Changing it to "unknown" makes the suggestion that the games will be released to the general public, and no information has been presented to that effect. Anyone else, of course, is free to enter into this discussion. --McDoobAU93 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for switching to a more reasoned discussion. The Japan 3DS VC page is easier to read and is in the way that I modified this page. I do not have any attachment to the word "Unknown" -- that is just how they had it there. If you want to change the word, feel free, and I think we will have consensus. Sound good? (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not how things work around here. The consensus previously reached is not based on a page mimicking another page. The consensus reached is for this article and this article alone. Your attempts to come in and change it unilaterally, after being told not to, are disruptive and counter-productive. We do not list the number of games available, and if a game is in the table it has a date for release, even if said release was for Ambassadors. Your edits, while well-intentioned, do not improve the article, and thus they were undone per WP:BRD. Under that, the onus is on the editor making the change to explain why they are better, not on the editor restoring consensus. --McDoobAU93 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
You are not the dictator of Wikipedia, and several of your actions at this point have violated Wikipedia policy. In good faith I will ask you to please try to reach consensus with me as we are supposed to as Wikipedia editors. (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Never said I was ... was defending consensus, something you were wanting to change and are doing so after being asked not to. Your only reason for making the change is because a similar page does it that way. That was discussed previously and consensus was to keep things the way they are here; please review some of the previous threads on this page and you'll see this exact reason ("well, the Japanese page does it that way") was used then, and it didn't change anything. Incidentally, I looked at the Japan version, and it's confusing and making the assumption that given games will be released when no evidence has been presented to suggest they are; in other words, there are factual inaccuracies in that version. However, that's that page's way of doing things, and I'm not going to try and change it. So, would you care to offer another reason for why your edits improve the article and don't create confusion? --McDoobAU93 00:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I never said you said you were, but you definitely were acting like you were. I see no evidence of a prior consensus about the page, other than maybe some editor trying to dictate how the page should be -- Lots of people disagree with it. Perhaps could you show me such evidence of a consensus?
I do not think the word "unknown" suggests the game will necessarily be released as you think it does, but I am happy to change that word. What word your prefer? (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's see, your statement "You are not the dictator of Wikipedia" is indeed saying that I am, because you're trying to tell me I'm not. If I'm not the dictator, then why would you tell me that I'm not? That's bordering on a personal attack, but I'm willing to let it go.
Consensus is found two ways; one way is by discussion and !votes, and the other is by how the article is edited. You're trying to change it, you were asked to give a reason and not change it back, you changed it back anyway and failed to give a reason. The only change I approve of is to give the date in the field, because "Unknown" implies something is happening but we don't know when it will happen, something that is factually incorrect; no evidence has been presented to suggest it will happen at all. However, if the dates are included in the table as they should be, that would make your inclusion of the date in the lead of the table redundant and that would have to be removed. So, the quickest way to solve the problem is to undo your changes unless you can give another reason (aside from "that's how the Japanese page is") that hasn't been discussed before. --McDoobAU93 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I stand by my suggestion that you were acting like a dictator, and you in fact are still acting like a dictator and, reading these talk discussions and the edit history of the page, you have been acting tremendously like a dictator for quite some time. My apologies if you found to my encouragement for you to stop doing so bothersome.
The "consensus" process that you are in fact using for the page is to remove any change that you do not agree with. Then, insist the editor defend their change on this talk page, and then drown out the discussion until they give up. I do see much arrival at consensus on this talk page at all, rather, you just drowning people out (or ignoring their final comments). I see this process as, yes, you very much dictating the page, and hence my standing by my suggestion.
I would moreover encourage you to stop saying that "that's how the Japanese page is" is the only explanation that I have given, as that is not true.
I would like to reach consensus with you, and I have asked you for an alternative to "unknown", but you have not provided me with one. You seem to be insisting that the ambassador dates be in there (which, yes, is repetitive and confusing), and you insisting on that is completely counter to consensus-building (and, of course, more like being a dictator). I really would love to reach a consensus with you, but you need to be open to doing so, too. (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently someone has not read WP:BRD, because that is EXACTLY how it works. You make a change, and if it sticks, fine. If not, you discuss it on the talk page, not continually revert it and then try to build consensus from your version. And my response stands; the only information that should appear in the "Release date" field is the release date ... nothing more and nothing less. "Unknown" or "TBA" or "TBD" or anything similar is inaccurate and just plain wrong. The previous good version had no redundancies, whereas your version includes several duplicates and a lot of factual inaccuracies, as noted previously. So, I have proven completely that your change is inferior. Well-intentioned (except for how you're going about it), but inferior nonetheless. Again, how is this better? That burden is on you, not on me. --McDoobAU93 01:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A comment was deleted from here by McDoob. It countered McDoob's statement "someone has not read WP:BRD" by similarly suggesting "perhaps it is you who didn't read it." Why should McDoob's statement stay while the other is removed?

The comment also clarified the suggestion above about McDoob being dictatorial about the page by pointing out what is the reality of how the page is being editing and as such illustrating that there is no consensus in any sense of the word: "you are dictating the page in that you (and solely you!) are deciding whether something "sticks". As such, there was never was a prior 'consensus.'" What is wrong with providing a clarification about something that was challenged?

