Talk:List of Wii games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 30, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept
April 2, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved
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.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for List of Wii games:

Current Issues

  • Expand the lead section.
  • Merge unique information from this revision of List of Wii games (North America) into this list.
  • Add numbering and/or filtering to the game table (maybe in order of release date?). For example users will be able to count how many games were released for a certain region or in a certain year.


  • Verify sources, check to see if they are current and reliable.
Priority 3
  1. May 20, 2005 – December 13, 2005
  2. 14 December 2005 – 18 February 2007
  3. 19 February 2007-26 February 2007
  4. FAQ Discussions
  5. 3 March 2007-22 March 2007
  6. 17 March 2007-22 September 2007
  7. 22 September 2007-9 April 2008
  8. 9 April 2008 - 1 August 2008

metacritic column[edit]

could we perhaps have another panel for metacritic scores? it would make the list a lot more usable. (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be considered POV, plus this is a list of the games, and the rating doesn't define the game. BOVINEBOY2008 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Stuck: All major work to the article has been done, larger and unbiased review is needed to continue.  æron phone home  19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what can be seen, the article is still over the maximum suggested kb count. I'm still wondering why we need to see three multiple dates on this page instead of the original date with a note of which region that date is for, regions released to the far right, and let people go to the page and see their date if it's not there. We tell people to go to the articles for other content, why not dates? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When will you stop misunderstanding the article's size as a negative property? You even said it yourself, a suggestion. A suggestion that's not well suited for exaustive lists such as this one if you actually read the Manual of Style on page sizes. I'm re-adding my split proposal since your still griping about this, I don't see a reason to split anymore but anything is better than wholesale deletion.  æron phone home  14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused - removing developers is not wholesale deletion, but removing two dates and leaving one is? Huh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You are confused. Removing Developers was wholesale deletion, I would like to see them back. I simply suggested that if one had to be removed that Devlopers would be the best choice to remain for various reasons. But even that was ignored. And I wouldn't want them to be re-inserted at the expense of the release dates. I'm suggesting, per your original suggetsion, that all dates from all regions be included in this article in a manner that I suggested above that still allows sorting by the very first release date.
After all the cleanup done, the article has been literally cut in half, that should be enough for your prune-hungry attitude about data. But you're going to have to accept that the counter is going to start to rise again and there won't be anything practical to do about it. For as long as you're trying to brush important information aside I'll be suggesting a split to counter deletionism.  æron phone home  18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to remove the release dates and keep title, publisher and developer? Rhonin the wizard (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If we got rid of two of the dates, that would probably allow for us to reinstate developers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I just took a look at the List of PlayStation 2 games, it's much bigger than this one and nothing has been done to it. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to go after that one next then, I suppose. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I havent taken a look recently, but I can bet many game lists are still big and cluttered with numerous sections that could be removed. See List of PlayStation 3 games as one example. Trophy support and exclusive sections probably could go. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
While you are doing that don't forget to take care of these articles as well: List of Nintendo 64 games(Alternate Titles and Number of Players should go) and List of Nintendo GameCube games. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The PS2 list is a monstrosity - it's got broken tables (one empty table to the right for instance), and it switches between genre and online and from release dates to flag icons. On top of that, the list is very incomplete, with little to no information for most games on the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Link, you are a funny guy. You want to fight tooth and nail to keep this list from getting split but you want to split the PS2 list. Explain to me, I dare you, what makes that list different?  æron phone home  18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Except he said no such thing. He said that content needs to be cut from the PS2 list, just like with this list. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk:List of PlayStation 2 games#A mess.  æron phone home  21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
PS2 list: "This is a list of about 1700 games for the Sony PlayStation 2 video game system, both released and unreleased, organized alphabetically by name." And to drive this home, the list isn't even DONE. Most of the entries aren't even complete for Heaven's sake! - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And in relation to Neo, he's half right. That list NEEDS both. This list does NOT need splitting, on the basis that a proposal to decrease the list's size has been presented that is already done on many, many articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
For a list like PS2 where there are no new games being released, I'd be fine with just one release date, or release year. For an active list like the Wii though, we should keep at least the three release dates if not add more. I agree with reinstating the split proposal to counter further removal, but feel the list is fine as is under the 100 kb threshold. Aether7 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Games are still being released, and that has no relevance to dates being added. If Developers are added and the two extra dates removed, the list will likely go down much further in size. 100kb is not an acceptable kb level if something can be done about it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
1000k is an acceptable size if there is no way to split properly and no way to make the article smaller without removing information that makes the list more usable. Link, you're argument simply does not hold water, you are a deletionist and nothing more. The dates are both useful and wanted by everyone else, so are other elements of the article. They simply won't be removed, this article will double in size and they simply won't be removed. Give it up, this argument was stale weeks ago and is only going south from here. Nothing else can be done without hacking random information off and that's not going to happen. A lot has been done to the article and it's looking better than it was, thank you for helping and (mostly) ranting, but you have to know when to stop.  æron phone home  23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • face palm* There already WAS a consensus on WP:VG (but apparently, because it wasn't on this talk page, that wasn't a real consensus). You don't present any reason to have three release dates, or to split to avoid dropping these release dates, or why people can't simply go to the articles to get the extra dates. And just a question - why was it fine to drop developers, but not extra dates? That information is helpful, but you agreed to its removal. Why is it okay to drop that useful content, but not this useful content? Why don't we follow the precedence set by many other articles, including List of Nintendo 64 games, List of PlayStation 2 games, etc.? And again, I don't see where having a horribly large article that makes it almost impossible for users to load at a decent pace is a good idea. You certainly apply the argument of not removing useful information arbitrarily, so why can't we remove dates? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Did the release dates come to your house and kick your dog or something? Why are you so against having a table that readers can sort games by release in each region? Why are you so against a list being more than the text titles of each game? First of all, there was no consensus on the main WikiProject talk page, that's right. There were more than a few who disagreed and no close came to the argument. Saying that there was is a lie. And it is you who tore the conversation in two, instead of telling people to come here to debate the issue. So you only have yourself to blame for how unfair it is that the conversation there doesn't bring closure to anything, cause even if it were here it still wouldn't. Tough.
Secondly, you are right about Developers. They still belong in the article and add useful information that readers would be able to read and sort at a glance. I will start working to re-insert them as I'm not the only one that wants them back or views removing them as "wholesale deletion". Thirdly, there is no "precedence" set by any list. One list does not dictate how the others should look. There may be well created lists that can offer suggestions to new or underdeveloped lists but that's about it, nowhere in policy, MOS, or the VGWP will you see anything that even vaguely suggests they do. This list is not horrible, not even before you started bellyaching, it is very well written now and for the most part simply needs to be maintained (and protected from people like you).
Your final comment... the first sentence answers the last. Think about it.  æron phone home  18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this article can't remain unsplit but large. The release date information for the different regions, publisher, and even (apparently deleted) developer information is all valid. Just because the list is larger than the recommended article size doesn't mean that it has to be split or have a portion of its data deleted. --Slordak (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The whole point of reducing an article's size is because it hurts Wikipedia for users who can't deal with the larger articles. Again, why do we need three dates? "It's useful" is not a good reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It used to cause my browser to choke before the article was streamlined, but I'm thinking that was because of a poorly constructed table. There are some 200k articles that don't give me any trouble. There is no reason why the article can't stay the way it is right now, it could use some more cleanup work and there are many mistakes with titles/publishers/dates throughout, but other than that this corn has been shucked as much as it can be without throwing perfectly good corn on the ground. "It's useful" is a good reason, because it's just that, useful. Deleting things that can be used is not useful, and it never will be. If people with browser problems would come forward, then a split would be in order because we're not deleting anything else unless it's vandalism or a gross error. In fact from here on out the article will (and should) start getting larger.  æron phone home  18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, that's good reasoning - "it's not a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone." And here's a list of useful information - exclusivity, developers, online play, extra release dates, Japanese names, etc. You confuse "usefulness" with "needs to be there". You don't present a need for the list to have these extra dates, just that "it's useful to have extra dates". There is a size problem. If size wasn't a problem, it wouldn't be stated as being as such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deal with it, I'm calling this debate (and all debate relating) stuck.  æron phone home  19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deal with what, the fact that you have no good argument supporting keeping the dates? You've never provided a single reason why the limit is extra release dates. Why can they go to the article for all the other information that's also useful, but they can't go for extra dates? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
All the other seventh generation game consoles have release dates in there articles. A list with just the title and publisher would not give enough information. Wiki131wiki (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No one ever suggested that. "Extraneous release dates" should be removed. The contents of the list could be Game/Publisher/Release date. And "this article does this" is not evidence of "what this article does is right". The lists are over the recommended size limit, and if there's no reason presented for three release dates besides "usefulness", then keeping the article large is not a good idea. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A Link, just because the dates are not useful to you doesn't mean they aren't useful to many others. The only reason I check this article is because of the USA release dates. I sort my Wii games based on chronological release date order. I am 100% against removing dates. Gqwu (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I do not want to the release dates removed. I always sort by USA release dates as well. Wiki131wiki (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So if we are going to leave one release date only, it had better be the European dates as theyre the ones i need. Otherwise who could be bothered to go into each seperate game to check release dates. Or how about this. We have 3 different articles, one for European Wii releases, one for American Wii releases and one for Japanese Wii releases. Oh no, i have a better idea, how about this. We leave it as it is as thats the most usefull format to have it in. Otherwise why even bother with wikipedia if the information is not usefull and straightforward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerpro2003 (talkcontribs) 04:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, no? Or how about using the first release date? Why should the line on what can be included in a list arbitrarily be drawn right before three release dates? And how is that better? So that the article can become incredibly bloated? There's no need to split if there's a legitimate action that could be applied to this list. And to the notion it's not legitimate, it's been done in many other articles, so why can't it be done here? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the original release date could work just fine. If people want to know more details on the game: they can easily click on the game article (for a majority of the games at least). In the case of games that don't have articles here: a google search, or just a search on a decent video game site will give you the information you need. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And in any case, an article on this list SHOULD have an article, or be a part of another article - there shouldn't be red links in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Red links are common on Wikipedia. That's the least of this list's problems. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
My point is that to be a featured list, having as few red links as possible is ideal. So basically, the problem of "where do they get this information without leaving Wikipedia?" is easily solvable, and should be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this list will be featured for a while. Even if we make articles for all the red links, there is the size issue which doesn't seem like it will ever get solved. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I put a request in at the Nintendo taskforce to create stub articles for red links. I don't think size is a big issue at this point, unless people complain about load time, which is much better than it used to be. Aether7 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Size is a big issue point because Wikipedia says. Your personal perceptions of load time don't weigh on the fact that the article is too large. Splitting the list is pointless, because the three lists are redundant. There's been no proper assertion that this list needs multiple release dates or why it should stop at three. Cutting the release dates to one and listing only the first tells people when it first came out, and if they want further information, they can go to the article. Which is the same thing you'd say to someone looking for # of players, other platforms, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
So, Your saying merge the list with just the first release date? That makes the list useless as a searching tool. When someone wants to see when a game was released in their country compared to other games, or what is coming out They will no longer be able to get an easy result. I think that splitting the page by release country is fine. as long as users here are willing to put the work into doing such. But then there is the issue of how to search or look up what games were released in japan only or japan and not the uk etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does this logic apply to only release dates? Why not # of players? Designer? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I make a simple suggestion? Why not just separate the list into two sections - one for chronological information, the other for game information. The first would simply list each game with release dates for each notable region (perhaps even adding Australia, as we are sort of the "fourth region"), and would only list titles that have confirmed release dates or release periods (no games that are "TBA" or "unreleased" in all regions). The second would list Publisher, Developer, and perhaps exclusivity ("Yes", "Console", and "No"), and would list all games known to exist, so long as either Publisher or Developer is known (if no information is known about a game at all, it would be noted at the end, separately).

