Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archive 6

message: I really don't think listing the price is helpful. Seeing as how regular video games don't have their prices listed, why should Virtual Console games have it listed?  Being a download that costs points (instead of actual money) doesn't make it an exception at all. Especially since the points originally cost money. This is an encyclopedia: not a guide to prices. RobJ1981 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Not only is it consistent with sections like the Xbox Live Arcade area, but it also allows us to point out the different "points" setups between various regions of the country.  And it's good to indicate what games are dubbed worthy of breaking the set price structure, such as R-Type for TG-16. --Bishop2 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to your comment about "breaking the set price". Isn't that just original research? Saying things such as "I think the price of this game or that game will be higher" is opinion, not factual. Correct me if I misunderstood that. RobJ1981 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant that the points listing allows us to delineate which games have broken with the set points structure for the VC games.  For example, most TG-16 games cost 600 points, but then R-Type was released and was announced as costing 800 points.  This is the only example in North America so far - Japan has a lot more examples of breaking with the standardized structure. --Bishop2 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that including the price is interesting and helpful information.  The prices of regular video games change from store to store and as time goes on; none of that is true for the Virtual Console, so the analogy's not valid. TomTheHand 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regular games are the same price at most stores: the only exceptions are sales on them, and the used stores such as EB. WP:ILIKEIT applies here, in my opinion. It being "interesting and helpful" isn't a correct reason to keep it. Many things are interesting: it doesn't mean we should list them in the article. As I stated before: it should be all with prices, or none at all. Downloads should be no exception, period. This is an encyclopedia, not a guide to prices (as I also stated before).RobJ1981 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most games have the same MSRP, but stores don't always follow that. Wal-Mart usually is lower than it, and EB Games used to be higher (I remember EB chargin $53 for games most other stores had at $50). They also drop prices and have sales, something that doesn't happen here. Also, that "all or nothing" demand doesn't work. TJ Spyke 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Best Buy and Toys R' Us frequently set their own prices as well. Walk into EB Games and get Gunstar Super Heroes for $29.99. Walk into Best Buy, get it for $19.99. Walk into Toys R Us, it's now fixed at $9.99 and has been for the last 6 months. There's no such thing as set pricing. --Bishop2 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good grief, pretty soon we'll be lucky if the game title will be left.  What is with the constant complaining about what the chart has? Controller compatibility, price, system, developer/publisher... Ryuzx 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep the price. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it's useful. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia entry that it is useful. I agree, the reason other games shouldn't have a set price listed is because there IS no set price. Different stores have different prices, and there are sales and price drops. So far, though, we haven't even seen Virtual Console have price drops, and it would be very surprising if they had any sort of sale. The prices are set for each region and so they are constant. So that throws out the argument that other games don't have set prices listed. This is a different situation. And we're taking off too much useful information, so just leave this on. Soon there won't be any useful information other than what games are available... unless someone has issues with that, too? I stand by my case that encyclopedias are for useful information that is constant, and the prices for the Virtual Console games are both useful and constant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.9.170 (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The excuse of "it doesn't hurt anybody" doesn't apply to this. As I've stated before: this is an encyclopedia, NOT a guide to prices. How are the prices useful?  If people want to buy the games, they can easily go to the official source to find out. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for this purpose. What do you want next on Wikipedia: a guide to where you can actually buy a game? There needs to be limits somewhere. Also: what exact "useful" information has been taken off the game charts? So called "useful" information isn't always useful, if only a few select people care about it in the long run. RobJ1981 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If people want to buy the games, they can easily go to the official source to find out." Then why have anything but the title listed? If people wanted to find out other info, like publisher, release date, ESRB rating, etc. they could just go to the official source to find out. The point value is important and should remain on the list. Zomic_13 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point!Lamename3000 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid Bishop2 is correct for the fact that not all Virtual Console games for one particular system share the same price point (which could potentially set a precedent for pricing of other games released in the future in the shop), though since VC games are only available as VC games from one source (and given the fact that the article is a list of games to be released on VC), the prices should stay. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We now have two games (R-Type for TG-16 and TMNT for NES) that have different prices than the rest of the games in their category. Although some feel it is probably repetitive, it shows that points can vary and that there is a need for the points column. Zomic_13 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes back to listing prices for normal games: they are all the same price (with the exception of sale prices, certain stores, and used game stores). Just because something varies in price, doesn't mean it makes it special and/or notable for the article. If this was the case, there would be mass price listings at movie and CD articles stating where it's cheaper or more money. That's not the case, and this certainly shouldn't be an exception. I don't want to sound like a broken record but... Wikipedia isn't a guide to prices. How exactly are download prices, encyclopedic?  They remain the same, but I certainly don't think that's enough to prove it's encyclopedic. RobJ1981 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The price is pertinent to the article just like the ESRB rating, publisher, etc. What makes having the ESRB rating so encyclopedic and prices not? Zomic_13 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets vote to put an end to this otherwise endless debate. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - The Wii Points column is no less important than any of the other columns. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - I not only agree with the above, I also think it's MORE important than some of the columns. The release dates have little relevance after they've passed, for example, but points continue to be relevant. --Bishop2 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - Useful and notable information; comparing this with listing prices for other objects is not valid. TomTheHand 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue??  Neo Samus 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep It's informative information and very helpful. TJ Spyke 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep There are now two examples of deviations from "standard pricing."  Wii Points are also a notable feature of the VC. --Billdorr 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep as the standard pricing is no longer guaranteed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep As I stated in my argument above, prices may not be consistent for all games of a particular system; today's VC release of TMNT proved me to be correct on that matter. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep Since it can get very complicated with some games, as demonstrated by TMNT and R-TYPE, games from one system aren't always the same price, so I vote Keep. Lamename3000 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep I say it is useful information, especially if there are going to be games (like TMNT) that are going to be a different amount of points from other games on the system. Minirogue 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL. What does that do to the consensus? --Deskana (AFK 47) 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep It's worth keeping, if only because it'd be useful to someone. The way I see it, if Wikipedia is lacking information that somebody wants (within reason, of course. No need to have a full game guide, for instance), then it should be there. If not, either it needs to be there, or is completely unnecessary. In this instance, it's the former. 141.156.14.34 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep the points, and I am very disgusted that this article has been ruined over this. SashaNein 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: INDIFFERENT Why are people arguing over this? I don't feel there's a good enough reason to keep the points in the article, but I also dont feel there's any reason for them not to be. --Evildevil 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep No real arguments for not having them. DurinsBane87 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii Points doesn't need to be listed

message: VOTE EITHER KEEP  OR DELETE
:Keep - The Wii Points column is no less important than any of the other columns. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep - I not only agree with the above, I also think it's MORE important than some of the columns. The release dates have little relevance after they've passed, for example, but points continue to be relevant. --Bishop2 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - Useful and notable information; comparing this with listing prices for other objects is not valid. TomTheHand 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep - It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue??  Neo Samus 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep It's informative information and very helpful. TJ Spyke 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep There are now two examples of deviations from "standard pricing."  Wii Points are also a notable feature of the VC. --Billdorr 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep as the standard pricing is no longer guaranteed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep As I stated in my argument above, prices may not be consistent for all games of a particular system; today's VC release of TMNT proved me to be correct on that matter. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep Since it can get very complicated with some games, as demonstrated by TMNT and R-TYPE, games from one system aren't always the same price, so I vote Keep. Lamename3000 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep I say it is useful information, especially if there are going to be games (like TMNT) that are going to be a different amount of points from other games on the system. Minirogue 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL. What does that do to the consensus? --Deskana (AFK 47) 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep It's worth keeping, if only because it'd be useful to someone. The way I see it, if Wikipedia is lacking information that somebody wants (within reason, of course. No need to have a full game guide, for instance), then it should be there. If not, either it needs to be there, or is completely unnecessary. In this instance, it's the former. 141.156.14.34 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep the points, and I am very disgusted that this article has been ruined over this. SashaNein 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: INDIFFERENT Why are people arguing over this? I don't feel there's a good enough reason to keep the points in the article, but I also dont feel there's any reason for them not to be. --Evildevil 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep No real arguments for not having them. DurinsBane87 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you wish to KEEP the "Wii Points" column or DELETE it?

