Talk:Wii Play

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


At it says February 14 for a US release, I don't know which one is right, but I thought that It would be a good point to make. Source:

Stop changing the release date for the United States! On it strickly says January 15. So STOP!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Nintendo's press site says February 12th, that is also what retailers are listing it as. TJ Spyke 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats your source on the Wii Play for only EB in Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:21, October 4, 2006.

And what's the source on the American release date? (unrelated note: I linked the "Duck Hunt" reference to that page) - Kevingarcia 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Reggie mentioned the US release date in an interview. There are better sources, but here is one: TJ Spyke 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

On the note of sources, regarding the games, I found sources:

The below sources were listed on the GameFAQS Message Board for the game:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by knuckles_sonic8 Knuckles sonic8 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Having just played and unlocked the full range of games in 'Hajimete no Wii (i.e. the Jap version), I'm wondering if we still need sources for the "claimed" unlockables. 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we still do just not the statement of it being "claimed"; anything else you wanna share on the game? Knuckles sonic8 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The release date on Nintendo's website says January 15th, 2007. It sounds like some people already have it. I just bought it a remote and it didn't come with anything. Will there be a download available for those that purchased a remote before it was included?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Their press site says February 12th. Stores in North America don't have it, so if you see anybody with it (and they live in North America) then they must have an import copy. It's not a downloadable game, and of coarse they will not give it away for free. TJ Spyke 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I bought Wii Play today in the US and it was the first day for it to be available. So, I'm pretty sure, it didn't come out the 12th.--Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It was released yesterday, it's just that most stores didn't recieve it until today. It was released yesterday though. TJ Spyke 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art[edit]

Can people please stop changing the European box art image to the North American box art image, this should not be done for three reasons;

  • It was there first, there is nothing wrong with the image and there is no need to change it.
  • The game was released in PAL regions first and so it makes sense that this is the box art that should be in the article.
  • The game is not even going to be released in North America for about six weeks so why have an unreleased box art that may change rather than one that has been around for weeks.

Timkovski 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn edit conflict! There seems to be a few edits and reverts over the box art shown. I've kept it to Image:Wii Play Europe.jpg, with the reasoning:

  • It was the original artwork being used in the article, and was and still is perfectly suitable.
  • It is the box art for all PAL region games (Europe and Australasia).
  • It carries the themes shown in the original Japanese box art. [10]


the vandal seems to be very persistent, but i'm not sure how to revert to a version other than the first previous version. how do you revert to an older version? Murderbike 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Click on History, and go back to a find the last version that wasn't vandalized. Click Edit and then save that. I've requested semi-protection for this article to help stop the vandalism. TJ Spyke 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

EU success[edit]

Isn't this a "surprise success" in Europe simply because it comes bundled with extra Wii Remotes?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It would be speculation (unless you go up to every person who bought the game and asked them why they bought it). Also, put new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your comments. TJ Spyke 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the success in Europe hardly warrants the word "surprise". Simply enough to say it was the biggest selling launch title in Europe - and frankly, while you may say it is speculation, it's pretty obvious that this is down to WiiPlay + remote being only slightly more expensive than a remote on it's own (making sales of WiiPlay anything but surprising). Plus "surprise" implies that the game is somehow not as good as other launch titles, which is a bit POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Research into this, then add the line "It is also the most returned game as people only wanted the remote to start with" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Reception "average"?[edit]

