Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 5

Requested Assessment

I've taken the liberty to request an assessment of this list from WikiProject: Nintendo and a re-rating from the CVG Portal. I personally think that the sortable lists are a huge step up from what we had previously, but I look forward to seeing the opinions of other Wikipedia users. -Digiwrld1 13:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements Based Upon CVG Assessment

Thanks for the feedback, Krator.
I've updated the introduction as per the above comments, moving the notes to editors to the Talk Page and emulating the N64 introduction here as well. I still feel that it can be improved even further, so if anyone else would like to work on it please feel free to. I've also removed the reference link for those games that have already been released and have an article.

I can understand that the idea for putting the reference link in the game article itself if it exists, but I'm in favor of moving the link only after the game has been released. The reason for this being that the source links were implemented to deter vandalism and speculation, and if we require it only for those games whose articles have yet to be created, then people may abuse it and put rumored games/other platform games that already have a Wikipedia article on here without giving a source (i.e. Battlefield: Bad Company or Wii Shooting. On the flip side, the less stuff that is contained in the list, the more presentable it becomes. What's everyone else's thoughts on the matter? -Digiwrld1 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Projects Section

Does this need to exist? The section is one long bulleted and cluttered list. Yes, games are coming out and don't have names: but it's not that important to have a huge list of untitled games. The article does need to be complete as possible: but the section is a mess and certainly doesn't help much (in my opinion at least). RobJ1981 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it helps. Knowing which developers are making Wii games is useful, isn't it? --enbob89 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented a table format for this section as well, to make it more organized. Additionally, I've renamed it from 'Untitled Games' to 'List of Developers' as this is more accurate of a title. If anyone can, please help shift the titles into the table format, and be sure to remove those developers who do not explicitly confirm that they are developing a title for the Wii. If anyone has any problems with the table/suggestions for improvements, feel free to improve it. -Digiwrld1 05:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've finished off converting to a table format. I renamed the section once more to a more apt 'List of Future Projects'. I checked each source so it should all be current and correct. I think it looks much more organized now, but if anyone has any problems with it let me know so that I may avoid similar mistakes in the future.

I've also taken the liberty to verify basically every source on the entire list, so it should be good. A few may have slipped by, so if anybody thinks that a source isn't reliable enough, try to get a better source or let somebody know. Thanks! -Digiwrld1 12:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the comments by the CVG assessor as well as various featured lists in video games, I'm beginning to think that the Future Projects section is unnecessary. Although I've spent much time implementing the list into an accessible table format and verified each source, this section seems to add very little significance to this article. Half of the sources listed are from general job postings, and I'm sure there are a number of developers who are working on Wii projects who aren't listed here.

When a developer or a publisher announces a new game for the Wii, someone will add it to the master list; there's little need to have an entry for Konami Adventure Game in an attempt to list every Wii game known/thought to be in development. Furthermore, it creates additional work for the Wikipedia contributor: when Konami does announce it's new game, they have to decide whether it's indeed the Konami Adventure Game and if so delete it from this secondary list. Lastly, a section like this is more likely to attract speculation and rumors than anything else.