The comment further challenged McDoob's use of unsubstantiated language and false statements and also pointed out how doing so is related to the assertion of McDoob being dictatorial by saying, "I would argue that you are mistaken with your statements that use the words 'should', 'inaccurate', 'plain wrong', 'inaccuracies', 'proven', and 'inferior'." Those are all statements someone trying to dictate a page would use." Why should McDoob be able to make questionable statements, while another editor's challenge to those statements is removed?

The comment then laments on first having a hope to reach consensus with McDoob and then being discouraged by McDoob seeming to have no interest in doing so by stating, "I asked to try to reach a consensus with you and I assumed good faith on your part, but you have now demonstrated that that was a foolish assumption for me to make." Given how important reaching consensus is for the mission of Wikipedia, is it not helpful to indicate when a editor is apparently departing from that mission, to hopefully encourage that editor to return?

The comment finally mentioned that the editor would need to leave because the editor's romantic partner was wanting attention and then restated the insulting name that the romantic partner had called McDoob. The comment only quoted the insulting name and did not assert that name itself. How can that be considered a personal attack?

To conclude then, the comment pointed out how McDoob acting in the way that had been criticized earlier would result in the dictatorial process that had been argued for earlier by saying McDoob being that way "has again resulted in you being able to dictate how the page will be." Why would it not be helpful to provide a vivid example of the dictatorship claim that had been challenged before? (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that message reinstated a veiled personal attack. Comment on content, not on editors. Please also check your talk page for an important message. --McDoobAU93 04:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No important message found, and much more was in that message than just that tiny portion that you seem to consider a "personal attack." (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, consensus is reached a second way: through editing. If the edits remain in a given form over a period of time, then that means that other editors accept that, and thus consensus is reached. Again, you are free to be bold and make changes; if those changes are reverted, then you should discuss your reasoning. For example, when an editor says that your edits are factually inadequate and then provides their proof as to why, your response shouldn't be "no it isn't," it should be, "no, it isn't, and here's why", especially when a second editor makes a similar statement disagreeing with the edits on the same grounds as the first editor. --McDoobAU93 05:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote, "Secondly, consensus is reached a second way: through editing. If the edits remain in a given form over a period of time, then that means that other editors accept that, and thus consensus is reached." That is not true and that is not what has happened. The edits remain because you keep removing the changes that others make. That is hardly consensus by any stretch of the word. (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(For some reason McDoob removed the immediately above comment. But was the comment do? It states that Doob's claim is wrong. It provides factual proof for why Doob's claim is wrong. Then it points out that the definition of consensus would fit with the aforementioned process. How is that in any way a personal attack? (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC))

Moreover, there was no second editor and no proof was given. When you give proof, you shouldn't just just say, "this is the way it is" but actually demonstrate why. (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, let us know when you're finished ranting about perceived sleights and are ready to discuss why not one but two editors have problems with the changes you proposed, and would like to provide your reasons for why my statements weren't true instead of just saying "they're false". --McDoobAU93 05:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any "us" just you. Clearly most of the comments on this page are ones that disapprove of your edits. But when you are ready to openly discuss improving the page rather than being so hostile to anything that challenges your control of the page, please let us know. Ultimately those table would be much easier to read quickly if they were not filled with the exactly same Ambassador release date in every line, making it hard to quickly identify the non-Ambassador release dates. (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Then one of two things happened: they agreed with the reasoning, or they decided to discuss their changes but agreed with the reasoning when it was discussed. --McDoobAU93 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, if you read their comments, they last post they made was still disagreeing with you. You have no evidence that they ended up agreeing, and almost certainly they did not. What of course most likely happened is they got tired of the terrible way you treated them and they left. (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully support McDoob on this one. There's no reason for the IP's changes; they just create redundancies. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is poor Wikipedia practice to use multiple usernames to appear to be different people. (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting theory ... got any proof? --McDoobAU93 05:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
There is clear Wikipedia policy against sockpuppetry, hence why it would be poor practice to do so. Be sure to read yourself if you are not familiar. (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is poor Wikipedia practice to accuse others of sockpuppetry without evidence. That could qualify as a personal attack. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is poor Wikipedia practice to accuse someone of accusing someone of sockpuppetry when that person did not do so. That could qualify as a personal attack. Please be more careful with your reading. (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You're free to believe what you wish, in spite of excessive evidence to the contrary. You'll see that games are listed in release order, making it easy to find when a game was released, as the games released last are at the bottom of the table. If we get to the point where all the NES titles are available to the general public, then it would be something to look at. But that time isn't now. Also, removing the dates entirely from the GBA section, again, is completely incorrect, because those were the dates on which they were released, and any suggestion of an upcoming release (suggested by words like "TBA", "TBD" or "Unknown") would be ... again ... factually incorrect. And again, another editor has chimed in to say they disagree with the changes you made. Any further accusations of sockpuppetry without proof will be treated as a personal attack against both editors and handled appropriately. --McDoobAU93 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Good because the only accusation ever made of sockpuppetry came from you. (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You're free to claim that there is excessive evidence for whatever you wish, despite the fact that in reality the evidence is very much completely counter to what you are saying. (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean, you didn't say "It is poor Wikipedia practice to use multiple usernames to appear to be different people"? That is an accusation of sockpuppetry without question. --McDoobAU93 06:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, my goodness. Really, please read more carefully. All that sentence states is Wikipedia policy. Show me the name of any editor in that statement who is accused of sockpuppetry and you then, and only then, might have a case. (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why the time is not now. It would definitely be helpful to people trying to quickly read the page now as it would be at any other time. (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. As they scan the dates, they'll see that they're in chronological order. When they see a second date, they'll see that date is for the general public, and also see that game was previously released for ambassadors on that given date. If it gets to the point where most/all of the Ambassador NES games get released, then there should be a modification. That's why it isn't now. Incidentally, another editor called you out on your sockpuppetry accusation as well. That's a pretty good case, or would you like to accuse them of being one of my socks, as well? --McDoobAU93 06:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course someone can figure it out with more time, but with the previous edits it still was quicker to read. (Plus it made the tables and the page more compact.) If you can improve the experience for Wikipedia readers, why not do so now?

