Talk:Wii/Archive 14

message: I've created the August archive and removed any discussions not posted to in the last week.  Hope I didn't cut out anything too important. --Stratadrake 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  August archive 

message: If anyone is going to ask this question, we've discussed this aspect of the article several times.  See the Talk archives (pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) and the "Move to Nintendo Wii" survey for all the gory details.  It is just "Wii", and "Wii" alone.
--Stratadrake 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't you mean "Nintendo Wii"?

message: The citations are all outdated, and the games remain unsourced. I think it would be better if a source was included along side each one. Oh, and are their any reliable sources for the System 3 games coming out on the Wii on launch day? 74.137.230.39 20:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outdated means nothing if there are no new stories to cite. dposse 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being that the outdated information doesn't match the information in the article. Clearly, the editors were using other citations.  And still has System 3 announced that their games was coming to Wii on launch day. Otherwise it belongs in the reported for launch. 74.137.230.39 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Reliable websites have said System 3 announced them as launch games, I can't seem to find their website(if they have one). TJ Spyke 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: An anonymous user has just claimed  that none of the launch titles will have online play. There is no reference to back this up. Should it be removed? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should be removed, right now it's nothing more than a rumor. TJ Spyke 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be sourced, see http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10627 -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So? I can find links for almost every rumor. That doesn't mean it's true, this is still just a rumor. TJ Spyke 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as information comes from a reliable news outlet, and is clearly marked as being a "widely-reported rumour", there shouldn't be a problem including it in this article at the moment. When information firms up - and this article ceases to have a big "It may contain unverified or unreliable information" disclaimer at the top - rumours can most likely be replaced with facts, one way or the other. But at the moment, I think they're worth including as they can be informative. Dpmarshall 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: TJ Spyke, please read verifiability and reliable source, especially we don't care if it is true or a rumour, as long as it can be sourced. -- ReyBrujo 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and secondly it is not meant for indefinite info.  Every rumor should not be on here. Lots of rumors end up in respectable news sources, but that doesn't make them true.  On the System 3,  I saw their webpage the other day so I'll try to find it again. It wasn't of much use though.  74.137.230.39 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crystal ball clause does not apply here. The event is going to happen in two, three or four months, and we have sources for the speculation. What we are not allowed is to include our speculation. If Gamasutra, IGN or GameSpot want to speculate, we can include that information if it enhances the article. -- ReyBrujo 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expected launch titles sources

message: Hey guys, I just recieved word that Call of Duty 3 has been delayed into 2007. This comes from EDGE Magazine. However, Nintendo Power will have new information on CoD 3 soon, so keep an eye on that.
Not a confirmed delay, but keep an eye out guys!
--72.134.47.212 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the same thing, i've had to revert some edits until we have official word from Activision or Nintendo. TJ Spyke 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some guys working on the title at Treyarch and if they are delaying they title, not even they know about it yet.  I just asked my staff and none of them knew the source of the rumor so unfortunately I can't track it down for confirmation tomorrow.  Thanks for the heads up though.--The Viper 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nintendo Power just confirmed it for launch.  I will add it back to the list.--The Viper 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call of Duty 3 Reportly Delayed Into 2007 

message: Do not add this game to the rumored lauch list. Here  is an article stating so. --DivineShadow218 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the JAPANESE launch, the link even says they don't know how it will affect the US date, so it stays in for now. TJ Spyke 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats ALL launches....--DivineShadow218 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi 2 

message: Hiere is an article stating that The Godfather, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2007, Madden NFL 2007, Need for Speed: Carbon, Harry Potter and SSX 5 are in lauch window and not at launch. 
::Technically the launch window includes the launch, and it's almost guaranteed that Madden will be a launch game. TJ Spyke 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically no the launch is the day of the launch... Launch window is after launch. --DivineShadow218 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically YES, the launch window includes the launch date as well, so those games haven't been confirmed as NOT being launch games either. TJ Spyke 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's a list of confirmed launch games, not a list of games that haven't been confirmed to be not for launch. --Maxamegalon2000 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why they are in the "Reported for launch" section and not the "Confirmed for launch" section. TJ Spyke 00:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No it does not...Launch is Launch... not launch window... if Launch window is launch then why not at Mario Galaxy to the list too... oh wait... we decided not to b/c it is in the launch window.--DivineShadow218 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know if Super Mario Galaxy is in the launch window, all we know is it will come out within 6 months. TJ Spyke 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They said Launch window --DivineShadow218 00:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never seen Nintendo say "launch window" for it, link please. TJ Spyke 00:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a link where launch window includes launch.--DivineShadow218 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Launch window" means the first 90 days(about, some companies have it shorter or longer) of the systems life. TJ Spyke 00:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumoured EA Launch titles 

