Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archive 7

message: It's been suggested above that this version be made the compromise for the article. Several editors have agreed to this, including LN3000, Neo Samus, TJ Spyke, DurinsBane87, and of course the version's author, Arcanelore. This would be able to apply to the 4 regional VC lists, but would leave open the question of the XBLA list article. Even so, do we have a consensus for this version on the VC lists going forward? --Cheesemeister3k 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall Rob also liking Arcanelore's version on Arcanelore's talk-page yesterday. But I guess I'll let Rob say it here for 'officialish'ness. :D LN3000 01:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hold off on applying it to the other 3 regions since the editors of those articles haven't been involved in any discussion (since they didn't have anybody trying to remove the Wii Points), but yes it seems to be the accepted version for this page. Off topic, but this weeks Japanese sales brought the Wii up above 8 million (as far as confirmed sales go, the last European numbers we got were in late April). TJ Spyke 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but perhaps we should wait for any remaining editors to chime in... hopefully in agreement. --Cheesemeister3k 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After this is unprotected and agreed on and everything, of course. Miles Blues 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So are we in agreement with Arcanelore's version then?  I am so glad that this is almost over.  Thank you everyone.  Neo Samus 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted for Mile's version.  --PeanutCheeseBar 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree to the compromise, however when/if a policy change happens: it shouldn't just be ignored. The compromise is a short term fix, and not a permanent fix. RobJ1981 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so it seems like we might need to compromise one verison we want.  Or, could we merger the two ideas somehow?  Rob, I realize that this is a "temp fix" but if it ever becomes a actually policy you need to discuss it with every page that is invlovled.  you can't just point at one page and think everyone will follow.  That's not how it works.  You have to look at the bigger picture.  I cannot strees that enough.  I do not want to see it escalate like it did these past two months.  Neo Samus 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction; I endorsed Mile's version.  --PeanutCheeseBar 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No correction necessary. "...except for one who preferred another proposed compromise." --Cheesemeister3k 06:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes me mad knowing that even though we are trying to find a compromise to appease a few people, that as soon as we make the compromise in the article, they will start attacking that, and get THAT to be removed. Very uncivil, very inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially when they are the ones who are saying "What's best for Wikipedia?!?" Sorry, I had to bring this up, since I know, and they know I'm right. LN3000 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Darn you beat me too it Cheesemeister3k!  :D  I so glad it's fianlly over (for the time being).  Neo Samus 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: I think we ought to add Official Nintendo VC page, since each game's page has a video, small write-up about the game, and how many points it costs. Miles Blues 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I suggested this some time ago. To add it as an external link at the bottom would also clear up this whole Wii Point thing, in my opinion, and make the article less controversial. Drumpler 06:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For external link 

message: vc-pce.com has revealed next month's TG16 titles: Air Zonk, Devil's Crush, Drop Off, and Silent Debuggers (but strangely not Dragon Spirit, which is listed on Hudson's NA site.) -Arcanelore 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, here's Dragon Spirit. -Arcanelore 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. My girlfriend wants Devil's Crush badly. Now if only they would release The Legendary Axe, I would have no reason to buy a TG16 anymore.SashaNein 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vc-pce 

message: Why did the Wii Shop Server Topic get archived?  That tpoic was still active?  Neo Samus 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a careless mistake; besides, it's not hard to start another.  --PeanutCheeseBar 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest against a new one. Read my post near the bottom of the archived section here: Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)/Archive 6#The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic. It might not do harm or anything, but frankly it's not about changing the article (as Arcanelore said: it's not relevant to the maintenance of the article anymore). Arcanelore has a point here. RobJ1981 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I liked it, but it stopped being useful once Nintendo stopped putting games up before Monday. TJ Spyke 01:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: Can we please talk about consolidating the Controller Compat. section into the intro? I really think that'd look better than a little mini-section that takes up space. LN3000 03:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like simply removing the section header? I have no problem with that. -Arcanelore 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well clean up the whole intro. It looks like a mess, quite frankly. General VC info should really be relegated to the Virtual Console article and not repeated here. This is a list of games, or at least that's what the article title says. --Cheesemeister3k 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The intro needs to be cleaned up.  Neo Samus 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Cheesemeister3k 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliantly well done! Congrats on a job well done! LN3000 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good!  Wow, I haven't seen the talk page this quiet in a long time.  :D  Neo Samus 03:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controller Compat.. again