That way, no data is duplicated between lists (as would happen if split by region), no information is lost (and lost data - developer info - would be regained), size of each file is limited, and the information doesn't become useless (first date of release in any region is basically useless information - first date of release in a particular region is more useful).

Also, regarding both current and potentially-split versions... is it really necessary to provide links for each and every date? I mean, will people really want to know what happened on November 20 of every year when looking at the release date info for Animal Crossing: City Folk? And do they really need to have a link for the YEAR of release? Surely these links are taking up "space" in terms of file size. I mean, it's not like anyone bothers to have links at the top of the list for "Europe", "America", or "Japan"... why do the dates and years need them? I can understand linking for November 19, 2006 for the release date of the Wii, but game release dates don't seem reasonable to me. Aielyn (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot to add - Why list the dates in text form? Surely it would be more effective to use a shorter notation - 2008 Oct 09, 2007 Nov 22, etc would work, in my opinion. And for those who are arguing for only one release date ("first release"), such as A Link To The Past, I would like to point out that such information is not really of much relevance - as the system is region-locked, the first release date isn't useful information - region-based release dates, on the other hand, are. Aielyn (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As a user who references this page frequently, the only piece of information that makes this list valuable to me is the North American release date. So please don't delete that. And I know splitting has been controversial, but how about splitting the list into released games and unreleased games? That way there should be no redundancy, size would be reduced, and the released games list wouldn't be cluttered with dozens of titles in development hell. There are A LOT of games that have only been announced, and it's not essential that they be on the list when there is so little information regarding them. (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sence, but when a game is suposedly released and hasn't been its alot of extra work moving things back and forth,

Also, how would we go about splitting the country lists? i would like us to atleast make seperate release pages now then mess with erasing the redundant data —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullboy (talkcontribs) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is CCTV a hoax?[edit]

I mean, everyrthing is TBC (even the publisher, they announce games) and when I look at the What links here on the article redlink, this is the only page. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 10:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Here's a press release about it. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) states the game is cancelled (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Big league sports[edit]

the game big league sports has been released, i saw it at Gamestop. Somebody make an article about it. (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

new ddr game[edit]

PR: Konami Announces DDR: Disney Grooves (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