message: Expect a huge edit war in the near future over this crap. remember Nintendo Go and nintendo ON?
http://alnk.org/violentcode
Zazaban 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is so obviously fake, but yeah I think some people will try to add it in to the Wii article. TJ Spyke 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't Photoshop fun? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up.  Too many things already prove how false it is.  An internal document would not have the consumer hotline listed as public relations. I know Reggies extension and I'm not media on the same level as IGN and if the maker of the document doesn't know any of the internal numbers, it's an obvious fake.  Sales figures are also way off. I could continue on to prove the matter but I think we can all agree it's fake and has no warrant for inclusion on the Wii page.--The Viper 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, it's referred to as "Nintendo Wii" rather than just "Wii" :) Not to mention the contradiction when "he" talks about the Blue Ocean strategy - not lashing out at competitors - and then "he" starts lashing out in the very next paragraph. Ritarri 13:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumored leak of reggies presentation 

message: Which is more appropriate? I know that Nintendo uses MB, but Sony and Microsoft were overriden in the Xbox 360 / PS3 articles because MiB is technically more correct. That was in reference to system RAM though, which is definately measured in MiB. But what about this flash memory? I think it's possibly properly measured in MiB, but I have no real solid knowledge. It's also good to note that we don't know exactly what type of flash memory is being used; I have no idea if the standard for measurement changes between varieties. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I mostly bring this up because an anony has tried changing it twice. It deserves talkin' about rather than just repeatedly reverting it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes from wii.nintendo.com(Nintenod's official website for the Wii): The Specs: Wii boasts 512 megabytes of internal flash memory, TJ Spyke 07:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but, as I said, Microsoft and Sony use megabytes instead of mebibytes too. Their usage of that unit is incorrect though, so they're overriden in the appropriate articles. The Manual of Style has a section on binary prefixes, and encourages using MiB/etc. where correct. Basically, MB should techically refer to a decimal unit (1000 KB), whereas MiB is binary (1024 KiB). System memory uses MiB (even if it refers to it as MB), hard drives and DVDs use MB. Personally, I'd rather leave it as MB as I don't know which way this type of media goes, but that's why I asked the question here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between MB and MiB is a recent invention (dating only to 1998), and is not widely used in industry (indeed, derided by many as a sop to hard disk manufacturers who were only aiming to deceive) despite the strong support of IEC, IEEE, NIST, etc. However, as Wikipedia has a great need to disambiguate, and has a reliable rule on how it should be communicated, I believe "industry's numbers" should be translated into the unambiguous terminology when reported in an article. As previous posters suspected, yes, flash (as with main memory) is all power-of-two based. So, it's fine as it is, but would be equally correct as MiB. Dpmarshall 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I for one HATE MiB.  MB refers to Megabyte which is properly 1024 kB it is only because some people use the 10^6 bytes version of this that MiB had to be established for the non computer people to deciver what it really means.  When I see MB I assume 2^20 unless it is in marketing material (HD space, flash drive size, etc.).  This is the reason why when you buy a 200GB HD your OS reports it as being smaller the manufactuer is using 10^6 vs the 2^20 where the OS uses the proper conversion.  RAM though is different it is marketed as being exactly what it is.  I would say then that in the case of flash memory any numbers put out will be in 10^6 not 2^20 to make the flash drive seem larger then it atually is.Sir hugo 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because flash drive manufacturers tend also to be memory manufacturers, they appear to be keeping it honest. Also the nature of flash memory addressing means it *has* to be power-of-two based really. The snag comes when you put a filesystem on a flash drive - and lose a whole chunk of available space there and then. Flash drives tend to be marketed as 512meg, 1gig, etc. and will have a real unformatted capacity of 536,870,912 bytes, 1,073,741,824 bytes, etc. The only time to be skeptical is if you see someone claiming a flash drive capacity that isn't a power of two (or a clean multiple of one) - then they're most likely trying the same trick as HD manufacturers. 536meg flash drive, anyone? Dpmarshall 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't you notice those little disclaimers on hard drive boxes and hard drive MP3 players and such that say, specifically, that they're using a power of 10 instead of 2? I realize that this would be fine either as MB or MiB because of the ambiguity, but the Manual of Style does now say that MiB should be used in all cases where it's a binary (^2) unit. The Wikipedia tries to keep things as standard as possible across articles. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then use MiB for this article if that is policy.  By the way, I have actually only ever bought one hard drive that didnt come with my computer and I bought that off the net so I didnt pay attention to the box as I already knew about this marketing scheme.Sir hugo 13:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiB vs. MB for the flash memory 