There's some speculation that Dewy's adventure IS the previously unrevealed Konami adventure game. Tehw1k1 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For these reasons I propose that we either delete this section, or move it to it's own page which won't affect the verifiability and quality of the List of Wii games. What do you guys think? I'm looking forward to your feedback. -Digiwrld1 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The section has a place here at least for games that have been formally announced like Konami's projects. I thought the very purpose of this article was to comprehensively list every known project/title for Wii. If we cut it back to just games that have been formally announced in press releases, is this list any better than the lists you can find at IGN, 1Up or GameSpot? As it is right now, this article is the most comprehensive and most organized resource in the world for Wii software. What makes this article exemplary is the fact that it aggregates every piece of information regarding existing Wii software; something that couldn't be accomplished without Wikipedia. --enbob89 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that until a game has either a title or something resembling a release date it isn't really a 'known project'. %90 of the stuff in the Future section is more rumor than fact. Perhaps there is a way that we can merge the more reliably confirmed projects with the main list? Either way, the current list, with it's full rows of TBA, almost belongs on the talk page more than the main article. I vote to remove it, or restructure it heavily. -Telvin 3d 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to imagine every possible way to improve this section, from moving it to its own page to implementing only those projects we know something of i.e. AQ Interactive 3D Shooting Game into the main list and to me the only possible way to deal with this section is to remove it. You'll note that I've already tried to reformat it so that it doesn't look cluttered, but it continues to be unhelpful. I understand the uniqueness of Wikipedia to aggregate information from various sources, however this list is by no means complete; to be would to list 'Unknown Project(s) from every 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party developer that has ties to Nintendo. Additionally, this list should contain a high degree of verifiability, especially as the subject is current and this list referred to by many. By deleting the second section, we further remove the possibility of speculation and/or vandalism and retain a higher degree of reliability. Essentially, I believe it's simply a difference of opinion: some people want this list to contain every possible game and developer thought/known to be working on the Wii, whereas others (like myself) want this list to reflect only those games that have been announced and may be verified. For these reasons, as well as the reasons listed above, I vote to remove it. Thank you, and I look forward to everybody's feedback on this issue. -Digiwrld1 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One idea that I forgot to mention in my earlier post it to break it off into its own article. That would give a place for verified information that is not yet developed enough to warrant its inclusion in the list of confirmed games. Frankly, knowing that "Lucas Arts" is working on "Unknown Projects" with Release Date "TBA" provides absolutely no useful information. If the developer is not far enough along to even give it a working title it is at least a year or two away from light of day and as likely to be canceled in the meantime as it is to be published. -Telvin 3d 09:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, we should keep some kind of section for the games that actually have been announced but have no title. I understand if some people want the entries backed up by job listings removed, but if a developer announces a specific project (AQ Interactive 3D shooting game, ASNETWORK's 3 games) it should have an entry. --enbob89 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we create a new page entitled 'List of Wii Developers' and will contain both those developers who have made games for the Wii as well as those who have upcoming games. I've maodified the table on my userpage to demonstrate what this new list can consist of. Check it out and let me know what you think-I think this way both parties can be content. We can put like a sentence at the end of the List of Wii games reading "This list contains only those games that have been announced and confirmed. To see a full list of developers working on the Wii and untitled projects, see here."-Digiwrld1 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. It could be called List of Untitled Wii Projects, and we'd gradually move items from there to here as they were announced. I guess there's enough such projects to warrant another article. --enbob89 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me; I'll let you (other Wikipedians) start off the page in the manner you deem best and I'll try to help out when possible (bit busy right now).-Digiwrld1 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't any game that hasn't been released yet a future project?Tehw1k1 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Most of the future projects are 'games' where the only information is that a given studio or publisher is looking at or currently making a game for the Wii. However, even the games that are currently being worked on tend to be quite early in their production. This causes a number of problems for the section. First, there is often so little information on any given project that is it almost imposable to provide any useful info. The lack of title (even a working one) and even theme makes it very hard to verify any related information. Also, it is a sad fact that many of these project will never see the light of day. Or they may turn into something completely different. Or they may change publisher, or developer, or system or title any number of times before they come close to being published.

Any game that has enough information to verify that it is coming out or far along enough to have a title goes on the main list. This stuff is everything else. I still think it would do better at the bottom of the talk page than anything else. -Telvin 3d 01:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main list should be split into titles that have been released in at least one region and unreleased ones. -Tehw1k1 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of the point of converting to a sortable list. If you want to know what is out in any give region or release dates, or exclusives, just sort by that column. -Telvin 3d 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that we've reach a consensus to create a new page for the second list. As such I've taken the liberty to create a new page called List of Untitled Wii Projects, but it also redirects from List of Untitled Wii games and variations in capitalization. It's a very barebones list as I simply copied and pasted from here to there, so if anyone wants to work on it please do. I've also taken the FAQ/Guidelines from this talk page and modified it for the new list. I'll keep the Future Projects list on this List of Wii games for a little while so that if there's any major objection to my creating a new page we can sort it out. Thanks for everyone's help in keeping this list top notch, it's definitely shaping up to be a featured list. -Digiwrld1 07:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as nobody opposed, I went ahead and completed the splitting of the two lists, and added a sentence in the introduction telling readers about the List of Untitled Wii Projects.-Digiwrld1 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Question: should we add a picture to the introduction? Other Featured Lists do this, and I feel that this page could use a dab of color. I found a picture on Wikimedia Commons of a Wii loading a game disc, that I believe will work.