An "aggregate score of 58%" seems rather below average to me. Redxiv 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Only if you go by the scoring system used in schools. 50% is average. TJ Spyke 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
58% is below average. 50% is not average, it is half. You cannot say what number is average unless you have other data to compare that number to, and in this case, we do. There are 33 Wii games rated on metacritic, the mean score of those games is 65.18, the median score is 67 and the mode score is 72. So in all of those cases, Wii Play scores below average. Timkovski 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh-huh, so if a launch had games with an average of 38, a game scoring 40 would be above average? Whatever. TJ Spyke 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course it would. 33 games is not exactly a small number to compare it to, and it is defintely below average when compared to them, so saying in the article that the game was rated average is definitely not true, especially when followed by such negative comments. Even when compared to ratings of other games on other consoles, 58% is not average. Timkovski 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It's based on the fact that 50% is the average of the review scale (5 on a 1-10 scale, 50 on a 1-100 scale, etc). 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, that's just half way, that's not how average works. There is no such thing as a generic average for every set of data, you can only work out an average for a specific set of data by looking at that data. If you're taking the average to be the mean, which most people do, then that number is obtained by addin all the values of the data and dividing by the number of pieces of data. It's just simple maths. Timkovski 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It would just get out of hand as more and more games get released. 50% is average, whether you want to admit it or not. TJ Spyke 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why 50% is average. What is it average for? I've clearly shown that in this case it is not the average so I don't know what you're trying to say? Timkovski 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
On a review scale (you know, what reviews use to rate games), the score in the middle (like a 5 in a 10 point scale) is the average (I guess it would be 5.5 if it's a 1-10 scale rather than 0-10). 58% could be considered just barely above average. The score should change anyways since it's about to be released in North America (where most of the reviewers are). TJ Spyke 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you still don't understand how average works. Average is NOT the number halfway on the scale (50%), it is the number that is most representitive of an individual score. For example, assuming we're using the mean, if every game scored 75%, the average would be 75%. If there were two games, one scored 100% and the other scored 50%, the average score would be 75%. Timkovski 23:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand either. Wii Play may be below the average of Wii games, but it is NOT below the average of a review score. 49% and lower is below average. TJ Spyke 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Finally, you may understand how average works! Congratualtions, score one for america! Do you have any reliable sources to say what the average review score of a game is? Would it not just make sense to compare it to the average score of released Wii games of which we have the data to back up? Timkovski 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
One source is Game Informer, which make a point to say 5 is an average score (since so many magazines seem to think anything below a 8 is considered bad, resulting is almost every game being 8 and up). TJ Spyke 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
There you go, you said it yourself, "resulting in every game being 8 and up". You didn't specify, but I assume you mean 8 out of 10 which is 80%, the if every game is rated 80% as you say, surely 58% is below average? Timkovski 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant that some other magazines were treating it like anything below a 8 is crap and would rarely ever give a game anything less than 8. It would be like Ebert giving almost every movie 4 or 5 stars and only giving utter crap 3 stars or less. TJ Spyke 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, as you have no source to back up that you think anything above 50% is above average, we should change the article to reflect what we do have a citation for, which is the fact that the game scored below average for a Wii game. Timkovski 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It will probably be change in a few weeks anyways once reviews from North American websites/magazines start coming in. TJ Spyke 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Timkovski on this one, just because various reviewers are using the term "average" incorrectly it does not mean that Wikipedia has to. Frederik Holden 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I stated that 58% is average, is because that is the designation given by Metacritic. Different magazines have different rating systems, different "averages". It's up to Metacritic's scoring algorithms to decide how much to weight the score on their scale. For example, I listed the 3 crossreview scores given by EGM, yet on Metacritic, that score is listed as 52. That being said, you could just replace the "average" with "mixed" and it wouldn't really matter. In the reception section I tried to list the entire range of scores from glowing to downright hostile from publications across the globe. What would be nice, as always, is a Japanese perspective, but I don't have access to those. - hahnchen 01:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Wii Play is the second best selling Wii game in Japan (only behind Wii Sports), I don't think most Japanese care either way. TJ Spyke 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, for a game bundled cheaply with a remote, I don't think that many people do. Still, reception sections are useful in articles. - hahnchen 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, i think you are all wrong. That's right, more fighting. An Above average game means it works by contrast. I think a lot of this dispute would be solved if you said. "It is above the average of (all video games for such and such time, video games being made now, video games for this console, video games for each genre.)".

On another note, i do not think that 50% contrasts to anything, and thus can not be used as a base for an average. It isn't a mean, median, or mode.

I think what might be going on (definniately OR so don't include in article) is that the lower scores are from those revewing the set of games as a whole and the higher ones are just revewing the subset they liked the most. These games have wide varity of interest & replayability. Personally I would rank the Air Hockey one the best, shooting 2nd, and tennis 3rd. Tanks has potiential but suffered in my eval from having the shots bounce back from walls instead of being absorped or making holes. (Non-intuitive and quite annoying for a "partice shot" to hit yourself). My worst eval though was for the Pool Table; holding a wrist or arm in mid air level pushing & pulling is extremely non-natural. I would need something like a real pool stick under my arm to reliably do that. Jon (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cover art again[edit]

I thought we went through this time, but some editors seem to think that their country should have priority when it comes to the image used for cover art in this article. The PAL region cover deserves priority in this article because, as stated before;

  • It was there first, there is nothing wrong with the image and there is no need to change it.
  • The game was released in PAL regions first and so it makes sense that this is the box art that should be in the article.
  • It was the original artwork being used in the article, and was and still is perfectly suitable.
  • It is the box art for all PAL region games (Europe and Australasia).
  • It carries the themes shown in the original Japanese box art.