message: I've started this on the Video Game project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games#Wii Points: to list or to not list?. Feel free to comment. The whole vote last month was a joke, and certainly isn't the end of this. Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide just because the Wii Point price doesn't change. RobJ1981 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be a sore loser. It was agreed to keep them in, so they are staying in. TJ Spyke 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drop the issue. There is a good enough reason to keep the Wii Points list. Neo Samus 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So basically you feel the vote was a "joke" because it didn't go the way you wanted, and now you're just going to keep on making us vote on it until you get your way, i.e. for all eternity? --Bishop2 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Bishop and TJ; a vote was called on the matter, and given that you did not participate in the vote, I really do not think you are in a position to criticize the results.  Calling more votes just because you don't like the outcome of the first vote serves no constructive purpose. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, polls don't determine how an article works. This has been stated in the other discussions. Wikipedia isn't a democracy: polls don't just control the article forever. If you read the other discussions, you can clearly see I'm not the only one against these prices being listed. The poll isn't a factor in this anymore, so drop it already. RobJ1981 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue was settled, and the points are staying. TJ Spyke 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting is a perfectly fine way to settle an issue, especially if the outcome is unanimous. Zomic_13 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If polls are not a factor, then why did you bother to mention it?  That aside, there are nine other people who seem to think the information is useful; we shouldn't simply strike things out because one or two users dissent on the matter, or find no use for the information. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't settled, TJ. As many people are still discussing it, so don't ignore discussions just because you don't agree with them. One or two? How about reading the other discussions on this? It's certainly more than that. Check out Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide and Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_issue_that_needs_to_be_resolved and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games#Wii Points: to list or to not list? if you don't believe me. It's certainly more than just 1 or 2 people against this matter. I think it's just plain and stubborn to "claim the points are staying" when the issue is still ongoing, and NOT settled. RobJ1981 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "don't ignore discussions just because you don't agree with them" <-- You are clearly ignoring the results of the discussion previously held on this talk page. Zomic_13 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, many (but not all) of the people arguing against adding points were against it because all the games were the same amount of points (which is no longer the case). While there may be a few people arguing against, it is pretty clear that there is a significant majority in favor of keeping the points. Zomic_13 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, your argument would be more valid if the games were all the same point values, but they aren't; that having been said, this article was not created specifically for the purpose of listing prices, but rather listing the games, ratings, and release dates. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Significant majority? Statements like that tell me, you obviously haven't read the current discussions on this matter. Next time read the discussions, instead of just posting your opinion on what you think is the so called "majority". I never said the page was created to list prices. But that's what it's turned into. People have listed compromises, but there just isn't budging when it comes to certain people. RobJ1981 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, Zomic was by no means incorrect when he stated a "significant majority", primarily because he was referring to the poll; rather than attack Zomic, you need to take things into context before replying.  That having been said, you've taken the concept of this list and completely underscored the purpose of it; the reason this list has prices is because they're not all the same.  However, since it would be ridiculous to start an article just based on prices (and because of the aforementioned Wikipedia policy of not being a price guide), it does stand to reason that there should be some mention or inclusion of some prices being higher than others.  I'm not necessarily saying we need a list of prices of each game, but more rather an addendum or footnote that states that some game prices are higher; it keeps the pricing table of Virtual Console factually accurate, and Wikipedia is still factually in the clear for not just making a blanket statement that might be untrue. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls on talk pages are just there to obtain a consensus. If someone objects to it, then they are free to persist on the issue. There is no point where we are to tell someone that they cannot bring up an old issue. As RobJ1981 stated, polls do not control articles, and discussing issues again after previous consensus can always be brought up again. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii Points issues (again)

message: Why is it no longer sorted by console? 67.188.172.165 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's been fixed. Thanks. 67.188.172.165 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What just happened?

message: The above section has been hijacked by this discussion, so I thought I'd start a new section to keep us on-topic.
A compromise version of the page (seen here) has been proposed. This version removes the Wii points as a column on the tables, but retains all the information in prose form at the top of the page. I don't think anybody wants to have an edit war over this issue. Can we possibly agree that this version of the page is best for all parties concerned? -- MisterHand 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, I think this version makes sense regardless of your position on the inclusion of information about points. If you support their inclusion, all the information is now concisely stated and the exceptions noted. If you oppose their inclusion, well, at least the extra column has been removed and discussion can continue on whether they're appropriate. In any case, this version is definitely superior to the previous version. ChazBeckett 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Superior"?  Unfortunately, that's a matter of opinion, and matters of opinion are hardly meant to be taken as encyclopedic; that aside, this is quickly turning into an edit war, and both the quality of the article will suffer as well as users who tend to read more than contribute.  Regardless, if we absolutely MUST remove the points column and include exceptions elsewhere, I certainly don't think it belongs in the header of the article; a few exceptions now doesn't mean that more won't be generated later, and the header will eventually just become a list of exceptions to normal point values. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never intended to my opinion to be "encyclopedic", just an observation from someone who hasn't --PeanutCheeseBar 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a compromise at all, that is removing the points all together. No agreement has ever been made to remove the points, and they should stay unless there is a consensus to remove them (which there isn't). TJ Spyke 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this appears to still be an issue because some users are continually showing discontent with the current system in place (namely, by complaining or making changes in total disregard of the discussion).  The end result is that they're going to keep complaining and wanting to debate until they get what they want, and if nobody respects the consensus, then the issue will be perpetually debated and the quality of the article will suffer due to pointless revert warring and lack of participation; a consensus really is the only way to resolve this peacefully and in a long-lasting manner. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't make sense. All of the information on points is still in the article (note that I'm referring to this revision). Enough information is provided that a reader will know the cost of any game in the article. How exactly is that "removing the points all together"? ChazBeckett 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not everybody on both sides of the debate view your solution to be a viable one; some users want to keep the points, and some want all mention of them stricken entirely.  Part of the frustration with the issue here is that users have gone "vigilante" and chosen to make edits regardless of the discussion.  Though I admire your attempt to create a compromise, I don't think it's viable for the fact that there are likely to be more games with differing point values in the future, and listing them in the beginning section of the article sets a dangerous precendent (we can't list them all).  Exceptions might be better as a section unto themselves, but that's just one suggestion on my part. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very redundant to list the same price for each game over and over in the table. A few exceptions is certainly not enough to justify it either.A note by the exceptions or a table for the exceptions is a reasonable compromise. The current state of the table: a price guide. Even if that's not the intention, it's still a guide to prices. An encyclopedia (online or not), shouldn't be used for this type of information (just because some people think its useful). RobJ1981 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was not created as a price guide, and the addition or removal of the Wii points column is not going to change that, or the purpose that the list serves; furthermore, the listing of point values does not appear to be an issue for the XBLA page (the last commentary on the subject's talk page was posted in the beginning of March).  As such, since the prices come from one source (i.e.: you're not going to be buying XBLA games from someone other than Microsoft, VC games from Nintendo, etc.), you're not comparing values from two different retailers.  Furthermore, those who do not own a Wii don't have access to the Wii Shop, and do not have the option of looking up game prices elsewhere (the nearest match is the Nintendo site, which lists the same information we do, sans point prices).  --PeanutCheeseBar 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't use XBLA as an example, as it's making the listing here sound like "other crap exists" (there is a Wikipedia policy on this, I cant remember the exact link) as a reason to justify this. The fact it has other information, doesn't make it less of a price guide. Without the prices: it would be a listing of the games (who made them, what system they were originally for, and so on), encyclopedic content. With the prices, it's a useful list, with prices: unencyclopedic fancruft. While the list isn't completely prices: it's still a guide to them, which isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. RobJ1981 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, I don't think you know what cruft actually means. Just sayin'. --Bishop2 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I already explained myself about "not giving up". But I will do it again: I never meant I will continue to try to remove them (no matter what happens). All I meant was I wont give up, until an actual consensus is made (poll consensus isn't the way to go, as it was simply a joke). As an admin stated on this article: polls don't control the article, so stop acting like they do. Stop assuming, and trying to make excuses. Other people are clearly against your opinion on how the article should be presented: deal with it, instead of being uncivil and dragging misunderstood comments into this. Things can't always go your way. RobJ1981 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus has been made either way, which means by default the points should stay listed unless there is a consensus to remove them. They would still be in there right now but an admin locked the page after someone else removed them (it's like when an article gets locked adter Burntsauce blanks a wrestling article). I was going by one of your previous statements where you did say that you will not stop trying to get the points removed. TJ Spyke 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii Points: a new attempt at consensus 