World Of Goo release dates: USA wiiware / EU sku[edit]

World Of Goo released in USA is WiiWare, which doesn't belong in the list. However it is being released in EU/PAL as a real sku game you can buy in stores. How should we list the usa release date? USA was 10-13-2008, but if we put it like that it will come up in a USA sort when it doesn't belong there. I compromised and put "Color|silver|WiiWare 2008-10-13". Gqwu (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't - WiiWare is considered independent from Wii, so it's not "Wii software", but "WiiWare software". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about Wii Chess. It was released as a disc in Europe, but on WiiWare in Japan. TJ Spyke 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So the list is slowly growing back into its original size.[edit]

We need to trim it more. I re-propose dropping the two later release dates, as these are merely useful, not necessary. The current set-up has it that NOT being released in a region adds more size (as to say it's unreleased takes up more kb than a release date does. In my opinion, being useful is never a good reason to be included in a list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read of the previous discussions, your opinion of what is "merely useful" vs "necessary" is not consensus, but solving the problem of performance and presentation can be separated from decisions on content. Consider the various sequences of the current list that can be created using the sort buttons. Approach the problem under the assumption that we are keeping all of those lists, and figure out what we need to do to present that data in a usable fashion. Whether we keep the list combined or split it into 4 or more different lists (one list of all Wii games, separate lists of all Wii games for a region), they would all still suffer from inefficiencies in the data storage. One thing we might consider doing is to replace "|Unreleased" with something a little less verbose, like "| *", and add a note explaining "*" or whichever character we choose to represent unreleased.
On the subject of content, the only one of those lists that does not seem notable to me as a list is a list of Wii games by publisher, as opposed to individual lists of Wii games for a given publisher, which could be contained on that publisher's page or separate pages of List of Wii Games Published by X for publishers that are large enough. And of course we could also have a list of Wii publishers. However, red-link publishers for red-link games have no game article to store that association in, so we would lose data there. My personal recommendation is to have a master list of all Wii games, with name, first release date or year, and separate lists for each region that include the name, publisher, and date, all of which should be fully sortable. This should also clean up cases where different regions have different publishers.
Ruyn (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I meant for the full text of the "unreleased" code to appear, not for it to get interpreted and change the color of the word. The full text of the code can be replaced with "| *" or equivalent, using an inobtrusive character to gain the benefits of the "color silver" stuff. Ruyn (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is so large that it resorted to removing the developers. When you hit that point, that immediately means that something needs to be dropped. If we split, then we will eventually have two too-big lists. Why do we need three release dates? And there's no disagreement on necessity vs. usefulness, because no one seems to argue necessity. At this point in the list's size, there's no place for content that isn't necessary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify for me what you mean by splitting, necessary, and useful, if it is different from the following.
To me:
Splitting would be separating some of the columns into their own tables (copying the title column to each). For example, a Table of All Wii Games, with columns for Title and First Release Date, would capture two lists: List of All Wii Games by Title and List of All Wii Games by First Release Date. A Table of Wii Games in Japan, with columns for Title, Publisher, and Japanese Release Date, would capture three lists: List of Wii Games in Japan by Title, List of Wii Games in Japan by Publisher, and List of Wii Games in Japan by Japanese Release Date. The table for Japan could be repeated for Europe, North America, and any other region.
There are separate questions of what is necessary: which lists of information are necessary to be maintained at all, which information is necessary to make a given list complete, and which information is necessary to maintain a given entry. For example, it is necessary for all titles to appear on a List of All Wii Games, even red-link titles that do not have their own article, in order to make the list complete. We may also find it necessary to list Developer and/or Publisher for red-link titles on at least one list so that the information is maintained somewhere instead of being completely absent. In addressing the current size issue, I proposed starting from the assumption that all the lists captured by the current table are necessary, and attempting to solve the problem from there.
Useful describes the way information is presented - for example, it is useful to be able to sort a table into various lists rather than maintain every single version of the table separately and requiring the user to navigate more (or have no recourse at all) to find the information they are interested in. For example, having a sortable Table of Wii Games in Japan, with Title, Publisher, and Japanese Release Date, is more useful than having a List of Wii Games in Japan by Title, a List of Wii Games in Japan by Publisher, and a List of Wii Games in Japan by Japanese Release Date in separate articles. Note also that the problem of article size is one of usefulness, not necessity; it is not more necessary that an article load quickly than it is that the article contain all of its necessary information.
Ruyn (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize "usability" was more important than usefulness. We have articles for that. If they look for their respective game, they will find a date with another region next to it. If it's not theirs, they can check the article. The DS list works fine, and no one's complained so far. Splitting lists would create repetition, and if the articles continue to grow where we have three too-long lists, what then? Split the region lists by alphabetical order? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I again don't know what you mean; what distinction are you drawing between usability (a word you put in quotes but that I hadn't used) and usefulness? If different, why do you think one is or is not more important than the other?
As to the dates, your statement is not accurate for games that do not have an article. It also fails to recognize a different kind of information: what games there are for a date (or date range).
In my opinion, the DS list is in a terrible state, but that discussion belongs on that talk page.
I reiterate my position that we should maintain the information we currently have in this article (and which I described above) in one form or another, rather than discarding some information completely. Ruyn (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
We constantly discard information. It's either split or drop, and splitting is only if it is necessary. Not one editor has shown necessity to list three dates for every single game on the Wii, nor have they explained why we should split it up so we have three mostly redundant lists. So the answer is to let it expand forever and become one of the biggest articles on Wikipedia, just like the list of DS games was before it was fixed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll say again, I find the USA release dates extremely useful, and the only reason I use this Wikipedia article. Other people have stated the same in previous discussions. I am against dropping any vital release date information. Gqwu (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, just curious, but what DO you think we have articles for? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Three way split[edit]

At this point with regard to the size I agree something more needs to be done. I think we went too far already by trimming out the developer, so I don't agree with removing any more information such as two release dates. In an effort to maintain the current information as long as possible I propose we spilt the list in 3 parts (at most) similar to the DS list. We can then add the developer back in.

Sorting by release date would begin to loose its usefulness beyond a 3 way spilt. If and when the list get too long in 3 parts, then I would go along with removing two of the dates like the DS list is now, but that is looking a ways down the road. Aether7 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


I am sure this has been raised before, but how come this list is allowed? It is merely a list of products played on the Wii. Given that it is necessary to buy the Wii console in order play the games, it reads to me more like an advert for Nintendo than a genuinely important article. Obviously, the entry has been here for 3 or 4 years, so I guess there is no problem: I'm just wondering... Jubilee♫clipman 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's kind of the same reason we have thousands of lists for the exact same thing across films, television, comics, video games, books, music, etc. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Game genre[edit]

Hi - How about adding a column to include genre information to the list of games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has too much stuff as it is, we can't afford to add the games' genres. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

fvg[edit] sequel to Sports Party (which is on the list). This game is World Sports Party.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New Play Control games[edit]

I want to point out the term "new play control" is NOT part of the names of those games. It's just a term Nintendo calls the GameCube ports. Every word on a game's cover isn't the game title. I've created this discussion about it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Question_about_New_Play_Control.21, if people want to comment about it. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken Sort[edit]

The sorting of this table is BROKEN! Trying to sort by the North American release column results in a JavaScript error. (In Firefox) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New way condensing information on the list[edit]

In light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller, I have come up with a different way to present the present information on the list, which would save some article size and yet maintain some sortability.

