→New Releases: comment |
|||
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
:::::Perhaps, but only because people say "Oh! I don't like it! It must be against policy! Let's find a policy and apply it to this!" --[[User:Lamename3000|LN3000]] ([[User talk:Lamename3000|talk]]) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Perhaps, but only because people say "Oh! I don't like it! It must be against policy! Let's find a policy and apply it to this!" --[[User:Lamename3000|LN3000]] ([[User talk:Lamename3000|talk]]) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::: This is the single most accurate summary of what most Wiki edits amount to. --[[User:Bishop2|Bishop2]] ([[User talk:Bishop2|talk]]) 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
:::::: This is the single most accurate summary of what most Wiki edits amount to. --[[User:Bishop2|Bishop2]] ([[User talk:Bishop2|talk]]) 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:So by your logic, we should ignore all policies and guidelines? That's not how Wikipedia works. Make your own website or something, then you can make all the pages you want that are the way you want. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy, it has policies and guidelines that shouldn't be ignored. So, just deal with it, instead of complaining about it. Policies shouldn't be ignored, just because you like a certain thing. If that was the case: every Wikipedia article would be cluttered, full of nonsense and so on. Also, you don't own the article, so stop thinking you do. You need to relax once in a while, instead of having such an attitude over things. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:36, 12 March 2008
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Why?
Howcome Nintendo is only adding two games a week all of the sudden?Allyourbasearebelongtousomg (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I undid the deletion of this because I think that if there is a reason for this it should be mentioned in the articleAllyourbasearebelongtousomg (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion board and I will consider deleting this section again. No one outside of Nintendo knows, so anything else would be speculation (and thus not allowed). TJ Spyke 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't want to discuss, I just wanted an answer and to get that info on the article. You can just delete it or whatever then.Allyourbasearebelongtousomg (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I won't delete it, someone can archive it late. In the meantime maybe it will help stop some people from asking this question over and over. Most of us want to know why they haven't added more than 2 games a week in 2008, but there is nothing but speculation with only Nintendo themselves knowing why. TJ Spyke 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
January 7
There are only 2 games this week but they are big ones. StarTropics for the NES, and The King of Fighters '94 for Neo-Geo. Neo Samus (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
ESRB.org as a source
I restored the previous version that listed Cruis'n USA. The problem is that although ESRB is a valid source, I can't give a direct link. No matter what game you search for, the URL will always show as http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp. Is there any way to go directly to a game listing? CardinalFangZERO (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just say ESRB in the edit summary. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where did Cruis'n USA come from? I've checked the list a lot these past couple of months and never saw that there before. I hope 1080 comes out before Cruis'n USA does. Neo Samus (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm at work so I can't check if this is the case here, but sometimes a years-old ESRB entry will just get "Wii" tacked on to the existing systems when the VC version gets rated. This has the unfortunate effect of forcing said games to "debut" at the very end of the list. (The most recent example off the top of my head is Breath of Fire 2.) -68.16.91.170 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where did Cruis'n USA come from? I've checked the list a lot these past couple of months and never saw that there before. I hope 1080 comes out before Cruis'n USA does. Neo Samus (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would Harvest Moon be another example of a title debuting near the end of the list? Neo Samus (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- For direct links to the ESRB search, use a URL like this http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp?searchType=title&platformsCriteria=Wii&titleOrPublisher=Game%20name and replace the "Game%20name" at the end with (obviously) the game's name. The %20 code should be used in place of spaces. For example, a search for Phantasy Star II would be: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp?searchType=title&platformsCriteria=Wii&titleOrPublisher=Phantasy%20Star%20II 207.134.103.122 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
January 14
