Talk:Wii/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 29

Sales update

This figure of 3.19 million Wiis sold was stated by reliable sources in late January. Nintendo has confirmed that it reached its target of 4 million Wiis produced by the end of 2006, yet at least 800 000 of these consoles have not reached stores yet, in transit, etc. In most areas the Wii still continues to sell out, according to analysts. IGN refers to the 3.19 million figure often, which I believe it cites as from Nintendo. I do not believe the data originates from VG charts in any way, although it may be consistent with vg charts.

It needs to be updated to 4 Million Units as of december 29 2006, Which is an unbelievable amount—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

How do we know its true?--BoricuaPR 04:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
He's probably using those BS Nexgenwars or VG Charts numbers (which are NOT reliable). Wii is doing great, but I doubt that much. TJ Spyke 04:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like it's probably the VG Charts data. You can still see the 3.19 million figure in some of the less up-to-date chart GIFs. G4 really baffles me, sometimes. Oh, well. Actually, I'm not expecting Nintendo to fall too short of its 4 million units projection, so I'm a bit surprised to see that you are. Dancter 05:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's no the demand I doubt, it's the supply. It's clear that whatever about of systems they ship they sell, I just don't think there were able to get 4 million out (estimates are that they sold 1.8 million in North America since launch, and about 900K in Japan, so over 1.3 million would have to have been sold in Europe and Australia). TJ Spyke 05:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I realize that supply would be the limiting factor. But by my math (assuming the estimates are accurate), only around a half million would need to be sold in Europe and Australia to meet the 3.19 million that you are doubting (assuming that the sales didn't change too much between the 29th and the 31st). And based on the info we're currently using, the regions were probably within 150 thousand units from that mark two weeks ago. Dancter 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Dancter, where are you getting the 2.5 million figure? Dionyseus 05:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by the question. I was using the numbers TJ Spyke was using (1.8 million: North America, 900 thousand: Japan), and subtracted that from the 3.19 million units figure (3.19 million - 1.8 million - 900 thousand ≈ 0.5 million). Then I used the European and Australian sales data currently in the infobox (Europe: 325 thousand, Australia: 32,901), subtracted that (490 thousand - 325 thousand - 32,901). I didn't do the full arithmetic...just some quick estimation, and I came up with something well within 150 thousand. Dancter 06:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Where did TJ Spyke get those numbers? Dionyseus 06:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
An analyst at CNBC gave estimates for all 3 next gen systems for North America for November 1-December 25 [1]. He put the Xbox 360 at 2 million, Wii at 1.8 million, and PS3 at 750K. These are hust his estimates of coarse and not official. TJ Spyke 06:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Dionyseus 06:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As for Japan, those are from Media Create, a public video game tracking service, wheras NPD numbers are only available to subscribers and subscribers can get in trouble if they make that info publically available (unless it's something vague like "Game X sold 43K copies"). The Wii is at about 823K in Japan TJ Spyke 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I suppose it is possible (and most likely is the analysts estimates are correct). TJ Spyke 05:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The 3.19 million number was announced by Nintendo, and was not just made up by VG Charts.

[2] It's also widely speculated that they'll be announcing 4 million soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I don't know what G4 is smoking, because Nintendo never made any such announcement. That was VG Charts (who are not reliable) that made up that number. TJ Spyke 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, with the real figures updates, it makes it look like nexgenwars has actually been pretty close, once they did the last bump in their estimates. 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

3.19 Million Units link --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

FYI, Nintendo has released official numbers for the Wii! Since this is the same document we get the Gamecube numbers from, we should probably update the Wii page with these.


Numbers as of '06: Japan - 1.14 million America - 1.25 million Other - 800,000 Worldwide Total - 3.19 million

Note that info on the Americas != U.S. It also includes Canada and Mexico, and may include South America. (Some research needs to be done to verify the last part.) Hope this helps! Jbanes 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've boldly changed the numbers for Japan as well as smoothed out the "As Of" dates. Things should be a bit more consistent now. Jbanes 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of VG Charts and NexGenWars

Really, the reliability of these two sites is better than you people think. Yes, it is a guess, but no, they shouldn't be ridiculed. They are just made from an educated guess using existing numbers and updates. --NapalmRiot 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't be ridiculed (who has ridiculed them?), but that doesn't mean their numbers can be used in the article. Leebo86 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
They are not reliable (especially NexGenWars) since they just take the total amount and divide it up to the average per second/minute. VGCharts is also wrong on past date (they have some games listed way lower than their actual amount and others way higher). TJ Spyke 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures for America

The Wii currently stands at 1.8 million units sold in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/11Ryan (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2007 (GMT).

The CNBC report is based on an analyst's estimates, nothing official. Dionyseus 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The estimate was also for all of North America, not just the United States. It doesn't matter though since it's just his estimates about how well the three systems are doing. TJ Spyke 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What really surprises me about that article is the last paragraph. It says "Xbox 360, [...] took full advantage of the lack of units available for its competitors ...". I don't get that. There really are people that go to buy a Wii and when they can't get it immediately they say "Ah well, I could just as well get an Xbox, because that's available" ?? Duh?? Mausy5043 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Some people might be like that, but I doubt most people who want to buy one system would buy another one just because the system they do want is sold out. TJ Spyke 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I know a lot of people who bought 360's just because the pS3 was sold out at the time, and also for the wii because when you have several hundred bucks to spend and you find out our system you wanted is sold out and l;ow and behold there's a hundred or so 360's sitting on a shelf the math :)

I can't add a note, but keep in mind that the Xbox 360 came out before the Wii and PS3. I think this is what the analyst is talking about.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

External link additions

Add It is Wii Browser Homepage Project. Eimme 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Add They have a sortable, up-to-date release dates table for Wii games and a high resolution box art gallery. Wilef81 07:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Add They have original Wii news, hacks, and reviews. Crazyboblee 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Add Largest dedicated Unofficial Wii community on the net, quality discussion alongside weekly articles and the latest news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

CNBC sales figures are wrong

According to Gamedaily, NPD informed them that several sites are wrongly crediting the sales figures from the CNBC report to NPD, and furthermore the actual NPD report will be released on January 11. [3] Dionyseus 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Controller amount

The number of possible controllers is supposed to be 16 wii remotes and 4 Gc controllers, Look in operations manual page 30 for source. FishBone0 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which page 30? The page 30? Unless I'm missing something, neither manual says that, and page 30 has nothing to do with controllers. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have both with me. The one manual (about the Channels) talks about SD cards. The other (about the system) is about using SD cards and GameCube memory cards. TJ Spyke 22:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is at least the page number in the european manual. I don't have the american one. FishBone0 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be possible since Bluetooth would only allow up to 7 controllers (which is why the PS3 can only have 7 controllers max). TJ Spyke 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, i'm just saying what the Manual says. It's in the chapter 'Synchronising your Wii Remote with the Wii console' in the System setup manual quote from manual: "A Wii console can have up to 16 Wii Remotes synched to it - 10 in Standard Mode and 6 in One Time Mode." FishBone0 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That just means that the console can "remember" that many remotes, not that they can be used simultaneously. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to confirm, it's on page 30 on the "System Setup" manual of the european (German here) Wii, and it says what FishBone0 said. --Conti| 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the interpretation, it's controllers synced not controllers in use. Sockatume 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the interpretation, if only because of the fact that there are only four lights for indicating players and connection on the controllers. If it allowed sixteen at the same time, they wouldn't have bothered putting the lights on there. Rabish12 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

monkey ball not a launch title in three regions?

the launch games page says it was, please confirm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Error in main page--DVD is to be available in NA

The DVD-enabled Wii will be enabled in North America as the referenced article (footnote 35) specifically states. The opening paragraph makes it sound Japan-only unless you read it carefully, and there is a specific affirmation of NA avail. in a paragraph below:

  That said, GameDaily BIZ has now received confirmation from Nintendo that the release
  in the latter half of 2007 is for North America as well.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnunn0 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Nintendo still has denied the DVD Wii coming to the US. Until I see more sources that say Nintendo has "Confirmed" this, I say that it's not happening anytime soon... Good luck... Lamename3000 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the segment to reflect the source currently available in the Wii article. Just64helpin 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Wii acronym?

My dad asked me today what "Wii" meant. I thought about it for a second and said "Wireless Intuitive Interface". Is it possible that I heard this somewhere, or did my warped mind make it up? 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Unsigned

Nope, just you I think. A Google search for "Wireless Intuitive Interface" yields 1 result. Scepia 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
See also Talk:Wii/archive20#Wii_Aditional_Name_Information, where someone claimed that it means "Wireless Interactive Interface", which currently scores a 56 on Google turf. --Stratadrake 09:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
if it were officially an acronym then youd probably see it at the top of the article Scotty.n 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The word "Wii" is just a re-spelling of the english word "we". They chose it because they wanted a name that represented playing togeather. Thats the offical reason why, I cant remember what video that was said in, but anyway, I doubt its really needed for a citation or anything.--Azslande 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any sources to cite, I'm afraid, but I have definitely read a couple of reports in the UK press that claim the double ii in the Wii name and logo is supposed to represent two figures playing together, again reinforcing the idea of "Wii play together".. dirtybobby 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That's already in the article right here. Leebo86 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is - I only just noticed that, and came here to edit my post accordingly! dirtybobby 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputing the Nintendoworldreport Japan sales figure

According to Nintendoworldreport, on January 7 Famitsu has calculated that Nintendo managed to sell 1,135,671 Wii consoles. [4] I find this report suspicious, isn't Famitsu a video game magazine, and aren't video game magazines notorious for being much slower than their internet counterparts? How is it possible for a calculation to be made on January 7, printed on a videogame magazine, and released in the stands quick enough to be reported today the 9th? I'm reverting the figure until there's confirmation. Dionyseus 01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu does have a website, you know. It's the game way Game Informer posts some info on their website. IGN is also reporting this info. TJ Spyke 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the Nintendoworld report with the more reliable IGN. IGN's report also makes it clear that it came from Famitsu's website. Dionyseus 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say IGN is more reliable. They are more well known, but they post a lot of BS as well. I will replace the link with Famitsu directly (,1168332576,65284,0,0.html). TJ Spyke 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it was necessary for you to place the Nintendoworld report back in, almost like if you want to force it there. I'm removing the Nintendoworld report, the Famitsu reference should suffice. Dionyseus 01:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was doing it for the benefit of those who don't speak English. Famitsu numbers are alwasy a little off, which is why I don't get why Media Create (whos numbers are a little more accurate, although the difference isn't much) is so late with their numbers. TJ Spyke 01:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. Media Create usually reports its figures within four days, this time it's been nine days so far. By the way, when Media Create finally releases their figure, it will be covering the period from December 24 to December 31, but the Famitsu numbers are up to January 7. This brings up an important question, let's say MC releases their figures tomorrow, and it says something like 100,000 units sold for the Dec 25-31 period, do we go back to the Media Create numbers, or do we stick with the Famitsu numbers? Dionyseus 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
MC software numbers have finally been released, but not hardware. IF MC release their numbers on time this week, then we should get this past weeks numbers tomorrow (so basically 2 weeks worth of numbers in 1 day). TJ Spyke 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Media Create's hardware numbers are in, Wii sold 96,332 units in the week of December 25 to the 31st, for a combined total of 919,643 units sold in 2006. This means that the Wii would have had to sell 216,028 units in the week of January 1 to the 7th, in order to meet Famitsu's figure of 1,135,671. It's a little hard to believe that one week it would sell under 100k, and the next week over 216k, but it's not impossible. I'll wait for MC's next update. Dionyseus 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Media Create article, you'll see that figures between them don't always match. - hahnchen 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the article link, according to the article Nintendo cites Media Create figures in its press conferences and presentations. Dionyseus 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Famitsu's numbers are always a little high. They had Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker at about 600K and Media Create had it at 590K for example. TJ Spyke 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Media Create's hardware figures for the Jan 1-7 period are in, and indeed the Famitsu numbers were much higher. Media Create's life-to-date figures for the Wii are at 1,114,974, this is 20,697 lower than Famitsu's figure. I'll replace the Famitsu figure and reference with Media Create's. Dionyseus 22:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Firmware version.