message: There is some new information on the sensor bar from the Leipzig Games Convention (from a German article on Heise-Newsticker: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77260). The sensor bar is approximately 30cm long (instead of the 20cm mentioned in the article), and contains 8 IR (infrared) LEDs that are used by the controller to guage direction and distance to the display. This is easily visible on a digital camera picture. This also means that the controller needs line-of-sight to the sensor bar to use the pointer-functionality.
Now, I was unsure on how add this information to the article as I couldn't figure out how to source the article.... :)
[maven] 09:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information isn't actually new. I believe 30cm was length was the length previously used, before IGN published their "Unlocking the Secrets" article (http://wii.ign.com/articles/718/718946p1.html), which stated 20cm. The presence of 8 IR LEDs is also not new, dating back to E3 (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3386246&postcount=69). I believe this was also noted in the article once, but the IGN article stated that the sensor bar featured two sensors on each end. I have my opinions on what information can be trusted by whom, but there are disagreements. Dancter 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensor Bar 

message: Someone want to check out this website: wishlist Google snapshot  This page has since expired.  Since the Google snapshot data claims that the picture was taken in July '06, the 2005 date is presumably wrong.  So, possibility of a slight 5-6 typo.
However, this does not really add any significant information; all the dates on this wiki page are before the 14th anyways.  However, this acknowledges the fact that LOZ, and therefore the Wii, will be available before November 14. - oobugtalk/contrib 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is confirmation of nothing.  All major online retailers use 'placeholder' dates.  Go to EB online, Best Buy and others and you'll get varying release dates.  It's a public relations move as it looks better to have a fake date that can be changed instead of listing it as TBA/TBD or having no date at all.--The Viper 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The original release date was in November 2005, and I think it was the 14th, so it's quite possible that this is simply a very old page that was only removed recently.  I think it's the July '06 date that's misleading. Karaken12 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOZ release date hint? 

message: It was mentioned that Smash Bros Brawl has been announced by nintendo as being a first party game. I am wondering about that because I have not heard anything about that and the Smash Bros Brawl page lists the developer as unknown and does not state anything to that effect. It seems odd that this page would have this info and the page for the game would not. Can someone please post a link showing where they got this info from. --Edgelord 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its status is disputed. This page just hasn't been updated to reflect that. Jaxad0127 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change.  My sources are as follows. http://cube.ign.com/articles/673/673312p1.html  http://wii.ign.com/objects/748/748545.html  http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supersmashbros/news.html?sid=6140706  http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=462446&page=0  http://wii.advancedmn.com/game.php?gameid=1468  http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025047.html  http://wii.qj.net/Super-Mario-Galaxy-Team-Announced/pg/49/aid/38177  Or how about right here on Wiki, HAL_Laboratory  --The Viper 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the dispute was that we don't know if HAL is the developer for SSBB since Sakurai formed a new team for it and Sakurai is at Sora now and not HAL. TJ Spyke 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sakurai is head of a new EAD team at EAD Tokyo.  Hal is not developeing this title.  I can contact them later for direct proof if need be but I don't know how official that would still be unless I posted it on my site and that's not really news worthy in itself (which is probably why it's tough to validate).--The Viper 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also believe that would not be acceptable under WP:OR. --My old username 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The official site says it's part of a new Nintendo-owned studio. Right now it's called "The Studio" until they can think of a better name. --141.117.176.198 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Smash Bros

message: Apparently, Tecmo classics may appear in the Virtual Console (http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/08/29/tecmo-games-to-appear-on-virtual-console/). This is by no means confirmed. I tried reading the briefing (found here) but it is too technical for my level. Just pointing out in case someone with a better japanese understanding can find any hint in the company's documentation. -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a rumor.   --The Viper 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tecmo games on Virtual Console rumour 