Pac-Attack for Super NES and Riot Zone for TG16 (CD).[1] --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gamefaqs isn't a reliable source. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- We would use the other source but he has been temp banned at NeoGAF. Nothing related to the VC info he gives. Neo Samus (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, because someone who would get banned anywhere is SUCH a reliable source, too. --LN3000 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- GAF mods are quick to ban for the slightest thing. For example, if there is any article about Xbox 360 sales and you make a joke about how bad they are (which is factually correct), they will ban you. This happened to me once, there was a thread about Sony rewarding stores that sold a certain amount of PS3 systems (with the actual letter they sent to stores) and in the letter they said something about how the PS3 was really in-demand (this was earlier this year when it was even losing to the GBA every month) and I made a joke about how Sony should check the sales charts. That little joke got me a 2 week ban. TJ Spyke 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you're worried about source reliability, then perhaps we should go ahead and use the early press releases on the article proper. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. We don't have a proper press release, and so you can't use it on the article. That is what the problem has been since the beginning. --LN3000 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is indeed a proper press release: it's from Nintendo hours before the newest VC games are released. Next time, look before assuming. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The early reports from press releases sent to game media on Fridays are batting 1.000 for over two months now. Just food for thought. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- As much as I agree that message board posts aren't usually a reliable source, Cheese is right; they haven't been wrong yet in stating what titles would come out. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about Nintendo's official press.nintendo.com stuff. It really doesn't MATTER if the message board is right, we can't use it as a source. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and reliable sources. GameFAQs or other message boards do not fall under that. Message boards fall more under Original Research. --LN3000 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say that we've verified this source beyond a reasonable doubt. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about Nintendo's official press.nintendo.com stuff. It really doesn't MATTER if the message board is right, we can't use it as a source. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and reliable sources. GameFAQs or other message boards do not fall under that. Message boards fall more under Original Research. --LN3000 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- As much as I agree that message board posts aren't usually a reliable source, Cheese is right; they haven't been wrong yet in stating what titles would come out. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The early reports from press releases sent to game media on Fridays are batting 1.000 for over two months now. Just food for thought. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is indeed a proper press release: it's from Nintendo hours before the newest VC games are released. Next time, look before assuming. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. We don't have a proper press release, and so you can't use it on the article. That is what the problem has been since the beginning. --LN3000 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, because someone who would get banned anywhere is SUCH a reliable source, too. --LN3000 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- No we havent. Just because it's been right, doesn't justify it's a notable source. A message board probably isn't something we should be using as a source. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. --LN3000 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Neogaf article doesn't even seem to have that many reliable sources in the first place. I think an AFD might be needed for it. If it does get deleted, these nonsense threads will finally end. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you want to delete this whole article? All four of them? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I think he's meaning he may AFD the NeoGAF article. I'm not sure that the deletion of that article will have any effect on discussions here, though, so I'm not completely sure what he means by that. Bleeding Blue 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sound's like Rob meant NeoGAF article. But why would you AfD it? Also, if the NeoGAF article does get deleted doesn't mean the pre-wii-kly updates would end in the talk page. 65.43.71.130 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above comment is my own. Neo Samus (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, even if the NeoGAF article got deleted it wouldn't change a thing. I think it's been proven that the poster there who provides the info is reliable enough to at least post them here on the talk page (even if we can't use a messageboard as a source for the main page). TJ Spyke 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although I hate saying this.... I really don't think you should even post the information on the talk page. This talk page is for discussion related to the article, but not like a forum. If we can't use the information in the article, it really shouldn't be on the talk page. Hate being the bad guy, but it does make sense. --LN3000 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, even if the NeoGAF article got deleted it wouldn't change a thing. I think it's been proven that the poster there who provides the info is reliable enough to at least post them here on the talk page (even if we can't use a messageboard as a source for the main page). TJ Spyke 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I think he's meaning he may AFD the NeoGAF article. I'm not sure that the deletion of that article will have any effect on discussions here, though, so I'm not completely sure what he means by that. Bleeding Blue 20:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you want to delete this whole article? All four of them? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Neogaf article doesn't even seem to have that many reliable sources in the first place. I think an AFD might be needed for it. If it does get deleted, these nonsense threads will finally end. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. --LN3000 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree, as the info is always factually correct. This weeks releases will be Super Street Fighter II: The New Challengers for the SNES and Adventures of Lolo 2 for the NES. TJ Spyke 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it doesn't go into the article (due to a poor source), or whatever: it shouldn't be here, period. Only you and a select few even seem to care about listing the new releases: so use your talk pages for it instead. A correct track record or not: Neogaf is still a message board, that's not a reliable source. So listing a new releases section here is a form of crystal balling and speculation as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
January 21st
Super Street Fighter II and Adventures of Lolo 2 [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.63.146 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like lately Nintendo has started releasing only 2 games per week. Anyone know if this is a permanent change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.199.69 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- We already knew those would be the games. We have an extremely reliable source. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you continue to insist that it's an "extremely reliable source"? If it's so reliable, why do you think we can't use it in the article? --LN3000 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Press releases sent out by NOA to journalists are reliable enough for them to write up their reviews over the weekend for posting on Monday. At that point, I'd call it fact. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what the discussion is about. The source being on message board, you can't place a reliable rating on a message board.--LN3000 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- So should Neogaf be put in AFD or no? I've asked around a little, but no one seems quite sure if it's notable or not. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure I can be unbiased since I post there, but NeoGAF is pretty notable. For one thing, they have a special arrangement with the NPD Group to get post certain sales info (the deal came since people with full access to the numbers were posting all of them, which the NPD didn't like since companies have to pay thousands of dollars a month for that info). A lot of game journalists and developers either posted there or still post there, including Denis Dyack (president of Silicon Knights) and Chris Kohlen (under the username Kobun Heat) of Game|Life (an online blog from Wired Magazine). TJ Spyke 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think neogaf matters to the point of the original discussion. --LN3000 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is, the message board in question doesn't matter to its own discussion. Not disagreeing with you, just saying there's better ways to make your point. For example: what difference does it make how soon before the release you have the games in the upcoming releases table when they're inevitably going to be moved up the article after the releases? Just slap one of those "upcoming event/may not be reliable" templates on the section and be done with it, or something. (Then again, that would ruin my fun in swinging by here every Friday to watch you guys bicker.) 207.219.176.227 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think neogaf matters to the point of the original discussion. --LN3000 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure I can be unbiased since I post there, but NeoGAF is pretty notable. For one thing, they have a special arrangement with the NPD Group to get post certain sales info (the deal came since people with full access to the numbers were posting all of them, which the NPD didn't like since companies have to pay thousands of dollars a month for that info). A lot of game journalists and developers either posted there or still post there, including Denis Dyack (president of Silicon Knights) and Chris Kohlen (under the username Kobun Heat) of Game|Life (an online blog from Wired Magazine). TJ Spyke 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- So should Neogaf be put in AFD or no? I've asked around a little, but no one seems quite sure if it's notable or not. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what the discussion is about. The source being on message board, you can't place a reliable rating on a message board.--LN3000 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Press releases sent out by NOA to journalists are reliable enough for them to write up their reviews over the weekend for posting on Monday. At that point, I'd call it fact. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you continue to insist that it's an "extremely reliable source"? If it's so reliable, why do you think we can't use it in the article? --LN3000 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Master System/Game Gear