My console just updated to 2.1E but the article is protected. 12:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, logged-in users are not affected. But I'm not sure how the version number pertains to the Wii article. --Stratadrake 21:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so that's where. The section on firmware updates mentioned (note past tense, hehe) a firmware version number of 2.1 . But . . . is the latest version number really necessary? It's not an important piece of information and not necessarily verifiable by secondary sources (though is likely to have news on latest firmware updates). --Stratadrake 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The update to 2.1 has been confirmed. So far, that update is only available in Europe and updates parenting controls. The source is I Am Magnustalk 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Get Your Facts Straight

This is for whatever bonehead edited the Wii Sales, it's not 444 something thousand in U.S, it's 1.8 Million In N.America and 700,000 in Europe Dumbass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Wopper Man (talkcontribs) 05:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Uh-hem, here at WP we use RELIABLE numbers. That 1.8 million was an ESTIMATE from an ANALYST, same with the European number. TJ Spyke 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be anal and point out that the facts are there, since it says "As of 1 December", so even if new figures had been officially announced, what's there isn't facutally incorrect. 11:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownage. Sales figures are time-sensitive information. ;) --Stratadrake 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of space it seems to take in order to present the sales accurately, and the fact that it still doesn't prevent the "Sales figures are wrong!" complaints, I think that it may be a good idea to do away with the whole infobox listing altogether, and focus on developing a full section for sales in the article text. Dancter 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually It was As OF January 7, and the fact of the matter is the most recent estimate is now 2 million, but confirmed is 1.8, it's been on cnbc as well as other televised news so fix the damn estimates, since I cannot edit the page anymore!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not going to debate whether IDC's figures are accurate, NPD is the one the console companies rely on Canadian and US sales data. Let's just wait a little longer for their report. Dancter 17:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Anon IP, that number was an ESTIMATE made by an analyst. It is not official or "confirmed". The number on the page is for CONFIRMED sales, not estimates made by analyst. TJ Spyke 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's confirmed, it's from the NPD - the most accepted source of basically any sales statistic for consoles. --Guess Who 10:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

external website

Can someone add this to the external links: It seems to be the pick of the non commercial web sites for aggregating Wii news. 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How is that site non-commercial? It's both owned by Engadget, a commercial interest, and ad-supported. Scepia 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm I keep forgetting that lots of people haven't switched to the ad free pleasure of Firefox with Adblock Plus. It's still a good collection of information. 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"United States" sales figure

There's a sales figure in the infobox for the United States. I was just curious, is this only the sales in the US, or for all of North America? (Including Canada, Mexico, other countries). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

It's just the US. That figure is from the NPD (NPD does have a Canadian branch, but they only the US one announced numbers like this). Nintendo will likely announce North American numbers eventually. TJ Spyke 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Added this link. Rlk89 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. You need to discuss links here first. What is the point of that site? I understand it is for use on the Wii browser, but it seems like linkspam to me. WP is not out to deliver resources for easy browsing on Wii, we deliver information. If the site is a notable one, someone might want to add it, but considering it's your's, that's a conflict of interest. Thanks! Scepia 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Can be added to the external links, it's a good site to help Wii owners find each other. CPUKiller 15:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would expect not. Have you read Wikipedia:External links? --Maxamegalon2000 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a great link, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Scepia 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Strange's Death

Would it be relevant to mention the death of Jennifer Strange from water intoxication as an after effect of the KDND's "Hold your Wee for a Wii" contest? [5] --GracieLizzie 22:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, IMHO. The prize could as well be a PS3 and is pretty much irrelevant to the incident. --Conti| 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The incident wouldn't have happened if not for the pun. But on the other hand, the KDND people could have come up with a similar pun for PS3 too. How about "Hold your PiSSS for a PS3" contest? Kowloonese 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
While I see where you're coming from and would normally agree with you, it seems to me this could be a comment on both the elusiveness of the hard-to-find Wii console, and may be worth mentioning in the Wii/Wee debate as this poor woman died as the result of a contest based around the pun. --GracieLizzie 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not really relevant to the article though. Maybe if it was a contest held by Nintendo and not just a local radio contest. TJ Spyke 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, just checking. --GracieLizzie 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
First, make sure the incident is notable enough to warrant an article itself. Then, if that survives, it could possibly eventually be merged to this one, but I doubt that would be necessary. --Measure 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That seems like the backwards way to go.
Indeed, but it has the benefit of providing an excellent reason to NOT include the information in this article for the time being. --Measure 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That should probably go on the KDND article. --Chris Griswold () 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point --Measure 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is already on the KDND article, I was just wondering if it should have a brief mentioning here. --GracieLizzie 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I can definately see an argument for including it in the "Name" section of this article. A one-line summary with a link to the relevant wiki page? --Measure 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my opinion on the matter a little... if Jennifer_Strange is not soon merged into something else or deleted, I would support a one-line summary of the incident in this article. If it is merged or deleted, its probably not notable enough to worry about. --Measure 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be deleted entirely. If this hadn't been for a Wii specifically and instead for something like a new car, most people probably wouldn't have even given it a second look let alone made a Wiki page about it and tried to get it added onto the Wikipedia history of the console. As if she had anything to do with any of it. It's a tragic event, and the only place where a subject matter like this has any relevance is a/the page about water intoxication where it has already been mentioned and needs no further mention. I suppose if she had her own page there no harm in it, but there's really no gain/benefit in it either. AnujSuper9 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in... The fact that it was for a wii is really beside the point. Generally speaking, it was a stupid contest for some desirable prize. The wii itself was no more related to the death than the Xbox 360 was to the alleged murder of little Alayiah Turman by Tyrone Spellman, after Alayiah (being only an infant) knocked over Spellman's 360. See here It isn't included in the 360 article, because ignoring the well-being of others over a simple "thing" isn't confined to any single item. Bladestorm 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The news I have heard on this story have focused more on the water intoxication aspect with the Wii being the main prize as background info. If anyting it should be mentioned in the the water intoxication article. -- 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I say yes, but I say put it as a section related to Injuries related to the Wii --ShortShadow 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. It was the contest that was resonsible not the syatem. She could hav been playing for anything and died in the same way. In short the Wii itself played no part in this. Also as mentioned the story of a child being murdered by her father for breaking an X Box 360 is not mentioned in that article because that could have involved any piece of expensibe electronics. -- 04:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Article has been discretely linked in the Wii launch article. Arguably this is the best place for it as it references the fact the console is/was relatively hard to obtain and the lengths people will go to (i.e. risk of death) to get one. To that end it need not be referenced in the main article Dick G 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It was also removed from the Wii launch article, but that should be discussed in Talk:Wii launch rather than here. Just64helpin 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


I have sent the article Jennifer Strange to deletion, to put an early end to speculation about whether she should have an article or not. I am expecting a speedy keep, though. I am not sure if she should be mentioned here at all, maybe creating a Wii major incidents article with the wrist things, the accidents and this death there to keep these articles as clean as possible. -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As i mention above I think the water intoxication article is a beter place for that. The newcasts I have seen have made that the main focus. Also looking at the AFD wii inscidents appears to be the least popular solution. Most people that want merging are suggesting either water intoxication or the radio station. -- 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

New Australian Figures

Nintendo issued a new press release, , stating that as of December 31st, 50,000 units had been sold in Australia.

Nick 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this info! I added it. Scepia 04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy Return Rate Higher than PS3 XBOX360

Where is the citation for this comment I cannot find it anywhere on google. Riv234 18:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

VederJuda already removed it [6]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures in Europe

Just for info.[7]BigHairRef | Talk 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Urine. We're settling this...

Here are my suggestions:

Some people made "puerile jokes" based on the name [8] in relation to 'Wii' being a homophone of the slang word [[urine|'wee']]. [9]


Some people made "puerile jokes" based on the name [10] in relation to 'Wii' being a homophone of the slang word 'wee', meaning 'to urinate'. [11]

Of course, any improvements are welcomed, but if anyone wants to let me know why I shouldn't add this well referenced sentence to the article, then be my guest. Oh, here are my pre-prepared counter-arguments:

  • Questions about notability: The first reference is from the BBC. How much more notable do you want?
  • We'd have to add 'oui' et al: Fine, if you can find similarly notable sources stating this, then go ahead, it'll only take up a sentence at the very most.
  • Its childish and beneath us: We're not the ones who get to judge what people like the BBC report on. We can't selectivity ignore bits of mainstream media coverage
  • But everyone got over it ages ago: Yes, I agree. Just because something happened in the past though, doesn't mean we should disregard it. Hammer Raccoon 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The big problem is that "Wee" does not specifically mean "urine". It is (mostly) region-specific slang. "Wee" should definitely not redirect to urine, either. Just64helpin 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This has already been settled.

  • Your first reference never directly mentions urine. So forget that as a reference.
  • You haven't got any references that specifically single out urine over other possible puns.
  • It'd be more than a single sentence to say urine, small, wheeeee, oui, wiitard, and wiimote.
  • Like Just64helpin said, 'wee' does not exclusively mean urine.
  • You've never even attempted to explain why a single pun should be elevated over the others.
  • This is an article about hardware, not puns or portmanteaus.
  • Including the urine reference exclusively would be inconsistent and violate neutrality.