message: Hi.  I'm visiting here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat, a project to reduce the number of laundry lists in articles that are hurt by them.  The list of third party games looks a bit unbalanced to me -- it's large, and likely to grow larger.  I'd like to help develop a consensus as to what size this list shoudl be capped off at.  Since there's already a link there to List of Wii games, it seems to me that 8 titles would be plenty; that would put it in balance with the first party titles, which is visually pleasing, and would reduce the temptation for everyone in the world to add "just one more title!" because their favorite game isn't listed.  What do people think? Nandesuka 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An arbitrary number of list titles wouldn't eliminate the "just one more title" syndrome. Since there is already a list of expected launch titles and a seperate list of Wii games, why not just cut the whole section? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a small "Examples" section is needed with a link to the main list.  These should include the top X games from each category based on discussion on the talk page.  Yes it wont eliminate the tendancy of people adding one more but we would have justification to revert it till it was discussed.Sir hugo 16:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Only listing the major game(s) in each category would keep the list small and give a good representation of the types of games the console will have. Jaxad0127 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every console will have roughly the same games: there'll be RPGs, Sports games, platformers, FPS'ers, etc. A small list would by no means be comprehensive, but it would definitely be subjective and prescribe to someone's POV. On the other hand, anyone can get a great idea of the games available for the Wii by checking out the list of Wii games. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sir hugo on this, that there should be a list but should not exceed notable titles. Do we have to vote on the list and what games get added?--DivineShadow218 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God, I hope not. --Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How are these titles "notable"? Sales data would be one neutral gauge, but hey, no Wii titles have even shipped yet! People will simply make a list of personal faves and argue and revert each contested title. Please comment on why there is a need for a duplicate of list of Wii games, or at least define what makes these not-yet-released titles so "notable". ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying all of the titles are notable, I would definitely remove some of them from the list. But games that are part of a notable franchise, which in fact the list was of and not of notable games, should just be added to the list. When you think of Nintendo you think Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Supper Smash Bros. and so on. When you think Football you think Madden. When you think survival horror you think Resident evil. These are all notable franchises and should be kept (or brought back to form a list) in the list. And I do not mind at all the notable new titles that was above the list section. I do admit that the 3rd party list was getting quite long but, in my eyes, that is no reason to delete the whole section. I say bring the section of NOTABLE FRANCISES back.--DivineShadow218 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do like that Idea, but it would have to be modified to fit the problems that we have with the list. Since we are doing franchises and linking it to the game for the wii, that has to be implemented into it. --DivineShadow218 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add franchises to the Xbox 360 poll, explain your side, and get the time extended. -- ReyBrujo 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of list of games 

message: Is SSBB First or Second? Sir hugo 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on this, since it is actually the best idea I am closing this vote.  If someone from the SSBB community wants to move this vote over there feel free but otherwise lets forget about it here.Sir hugo 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Has "bump mapping" as a graphical technique for the Wii actually been confirmed yet? If not, it appears that Isuse 8 of the British Official Nintendo Magazine may have done so: on page 40, during a preview of Battalion Wars 2, under a picture of a tank a caption stated that "The bump-mapped vehicles looked terrific". --Zooba 12:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read any review for Star Fox Adventures and the reviewer will most likely marvel at the brilliant use of bump mapping (and complain about how rigid the game is also) JayKeaton 11:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Every GPU after NV2x does NOT support bump mapping "by itself", it supports a more general shader architecture which can also be used to do bump mapping. You will never see a GPU or a console sporting 'bumpmapping support' but rather a much greater functionality superset like "Shader model 3.0" for example. In this specific case, I would expect at least at least an X1800 based chip with toned down pixel pipes to handle the less demanding resolution. Information on Hollywood seems to be rather scarce so take this as a personal opinion.
MaxDZ8 talk 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bump mapping. 

message: The Wii page has over 10,000 revisions, making it the highest ranking (ranked 11) revision game related page, compared to the next highest game related page, PS3, which has under 9,000 revisions and only ranks number 19. Obviously this can't be put in the article, but I thought it was very interesting JayKeaton 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As they say, no news is bad news, but it makes perfecte sense, tell people a really out there name like 7 months before it's release, it gives people time to obsess about it, talk about it with their friends, get everyone talking about Wii, and also enough time for it to grow in people. Nintendo haven't done anything that smart since the snes. Assuming they meant to do it of course ;) JayKeaton 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii page has most interest 