message: We've heard several arguments why the prices shouldn't be here, e.g. that they're trivia, not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a price guide, and they tend to lack external sources. I haven't heard any argument for including them, other than that people like them, that other articles have them, and that they were removed out of process. So what are the arguments? >Radiant< 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "encyclopedic"?  I shall assist.  "Encyclopedic" is defined by Webster's as being comprehensive on a branch of knowledge.  In the interest of being comprehensive, naturally we would list prices that are completely standardized - these aren't prices that change from store to store, like most products that might go on "sale" at any time. This isn't a "suggested" retail price, it's a flat price across the board anywhere.  This isn't trivia.  This is something that is solid fact connected with the items in question.  A copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles downloaded off of the Wii Shop Channel is going to cost the same in North Pole, Alaska as it is when downloaded in Enid, Oklahoma. And what do we want to be as an encyclopedia? We want to be informative. Useful. That's the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. So again, to be informative and useful... we list the prices, because that is both. I also notice that when people link to the "Wikipedia is not a price guide," debate, well... it's precisely that.  It's a debate. It's not an official Wiki policy. It's just something that's being DEBATED as maybe EVENTUALLY being a policy. That's not the same as something we can take a hardline stance on. And even if we could, something that is a standard flat charge without concern of taxes or sales would be a natural exception. --Bishop2 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For "encyclopedic", see our policy WP:NOT. Being useful is considered an extremely poor argument in any case. The prices are absolutely trivia, because whatever its price happens to be at the moment is in no way defining for a game that was over a decade old when the Wii was first introduced. Aside from that, I've seen no promise from Nintendo to never ever modify these prices, so they could likewise go on "sale" at any time; and several games do have different costs in different areas of the world (e.g. LOZ:OOT in Japan). >Radiant< 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Different costs in different parts of the world are irrelevant.  This article is only about the Virtual Console games in North America. There also appears to be no violation of the "NOT" articles. Finally, "usefulness" is a poor argument according to the author of that page.  As it says on that very page, that is an essay, and it is not official policy.  I don't know anyone who's interested in using a reference source that places no value on whether its information is useful or useless. --Bishop2 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My thoughts on Wii points in this article: they should be kept. I find them a fascinating measure of the value on classic games. Not in any real world currency, but in relation to each other. Because the prices are static (when Nintendo wants to raise the prices of these games, they simply charge more for Wii points), it's a unique opportunity that isn't clouded by daily specials, coupons, and the like. And isn't that what lists are about in Wikipedia, providing a meaningful group of statistics for comparison? It's not a price guide, because there's no real world currency (or even a conversion chart). It's not a catalog, because the page offers no way for users to purchase the items in question. In short, it's factual, it's verifiable, it's notable, it's NPOV. It violates none of Wikipedia's many guidelines and policies. -- MisterHand 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in other words, you like them, they're an extremely arbitrary rating for the games (considering most games from any system use the same price), they can be changed, they involve real-world currency because you buy Wii points for, say, Dollars, it is a catalog albeit one without a "buy" button; this is absolutely not what lists are for in Wikipedia, it's not notable, it's trivial, it violates WP:NOT, and it lacks outside coverage apart from sales talk. >Radiant< 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivial to who? To somebody who has no interest in the Virtual Console, perhaps. But to somebody who is actually reading this article, it's hardly trivial. It's a key piece of information about any VC game. And how exactly does it violate WP:NOT? And how does removing them make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? -- MisterHand 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Radiant but you are worng.  I feel that having the points shown fleshes out the article more.  It seems to me that you have some sort of vendetta for this article and you are going to change it no matter what anyone else says.  That's not fair to me or any other user who has put so much time perfecting this article.  Then you waltz in and deside "Wii points are not "encyclopedic" or "trivial" so they should be removed".  Who gave you the authority to do that?  That's what discussions "in the article's talk page" are for.  I don't care if there have been discussions in other areas of Wikipeida.  It was not discussed HERE!  Or, if it was discussed here, it was in favor of keeping the points on the table.  Now please stop this bickering, you are getting on my last nerve.  Neo Samus 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments such as Now please stop this bickering, you are getting on my last nerve. aren't needed. You could've easily left out the last nerve part of it. Let's try to remain civil, otherwise simply don't post if you are going to act like that. Also comments such as   That's not fair to me or any other user who has put so much time perfecting this article. is going too far. You act like you own the article, and no one can change it except for you and the other regular editors of the article. Changes can happen to articles by anyone, remember that. Also: discussions of the article can happen elsewhere. I don't recall anything saying the talk page discussions of the article are the only things that determine changes. But to the topic on hand: listing prices is making the article unencyclopedic, and trivial. Why should people that just come across the article (by hitting random article for example) care about the Wii Points? It doesn't show value: it shows cruft that belongs on a video game site. The official Wii Shop lists the prices, as do many other pure video game sites. Why exactly must Wikipedia be turned into a price guide, just because people don't want to visit other sites for this information? Granted, the whole article isn't a price guide (nor was it meant to be one, in the first place): it's still a price guide, with other content. The other content is fine and useful, but prices in an encyclopedia aren't. A compromise of the general prices at the top seems to be hated by a select few. A few exceptions of the regular pricing, shouldn't determine the table needs to list the same prices redundantly with few exceptions. RobJ1981 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't consider this nice at all: User_talk:TJ_Spyke#Virtual_Console_NA. Assume good faith next time. Edit wars and content disputes happen. A hostile takeover of the article? That's a bit too far as well. Changes can and do happen: people that refuse to let changes happen, are certainly trying to control the article, in my opinion. RobJ1981 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, you're just as guilty as he is, so I really don't think you have a lot of room to speak, at least concerning that matter.  You can't attempt to seek help from editors on their talk pages, and then fault editors on the other side of the debate for doing the same.  Plus, in all fairness, you've been just as steadfast and controlling about lobbying to have the points removed, so I would tread lightly about accusing others of control if I were you. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never once called people names over the matter, like Neo Samus did on that talk page. Just because there is disputes: doesn't give anyone the right to insult others about it. RobJ1981 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not have resorted to calling names (which I don't approve of either), but I'd hardly say you've been as civil as you'd like to think you have been. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My temper got the best of me....sorry.  I apologize to everyone for my rudeness.  But the reason why you are "staying calm" right now is because you have the upper hand with the article at the moment.  It got locked right after it was edited to the form with the point removed from the list.  If the points were still on the list when it got locked I could see your blood starting to boil, not ours.  I'm still some what new to this (like I've said in previous posts) so I'm still learning.  So cut me some slack Rob.......  Neo Samus 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no porblem with that.  I really don't.  But here's what I see happening; we vote, most user vote "for" the wii points on the table, the other guys don't like the out come.  Demand another vote until they get their way.  It's gonna be an endless cycle at this rate.  I think I might take up TJ's idea and get a mediation.  But I haven't finalized anything yet.  I would like to see this resolved by monday so we can add next weeks titles.  Neo Samus 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I hereby volunteer to fill out the request for mediation tonight, as I haven't been a part of this debate. --Cheesemeister3k 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What time, I want to make sure I'm there during the mediation.  I'm hoping that I'll be home when it starts.  Neo Samus 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this page, "Formal mediation is not a rapid progress; most cases take weeks minimum and months on average to reach a resolution." The case would have to be accepted first, then go through the mediation process, which apparently doesn't happen overnight. I have to wonder if it could be resolved by Monday... Perhaps a vote would be a better option. --Cheesemeister3k 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to Neo Samus' comments, as well as the "take another vote" comment. As stated before by admin (right on this talk page): Polls on talk pages are just there to obtain a consensus. If someone objects to it, then they are free to persist on the issue. There is no point where we are to tell someone that they cannot bring up an old issue. As RobJ1981 stated, polls do not control articles, and discussing issues again after previous consensus can always be brought up again. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Rob, but that still doesn't let you off the hook or justify what you've done; as stated in WP:CCC: "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome."  Sorry, but the excuse that the "admin said it was okay" has gone on long enough; as I also stated earlier: "Rob, that was the view of ONE admin (and as you should very well know, the editors on Wikipedia are quite diverse on some matters, interpretation of rules and guidelines included). Just as much as you use that one admin's comment as justification to not let this die, someone else could find another admin that thinks you're simply a malcontent and won't be satisfied no matter what." --PeanutCheeseBar 12:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had every right to continue discussion about the Wii points. One poll doesn't determine how the article is setup forever. I'm sure some editors wished that was the case, but it's not. I didn't instantly just go looking for help, after the admin said those comments. I asked for help, long before the admin posted. So to say I just did all this because of an admin's thoughts: is completely untrue.  RobJ1981 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really; one poll does not determine how the article is setup forever, but given that you've tried and failed twice (and you're still going, all while forum-shopping, also a no-no), you're violating the policy that states that you should not continuously go after an article until you reach the desired outcome, which is what you have been doing.  That aside, for someone who was "seeking help" before the debate, you certainly had no problem justifying your crusade over and over by using the opinion of one admin. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the opinion on an admin in a few posts I've made. I don't mention it all the time to just get my way or anything like that. You've read many of my comments: so you already know this. It's certainly not over and over: so don't assume, and get the facts straight. I'm not going to waste time counting, but I do know it wasn't as much as you are assuming it is. A few times in many posts, isn't a big deal. I'm sure you would think differently about it, if I was for the points and not against the points in the article. So just drop it, and move on. As for the tried and failed twice: I didn't feel the poll or any of the discussions were a clear consensus. Accusing me of "forum shopping" is just bad faith and being uncivil, in my opinion. The main editors of an article don't own or control the article, so I had every right to ask for outside help in this case (and I didn't do it because of an admin's comments). Stop being uncivil, because I don't agree with you. RobJ1981 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to just "drop it", because doing so would be condoning your blatant violations of Wikipedia policy; forum shopping as a means to change the consensus is frowned upon, as both MisterHand and I have outlined, and multiple users seem to be in agreement with us.  That having been said, stop being so quick to jump the gun and call me uncivil; you've been quick to throw that label on anyone who brings up your rulebreaking, and your continued insistence on doing so doesn't draw any more attention away from what you've done. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been reported to an admin. I shouldn't have to put up with this garbage. A tiny consensus of a few editors isn't a clear consensus, my so called "forum shopping" isn't the case at all. A few regular editors don't own or control the article (as I've stated before), so I got some other's to voice their opinions. Why is that hard to understand? In my opinion, you are upset I don't agree with you, and that the page is protected: has made you uncivil and just harassing in my opinion. This certainly doesn't need to be happening. RobJ1981 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in other areas on this page, please keep this discussion restricted to this page, for the sake of simplicity. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Gotta say you have a point on all counts.  As I said above, straw polls may not be consensus, but if you fail to reach consensus, standard policy is to leave the article as is.  At least wait a few months, don't keep bringing it up AGAIN AND AGAIN for another debate.  That's obviously outside the rules.  Even locking the page down in the changed version - which was changed without discussion - is another thing people have perpetrated here that is outside the rules. --Bishop2 06:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The protection note clearly says this: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Did you even bother to read that? The admin that protects, doesn't just go back to the version before the edit warring began. Read up on protection next time. I'm pretty sure it's against no rule. Complaining about what version the article is protected in, isn't helping solve this issue. RobJ1981 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To reiterate 