I've copied a current copy of a small portion of the list: [1]. Using the {{Vgrtbl-no}} template, I have made the list into this version: [2]. This results in about a 15% decrease in filesize while maintaining all the current information as well as some sortability. This may also allow for other features to be added onto the list if so desired. Thoughts/comments? MuZemike 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If the dates are stored as, e.g. 2009, 200906, 20090618 depending on the detail available, that'll save some space over the entire list.Fbrd (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't even need the leading zero in the date numbers, not even the year. You could literally type "4-6-9" and it will properly format it 4 June 2009. That'll save even more space. I'm all for this improvement. You should also just up and delete all the TBAs and Unreleased templates as well, they account for more useless code in the article than anything else. A blank entry is enough to indicate to someone that there is no game for that region, shouldn't matter if a date is forthcoming or not.  æron phone home  10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not a fan of merging the release dates into one column. This results in the inability to sort dates by region which makes the list useful. Gqwu (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is still being considered, but I support this move with a few suggestions:
  • Your list shows JP on top followed by EU and then NA resulting in the release dates sorting by only Japan's. I suggest the region dates should be listed in order of release, so that sorting will work by whichever region was first released.
  • It is Wikipedia's policy to not include hyperlinked dates. It would make sense to modify the original template "Vgrtbl" if possible to match the longer "Vgrtbl-no" to show its preference. The extra three characters over a long list would noticeably increase the size.
  • I support the removal of TBAs and Unreleased to save more space. It provides no additional information and is understood when left blank.
  • A column for the Gamecube controller should not be added. The only thing, if anything, that could be added back in is the Developer.
To all those who would like to keep this list sortable by region, well I would too, however this list is the most useful when it can be navigated more easily and that means reducing its size. To keep all the current information while allowing sortability by first release is a good compromise. Aether7 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you support a reformat to match List of Nintendo GameCube games? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That list is very nicely done. I don't think the Wii list is ready for that format though because there are still new games coming out and people want to see release dates. Aether7 (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Would consider instead of using checks, to use the release year? Although it wouldn't show the exact release date, readers can read about the exact release date on the article page. I have also been thinking about maybe making a second table for unscheduled releases. Those are my suggestions. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I like the checks... they seem to make it shorter. I see you have done a lot of reformating on the DS list as well and no one has complained yet. I say go for it, but I suggest keeping the full first release date using the "vgrtbl-no" template instead of just the year. Aether7 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a format like this:

Title Release date Developer Publisher JP PAL NA
Animal Crossing: City Folk November 16, 2008 Nintendo Nintendo

BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. A lot of space was saved just by removing the unreleased text. I did some testing with your format and estimate saving an additional 3%, but that is without adding the developer back in, so overall this might make the article slightly bigger; the idea of having to split this article at some point is inevitable anyway. While we are losing information about specific release dates to save a mere 3%, it just plain looks better and more consistent with the way the DS and GC lists have gone. Aether7 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I object to deleting any useful region specific release dates. Gqwu (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

It has been proposed that we add a new column to this list titled "Compatible with GameCube controller" with markings of Yes and No. If this is completed, then List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller will no longer be needed. This was proposed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller

No, the list is already way too long. Its pretty trivial anyway. BOVINEBOY2008 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not trivial. If it were trivial it wouldn't have just survived an AfD. People who called for its deletion couldn't even make sound, policy-based arguments for deletion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it may not be trivial, but note that this article is supposed to be a list of Wii games, not a list of their functionality. In my opinion, most of the information in the chart now is excessive anyway. Adding another column would not only bog the page down for slow users, but make it almost impossible to edit from load times. BOVINEBOY2008 01:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, actually you are kind of right, given how long it took for me to even get the merge template on the page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Point of order: no consensus is not equal to keep. I don't want to copy and paste my argument, so please see the AfD; needless to say, I think merging the lists may be a good idea. Sceptre (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed... no consensus is not keep. I personally think the information is trivial. Bovineboy, don't let thegreyanomaly force his views on you. He seems to have issues anytime someone disagrees with him. It's not a crime to disagree on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We should look into MuZemike space saving proposal, as it will ameliorate the situation on the page as it is (the page gave me two error messages before I could get the merge template on the page...). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • support the merge the type of controller can easily be identified in this list without the need of an additional crufty list page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not support a merge. This page is already very large. However, I would, as I expressed on the relevant AfD, still see the other page as relevant. In a way, you could consider it as a page split and just add a "See also" somewhere? --Taelus (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is already under see also, I added it there a long time ago when I created the page. I needed to link it to other articles in order to de-orphan it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Specific compatibility information should be on individual game pages and/or the current crufty list. Gqwu (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there is any consensus for merging the articles, so I guess I will take down the merge template Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

2 new games[edit]

It times out every time I try to save. I think it's because of the huge article size. (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Just Dance - [3]
  • EA Sports Active More Workouts - [4]


What's up with the two edits by on November 30? Seems excessive, if nothing else, falling short of vandalism. At least it looks pretty arbitrary to me, removing a lot of stuff (Dragon Quest X, Bleach VS Crusade, Line Attack Heroes, etc) for no apparent reason. What gives?

I'd undo it myself but there's been some other edits since then and no one reversed it, so maybe there's something I don't know about?

Looks like maybe someone just pressed the wrong button and panicked...

Link Floyd (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to look at those edits, but right now I can't even compare revisions and it seems to be just this article. Anyone else have this problem? From what you mentioned though, it looks like unreleased or unconfirmed titles. Dragon Quest X for example does not even have a real title yet, so should it really be included? The IP is fairly established with previous contributions, so not likely to be blatant vandalism.Aether7 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's vandalism, I shouldn't even have used the word. More likely they didn't realize they'd messed up or it's a case of "oops, I broke it, I runz now." But it's definitely not just unreleased/unconfirmed games that got edited out, a lot of games were, even some that have already been released like Bleach vs Crusade, New Play Control Chibi Robo and Metroid Prime 2, Sam & Max 2, Calling. Then there's stuff like Line Attack Heroes, Samurai Warriors 3, Tecmo Bowl, Kensax, Span Smasher, Tales of Graces and DQX that, while unreleased, are definitely real games announced officially or coming out in the near future. And those are just the ones I consider relevant, there were a lot of of other games taken out of the list that no one will really miss. Besides, whether or not unreleased games should be included in the article should at least be discussed before jumping in and doing it, and even then there's a lot of other "garbage" entries to take out before, say, Tales of Graces which is released today. I guess I'll just go ahead and put the games I remember back into the article when I can since it seems to late now to undo the whole edit.
I can't compare revisions either, haven't been able for a long time now. Only got it to load when comparing consecutive edits and after trying for a long time.Link Floyd (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You sir have more patience than I :) ...Perhaps there should be some discussion about inclusion criteria. Aether7 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I just rant a lot XD Not sure about the criteria thing though. Like I said, games already released were removed, so if whoever removed them was following a criteria it was not the one you are proposing but rather "games I like." Do bring up the criteria thing if you want, but not because of this guy's edits.Link Floyd (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New format[edit]