Continuing to wrongfully accuse me of accusing sockpuppetry, I think is bordering on a personal attack. Again, I'll ask you (or anyone else) to show me the name of any editor in my statement who is accused of sockpuppetry. Please be more careful. (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough already, that doesn't even matter. Argue the point at hand or drop it, either way, stop playing games. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If the IP was inferring I was a sockpuppet of McDoob, I'd like to point out that it's extremely rare for there to be sockpuppets where there's a history of both of the accounts possessing tens of thousands of edits spanning multiple years. Also, a check at SPI would dispell that miniscule chance as well.

Beyond that, please, enough with the bickering, IP. Based off of it, it's rather clear you don't have the best grasp on Wikipedia policy, so you'd be better off stopping with the games, and getting back to why you think your way is better, something you've failed to convince anyone of yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Zelda II launch[edit]

Since the public launch of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link has yet to occur, why is it shown as being released in the NES subheading? The only date that should appear there is the September 2011 launch for 3DS Ambassadors. While the scheduled release on November 22 for the general public is 99.9% likely to take place, that likelihood isn't 100%, as any number of things can happen. Not the least of which is Nintendo deciding to take advantage of a sudden surge of interest for another title and putting it in that place instead. Also, please remember that a number of Game Gear titles were slated to be made available as part of the 8-Bit Summer promotion (they appeared in the ads for said promo, but with no release date), and they've yet to show up. So release dates do change, even if they're mentioned heavily in a Nintendo press release. --McDoobAU93 17:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Game totals[edit]

There needs to be totals for Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Gear, NES, and 3D Classics like Europe and Japan have. ( (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Update: I just added them so please don't remove them, thanks! ( (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Why? Just because others have isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. I'd like to hear a bit more elaborate explanation why we think our readers cannot count. --McDoobAU93 04:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Look there's 79 games and the total count is going to get out of control. ( (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Please expand on "out of control". Does the presence of a number keep the table in check somehow? --McDoobAU93 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the numbers on there, EU and JP has them so NA should have them too, thank you! ( (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC))

No, address the questions asked of you, and wait until there is consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 04:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please just let me number the amount of games okay! JP and EU have them so why not NA? Right now, there are 81 games; 39 Game Boy, 7 Game Boy Color, 10 Game Boy Advance, 16 NES, 3 Game Gear, and 6 3D Classics. ( (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

Other stuff exists. Just because one article does something doesn't mean others do. Is that the only reason? I don't understand why you keep on pleading for this. I personally don't like the random tallies because frequently I find that people don't update it when they add a new title. When the number's get higher, into the hundreds, it becomes a chore to check and make sure the numbers are correct. Sergecross73 msg me 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

50.121, you still have not answered the questions put before you. As a reminder, there are two questions. First, why are we assuming our readers cannot count? Second, why does the presence of numbers keep a table from becoming "out of control"? The presence of such information on other pages on Wikipedia is not an adequate response. If we really boil it down, such information borders on original synthesis. --McDoobAU93 04:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You guys are being difficult, there needs to be a # track just like the North American selection of the Wii VC has. I'm going to put them and PLEASE don't remove them again. Like I said, EU/AU and JP has the and NA should too, good day! ( (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC))

We've already told you, the fact that "other articles do it" is not a valid reason in itself. You're supposed to wait and make changes only if there is consensus, which there is clearly not. So you are not supposed to be continually making this change when there's two people who disagree with you and no one supporting you. Continuing this sort of behavior could get you blocked. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 04:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's so annoying that you guys flat out refuse to keep count of VC games but EU and JP does! That sure makes a lot of sense! SARCASM much? ( (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Again, all you have to do is answer two questions that have been posed to you regarding this proposed edit. --McDoobAU93 07:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh for crying out load! EU and JP has count of their # of VC games and NA needs to as well and if you guys can't let me do that, then you guys are being stupid. ( (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Comment on content, not editors. Again, two questions have been posed to you. We are awaiting your answers with anticipation. --McDoobAU93 07:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, let's see; Eruope and Japan keeps track of VC releases by the numbers and I think NA should and don't give me that " consensus" nonsense, NA needs to keep track I mean look at the NA Wii VC one:

List of Virtual Console games (North America)

( (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then answer the two questions posed to you. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 00:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is too complicated. Just makes things easy and let me keep total. The North American Wii VC keeps track of the # of games on 3DS should too. ( (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, you apparently didn't read the section I recommended you read. Please do so then respond to the previous two questions. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay someone told me on the PAL 3DS VC that NA is the only one that has both the "Developer" and "Publisher" columns and both EU and JP have only the "Publisher". Case closed ( (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

And this supports your reasoning for your changes ... how? --McDoobAU93 07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As you've already been told, "other articles do it" is not an acceptable reason, and even if it was, then it would be easily countered with the fact that there are plenty of articles that don't do it either. (See List of PlayStation Minis, for example.) You need a better reason. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess,but wouldn't recommend it.What made you thought it needed a total of Classics? (talk) 14:26, 18 \December 2012 (UTC)

Well the Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Gear, and NES don't have a huge list but the Game Boy games are currently at 39 games. ( (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

I'm glad to see that you can count. That doesn't answer the question as to why you think other readers cannot. --McDoobAU93 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note 2[edit]

What's this so called "Note 2"?