It was just announced that starting in February, Sega will be releasing Master System and Game Gear games on the VC (starting with "Fantasy Zone" for 500 points and "Fist of the North Star" for 600 points). It's been confirmed that they will release them in North America and Europe too (MS and GG games in general, I don't think the FOTS game was localized before). Here is the source (it's in Japanese though: http://plusd.itmedia.co.jp/games/articles/0801/25/news075.html). It says that they will be released under the Master System label. While this means we should just have one table like we do for TurboGrax-16/TurboGrafx-CD games, should we at least mention which ones are GG games? TJ Spyke 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good question.. I think it'll depend on how they are on the Channel. If they are one channel, we put everything as they designate it. --LN3000 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any word on how many Wii Points we can expect to spend on each Master System/Game Gear title? Jeff Silvers (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
January 28
We are getting 1080° Snowboarding. Source Mmark089 (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- And our more reliable usual source: [3]. TJ Spyke 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- .... I'll pass by the reliable comment... What the heck is Nintendo doing to us? 2 games a week, and if this is accurate, now only 1? Where the heck is Earthbound? --LN3000 (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- It won't be the first time they gave us a 1-game week. Both The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire were the only games released the week they came out. TJ Spyke 07:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- At least it is a good game. But I agree, these 2 games or less a week are pathetic. Neo Samus (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of this topic dangerously straying into something looking like a message board discussion (which these topics almost always do, but I digress), perhaps they're holding back on games related to SSBB until the week of it's release, and then possibly they'll open the floodgates (I know, it's dangerous to dream). The disc reportedly contains timed demos for VC games featuring SSBB characters, both VC released and non, which would give VC sales a boost. I suspect at the very least that we'll see Earthbound that week anyways, due to it's SSBB affiliations. --Billdorr (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, yup, in true message board fashion... I don't think they would release Earthbound because of Brawl, because Earthbound is not Lucus' game.. it's Ness', and Ness was in the Smash Bros. series up until Brawl. --LN3000 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Haven't kept on the news, have you LN3000? NoJ slipped up when they released a SSBB video, and an icon for Ness is clearly visible; NoJ edited the video later to cover up the mistake, but the unedited version can still be found in some places online. In the meantime, check the list of Smash Bros. characters on Wikipedia. If that's not enough proof, consider that the Japanese SSBB site lists MOTHER 2 as one of the playable VC demos. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I HAVE seen the video, and it's hardly "clearly visible". --LN3000 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- It looks visibly different from the Pokemon Trainer's icon, and consider the fact that when the hand highlights a sticker on the video, it shows characters from that series that could use that sticker; why would they have both Lucas and the Pokemon Trainer being able to use MOTHER3 stickers? Lastly, he's in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRBsajRrnY8PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Restored section and removed user bashing. Anyway, I was only stating my view, and it was not as clear as everyone claimed it was, and as such cannot be used as any sort of reliable source. If I was wrong, oh well. No one is perfect, and everyone makes bad conclusions. There is nothing wrong with a little side discussion. If you want to complain about side discussion, then this whole section needs to be removed, since it does not affect the article. Keep it Civil, folks. :P --LN3000 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It looks visibly different from the Pokemon Trainer's icon, and consider the fact that when the hand highlights a sticker on the video, it shows characters from that series that could use that sticker; why would they have both Lucas and the Pokemon Trainer being able to use MOTHER3 stickers? Lastly, he's in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRBsajRrnY8PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I HAVE seen the video, and it's hardly "clearly visible". --LN3000 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Haven't kept on the news, have you LN3000? NoJ slipped up when they released a SSBB video, and an icon for Ness is clearly visible; NoJ edited the video later to cover up the mistake, but the unedited version can still be found in some places online. In the meantime, check the list of Smash Bros. characters on Wikipedia. If that's not enough proof, consider that the Japanese SSBB site lists MOTHER 2 as one of the playable VC demos. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, yup, in true message board fashion... I don't think they would release Earthbound because of Brawl, because Earthbound is not Lucus' game.. it's Ness', and Ness was in the Smash Bros. series up until Brawl. --LN3000 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of this topic dangerously straying into something looking like a message board discussion (which these topics almost always do, but I digress), perhaps they're holding back on games related to SSBB until the week of it's release, and then possibly they'll open the floodgates (I know, it's dangerous to dream). The disc reportedly contains timed demos for VC games featuring SSBB characters, both VC released and non, which would give VC sales a boost. I suspect at the very least that we'll see Earthbound that week anyways, due to it's SSBB affiliations. --Billdorr (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- At least it is a good game. But I agree, these 2 games or less a week are pathetic. Neo Samus (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- It won't be the first time they gave us a 1-game week. Both The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire were the only games released the week they came out. TJ Spyke 07:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- .... I'll pass by the reliable comment... What the heck is Nintendo doing to us? 2 games a week, and if this is accurate, now only 1? Where the heck is Earthbound? --LN3000 (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
February 11
Feb 11 will be Harvest Moon for the SNES and Lords of Thunder for the TurboGrafx-CD. TJ Spyke 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a link that Harvest Moon will be coming out on February 11th? Versus22 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Our usual source (which has proven himself reliable since he's been doing this for several months). "Jsnake" (our source) gets the PR release on Friday night (just like many other sites) so that he can write a review and have it ready to post on Monday morning. He is a regular poster at NeoGAF and posts the games on Friday night (here is the PR release for this Monday's releases: [4]). Since he posts it on a messageboard (he posts his reviews on a normal website on Monday), we can't use it as a source despite it being 100% accurate. TJ Spyke 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, here is a more reliable sourceMmark089 (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oooh clearly not reliable enough guys! I mean 100% accuracy isn't good enough for certain Wikipedia users! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.77.235 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how many times this has to be said - there is a difference between accuracy and reliability. There is no editorial process on a message board, or with two individuals exchanging information. Stephen Hawking may not come to wikipedia and report his observations on the universe here, unless he first writes an article for peer-review in a scientific journal. Please, for the love of god, stop confusing reliability and accuracy every week. 70.191.193.241 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- If www.vc-reviews.com is not reliable enough for you then you'd have to delete half the stuff on Wikipedia for this mythical "accurate but not reliable" standard you are imposing. You're right though, if something continues to be right time and time again, the very sanctity of Wikipedia might be at stake for relying on it. The terrors that could flood forth would be overwhelming, and civilization was we know it may very well crumble. Thank you, arbiter of justice, for continuing to fight the good fight against preemptive acknowledgment of Virtual Console games! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.29 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The sarcasm is not helpful or appreciated, and I'm going to take any further attempts as simple trolling and ignore it. First of all, I was not referring to vc-reviews.com, I was referring to the individual Jsnake posting on message boards. The standards aren't "mythical", they're very clearly laid out in wikipedia's policies, and there's been a constant attempt in this discussion over several months to ignore them and use message boards as sources. I very clearly explained the reason why this can't be done a while back, and in case everyone forgot, here it is again: "I think you're missing the meaning of "reliability" on wikipedia. Reliablity does NOT mean a source is correct or truthful. In fact, wikipedia does not care about truth - what matters is that sources are verifiable. Check the wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact that these sources have NDAs implies that they cannot legally be verifiable in any given week, until Nintendo allows them to release the information, at which time there are far more visible and reliable sources that may be cited. Before then, their information constitutes original research. It may seem dumb, but remember, while these sources are perfectly correct, they are *not* verifiable. 70.191.193.213 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)" Until wikipedia's policies change, this matter is not open for discussion or voting. Accuracy is not the same thing as editorial oversight or reliability - wikipedia does not exist to conduct original research, it reports on verifiable information published elsewhere. That applies to all information, even video game releases. 70.191.193.241 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whomever you are, 70.191.193.241... I love you.