message: *Everything else in the article is fine.  But you know my stance about the "current" article.  Neo Samus 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Realize that, unless we reach a compromise, this article will likely stay locked for a while. Do we really want to miss Monday's update? If people are still unhappy, we can continue to discuss. But for now I say we all agree to stick with the current version. -- MisterHand 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not too thrilled about missing an update either, but some people on both sides of the debate seem unwilling to find or agree on a middle ground, and as soon as the article is unlocked, the edit warring will likely continue. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: **If the article is still locked on Monday, we can ask an admin to update the article with the information. TJ Spyke 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back to the discussion I was having with Brandon (see above), what is the need and reason to merge the tables? --PeanutCheeseBar 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content-related comments 

message: I got the latest Nintendo Power and it said Paper Mario was on the VC.  Is it?  You guys don't have it listed.  (Zojo 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you look at the future release's section you'll see its there.  Paper Mario has not been released yet, but there is a good chance that it will be some time in June.  But there is no conformation about it though.  Neo Samus 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nintendo Power's track record is starting to get questionable.  They also said that Vectorman and Zelda II would hit the VC in April.  At this writing, they're STILL not available. --Bishop2 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the titles not appearing on the Virtual Console hurts NP's "Track Record" at all. They have the closest relations than anyone to the people in charge of the VC. They were told that Paper Mario, Zelda II (Which has been released elsewhere already), and Vectorman, so they relayed that to their readers. It's not their fault if decisions are made to post-pone the titles. Patience.Lamename3000 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was saying, patience. Zelda II has now officially been announced for release on Monday.Lamename3000 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when it comes to magazines, they often write them 2-3 months in advance. I knew a friend at Nintendo and was able to obtain a game, some years back, quite a few months before it was released and even mentioned in Nintendo Power. So while its true that Nintendo Power is an inside source of information, at times their info can be outdated. Because NP is housed in Nintendo HQ itself, they are able to write advance copies of magazines for games that will be released in only a few months (such as in my case) and release the issues in order to coincide with game releases. Drumpler 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper Mario 

message: Zelda 2 is finally coming to the American VC on Monday. Source UltraNintendoEntertainmentSystem 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arcanelore meantioned it in the "Wii shop server screenshot topic".  But its cool.  You are the third person to mention this. ;)  Neo Samus 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone should at LEAST put the date up on the article and/or un-protect the article UltraNintendoEntertainmentSystem 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not gonna be unprotected untill a consensus is made.  Also to note, the press release from Nintendo states that Zelda II will be the 100th VC game.  So except two more games on Monday with Zelda II and Dead Moon.  Neo Samus 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zelda 2 

message: I'm requesting that this version of my sandbox be made the current page. Changes made are as follows:
- Added release dates for Dead Moon and Zelda II (per www.vc-pce.com and the referenced Nintendo press release)
- Added Milon's Secret Castle and Ecco: The Tides of Time to Future Releases section (both appeared on ESRB today.)
- Fixed some sorting issues.
Thanks. -Arcanelore 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. We now return you to your regularly scheduled content debate. :) GarrettTalk 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request for June 1, 2007 