message: Please don't move games from upcoming releases to available titles until noon Eastern, as listing the games as available before they really are is factually inaccurate. Thanks. --Cheesemeister3k 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, so now we are going to argue about when the best time to update is? Does it really matter? As soon as Nintendo puts out their press release, we should be able to update this article, so that it is up-to-date as quickly as possible. LN3000 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing, just making a simple request. I don't really mind either way. --Cheesemeister3k 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Games shouldn't be added to the list until the moment they're up. Drumpler 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care much either way, but I do want to point out that it's not one of the goals of Wikipedia to be "up-to-date as quickly as possible". There's no hurry to add information, especially if we're talking about waiting a matter of hours. Chaz Beckett 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be best to let whoever sees the press release update the page, that way at 9am, everyone isn't rushing to be the first to add them in. What's so bad about being a few hours early? LN3000 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, it doesn't hurt to be a few hours late either. Drumpler 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is a non-issue then. LN3000 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief everybody! Okay, one point I could put in favor of waiting until they are actually available for download would be IF Nintendo made a press release and then didn't actually deliver - for whatever reason. Has this happened? Have they proved unreliable? IF so, then that would be grounds to wait. If they have not, then this really should not be an issue. Duckingham 11:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a game isn't available, then it shouldn't be in "Available titles" section. Is that really hard to understand? I always found out it annoying to log on and see that someone added them at like 9AM EST (6AM PST). This won't stop some people (believe me, it doesn't work for wrestling PPV articles either), but I support reverting the edits until the games are actually available. TJ Spyke 01:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no issue with editing it in as soon as the press release for that particular Monday is posted; otherwise, all that's going to happen is someone will revert the edit back to the version without the new games, and once the games actually DO come out on the VC, someone will just revert it to the version with the new games. It's been noted in the main VC article that VC games are "officially" released around 12 PM EST, but it's also been noted that they've been known to be released a few hours prior (as early as 10 AM EST, in some cases). If they're edited in (and left in) when the press release is given for that Monday, it will just save two reverts later down the line, and possibly prevent some ill will as well.--PeanutCheeseBar 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's false info though. If a game isn't available, then it shouldn't be in the AVAILALABLE titles section. TO me, that is just common sense. Just because somebody doesn't know how to edit doesn't mean we should humor them and let the edit stay. I don't log on until the afternoon, but if I were I would revert any such edits until the games are actually available. TJ Spyke 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think an edit war over how early someone adds information from a cited and reliable source is a good idea, or even acceptable? LN3000 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The info won't be wrong though (unless Nintendo decides to switch titles literally at the last minute). LN, the issue is that the edits are wrong. If a title isn't available yet, then we shouldn't list it in the available titles section. Under your logic, why not add the games that are confirmed as soon as the clock hits 12:00 AM on Monday? I didn't think this would be an issue, it's so simple in my opinion (only available games should be in the available section). TJ Spyke 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, after further review I'm going to disagree (and strikethrough) my previous post on this. YES, it makes sense to wait until they are released since the section is "titles currently available." If they're not really available then, well, they're not really available. If they are supposed to be released at 12, it shouldn't be an issue for someone to post the change at that time. Of course, if someone happens to be on the VC and sees they are available a couple hours sooner, it also should not be a problem to post that fact on Wikipedia sooner. Duckingham 12:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Virtual Console doesn't always have all the newest games in the new releases section (there have been week where 2 are listed there, but the other isn't). I just don't see how we can list games as being available when they aren't. TJ Spyke 06:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "available" could be changed to "current" (which goes better with future anyway). A subtle change of wording, but a definite change of meaning. GarrettTalk 09:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the titles wouldn't be current if they aren't out yet. TJ Spyke 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, what is the big deal? If you have the information, and everyone KNOWS it's right, why can't you add that to the list? Are a few hours early going to ruin the article? LN3000 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii-kly update time