Since no one objected to Bovineboy's suggestion, this list will have a similar format to what is also used on List of Nintendo DS games (A–I). Unless editors agree the current will suffice in some way or suggest a different format, Bovineboy's format will be implemented by early next year. Just for reference, as of this posting the article is 107 KB. « ₣M₣ » 16:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that there is one difference between the DS list and Bovineboy's latest suggestion that I agreed with - which was to retain the full first release date, not just the year. This will provide some use in keeping the table sortable. Other than that, there has been three months for anyone to voice concerns, so its save to proceed. By the way, the article is now 109 KB. Aether7 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to combine Developer and Publisher whenever the two are one in the same? Ie, if it's Nintendo as developer and Nintendo as publisher, we could combine the two columns for that row with Nintendo centered in the middle. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Good. Developer should have never been taken out. I also agree with including the complete original release date but after the publisher, like this
Title Developer Publisher Release date JP PAL NA
Animal Crossing: City Folk Nintendo Nintendo November 16, 2008
Maybe it should specify the region in Release date, like this? JP Or maybe no one cares...Link Floyd (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If developer and publisher will still sort properly, I don't see any problem with combining columns. When reformating, it might be easier to put the full release date after developer and publisher, so that's fine also. As far as specifying the region, no I don't think that is necessary. The check marks will work good enough, and one can always go to the article. We also need a good introduction to the article explaining what these columns mean. For example, a check mark can mean a title has either already been released or is to be released in that region. If it is unreleased or yet to be announced, no check mark is given. Aether7 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Another option, though three dimensional tables would need better software support to get sorting to work properly (which incidentally I've volunteered to develop on several occasions, but there seems to be no interest). SharkD  Talk  03:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Title Developer Publisher Release date
Machi e ikō yo: Dōbutsu no mori, 街へ行こうよ どうぶつの森 (JP)
Animal Crossing: City Folk (NA)
Varies (PAL)
Nintendo (JP) Nintendo (JP/NA/PAL) 2000 (JP)
2001 (NA)
2002 (PAL)
I think the above is too much information for this list. Except for adding the Developer, we are trying to condense information, not adding more alternate titles and such. Below I added some tweeks and a few rows to the previous list. Looks like spanning two columns works if sorting by developer but not for publisher. Release date isnt sorting either. What did I do wrong? Aether7 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Title Developer Publisher First release date JP PAL NA
A Boy and His Blob WayForward Technologies Majesco Entertainment October 13, 2009
AC/DC Live: Rock Band Track Pack Harmonix Music Systems MTV Games November 16, 2008
Academy Of Champions: Soccer Ubisoft November 3, 2009
Action Girlz Racing Data Design Interactive Metro 3D December 7, 2007
Animal Crossing: City Folk Nintendo November 16, 2008
Well, its the colspan which messes the sorting up. Is there any fix for this? Not a big deal really, we just won't be able to span two columns. When Developer and Publisher are the same, we can stick to the practice of wiki linking just the first one. Aether7 (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not think there is a fix for that. I tested another version based on the above suggestions [5]. Any thoughts? My only concern is that it looks more difficult to edit since everything is close together, so it may lack some user friendliness. « ₣M₣ » 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather stick with the current format I started on (sorry I have not had much time to work on it recently). As far as editing, I think its easier to keep the different columns on their own line - the check marks as well. Like so:
Title Developer Publisher First release date JP PAL NA
A Boy and His Blob WayForward Technologies Majesco Entertainment October 13, 2009
AC/DC Live: Rock Band Track Pack Harmonix Music Systems MTV Games November 16, 2008
Academy Of Champions: Soccer Ubisoft November 3, 2009
Action Girlz Racing Data Design Interactive Metro 3D December 7, 2007
Animal Crossing: City Folk Nintendo Nintendo November 16, 2008
Aether7 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely object to all attempts to delete region specific release dates. Gqwu (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? I think the immediately-above example (listing initial release date and noting which regions have the game) is more than adequate. Of what value is adding information that duplicates what's in the game's separate article? Personally, I'd go a step further and eliminate the "developer" column, since again that info is included in the game article; having the publisher is more appropriate, since that's normally the name people will see on the box. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It is much more useful to have a sortable table with all the release date information rather than having to go through hundreds of individual pages to find that information. Most individual game pages do not exist, or are rarely updated with proper information. It is much easier to keep a single List page updated. I don't see the point in going as barebones as possible on information in the table. After all this is a list, so you might as well put additional information to make the entries useful. The large size is unavoidable as there are always many new games coming out. Gqwu (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria[edit]

Due to the size of the list and the recent title removals and adding them back in, I think some more specific inclusion criteria should be discussed. I think for a title to be listed, it should have more than just an official announcement, but also either an official title or release date. This will cut down on speculation. Dragon Quest X for example would not qualify because all we know is that it will be on the Wii. It has no title yet and no time frame announced. Now if they said "next year", that would be good enough. Agree or disagree? Aether7 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If it's listed as a Wii game to be released, we should assume that it should be included until we're given proper notice. Splitting hairs over such things would just over-complicate developing this list into a featured list with people debating what qualifies for inclusion left and right. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree too, for all the reasons Retro hippie said. Also, every time a new game was announced someone would add it and it would have to be taken out again and again and again... I know this isn't a good reason, but... You know.Link Floyd (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Guess that answers that. Just thought I'd throw that out there as an option to save more space. Aether7 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

dts vgr2 template[edit]

If anyone is wondering, while this template has increased the size of the article another 7 kb, it is actually less complex with fewer "preprocessor nodes" as User:Svick explained it. Hopefully others like me that were having timeout errors with comparing history or previewing changes can function now. Thanks Svick! Aether7 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


I think that from a usability perspective readers will generally be more interested in the, say, metacritic rating than release date trivia. Unomi (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

what is happening to country specific release dates?[edit]