message: left me a note on my talk page about harassment and accusations from . From what I can see, PeanutCheeseBar has not been the most civil person in this dispute (read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), but I do think his points are valid. Rob, if your attempts have failed in the past (I didn't look to see the actual discussions in the past), you should probably wait some time before submitting another request (per WP:CCC). Also, note that protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page, and it is only requested in times of heavy vandalism, or edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will admit I should've waited a little longer, but that doesn't justify his harrassing of me in many posts he has made here. RobJ1981 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Multiple people here have pointed out your mistakes Rob. not just me; just because I've been the most diligent about responding to your comments doesn't mean I am harrassing you (if I or other people can't speak to you, then how is any consensus supposed to be reached?)  I believe I have maintained my civility quite well in this matter (as well as the two other users who have made note of Rob's violations of Wikipedia policy, as addressed on Nishkid64's talk page.)  I have also encouraged others to maintain their civility as well (as demonstrated by my comments towards Neo Samus earlier in the dispute); with this issue having been addressed by an admin, hopefully this discussion will be more productive. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it harassment, and it certainly wasn't civil. (I posted most of this on your talk page as well): You said I violated policies: I admitted I should've waited a little longer. Other than that, I'm pretty sure I've violated nothing. Unless I'm missing something: the CCC is only one thing. In my opinion: this is defamation of sorts, in an attempt to either get the page unprotected or get in me in trouble for getting people to voice their opinions against the points at the list page. If it was one thing: then you should've said policy, not policies. I didn't see you rushing to fix it, so I'm going to assume (for now at least), you are accusing me of violating several...when I didn't. RobJ1981 18:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, rather than posting this discussion in three or four different places, please restrict it to one; it keeps everyone on the same page, and it makes it much easier to respond.  That having been said, you apparently forgot that Bishop2 made note of your "forum shopping", and MisterHand has loosely referred to it as well; that aside, I reverted the article once, since I did not want to get involved in a pointless edit war, and hence my further participation in the discussion page rather than the actions taken by a few other editors in editing the page back and forth.  I'm not going to rush the discussion just for an admin to unprotect a page, only so the fighting will continue; the purpose of the discussion is to end the fighting, but as long as you continue to take anything someone else says so personally, that's likely the way things will turn out.  In addition, your steadfast "I'm pretty sure I violated nothing" is only serving to engender more uncivility (as well as demonstrate your unwillingness to compromise or ability to admit you made a mistake), and that same attitude is what is causing other people to turn on you and point out your mistakes as well. We're all supposed to be on the same level here Rob; please do not lose sight of that; I don't care how long the page stays protected, so long as the edit warring and reverting does not continue after we reach some consensus or have a mediator assist. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt mediation wasn't the route to go, so I said that. That's not uncivil: that's just not wanting to be in it. From the talk page (in the mediation section): It's not entirely clear whether "mediation" in this context is referring to formal mediation (WP:M) or the MedCab. I strongly disagree with using formal mediation to attempt to solve what is essentially an editorial issue. This isn't a dispute between two editors and there aren't two distinct "sides". Opinions range from keeping the column, to including Wii point information in prose (current version) to removing all point info from the article. Attempting to boil the dispute down to Side A and Side B would be quite difficult. Further, formal mediation usually has some degree of confidentiality, which would be counter-productive in this case. As mediation isn't binding, the goal of any process needs to be to convince editors to accept a compromise, and this requires complete transparency. As for MedCab, it's possible that this process might help to focus editors on the core issues, though I'm not convinced it will actually solve the dispute. However, it would be far more useful than formal mediation as the cases are public and it's can handle a large number of participants (example). Whatever process is used (if any), it's essential that it be open to all. If editors feel that their opinions weren't heard during the discussion process, it's likely that the situation will remain unchanged and we'll be right back at revert warring or a protected article. ChazBeckett 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have just said "No, I don't think I'll participate", or opted not to say anything at all; instead you said: "Don't assume I volunteer for mediation, because I posted. I don't have the time to do it, nor do I have interest in it. I can somehow bet mediation will be the same as this: an arguement that gets no where. Regular editors of the article will want the article back to how they see fit, while myself and others wont."  You even went out and tried to cast doubt on the whole discussion, and the one other user (Bishop2) opted out because he agreed with Chaz's observation, which was that you were the only person that was unsatisfied with the results:
The above section wasn't a straw poll, but it did provide people with a chance to give their opinion. My interpretation of the comments in this section is that most editors found the current version to be acceptable, though not necessarily ideal. It appears that only one user found it to be "NOT fine or acceptable". ChazBeckett 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly what I seem to be seeing. And with only ONE person claiming that this isn't acceptable, I see no need for mediation at this time. --Bishop2 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't the only one edit warring, check the edit history instead of blaming me for all of this. More information is useful: but in this case it isn't. Prices aren't encyclopedic in this manner, as it makes the article a price guide. There is no consensus currently, so there is nothing to accept. Why are clearly ignoring how people feel on this matter? This isn't something that can just be ended like that. Read the other posts instead of trying to solve this with one very incorrect post. RobJ1981 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob might have been the most vocal person on this debate, but he is correct in that he was not the only person that was edit-warring; that said, we need to move beyond the finger-pointing.  We really shouldn't be having this debate over the points (at least, not this soon after the previous debates  were found to favor keeping the points), but we're here now.  Rob learned that he needs to wait longer before resuggesting something for debate, some attempt at mediation has been made and participated in by a few users, and the longer we continue to be uncivil, the longer this article will remain protected. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version isn't a compromise. All that happened was that a user removed the points from the table. The starting prices had already been listed at the top for a long time. The issue has been to either list them in the table (s) or note. Giving one side everything it wants is not a compromise. TJ Spyke 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is a key difference. The current version lists the prices AND the exceptions. So there is no information that wasn't present in the tables. Which is why it's being presented as a compromise. -- MisterHand 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the points are listed in the table, wouldn't you be getting everything you want? What would you consider to be a compromise? Basically, what are you willing to give up in order to achieve consensus? ChazBeckett 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing dispute 

message: Again I'd like to request  a version of my Sandbox be made the current article. This update just adds today's releases. Thanks. -Arcanelore 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection is scheduled to expire at 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a time-sensitive article that is now outdated. Request again? --Cheesemeister3k 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request for June 4, 2007 

message: Wading through the paragraphs of discussion above, my conclusion is that everybody accepts the current version except one editor: TJ Spyke. Is this correct? If so, I have two questions:
# For TJ Spyke: even though this is not the version you want, can you agree for the sake of the article that we accept this as a compromise for now? The discussion can still continue, of course.
# For everybody else: if consensus is reached on an article by all but one editor, is there another route we can take to prevent edit warring besides locking the whole thing down?
Thanks. -- MisterHand 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MisterHand. I will only accept it as a compromise to get the article unlocked. I will continue bringing the issue up until they are put back in (the same way Rob kept bringing it up over and over and bringing the issue up at every page he could, including the Administrators Noticeboard). There is no consensus, people are just sick of Rob and some others who won't accept that they are in the minority . TJ Spyke 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about being civil? Attacking me (and the others that don't agree with you) isn't needed one bit. Don't ignore what's in clear sight on this talk page, just because you don't agree with it. In the section: "Current version - let's discuss", you seem to be the only one strongly against the current version (as stated before). As Radiant stated: I should point out that consensus is not the same as unanimity, so "consensus by all but one editor" is nevertheless consensus. So being uncivil about all of this, really isn't helping matters. RobJ1981 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the comment. As for the section before, the others were commenting on the one table/split tables rather than the Wii Points issue. From what i've seen, the longer an issue is dragged out, the few people who continue discussing it. Also, what about when it was clear consensus to keep the points in but you brought the issue right back up? There is not a consenus here, people are just sick of the continued arguing and getting the article locked because some editors have some objection to important and encylcopedic info being in the article because they don't like it. Just like you yourself said, it is my right to continue bringing this issue up. TJ Spyke 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who really cares about all this actually? If someone is so upset over an article containing the amount of points a game costs that their life comes to a complete halt and they have to let everyone know they aren't happy by griping until they get their way, then just be the more mature person and give it up. It's such a trivial issue it's borderline stupid.--76.177.174.173 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly ignoring what people said, isn't helping things. A page being protected isn't the end of the world. I highly doubt it's just a case of people being sick of the protection, so they give in and agree to the current article. How about, not assuming? I see no proof that people are just giving in so the protection can end. You are the only one against the current version of the article: while everyone else is fine with it. That's a consensus, even if you don't like it or don't want to admit it. RobJ1981 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In all honesty what's stopping us from doing exactly what was done before? We never reached a consensus on the issue, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be reverted back to it's previous version. But of course the second that happens, the edit warning will happen again and it will be admin protected again. sigh. Neo Samus 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *That's precisely why people should discuss possible compromises. The attitude of "I see no consensus so I'm going to revert to the version I like" is very unconstructive. >Radiant< 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, many of the people who reverted the article weren't trying to "revert to the version they like", they were trying to revert to what was standard and commonly accepted before the discussion began; such is normal practice unless the content being debated is of a libelous nature.  Everyone and their brother attempted to edit out the points, and only justify it afterwards. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Some editors though fail to get a consensus in their decision so they continue reverting the article to the one that they want. TJ Spyke 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, true.  That was more of a comment not an actual threat.  So this version will be how it is in NA, but what about the other pages then? Like Europe, Australia, Japan and XBLA, articles?  Neo Samus 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's foolish to have one page formatted one way, and ALL THE OTHER pages formated a different (my opinion, better) way. An encyclopedia isn't good if it isn't CONSISTENT with itself.Lamename3000 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the way Wikipedia is! It's always growing and evolving, some pages faster than others. Don't worry, it won't be too long until those other VC articles catch up with this one.  --Brandon Dilbeck 08:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a look at the Japanese article, their VC prices vary a lot more. It would be much easier to keep the prices in. What some people see as "evolving", others see as "devolving". Lrrr IV 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of the article 