--LN3000 (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules -- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Explain it all you want, the end result is that you are hurting Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.28 (talk • contribs) 12:06, February 12, 2008
- 130.39.0.28, that is not an excuse. And don't you think you're being a bit over dramatic? "hurting Wikipedia" by not using a forum as a source? --LN3000 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is 70.191.193.241, at a different location. Ignore all rules may be the most important policy on wikipedia, but it has some context and needs to be properly interpreted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means. Properly used, it's similar to what good writers do - if you know a language well enough, then it's perfectly permissable to break the rules in order to convey a point. That's not an excuse for butchering the English language just because you're lazy. The same applies to the rules on wikipedia - where they don't make sense, they can be broken. We are, however, building an encyclopedia, and verifiable sources are at the heart of what we do. We're editors, not writers. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- First off, Lamename, calm down because we've heard your tired song and dance time and time again. As for "no wait, what ignore all rules really means" I think you're missing the forest from the trees. If something is 100% accurate time and time again, how difficult is it for you to accept that until proven otherwise it will be reliable? If you pet a friendly dog 100 times and it does not bite you then although you cannot verify that it will never bite you, you're pretty darn sure it won't and thats the heart of this problem. If there had EVER been a problem with the sources then no one would be arguing for it to be taken seriously. But that is clearly not the case. The sun rises every morning and before we could explain why we were able to live comfortably knowing that the sun would indeed rise the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.28 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules -- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Explain it all you want, the end result is that you are hurting Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.28 (talk • contribs) 12:06, February 12, 2008
- Whomever you are, 70.191.193.241... I love you.
- The sarcasm is not helpful or appreciated, and I'm going to take any further attempts as simple trolling and ignore it. First of all, I was not referring to vc-reviews.com, I was referring to the individual Jsnake posting on message boards. The standards aren't "mythical", they're very clearly laid out in wikipedia's policies, and there's been a constant attempt in this discussion over several months to ignore them and use message boards as sources. I very clearly explained the reason why this can't be done a while back, and in case everyone forgot, here it is again: "I think you're missing the meaning of "reliability" on wikipedia. Reliablity does NOT mean a source is correct or truthful. In fact, wikipedia does not care about truth - what matters is that sources are verifiable. Check the wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact that these sources have NDAs implies that they cannot legally be verifiable in any given week, until Nintendo allows them to release the information, at which time there are far more visible and reliable sources that may be cited. Before then, their information constitutes original research. It may seem dumb, but remember, while these sources are perfectly correct, they are *not* verifiable. 70.191.193.213 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)" Until wikipedia's policies change, this matter is not open for discussion or voting. Accuracy is not the same thing as editorial oversight or reliability - wikipedia does not exist to conduct original research, it reports on verifiable information published elsewhere. That applies to all information, even video game releases. 70.191.193.241 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If www.vc-reviews.com is not reliable enough for you then you'd have to delete half the stuff on Wikipedia for this mythical "accurate but not reliable" standard you are imposing. You're right though, if something continues to be right time and time again, the very sanctity of Wikipedia might be at stake for relying on it. The terrors that could flood forth would be overwhelming, and civilization was we know it may very well crumble. Thank you, arbiter of justice, for continuing to fight the good fight against preemptive acknowledgment of Virtual Console games! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.29 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how many times this has to be said - there is a difference between accuracy and reliability. There is no editorial process on a message board, or with two individuals exchanging information. Stephen Hawking may not come to wikipedia and report his observations on the universe here, unless he first writes an article for peer-review in a scientific journal. Please, for the love of god, stop confusing reliability and accuracy every week. 70.191.193.241 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Backing the indents out. 130.39.0.28, it doesn't matter what you or I believe. I believe that these message boards do have posters that know the release dates and are able to post them slightly before most news media is able to. But wikipedia is not news - if there's a conflict between having the information first and finding a reliable source, as detailed in wikipedia's policies (and not arbitrarily decided based on your or my standards of reliability), then finding the source will always take priority. And the *most* reliable sources are not message boards. If you think otherwise, then I ask that you stop debating the point here, and start a conversation to change the policies on what defines a reliable source. Arguing, "ignore all rules" without showing how using message boards as sources makes wikipedia better just doesn't cut it. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, whatever. Its not about getting the news out first - I'm sorry you don't seem to grasp that. People come to this article to find out what is being released when because as soon as the information becomes available this place should have it documented. However, certain people have tirelessly fought to keep information out of Wikipedia, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia supposedly stands for. I'm not editing this page, I'm just a user who doesn't care enough about dealing with you Wiki-book-burners to create his own account and I know that others like me are equally as disappointed that certain people are standing in the way of creating a quick and easy reference of knowledge from people looking for said information. You can keep going on and on about your precious policies, but it is clear as day to anyone who doesn't have blinders on that the information you so preciously try to deny is factually being documented elsewhere. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.41.17 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, wikipedia is not about collecting all information available anywhere - it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are trying to create an encyclopedia with the same credibility as World Book, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or Encarta, the only difference being that we're not constrained by the limits of paper. But without sources, it is useless. Those sources have to meet certain standards. It's not about "denying" the information, as it will very quickly end up here just as soon as recognized, reliable sources report on it. 70.191.193.241 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's right. Thank you. There's nothing I need to add, other than I don't appreciate being told to calm down when I haven't said anything to calm down from. --LN3000 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't the (as yet) accurate predictions of upcoming games for the Virtual Console have value, in the sense that they could direct Wikipedia users to pages that might suddenly be much more relevant in the near future? For example, I'm not sure that the game Lords of Thunder even had a Wikipedia page until a few days ago. The advance notice could be giving users a heads up that the pages for upcoming games need adding or editing, so that when the games are added to the Virtual Console, they are more likely to have adequate entries. I'm rationalizing a bit here, just trying to play devil's advocate and find a reason why these announcements could be said to have a place on this talk page. OtterZero (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, wikipedia is not about collecting all information available anywhere - it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are trying to create an encyclopedia with the same credibility as World Book, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or Encarta, the only difference being that we're not constrained by the limits of paper. But without sources, it is useless. Those sources have to meet certain standards. It's not about "denying" the information, as it will very quickly end up here just as soon as recognized, reliable sources report on it. 70.191.193.241 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, whatever. Its not about getting the news out first - I'm sorry you don't seem to grasp that. People come to this article to find out what is being released when because as soon as the information becomes available this place should have it documented. However, certain people have tirelessly fought to keep information out of Wikipedia, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia supposedly stands for. I'm not editing this page, I'm just a user who doesn't care enough about dealing with you Wiki-book-burners to create his own account and I know that others like me are equally as disappointed that certain people are standing in the way of creating a quick and easy reference of knowledge from people looking for said information. You can keep going on and on about your precious policies, but it is clear as day to anyone who doesn't have blinders on that the information you so preciously try to deny is factually being documented elsewhere. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.41.17 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A gentle reminder
It is perfectly permissible for an editor to remind others that what should be being discussed is the article, and not the article subject. It is not the best policy to remove such discussion, however, as it is unlikely to prove productive. That said, ignoring the comment is not productive either, and may have repercussions for those who appear uninterested in contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
February 18th
Phantasy Star II and Ninja Gaiden III [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.63.146 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- A more reliable one (the one we usually post): http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9776036. TJ Spyke 01:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you ask Jsnake where he gets the PRs? That way we can use that as a source instead of a message board as a source.Mmark089 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- He works (well, I guess technically volunteers since he doesn't get paid) for a video game website. When the site started doing reviews for Virtual Console games he was assigned to it and the sites Nintendo rep (the person at Nintendo who works with this site by doing stuff like sending official PRs to them) sends him the PR on Friday night so he can have his recommendations written and ready to be posted on Monday morning. He posts the info on NeoGAF on Friday night but doesn't add it to the site until Monday. TJ Spyke 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you ask Jsnake where he gets the PRs? That way we can use that as a source instead of a message board as a source.Mmark089 (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
February 25
Kirby 64 and Psychosis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.75.111 (talk • contribs)
- [6]. However, do NOT add dates in the main article. Even though this is 100% accurate and these will be Mondays releases, a messageboard can not be used as a source. TJ Spyke 02:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Source for Smash Bros.?