Not to mention the fact that the PAL region comprises the world's largest region for consoles (Europe)[11], [12]. It not only contains Europe, but Australasa, Russia, the middle east and Africa. So as Japan also uses a similar cover, it is the majority of the world which will see this cover.

I don't know how anyone can dispute all this, but there seems to be one vandal that keeps reverting it. He seems to be known as vandal and user of sock puppets (see here) he also seems to have broken the three revert rule already on this as well as putting those reverts down as a minor edit so perhaps an administrator can check him on this. Timkovski 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have the nerve to call me a vandal? Someone else changed it to begin with, I just changed it back after it was reverted. I will come up with more reasons later, but one quick reason:
  • The NA cover conveys the same them as Wii Sports (and likely Wii Music)

Also, the game was NOT release in PAL regions first (Japan is NTSC, not PAL). I have reverted twice, that is not breaking the 3RR. TJ Spyke 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The PAL region game was released before the us version so the PAL cover should be shown in preference to the us cover. You reverted it once here [13] (which you labeled as (m)), here [14] (which you again labeled as (m)) and finally here [15]. I count that as three. Timkovski 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
2 Reverts in the last 24 hours (the first one was 27 hous ago), I just made my 3rd one and won't revert again since I don't want to violate it (although I was verting vandalism, which doesn't count). Under your logic, almost every game cover would use the Japanese version. The PAL versions are usually only used if there is no North American version (or if it's like Wii Sports, which didn't have a real cover in North America). TJ Spyke 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Under my logic, no game released in an English speaking territory would use a Japanese cover. The cover used should be the one that best fits the article. The game was released in PAL regions (where English speaking territories include the UK, Australasia and South Africa) before north america. Therefore people are much better aquainted with the PAL cover. The north american cover should not automatically get precedent, that does not give a worldwide view of the subject. Timkovski 09:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There is apparently an anti-American view on Wikipedia. Articles like Brain Age were moved to the European name, and many article names use the backwards queen's English spelling. You need to stop vandalizing the page and calling me a vandal just because you don't agree that the North American cover should be used. TJ Spyke 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have put forward a clear argument towards my case to which you have not responded. You just to continue to revert the change without reason, I think it is rather clear who the vandal is. Timkovski 09:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good reason why it should be the NA box art: consistency. Nearly every other video game on Wikipedia that has been released in both territories is represented by North American box art, regardless of release date. Constantly changing the box art to the PAL version makes this game stick out like a sore thumb when compared to the other video game articles. It has nothing to do with a biased world view, it is just common sense to keep Wikipedia consistent. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK TO THE PAL ARTWORK SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE TEACHING NORTH AMERICANS SOME KIND OF LESSON! For the sake of Wikipedia, keep it consistent, keep it the North American box art. If you must have the PAL box art included, make a comparison image like the one in the Brain Age article (which still makes the article stick out like a sore thumb.) And yes, I know I don't have an account. It doesn't make my point any less valid. 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of box arts are identical across both regions so the version shown does not matter. The European cover art may stick out like a sore thumb to you, but the american version would stick out like a sore thumb to someone else. For many reasons it makes sense to use the European version. Timkovski 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you've basically said "it doesn't matter which version to use" followed by "We should use European". So far, we've heard "consistency" as a reason to choose NA versions, can you give one of the "many reasons" why the EU is better? McKay 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
See #Cover_Art. The "consistency" reasoning is rubbish, it's based on a false premise that all cover art should be American. It's not. Grand Theft Auto (video game) uses the British cover art, whereas Psychonauts uses the American, and Shadowgrounds uses German. There is no overriding dictation that all cover art (books/albums/games) should be American. The European cover was uploaded months before the American one, but the American one was never deleted because every time it was tagged as an orphan it'd be inserted by a user. Just like with naming conventions, if there's no overwhelming argument on either side, it sticks with its original name, such as gasoline. Why is it that the original is being removed just because its not American? Even though Yoshi's Universal Gravitation is back at its original name, the box art there still shows the American cover. I know America is going ape crap over the mediocrity which is Wii Play right now, giving it a lot of attention, that still does not justify the removal of the original. - hahnchen 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you obviously didn't understand what I was saying. I was attacking a flaw in logic. Tim said "the version shown does not matter." then went on to say "For many reasons it makes sense to use the European version." Almost as if to say that the first statement implied the second. Which isn't true. Then I said that others have a reason of "consistency" and however weak the reason is, it is a valid point.
Having said that. I have read the talk page a little more throughly. See comments below. McKay 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The consistency reasoning is far from rubbish. Yes, I am saying that all cover art, where applicable, should be represented by the North American artwork. This is simply due to the fact that, if you look at a random sampling of games on Wikipedia (not the exceptions to the rule listed above), they are most obviously the NA versions (white ESRB box rather than black box) even when the artwork is otherwise indestinguishable. Now, if someone wants to go and change all the box art images to the PAL versions, go right ahead, because then Wikipedia will at least have a sense of consistency. Now, the reasoning that "it was there first", to me, makes absolutely no sense. Why does that matter? Doesn't the fact that Wikipedia allows you to make revisions show you that revisions should be made when applicable? Just like print Encylclopedias, which have newer volumes with updated information and images, Wikipedia is meant for constant revisions, including box art when it becomes available. "It was there first, therefore there is no reason to change it" isn't a valid reason in my opinion. It seems to me, if people are just going to keep switching it back and forth, that an image showing both versions needs to be uploaded in place of the one that is there now. If anything, there needs to be a mention of the differences in artwork, due to the fact that, if anything, it is an interesting piece of random trivia. 12:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