Take a look at my userpage to see the picture and an example of the intro. Since its a thumbnail, you can't distinguish what game it is unless you view the high-res version of it.-Digiwrld1 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Row Template

I've created a template for tables such as this to simplify data entry and create uniformity between the various platform tables. Please let me know what you think about it and how best to go about implementing it (I can probably regex all the tables into it). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to use it exactly-can you perhaps give an example? I'd be able to make a better judgement then. Presentation-wise, the Title column needs to be much longer than it is currently. Also, it should be called North America as the releases include Canada and Mexico as well, and it should be on the very right as this is the column that most Wikipedia users will be looking at, so it should be accessible. I looked at the source and didn't see anything too different from what we currently have, but maybe with an example I'll be able to better understand how this is easier. -Digiwrld1 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The widths and other aspects are not part of the template. The template itself is only concerned with creating a uniform way of entering and presenting the game data. Most of the look and feel are part of the table header. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{game header}}
{{game row
|title= [[Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors]]
|developer= [[Genius Sonority]]/[[8ing]]
|publisher= [[Square Enix]]
|exclusive= yes
|jp= 2007-06-30
|us= 2007
|eu= 2007
}}{{game row
|title= [[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]]
|developer= [[Nintendo EAD]]
|publisher= [[Nintendo]]
|exclusive= no
|jp= 2006-12-02
|us= 2006-11-19
|eu= 2006-12-08
}}{{game row
|title= [[Super Mario Galaxy]]			
|developer= [[Nintendo EAD]]
|publisher= [[Nintendo]]
|exclusive= yes
|jp= 2007
|us= 2007
|eu= 2007
}}
|}

Hmm, I thought of doing something like that myself, but I think it's not too useful in this case. Compare the following:

{{game row
|title=[[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]]
|developer=[[Nintendo EAD]]
|publisher=[[Nintendo]]
|exclusive=no
|jp=2006-12-02
|us=2006-11-19
|eu=2006-12-08
}}

|-
|[[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]]
|[[Nintendo EAD]]
|[[Nintendo]]
|no
|2006-12-02
|2006-11-19
|2006-12-08

There's actually less to write when we don't use the template, and there's, as far as I can see, no other real advantage from using it. --Conti|✉ 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. It also adds another layer of understanding that anyone editing the table for the first time will need to pick up on. With the date/time conventions we are using, there is already enough of that. -Telvin 3d 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBA vs. unreleased?

please clarify. This is my interpretation: TBA - may possibly get released in that region. unreleased - confirmed no chance of a release ever for that region? If they both mean the same thing, may as well pick one and just use that. Tehw1k1 13:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. TBA means "To be announced", while unreleased means that the game won't be available in that region at all. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the entries seem speculative or based on the hunches of the contributor. Shouldn't there be citation links attached for verification? Tehw1k1 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that's its based on the 'hunch' (where hunch means educated guess) of the contributor, but it's the same way IGN and GameSpot do it as well. And it's usually the case that the hunch is right. Do you really expect Furi Furi to appear anywhere outside of Japan? Or any other game like that? Most likely you can tell whether a game is going to be released somewhere or not. We can't do citations because it's impossible to find a source for that, unless an approximate date (Q3 of 2007) is announced as well, in which case we're not simply listing it as TBA/Unreleased but rather as 2007 Q3. Worst case is that we update it as new information comes out. To clarify: TBA means that there is a good chance that the title will be released in that region. Unreleased means that there is a good chance that the title will not be released in that region. I've found that this has actually worked quite well so far, even if it is based on a 'hunch'. -Digiwrld1 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate profit hungry publishers, localizing Wii games previously thought of as too weird or too Japanese. Tehw1k1 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB rating column

I've reverted the additon of an ESRB rating column for two reasons:

The table is already big enough as it is, additional informations on the games should be found in the articles about these games.
The ESRB rates games only in Northern America, there are other rating system like PEGI for other regions. Why should we include ESRB ratings, but not those from PEGI? On the other hand, adding both would lead us to problem 1 again.

--Conti|✉ 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue with an ESRB column is that it would not be applicable to a large percentage of titles, those which where only being released in Japan or Europe. Besides, unlike the other columns, the rating says very little about how the game relates to the system itself. As such, it is better off in the individual game's pages. That said, Massdigger, I appreciate the effort you put into it. We would welcome another regular editor here. -Telvin 3d 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Ready?