With a total absence of references, an absence of specific reasoning for including a single reference to the exclusion of all others (or a reasoning for including an entire paragraph for 6 different puns/portmanteaus), and a total absence of concensus (unless you count the general majority opinion against including the reference), I really can't see this making it into the article. Bladestorm 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was for the inclusion of "wee" as in "urine" when I thought it was an issue of censorship, but as Bladestorm shows above, it's not. It should not be included any more than the other specific examples should. It's such a minor point anyway. --PsyphicsΨΦ 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me while I tear my hair out over Bladestorm's 'arguments'. Did you read my comment? I don't care if you add "oui" or "wee" as in small. But you won't find references for people criticising the name because it sounds like "oui". If you do, then absolutely add them. Here's the relevant passage from the second source: However, the name is unlikely to go down well across the large swathes of the English-speaking world - including the United Kingdom - where "wee" is a very common children's slang phrase for the act of urination. In Scotland and Ireland, however, the diminutive console will at least be appropriately named, as "wee" is a word meaning "small" in the vernacular of those regions. Bam, there's your reference. Oh look, it mentions 'wee as in small'. Fine, find a source that says "the Wii name is great because it aptly describes the console". Actually, lets break this down to its bare bones. Forget the bigger picture for now. Firstly: What specifically is wrong with the sentence I proposed . Secondly: What the hell can "puerile jokes" mean other than in reference to 'wee'!!! And thirdly: Would someone explain to me how, staring point blank at the references provided above, can one still disagree with adding it to the article? Its not like I'm asking we devote a whole paragraph to it. One line guys. Hammer Raccoon 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"One line guys." Funny, right after you write a paragraph. Anyways, your BBC article didn't mention urine. Yes, the other reference does. Except... What's this... They don't do their own criticism of the possible urine connection.
Rather, they predict that someone else may have a problem with the name over the pond. That's not a criticism. That's a prediction of a criticism. That is your magic bullet?!?
And yes, it does also mention "wee", as in small. Why would I need to find a source portraying "small" in a specifically good light? A source is a source. If the urine connection holds from that, then the 'small' reference is equally strong. (Personally, I don't think either holds, as neither is an actual commentary on the validity of the name; but rather anticipation of how someone else may regard it)
Do you see the problem with that source? (other than the fact that it's only one source. and the fact that it doesn't even come close to meeting notability guidelines) You still haven't listed a single source directly criticizing based on any urine references. Sorry for all the bolds and italics, but this is starting to get very stressful.
And you want to know the problem with your phrasing? ARGH!
  • Your first reference doesn't directly state it; though, in your first phrasing, you choose to try adding information not included in the source. Manufacturing content isn't a good idea.
  • Because a single statement, elevating one piece of information, thereby consciously excluding other information of equal significance (or lack thereof) entirely lacks neutrality. You can't elevate one over the other. So, what's the problem with the statement? IT'S DOING THINGS YOU CAN'T DO. Yeesh.
  • You proposed linking "wee" to "urine", even though "wee" doesn't exclusively mean "urine".
So, in closing, you still aren't providing any references that actually criticize the name. (guessing that somebody else may criticize something in the future is not the same as criticizing it yourself) You make no actual arguments about notability. You still ignore that all puns/portmanteaus are (until you can provide material illustrating otherwise) of equal weight and value. In short, you really have zero argument so far. Bladestorm 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[12] - dictionary definition
Scepia 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally behind you, Hammer. People take this issue as black and white, as if adding 1 sentence will doom everyone. I could find 10 sentences in Wii, at least, that have less value then this. It's totally censorship to say "it's over" and "we're not kids". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and provides information based on notability, not on personal views. Scepia 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Scepia, please address what's actually being said. Try to avoid strawman arguments and the like.
The only reason I said "It's settled" is because there was already a long argument about this. People said their peace. Hammer went away for a while, and then came back and tried to restart it; but without actually addressing what had been said, wanted to start over. He's now done it again. You can't keep ignoring past arguments that have been made, and then pretend they never existed.
More importantly, nowhere in this section have I ever even implied that the argument was based on, "We're not kids". That was hammer's strawman argument, not my actual one. Do not assign weak arguments to me. Address the actual arguments, or please refrain from discussion. (I know that sounds harsh, but an actual dialogue is necessary. If you won't participate, then you aren't helping us to get anywhere)
Do you have any comments on what has actually been said, in terms of the "con" argument? Bladestorm 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, most of the argument from the against side (in the past) has been "it's silly". Here, I quote you: "This is an article about hardware, not puns or portmanteaus." Please look at the refs I put up there. Just do a Google search for Wii urine. You'll get a lot of hits, and that's how I got those references. I could find some more... but there's overwhelming evidence that Wii is connected to urine. It seems silly to be so protective of this, when we allow unsourced garbage to have a place in this article. Scepia 19:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC) are 'wiitard', and 'wiimote' even related to this argument? How is inserting information little by little into the article "inconsistent"? You don't delete a criticism section just because there isn't another section responding to such criticism. Bladestorm's suggestion that we should add all available criticism to the article, as adding just a few is "inconsistent", is ridiculous. Hammer Raccoon 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
They're related because you're talking about puns/homophones/portmanteaus/any-fun-people-have-with-the name.
The only reason that "urine" could possibly be singled out is if you personally find it more interesting. Incidentally, an ign article a while ago made a joke likening a wiimote to a dildo. They didn't directly state it, but there was no way to misinterpret it. Should we include that? Hmm?
I never once suggested the need for another section responding to any criticism. Show me where I said that, or retract your fabrication.
How in the world can picking and choosing which facts you should or shouldn't include, based entirely on your own personal interest, and not at all based on actual sourced material, be considered anything but inconsistent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bladestorm (talkcontribs) 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Hope you don't mind me moving to the bottom of the discussion. Makes it easier to see the latest comments.
I'm going to presume that hammer's "sources" can be ignored, since one doesn't even make his point, and the other promotes "small", but Scepia's sources actually warrant some real investigation. (If you don't mind, I'll just refer to them as '12', '13', '14', and '15')
I'll admit that '12'(kotaku) does seem to be doing a bit of ribbing based on the connection. However, they don't explicitly state it, and, far more importantly, that article is specifically about it not being "revolution". See the problem? Just because a person makes a joke, that doesn't mean that's really the "point". (Again, in an ign article talking about the strap failures, they make a dildo joke. However, the "point" is that the straps are being replaced, not that the wiimote is a sex toy)
The second reference ('13', Gamasutra) is actually very significant, but not for the reason that you're looking for. First off, it also makes the "small", and "oui" comparisons. But Adams' words make two very apt points: First, that the name doesn't affect his opinion of the console. Second, that it's related to Nintendo's marketing department, rather than being about the console itself. In other words, if there was a wikipedia article on Nintendo marketing, or something of that nature, then your source would very much be significant there. However, since your own source downplays the criticism, and specifically its relevance to the console as a whole, it tends to work against its inclusion in the article. (or at the very least, makes it a less than ideal source)
The third reference ('14', 1Up) is actual critical, but there are two issues you may need to clarify for me here. First off, this is a blog. Are blogs considered valid references now? (It's been a while for me; some changes have been made, but I thought blogs were usually to be avoided, since any schmuck can write them) And second, well, again, it makes the "oui" connection. But seriously, can a blog, in and of itself, prove notability?
The final reference ('15', well... again, it's a blog. (and on a tripod account, no less) So, I don't know how notable/sourceable that makes it... But, even if it was, well, first off, it also mentions "oui", but far more significantly... it isn't a criticism of the possible urine connection. He even explicitly states, "so is the first-person plural pronoun." That source absolutely and unequivocably refuses to criticize the name based on possible urine connections, and absolutely minimizes any significance to them. That is, it absolutely contradicts you entirely. (But, again, I can't really use it as a justification for my own case either, since it's just a blog) Bladestorm 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, I was behind the inclusion to begin with, and would actually love to see it in the article as I believe that it was widespread enough to have merit, but Bladestorm is right. He may have been the sole voice on this side of the argument with a reasoned argument, but it's a well-reasoned one. There simply aren't any reputable sources that offer criticism based solely on the name sounding like the act of urination. It's not censorship. It's keeping unsourced POV out of the article. Can we please drop this? It's so petty and minor, definitely not worth dedicating so much time and losing so much sleep over. It's been settled at least twice before. --PsyphicsΨΦ 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Blogs can be considered reliable sources, particularly if they are professional and have "Editorial Oversight" in the same way as newspapers. The only kind of blog somewhat (though not completely) excluded from being a reliable source would be your small, priavte blogs, those run by a single person, with no editorial oversight.
Blogs should not be excluded simply because they are blogs, and I think you'll see that WP:Verifiability agrees. --Measure 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't say "It's been settled at least twice before." We have to criticize everything until it's correct. If anything is my source, it's common sense. I find it ridiculous that every little detail of every little word needs to be studied for hours. Those sources show the connection, and by the author's overall distaste in the articles, you can tell they don't like the connection. Please provide an actual contradiction instead of 'that wasn't the main focus of the article' or 'that's not stated 100% directly in the most obvious way so that we can be sure beyond all unsureness that it is correct.' The IGN and 1UP blogs are made by the editors of the site. So, the people that put out news articles/reviews are the ones that criticize the name in blogs. They have to do it in blogs, as saying "Wii=urine" in a news posting wouldn't be very professional, would it? Perhaps they would, but editors that didn't report on the story would want to vent it, and everyone generally would want to share opinions on the name. They are, in fact, the people that make IGN. The Tripod source looked like it was from Wired, although that might not be true. Scepia 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ARGH! You added more references, changing the order! (Sorry, but you'll have to figure out which ones were '12', '13', '14', and '15' now. I'm not changing'em!
Anyways, I'll try to go more by the actual names of the references.
Dictionary definition: I'm sorry, but I fail to see the point. Not only is that not a criticism, but it also lists 'wee' as meaning small, as well as a short amount of time. Also, I'm pretty sure I could find a dictionary reference saying that "oui" means "yes". And that "whee" is an expression of enjoyment. For that matter, I can find a dictionary reference for "we" as well, but that doesn't mkae it a criticism. I try to assume good faith, but it really seems like you're subsituting quantity for quality here.
Sorry if I already covered this one, but the reference also makes the "small" connection, and far more significantly, doesn't criticize the name; but rather guesses that somebody may criticize it in the future. As such, it isn't a source for criticism.
I'm more than willing to discuss This one, but can you tell me which part I'm supposed to look at? (assuming that a homepage/blog is even noteworthy to start with)
For David-A's ign blog... um... (Here) Well, first off... It's a blog. And I still need to know about blogs... And second, they actually list the "small" connection before the urine connection. Also, they're making more "we" jokes than "wee" jokes. And, again, it's a blog. Also, and possibly more significantly, the blog appears to be more about the change from "revolution", which, again, is already covered by the article here.
Your last reference ( first reinforces simply what nintendo is saying: it seems weird at first, but it grows on you. (though I suppose that's neither here nor there) Next, they make "we" jokes (again, note that it's "we", not "wee"). It does specifically mention "penis jokes", which isn't the same thing. The closest thing I can find to a urine reference in there is Matthew Green's saying, "Urine jokes aside, it's not a word that sounds like much of anything. It's mainly just a vowel sound. Maybe it needs more syllables." (strangely enough, without having made any recognizable urine jokes) And it's absolutely not a urine-based criticism.