-EDIT- All currently available Wii games [16], released in both Europe and NA, are represented with the North American box art. The only exception is Wii Sports, which doesn't have true North American box art, and as such, it makes sense that it is represented by PAL artwork. Consistency is important in projects such as this, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. The fact that it was released in PAL locations first doesn't mean it should forever be represented by PAL artwork. 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Another perspective[edit]

There are very few reasons to favor one image over another. Arguments based on sales data really don't hold up very well, and across the entire CVG project, such arguments usually lead to exciting edit wars that never die (Genesis/Mega Drive). If we go by the convention that is used for British/American spelling differences, then the first style (or in this case, image) that was used first should remain in use. However, the North American cover art does conceivably do a better job identifying the game, as the cover art includes screen shots of the gameplay. So, from a fair use perspective, the North American cover art can both be used to illustrate the packaging and illustrate examples of gameplay (for critical commentary). Thus, the North American cover would make a much much stronger argument for fair use. --- RockMFR 08:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a small comment: reverting it back and forth isn't helping things. I think the article is pretty close to being protected at this rate. RobJ1981 09:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Due to the continued edit waring, this page has been protected, and will stay that way until the dispute is resolved. A couple things that will hopefully benefit everyone:

  • Just because we have the three revert rule does not mean that you should "use up" your three reverts when you are in a disagreement. The policy even states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." If you know that there is a disagreement going on, take it to the discussion page before editing anymore.
  • While discussion is going on, it generally isn't helpful to revert back to the version of the page that you thought was better. Meta makes fun of "The Wrong Version", but that applies to when discussions are going on too, not just when pages are protected. Yes, you might not agree with what the page is showing at the current time, but reverting to the version you like rather than discussing it first (or even doing both simultaneously) is just counter-productive, and as you can see in this case, often leads to the page being protected. I know it can be hard to discuss something when you don't like how the page is at the moment, but it is the best way to resolve disputes.

-- Natalya 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets get this resolved. McKay 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently it's still not resolved. I've added this page to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Way to go, folks. —Metamatic 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary of points[edit]

Okay, here's an overview of the valid points thus far: (feel free to edit this section)

European: Image:Wii Play Europe.jpg

  • First cover presented for the page[17]
  • Prettier (POV)
  • It is more similar to the box art for all versions of the game, Pal, European, Australia... note, this argument could be used in favor of any other box art besides NA (like Japan for instance)


  • No image available on Wikipedia :(
  • First cover for the game was the Japanese version.
  • Box art is similar to other regions (besides NA).