Is this list ready to be resubmitted for a CVG assessment? We are attempting to make this a Featured List and I want to make sure that everything is ready before a resubmission. What's still missing from it? Please take a look at the CVG assessment comments above and leave your comments/suggestions below. Thanks-Digiwrld1 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for cleanup

The List of Virtual Console games is has a main article, but the actual list is broken down into seperate articles by region. And each regional list is further broken down by releases, and upcoming titles. I think with the size of this list growing as more games are announced for various regions, this would be a much more efficient organization method. Looking through the list of Wii games as of current, I see a lot of region specific titles that are not planned for other regions, or have TBA place holders, thus making the sorting features implimented a bit messy to use. I propose that we covert this article over to a similar format of the afformentioned Virtual Console article(s). Jmeriot 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this would also alleviate the issue with the ESRB rating column, as with removing the region columns would allow enough space for the rating column, and also each regional article could have it's own region specific rating system (ESRB/CERO/etc.) Jmeriot 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a bit of support for seperating the list by region. It would look something like this:

List of Wii Games: Americas

Title and Source	Developer	Publisher	Exclusive	ESRB Rating	Release Date
100 Bullets →	TBA	D3 Publisher	No	RP	2007
Alien Syndrome →	Totally Games	Sega	No	RP	Error in Template:Date table sorting: days must be an integer between 1 and 31
Alive →	TBA	Ubisoft	No	RP	TBA
Animal Crossing (Wii) →	Nintendo EAD	Nintendo	Yes	RP	data-sort-value="" style="background: #DDF; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="skin-invert no table-no2" \| TBA
Ant Bully, TheThe Ant Bully →	Artificial Mind and Movement	Midway Games	No	E	December 5, 2006
Avatar: The Last Airbender →	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	No	E	November 19, 2006

List of Wii Games: Europe

Title and Source	Developer	Publisher	Exclusive	PEGI Rating	Release Date
100 Bullets →	TBA	D3 Publisher	No	What	2007
Action Girlz Racing →	Data Design Interactive	Metro 3D	No	Do	2007
Alien Syndrome →	Totally Games	Sega	No	They	2007
Alive →	TBA	Ubisoft	No	Use	TBA
Animal Crossing (Wii) →	Nintendo EAD	Nintendo	Yes	In	data-sort-value="" style="background: #DDF; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="skin-invert no table-no2" \| TBA
Ant Bully, TheThe Ant Bully →	Artificial Mind and Movement	Midway Games	No	Europe	March 2, 2007
Anubis II →	Data Design Interactive	Metro 3D	No	?	2007
Avatar: The Last Airbender →	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	No	3+	February 9, 2007

List of Wii Games: Japan

Title and Source	Developer	Publisher	Exclusive	CERO Rating	Release Date
100 Bullets →	TBA	D3 Publisher	No	B	2007
Alien Syndrome →	Totally Games	Sega	No	B	2007
Alive →	TBA	Ubisoft	No	?	TBA
(Animal Crossing becomes Doubutsu no Mori, is moved to the D section)→	Nintendo EAD	Nintendo	Yes	A	data-sort-value="" style="background: #DDF; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="skin-invert no table-no2" \| TBA

Would each list be on a separate page or combined into one? I say separate pages, linked from the main article. Titles would be referred to by their alternate names in different regions (i.e. 'Wii Play' in NA/Eur but 'Hajime no Wii' in Japan). An interesting idea, and it may either hurt or help FL candidacy. I kind of like it though. As it contains less information, it will be easier to read. -Digiwrld1 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I guess if we do this we can even include ol' Australasia. It must've been lonely down under.-Digiwrld1 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like this idea. Looking at the tables above, 4 of the 6 columns are identical, which seems to be like a huge waste of space to me. If we are going to make different list, there should be one main list with the information that is the same all over the world (expect the name, of course), and local lists. But I personally don't think different lists would be that useful, since the only difference is the release date, which already fits quite nicely into this page. There is also the rating of course, but that is IMHO not a very important information for this list. What other informatino could/should be put into the local lists? I can't think of any right now. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Actually, the Publisher column would be different as well, as different publishers handle different titles (i.e. Wing Island-Konami in US, Hudson in Japan). But it's besides the point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digiwrld1 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's true, but from what I have seen, it only applies to a very small minority of all cases. In most cases, the publisher is the same worldwide. --Conti|✉ 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fear with the idea is that by dividing it up like this, it is going to fracture the quality of the updates and revision. As it is now, there are a lot of eyes on these entries, and when new information comes out for a title it all gets updated in one place. By splitting it off into multiple articles, we run a very real risk of some regions being updated more frequently or accurately than others. At the same time, it also prevents easy comparisons. It can be quite useful to see that wile a game might not be out for another month in NA, it has been out for a month in the EU or Japan.

