Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 5

message: Thanks for the feedback, Krator.
I've updated the introduction as per the above comments, moving the notes to editors to the Talk Page and emulating the N64 introduction here as well. I still feel that it can be improved even further, so if anyone else would like to work on it please feel free to. I've also removed the reference link for those games that have already been released and have an article. 
I can understand that the idea for putting the reference link in the game article itself if it exists, but I'm in favor of  moving the link only after the game has been released. The reason for this being that the source links were implemented to deter vandalism and speculation, and if we require it only for those games whose articles have yet to be created, then people may abuse it and put rumored games/other platform games that already have a Wikipedia article on here without giving a source (i.e. Battlefield: Bad Company or Wii Shooting. On the flip side, the less stuff that is contained in the list, the more presentable it becomes. What's everyone else's thoughts on the matter? -Digiwrld1 02:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements Based Upon CVG Assessment 

message: Question: should we add a picture to the introduction? Other Featured Lists do this, and I feel that this page could use a dab of color. I found a picture on Wikimedia Commons of a Wii loading a game disc, that I believe will work. 
Take a look at my userpage to see the picture and an example of the intro. Since its a thumbnail, you can't distinguish what game it is unless you view the high-res version of it.-Digiwrld1 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I've created a template for tables such as this to simplify data entry and create uniformity between the various platform tables. Please let me know what you think about it and how best to go about implementing it (I can probably regex all the tables into it). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to use it exactly-can you perhaps give an example? I'd be able to make a better judgement then. Presentation-wise, the Title column needs to be much longer than it is currently. Also, it should be called North America as the releases include Canada and Mexico as well, and it should be on the very right as this is the column that most Wikipedia users will be looking at, so it should be accessible. I looked at the source and didn't see anything too different from what we currently have, but maybe with an example I'll be able to better understand how this is easier. -Digiwrld1 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The widths and other aspects are not part of the template. The template itself is only concerned with creating a uniform way of entering and presenting the game data. Most of the look and feel are part of the table header. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: please clarify. This is my interpretation: TBA - may possibly get released in that region. unreleased - confirmed no chance of a release ever for that region? If they both mean the same thing, may as well pick one and just use that.
Tehw1k1 13:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. TBA means "To be announced", while unreleased means that the game won't be available in that region at all. --Conti|✉ 15:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the entries seem speculative or based on the hunches of the contributor. Shouldn't there be citation links attached for verification?  Tehw1k1 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that's its based on the 'hunch' (where hunch means educated guess) of the contributor, but it's the same way IGN and GameSpot do it as well. And it's usually the case that the hunch is right. Do you really expect Furi Furi to appear anywhere outside of Japan? Or any other game like that? Most likely you can tell whether a  game is going to be released somewhere or not. We can't do citations because it's impossible to find a source for that, unless an approximate date (Q3 of 2007) is announced as well, in which case we're not simply listing it as TBA/Unreleased but rather as 2007 Q3. Worst case is that we update it as new information comes out. To clarify: TBA means that there is a good chance that the title will be released in that region. Unreleased means that there is a good chance that the title will not be released in that region. I've found that this has actually worked quite well so far, even if it is based on a 'hunch'. -Digiwrld1 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never underestimate profit hungry publishers, localizing Wii games previously thought of as too weird or too Japanese. Tehw1k1 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TBA vs. unreleased? 

message: I've reverted the additon of an ESRB rating column for two reasons:
#The table is already big enough as it is, additional informations on the games should be found in the articles about these games.
#The ESRB rates games only in Northern America, there are other rating system like PEGI for other regions. Why should we include ESRB ratings, but not those from PEGI? On the other hand, adding both would lead us to problem 1 again.
--Conti|✉ 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue with an ESRB column is that it would not be applicable to a large percentage of titles, those which where only being released in Japan or Europe.  Besides, unlike the other columns, the rating says very little about how the game relates to the system itself.  As such, it is better off in the individual game's pages.  That said, Massdigger, I appreciate the effort you put into it.  We would welcome another regular editor here.  -Telvin 3d 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESRB rating column 