North American: Image:Wii Play.jpg

  • Consistency. Most other Wii games use the American Box art (where available) - although see Kororinpa for another game using PAL boxart.
  • This version contains screenshots of gameplay, thus the image both identifies and illustrates the subject, and can be used for critical commentary of the subject (all good points when dealing with fair use).
  • ESRB notifications are less annoying than PEGI and OFLC (POV, but might be widespread)

straw poll[edit]

feel free to vote

  • North American I'm in favor of consistency, so NA is where my choice is, but I really like the Japanese Arguments. If someone would convert all of the images to Japanese versions. I would be more in favor of that. McKay 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • North American The North American version is usually used unless there was no NA release. North America is also the largest market in terms of sales (I am aware that is not the case for every game, but it is for most). TJ Spyke 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • European - This talk page is not the most suitable place to debate this issue, it is more wide ranging than that and affects other such articles. I've covered the reasons at User_talk:Mckaysalisbury#Wii_Play_cover_art and WT:CVG#Cover_Art_question_-_Wii_Play. My views on this particular issue reflect my views on other facets of Wikipedia, such as the Manual of Style and Naming conventions, in that they say, "If the original position is sound, then do not replace it", but I recommend you read the links to my arguments above. This as much of a vote for a particular piece of artwork, than a vote against the ability for others to replace artwork just because it suits their world view. - hahnchen 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, I disagree. I think that the issue *needs* to be resolved here. We've got a protected page. We need a resolution. Sure, it can be brought up at WT:CVG, but we have to achieve consensus so that the page can be unprotected. On my talk page, you specifically mentioned the increase in popularity with the article among people in NA. Isn't that a good reason to match to the popular demand? McKay 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that interest is spiking now due to the recent American release is going to skew the proportion of visitors here towards a certain result. I'm sure you can appreciate, that right now, and only for a short time period, is the article going to be a lot more popular in North America than anywhere else, where the interest has already subsided. The reason I brought this up at WT:CVG was that there are obviously wider issues here. - hahnchen 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Crop of logo (WHAAAAA?!?!!) or North American. The question is- which of these box arts can be used to identify the game? If you take the neutral position that 50% of players know the NA art and 50% know the European/Japan art, then neither really properly identifies the subject. So... why not just crop the logo (which is the same on all English versions of the game, as far as I know) and use that as the image in the infobox? I also think using the full NA art is a good option as it contains gameplay screenshots and can be used for critical commentary of the gameplay in addition to identifying the game. --- RockMFR 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that the NA cover shows screenshots of the game gives it an edge in identifying the game. TJ Spyke 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • NA Version Articles on Wikipedia need to stay consistent. The argument "If the original opinion is sound" does not apply here, because it isn't sound. The PAL image is inconsistent with the other English Wii releases listed, as all others are represented by North American artwork. This has nothing to do with a biased world view, it has to do with keeping Wikipedia consistent. I've already made my other points above, and the points made by others are also valid, especially the fact that it provides a clearer image of what gameplay is like. Elsnerma 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    But isn't the Wii Sports article the European box art too? --Pinoydeltafan1988 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that's because Wii Sports didn't get a box in North America, just a small plastic sleave (although the sleave does have the exact same art as the EU release). TJ Spyke 07:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Drat, response lost by a CTRL+R, when I meant CTRL+T. Elsnerma made a comment that "If the original opinion is sound". I think what was said was a little curt, but is still a valid opinion. I think consistency should be adhered to. But I think we should go to the bigger policy and because we don't really have a good answer to "In which English region is this Wii game more central?" (because the answer is probably "Mu, it's a Japanese topic." we can go up a step, and ask about which English region are video games a more primary topic. Sure, Korea and Japan play a lot of video games (probably by total, but almost certainly per capita), but they aren't English either. Americans are stereotyped as being lazy couch potatoes (one of the oft-cited reasons for 9/11). But besides that, Video games are an American topic, as it was invented and cultivated in the United States first. That doesn't mean that all video game topics should be moved to American versions, but in the case where the game itself doesn't have a specific (English) locale, America might be a nice choice. (e.g. Darwinia (computer game) is best served by European perspective...). McKay 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • North American in order to provide consistency to the Wii Game Series articles, but I suggest at the bottom of the page a gallery of the 2 other covers to inform users the differences between the NA and EU/JP covers. --Pinoydeltafan1988 09:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • European. The reasons for the PAL box art greatly outweigh the reasons for the na box art, it really should be obvious. Also, a straw poll is definitely not the best way to sort this out. Timkovski 09:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    No Tim, it obviously isn't obvious. If it were obvious, the page wouldn't be protected. Unless you stand by the fact that everyone who changed the image is obviously a vandal and couldn't possibly have made an edit in good faith. Can you please enumerate your reasons for why you think European is better? McKay 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Either go with Japanese for country of origin or my personal choice, crop to the logo and put the different cover versions in the article. Either way this is a pathetic dispute and some of the points expressed are ridiculous. If it were over the name over the article then it's a valid dispute but it's a box cover. - X201 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Alternative I've been away and had a fiddle around in my sandbox and I've come up with this X201/sandbox. I think it looks great, it provides a recognisable image for users in both regions that they have the correct article. Wouldn't this be a good compromise for all sides? - X201 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The images may split onto separate lines for some but that can be fixed by combining them into a single side-by-side image - X201 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that a compromise may be the best way to handle this, considering the fact that some people think a straw poll is