I think the Virtual Console list lends itself to subdivision for a couple of reasons. First, it naturally breaks down by system which already leads to a different style data set. Second, the VC regions have been run extremely separately, so anything that happens in one is not too likely to have much relevance in the others. Finally, the VC list has very little in the way of changing information. The developer or publisher or title is not at risk of changing. This means that it is more a case of slotting in the facts once, without much need to worry about future revision. For a list like this one, the ability to easily update that type of information across multiple regions is much more valuable. -Telvin 3d 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with seperate pages for each list, linking back to one main page (again much in the same format as the Virtual Console). I would also agree that each region would have the game listed with it's name for that region. The problem I have with this list as it stands is the fact that some (not all but a sizable portion) titles have enough unique data that it's unfair to other regions to have it listed in such a manner that is biased toward North American titles (and I'm from North America so there isn't some sort of agenda here). Games will have different titles, publishers, almost always release dates, and ratings. There are plenty of region exclusive titles as well. Sure there will definitely be some overlapping information between the regional articles but take for example if you will sorting by release date. As it stands this is a complete mess. You'll understand that in my original proposal, the unreleased titles would be kept in a seperate list until they were actually released. I have to disagree with the argument that the VC list has little in the way of changing information. A lot of games on the VC list are without release dates and on occasion, titles are released as a surprise on Monday. The only titles that are at risk for changing information on the Wii list would be held in the Unreleased games section which would of course have a disclaimer that the information is likely to change etc. Also, you say that the VC list leads to a different style data set because of the systems - yet (for the most part) each region has the same system save for variations on the name (Megadrive/Genesis) so it's still pretty redundant. Also, very few titles on the VC lists are exclusive to one region or another differences only lying with release dates (much like any standard console title)

In additional defense of my proposition, users from each region (Australia, Europe, N. America, etc.) would likely tend to their own regions list, whereas some might shy away from a North American centric list like we have currently (What's the motivation for a European to upkeep this list as it stands when it's so focused on the North American region?) Not to mention the benefits of cleaner searching and organization. Jmeriot 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, perhapses I am just too NA-centric to see it, but how is the current list biased against the EU? The EU dates are right there beside the NA ones and other than that, the only column that could have any differences is the Publisher column, and in the rare cases that they are different (tends to be the exception, rather than the rule), we can always list both. As a side note, does anyone know is a similar list exists on any of the non-english wikipedia sections? It would be interesting to see how they ahve done it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telvin 3d (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The arguments for and against are both valid, and as a result I am undecided on the topic. Jmeriot, a point you bring up is that the VC List is always updated despite being split; however, this is because new VC games are announced through a Nintendo Press Release on a weekly basis. On this list, we get the information through a variety of different sites on a number of different days-there is no weekly update. As a result, it's much easier to update the list of VC games-even if split up-than it is to update this list. Add in the fact that the details (Developer, Publisher, Release Dates) are given out at different times as well, and you can tell that it's much more difficult to update this list, and will suffer if split. Having said that, I still agree that a split in the article will make the page cleaner and more presentable as there is less stuff. -Digiwrld1 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telvin-I just checked the Espanol (studied in school) and Italian (close to Esp.) versions of Wikipedia. Their lists are quite old and don't seem to be edited as much as ours. Espanol has the list format that was used before tables were introduced. Interestingly enough, the Italian one has sortable tables, but contains a total of 6 games. I'm pretty sure the English one is the most advanced and updated of them all. -Digiwrld1 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telvin 3d- after further evaluation I think I was being a bit harsh by stating that the list was too NA centric, but to a degree it is. It focuses on the NA game title, rating (when implimented), and publisher. Yes we could conceivably list two publishers in one cell by using a line break and possibly adding a ^NA, ^JP, or ^EU to the end to denote the difference but I think this woud make the already cluttered list more-so.