I spent a ridiculous amount of time maintaining and updating the USA release dates, and now someone is still trying to merge all the dates into a single 'first' release date. I've consistently objected to deleting valuable useful date information. There has never been consensus on this idea. I am proposing to revert back to using regional release dates for all entries. Gqwu (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I manually reverted Aether7's changes. Gqwu (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Gqwu, why does there need to be three different release dates for each game in this list? It is excessive information that can be better found in a vg's article. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: what exactly speaks against counting the 1-3 different region based releasedates? Why should it only be in the VG`s own article? Maybe my logic is..totally wrong but if someone is searching for this kind of information of one specific game, then he would search/visit the article for that one game and not visit the list. its moreinformation and its sometimes interesting information.If people are willing to put that effort into such kind of lists then why not? GBK2010 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You can see how that option was arrived by reading the two discussion above: #New way condensing information on list and #New format. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You can also see how your option was agreed upon by only two people, including you. I added my disagreements with your changes in the sections as well. Gqwu (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I responded to you post here. Is that what you are talking about? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Hello, well other gameslists have the publishers and also the developers listed. the xbox gameslists also has japan only titles as example in a different color. lists like this one exsists for every console it seems. i believe they are useful alone to see how many titles were/are avaiable on the specific console and which titles. its also sometimes interesting who made them or when they came out. in a few cases its also interesting if different versions were released. sometimes games with the same name are different like the versions which came out later have additional content. greets GBK2010 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Gqwu, While we all appreciate the work you have done on this article, I suggest that if the region release dates were that important to you, then you should have remained more active in any discussions proposing changes. These changes were proposed 4 months ago, and there have been no objections until yours now. Initially it was only the two of us agreeing, and no action was taken at that time. The discussion was brought up again in December with 5 people participating, and still no objections. I believe the time frame of the beginning of this year (given by FMF) was more than reasonable for active participants too respond. I believe we have consensus to move forward with the proposed changes, your response is late and therefore diminished. I will revert your edits, please seek a new consensus before taking the article in another direction. Aether7 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
People have been trying to split the list into 3 regions or delete date information since August 2008. I have objections in your discussion since July 2009. These proposals have come up again and again, but always rejected. If I knew you were going to keep attempting to make these changes I would have checked this page every month. Just because you were able to make your changes without objection for a short period of time does not mean you have consensus. The size of the list has only grown as more new games come out, why bother trying to keep it under some arbitrary wikipedia limit? Gqwu (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I restored the data in the original table so the List is not divided into two incompatible tables while the new table is under construction? That way it is less confusing for readers and there is at least one complete usable list. Gqwu (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. I suggest formating it similar to Chronology of GameCube games. Aether7 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But why?[edit]

Speaking in general, I don't see what possible use this list has (other than maybe bragging rights) with so little information about each title. There's no commentary, and only three bits of information (disregarding release date differences) are provided. That's hardly substantiative. SharkD  Talk  04:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think how we could add information to the table without the article getting too long. Do you have anything in mind? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Some ideas of further details include setting, genre, short commentary as to what a game is about or what makes it notable. I notice also that there are two separate lists based on what controller is used. This information could easily be added as two additional columns that use checkmarks like some of the other proposals. SharkD  Talk  06:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: dont worry about the purpose of such lists. there are enough reasons why people are reading/using it. it safes space to just use small flags for japan, usa, pal instead of the three pal usa japan rows.

instead of:

Title Developer(s) Publisher(s) First release date JP PAL NA
101-in-1 Party Megamix Atlus October 27, 2009

it could look like:

Title + Release Informations Release Date(s) Developer(s) Publisher(s)
Mario Party 99 in PAL Regions known as [Mario Party 99|Mario Party 666]] 2009-10-27 Japan 10/24/06 United States Nintändo NintändoJapan Some american company United States
Mario Galaxy 4 2009-10-27 Japan 10/24/06 United States 10/24/06 European Union Microhard NintändoJapan Some american company United States somepalcompany European Union

the second us release date is just there to show how space is saved.the releasedate and publisher for the imaginary pal version with a different name would be displayed in the "mario party 666" row. .the place for the name can also be used for cases that games got different names. so more information about the game is displayed.the second row shows how it looks with a game released in all three regions. the first releasedate is also the first in the list, the last one is also the last one in the list aka 2 releasedateinfos more, probable namechanges infos, every publisher worldwide for the game named GBK2010 (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's throw another variable into the mix ... why should games be listed here if they don't have a Wikipedia article? There's tons of redlinks in this list, and a large number of titles (unfortunately) aren't very notable. Even Wikipedia's criteria suggest that games without articles don't belong here. Just more fuel for the fire, I suppose ...
Anyway, to the main reason of my comment. We need to keep this list short and simple. While having the Developer column is nice, it's also blank a fair number of times, creating a lot of white space. Every game has a Publisher, however, so that should stay. I also agree that the only release date that should be present is the game's first release. The reader can go to the game's separate article to learn about other release dates. The short columns for the regions of release work, too. So, my vision of an ideal list format would be:
Title Publisher(s) First release date Japan European Union United States
101-in-1 Party Megamix Atlus October 27, 2009
Simple, to the point, attractive. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Yes, i have an opinion, the flags behind the regioncollumns look fine, but developers arent listed and only one releasedate. its as you say simple and looks okay, but has even less details as the first layout which was critizised for few informations. GBK2010 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The flags aren't so good. United States =/= North America and the European Union =/= the PAL region. And they definitely shouldn't be used in the entries of the table, see WP:ICON BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I do agree that the flag icons don't belong in the table entries, if only because a North American release is not just for the United States, which the flag icon would suggest (not disagreeing with the other points). As to "developers" not being included, (a) a lot of the games don't have developers listed and (b) it's something that should be in the game's own article. Frankly, I'd be fine leaving out the release date information period, simply because, again, it's in the game's own article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: heh. one guy wants as much info as possible, another one wants less because the infos are in the games own article. i try to be neutral but you could argue now that every information else is also in the games own article. and what is with games which dont even have an own article (yet)? i believe those lists are more helpful the more informations they have. less informations means also less purpose of the lists in my opinion. bout 50+ wii games dont have articles alone in the 0-9 A B and C sections and i m not even sure that the list here is totally complete. even less infos about them until they have articles? please not. GBK2010 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think we all have the same goal, which is to make this list as good as possible. To that end, we should be referring to the criteria for a good, if not featured, list. One part of that is removing items that don't have articles on Wikipedia. If they're notable enough, then be bold and create an article for them, then it can be added into the list. And as much as I enjoy the Wii, it has a lot of non-notable games on it.
As a show of good faith, I looked at a featured video game list: List of Nintendo 64 games. It does indeed include the developer alongside the publisher, so in that regard I'd be agreeable to keeping said column. It doesn't include release dates, but it does include some other possibly excessive columns, including content ratings (which I believe are slowly being discouraged, even in the film articles), number of players and genre. While looking at others, I see lots of different options; some do have first release date, others don't. One thing I see very little of in them is redlinks, especially redlinked games. I can be flexible with what columns are present, but I'll stick to my guns for this much--if it doesn't have an article, it doesn't belong in the list ... if only because its existence may or may not be verified.
--McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with having red links, especially in a developing list. The red links can be a starting point for people looking for new articles that need to be created. Aether7 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Redlinks should be accompanied by references however. SharkD  Talk  03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding comments about the list becoming too long. I'll go ahead and split hairs here, but ultimately it's your list. 1) Technically the length of the list would not increase... 2) There are ways to split lists across multiple pages. 3) Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. SharkD  Talk  03:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO the tables should be like the List of PlayStation 3 games and List of Xbox 360 games tables. (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

New discussion on format[edit]