not appropriate. Not only that, but by showing all three covers, readers will be more informed as well. Elsnerma 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the sandbox version is appropriate. McKay 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not using multiple fair-use images, or a collage of same, in this article's infobox. That flunks WP:FUC #3 horribly; that's NOT the least amount of fair-use material we need to identify this article. Like it or hate it, one single English-language image, whichever one it is, suffices to identify the subject of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You might want to take a look at Quest 64 then, they have 3 different covers in the infobox (NA,EU,JP). I vote say either the NA cover to remain consistant with the rest of Wikipedia, or X201's idea. Lrrr IV 07:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, we need this resolved somehow. Apparently collages and straw polls aren't satisfactory, so any other ideas on how to resolve this? Elsnerma 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The consistency argument is a misnomer. There has never been a high level dictation for consistency across regional english differences, and I don't see how Talk:Wii Play is the right place to be implementing such sweeping ideas. I'd urge editors here to take a look at the Wikipedia Manual of Style, especially this section and the lead in this section. Sure, it's for styles of English, but it explicitly states that there are no consistency rules, and is used in big naming disputes such as gasoline. - hahnchen 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No Image at all. There's nothing that says there must be an image there so seeing as this problem looks like it won't change we should go for the simple route out. No image in the infobox, that way it's a fair solution to the problem. Everyone loses seems the only way out, seeing as people won't/can't give ground. We could then create a section in the article that mentions that the game was released in different packaging in different regions which will regain the fair use rational for having both images on the article page. So that's my solution, nothing in the info box but both images in a different packaging section in the main article. - X201 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents to the issue, I didn't see anyone bring this up: For those arguing about being "consistent", WP has a policy, here about what spelling to use in the case of varients. I would think we should go with a similar thought here, and thus the European art is the way to go. (Feel free to move this comment to the proper space above, I can't figure it out in this mess.) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone here be opposed to having a crop of the logo in the infobox? --- RockMFR 18:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not opposed to it, but we can't. It's a breach of the fair use rules. Modification of images and all that - X201 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, cropping fair use images is fine. --- RockMFR 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Misunderstanding on my part. - X201 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with a crop Elsnerma 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as it's potentially difficult to identify the product in the marketplace with just a logo. Combination 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Both. It wouldn't be unprecedented. Take a deep breath.--CastAStone|(talk) 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The debate has clearly stagnated and has been inconclusive. The only sensible thing to do in this case is to leave the article how it is at the moment. Timkovski 11:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What? It's very clear that the consensus is either the North American cover or both. I could accept both, but Europe by itself is clearly not supported. TJ Spyke 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Using both is not an option. As A Man in Black said above "We're not using multiple fair-use images, or a collage ... That flunks WP:FUC #3 horribly". GarrettTalk 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What about taking scans or pictures of the boxes, wouldn't those be free? Hooliganz 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • European cover. There is no valid reason to change from the original as far as I'm concerned. Tim (Xevious) 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have a feeling that it'll remain European for a long time, as I don't think this page will ever be unprotected. And once it is, I have a feeling it won't be unprotected for long, and we'll be back to where we are now. 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The page won't be unlocked until the matter is settled. It seems most people agree it should be the North American cover, or maybe some sompromise. I think the suggestion to just have the logo in the infobox, and some of the different covers in a gallery in the article (where it could also include the Japanse cover). TJ Spyke 04:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't have Fair Use pics in galleries though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We could settle this by having someone in North America take a picture of the NA cover and a person in Europe take a picture of the European cover. That would make them free pics, right? TJ Spyke 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • European cover. It was released in Europe first, and the cover's much prettier. 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That is an opinion, and one I disagree with. The European cover is pretty damn ugly. TJ Spyke 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • European cover. In my opinion it's the better looking of the two but mainly I'm saying European because it supports Jimmy Wales' comment about WIkipedia being too North American. Arguments like "North America has higher sales" are ridiculous, imagine Wikipedia if an articles content depended on sales figures. The argument about all covers being from the same region to keep consistency is also half-baked, we'd be committing ourselves to having every cover from one territory no matter how crappy it was. - X201 12:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If anything, some folks are anti-North American. There seems to be a movement to make things more European. TJ Spyke 00:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That depends on your viewpoint. For every Anti-NA person there's someone who will insist on every word in Wikipedia that ends with 'ise' having a Z in it. The only real way out is to have a North American English Wikipedia and an International English Wikipedia, but that won't happen. - X201 08:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for others, but the only time I do that is if the subject of the article is American (like an American movie or American person). American English makes more sense to me (especially with words that end in -er, like center), but that doesn't matter here. TJ Spyke 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Regional English for regional subject makes perfect sense. In fact I changed center to centre the other day, but that was an article on a UK football club, I would never , and make a point of not, spell check distinctly American English articles. - X201 09:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • North America, maybe both NA looks better and it's more consistant. Hooliganz 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