message: I think that this game is coming. nintendo has hinted and I have heard from nintendo that this game may come for the Virtual COnsole. Do u add it to the list?Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This list is for confirmed games, not rumored games (and Nintendo has not said anything about SSB, and I haven't seen them even hint at it. TJ Spyke 01:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "nintendo has hinted and I have heard from nintendo that this game may come for the Virtual COnsole". Could you please provide a published source? It can be added if it was, for example, mentioned by a Nintendo exec in an interview, but it can't just be added as a wild rumor. Zomic_13 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Smash Bros. Possibility 

message: Someone put Super Mario 2 before the June 18 release by mistake. This can only be determined thru sorting by release date. 198.5.255.10 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that, i've fixed it. TJ Spyke 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Mario 2 is out of order

message: Please stop changing the format of the article over and over again. I know you're all fighting about Wii points this and Wii points that, but I like to check this article for the content from time to time, and seeing it in a different format is really annoying. As a suggestion, maybe the "regular" editors should leave this article; there are thousands of other articles out there that could benefit from your meticulous attention to detail and order. I'm just saying that if you all walked away from it, that might be the best service you could provide the article, it would help to stop the pointless and ceaseless arguing and reverts.70.131.82.143 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment above, unknowingly not logged in. MegaLegoChai 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has not been any "arguing" in about a week or so. I also think that telling the regular editors to "go away" is a very poor idea. Another thing, because it is a Wiki, the format of an article will change along the way. You have to forgive the article. You really should take a look at the rest of a discussion page before commenting about "pointless and ceaseless arguing". LN3000 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed/ I've only been on the discussion for a few weeks, and the formatting ended over a week ago. I feel that everyone involved has been sorry that the disagreements have gone on, but that all "the regular editors" are satisfied with the compromise. If they left now, all that hard work would only go bak to "endless debate in the senate" amongst the newcoming editors who didn't already know where the article had been. And it would create *A LOT* more frustration for many more "casual users." It is the people who are willing to stick with an article who help keep it maintain the level of quality it should. The fact that there have been a number of editors engaged in "arguing and reverts" shows you that the people involved are passionate about the topic. I wouldn't have it any other way. :) Duckingham 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my own naivety that keeps me from realizing those involved would be able to see it any other way, i.e., I reject your reality and substitute my own.MegaLegoChai 17:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments continue to confuse me. (And I hope that's a Mythbusters reference! :D )LN3000 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he is trying to say that he can't see the regular editors of this article be willing to accept changes to the article that they don't like. TJ Spyke 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the regular editors of an article should let anyone come and make major changes to the format of an article? It doesn't make sense to complain that there are people who care about the article. LN3000 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, LN, they should.  It shouldn't matter who the editor is, since no one owns any article or runs any article, or anything of the sort on Wikipedia. Miles Blues 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miles has a point, that I really think people need to realize more on this article (as well as every article): no one owns or runs the article. RobJ1981 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Did I SAY that the regular editors should 100% be in charge of the article? NO. Stop accusing me of saying that. What I SAID was that people who have not been regular editors shouldn't be able to come and demand a major change to the article. As in, pointless changes that serve no point. I did NOT say that changes are bad. But I DO think that if an article is stable, you should think twice before drastic changes. Am I talking directly about this article? NO. Articles in general. Now lighten up, and get off my back. LN3000 06:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, some "casual reader" complained about layout changes about a week after layout changes stopped. are we really gonna get into this? DurinsBane87 01:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever, an article being "stable" or not is all in the eye of the person that views the article. What Miles said, is correct and simply isn't followed enough by editors on Wikipedia. He was making a point, and I highly doubt he was trying to single you out or attack you, or whatever you want to claim. I think you need to settle down about this. People have the right to voice their opinion, it doesn't mean you need to act rudely and just assume we are out to get you or whatever. RobJ1981 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request From A Casual User