Since the region release information is being split off to Chronology of Wii games, this article will have more room to focus on things like developer, publisher, genre, ratings, etc. as that is what can help make a featured list. Having a separate chronology changes the situation with this list, so the previously agreed upon format is basically moot. We could probably include the original release year, but more overlap than that would defeat the purpose of having separate lists. Thoughts? Aether7 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is already an article containing date, which there is, then we can reduce this to just the original release year. I think developer, publisher, and number of players would be acceptable. Genres always lead to huge POV debates and usually end up removed in the long run, and even if we decided to list more than genre for each game, that would ruin the sorting. Ratings would also be an issue as it would be difficult to provide a worldwide view; we couldn't just include ESRP, PEGI or CERO ratings, as it would just leave out other major rating systems like OFCL, BBFC, USK, etc. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point on the genre and ratings. So, that leaves just 5 columns: title, developer, publisher, year and # of players. We might still have room to include the checkmarks for regions since the columns are short. Also, unreleased games could be only on the chronology since ther is less info on them anyway. Aether7 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the checks and the future release games. Now do we include redlink games. I vote yes, as they still are Wii games, and we wouldn't exactly have a complete list if they are left out. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes to released redlink games, no to unreleased redlink games. Aether7 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree totally with the redlinks, no ratings/unreleased games/genre`s arguments. would like to see releasedates somehow in the list tough if possible. please try to not always think as wiki editors/article creators but also from the sight of a gamer who wants to see where game x was released. i would like to help changing /editing this list to make it a good example for all lists of this kind. where can i start? GBK2010 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This list will still display the release year and check marks for what regions games have been released, while Chronology of Wii games will be the place to find specific release dates as well as future games. Does this work for you? I have fixed the table (starting with A) per this discussion. You are most welcome to help with the reformating, just pick a letter and jump in the middle somewhere. I'm going to keep going in order from A until I run into someone else. If you don't feel comfortable with working on the reformating, you can also help by looking up developer and # of players for each game and fill them in... also checking that existing info is accurate. Thanks! Aether7 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, i ll start from Z and you from A and we meet in the middle? Someone else going to help? :-) GBK2010 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, yea anyone else?Aether7 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll be helping out when my school work dies down a bit. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
short update why i didnt help yet. i m sick going to hospital tomorrow. =/ GBK2010 (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hope you feel better soon!Aether7 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the complete original release date (not just year) should be included. Same thing with unreleased games. Both things would make the list much more useful and sortable (in the case of dates, at least). Unreleased games is actually one of the main reasons I use this list so much, and I would like to think I'm not the only one... Not including them would make it kinda useless, or at least not so much, and would probably stop it from being updated. It also briongs up the question of when to add a game, when it's released in what region. Other than this, I agree with all the recent changes. The list will be much better now, I think ^_^
I'll try to help as much as I can with my limited time, with both formatting and filling in developers.Link Floyd (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yours and many others interest in release dates will be better served at the chronology list. I think it is best to not duplicate info on both lists as much as possible. This helps with article size and ease of keeping things updated (not having to update the same thing in two places). Right now for example, people are still updating this list with release dates in sections that have not yet been reformated, but not doing the same at the chronology list. So, before I reformat a section I am having to copy any recent changes for that section to the chronology list. Once this list is completely reformated, there won't be issues with duplicate info (besides titles). By the way, there is also a discussion started at the chronology to remove publishers over there, which I think is a good idea.
As far as the usefulness of this reformated list, in the long term, people are not going to care as much about specific release dates (released is released, when does not matter). Once every title has been released and Nintendo moves on to a new console, people will look to this list more for: whos the publisher?, developer?, is it available in my region? etc. Aether7 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the new format does look much better. Will see if I can help bring some more titles up to the new section and work on clearing out the old one. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Players[edit]

Do we really need this? I was looking through some of the game articles, and it doesn't seem important enough to be added to the info boxes there, so it would require some additional research to find this info. Does anyone want to take on this task or shall I remove this column? Aether7 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference either way. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the column. If anyone wants to fill it in, they can re-add it. I just don't want to be adding blank columns. Aether7 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is manually reformatting the list really the best way to go about this? I don't know much about editing Wikipedia, but if it were possible to get this table into an Excel spreadsheet or a database, it would take less than an hour to reformat the table to whatever specifications are desired. Maybe that's not possible, but it would certainly make the job easier. (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia is not compatible with Excel. It doesn't have to be completely manual though. Where applicable, I sometimes copy/paste into wordpad and use find and replace to help automate some stuff. There are also other user created tools such as wikEd to help automate tasks (the replace feature on that doesn't seem to be working for me right now). Aether7 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arcade Zone[edit]

The listing for the Arcade Zone game links to adefunct video game company rather than a game.WesUGAdawg (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Add Kirby Wii.[edit]

I am surprised a big game like this isn't on the list. Please add a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Game ID and Missing Games?[edit]

Game ID I think would be a very helpful piece. People argue about actual titles all the time but the game id provides much information about the game (such as publisher and origin)

How does a game like Babysitting Mama not make it on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captcpsc (talkcontribs) 15:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

[Reader Rabbit] (check the link in the references there) is a collection of games for kids for the Wii...and none are included in this list (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing game[edit]

Big League Sports?[edit]

Am I mistaken or are there two listings of the same game - Big League Sports? Both redirect to the same article, and confusingly, both are said to have PAL equivalents but only one has a tickmark for the PAL column. I'll remove the one that doesn't have the tick mark as otherwise the data between the two listings is identical. If you revert, tell me why here or in the edit summary. There better be a damn good reason why it appears the same game is listed twice. LazyBastardGuy 19:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Marble Saga: Kororinpa?[edit]

There appear to be two listings for this game. I'd eliminate one except both of them have different alternate titles for JP and PAL releases; only the North American name is the same. What's up with that? LazyBastardGuy 04:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Kororinpa 2 was present twice in the list. I just removed one of them and completed the other one with correct PAL/NA names. it should be right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MepH-66 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The sorting order I want you to follow[edit]

The games in the list should be ordered with any special characters ignored, except diacritic letters. Space will come in before number (0-9) and number before letter (a-z, A-Z). Add |data-sort-value=""| when you see several games getting sorted while they shouldn't because of special characters. Games with first diacritic letter should receive it as well and convert into standard letters. Every games with "The" in the beginning of their names should receive it by default with "The" removed.


| data-sort-value="Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess"| The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
| data-sort-value="Okami"| Ōkami

Also respect the similar game names with number in them in chronological order (By default: game 2 X, game 20XX, game 3 X, game X <-- this is first game and should be: game X, game 2 X, game 3 X, game 20XX).

If you'd like to help fix the sorting problem then the easiest to find them is to open same article in two browser tabs, first one should be left unsorted while another one should be sorted and you will see the differences while scrolling. Load the edit page in the third tab for convenience between finding and editing.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Heavy TO-DO, you can help![edit]

1. Copy missing games to Chronology of Wii games and correct game name order. Override game names in there when you see name difference. Too much of work to check around the internet to confirm. (0-9, A-Z done)
2. Add their release dates from [6]. It got lot of release dates ahead of Wikipedia! IDGAF about wrong dates. Too much of work to be done without it.
3. Correct the year from Chronology of Wii games then eliminate the last column. MERGED!

Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 12:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work. Lost interest in doing any more work on it. I'm sure the final result will look great. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly want to merge Chronology of Wii games into here.[edit]

Updating the game information (ESPECIALLY their titles) between two articles is a nightmare. Most of time the editors will only going to update this article and won't bother copying to another article. I care less about page size now. That's more of a stupid argument. The note on the bottom of Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline stated that page size doesn't matter on article that contain list. Splitting into two has caused a massive duplication of game titles and will require lot more work to update each others. Very definition of cumbersome. Who thought of splitting them into articles are unbelievable. Why can't this artcle be like List of Playstation 3 games? It even got additional columns that we don't need and yet its article size is at ~330kb. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this is late and you've already merged the lists, but I'll answer your question. Some users insisted on deleting regional release dates from this list, which is why one user spun off Chronology of Wii Games to preserve that regional date information. Thanks for merging it back together. Adamical (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

year per region column[edit]

I've moved and divided the year column into three columns for each region. The standalone year column had additional years within the same table cell with <sup> tags around the region. It was more cumbersome and the additional years couldn't be sorted. The check marks (✔) stay there so the user will be able to sort the game list by region while preserving the game names in alphabetical order.

What's your thoughts on year per region columns? Is it better or stupid? I'd like to establish a consensus before continue doing lot of work on it. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit cleaner if we use the date format from the List of PlayStation 3 games. Instead of using checkmarks to indicate that a game was released in a reason, I think it makes more sense just to list games as "unreleased". Stevoisiak (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


There are missed JAP only games I know:

Darts Wii Deluxe
Family Challenge Wii
Issho ni Asobu! Dream Theme Park
Mezase! Tsuri Master Sekai ni Challenge! Hen
Minna ga Shuyaku no NHK Kouhaku Quiz Gassen
Party Game Box 100
Shikakui Atama o Marukusuru Kanzen Seiha Wii
Tele-Shibai Wii
Winning Eleven PlayMaker 2008
Winning Eleven Playmaker 2009
Winning Eleven Playmaker 2010
Winning Eleven PlayMaker 2010
Winning Eleven Playmaker 2011
Winning Eleven PlayMaker 2012
Winning Eleven Playmaker 2013

And we have some alternatives names for some only JAP games, in romanj format:

Cleaning Battalion: Clean Keeper ===> OR ===> Osouji Sentai Clean Keeper
Kamen Rider: Super Climax Heroes ===> OR ===> Kamen Rider: Chou Climax Heroes
Karaoke Joysound: Duet Song ===> OR ===> Karaoke Joysound: Duet Kyokuhen
Mobile Suit Gundam: MS Sensen 0079 ===> OR ===> Kidou Senshi Gundam MS Sensen 0079
Nobunaga no Yabou Kakushin with Power-Up Kit ===> OR ===> Nobunaga's Ambition Kakushin (not sure)

A last thing:

for "Kanken Wii" is meaning "Zaidan Houjin Nippon Kanji Nouryoku Kentei Kyoukai Kounin Kanken Wii Kanji O Ketteisen" or they are different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Help on using the full months.[edit]

Apparently someone has put the months in a shortened line, like this:

Nov 1, 2015

Instead of

November 1, 2015 ←Correct template.

Could someone please help fix this and put it back the way it was? I would be most pleased. This has also been done on List of PlayStation 4 games and so on. Thanks so much for your time.

Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Why is the full month name desired? These shortened dates on List of PlayStation 4 games was an inspiration and I've shortened the dates here as it can save up the table width. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Best color scheme to use for exclusivity column?[edit]

I'm getting bit tired of current set of colors in the table. Why not we find new colors to use? Particularly the bright green cells are being too emphasized at the start of this article. The color set looked fine elsewhere, such as: List of Wii U software, List of Xbox games, List of Xbox 360 games, List of PlayStation 3 games, but perhaps little too much green.

Color set 1
Edition/Remake exclusive
Wii Exclusive
Multiplatform (Non-exclusive)
Color set 2
Edition/Remake exclusive
Wii Exclusive
Multiplatform (Non-exclusive)
Color set 3
Edition/Remake exclusive
Wii Exclusive
Multiplatform (Non-exclusive)
Color set 4
Edition/Remake exclusive
Wii Exclusive
Multiplatform (Non-exclusive)
Edition/Remake exclusive
Wii Exclusive
Multiplatform (Non-exclusive)

You can create your own color set here and see if we like it! Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 12:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice of we could have this discussion between all major list articles. There's a lot of fragmentation across the project. I'm sure we could agree on a universal color set if we widened the discussion. — TPX 21:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Finalized with using two different color sets, which is documented here Template:XExclusive. For the other game list using different color set (List of Wii U software for example), I realized that we don't have to use the "universal" color set across the game lists. For example, I have omitted the use of red cells ("No") in most game lists where there are mostly non-exclusive titles. There are two reasons for this: there are just too many red cells and would take up more template data (include size). List of Wii U software just happens to have many exclusives so using red cells won't impact too much to the eye (as in ugly, admittedly!) and the include size limit. I can't recommend using pink cells when there's no red cell because that pink cell almost camouflaged with other white cells. The dark green was used instead for that. It was originally used as "Console/Company" exclusive, but can be used as "Console" version of the color set where there are white cells instead of red. I'm quite happy with the current color set.
I may be up for getting rid of the red cells to make the color set more "universal" though. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 03:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently using empty cells aren't recommended. The certain script (batch code) can't count exclusive games using empty cell. Never mind, found a workaround. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 19:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dates/another column for Australia.[edit]

Could we have a cell for Australia instead of the usual PAL region. I would like to have the same done with the Wii U games page. Discuss this further on the Wii U games talk page. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Should "Regions released" column stay?[edit]

It is used to sort the games released in specific region while retaining the list in alphabetical order. The thing is, it takes up four columns in the table. This seems to be a problem to users who thinks there are too many columns. I'll ask here, is it worth having, or just silly? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 04:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I like having the four columns for the release dates of each of the major release regions. I think it's useful for sorting the games in region-specific release order and for getting a picture of how long it took some games to make it across the oceans. Would the alternative be removing them and sticking with just the 'earliest release' column? It also keeps it consistent with the list of Wii U games, list of DS games and list of 3DS games pages. Hopefully all consoles will end up using a very similar template. Unless there's a serious issue with the page size I think it should remain as it is. --BadWiidTino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Gamelist counter used in List of Nintendo Switch games.[edit]

Could we use the panelist counter that counts the games automatically? I see that we use it for the List of Nintendo Switch games, and was wondering if we could have that implemented onto the list. Could we use that for the Nintendo 3DS games as well? I would think that just updating it by myself is way too much. Thanks! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-request for page protection against anonymous users.[edit]

According to these edits here, here, and here, and any future edits beyond out of the context, I would like a semi-request for a page protection against users against users that don't know what they're doing or are just randomly putting edits in. I know this is a free encyclopedia, but come on, aren't you guys getting a little bit tired of these? Well, I am, and I would like it to stop anytime soon. Thanks for your time, and have a great day. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Wii games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)