It's supposed to be a reference/source for proof that Sonic Blast, Sonic Labyrinth, Super Mario Advance 2, and Super Mario Advance 4 are arriving on the VC in the future, yet simply says "Note 2", in just plain text.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the only GBA games that are rumored are; Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, Mario Pinball Land, and Mario Golf: Advance Tour as N4G reported earlier this year. However there are still no release dates for the 10 ambassador games yet. It also says that Sonic Blast will be releasing on December 20 alongside Wario Land II which was confirmed by Nintendo back in August I think. I doubt that the Mario Advance games will come because Japan just got the NES/Famicom version of Super Mario Bros. 2 (Super Mario USA) and they'll probably be getting Super Mario Bros. 3 soon as well. ( (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

I don't know what that "Note 2" is referring to, but it should either be replaced/fixed with a clearer ref, or removed if it's not actually confirmed. Also, N4G rumored games should not be included, partially because rumored games don't belong on here, partially because N4G is not a reliable source anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Another footnote was removed, leaving behind what was previously Note 2 as Note 1. The references in the table have been corrected to say Note 1, since this was the source used to add these games to the list. --McDoobAU93 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Nintendo" in Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance is really not needed[edit]

Everyone knows what a Game Boy is. This is 2012, not 1989 and besides the PAL and Japan regions don't have them. ( (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia articles are to be written for general audiences, that don't have any prior knowledge on the topic. There's no harm in keeping the "Nintendo" in there. It doesn't need to be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, 50.121, your argument isn't very strong since it's based on how other articles appear. The vast majority of the gaming public knows who made the Game Boy line of consoles, but we're writing for the minority that doesn't know. --McDoobAU93 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Minority who doesn't know what the Game Boy is? This is 2012, EVERYBODY knows what the Game Boy is! It looks odd that it says "Nintendo Game Boy/Color/Advance" and it sounds so stupid and not that professional at all. ( (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

On the contrary, it looks more professional that we assume that the average reader is not a gamer, and therefore might like to know who manufactured the console. --McDoobAU93 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not only that, but it's good to differentiate between the Nintendo and Non-Nintendo systems. (ie that it's the Sega Game Gear but the Nintendo Game Boy). Also, this really is one of those things where you need to look beyond yourself and what you're personally familiar with. It may be brutally obvious to you, but to many, they don't think of such things. Go ask your Aunt or Grandfather or something. They may not know. But we're writing for them too. It's all a matter of perspective and what you personally know and value. Just as easily someone could say the same thing about something like tooth paste brand, and think it's ludicrous that anyone not know that Crest (toothpaste) makes "Smooth Mint" flavor but not "Crystal Mint". To someone, that's brutally obvious, while to many others, they have no idea, and would appreciate the clarification.
  • Beyond that, I'd like to hear how putting a company's name in front of their product could possibly be perceived as "unprofessional"? Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There I fixed it, it now says "Nintendo" in the descriptions of the Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance entries like this:

Game Boy

These games were originally released for use on the Nintendo Game Boy system, which was launched in 1989.

( (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

The first mention of the system should include the manufacturer. Subsequent mentions can be just the console name. Would you please explain your discomfort with having the manufacturer name in the subheading? --McDoobAU93 01:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2 reasons; 1, the company that made should be in description and not the title header, it doesn't really make difference but as long as one of them says it and 2) EU and JP doesn't have them and I understand Wikipedia is not American centric but still. I also have Autism and some things do bother me when they look odd or crooked. I just hope you guys understand and at least let me keep it as "Game Boy" and mention Nintendo in the description of the handheld, it looks better than way. I thought anyone can edit Wikipedia and I don't like people saying it MUST be like this. It looks too weird saying "Nintendo Game Boy" instead of "Game Boy" I do understand about it saying "Sega Game Gear" instead of "Game Gear" though. ( (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