This has gone on long enough.

Having reviewed this discussion/straw poll, I see a lack of convincing arguments to use any particular version. Lacking compelling arguments for a change, we go with the usual way of resolving arguments between American and English style: whichever way the article was to begin with.

Thus, we're going to stick with the EU cover.

If anyone thinks this isn't the best idea, I suggest opening a topical WP:RFC. I doubt it will go very far with the largely unconvincing arguments advanced on either side, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What? That is a bad solution. Just go with the idea one user had, use the logo in the infobox, MAYBE have the two different covers in the article itself. TJ Spyke 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The two covers in the article fails WP:FUC #3. I don't see a compelling argument to use the image least useful for identification (the logo only) in the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Simple, have someone scan their copy of the game. That would be a free picture rather than fair use. TJ Spyke 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. Scanning a copyrighted image does not make it a free image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant taking a picture. TJ Spyke 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Same problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But it wouldn't be fair use. I just don't see any reason for the European cover to be the one used. TJ Spyke 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any particular reason to use the EU or the NA cover. Neither of them has any advantages over the other. Given that, we stick with the one we had in the first place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Use one of the random image mediawiki extensions and let everybody get their image once in a while.--Henke37 12:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Use all three images —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The games section should be fixed[edit]

It reads like a "how to play each game" style of a guide. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. If people want to know how to play: they can read the instruction booklet or read a guide on a video game website. Just because Wii Play isn't out for all countries yet, is no excuse to make it seem like a how-to guide. And yes: I realize the Wii has unique controls, but do you realize if we listed that in every Wii game article, they would all be how-to guides? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide... period. RobJ1981 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

reception error[edit]

"Overall, in comparison to Wii Sports, this installment in the Wii game series was more positively recieved."

Unless I am decieved, didn't the section say that it was more negatively recieved than Wii Sports? --YesIAmAnIdiot 03:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Wii Sports is avergeing like 75% and Wii Play arund 55%, it should say negative. TJ Spyke 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't ANY wii game be less successful than wii sports, due to it being bundled with the wii? -- (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


I feel that the nunchuck should be stated as the primary means by which to move the tanks with the wii remote d-pad in brackets as the point of the game is too familiarise people with the nunchuk attachment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guest9999 (talkcontribs).

Can you WP:VERIFY that that was the purpose of the tank game, the nunchuck attachment?

Well, even the instruction stated nunchuk is optional. Just because it's recommened doesn't mean it's the original means.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talkcontribs).


The actual title of this mini-game, as it appears on the game selection screen (in the North American version at least), is "Shooting Range". Also, would it not make more sense to have the games listed in the order in which you're required to unlock them? ie. Shooting Range, Find Mii, Table Tennis, Pose Mii, Laser Hockey, Billiards, Fishing, Charge! and Tanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Can someone please correct a spelling error:

"Laser Hockey ... where the players move the Wii remote to deflect shots and try to score in the opponents goal."

The word "opponents" should be possessive: "opponent's."