Before I get excited, is there any sort of source for Smash Bros. N64's March 3rd release date? (Edit: Meh, looks like it was just a vandal.) - Joshua368 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seemed to good to me true, so I went ahead and removed it. I really don't think we will get two N64 games back to back. Neo Samus (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neo Samus, please add it back on and change the release date to "Unknown". Joshua368, we don't know if this game is coming out next week until Friday or Saturday. Versus22 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- So where's the source that says it is planned to come out sometime and merits a spot on the list? (even if we don't know the date) - Joshua368 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neo Samus, please add it back on and change the release date to "Unknown". Joshua368, we don't know if this game is coming out next week until Friday or Saturday. Versus22 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know how you feel. I want it too. But since there is no valid source it can't be on there. Cheer up. :) Neo Samus (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Virtual Console games in total
- I've added this section in the article because the other regions have this. If someone could update the games added, that would be great! I don't have time right now to add all these, so I would like someone to help me do this please. Versus22 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I'll go ahead and do it. Neo Samus (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be Mr. Party Pooper.. but I am not quite sure that the counting thing is necessary for the article. It seems more like trivia than anything else. --LN3000 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- then I'm guessing you haven't seen the other regions. They have had the table for almost two months. I don't know, it doesn't seem like trivia to me. Neo Samus (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we can put this on GamerWiki by creating a page of the Virtual Console if it seems to be a problem here. Versus22 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- This doesn't need to be on my user talk page. No, I haven't payed much attention to the other reasons. And for the record, I wasn't the one who removed the section in this article, I only commented how I wasn't really comfortable with it, not knowing the purpose of it. Each system section has a count for games in that category, do we really need it broken down by how many were released each year? --LN3000 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think Versus was blaming you LN. I was suprised how quickly Rob deleted it though, considering how long the other pages have had that info. Neo Samus (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wasn't going to delete it. Just not paying attention to the other articles, and seeing how fast it was added to this article without talking about it, was surprising. --LN3000 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we can put this on GamerWiki by creating a page of the Virtual Console if it seems to be a problem here. Versus22 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- then I'm guessing you haven't seen the other regions. They have had the table for almost two months. I don't know, it doesn't seem like trivia to me. Neo Samus (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be Mr. Party Pooper.. but I am not quite sure that the counting thing is necessary for the article. It seems more like trivia than anything else. --LN3000 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure I'll go ahead and do it. Neo Samus (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
March 10
DoReMi Fantasy: Milon's DokiDoki Adventure and Puyo Puyo 2 (both import games, DoReMi being a SNES platfomer and Puyo Puyo being a Genesis puzzle game).
To inexperienced editors, do NOT change the dates for these. Although there are 100% accurate and will ne this weeks update, the source where the info is posted isn't allowed. TJ Spyke 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
New Releases
I always look at this page to find the new releases each week. I think it would be nice to have a section near the top of the page that says what was just released that week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxman9815 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is necessary because there is already a list of games for each console on the Wii Shop Channel that shows what date the game was added.Versus22 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- We used to have a section for that and the regular editors here liked it, but certain people (the same ones who tried removing all mentions of Wii Points prices) kept taking it out and I didn't feel it was worth fighting for. TJ Spyke 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why can't we all get together and be 'civil'? *wink wink* --LN3000 (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- We used to have a section for that and the regular editors here liked it, but certain people (the same ones who tried removing all mentions of Wii Points prices) kept taking it out and I didn't feel it was worth fighting for. TJ Spyke 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- So by your logic, we should ignore all policies and guidelines? That's not how Wikipedia works. Make your own website or something, then you can make all the pages you want that are the way you want. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy, it has policies and guidelines that shouldn't be ignored. So, just deal with it, instead of complaining about it. Policies shouldn't be ignored, just because you like a certain thing. If that was the case: every Wikipedia article would be cluttered, full of nonsense and so on. Also, you don't own the article, so stop thinking you do. You need to relax once in a while, instead of having such an attitude over things. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)