Please just do it like that okay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is certainly welcome, but two other editors have expressed concerns about it, which brings us here. Consensus has been to have the console manufacturer's name in the subheading. If you would like to change consensus, you are welcome to make the attempt by providing proof. Unfortunately, I don't see how autism has anything to do with it, and bringing up the European and Japanese pages is more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So again, why do you not want it in the subheading?
Lastly, you are now edit-warring, and since evidence suggests you are hopping IPs, previous warnings issued for the other IPs from which you have edited carry over to the newest one. You've been warned adequately, but have shown no interest in collaborating with other editors.
--McDoobAU93 01:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
the problem is that everything you say is based on personal opinion, not Wikipedia policy or precedent. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now here's my reason for this. I would think that it's already labeled as a Nintendo handheld in its wiki page itself, why is it needed?? I get Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, but NOT the Game Boy line on the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U Virtual Console pages. Could we issue a new consensus on why it should be the way it should be written in the actual wiki page itself? I totally agree with all the anonymous IPs changing it, but with all the registered users changing it back has to stop. I know this was 3 years ago, but seriously, come on!Zacharyalejandro (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. We write for the readers, not for ourselves. We write the article based on two assumptions: first, that this is the reader's first-ever encounter with the subject matter; and second, that the reader has no idea what's being discussed. If we do not include the manufacturer of the console, we're assuming the reader knows exactly what it is, which is incorrect and unfair to them. WP:COMMONNAME governs the name of the article, not necessarily how it's mentioned in prose; this explains why the article is at Game Boy and not at "Nintendo Game Boy". Further, since multiple console manufacturers are now represented (Sega Game Gear on 3DS; TurboGrafx-16 on Wii U), it's more appropriate than ever to indicate that not all the devices included are made by the same company. --McDoobAU93 13:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Finding consensus for a couple of things.[edit]

Alright, so there has been some arguing over certain aspects of this article, and it's PAL equivalent, so I wanted to start up another discussion so we can point to it and say "Here's where the consenses, here's why we do it this way". Feel free to start up further subsections as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we keep a running tally of the games listed?[edit]

Some editors like keeping a running tally on the number of games there are. Other's don't. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I personally notice plenty of times where people add games without updating the number, or where people clean up vandalism entries, but forget to reset that number, so I'm against it. (Also, it seems like it's gets rather unlikely that people are checking that number once it gets into the multiple hundreds - that's a rather tedious undertaking.) I'm only in support of it if it was something verified by Nintendo, like they mentioned that they just uploaded their 200th eShop game in a press release or something - then we could say something like "over 200 games" or whatnot and it'd be true for certain at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per Sergecross. Also, the counts can be considered original synthesis, technically. I personally believe our readers are able to count, so we should let them. It does seem to be more of a headache than it's worth. --McDoobAU93 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The numbering began in mid-2007 and I have been a contributor to Japanese/PAL region/South Korean VC pages since the spring of 2008. Erreneous counts are seldom on those pages, probably thanks to a few regular editors! However, it appears to be a big issue on the North American pages, where people were also inserting their own wishlists in the 'Future releases' section and an additional source column had to be introduced later. Ratengo (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasonings provided by Sergecross and Mcdoob. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we put "Nintendo" in front of words like "Game Boy"?[edit]

Some editors approve of this. Others don't. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support -Two reasons. One, it may be obvious to editors writing about it, but Wikipedia is written for general audience who we are to assume know nothing about the subject. What is obvious to one is not to another. (See my example above about "Tooth paste flavors".) Secondly, I think it's good for consistency. We label it "Sega Game Gear", (and for good reason, plenty may be unaware of that system, due to it being far less popular/mainstream.) Additionally, I haven't seen a valid counter argument yet. (All I've seen is an unexplained "it looks stupid" comment.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Again, Serge covers it nicely. While it may well be gamers who write/edit these articles, there's a large number of non-gamers who are reading them. We need to write for the readers, not for the writers. Also, the subheads in the PAL section need to be de-linked per WP:MOSHEAD. --McDoobAU93 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The portable systems are known as simply 'Game Boy' and 'Game Gear' here in Europe as far as I'm aware, but have no other comments yet. Ratengo (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose but might be Neutral - Seems kinda iffy if you ask me,other than that,people just call it 'Game Boy' and 'Game Gear' like Ratengo said.~TM67~ (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • All you said was exactly what Ratengo just said, but his stance was "neutral". Why do you say "oppose" then? Sergecross73 msg me 02:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Cause I think it's iffy and stupid(not the right word),there is no reason to,Ratengo comment is "neutral" because he doesn't know all he knows is that it's called "etc etc" there in Europe(?). (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is it iffy? Why stupid? How can you say "no reason"? - I presented 2 separate reasons. How do you respond to them? Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I got one,You guys chose "Tails" over "Miles Tails Prower". (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
First, no one here chose that. Secondly, that was titling an article of a fictional character, this is the labeling of real world product within an article. Third, you still haven't answered any of my questions above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I have answered your question,last time I ask why was Miles Tails Prower changed into just Tails,someone told me it was because most people and sources called him just Tails,It has never been a problem years before ,it shouldn't be now. (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
So I posed 4 thoughts. (Why is it "iffy"? Why is it "stupid"? What about the fact that general audiences may not know what companies make what system? What about consistency, since we put "Sega" in front of "Game Gear"?) And you feel you answered all four of these questions with your semi-relevant "Tails" example? Really? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It's iffy cause it's unneeded,stupid isn't the right word,Tails is the only example I know,I'm done,. (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistency with PAL/other regions version of this page[edit]