Digiwrld1 - I see your point on the lack of a consistant medium of announced game releases in comparison to the VC which gets a weekly (wii-kly?) press release. However that argument too has it's own weak points, in that is really only an issue for upcoming titles. It's fairly easy to find out the current releases for any region on a consistant basis.

Furthermore, I've reevaluated some of my concerns with the list as it stands currently, mostly the sorting method. It looks as though, no matter what column you attempt to sort by it will ignore that, and only sort by title, either descending or ascending. Try it. I don't know if that's just a flaw in the sorting code implimented, or if it's that way by design, but I find it to be problematic no matter what the format of the list ends up. And if we do not go to split regional lists - I still suggest splitting this list at least, into released, and unreleased (containted on the same page).Jmeriot 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying in regards to sort problems. I checked it right before posting this and it worked perfectly. Not only was the main sort working, but the secondary sort was working as well (as in if you sort it by release date and then by exclusive, you will get a list of exclusives sorted by release date). Please elaborate on the problem you seem to be having. -Telvin 3d 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't really see any North American centrism here, and I'm a European. :) We state the names of games in all regions. If the European or Japanese names of the games differ from the North American ones, we say so. If the publisher differs, we could say so, too. And there is more than one good reason we don't include the ESRB ratings in this list. And that's basically all NA centrism that could happen in this list. I therefore think this list is quite balanced in that regard. --Conti|✉ 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the problems I was having with the sort function are on my browsers end (Using Safari) I tested it in another browser (Firefox) and it worked fine, so no problem there. Sorry. And as for the list being balanced, I guess I can agree with that should we start listing all publishers where applicable. Might I suggest then, the format that in the publisher column, if there is more than one publisher, it is denoted as such:

List of Wii Games

Title and Source	Developer	Publisher	Exclusive	Release Date
American Game Title^NA→ Japanese Game Title^JP	Developer	Publisher A^NA, ^JP Publisher B^EU	Yes	2007

Jmeriot 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for listing if a different publisher is distributing the game in another region. I think its fair. In fact, seeing as how there seems to be a general consensus here, I'll start updating a little. -Digiwrld1 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an issue with me updating the title list to fit this format (rather than "Dobutso no Mori in Japan" change it to "Dobutso no Mori^JP")? I think since the publishers columb is presented this way it would be more uniform to apply it to any other columns when applicable.

-Jmeriot 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. -Digiwrld1 19:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVG Re-Assessment

WP:CVG Assessment

Sortable lists are indeed good. But that didn't make me change the rating. Why?

There are some notices for editors on top of the list. Those shouldn't be on top of the list, but as comments in the source of the list or on the talk page.
'Please note that this list is subject to change' is not something to write in this article, but in the Wikipedia disclaimer. (And it's already there.)
In general, the list is good, the introduction is not. See List of Nintendo 64 games (a featured list) for a good introduction. Not long, but good.
Low importance because it's a derivative of a Mid-importance subject.
Also, consider moving all references of the 'blue link' (existing articles) entries of the list to the article about the game, instead of this list.

Once the introduction is something similar to the one linked above, I'll be happy to give it an A-rating, and this article should be submitted for WP:FL. --User:Krator (t c) 17:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVG Re-Reassessment of Article

I feel that we have addressed all of the issues that were brought up during the first reassessment by Krator. Here is what has changed since two weeks ago, and some comments to the assessor of this article:

Introduction has been completely redone. Notes for editors have been moved to the talk page, and additional information has been added concerning the Wii and it's launch. It emulates the List of Nintendo 64 games but with it's own distinctions.

As the Wii launched with many more games than the Nintendo 64 (which only had 2), and launched different titles in different regions, we were unable to list those games which it launched with, but refer the reader to a specific article concerning the Wii's launch, which contains a table listing those games which launched with the Wii. Obviously, we are unable to list the last Wii game to be made.

Alternative names and publishers for different regions have been added. Thus, both Elebits and Eledees are listed for their respective regions, and both Ubisoft and Yuke's have been listed as publishers for The Dog Island.

Sources have been added to release dates for titles that have a release date announced but have not come out yet. This is to add an extra layer of verifiability and ensure that the listed date is not a placeholder.

Source links for released games have been changed to their MetaCritic aggregate review score when possible.