message: Hi everyone. Sorry to be a little pedantic, but the following is an error nonetheless (though almost everyone got this wrong). Under the heading Developer support the current article reads: "Ubisoft has upped their number of titles in development for Wii to 8 (7 of which are to be launch games and only 2 of which were previously known about)." This is wrong. Nintendo´s press server (, registration required) offers a list of Wii games, published on May 9th, which clearly states that Ubisoft was developing three games: Open Season, Rayman Raving Rabbids and RED STEEL. If you do not have access to that server, there is a copy of that list on my blog, here: . The article should be changed to: "... and only 3 of which were previously known about." Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falafelkid (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 September 2006  (UTC)
:Thanks for catching that. I've made the change. I left you a message with some links to help you out as a new registered user. Again, welcome! Dancter 13:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you fnd other errors like that, just fix them and add a link for verification (not your own site as that's against the Wiki TOS though the press page from Nintendo will do).--The Viper 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it easy on the new kid. The user very well may have gone right ahead and fixed it directly, if the article wasn't semi-protected. And I think the reason they offered their blog was because the article is on the NOA press site is not currently accessible to the public. Dancter 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly pedantic issue: 3 Ubisoft titles were known about all along 

message: It's developed by EA Canada. Source (IGN) --66.138.57.136 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed, thank you. - EmeZxX 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madden 07 Wii not developed by Tiburon 

message: This straw poll is to flesh out some consensus on the debate over whether to include a list of games (or what kind of list to include) for the console.  See Talk:Xbox_360#Straw_poll_-_Games_list for concurrent discussion and further examples.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
* Include list of "some popular games"
* Include list of "some popular franchises" as before the list was removed
**DivineShadow218 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll - Games/Franchise list 

message: Discussion resulting from the survey would go here.  If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.
* Include list of "some popular games"
**The Viper 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Just a quick thought, shouldn't this be somewhere near the top instead of stuffed away at the bottom? DevAnubis 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Name" section 

message: Why is this article still protected?  Can we remove the protection?Sir hugo 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A) Because this target is rather popular (top 10 on the whole WP I believe) and sometimes a target for vandalism and other unvarafied info from anons. B) Yes - it may have died down now; there's really no sure way to find out unless you try it. RN 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is in 12th place. It was in 11th but Canada overtook it. --My old username 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: well, i was looking online and found this nice little web site: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060725-7349.html and basically, it says that the games for all sorts of nintendo systems, such as gamecube and ds, are comming out in intervals of one week, starting october 27th. then, if you work your way back one week at a time, you get to october second as being the day without a launch. now, it could be november 27th, but thats black friday. or mabey the 20th. no, thats the ps3's launch. wich only leaves october second. call me crazy, but ill have my money and tent ready for a camp out!72.58.29.218 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, October 2 is a TUESDAY, Nintendo usually launches their systems on SUNDAYS. That damn joke Nintendo sent out is causing so much annoyance because people assume they are launching the Wii on that date. TJ Spyke 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can assume anything about launch day if they're aiming for a simultaneous or near-simultaneous launch day. It's Fridays in the UK, Sundays in the US, etc. Absolutely anything could happen this time round. Dpmarshall 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not coming out on the same day though, all we know is they plan on releasing it worldwide within a 14 week period. That means one region could get it 2 months after another. I just don't like people assuming October 2nd is the release date because of a JOKE from Nintendo. TJ Spyke 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know for sure that they're not aiming for a near-simultaneous launch in North America, US and Japan. Given the relatively limited possible launch window, it's not that unlikely. However, my main point was that just because Nintendo's past consoles have launched on a Sunday in the US, it doesn't mean that's logistically advisable or possible this time around. Dpmarshall 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wii unconfirmed launch date 

message: I read the MoSys press release [34] and noticed an interesting thing:
"The newest 1T-SRAM implementations embedded within the Wii console are fabricated using NEC Electronics' advanced 90nm CMOS-compatible embedded DRAM process technology.  These high speed and ultra low latency memories are used as the main embedded memory on the graphics chip and in an additional external memory chip."   
1. additional extra memory - CPU memory? (as stated on here on Wikipedia)
But "Available in densities up to 600Mbits" => 75 MB
If this is CPU memory it is very small... (It could be some kind of programmable cashe, if so it will be integrated with the CPU it fits an a reasonably sized ASIC). My guess is that this really is GPU
memory.
Update: found this pressrelease from NEC
So it is not 1T that makes this extra memory - it can be a lot bigger than their largest...
2. It is surely used as GPU memory "... 1T-SRAM technology to implement the very high performance memory within the Wii console's graphics system."
RogerJL 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and the t1-SRAM on the GPU is the onboard buffer, same as flipper had. to the best of my knowledge there will be a main Wii ram consisting of T1-SRAM, as with GameCube, and then probably a further DRAM segment (again as with gamecube). It's interesting to know that the capacity of one chip is limited to 75Mb, and that Wii may possibly only be using one of those chips, but still it is not entirely relevant to the article as it is unconfirmed by Nintendo. DevAnubis 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1T-SRAM GPU memory only? 