Policies like WP:OTHERSTUFF say that they don't necessarly have to go by the same agreements, but if we do, it may solve future headaches before they come up. Thoughts? If we do make them consistent, what should be added or removed? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Neutral - If we can come agreement, I do think it would make for less trouble in the future, but we don't necessarily have to either. I'd support removing the ratings, I don't think they're especially important to document here - people can check that out on the game's respective article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments - Per a broader interpretation of WP:FILMRATING, game ratings (ESRB, PEGI, etc.) shouldn't be listed unless it's notable for some reason, and said notability is established in reliable sources. I would also remove the "Developer" column from the North American tables; this information is included in the game's respective article. I like the concept (giving credit where it's due), but the game article can handle that better. As to dates, we do need to follow WP:MOSDATE as best as possible, although I understand that regional standards will dictate some differences in appearance. The {{dts}} template allows for regional variation and helps the table sorting. --McDoobAU93 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments - Despite the age ratings being there since the very beginning, I'd prefer to remove them alongside the language column on the Korean VC page. Are the additional 'Developers' columns and the 'Original Platform' (for 3D Classics) really necessary on the American pages? Ratengo (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the "Original Platform" column is of some note, since it identifies the basis for the 3D conversion. --McDoobAU93 04:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Well, while we didn't have the biggest amount of participation, it's been running for almost 2 weeks now, and it does seem like we've got a general consensus on things:

Running Tally

Three oppose, and only one supports, so at best, there's consensus against inclusion, at worst, there's WP:NOCONSENSUS, which defaults to "not making the change", so either way, there's no support for this change.

Putting "Nintendo" in front of "Game Boy"

Three support keeping this in, one is neutral, and the only oppose was from an IP who has a history of being disruptive, and is extremely close to being banned, so to me it seems there is consensus to keep it this way.

Consistency with other region's articles

No one opposes, but no one's especially acting on this either. Looks like this will probably just be an ongoing effort.

This is good, now we've got a standing consensus to refer/link to in the future. Thanks for participating! Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador GBA titles[edit]

I added a sentence explaining the significance of the Ambassador GBA titles, but this was removed by McDoob, his reasoning being: "That information is already covered and will be unimportant when first public GBA release occurs. "

I highly disagree with McDoob's assessment that the information doesn't need to be covered. It is not "already covered" in this article, and it is a bit much expecting the average user to see the footnote, click on the footnote link, and read about the Ambassador program. If they don't do that, they have no indication whatsoever that these were exclusive titles.

Furthermore, there is currently no evidence Nintendo has any plans to ever release additional GBA titles for 3DS VC; if that situation ever arises, we can easily add another sentence of explanation. Even if Nintendo eventually releases a different GBA game on the VC, that won't make the information about the ambassador games "unimportant". Some guy (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of wikilinking is to not require us to repeat ourselves. Users who go to the Nintendo 3DS article, which is linked in the lead of this article, will learn all about the console and about the Ambassador program. For those that know of 3DS but not the Ambassador program, there's links to the specific subheading both in the NES list (of which all Ambassador titles have been released) and the GBA list (which, as Some guy pointed out correctly, are not intended to be released). This article is merely a list of Virtual Console games, not a history of the Virtual Console (which we also link to in the lead and which also discusses the Ambassador program). --McDoobAU93 01:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
While wikilinking allows us the freedom to avoid repeating ourselves, it is not a prison that precludes us from summarizing an important topic addressed in another article. Common sense dictates it is unreasonable to expect that every person who looks at this article will stop first to read the entire 3DS or Virtual Console articles. A single sentence explaining the significance of the ambassador GBA titles, which will probably never be available for most readers to purchase, does nothing to hurt the article nor turn the article into a "history of the Virtual Console".
Notice that Donkey Kong: Original Edition is struck out and followed by two bolded parenthetical notes and a detailed footnote to help the reader understand this game was available for a limited time, under limited circumstances, and is no longer available. With one sentence, we can easily convey to the reader that the ambassador GBA titles, all conveniently isolated in their own table, were similarly a limited release and no longer available. Some guy (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Found a compromise that works for me. This actually reflects the way the footnote appeared when it was first added to the article. This provides the information desired and doesn't distract from the format of the rest of the article. --McDoobAU93 04:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Remember that you don't own this article. The expanded footnote is better, but I reiterate the importance of having a sentence at the top of the section. Note that List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (Japan) already presents the information largely as I suggest (I merely wikilinked the ambassador program). Some guy (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Never said I owned it. That said, how it looks on another article isn't a reason to change something. --McDoobAU93 04:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You never said that you do, but you behave as if you do. I've started a RfC. Some guy (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should a sentence be added above the Game Boy Advance titles to explain they are exclusive to 3DS Ambassadors?[edit]

Consensus is opposed to adding a sentence at the top of the section explaining Ambassador title exclusivity. Sorry it took so long to get a third party to close this czar  13:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

The article lists the ten Game Boy Advance (GBA) titles that were released under the Nintendo 3DS Ambassadors program; these titles were made exclusively available for Ambassadors and Nintendo has indicated they have no plans to sell them at a later date. No other GBA titles have been announced or released for the 3DS VC.