Thank you Slant 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


I've heard that Wii play w/ Wii remote bundle is being discontinued. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partapdua1 (talkcontribs)

Do you have any source? TJ Spyke 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, my friend told me that Wii play bundle was being discontinued, and that Toys'r'us would have wii plays in stock on saturday (today), so i went there, and they had 1 left, and i bought it, and the cashier dude said that i was very lucky, casue that was their last in stock, and they mentioned that it was going to be discontinued [Wii remote bundle] Imma report back if i get any new sources. =) Partapdua1 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you have your friend and a TRU employee. I wouldn't call either one reliable sources (unless your friend works at Nintendo, haha). No, I have not even heard any rumors that the bundle is ending. TJ Spyke 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess well see in the following months! :D 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partapdua1 (talkcontribs)

It's certainly still being produced in Europe. Loads of shops just got new stock. Tim (Xevious) 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Range with 2 Remotes in 1P Mode![edit]

Shooting Range can be played with 2 Wii Remotes, even when playing Wii Play as Player 1, but Shooting Range is the only game that does this, because in the "Platinum Medal Earned" message, Nintendo suggests using two Wii Remotes for practice now or something like that! Is this worth mentioning somewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

It might be worth noting if the information is WP:Verifiable, and WP:Attributable. Also, that might be more of a game guide type information, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. McKay 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nunchuk Included?[edit]

I don't play the Wii, I just buy the crap for my daughter. Does the Will Play also include a free Nunchuk? Thanks (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

What? Nintendo giving you something for free? Of course not!~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

US Release?[edit]

Is the release date for US correct? I got the same game on February 1, 2007, while it said the release was on February 12, 2007. I live in the US just to let you know.
Tyty1234 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC) says the 12th for the US. Geoff B (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the same at GameSpot. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've heard of this happening before in the US for games, DVDs, and books. The general consenious in such articles was if you pre-ordered it and it arrives before the release date, count yourself lucky, but it doesn't change the offical release date. Jon (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Someone not too long ago dumped a bunch of cruft-smelling psychobabble on the article. Was it prudent to 86 this? It sounded irrelevant to everything. DodgerOfZion (talk)

External Link to Wii Play Tanks Strategy Guide[edit]

Hi, I'd like to obtain consensus to revive this edit (made by me, but subsequently reverted). The edit added a reference link to my own web site, which is a Strategy Guide site for Wii Play Tanks. I believe this edit is in the best interest of Wikipedia despite apparent violation of WP:COI and WP:EL and warrants exception.

Regarding WP:COI, I contend that this edit is done in good faith, as can be seen in my other neutral edits to the article. In addition, I did declare my interest in the link in my edit comment. More importantly, I believe the spirit of WP:COI really concerns the article itself rather than reference links, which brings us to WP:EL.

Regarding WP:EL, I believe my web site meets the criterion "acceptable links include those that contain ... information that could not be added to the article [due to] amount of detail ...[and] relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy". In particular, it is not suitable for inclusion due to

I also believe the link is of interest to a large subset of readers of this article, as it is to me, who wish to learn more about the mini-game. In fact, if it were not Wikipedia's guidelines, I would have created an article just for Wii Tanks, and I might not have created this site.

Perhaps it would make the link more appropriate if it were changed from, which contains more than just strategy guides, to, which is strategy guides only?--Bsoo (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your website fails external link criterion #11:
Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
So I think it shouldn't be included. Mushroom (Talk) 08:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh this teaches me a lesson to read WP articles more fully! (I read all of WP:COI but only part of WP:EL.) Well thanks for your reply Mushroom. --Bsoo (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Wii_Play_Screenshot_2.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Wii_Play_Screenshot_2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, and there is a description to it, but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (TheLoverofLove (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC))

File:Wii Play Screenshot 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Wii Play Screenshot 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Wii Play Screenshot 2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Define "Non-bundled."[edit]

In various sources, including this very wiki, Wii Play is often labelled "the best-selling non-bundled game ever." However, the game was actually originally bundled with a Wii Remote, the latter of which comprised 80% of the package's $50 price. So, does "bundled" strictly mean "originally bundled with a console," or can it also mean "a game that was originally bundled with a controller or other primary accessory, esp. one that is not 'full-priced'"? This is, arguably, an important distinction, as games like Super Mario 3, GTA: San Andreas, and Modern Warfare 3 are massively successful games that are indisputably standalone titles, while Wii Play is basically a $10 tech demo/budget mini-game collection that was initially released as a pack-in with the Wii Remote. I think this makes comparing Wii Play with the aforementioned blockbusters an "apples & oranges" scenario, thus making Wii Play possibly ineligible for "non-bundled" status. — JGoodman (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)