Talk:Wii Play

message: At IGN.com 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: http://wii.ign.com/objects/853/853786.html
Stop changing the release date for the United States! On nintendo.com it strickly says January 15. So STOP!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.255.2 (talk • contribs) 
:Nintendo's press site says February 12th, that is also what retailers are listing it as. TJ Spyke 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Reggie mentioned the US release date in an interview. There are better sources, but here is one: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3155376 TJ Spyke 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cover Art 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: An "aggregate score of 58%" seems rather below average to me. Redxiv 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you go by the scoring system used in schools. 50% is average. TJ Spyke 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reception "average"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another perspective

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, lets get this resolved. McKay 15:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Protected

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *I think the sandbox version is appropriate. McKay 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: As far as I know, cropping fair use images is fine. --- RockMFR 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Misunderstanding on my part. - X201 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with a crop Elsnerma 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 71.72.188.104 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can't have Fair Use pics in galleries though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title: straw poll

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I meant taking a picture. TJ Spyke 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Resolved

message: 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)
thread_title: The games section should be fixed

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  reception error 

message: 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 74.98.11.220 (talk • contribs) 
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)
thread_title:  Shooting 

message: I've heard that Wii play w/ Wii remote bundle is being discontinued. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partapdua1 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have any source? TJ Spyke 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discontinuement? 

message: 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 207.38.180.40 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shooting Range with 2 Remotes in 1P Mode! 

message: I don't play the Wii, I just buy the crap for my daughter. Does the Will Play also include a free Nunchuk? Thanks 209.29.91.192 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Nintendo giving you something for free? Of course not!~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nunchuk Included? 

message: 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)
replies: text: http://www.mobygames.com/game/wii/wii-play/release-info says the 12th for the US. Geoff B (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same at GameSpot. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  US Release? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Wii_Play_Screenshot_2.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: File:Wii Play Screenshot 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Define "Non-bundled." 

message: This article claims that Wii Play was only released in Japan, North America, Europe, and Australia, but I found a video showing that a Chinese release of the game exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ktwoxaCLeI Is this real? Any thoughts on this?
Cyndifusic (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese release?