Should a sentence be added to the top of the section explaining that the current GBA titles were exclusive to Ambassadors? Some guy (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • No The information already appears in numerous locations, including the parent articles Nintendo 3DS and Virtual Console. A previous version did indicate that the titles were intended to be exclusive releases, so that variant of the footnote has been restored. This would be redundant, in my opinion. --McDoobAU93 05:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
And my counterpoint is that this information is too significant to be relegated to a footnote and trivial to explain in one sentence without requiring the reader to consult other articles. We've voiced our opinions; let's leave the RfC for outside commentary. Some guy (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No - I think it's fine the way it is, with the footnote. Keeps it consistent with the look of other subsections. Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No - agree with Sergecross73. Section layout is consistent with other section displays. SpikeJones (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No Agree that section layout is consistent and should remain so. Wickedlizzie (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - Yes, of course there should be a clearer indication that those games are exclusive to 3DS Ambassadors, and numerous people have indicated that they would prefer that change. Moreover, that is how they do things for the article on Japan's Virtual Console games. How things seem to happen with this article, though, is that if you edit the article itself, your change gets reverted and you are told to bring it up on the talk page. When you bring it up on the talk page, there is a small group of people who will consistently say it is a bad idea, while the seemingly much larger number of other people who think it would be a good idea are not following the article enough to chime in when the discussion comes up. Other funny things happen with this article, too, like comments on this talk page being strangly deleted. It is all quite interesting... (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, four people in this RFC say it's not good, one (the originator of the RFC) says it's good. And the last comment was nearly 9 months ago? I'd say that's pretty clear consensus. Again, just because another page does it is not a good enough reason to change it. --McDoobAU93 15:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, there it is, confirming exactly how I suggested things happen with this article. Ah, so interesting... Note as well that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is cited as though it is something that should be followed, when it is in fact only an essay and neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It's cited by admins, too. The gist of the essay is that saying "well that's how they do it over there" isn't a good enough justification to change consensus. Again, you (and other anons) have made the same discussion, and it hasn't changed anything, and other editors have agreed with current consensus with how the section appears in the article. Restarting a long-dormant and apparently-settled discussion smacks of WP:STICK to me. --McDoobAU93 22:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Request close}}

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. reached the exact same conclusion I did, and you ignored his main point, which suggests to me that you know he is right - only a handful of people watch this page closely and are exhibiting WP:OWN symptoms. Browse this talk page and all you see are the same four people parroting each other and resisting every single kind of change to the article. Some guy (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how it took six months after this conversation was closed (which was 12 months after the debate died a natural death) to register a dissenting opinion. The main point was not ignored, as consensus did not agree with it. If you have a problem with the closure, take it up with the user that closed it. Bringing it up again and again while bringing nothing new to the table is getting old, if I'm honest. Time to let the argument die. --McDoobAU93 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, despite the fact that 100% of outside opinion disagrees with you, there just isn't enough interest in this page to get change to happen. Some guy (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A one-issue IP here and a one-issue IP there does not "100%" make. And the nature of Wikipedia will ALWAYS be that you'll have new editors up against editors who have worked on the article for years. Disagreeing with a proposed content change, and having other editors agree with that disagreement, does not equal OWNership. --McDoobAU93 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Quit removing sources[edit]

Donkey Kong Land and Super Mario Bros. Deluxe are confirmed as they have been ESRB rated. ( (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC))

The problem is we don't know when those games release. Unless Nintendo (and other companies) requires them to add the release date of the upcoming game at 100% accuracy (which will probably never happen); ESRB is not a reliable, timely source. DivineAlpha (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to this, I've removed the Hudson Soft section in future release because they no longer exist as a company basically; Konami having complete control of that company's products. DivineAlpha (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly right with regards to ESRB/PEGI/OLFC, etc. As to Hudson Soft, I'd be OK with that, as long as they remain in the "Developer" section when the game moves into its respective chart. Konami is certainly the publisher, but Hudson developed the game. --McDoobAU93 14:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Extraneous information[edit]

I was told to discuss an edit to this page here, because it contained "extraneous information". There were several aspects to the edit, not merely adding information that could be considered "extraneous", so I'll break down what was changed.

I would request that it be explained which parts of the edit add information which is extraneous, and that in future only parts of an edit that are undesirable are undone rather than it in entirety. I feel that all information added was relevant to this page and useful in general. --SnorlaxMonster 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll be glad to address each one:
I hope this answers your questions about why I undid the edits. --McDoobAU93 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here, since that policy is in regards to content, not style; it's about arguing notability, which I was not. I argued that the pages should be synchronized due to being a equivalent pages; to expand on that, readers are likely to want to compare the pages (as I have before), and having the pages in differing styles in detrimental to the ability to compare information between the pages.
Manual footnotes have not been established as a style, and are simply an outdated and less useful formatting style, likely only still in place because the markup to implement them is non-obvious. Outdated and un-updated is not the same as established.
Telling users how to obtain their content is not what was done (particularly since the promotions are all over). In the few cases there were, the specific dates were made more clear, which is relevant to this article as a list of Virtual Console games by release date.
While agree that respective game articles can discuss their content better than a footnote can, that is why the footnote was brief and non-detailed for games that were not originally released in North America. I don't see how your argument is valid here.
Also, Donkey Kong: Original Edition appeared twice on the page; you only looked at the entry in the table, not where it appeared in the article text. --SnorlaxMonster 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I initially was going to go step by step again, but I think that's not going to help matters. Allow me to offer a counter-proposal. I think my biggest problem with this is it's adding tons of footnotes where there is precious little prose. Let's expand the prose here and include the information you wish to add as footnotes. For example, In the NES listing, we could add details like "the first NES titles were made available to 3DS Ambassadors. Titles made available to the general public had additional features that were absent in the Ambassador versions; Ambassadors could download an update to receive the new content. Some titles, such as Summer Carnival '92: Recca, made their North American debuts with their release on Virtual Console." I'd be all for adding more prose to the article, and I know that it would actually eliminate even more footnotes, most notably in the GBA section. What do you think, Snorlax (and anyone else)? --McDoobAU93 05:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any particular problem with having many footnotes and little prose on an article like this; I also think it would make the page more accessible, as the notes are next to the individual releases rather than at the top of each section. However, if it's a choice between no note at and prose, I would certainly prefer prose. However, it might also be a good idea to include when Virtual Console titles from a certain system first became available regardless of the presence footnotes, which would also necessitate mentioning the Ambassador Program. I am also interested in what other people think on this matter.
Also, your response seemed to indicate to me that your objection is only to the addition of new footnotes. If I were to upgrade the existing manual footnotes to wiki footnotes, would you revert that? --SnorlaxMonster 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'd love to have as few footnotes as possible. The vast majority of content that's in the footnotes you proposed could be added in prose. If we write for the readers and not for ourselves, why do we insist on having so much information in such small print, making it tougher to read? In some cases, footnotes will be inevitable, such as the NES Ambassador titles. As to improving the current format of the footnotes, I'd be cool with that, yes, and I would like to hear other input about this, too. While we wait, maybe we should post proposals for how the prose would read in a subsection here? --McDoobAU93 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Article improvements[edit]