message: Air Zonk comes out on July 9th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk • contribs) 
:Where did you view it? On VC-PCE.com?  Also Sign your posts. I would check the page but I'm at work and they block almost all game sites. 65.43.71.130 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that last post was me.  Neo Samus 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's confirmed on vc-pce.com for Monday. TJ Spyke 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good.  My edit was appropriate.  Neo Samus 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Zonk 

message: According to the ESRB website, a game by the name of Super Mario Bros. II Japan has been given an E rating.  Listed below that is Super Mario Bros. II USA, which, one assumes, is Super Mario Bros. 2.  Neither game received an ESRB rating for their initial releases, which means they would've been rated sometime after that.  The respective ratings wouldn't be for their re-releases in Super Mario All-Stars since that game was rated K-A (and is listed separately, I believe). Furthermore, SMB2's rating wouldn't be for Super Mario Advance since that game is also rated separately.  SMB2J's is listed as being for the "Nintendo" console (I assume this means the NES since other NES games are listed this way), but SMB2USA has the SNES listed as its console.
The conclusion I've come to is this: Nintendo is listing these games as being for different consoles so that when the ESRB lists them on their website, fans won't immediately assume the game is being scheduled for a Virtual Console release (since VC games have been listed under Wii rather than their original systems).  There is no listing for Super Mario Bros. 2 (US version) or any variant thereof for release on the Wii, but since the game has already been released with an ESRB rating, it must've been listed under a different system--the Super Nintendo.  Likewise, it appears Super Mario Bros. 2 Japan is scheduled for a North American Virtual Console release sometime in the future.
My question is this: is this too speculative to justify listing Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) in the article?  I mean, we're already doing quite a bit of speculation the way it is; Metroid may be listed in the ESRB database for a Wii release, but we're just assuming that that's referring to the NES original and not a whole new Wii title.  In fact, I'd venture to say that it's much less speculative to assume that when the ESRB lists Super Mario Bros. II Japan as having been rated E for a discontinued console for which it never saw release, it's actually being released for Virtual Console. Jeff Silvers 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* -Arcanelore 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that explanation, the game listed on the ESRB website as being Super Mario Bros. II USA and having an E rating would have to be either from All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, except that each of these games received a separate rating, and there is no listing for a Wii or Virtual Console version of Super Mario Bros. 2.  In other words, the game the ESRB calls SMBIIUSA that is supposedly for Super Nintendo is, in all likelihood, the Virtual Console version.  The fact that the ESRB rated Super Mario Bros. II Japan means that the game is receiving or has received some kind of North American release for which it was given this rating.  It can't be for Super Mario Bros. Deluxe as that game received a separate rating (and Super Mario Bros. wasn't rated for it individually, either).  It can't be for All-Stars for largely the same reason.  As the game was never released in any other format in North America, it can be safely assumed that this is a new North American re-release, and since the bulk of the "future releases" section is based on "safe assumptions" about what an ESRB listing means, we should at least consider listing Super Mario Bros. II Japan. Jeff Silvers 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well damn, I may've been wrong about All-Stars being listed separately.  I was pretty sure it was, but I don't see it there.  I still say Super Mario Bros. II USA and Super Mario Bros. II Japan likely refer to Virtual Console re-releases since there isn't any reference to SMB2's VC re-release under the Wii system. Jeff Silvers 22:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...yet. It's not at all unusual for the ESRB to be a little slow in getting game ratings up. -Arcanelore 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true.  It's entirely possible this is all just wishful thinking on my part. :( Still, I wouldn't be too surprised now to see the Japanese version of SMB2 released on Virtual Console in the coming months.  Anyway, yeah, this pretty much ends the discussion of whether or not to include SMB2J in the "future releases" section for now, though this whole process has made me wonder if perhaps we should completely re-evaluate the manner by which we decide to list games in the "future releases" section.  If the ESRB really is as unreliable as you've hinted (both in listing games in a timely manner and in the way they actually list them), it's possible we should disregard their rating listings as credible sources for upcoming releases.  As I've noted above, it's very likely that the Metroid listed by the ESRB as being for the Wii is the NES original in a VC re-release, but there's also the possibility that it isn't. Jeff Silvers 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem here is mostly that erroneous "Nintendo" category, which has existed for the better part of a decade without anyone noticing until the VC came about. Anyway, I dug this up; both SMB2s listed as of 2004. I'm pretty sure this isn't a VC re-rating (and is just the original All-Stars rating; at the time the ESRB did individually rate every game on a compilation.) -Arcanelore 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and SMB2 for Wii has finally appeared on ESRB. -Arcanelore 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I've mentioned before, All-Stars would have to have gotten an ESRB rating when it got re-issued under the Player's Choice label. (I suspect that the dates the archived ESRB pages listed were when the games got entered in the database, not necessarily the game's actual release.) Also, at the time, the ESRB rated games on compilations individually; hence the four separate listings (three of which got misplaced into the infamous "Nintendo" category) instead of just one "Super Mario All-Stars" listing. They apparently dropped this practice very quickly, as Ninja Gaiden Trilogy is the only other example I'm aware of. -Arcanelore 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Lately I've noticed that when they rate a VC title they put the games in the catagory "Wii".  But I wonder why they didn't put up Paper Mario for VC?  Neo Samus 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Maybe its a courtesy. The game already has received a rating and relatively recently (when we compare it to other titles). Drumpler 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then why re-rate the other 64 games and post them under the "Wii" category?  Maybe because they had an old rating?  I.E. K-A instead of E.  Not putting the question to anyone per se.  It's more open ended  Neo Samus 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the most likely. Since they were under the older rating system, they probably needed to be rerated. Drumpler 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Super Mario Bros. II Japan" rated by ESRB 