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

message: === WP:CVG Assessment ===
Sortable lists are indeed good. But that didn't make me change the rating. Why?
*There are some notices for editors on top of the list. Those shouldn't be on top of the list, but as comments in the source of the list or on the talk page.
*'Please note that this list is subject to change' is not something to write in this article, but in the Wikipedia disclaimer. (And it's already there.)
*In general, the list is good, the introduction is not. See List of Nintendo 64 games (a featured list) for a good introduction. Not long, but good.
*Low importance because it's a derivative of a Mid-importance subject.
*Also, consider moving all references of the 'blue link' (existing articles) entries of the list to the article about the game, instead of this list.
Once the introduction is something similar to the one linked above, I'll be happy to give it an A-rating, and this article should be submitted for WP:FL.
--User:Krator (t c) 17:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVG Re-Assessment 

message: Sortable lists are indeed good. But that didn't make me change the rating. Why?
*There are some notices for editors on top of the list. Those shouldn't be on top of the list, but as comments in the source of the list or on the talk page.
*'Please note that this list is subject to change' is not something to write in this article, but in the Wikipedia disclaimer. (And it's already there.)
*In general, the list is good, the introduction is not. See List of Nintendo 64 games (a featured list) for a good introduction. Not long, but good.
*Low importance because it's a derivative of a Mid-importance subject.
*Also, consider moving all references of the 'blue link' (existing articles) entries of the list to the article about the game, instead of this list.
Once the introduction is something similar to the one linked above, I'll be happy to give it an A-rating, and this article should be submitted for WP:FL.
--User:Krator (t c) 17:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CVG]] Assessment 

message: I feel that we have addressed all of the issues that were brought up during the first reassessment by Krator. Here is what has changed since two weeks ago, and some comments to the assessor of this article:
*Introduction has been completely redone. Notes for editors have been moved to the talk page, and additional information has been added concerning the Wii and it's launch. It emulates the List of Nintendo 64 games but with it's own distinctions.
*As the Wii launched with many more games than the Nintendo 64 (which only had 2), and launched different titles in different regions, we were unable to list those games which it launched with, but refer the reader to a specific article concerning the Wii's launch, which contains a table listing those games which launched with the Wii. Obviously, we are unable to list the last Wii game to be made.
*Alternative names and publishers for different regions have been added. Thus, both Elebits and Eledees are listed for their respective regions, and both Ubisoft and Yuke's have been listed as publishers for The Dog Island.
*Sources have been added to release dates for titles that have a release date announced but have not come out yet. This is to add an extra layer of verifiability and ensure that the listed date is not a placeholder.
*Source links for released games have been changed to their MetaCritic aggregate review score when possible.
*Although it was suggested to move the source links into the article if it exists, I disagree. I've posted this argument before, but here it is again: I can understand that the idea for putting the reference link in the game article itself if it exists, but I'm in favor of moving the link only after the game has been released (this has now been changed to updating the link to MetaCritic). The reason for this being that the source links were implemented to deter vandalism and speculation, and if we require it only for those games whose articles have yet to be created, then people may abuse it and put rumored games/other platform games that already have a Wikipedia article on here without giving a source (i.e. Battlefield: Bad Company or Wii Shooting). I havn't received any feedback on this, so if I'm in the minority on this then I will be glad to start moving the source links into the articles themselves.
*We have decided to move the List of Untitled Wii Projects to it's own page, as it is more prone to rumors (though it is strictly maintained-thank you to everyone, especially Enbob89) as well as delayed/canceled games. 
*The 'See Also' section as well as the 'Wii' Template have been updated to reflect the new List of Untitled Wii Projects. The Wii Template has been significantly updated as well from before.
*The Talk Page has been overhauled, with a How-To guide and a FAQ section added for editors to reference.
*A number of stubs/articles have been created (although new games keep getting added!).
As one can see, significant changes have since been made since our last assessment. I feel that the previous issues have been fully addressed, and that this List is ready for a re-reassessment. -Digiwrld1 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVG Re-Reassessment of Article