So, where does this leave us? I don't think there are any strong citations provided so far for including urine references. And there absolutely and certainly isn't a single citation that promotes the urine connection over the other possible puns/etc. (And absolutely certainly not over 'small' or 'yes') Bladestorm 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The 2 posts above you talk about why blogs should be included - one mine, and the other from User:Measure. The only point you have been making is which one was written about first, or which one got more coverage. All of them - urine, small, French yes, got major coverage. Please don't be black and white so as to think that we can only have one. This name controversy has an incredibly large number of sources. The 1UP blog has a posting "Featured Club and a Wii bit of nostalgia". Scepia 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Status

Sorry, but I felt it necessary to add a break into here.
I need to know exactly where we are. Some of your references made no sense (eg. a dictionary definition of "wee" isn't a criticism of nintendo's choice of name).
Please list your strongest, and absolute best citations, so I can give them full and total consideration. I want to be entirely fair to your position here.
However, in terms of being "settled", there was a survey with more votes for leaving it out. (And FAR more votes for leaving it out if you ignore the general ones like, "no censorship!", when censorship wasn't even remotely an issue) It's been restarted a couple of times now by simply ignoring the existence of previous debates. I don't mind that it's been reopened for new consideration, but it's not inaccurate to say it was settled for a while there.
So, what are your best sources, preferably numbered yourself (so the reference numbers won't get accidentally changed again), and if possible, please tell me what you want me to see at each article. Bladestorm 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You still need to know about blogs? I'll repeat my comments from above... Blogs can be considered reliable sources, particularly if they are professional and have "Editorial Oversight" in the same way as newspapers. The only kind of blog somewhat (though not completely) excluded from being a reliable source would be your small, priavte blogs, those run by a single person, with no editorial oversight.
Blogs should not be excluded simply because they are blogs, and I think you'll see that WP:Verifiability agrees. --Measure 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the survey you mention, Wikipedia is Not a democracy. Just because a Survey ended up one way, does not mean it is the final word. --Measure 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Wee is a slang term for urine[dictionary ref], and it has been criticized for that by the gaming community[GamesIndustry][Kotaku][Gamasutra]. Scepia 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, your comment that the criticism from Gamasutra was about marketing... that is the same as criticism of the name. He was criticizing the name, and the marketing department. The name is marketing. Scepia 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The reason I started this up again was to try and see if we could get a specific wording that would suit all because debating the whole thing was just going in circles. Unfortunately, I posted pre-emptive strikes against "the same old arguments", which set the whole thing in motion again. My bad. I also agree that common sense needs to prevail here. I mean every person in England knows "wee" means to urinate, so to not mention that here is...well, you know what I think. Anyway here's a suggested compromise for now: "Some people made "puerile jokes" based on the name [21]". All I'm doing is stating what is said in a BBC article. Heck, it doesn't even mention urine! Just consider it for now. Let me know. Hammer Raccoon 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll address Scepia's arguments a bit later (I'm supposed to be working at the moment), but I can address hammer's really quickly. I have absolutely no problem with saying that people made "jokes", "puns", or even "puerile jokes" about the name (though I'd suggest putting quotes around "puerile jokes" if you want to go that way), and then linking to the BBC article. Did they mean urine? Entirely possible; not my concern though. My only concern is consistency. If the article phrasing treats them all the same (by collectively referring to them as jokes or puns; however you prefer to phrase it), then that's all that matters. Bladestorm 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case I'll add that for now. Is this our first successful compromise? Let me note that this doesn't mean that this discussion is over, but this definitely constitutes progress, I hope you'll agree. Although if this is satisfactory for you, then I don't see why mentioning the similarity to urine, small and oui is a problem. That takes less than 10 more words to say. Hammer Raccoon 20:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know it isn't over. :) There are only two problems with mentioning those three. First, because there are still others (for example, "wheee" isn't at all uncommon, and the list probably goes on if you consider it). And second, because that's already four, and realistically speaking, as much as I'd hate to see it, wiitard would also qualify by the same standards. But, this is a Wii article. It's about a videogame console. Eventually, you just have to say, "enough". Saying that jokes are made, that's fair. Saying that people missed the name, "Revolution", that's mandatory. But listing 4 (or 5, or 6) different puns/etc... eh... it just isn't that notable/significant when considering the system as a whole. Heck, do people even still make that many jokes about the name? (other than for clever headlines) Bladestorm 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, people got over the name ages ago. But like I've said before, it was the initial reaction that was notable. Anyway, once and for all, can we stop talking about wiitard. We are talking about reaction to the announcement of the name "wii" here. What makes this case interesting is that several homophones for Wii exist, for example "wee". Any old product can be ridiculed through messing with its name (Playstation Poo anyone?), but the unique example here is that Nintendo did the hard work already. They actually called it Wii. There is absolutely no way in hell "wiitard" deserves to be anywhere near this article. Hammer Raccoon 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may pop back in out of nowhere, I believe this to be an excellent compromise, if not the final solution. It states a verifiable fact as reported by a reliable source; it sticks to the reported fact, as opposed to elevating one puerility over another; it's a properly documented occurrence, as opposed to conjecture; it avoids the use of forums/blogs, which are usually (though, as Measure points out, not always) unreliable; and, it's presented in its proper context. My only suggestion would be to remove the weasel words "some people" in favor of something supported by the source, if not in fact (briefly) quoting it directly. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not directly involved in the whole urine thing, I'm just standing at the sidelines, mostly concerned with the attempted exclusion of blogs as sources. Given that, I believe that RadioKirk's statement that "it avoids the use of forums/blogs, which are usually ... unreliable" is a bit too biased against blogs as sources. Reading the pages WP:RS and WP:V, I'm quite sure that blogs are usually reliable sources, especially blogs that are well-known enough to merit their own Wikipedia article. --Measure 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way, the author of the blog is what matters. Matt-IGN's blog is a good source because of Matt-IGN. Scepia 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Measure, sorry, but that statement is incorrect; that blogs as a generality are sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article does not nearly support the transitory argument that blogs therefore are reliable sources. The vast majority is composed of opinion pieces with little or no editorial oversight; the demonstrably reliable—to encyclopedic standard, certainly—is a tiny minority. That is simple fact. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Allright, RadioKirk. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. So I'll try a couple of examples. Would you say that Joystiq or Kotaku are not reliable sources? I am taking the position that they, along with other professional collaborative blogs with editorial oversight, are reliable. On the other hand, I would not support a personal blog as a reliable source. --Measure 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider Kotaku reliable, they post too much BS to be trustworthy (even for a blog site). TJ Spyke 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So... no to Kotaku, but no argument against the idea that collaborative blogs with editorial oversight are reliable?--Measure 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They could be, but of coarse it depends on the site (since I don't want to issue a blanket statement saying they all are). TJ Spyke 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Well, I'm just trying to get away from the general idea on this page that seems to be "Blogs are not reliable sources," period. I've seen it on this talk page and in edit summaries to the Wii article. I don't think it is a correct position to take, and that's mostly why I'm arguing about it here. --Measure 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Blogs are not always unreliable, just mostly so. Largely, it depends on who's doing the posting; is the person a recognized expert in (whatever) field? Is there sufficient proof that the poster is who s/he says s/he is? If the reliability of the individual is indisputable, the use of such a blog posting as a source for encyclopedic data is most likely acceptable. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of what you've quoted here deals with Self-published blogs. I have no quarrel with not including those. I'm only talking about professional collaborative blogs --Measure 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really see that differentiation from you until now; it seems we concede each other's point. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Check WP:RS, blogs are pretty much at the bottom of the reliablity food chain. TJ Spyke 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have checked WP:RS, and am unable to find the food chain of which you speak. --Measure 17:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's tried to stay out of this one on the basis that I really don't think the issue merits all the dicussion that it has attracted. At the time of writing (without a definitive vote), I believe that we've got 2 people in favour of including a sentence (seemingly) on the basis that to omit it is censorship and 5 people against including it on the basis that it is not notable enough. I'd like to propose a vote to see if we can get a more clear view. EIther support on the basis that it is notable enough to be included, or oppose on the opposite argument. Trying to make the argument either way on the basis that leaving it out is censorship or that shouldn't be included for what IMHO are equally ridiculous reasons will get us nowhere. How's about we use the main section that we're talking in now for discussion and a vote section purely for a vote one way or the other with a line or two's explaination? I'll put it in and feel free to not use it if you don't want to but at least we'll know where we all stand. BigHairRef | Talk 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read all the rambling above but I think I missed the point about why it is so important to mention something so trivial. You people should get back to the Revolution vs Wii debate so we can really make some progress. 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. So we don't care about Revolution vs. Wii. But the article is missing information that some of us want added in, about the name change reaction. Which was a gigantic deal at the time. Scepia 01:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It does mention the negative reaction the change got at first, this just seems to be about people wanting urined references in the article. As I mentioned on Scepia's talk page, we will never reach an agreement that everybody likes. On the last discussion/vote, there were even several compromises suggested and none were accepted. TJ Spyke 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said on TJ's talk page, this is clearly a controversial issue and isn't "yes" or "no". We can, however, try something in between, and try to 1/2 please us all, instead of supporters "losing" and opposers "winning". 1 sentence is a very fair compromise. No 1 is going to be hurt by 1 well-sourced sentence. Scepia 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Err... I was being sarcastic about Revolution vs Wii; another pointless discussion that was flogged to death earlier. 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Vote to support some inclusion of the Wii=wee refence in the article, or oppose. Let's find out where we are guys and if it's worth continuing the process. If we can't reach a consensus one way or another we're going to have to RfC. BigHairRef | Talk 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Initially I'm neutral, I'm yet to be convinced one way or another. BigHairRef | Talk 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There will not be a vote because we have been over this many times before. Urine references will NOT be added to the article. Case closed. TJ Spyke 00:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop the votes. Enough fans want it out, there's no way to force it back in. Votes aren't the Wikipedia way. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by, "fans"? Who's a fan of what? Bladestorm 01:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wii fans, or fans of the anti-urine lobby. It's obvious that a fair chunk of the people who push to keep it out of the article are doing so because they "don't like it"; not because it doesn't meet any guidelines or policies. Not all of them, of course, but enough to permanently sway any attempted vote towards the "no consensus" area, and hurt some discussions. This is just part of the Wikipedia political landscape, and a good example of why votes do not work. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping that wasn't what you meant; even though that was what it looked like... It's always troubling to see established editors entirely ignoring the assumption of good faith. Saying that the only reason people disagree with you is because they're clearly being subjective is very much an assumption of bad faith, and entirely counterproductive. I've been very clear about my motives and reasoning. It has nothing to do with being a fan of the wii. It has everything to do with consistency and neutrality. I try to make several articles more neutral, regardless of my interest in the specific subject. I've tried keeping the list of terrorist incidents consistent, in spite of my belief that it shouldn't really even exist. I would never want to see false information in the PS3 page, even though I think the console is a piece of garbage. Heck, I even have richard gere on my watchlist, just to keep the content encyclopedia, even though I don't give a flying crap about gere. (and seriously, who does these days?) Making sweeping accusations of fanboyism is disappointing and inappropriate. Bladestorm 15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm tired of it. Any vote is doomed one way or the other because of fanboyism. Did you read the past debate? Many of the 'votes' were from unestablished users, and many indeed provided no reasoning besides I don't like it, or the opposite, supporting its inclusion despite providing no argument. I've seen this occur on every console article, as well as loads of other contentious areas. Voting doesn't work, it can't work, and that's essentially what I tried to get across (weakly, sure). And for the record, you're not one of the ones I'm talking about. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm for inclusion with proper citation and weight. I am a fan of the Wii and I actually think the urine references are the most ubiquitous. However, that's speculation at best and POV at worst, we're not concerned about truth, but rather with verifiability. --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Discuss, don't vote. Scepia 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I Vote that we Do Vote. But I'm satisfied with the current statement: "The BBC reported the day after the name was announced that "a long list of puerile jokes, based on the name," had appeared on the Internet." We don't have to specifically say urine, but ignoring the primary objection to the name because "fans want it out" is out of the question. Algr 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Puerile" means "childish," not "urine-related." --PsyphicsΨΦ 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I vote to include everything you can find a source for, that currently includes both British definitions of wee and nothing else. (Much as I would like to find sources for others.) - MTC 06:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I cannot believe we're still having this discussion - I thought we were all above this by now. - NP Chilla 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, no, no, no, no. No more votes. We had one earlier, which showed that this is still a point of contention. Voting now solves nothing. And would people like TJ Spyke stop saying "case closed". How on earth is opposition on both sides of the argument "case closed"? Anyway, would everyone read the wikinews story that is linked to in the article and play spot the difference. Stuck? "In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, the name recieved much critisism for sounding too much like "wee", an English slang word meaning urine. The name also sounds similar to "yes" in French and "good" in Japanese." How hard was that. We have sources stating all of these things. What's the problem again? Hammer Raccoon 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well... Let's see... (broken record time!) First, "wee" isn't just an english slang for urine. So you'd have to fix that to include at least two meanings (three, if you consider scepia's dictionary reference). Then you have to add "whee". And that's just if you're talking about puns. Then, you may have to include penis. (scepia cited penis jokes, and 'wee wee', and less commonly just 'wee', is sometimes very childish slang for a penis) See the problem? Bladestorm 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Lemme get this straight. The Wii name was announced. News outlets, games magazine/websites, blogs and the like all drew parallels to Wii and its various other homophones. The name announcement caused such a big reaction that we have an entire segment detailing the fallout. And you don't want to mention these homophones because of concerns about space? The name was criticised on so many levels that it takes up too much space to mention them all? Is this your argument? Hammer Raccoon 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not so much one of brevity as of undue weight—most readers simply won't (or don't) care. The current version—properly sourced, properly brief and properly neutral—is our solution; frankly, a "vote" at this point is a divisive action, rather than a collaborative effort to find the mutually acceptable solution that we already have. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I don't care much about One Must Fall: Battlegrounds, but there is an article because it is notable. Scepia 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please. All these stupid debates about adding "Wee" is ridiculous. There is no good reason to add the stupid childish stuff in an encyclopedia. If you want to make encyclopedic connections between Wii and Wee go put it under an article named Wee. This is just absurd, and this needs to end. the votes and previous discussions have shown that we shouldn't add that garbage, so why do you continue to bring it back up? Lamename3000 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we report on the facts, not on what is childish. I understand it seems silly, but it's true. Scepia 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Many people consider videogames themselves to be "stupid childish stuff", and want to see nothing but dry academia. Nintendo's stockholders probably want to know every detail about how the Wii's target audience is reacting to the name. Algr 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me we're not going over this again. *groan*David the Phantom 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The article already deals with this, no further elaboration is warranted. Gene S. Poole 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wii issue is dead. Few people are making a big deal about it anymore. Please tell me the actual value of adding the reference. I doubt that it's something everyone needs to know, and it just makes Wikipedia look bad. If we can't resolve this stupid debate, you've going to make me do something I really don't want to do (consult Jimbo Wales). The Legend of Miyamoto 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And here comes the uncompromising resistance I've alluded to before. The minute anyone adds any kind of reference to "wee" into the article any one of these users, backed up by such compelling arguments as "Please tell me we're not going over this again" and "This is just absurd, and this needs to end", will remove it. Also, how many times do I have to say this, but "no consensus" does not equal "the votes and previous discussions have shown that we shouldn't add that garbage". Why is everyone under the impression that there was an overwhelming majority agreeing "wee" should be left out? And what does the credibility of Wikipedia have to do with this? The fact that nearly every source presented mentions urine in some form or another seems to suggest, if anything, not including this makes "Wikipedia look bad". Hammer Raccoon 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
In the vocal stylings of William Shatner impersonators, It's. A. Dead. Issue. A handful of people made puerile jokes, those people got over it, end of story; that's precisely why the get-in-get-out-get-over-it solution that's in the article now is exactly right. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Your "handful of people" include virtually anyone in England who worked on a news broadcast or wrote an article for a newspaper about the Wii last year. Tim 14:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a majority either way. That's not the issue. At issue is whether the urine jokes are sourced, and if so, if they are given weight in the article according to their preponderance relative to other jokes. It shouldn't matter how many people say one way or the other, what matters is what's correct according to policy and guidance. --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand this, but unfortunately, this seems to be a matter of judgement on whether every games website referring to this constitutes notability or not. Look, accuse me all you want of flogging a dead horse or whatever, but...this is what it boils down to. Forget sources for now. When anyone in England first heard of the Wii, 90%+ would have immediately thought Wii = wee = urine. From a marketing point of view, and as an initial reaction to a product, this is pretty important. Hammer Raccoon 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, not every cited reference makes any urine connections at all. (I'm not saying none do; I'm saying they don't all. Just a very minor issue)
Next, that's correct, "puerile jokes" does not specifically refer to urine. That's the point. It covers all of the different stupid jokes. It covers the urine jokes. It covers "wee" as in small. It covers the penis jokes that scepia cited. It covers wiitard. It covers "wheeeeeee!" It covers all of the different jokes, with just a single sentence; that doesn't give any undo weight to all the different puns you could make. That is, it's neutral, consistent, and directly verifiable.
What's more, neither hammer nor scepia (as near as I can tell; by all means, tell me if I'm wrong) has been very clear or consistent in terms of what criteria the urine jokes belong in under. Is it based on "criticism of the name"? Or based solely on the jokes made about it? If it's based on the jokes, then it's absolutely a matter of every single one being included (including wiitard, yup. and including small, penis, wheee, and french for yes), or it means referring to them all collectively. And that's what the current version does. Rather than writing a bloody paragraph to give undue weight for an issue that's already blown over, it's given a simple one-liner touching upon the basic issue.
If, on the other hand, it's solely about criticism, then you'd still have to at least include "wee" as in small, and "oui". Because the cited references for urine also included those. And there's no frigging way you'll get to pick and choose which ones to include/exclude. It's still all or nothing. Of course, even if you're just referring to criticisms; it's still a matter of puerile jokes, and the current version would still apply.
Finally, while although you're right that this is not a democracy, you still should at least be listening to yourself. No concensus? I can agree on that. There's no concensus either way. When there isn't concensus about whether or not to include something, then you should err on the side of caution, and not include it. That is, the burden isn't on those who want it out; it's on those who want it in.
The only thing there's reasonable concensus on at the moment is that the bbc article doesn't give undo weight to the complaints, and doesn't ignore them altogether. And so far, I haven't seen any complaints about it beyond it supposedly not going far enough. It's sourced. It's accurate. It's neutral. To me, that makes it good. Bladestorm 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the word "puerile". What does it mean? We should use a common sense word. Granted, Wikipedia is not changed so kids can read it, but there is a certain level were not many can understand it. "Puerile" sounds like pee jokes.
I still want to include some of the definitions, example: "Wii recieved puerile jokes, such as relating the name to wee, meaning urine, the French word oui, and the Scottish term wee, for small. In any case, this sentence will do. I just don't want this to be an issue of "it's over noob, get over it!!!" Scepia 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, see, that's the thing. Technically, it isn't us calling them "puerile". It's the BBC. We're quoting them on that. If we were to call them puerile, then that's POV. As such, you can't really change the sentence, but still keep it half-intact. The BBC didn't explicitly state which "puerile" jokes they were referring to (there's at least 3 or 4 possibilities). All we're doing is just citing their statement that jokes were made. We're not picking and choosing. We're not specifically picking your cited penis jokes. We're not picking urine jokes. However, even though they don't specify which ones they mean; they're still, in essence, all covered. If you wanted to do each one individually, then you couldn't call them puerile anymore, you'd have to have each one individually sourced, you'd have to include all of them, and you'd be putting undo weight on the jokes that have now basically blown over. Incidentally, I guess you didn't see where I brought it up; on precisely which grounds do you want to include the references? To specifically cite criticism of the name? Or to cite the existence of jokes in general? Knowing which it is will make it easier to address only what's relevant; as well as making it easier to judge references. Bladestorm 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, although I think the article goes as far as it needs to in dealing with documenting these issues with the name, I'd have to say I'm not so sure the issue with regards to the console's name isn't exactly done and over with yet; witness Hold_Your_Wee_for_a_Wii, which is a current event related to the unfortunately named console. One that's getting a fair amount of press coverage at this time. Maybe given this is the second round of comments about the Wii/Wee issue, it might deserve some mention in the article.Gene S. Poole 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify further, "it" would refer to the Wee/Wii comparison, not necessarily the death of Ms Strange. Although her death is only slightly related to the Wii, the fact that the contest involved holding in one's 'wee' in order to win a Wii is directly related to the 'puerile jokes' on the console's name. Gene S. Poole 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
But which does that fit under? Critcism of the name? Or jokes that can be made from the name? If it's just a joke, then you should probably mention the wiimote being likened to a dildo, just because ign used "strap-on" in one of their headlines when referring to it. And any other jokes are also fair game. The thing about the "hold your wee for a wii" thing is, the death itself was the only reason it was remotely notable. People make jokes about things all the time; it's a gimmick. But that doesn't, in and of itself, assert notability. If we're discussing including criticisms, then that doesn't count. If we're talking about jokes, then the floodgates are open. Bladestorm 15:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is such a ridiculous argument, I can't believe it has been going on so long! You are arguing over putting an encyclopedia reference to urine jokes made about a games console... {{User:QwertyBillyBob]] 15:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but we already know that this article has "earned" its spot on WP:LAME. If you have nothing constructive to add to this debate then kindly shut up and stay out of it. --Stratadrake 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, I don't think I'm gonna press this any further. That's not say I don't maintain my beliefs, but there are enough people that are never going to change their stance to make this not worthwhile any more. But you can't say that these discussions haven't been worthwhile. Anyone remember "[Some] pointed out phonetic similarities to the French word oui and mostly negative words in English"? Well, thanks all for humouring me the past month or so, and hey, go make this article Featured. Hammer Raccoon 12:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is putting "wee" in a Wii article even important? -- WiiVolve 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Right having read it we've clearly not got a consensus and as we need one to put it in we might as well forget the whole issue. There's no point in debating a moot point. We can't esablish a clear consensus either way so there's little poin in proceeding. BigHairRef | Talk 11:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem conceding that point, hammer. The previous phrasing ("mostly negative words" and singling out "oui") was absolutely dreadful. Bladestorm 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this information contributes to the article. johnny's pizza 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Wii Peripherals