message: Should it be noted that Super Mario 2 was released in Europe, Asia, and Australia but not in North America? Retromaniac 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are other games that have been release in some regions but not others. Also, You apparently didn't check the games. The game that Japan calls Super Mario Bros. 2 is not the same game the rest of the world calls Super Mario Bros. 2. The game Japan knows as SMB 2 is called "Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels" everyone else, the game the rest of us knows as SMB 2 is called "Super Mario USA" in Japan. TJ Spyke 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But this is the North American site, and the game that Europe, Asia and Australia call SMB2 is in fact the same version that we in North America call SMB2, so it counts. --Bishop2 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Retro is refering to Asia as Japan then Super Mario 2 is what we call "Lost Levels".  Neo Samus 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with other regions

message: This page needs to be updated. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, Milon's Secret Castle, ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron and Dead Moon were all added to the VC last Monday. Volker89 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, half of those are given the right date in the Future Releases section.  Savvier readers can go there to ascertain that Zelda II and Dead Moon were released yesterday.  Dunno about the other two... --Brandon Dilbeck 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I made this request yesterday but it was denied (scroll up a couple of sections.) However, if another admin wishes to reconsider, again I've already got the update ready to go in my sandbox. -Arcanelore 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced the protection. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reducing the protection.  Neo Samus 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the protection has been removed entirely. This probably will not end well. -Arcanelore 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way where we can ask for semi-protection again?  Neo Samus 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection -Arcanelore 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: When people were edit waring couldn't we have just blocked those people from editing the page? Especially since issues and changes were being discussed, and still are. Without locking it down from everyone I mean. BornOnDate:TheGreatQuake 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't work like that. Then the people could just change accounts or something and continue editing. Not smart to allow that. And then even the people who were innocent and just trying to keep the article in it's original stable version, like me, would get blocked. Lamename3000 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, people don't just instantly get blocked from editing because of a few reverts. If it was a violation of 3RR, then a block would happen. A couple reverts: not a block. Imagine if Wikipedia blocked everyone that got pages protected and/or reverted a few times: that would just be wrong and turn many people off of editing Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool...  it makes sense I was just curious. Shame though... this page is the only reason I ever use wikipedia, sometimes I forget it's a community deal. BornOnDate:TheGreatQuake 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a Thought 

message: Since we seem to have lost the semi-protection generally required for this article in the removal of full protection, and therefore unregistered users can currently edit the article, I thought I'd post a friendly reminder here. Do not make changes to the facts listed in the article without having a source for the changes. This particularly applies to the future releases. Speculation is not allowed and will be reverted. Acceptable sources include press releases, news reports, and ESRB database listings. --Cheesemeister3k 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The source can just be provided in the edit summary, but provide a source somewhere or it will be removed. Lrrr IV 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the edit summary.  For one thing, people may not know to look in edit summaries to look for sources. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be cited in the article, i'm just saying that they should at least put it in the edit summary. If no source is provided anywhere, it will be removed. People also shouldn't just say "it's in Nintendo Power", they should say where (like which issue and which page). See WP:CITE. Lrrr IV 22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder: Cite Sources 

message: Most people say the reason why Wii points arn't on the list is because wikipedia is not a price guide but, Nintendo has said is Wii points arn't a currency a game cannot be reedemed for another and It cannot be used to buy something tangibleMarioman12 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else already made a similar observation, but it fell on deaf ears.  I'm not entirely fond of Wii points for the reason that the information is repetitive, and it adds a new column on the table that might not necessarily be needed; however, there are exceptions to the standard Wii point costs of each game, and so far nobody has offered up a viable alternative to listing the point values for each game (both standard and otherwise). --PeanutCheeseBar 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the current revision? It is one such "viable alternative". The prices are listed in their entirety in the introduction, complete with all exceptions. No information has been lost or omitted, the only thing that has been lost is the constant repetition of said information. This keeps those in favour happy by the prices being intact, and keeps those against them happy by eliminating the redundancy of listing them in the tables.  GarrettTalk 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the current revision; however, you apparently haven't been reading my arguments, because I've been arguing against having the exceptions listed at the top of the article, especially seeing as how Nintendo is likely to release other games with different prices.  If we continue down this path and Nintendo continues to release games that don't cost the same amount of Wii points, the introduction will just continue to grow every time Nintendo adds a new VC with different pricing.  I think the table listed [ would better serve the purpose of listing prices, and exceptions (if we must).  The blanket disclaimer note "The starting prices of the Virtual Console games depend on what system for which the game was originally developed. Some titles will cost more than these minimum prices." encompasses the exceptions quite nicely. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that makes it sound even more price guide-ish. Lamename3000 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just thought of something

message: Epyx announced Commodore 64 will be added to Wii's Virtual Console, the first batch of Commodore 64 titles for Wii will be Impossible Mission 1 & 2, Winter Games, Summer Games 1 & 2, Pitstop and Jumpman Junior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs) 
:This is actually pretty old (last fall). We eventually decided not to include it becauese Magic Box never cites their sources and doesn't provide proof of Epyx doing it, no mentione at all by Nintendo (on any of their websites or magazines or PR releases). I hope it does happen though. TJ Spyke 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see C64 come out soon, because I never owned a Commodore 64.  I was too young and into anything Nintendo at the time.  Neo Samus 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try to stay on topic here, Neo Samus. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article only, not your own personal opinion on the Commodore 64 (or anything else not directly related to the article itself). RobJ1981 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for correcting me Rob.  Neo Samus 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, these games will not be virtual console games. They will be remakes of the original (not emulations), and available via a different download system. -- MisterHand 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you hear that, MisterHand?  Is it an online source, or print?--PeanutCheeseBar 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really reliable, since it mentions "internet rumours" right in the first paragraph, but here's an article about it:  -- MisterHand 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commodore 64