message: Why does the July 9 update keep disappearing? 67.188.172.165 04:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. Maybe it's a problem on your end? Lrrr IV 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July 9 Update

message: I can't find anything anywhere about a NA release date for Paper Mario. Is there one? If not, then my bets is that since Paper Mario was released in just about all the other regions this week, we can expect it on Monday. I'm not trying to say that it will, or that we should add that date or anything. I just want to see if I'm wrong in expecting the game on Monday. LN3000 00:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No date has been announced to my knowledge. -Arcanelore 04:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: F-Zero X didn't come out on the Monday after the other regions got it, let's hope the same thing doesn't happen with Paper Mario. Lrrr IV 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It very well could come out on Monday (I'm really hoping) but that would be considered speculation.  The only thing we can do is wait.  Neo Samus 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper Mario 

message: It's readily available on the Virtual Console browser on the Wii, do you think it would be a good idea to list the amount of "blocks" used in the Wii system memory to download each game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.114.54 (talk • contribs) 
:Nope, it's not notable. We don't list how much memory regular games use, download games aren't any different. RobJ1981 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rob that we shouldn't list them, but for a different reason; when you're downloading them from the VC Shop, the blocks it has listed as taking up space is different than what amount of space it actually uses. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's a good idea in theory, there's too many variables. Blocks listed on the Shop Channel, Blocks actually used, etc. LN3000 03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not notable, I've never seen this aspect of the game mentioned anywhere except as a technical detail when it's time to download. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks used 

message: Why is it listed as Galaga '90? Dartheyegouger 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what they changed the title to when it was originally released outside of Japan (apparently a process that took two years), and it seems we're still going to be stuck with it. -Arcanelore 23:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Galaga '88