message: If you think some form of a reference to urine is needed on this article vote Yes if you think it shouldnt be included vote No
====Yes====
Votes for referencing the urine jokes go here.
====No====
Votes against referencing these jokes go here.
No This is childish humor that should not be included in WP.  I consider it vandalism and stupid, it hurts the article more then helps it.  By the way, this can be four year old humor even if an adult finds it funny, it just means that adult has the sense of humor of a child which alot of men do.Sir hugo 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, can we agree to unprotect the page when this discussion is finished? It doesn't seem warranted anymore and that semi-protected notice at the top is annoying. Grandmasterka 22:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection tag was up before this started. I think it has to do with with lists of games. I am not sure if that was resolved. --70.48.172.72 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Votes against referencing these jokes go here.
No This is childish humor that should not be included in WP.  I consider it vandalism and stupid, it hurts the article more then helps it.  By the way, this can be four year old humor even if an adult finds it funny, it just means that adult has the sense of humor of a child which alot of men do.Sir hugo 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, can we agree to unprotect the page when this discussion is finished? It doesn't seem warranted anymore and that semi-protected notice at the top is annoying. Grandmasterka 22:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection tag was up before this started. I think it has to do with with lists of games. I am not sure if that was resolved. --70.48.172.72 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Since this is an overwhelming majority for the Negative then it is concluded that NO references to urine should be made in this article.Sir hugo 11:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote Closed

message: Confirmed!
http://www.mcvuk.com/newsitem.php?id=24356
I added it in. Hope that's not a problem. PureLegend 18:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need a better source than the one you provided if we're going to say it's confirmed. According to the linked page, the price is MCV's own assertion, and not Nintendo's. Dancter 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the news was refuted earlier today by Nintendo UK. -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it's worth keeping then, with the refutation added? I'm thinking this should probably be deleted as just another space-wasting rumor. Dancter 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for that, as it has been refuted. The casual user comes here looking for information about date and price, and a paragraph saying something like "MCV stated the item will be priced 179 pounds, but later Nintendo refuted" isn't really worth. I may have vouched to keep that in a "Rumours" paragraph, but since we are supposed to be getting more information next week, it can stay out. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats dumb. The statement Nintendo UK put out said they were NOT FAR OFF. It is therefore clear that the false dates of October 2 and Late September that ARE on the site are in fact not correct, further confusing those "casual users" you just mentioned. Thanks Omega21 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Not far off" could mean a month. We already know it's not coming out in September, but an October release is still possible. Also, all the release dates on the main page are for the North American launch. Europe will more than likely get it after us. TJ Spyke 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wii UK release+price

message: http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=8802 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atlfalcons866 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your text and replaced it with a link. Please don't cut and paste large amounts of text into the talk page that could just as effectively be linked to. It wastes space. The Maxconsole specs have been discussed before. It was generally agreed that they weren't reliable enough to go in the article. Jon Hannibal made a pretty convincing argument why the specs are just well-crafted speculation. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060802-7407.html Dancter 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wii spec rumors or real? 

message: IGN has reported that the games industry trade magazine MCV has stated that the Wii will be released by 24 November for £149 (about $278) here .  But, of course, I can't add that to the page yet, because I just registered. Suaveslav 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above, Nintendo of Europe has already said that magazine is wrong. TJ Spyke 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they never said the magazine was wrong, just that there would be a lot of speculation.
Suaveslav 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They're definitely not right," sounds like they are saying the magazine is wrong. TJ Spyke 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed Wii European Launch Date and Price 

message: After Research I have found out the Wii could be out by October 2 and before November 24 and that the Wii should cost between $140-$200.This is not confirmed but is very likely.Salokin 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "research" probably consisted of reading rumors. TJ Spyke 02:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Cost andDate