Although it was suggested to move the source links into the article if it exists, I disagree. I've posted this argument before, but here it is again: I can understand that the idea for putting the reference link in the game article itself if it exists, but I'm in favor of moving the link only after the game has been released (this has now been changed to updating the link to MetaCritic). The reason for this being that the source links were implemented to deter vandalism and speculation, and if we require it only for those games whose articles have yet to be created, then people may abuse it and put rumored games/other platform games that already have a Wikipedia article on here without giving a source (i.e. Battlefield: Bad Company or Wii Shooting). I havn't received any feedback on this, so if I'm in the minority on this then I will be glad to start moving the source links into the articles themselves.

We have decided to move the List of Untitled Wii Projects to it's own page, as it is more prone to rumors (though it is strictly maintained-thank you to everyone, especially Enbob89) as well as delayed/canceled games.

The 'See Also' section as well as the 'Wii' Template have been updated to reflect the new List of Untitled Wii Projects. The Wii Template has been significantly updated as well from before.

The Talk Page has been overhauled, with a How-To guide and a FAQ section added for editors to reference.

A number of stubs/articles have been created (although new games keep getting added!).

As one can see, significant changes have since been made since our last assessment. I feel that the previous issues have been fully addressed, and that this List is ready for a re-reassessment. -Digiwrld1 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Does Exclusive Mean?

As Krator in the assessment above pointed out, the 'Exclusive' column is not explained clearly as to what it means. It actually is pretty unclear.

From what I gather so far,

A game is exclusive if it is being developed only for the Wii. An exception is made if the game is exclusive to Nintendo, and is being developed for both the Wii and the Nintendo DS or Nintendo GameCube.
Ports and games that have been released on other non-Nintendo systems are not considered exclusives, even with motion sensing controls. The exception is when the game gets a new title or a subtitle, as demonstrated by The Godfather: Blackhand Edition. The same would be true with Prince of Persia: Rival Swords if it had not been released for the PSP alongside the Wii.

How can we explain what the Exclusive column means in a single sentence for those Wikipedia readers who are not into videogames? -Digiwrld1 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Quite. As I understand it, a title is considered exclusive only if it comes out on no other system. This includes other Nintendo systems or any other system past or present. Twilight Princess for instance, would not be exclusive because you can buy the same game for either the Game Cube. If the only difference is the controller, then it is not exclusive, as every system uses a different controller to some extent. Godfather would be exclusive because it includes features and content that appear in no other version of the game beyond the controller (as an aside, if, when more info comes out, it turns out that the PS3 version includes all the Wii content it will no longer be exclusive). If it didn't, then it would not be an exclusive, regardless of the name. The only gray area I can think of are is licensed games that come out under the same title but that are not the same. This would be something like a movie tie-in where they release everything under the same name for marketing purposes, but the versions for the Game Boy and the PSP and the 360 and the Wii have nothing to do with each other beyond the name. I'm not sure if that would be an exclusive or not, although I lean towards yes. Consensus?

As a single sentence description "A version of a game which includes content not available on any other system". I think that content is the key word because like I said above, every console uses a different controller, so that is hardly a criteria for judging. -Telvin 3d 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should view consoles, handhelds, and PCs as seperate entities. There is a significant difference between these platforms, enough to distinguish them as such. If a game comes out for the Wii and 360, it will not be exclusive as they are both consoles. When MySims comes out for the Wii and the DS, each version will be exclusive to their system (one console, one handheld), as the gameplay and graphics will be changed between the two versions. Twilight Princess, however, would not be considered exclusive as it has been released on the GameCube as well (both consoles). And if a game comes out for the 360 and PC, then it ensures that it is listed as an exclusive for the 360, as consoles are a different market than PCs. I don't believe that we should allow additional content to signify exclusivity to the Wii. Even if there is additional content, the game itself is still the same. Just because Oblivion PS3 includes an expansion pack doesn't mean that it's an exclusive PS3 game. Speaking of which, The Godfather PS3 and Wii versions were developed together, so they share the same content anyhow.

For the one-liner, how does this sound: "A title is considered to be exclusive if it has not been released on any other home console." I think this is makes it clear as to what it means to be exclusive. -Digiwrld1 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...anybody have any input on this matter? What should be the standard across all Video game-relate lists as to what defines an exclusive game? Do we treat an exclusive as a game that has only been released on one system overall, or do we separate consoles, PCs, and handhelds? I feel that this is an important issue and I'd really like to hear everyone's points. -Digiwrld1 05:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I agree with Telvin fully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.181.225.103 (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]