Shouldn't there be a peripherals section? TheListUpdater 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Like replacement stands? Just64helpin 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably more like the LAN adapter, and other stuff that will probably plug into the USB ports in the back. Lamename3000 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What else? I understand the LAN adapter, but has anything else been announced? Scepia 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing first party, but there's some Wiimote charging stations, a third-party nunchuck, and what is supposedly a Mad Catz Wiimote. Nothing really worth including, though. --Guess Who 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Somebody changed Legend of Zelda to legend of my mom's butt. Could somebody change this? I do not seem to be able to. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Someone did already :D. Silly vandals. Scepia 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it have been moved to possible sequels? 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No, because there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Nintendo would name a game "Legend of my Mom's Butt". TJ Spyke 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I was kidding of course, but I reckon I'd buy any game with that title! 05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

buy wii?

Ive noticed the site does not have a link to buy a wii, but I, as other probobly have, came here to look for a place to buy one, one should proboly be included in the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck61007 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Having a link to purchase a Wii would be advertising, and Wikipedia does not carry ads. --Measure 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Our external link guidelines state in its fourth point that we should normally avoid links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. I have seen many, many times when people add links to shops with their referral, so that if someone buys the article through that link, the one who added the link would get some revenue out of that trade. To prevent that, we usually remove every shopping cart link on sight. -- ReyBrujo 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If somebody wanted to buy the system, they should have the common sense to go to sites that usually let you buy things.,,,,, etc. It's not necessary to post links in the article to where to buy, since most people know not to go to an encyclopedia to buy something. Just my two cents. Lamename3000 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Was just wondering if it were possible to add It's an unofficial Australian Nintendo fan site with game reviews, information, forum etc. running for over 3 years Youngminii 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Fansites usually do not make the cut, unless they are official and/or large. Scepia 10:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
To Youngminii: Vooks isn't a fansite. It is one of the largest news coverage websites for Australia. I would say that its only rival would be (which I prefer). A-N is better, and I suggest that we add it instead. It is a massive website. -- WiiVolve 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vannesa Hugens

I believe in vannesa anne hudgens Music video for "Say OK", there is a breif scene of her playing a Wii..Confirmation? Worth adding? Toajaller3146 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty trivial. It may be worth mentioned in the article about the music video itself as a trivia, though. -- ReyBrujo 23:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]

There are two more things that should be worked on for the future. Firstly, the more references the better (to an extent) and so I would like to see some more references. Secondly, in the article Image:Nintendo Wii Channels.jpg was put in to represent the Wii Channels and I would like more copyright info, etc. for it. Overall, a GOOD ARTICLE!

By the way, this is the first time that I have reviewed a GAC. Any feedback on my talk page is welcome. Greeves (talk contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Great work everyone! -- WiiVolve 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job to anyone who helped out! Greeves (talk contribs) 00:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken link to a source

Source 15 is broken. Someone (especially the person who made it) please fix it or it will be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youngminii (talkcontribs) 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Opt for Canada sales figures removal

As canada as a part of North America i feel the sales figures should not be reiterated. As it would be unfair and either all countries be accounted for or just regions are shown. —The preceding comment was added by 11Ryan (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2007 (GMT).

Whoops. It said NA when it should have been US. Its fixed now. Just64helpin 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The sales figure for "North America" is just US sales, I don't know why that was changed. So that 1.1 million number only includes the United States. TJ Spyke 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Price for Wii Games

The main page states that wii games cost no more than $50. However, upcoming titles show pricing as high as $60[22][23][24]. Do you agree that adjustments should be made? Icestorm815 00:48, 24 January 2007

No's because retailers sometimes use BS numbers until the correct info is announced. Also, I don't know the person at IGN who wrote those is smoking because MP3 has no MSRP yet. TJ Spyke 03:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
More specificaly, ign is notoriously terrible for putting absolute nonsense in that little infobox for upcoming titles. (Especially annoying when they state precisely when titles will hit north america... when they were never even planned for english versions at all) However, while although I haven't seen a title over $50usd so far, it's misleading to present $50 as an upper-bound, as though it's official. (when it's actually just first-party titles that have that cap, with third-party titles only being encouraged to follow suit) Bladestorm 03:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right in that it's not official, Iwata just he's third parties to keep them at $50 (and so far they have). I am glad too because $60 is way too much for a game. TJ Spyke 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest with you TJ, I've stated before that IGN is smoking crack. My friend is always raving about how great they are, but honestly, they gave the PS3 the best new console award just recently. They and Jeff Gerstmann are definatley not very reliable. I would use a place like Gamespot. -- 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Modified Wii console to launch next Saturday...

...according to the most important newspaper from Argentina :-) The article basically reads Nintendo will launch a game console that will offer online news. It will be a new model of its Wii console, with an internet broadband connection that will allow it to download both text and graphics. The informative system will begin operating next saturday. That is what happens when you don't have a gaming-focused journalist :-) -- ReyBrujo 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The perils of "reliable" media sources ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Im not entirely sure, but i think that a system update will also load that onto a wii Chuck61007
Yes, I believe that was the original poster's point. New Wiis may be package with this now, but older ones will just update to it. --Chris Griswold () 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Argentina isn't even in the "videogame world". The guys at Clarin post videogame-related news cuz the only other magazine that has videogame news is Loaded, and it's not that popular. --I Am Magnustalk 06:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I was just pointing out that even reliable sources fail to verify information when they don't know about the topic :-) -- ReyBrujo 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why it says "new model"'s just "new software" so whoever wrote that article probably didn't know much about video games.....why would they put something like that in a newspaper....Dextrone 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They're talking about the news channel, it's going to be released this saturday. MindWraith 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point. It looks like they mistranslated or misunderstood the AP story on the News Channel update, and interpreted it to mean that there is a special new Wii model which includes the channel. See ReyBrujo's comment directly above yours. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Mine updated Friday morning. The News channel is awesome; someone should say that it is awesome in the article. --Chris Griswold () 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove my comments. --Chris Griswold () 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I read an article on the new news channel on Gamespot - a far more mainstream source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robovski (talkcontribs) 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

New Wikia Wiki

I have an excellent idea. Let's make a Wikia called "Wiikipedia"! If you think it's great, make replies! Unfortunatly, I don't know how to make new wikis, so someone that likes the idea can make it!--Furon 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

that'd be pretty cool, but i think there's already a nintendo wiki johnny's pizza 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wii Newsletters

A number of Wii newsletters(newsletters sent to your wii, like Wiiflex) have began appearing over the internet. Do you think those would be worthy of mention in the article? Uturnaroun 03:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine why they would be. The link you provided has less than 1400 page views, and has recieved a total of $5 in donations. We would need a source that talks about the concept, and even then I'm not sure it would be notable enough. --Maxamegalon2000 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing/rewritng the Launch section

The Launch section starts with a collection of dates (proseline), it doesn't grab the average reader's attention —which it should, as the first section after the lead— and needs to be rewritten. I think we could rename the section to "History", beginning with the development where we introduce the code name (Revolution), the audience Nintendo was trying to target and how that affected the design of the console, the unveiling of the Wii name, the tech demo's at E3, etc., in some logical order, of course.

This would be followed by the rewritten Launch section (now a subsection), Then continue with a post-launch section including the wrist strap controversy, sales, and whatever else has happened since launch.

Whether the History section should be the opening section or not remains to be seen, but I think it would work pretty well if properly rewritten. --Lethargy 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's currently not much "history" beyond the launch itself, but I guess that's something to consider. EDIT: I've cleaned up the proseline somewhat. Just64helpin 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The improvements that have been added so far look pretty good, great work finding this stuff. --Lethargy 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This article looks MUCH better than, say, a month ago. I was always for prosifying the launch table (considering the launch has its own article). I'm glad that a history section is up; a massive amount of information (all you need, really) can be gleaned from Nintendo's own site; look for the "Iwata Asks" section. Anyways, good job guys. --Tristam 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have done anything if it weren't for Lethargy's suggestions. Just64helpin 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiimote image

I like the old wiimote image better. It's a real photo and shows the size better. Also, I don't think the new image is usable under Fair Use rules, as it fails the repeatability test (see image discussion page). Rees11 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. The addition of the fair use images was in direct contradiction to Wikipedia fair use policy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't encourage people to use the wrong name by calling it "wiimote". TJ Spyke 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit others' comments TJ Spyke, as WP:TALK discourages it. Hammer Raccoon 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments. If you do, please remove my signature. See WP:TALK. Rees11 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that TJ Spyke shouldn't have "corrected" your post, it really shouldn't be just removed either, as it is necessary to establish the context of the discussion. I've readded it as you originally posted it. Dancter 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I considered doing that myself but didn't want to get into a revert war. If what I said was too offensive to leave on the discussion page, this section could be archived, as the issue it addresses has been resolved. Rees11 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

late replies to "Wii-name cracked"

replies to [25]

In Nintendo's announcement of the official name it was clearly explained that Wii is pronounced "we." This is the same vowel found in the Japanese いい (ii). Where did you find that Wii rhymes with the "i" as in "iTunes?" Also, please refrain from name calling on Wikipedia per the the fourth pillar. P.S. I suppose I am pronouncing "king" incorrectly. Jecowa 06:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"name calling" is necessary, Jecowa. Everyone has a name; how else would one be called? And "civility" is never defined in the pages, so it cannot be enforced. Moreover, why should I tolerat vandalist-censorships against my edits, when some nameles Brits kepd wantin to take out my instances of "dolt" after the misspeakrs? I will not assum any faith (faketh), good or bad, because it is harmful when a'telling the truthe. Anyway, you are deluded: How do you get "e" out of "ii"?? Do you even know the difference between e and ee? Wii is the Latin spelling of the English Weeee. The i in iTunes, which is not Itunes, is a clitic camelcase ginning, so there is no vowel shift; whether or not one wants to say it in English or Latin doesn't matter much, but the latter would rime with Wii. And, yes, you do say "king" wrong, both the k and the i: You believe that the k is the same as c, and a c a s, and you shift the i into a i-bar, which I will write as é for Latin and 'i' for English. The k should be the h or ch in other tongus, as in the common English ending -ck. The IPA and friends screwd up big time in its alfabet. -lysdexia 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be entirely true that these English words under discussion originally had that spelling or meaning - I don't profess to know whether that is so or not. However, as the English language changed and developed over time, it lost words, changed words, added words, lost phrases, added phrases, etc. A living language has those characteristics. Early Latin is different from Late Latin; Biblical Hebrew is different from Modern Hebrew. As the human race changes over time, so must the medium through which they express ideas. And in a medium where people must understand and communicate with other people, the popular is what gets used, not necessarily the correct. The way you write English may be completely correct for the 1100s, but now that English has changed, nobody is going to use 1100-era English to express ideas, so it's not reasonable to expect them to. In any case, this discussion is starting to lean towards English and Japanese etymology rather than the meaning of (specifically) "Wii", and, at the very least, should be moved there. graphite_elbow 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Words would count in a language if they are markedly adapten for that language: if it bears the stems and grammar of its mother. So, a word like "week-end" is not Francish, even thouh it's understaed by them. And neither are all the Latin and Hèllenic words that we use English when they look nothing like it. As such, linguistics is a sham and lige. Much of my complaints in this thread was/is to rub out clear contradictions and delusions in the world's speech, and none of it is opinion but fact. The section was to list facts that explain how similar words can be usene to interpret the Wii-name, as everyone was lossed in arguments over pee (no deletion there!); the list itself was not original research, but any conclusion whereon could be OR—that was the wherefore for the tag. -lysdexia 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

lysdexia, you'd probably make your points a lot easier to understand and discuss if you were to translate them into traditional english. (I assume you spell that way intentionally, rather than simply not knowing the accepted spellings) Bladestorm 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page isn't to remove contradictions in people's speech. I think that job might fall under the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Jecowa 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FA Material?

Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks that it might be featured article materail. Both this and the Wii Remote page are both well written and cited. Are their some people who work on this article that will be willing to help make improvements if i nominate this? The Placebo Effect 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is nearly stable enough, and it can't possibly cover the topic adequately since it has only just come out a few months ago. It would not pass FA right now, and I doubt it would get any support !votes. Leebo86 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Leebo. --Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Do we not have any dimensions for the console? The Xbox article does, and dimensions are helpful for anybody needing to gauge the size of a device. Mazin07CT 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that what you're looking for? Leebo86 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Standby mode

I'm going to remove the part about the Wii consuming "very little power" in standby mode. I found a couple sources, including Kotaku, that say it consumes about 10 watts in standby. The Xbox 360 consumes 2 watts, and Energy Star calls for a maximum of 1 watt for dvd players (can't find a requirement for game consoles). Rees11 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kotaku is just a blog site and not a reliable source. TJ Spyke 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The source for "very little power" doesn't use those words, it says "about the same as a miniature light bulb." The burden is on you to provide a source for "very little power." See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please provide a source or remove the phrase. Rees11 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quite question: Standby isn't the same as "off"(sleep mode), is it? I mean, standby is when it's been sitting around and gets dark, or when it isn't running a game, right? Bladestorm 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No. "Sleep mode" and "Standby mode" both refer to a semi-off state, which most electronics seem to utilize nowadays (allows them to start up more quickly, detect a signal to turn on from a remote, etc.). When it gets dark, that's just a sort of screensaver. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, obviously, "very little power" is very much relative. For example, the XBox 360 normally consumes somewhere between 160 and 200 watts of power (depending on which source you read), and the PS3 appears to be about 380 watts. Compared to that, 10 (or 13) watts is indeed "very little power", considering it still retains some functionality that you'd expect from a machine that's actually "on". Bladestorm 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's very much relative. All the more reason to quantify or qualify the amount of power rather than just saying it's "very little." That's why I thought it would be proper to simply state what the source said, rather than trying to interpret it. Rees11 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I agree. The "miniature light bulb" reference makes it actually more useful to the average person than the specific number of watts (and more useful than "very little"). Do the rest of you agree? (I know, I'm supposed to 'be bold'. meh) Bladestorm 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if we compare it to a light, we should be more specific. Does miniature light mean an individual light from a string of Christmas tree lights? Does it mean a miniature fluorescent light? They do make 10-watt and 13-watt CFLs. Jecowa 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can or should specify. I think we should just quote or paraphrase the source and not try to interpret it. Rees11 20:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to "WiiConnect24, which enables it to receive messages and updates over the Internet while in standby mode." This avoids the possibly POV "very little", and provides a link to the Sleep mode article. While we are on this topic, the WiiConnect24 article says it uses seven watts in standby, but there isn't a source provided. Other than the official statement about the light bulb, are there reliable sources which state how much power it actually uses? --Lethargy 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a couple of unreliable sources but nothing I'd care to use here. My Wii manuals don't seem to have a spec for standby power. Rees11 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: I see I'm not the only one who has used this wording, and subsequently been reverted [26][27] by TJ Spyke. I assume you have a good reason for this, but please do not violate the three-revert rule (you are currently at two). --Lethargy 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind the first revert, but please don't revert again unless you have a source for "very little power." Rees11 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii in the News

New Article on the Wii in Yahoo! News. Someone should integrate this in somewhere. Might even be a decent reference for Wii's popularity.

Shrumster 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think every titbit of news or mentioning of the Wii deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Especially because the page seems to be partial to news items from the US as opposed to other regions. I don't think the article should become a collection of trivialities. Before including something in the article I think one should think about how important the information will be in one year from now. Mausy5043 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It might work in Wii launch, if anywhere. Just64helpin 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Serena Williams lost in Wii Tennis game

Wii got some free publicity when Australian Open champion Serena Williams played Wii Tennis with Conan O'Brian last night. Look it up on YouTube. It was a lot of fun. I don't know if that was sponsored by Nintendo. Kowloonese 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii colors again...

When are they coming again?Pendo 4 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Extra colors haven't even been confirmed. TJ Spyke 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you remember? They did show a yellow Wii and a Black wii. It was on a Nintendo Magazine. But Shoul I atleast put this on the article? Its Not Breaking the Wikipedia Crystal Ball because Images were shown before.Pendo 4 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Hey! Look at what I found in the Wiimote article about colors! "The Wii console launched with only the white model, with Shigeru Miyamoto commenting that new hues will be provided after supply limitations are resolved, which will not be until Spring 2007" This is proving colors will come. Can I add this to the article?Pendo 4 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Sure, but reference this. –Llama man 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this has been added. Just64helpin 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why on Earth does the article have a verification needed tag on the comment that additional colors haven't been confirmed? How do you confirm a negative like that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The statement was removed, but I was thinking of something like this, but more official. Dancter 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can't verify a statement, it shouldn't be in the article. --Chris Griswold () 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. Dancter 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Awoo...Sorry about that...Pendo 4 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Sixth Video Game

I counted Six nintendo Video Game Consoles, Color TV GameNESSuper NESNintendo 64Nintendo GameCubeWii, Wii being the sixth, but someone reverted my edit, please discuss this here. Chico 02:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not a game console. TJ Spyke 02:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wii, or the Color TV Game? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Color TV Game. I believe that even Nintendo called the Wii their 5th home console. TJ Spyke 02:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
then the color tv game article is wrong, it is listed there as a video game console, if nintendo said so we need references, and even if they did and it is not we have to say it is the sixth.Chico 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Nintendo doesn't consider the Color TV Game to be a video game console because all the games for this system are built into the machine. This article for the Jakks TV Gamedoesn't refer to it as a console; the official website doesn't call it a console either. Maybe the qualifications to be called a "video game console" requires the unit to be able to play separately purchased games. If this is the case, the Color TV Games article should not refer to it as a console. Nintendo has also released many portable video game consoles as well, but I guess we're excluding everything designed to be portable here. Jecowa 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Video game console article says "the term is used to distinguish a machine designed for consumers to buy and use solely for playing video games from a personal computer, which has many other functions, or arcade games, which are designed for businesses that buy and then charge others to play." so I don't see another classification to the Color TV Game, as for portables they are classified as a Handheld game console.Chico 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So the Wii is not a console? It's not just for video games. It has weather, news, the Web, and e-mail. --Chris Griswold () 04:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I'll sleep on this. I'll be back in few days.Chico 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If the Wii isn't a Video Game console, then no future home "console" can be considered a Video Game Console. I highly doubt Microsoft or Sony have any plans of ending the multimedia functions of their consoles. Future companies will most likely get into the multimedia trend. And chances are Nintendo will at least retain what is already in the Wii. Funpika 16:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
on the seventh generation talk page we were debating whether or not the EVO is a gaming console and we decided that a gaming console needs for games to be its primary function, plug into a tv and have games that are specially made for it. the last one disqualified the EVO as it only plays computer games. I guess we could add that it has to be comparable to other systems of its time. the color tv games were technologically comparable to first generation systems although they were produced during the second generation. we could decide to distinguish between consoles and toys in this way. but thats just my two cents. J.L.Main 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If were were going to count the Color TV game as a console, then we would have to count all the different iterations of it (Color TV Game 6, Color TV Game 15, Color TV Racing 112, Color TV Game Block Kuzushi, and the Computer TV Game). I don't think that it makes sense to say Nintendo had 6 consoles before the Famicom/NES. Bytemaster 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that there is an general understanding that dedicated consoles are distinct from what is commonly understood by the term "video game console". Dancter 02:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
the celeco telstar had like 20 different versions and atari pong had even more than the telstar, yet we count them at the same thing. we don't count the $600PS3 and the $500PS3 as different, we don't count the NES2 as being different from the NES nor the supperNES2 as being different from the superNES. J.L.Main 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for sales

Can anyone give me a citation that 4.4 million units have been sold, i am a big fan of Nintendo and i would like to know the source for myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

The number of 4.4 million does not, to my knowledge, appear anywhere in the article. Sites like VGCharts may claim this, but we lack sufficient information to make this claim. The current Worldwide value is given on the right side of the article. See the 3.38 million vs. 3.19 million discussion below for more info on how the total numbers are arrived at. --Jbanes 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Name Change section

That Article of The Revolution changed to the Wii is already old and is just annoying in the article. Should it be erased?Pendo 4 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

Why? There was certainly controversy surrounding the name change, and besides, that section describes the idea behind the name as well. BryanG(talk) 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The subsection is about the name. It isn't exclusively about the name change. Just64helpin 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But people now the it is called Wii. Why would peop...oh...Forget aboeut ersing that part. I just realized that people would want to know about the name change and I am not being sarcastic.Pendo 4 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

YOU R SUCH A [personal attack removed]. IT IS CALLED WII BECAUSE IT IS COOLER> I AM ERASING IT!!!!!!!Stupid Hand 2 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)STUPID HAND 2

Please do not make personal attacks. –Llama man 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Competition again?

Some time ago, we'd talked about whether or not it was fair to directly state that the wii competes against the PS3 and 360.
The fact that they're both pursuing and attaining different markets tends to imply that they aren't in direct competition.
The compromise was to acknowledge that they're all part of the same generation, and as a result, compete "on some levels".
That's now been removed, and is once again declaring a direct competition.
I don't know how fair that is. Yes, there's some overlap of markets, but also a very strong divergence. Heck, the PS2 is a far stronger direct competitor of the PS3 than the Wii is.
So, what do you think? Was the previous compromise better than this? I won't bother reverting it, but for now, I'm adding a {{fact}} tag for where it currently presumes to state as a fact something that nintendo has flat-out denied. Bladestorm 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to this discussion? I believe the "on some levels" comment is unnecessary, all that the reader needs to know is that it competes with both consoles. The console is the most expensive Nintendo console to date, $50 more expensive than the GameCube at its launch. To say that the console isn't directly competing with Microsoft's and Sony's console is clearly wrong. Dionyseus 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we go by what's verifiable? What do the secondary sources say? --PsyphicsΨΦ 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's an article dated December 18, 2006, where it is stated in the third paragraph that the Wii competes with the PS3 and 360. [28] Dionyseus 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There's also an article from the The Economist that states: As it sets out to broaden the gaming population, Nintendo is not fighting against Sony and Microsoft, says Mr Iwata. Its real enemy is the indifference that many people still feel towards gaming[29]Mitaphane ?|! 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It's right here. Wasn't long ago. [30]
As for your link, dionyseus, you are correct. That article about wii straps does say that the wii competes agains the ps3 and 360. It doesn't state how they came up with that assertion. It isn't the point of the article. I'm not very familiar with, so I can't comment on how notable or verifiable they are.
Might I suggest that you should provide something just a bit more concrete if you're going to accuse nintendo of either:
  • Lying
  • Not knowing their own system or marketing plan?
From before the name, 'wii', was even released, they made it very clear that they weren't interested in direct competition.
Similarly, representatives of both Microsoft and Sony actually endorsed people getting the wii. Obviously, this wasn't because they wanted their "competitors" to get a larger market share. It was because they didn't view the wii as "direct competition".
Simply put, the primary reason that the wii is referred to as competing with them is because it is of the same generation. However, more objectively speaking, the PS2 competes with both the 360 and the PS3 more than the wii does. That is where the true market overlap exists.
I will concede that this current phrasing isn't quite as good as the previous phrasing. (was it jecowa who phrased it really nicely? I can't quite remember) Perhaps it should be bounced back to a much older phrasing. (just for the feel of it: it was something like, "nintendo is targetting a broader demographic, but as it is also of the seventh generation, it competes on some levels." Something to that effect)
Here's the facts:
  • Nintendo said they aren't in direct competition. Over and over again. Repeatedly. In many different ways.
  • Microsoft endorsed it; either as a form of intentional suicide, or because they didn't view it as direct competition.
  • Sony endorsed it; either as a form of intentional suicide, or because they didn't view it as a direct competition.
  • The PS2 is a more direct competitor (in terms of targeted market), even if it isn't intended to be.
  • While although there is, of course, some overlap of markets, the wii is still targetting a vastly different market/demographic, and has far less overlap with the PS3 or 360 than the PS3 and 360 have with eachother.
  • In your phrasing, you're essentially saying, "Nintendo claims they aren't in direct competition with the PS3 or 360, but they absolutely are. In every way."
It's POV-pushing. It's largely OR. (Though I do believe the previous phrasing was better than the current phrasing) Bladestorm 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that Bill Gates just said that their biggest competitor is Nintendo. Neither Sony nor Microsoft have encouraged Wii sales since it came out (probably biggest they didn't expect it to do as well as it is). Whether or not Nintendo is trying to compete with PS3 and Xbox 360, the fact is that they are. TJ Spyke 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Arguably, they aren't. I'm not surprised that Sony and Microsoft are suddently afraid of Nintendo. As much as I wanted a wii, I still didn't expect it to do nearly so well. (I figured it'd be comparable to my beloved gamecube)
However, you have to remember the key points:
  • Nintendo covers a different market. -Even if Nintendo's stealing a bit of the 360's and/or PS3's thunder, neither of those two systems appeals in the slightest to non-gamers. I've been converting non-gamers left and right to the wii and ds. That is, even if the wii ends up being a threat to them, they still aren't a significant threat to the wii, and as such aren't competing.
  • Even if you do better than someone, that doesn't mean you're competing. Competition isn't a passive action. It's almost like arguing. You could shout tons of points at me, and question everything I believe, but if I don't reciprocate, then we're still not arguing.
  • Nintendo's not exclusively targetting the hardcore gamer. They're not targetting people who want their consoles to act like PCs. They're not targetting the HD market. PS3 and 360 are doing all of those things. A person looking for HD, insane processing power, or media centre functionality will not go to the wii. My girlfriend (who pretty much gave up on games several console generations ago when they got more complicated than they were fun) won't be looking for a 360 any time soon.
Incidentally, I thought I might include here my two favourite alternate phrasings:
This doesn't present any OR at all. It acknowledges that they're in the same generation. Conclusions/opinions are left to the reader. It's entirely neutral, noncontroversial, and doesn't accuse anyone of lying or being an idiot.
This contains some OR, in that it draws a conclusion for the reader. However, at least it clearly establishes the context for that conclusion, and doesn't put undo influence on any suggestions that, 'nintendo claims one thing, but they're either lying or stupid and I know their marketing strategy better than they do.'
Obviously, I prefer the former over the latter, but I could accept either. The point is that making a definitive conclusion about something that's very much disputed is always a bad idea. Bladestorm 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do like the second one (which is what was there up until a few days ago). It's like how Ford and Ferrari compete on some levels since they both manufature cars, while targeting different markets (Ford a general consumer while Ferrari for rich/upscale consumers). TJ Spyke 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you do me a favour and change it to the second option then? I can't imagine there being any objections to that (at least as an interim version) since I think it's currently my version that's up anyways. (I'd do it myself, but I think I might already be at 3 reverts, and I get sooo paranoid about that, even for self-reverts) Bladestorm 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the line was reworded due to clutter. The older version had a heavy amount of qualifiers, so I've abandoned it in favor of new one. Just64helpin 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Just64helpin, I agree with your version. Dionyseus 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii as Wi-Fi Hub for DS?