message: If the whole Wii Points discussion is still going on, shouldn't the Wii Points column still be up on the article. In every other Virtual Console article there is a column for the price i.e. Wii Points. Also, can we please stop this whole madness once and for all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.25.77 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for your concern my friend. But as you can see, every time it was reverted back to the version with the points in the table it was reverted right back. Last time that happened the page got locked for a week. We are trying to avoid having that happen again.  Also, please sign your name after you make a comment so we know who you are. :) Neo Samus 02:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Whenever we try to follow through with that logical idea, I get yelled at by users saying I "should be civil.. wah! Discussion still going on... wah!! You're wrong... wah!" Yeah. It pretty much sounds just like that to me at this time. Lamename3000 05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since Rob was one of the people who kept removing the points last month while we were still discussing the issue. TJ Spyke 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise was suggested until it was decided what we should do with them. For right now, the wisest thing would be to stick to the compromise. Drumpler 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just because a compromise is suggested doesn't mean it's been accepted. DurinsBane87 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the same note, just because a compromise isn't being accepted doesn't mean it isn't the correct thing to do. I am polling the "outside" editors and asking them for their input, as I was attracted to this page after it was plastered all over Wikipedia. Drumpler 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thing is, there was never a consensus to have the points removed, heck when we voted back in march all who voted, voted to keep the points.  So the article should be back in it's original form "until" consensus is made to have them removed.  How many times does this needed to be repeated?  But of course I am being "uncivil".  Yet it's the others (Not you since you just came into this discussion) who are being uncivil.  Explain that......  Neo Samus 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Been there, done that. "There is no consensus therefore the page must remain in the version I like" is neither a good argument nor a good attitude. There are several good reasons why Wikipedia doesn't make decisions by voting on them. >Radiant< 09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't "that's the way we like it" thats the case here. The article had the points, discussion came up about removing them, and before a consensus was reached they were removed and the page protected. That's a very clear cut fact, I haven't seen anyone disput that. DurinsBane87 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being a bully Radiant.  You are doing the exact same thing as me, as you say "There is no consensus therefore the page must remain in the version I like".  Again if you feel so strongly about not having the points in this article, why has nothing been done about the other articles.  Geez, I feel like a broken record.  I want a real answer not excuses.  Neo Samus 09:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dragging personal attacks into it really won't help anything. You're missing the point that the present version isn't the "version I like" but rather a compromise. I'd be all in favor of likewise fixing the other articles. >Radiant< 09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with a compromise being reached. But there hasn't been one yet, that's my only point. Neither sides discussed it, it was just made, and both sides were expected to accept it as a compromise. But that's not what a compromise is. I hated to see it be called a compromise when no one had really discussed it. DurinsBane87 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Seems to me we're trying to discuss it now, only there are some people (by which I don't mean you) unwilling to discuss the actual issue. >Radiant< 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, Radiant, for if that were true then you'd actually be discussing it, like responding to any number of my posts that utterly refute their removal or even calls for this page's deletion due to its current inferiority.  Why exactly are you ignoring that particular discussion? Ryuzx 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Here's what I think we should do. I think that since whatever decision is made will have a wide effect on the various region articles and Xbox articles, we should start this discussion at the video game project talk page and strongly suggest in the other applicable articles talk pages that they join into the debate. That seems to be the most fair thing to me. Anyone wanna second that? DurinsBane87 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the above statements by DurinsBane87; a discussion that is potentially affecting other articles would best be held on the video game project talk page, and suggestions to participate should be made in the other articles so that frequent editors on those pages have a chance to state their case.  My only other concerns are the amount of time for the endeavor, and another war, but so long as nobody attempts to edit the points out of those articles while the discussion is taking place, I think we should be okay.  --PeanutCheeseBar 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There were some editors on this page concerned with the lack of consistency between articles so this may have been an attempt to address those concerns. Chaz Beckett 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While at the same time claiming discussion is ongoing but haven't discussed anything other than pretending like they won, even with such flawed arguments and attempts to shift the burden of proof.  The points were readded to the EU page, just as they should be readded to this one.  There is no need for a compromise if they lack a viable argument.  Ryuzx 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit was listed in the EU VC history as a compromise, but no compromise was reached on this page; furthermore, if he was doing it to make things consistent, then why did he only change the one article?  For the time being, it has been reverted, and it (and all the other VC pages) need to remain as they are, since the matter is already under discussion here, and so that another needless edit war does not break out.  No other articles should be changed to match or reflect this one, since the fate of this article is still undetermined.  --PeanutCheeseBar 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, I was asked on this talk page to do that. Note that PCB has made it pretty clear here that he is unwilling to accept any kind of compromise, so his suggestion that all pages stay in his version until the discussion is finished is disingenious at best. >Radiant< 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False, you are hiding under the guise of "compromise" without producing a valid argument.  The status quo should not be changed until you actually give a proper explanation as to why---check above, Radiant, as there have been plenty of missed opportunities for your side to explain your position, as I've went through and countered all of them as I found them.  You claim there is a discussion, but all you are doing is changing the pages to reflect how you want it without discussing anything.  The burden of proof is on you and really no compromise needs to be reached because there is no properly explained reason why one is required.  Ryuzx 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please stop referring to "sides" and "winning"? This isn't a game, nor are there only two options for presenting information on Wii Points. Also, when there is disagreement such as this one, a compromise does need to be reached and it helps for everyone involved to recognize that opposing views may have some merit, even if you don't agree. Chaz Beckett 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page search shows that "winning" shows up once---in your post. If you've read my various contributions to this page, then it would be nice if you'd notice that I have made various points that have something to do with the article. Your point there does not, since it is attempting to shift the focus on me and my contribution and away from the actual discussion allegedly under way for some time now. There are sides to an argument, and right now the side that claims "victory" over this page and over the general consensus refuses to discuss its argument as to why they were able to hijack this page for so long. If you'd focus on that, as opposed to these red herrings, this discussion probably would've ended last month, long before I got involved. Thank you. Ryuzx 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this comment you stated "...but haven't discussed anything other than pretending like they won," (emphasis mine). This isn't about taking sides or winning or losing or victory or defeat. Chaz Beckett 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Riiiight, so if the pages are not similar you'll say that's wrong, and if the pages are changed to be similar you'll also say that's wrong. Nice catch-22 here. >Radiant< 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Radiant, it comes to ownership---you don't own the page, the general consensus does. The general consensus has had no reason to be swayed into your opinion because there is no need for a compromise; there has been no viable argument as to why they should be removed from the table and cluttering up the top of the page in text. Ryuzx 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This assertion that "No consensus is necessary, no discussion exists, no argument for their removal viable..." is incredibly counter-productive. I'm referring to an edit summary by Ryuzz, but I shouldn't be singling him out. There's several other editors that are basically stating that because they don't agree with other arguments, they don't exist. Consensus does not exist for any version right now! A compromise is absolutely necessary. Digging in and refusing to move towards middle ground isn't going to accomplish anything other than getting the article protected. Chaz Beckett 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say they don't exist.  I went through and countered every argument I've seen and no one has countered since.  Therefore, the page should be returned to its initial status quo until discussion actually resumes.  Let the article be protected again; actually, if you prefer an inferior article, let it get deleted... that was under consideration earlier too. Ryuzx 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has become quite lengthy, could you provide links to your rebuttals? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure!  I didn't join this 'discussion' until here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#.22this_is_an_encyclopedia.2C_not_a_price_guide.22  From there down. Ryuzx 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Radiant, I never said to actually go ahead and "fix" the EU article. Oh and look what happened.....again.  The article is lock for another week.  This is getting absurd!  Again, Ryuzx, a guy who comes out of nowhere, make many valid points about consensus and validity of an article and it gets ignored.  It seems to me that some of have an agenda or some thing of that nature?  If I am wrong please correct me, but that's what I'm reading on this.  Neo Samus 17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't come out of nowhere, since this is how the page used to look when I created it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29&oldid=89060712  I had forgotten what it originally looked like.  Hm.  As for an agenda, I see no reason why they wouldn't have one and no fault with them having one.  I only have issues with their actions and their argument.  Removing the controller compatibility columns made sense, their argument was sound and convincing.  I'm just not seeing it with regards to this attempt to remove the price column.  Ryuzx 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you created the page?  Sorry I didn't know that.  I apologize for thinking they might have an agenda.  I guess it's true that everyone probably has some sort of an agenda of their own.  Neo Samus 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columns 