Per the discussion above, I'd like to propose some rewrites to the article that will add more content and (hopefully) eliminate the need to footnote information. This is my initial proposal for the NES subhead:

These titles were originally released for use on the Nintendo Entertainment System, which was launched in 1985. The first group of Virtual Console releases were made available exclusively to Nintendo 3DS Ambassadors on September 1, 2011. The Ambassador titles were subsequently released to the general public, but had additional features not present in the Ambassador versions, such as detailed instructions and a modified launch screen; the Ambassador versions were patched to add the missing features.
Three titles, Donkey Kong: Original Edition, The Mysterious Murasame Castle and Summer Carnival '92: Recca, made their very first appearances in North America with their release to the Nintendo 3DS Virtual Console. Donkey Kong: Original Edition was a special release made available as a bonus to users who purchased select titles through the Nintendo eShop and has not been released to the general public. Two other titles, the Famicom port of Dig Dug and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, while not released to the NES in North America during its life cycle, had seen other releases in North America in other forms, including the Wii's Virtual Console.

For the Game Boy Advance section, which has had a contentious past:

These titles were original released for the Game Boy Advance, which was launched in 2001. Like the initial NES Virtual Console games, these titles were released exclusively to Nintendo 3DS Ambassadors. Unlike the NES titles, these games have not been released to the general public and Nintendo has publicly stated it has no plans to do so.

In the NES section, the only remaining footnote should be to flag the Ambassador titles, so readers will know they launched first. For that matter, if we identify how it's tagged in the prose, the footnote wouldn't be needed. In the GBA section, there would be no need for a footnote at all until and unless Nintendo releases other GBA titles to the 3DS Virtual Console.

--McDoobAU93 15:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the removal of the footnotes has made the article less readable. While prose is nice, I do not think it should replace the footnotes. When reading the table, the footnotes are there so that they can be read while scrolling through the table; while the prose is nice, it necessitates navigating away from the portion of the table that a reader would be at during the time they are reading whereas footnotes do not. Sure, listing the same information in both the prose and footnotes would be redundant, but it would improve readability and would not detract from the article. (I think the removal of footnotes from the GBA section makes perfect sense though, since the info applies to all listed games, not just some.)
For example, the NES section now simply has the footnote "Nintendo 3DS Ambassador title". I find this unnecessarily vague. While I don't necessarily think it needs as much detail as the old footnote, this footnote necessitates the reading of the prose above rather than being self-serving, which it is possible to do in a concise manner. In fact, one could easily assume that the footnote means it is exclusive to Nintendo 3DS Ambassadors without reading the above text (which I don't think we should assume people would do). --SnorlaxMonster 13:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop adding "GBC" to the Harvest Moon and Legend of The River King games[edit]

Yes that's their names but they don't show up like that on the eShop nor the 3DS Home Menu. ( (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

About "3D Classics"[edit]

They were recently removed from the NA, EU, and JP pages since someone said they were not part of the Virtual Console. They still need to be added back these pages but they should be noted that they are not part of the Virtual Console but still fit the whole "Retro re-releases". ( (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC))

They should not be re-added to this page, as they are not Virtual Console releases (as you admitted yourself), whereas this page is a list of Virtual Console releases. They are already linked in the "See also" section, which should be sufficient to draw attention to them, since this is a list page. --SnorlaxMonster 07:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I've always questioned the inclusion of the 3D Classics here, since they are a separate category and not even Nintendo refers to them as Virtual Console. That said, at the start of the program, there weren't really enough releases to merit a separate article. Now that we have many new releases, along with insight into how they are produced, a standalone article is warranted. Kudos to Snorlax Monster for the move and for all the additional information there. --McDoobAU93 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Future Releases.[edit]

Hello. I have something that is not on the list, and that is the list of Future Releases of games coming. This is quite bugging that the games aren't listed. I was wondering you'll put games on that tab. Thanks!

Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

We would love to have upcoming releases shown, if and when said releases are announced either by Nintendo or the content publisher (such as Sega, Capcom or Natsume, who all publicly announce their VC releases). If you have a game that will be launched on VC for Nintendo 3DS and has a reliable source to back it up, please be bold and add it. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 15:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)