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

Delisted releases
Any interest in maintaining a heading and list of delisted releases? I find this interesting. --Joshenders (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think they work reasonably well as-is, within their specific system headings. I would like to hear more of what you have in mind, though. -- McDoob  AU93  14:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Restored TurboGrfx 16 Irem games
Come on, delete my changes, I know you wanna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.113.193 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your tone is coming across as combative and disruptive, almost POINT-y, which can land you in hot water if you're not careful. That said, I did actually find a source for the removal of R-Type for the Sega Master System from Sega itself. To answer the long-winded post above this one, that is indeed what I'm looking for, so I'm starting to look again for information that fits the proper criteria and is reliable. -- McDoob  AU93  17:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And in more news you probably won't like ... you actually did the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reason. The games weren't de-listed. They're still available. Now, while my finding it definitely still qualifies as original research, the fact that the delistings were themselves not cited falls back to Wikipedia's policy on unsourced changes, that such information can be challenged and removed at anytime. -- McDoob  AU93  04:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So how long until you acknowledge reality?
The games aren't there on the Wii Virtual Console and haven't been there for nearly two months now. Just how much time has to pass before their status is allowed to be correctly reflected here? Or do you intend to keep this page inaccurate for as long as you hang around here since it's not only safe to assume at this point that these games are gone, but also that Nintendo or the IP holder isn't going to publicly acknowledge it?

You do realize that they could remove content and not release some sort of an official comment on it, right? This isn't a complicated concept to grasp. I'd of been 100% behind you had this been just a day or two after their disappearance had been noticed since there's no reason to be too hasty to reflect something that might just be technical issue.

But more than enough time has passed for due diligence where their absence should be allowed to speak for itself. The content is unavailable as anyone that owns a Wii or Wii U can attest to and has been unavailable for many weeks now. That should be allowed to be correctly reflected here.

Listing it as available like you insist is 100% inaccurate. At this point, if you want to insist on not reflecting their status here, get us proof from Nintendo. Until then, the only evidence we have one way or another is that they're unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, why was I able to find a reliable source for individual games' removal? If a single game's removal is notable enough for a news story, would not an entire library's removal be the same? Again, if you have a source that says the games have been removed that meets WP:RS standards, feel free to include it. If you have one you're not sure of, or believe it is, present it here on the talk page and let it be discussed. Lastly, any one or even any several editors' experience cannot be used as a basis for an edit because that would both be original analysis and un-verifiable. So please stop creating new threads each time you'd like to post a point ... keep the discussion in one of them and let's solve this dilemma. I do keep searching for sources but keep finding only forum posts, which isn't enough. -- McDoob  AU93  14:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: more interesting, one of the sources people keep using apparently hasn't acknowledged anything has changed either. Witness this site. -- McDoob  AU93  21:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? We don't know how up to date they keep their database. Further, Wikipedia standards aren't behind you on this. Do yourself a favor and actually read through that.

At this point, if nothing else, explain to us just when is reality allowed to speak for itself? Are you going to not ever allow the status of these games to be correctly reflected unless you get official word from the IP holder or Nintendo?

If that's how this goes, I guess you better go show games like SimCity as available since most of these delistings have been without any sort of official word unlike the advance warning via the Wii Shop news feed that the Donkey Kong Country trilogy saw. And I guess it's time for me to find a more reliable source of information on the Virtual Console since you've single handily have destroyed any credibility that these listings here have.

I just got back a reply to an inquiry I made at Nintendo Life. Current availability isn't denoted there. It's an all-time list with no special notations for titles that have been delisted so far. They're not burying their head in the sand, they simply don't include that information in their database. So that isn't an example of another outlet that isn't ready to believe a two month disappearance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Official word needs to come from a reliable source. Nintendo would be a primary source for the information, but primary sources are not as good as secondary, independent sources, such as 1-Up, GameSpot, IGN, etc. NintendoLife is acceptable, but the post in question in my opinion is not because it's basically a forum post with responses from two individuals. If you would like to state your belief as to why this source would be reliable, I'd be glad to listen to it, as would other editors, as I am not the only one that has removed attempts to add this, as much as you would like to think it's just me. That's the purpose of this page, to discuss changes that may not fit within Wikipedia policy and guidelines.