message: The page has been protected due to edit warring. The page will not be unprotected until a consensus has been reached. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone saw that coming. Are we ready to actually work towards a compromise now? Chaz Beckett 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with the version that had a summary of points and exceptions in the header, but no points in the table columns? That seemed like the perfect compromise to me. -- MisterHand 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, why was there a need for that "perfect" compromise though?  Ryuzx 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors wanted points columns in the tables, others wanted the points taken out of the article completely. The middle ground was to include points info only in the introduction. This current revert war was started when Lamename3000 reverted tand added points back into the table. Chaz Beckett 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully agree with you. That version seemed to be acceptable to many editors, though perhaps not their perferred version. Chaz Beckett 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It supplied the same information as having it in the table, yet another reason why the "price guide" and "currency" argument doesn't hold up, while cluttering up the top of the page with information that could just as easily fit in the table itself.  Just like it does in the various other pages.  And, again, there is no discussion as to WHY they should be removed anyway, if so many remain unconvinced here, then the various other pages will be unconvinced as well... there is just ongoing talk of a compromise that lacks any real reason to be. Ryuzx 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason a compromise is needed is that without some sort of consensus, the page will once again revert to an edit war. -- MisterHand 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you would look back farther (it's pretty long though) You'll see there are many who favor the now current version.  there are only a few who favored the version without the points in the table.  Neo Samus 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid any recurrence of these squabbles, could everyone involved please contribute to the discussion again so we'll know where people currently stand. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Wii Points column should stay, as reflected by the current state of the article. It does no harm to the physical integrity of the page, and if there are more exceptions to the Points for a certain game, we won't end with a long paragraph of nothing but the exceptions. It's best to have it self contained in the article. I don't believe listing the Wii Points suddenly makes the article into a price guide, as it's been accused. The article as it is, feels right, and it fits in with the format of other related articles on Wikipedia. Lamename3000 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I also believe that the Wii Points column should stay, as it was removed against protocol, in addition to the points made above. DurinsBane87 18:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is the points don't need to be listed. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide, that's not the purpose of this encyclopedia. And with that, I'm done posting on this page for a while. RobJ1981 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too bad you've given up, because I'm honestly curious as to what you consider a price guide to be?  I've always been under the impression that a price guide is something that maintains a current listing of the worth of collectible items, which fluctuate in value over time.  Since Wii VC games do not fluctuate in value over time the same way an issue of Detective Comics from 1939 or a Lew Alcinder rookie card does, I can't see how the inclusion of static Wii point values in this article could be considered as a price guide. --Billdorr 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I am not the only one sick of this discussion (I think both sides are). The previous version was never accepted as a permanent solution, people just agreed to get the page unlocked while a discussion continued. I think the points should stay in, and Lamename pretty much sums up my reasons why. TJ Spyke 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read #Content-related comments above. Ignoring the nested comments (which are replies rather than direct opinions), I counted two people opposed to that revision as a compromise, and four in favour of it as a compromise. I discounted those who asked questions and/or did not explicitly state their opinion. Now that's a rough and arbitrary method, but it shows a fair amount of support for that revision as a compromise did indeed exist, and that's not even counting those who had stated support for that revision as a compromise earlier but did not restate it in that section for wahtever reasons. Backing down simply to get the page unprotected is no way to achieve a consensus. GarrettTalk 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So are you not reading any of the discussions that have been going on since yesterday?  There is no need for a compromise because the removal of the Wii points are not necessary and there is no viable argument, just an opinion, to do so. Ryuzx 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can alway place an edit request on the talk page. I laughed though seeing Radiant claiming there was an agreement to remove points here (as an excuse to remove the points on Europe). The Australian page isn't protected from what I can see, so you can still update Australia. TJ Spyke 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I say keep the points in the table.  There was never a "good" reason to remove them in the first place.  It doesn't hurt the article.  Let it be.  Neo Samus 21:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep the points, per LameName. Dlong 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I say keep the points, for the same reason I've said keep the points the last 2-3 times we've had this discussion. But really I don't CARE if this article is going to get locked every goddamn week over something so trivial. What I want above anything is for you guys to stop squabbling like two year olds and come to a decent conclusion. Thores 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I know. It's hard to understand all this. The overwhelming majority of the editors of this page want to keep the Wii Points column, but we can't continue our work in peace because there's a few people (Chaz, Garett, Brandon, RobJ) who want it different. Lamename3000 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there are far more people who disagree with you than you think. The Wii points column is inappropriate, regardless of how many people want them. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, users who disagree but don't speak up are fairly useless to an argument, and if they disagree, they should say so. If they don't, we shouldn't ASSUME that they exist. I'm sure there are also lots of other people who want to keep the Wii Points, but they havent spoken, so I don't allude to what I have no evidence of. DurinsBane87 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if we take into account the other 3 people (including you) who have expressed disapproval in the past, but not recently, over the entire page as-is, it's still only 7 people who don't want the points, and 17 who DO want the points. Of course, there's still about 6 people who I would say are either on the border, or who have not expressed an opinion either way. LN3000 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is not determined by numbers alone, but by the arguments behind them. Poke your head into WT:NOT sometime, or nominate a page like this to be featured or for peer review. The only reason editors are not here in mass saying that price guide is inappropriate is because they have better things to do. People do not have to sign their name to re-register their position on something for each individual discussion. Sorry if you don't believe me, but it's a very accurate assumption. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I point to you exibits A, B, C, D, E, and F. PlayStation_Portable, PlayStation_2, PlayStation_3_launch#Release_data_and_pricing, Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube. All of these have a pricing history and they are perfectly within the practices of wikipedia. It is the Wii page and this one that would be outside the norm without prices. --Dharh 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The few people against the points haven't present compelling arguments against including the points. TJ Spyke 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, most of us are basing our opinion on the matter based on the current situation, not assuming that point values will change in the future, as there has not been anything but unfounded speculation on the matter. I say that the Wii Points column is fine, as things stand now. If for some reason in the future the Wii Points change, of course my view of the matter will change to reflect that. It wouldn't be a place for an encyclopedia for variable information. But so far, on a game-to-game basis, the points are static, and will not change, in our present view, therefore the Points aren't related to a price-guide, and are safe to stay. LN3000 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I refer you to these pages: PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, PlayStation_3 launch#Release data and_pricing, Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube. Which shows both that indeed wikipedia is a "price guide" and the solution to the problem. A separate table which chronicles the history of prices for the games. It is not just the debut price, but the complete history of prices that can be kept in wikipedia. Price guides are frowned upon because they constantly evolve making it necessary to edit a wiki page constantly. However, this would not be the case because console prices (and VC prices) are consistent over year long periods. The VC pages are updated every release date in any event. --Dharh 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok here's another example, XBLA. Here's why I'm mentioning it, XBLA has a points system "identical" to Nintendo's Wii Points.  XBLA has been around for a few years now. The article's table template is very similar to VC table template. I have not seen one of the opposing argue about the Microsoft points once on that page, like it has been here. No attempt to change the page like it has been done here, nothing. I keep bringing this up because, the article has been around for much longer than the Virtual Console. What make's this article so different than, XBLA?  FYI, I'm also going to post this same comment on the WP:NOT talk page.  Neo Samus 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: If you guys are going to keep dragging the discussion to other pages like Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Price guide (again) you could have the decency to post a link to it in a manner that is easier for everyone to see, so that we can join the discussion, so it's not so one-sided. That is, unless you are trying to go behind the majorities back to get your way. LN3000 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-added. Dumpler, Meat does not apply. I am not a sockpuppet. I am me. Just because I have a different signature doesn't make me a different person. my signature still points to my page. AND I think it is decency to keep the talk of the issue to include everyone involved, instead of wondering around different places of Wikipedia where not everyone will know to look. LN3000 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carefully re-read WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. Drumpler 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MEAT is about creating sockpuppets to support your side, I don't see that happening here. TJ Spyke 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, as TJ Spyke said, I see nothing in Meat or Canvass that describes me or this reasonable request to not go behind the backs of the people in discussion. my custon signature does not "append some promotional message to every signed post" as stated in canvassing. Please read the pages you claim to be upholding better before causing disruption. Really, it seems you are causing more disruption than help in this whole discussion. Please tone it down. LN3000 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for the record, this is my one and only account on Wikipedia. no MeatPuppets from me. LN3000 07:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's been a fair amount of wiki-stalking in order to make sure that people in favour of the Wii Points "votestack", even though the policies cover more than just the Wii Points. If it continues, I'm afraid this is going to have to be taken to other channels. Drumpler 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen either from LN3000. If anything, people against Wii Points have been canvassing (bring up the Wii Points issue at multiple pages saying they are unencylcopedic and asking them to do something, and going to WP:AN and admins that are friendly to them and asking them to do something). If anything, LN is doing the right thing by letting others know how the canvassing being done by those against including Wii Points. TJ Spyke 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion movement 

message: Can somebody with the power to do so please edit the EU article with:
-Mega Man (NES), 500 points, PEGI: 7+, not sure about PAL conversion issues (Just put Unknown)
-China Warrior (TG), 600 points, PEGI: 12+, PAL converstion issues: No
-Remove both from upcoming games
-Change number of VC games near top of the page to 103 instead of 101
Thank you. --MrDrake 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not request this on Europe's page? If you use the editprotect template, it will appear in a category (so admins can see it). TJ Spyke 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request for EU, 22 June 2007

message: 3 more games have been confirmed and rated on the ESRB website (Super Turrican, Super Turrican 2, Shining Force). Another game already confirmed has been given a rating (Shining in the Darkness). I have made the changes on a test page, could an admin make the changes? User:TJ Spyke/Test. TJ Spyke 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also vc-pce confirmed a date for China Warrior. I've included this on TJ Spyke's test page. -Arcanelore 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also turns out the ESRB tacked "Wii" on to the existing GBA entry for Breath of Fire 2. (If you just search the Wii category you'll have to page all the way to the end of the list to find it, so just search for "Breath of Fire" instead.) Anyway, I've updated TJ's page accordingly. -Arcanelore 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's releases have been announced and added to TJ's page. -Arcanelore 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was unprotected. -Arcanelore 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request

message: Hudson's TG16 site says China Warrior comes out on June 25th.65.8.122.224 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's mentioned in my edit request (which hasn't been implemented yet). TJ Spyke 02:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one can make edits until this issue is resolved.  Neo Samus 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no one except admins. TJ Spyke 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, don't count on it. Briggity Brak 07:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just wanted to say...