Does the Wii work as a Wi-Fi hub for the DS? The information I have seen so far has been very confusing. --Chris Griswold () 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I tested the DS to see if it works doesn't work.Pendo 4 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4

3.38 million vs. 3.19 million

TJ, thank you for trying to update the Worldwide numbers. However, please allow me to explain why I reverted them. There are a couple of problems with the change you made:

1. You left the "As Of December 31, 2006". Your change actually gives an invalid number for that date.

2. By adding the numbers, you're giving a value that has no frame of reference. Yes, we know that there are at least that many units in circulation. However, it is not a valid value for any known period of time. Thus we cannot give an "As Of" date for reference.

3. Adding the numbers is original research. Wikipedia is only supposed to report verifiable data. If someone authoritive makes the statement, then we can add it. Without that authoritive statement, however, Wikipedia is providing potentially unreliable information.

That's my take on the situation. Let's discuss. I hope we can come to a concensus. Thanks! Jbanes 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We can just remove the date. It's not original research since it is just adding up confirmed numbers (which have sources right below). That should take care of your concerns. TJ Spyke
Not entirely. The number you get by additive process is not confirmable by any source. That's still original research. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. We need to provide references for each bit of data we provide. Also, all other numbers provide an "As Of" date. I'm not certain of the wisdom of removing the "As Of" so that we can provide original research.
A question: You said in your edit that the numbers were "already agreed upon". Agreed upon by whom? The individual numbers are agreed upon, but the new total you provide was not (to my knowledge) agreed upon by consensus.
Last but not least, will you please stop editing the page until this dispute is resolved? The previous numbers are sourced and "known" to be good. Once we've discussed this matter, there's nothing to stop you from changing the numbers after we've had a change to discuss. Thanks. --Jbanes 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Adding numbers is not original research. --Conti| 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you ContiE. Adding up confirmed numbers is simple deduction (which is not OR). Confrmed numbers add up to 3.38 million, meaning that is the minimum number of systems sold. When I said agreed upon, I meant it was agreed to add up confirmed numbers to get the worldwide total. TJ Spyke 23:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
But does that apply in this instance? The page you linked to refers to simple calculations that are easily verifiable. This is not such a simple calculation because the numbers fluctuate on a regular basis. In particular, the new number would combine numbers from two different time frames to produce a total.
The question I would like to discuss is, is this really a simple calculation or is it potentially misleading information? By using a sourced number, we have a value that can be easily cited by anyone. By using a calculated number, anyone attempting to use that information would need to reproduce the complete list of citations along with the computation used.
That's my concern, anyway. If it's acceptable to the whole, then I have no issue with removing the dispute tag. --Jbanes 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would call this a simple deduction, since we just add all (sourced) numbers we have. Everyone can do that. That these numbers are from different time periods might be a problem, but it has, IMHO, nothing to do with original research. Looking at the numbers we have, three are from December 31, 2006, and one is from January 28, 2007. When we add those numbers, we can simply use the latest date, and the numbers will be correct. But if we have similar numbers that are sourced, I see no problem with simply using them instead. Especially since they don't seem to be terribly out of date. --Conti| 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
One reason is that official worldwide totals are usually only released quarterly, so it would only be update once every 3 months. These numbers are verifiable, only change about once a week (since Japan's numbers are released weekly, North America monthly, Europe/Australia usually by Nintendo since they don't have something like NPD/Media Create). I believe the "+" and the note "see below" takes care of the time frame since it's sayin that the system has sold at least this amount. TJ Spyke 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. My own research concurs with yours that additive numbers have been allowed in the past. As such, I will withdraw the dispute tag since it is obviously allowed elsewhere. However, the additive numbers elsewhere appear to have gone unchallenged. Since there has been no real discussion on the topic, I would like to continue this thread with all the Wii editors.
I am still strongly opposed to this practice as the additive number holds no real value. Anyone doing research into these gaming systems would be left without a difinitive source from which to pull the latest official numbers. Furthermore, they can always perform the additive step themselves even if we don't display the result.
As to your point about the frequency with which the numbers change, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a news site. Quarterly updates from official sources are more than enough. There are more than enough sites on the net that track both known and projected sales irrespective of the validity of the totals. Wikipedia is a collection of encyclopedic facts that can be sourced. To that end, I believe that sourced worldwide numbers are far more useful (and important!) than publishing a number that is only useful in ongoing arguments over "console superiority".
That's my opinion, anyway. I look forward to hearing more opinions from others. Thank you again, TJ, for your patience. I'm glad we were able to come to a resolution on this issue. --Jbanes 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding up the confirmed numbers has been the established practice in all three seventh generation consoles, and as User:TJ Spyke said, the "+" takes care of the time frame issue. Dionyseus 23:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a real quick reminder people:
"These are not Original Research" is not a policy.
It is not even a guideline.
It is an essay. It has no more strength or validity than any other editor's opinion.
While although it can be provided to present interesting logic/arguments, it has no actual authority in terms of dealing with these content disputes. Thank you for your time. Bladestorm 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So? No one ever said that an essay has any authority. It just explains and interprets policy, just like any user can. I could've said the same thing without linking to that essay. --Conti| 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Either way, I agree that the "simple deductions" idea doesn't apply here. These numbers aren't from the same sources or time frames; adding them up implies that a single official source has given the added total. Leebo86 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I know contie. Like I said, it can be used to present interesting logic/arguments. I just wanted to remind anyone who might skim through it (or not follow the link at all) that is isn't a policy or guideline.
That said, I really don't think it matters whether it says the totals as of December 31st, or said the totals of all known values (so long as it doesn't include an "as of" at all for that number) The former option allows you to definitively state how many were sold at a single point in time. The latter saves you some addition for more recent numbers. Both have value in different way. I really doubt it's worth arguing over. To be honest, I don't see a problem with leaving it spyke's way so long as it's left as 3.38 million+(the '+' is important), and doesn't have an "as of" date appended to it. Bladestorm 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Color TV Game

What was Color TV Game, was it a video game console? If not what was it, if yes, wii is the sixth video game not fifth. Please give your input, it is important to define this to this and many other nintendo articles. Chico 02:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Wii#Sixth Video Game. Basically, it was like those Plug and Play video games you see from Jakks. TJ Spyke 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

that reminds me, what about the Virtual Boy? Johnny's pizza 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a portable system (although not very comfortable). I once e-mailed Nintendo and they said just gave a typical e-mail answer (i.e. not helpful at all). Lrrr IV 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

4.5 Million Wii units sold

[[31]] Nintendo Themselves have announced today that 4.5 million Wii's have been sold. (The source is NOT nexgenwars or VGcharts) Dctcool 13:29, 14 February 2007 (AEST)

Actually, it is VGCharts. --Maxamegalon2000 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If Nintendo announced this, there would be a PR release. I would suggest finding that before changing it, since this does look like a VG Charts number, and it wouldn't be the first time a site used VG Chart's guessed numbers. TJ Spyke 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It says right at the bottom of that blurb that it's VGCharts's number. Even if it didn't say that, the whole thing looks suspicious. Leebo86 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The source is not VGCharts itself but specifically refers to it. --Stratadrake 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added an editor's note for future edits. Just64helpin 17:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of hidden secrets on the Wii channels and such, should there not be a section on these somewhere? :/CryoSabre 00:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe on the Wii Channels page, but WP is not a game guide. TJ Spyke 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove WikiNews Link?

I feel that the Wikinews Link on the subject of the name change should be removed as it simply creates a large gap in the layout, increasing in size as the width of the monitor is larger. I want to receive at least 5 "yes" votes in order to see if it is only a problem in my eyes or not. WatashiNoAiken 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Picture Maybe?

Wii (as in we get it) need a better picture of the Wii that one is animated and theres a bunch of real pictures out there that are official so yeah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

WP rules say free pics should be used instead of fair use pics whenever possible (using ones from Nintendo would be fair use). TJ Spyke 05:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What happened to that picture we had before this one? Wasn't that one free? Uturnaroun 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Which? The last I recall was taken at a trade show or such, so it was at an odd angle, poorly lit (with coloured light, none the less), and had harsh reflections. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any Updates On the Interlink Case?

I was just wondering if anyone may know a few new details about the (really stupid) Interlink lawsuit, as well as all the other mentioned lawsuits. Otherwise should they still be mentioned at all? They're getting a little old... Nintenboy01 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Law suits generally take a while. The ones mentioned are far from old. --Maxamegalon2000 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference USA Today was invoked but never defined (see the help page).