 * As to the other game removals, I actually have found sources that back up the removals, and have added them. You're welcome to do the same for the others, as long as the reliability criteria is met. After your post, I again searched Google and Bing for any news story, but everything is coming up a forum post. Now, if you'd like to discuss this rationally without hurling insults ("single handily have destroyed any credibility" and all that), we would be glad to do so.

-- McDoob AU93  04:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A rational person would find the obvious as more than acceptable. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about this category of games not being present on the Virtual Console for nearly two months at this point.

And you still haven't answered where we go from from here. If you're such a rational person, don't you think there's a real possibility at this point that our eyes aren't deceiving us that these games really aren't there on the Wii Virtual Console, that it isn't a technical issue, and that something "official" is highly unlikely to be forthcoming after all this time? When do the facts finally get reflected or do you intend to just keep it this way?

Furthermore, where do you think these "sources" have determined that for the vast majority of these other delisted games? You won't find anything official. News pieces about things like Sim City disappearing are originating from individuals that actually looked for themselves, a method you apparently find completely unacceptable. You will find zero official word from Maxis, Nintendo, or Electronic Arts on the removal of SimCity for the Super Nintendo from the Wii Virtual Console as well as for the vast majority of these other delisted games.

And if that facts aren't allowed to speak for themselves, you better get removing a ton of entries because a game like Super Mario Brothers for the NES Virtual Console can't officially exist on a Wikipedia list if there isn't an citation that proves it.

As for my comment that you didn't like, it's more more insulting than something like dismissing my post as "long-winded".


 * Hmmm, from each of my various posts, I've revealed exactly how we move forward ... we find a reliable source, or have discussion to determine why a source should be deemed reliable. Each time this comes up, I conduct another search for some news story, and somehow I've managed to find one for just about every delisting that's occurred to this point, except for the R-Type removals and, yes, the C64 library. However, it usually takes some rewording to uncover something new, which I have been able to do. As to "our eyes aren't deceiving us", individual observations fail both WP:OR and WP:V. It doesn't have to be official, just reported, and that report must be deemed reliable. That said, the GoNintendo source may be the best one we have for this. -- McDoob  AU93  15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yawn

You have not explained how we go forward from here. How is this such a complex undertaking for you? These games have been gone for two months now. It's highly unlikely after all of this time that a source to your liking is going to come about since people don't cover two month old news stories. So just when do you give up and let reality be reflected here or are you actually claiming that everyone is incorrect and that these games are actually still available? If they are, I'd love to find out just how to buy them.

Furthermore, you haven't provided anything slightly official to explain games like Sim City being delisted. The information out there has came from original research for these games. People actually looked for themselves at the Wii Shop or read something originating from someone else that did, saw the game was no longer available, and it was reported. Why is original research (Gasp!) allowed in that context but not this one? And the closest we come to anything official for any of these delisted games is with the DKC series. Yet that was only a Wii Shop notice. Why is that any more admissible here as a source than say a screenshot of the available platforms on the Wii Shop that for two months now doesn't show the Commodore 64 as one?

And you still haven't answered what all these games are doing on this list without any citations. Why the double standard? Very convenient that you ignored that since the very fact that virtually, if not the entire list of Virtual Console content here is lacking any sort of source. For your useless standards to mean anything, they have to be applied across the board.

So start applying or I'm going to remove every bit of content here without a citation if you can't adequately follow your own standards for this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * At which point you would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, something that is highly frowned upon. -- McDoob  AU93  21:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If I did it to be disruptive. But you've won me over after giving it some more thought so I think I'll do it if necessary after a respectable length of time of a few weeks has passed, but only to help enforce policies that demand that information being presented here as fact has a reputable source cited to back it up.

Hopefully you or another Wikipedia editor around here can help start rectifying things soon. I'll even try to contribute a few, if for nothing else so there's a starting point here if the worst case scenario happens since there's not a single game here with a proper citation as evidence of it having been made available on the North American Wii Virtual Console.

Would be a shame if we're going to strictly follow policies like I fully agree we should that everything has to be deleted due to the lack of properly cited material. Even citations for removal here I'm very skeptical meet the policies. The Sim City citation for instance clearly shows that is has zero links to any official source of information and is fully based upon observation by an end user which we're clearly agreed isn't admissible here as a proper source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Before doing that, be sure to read WP:POINT. Secondly, have you read the article lately? -- McDoob  AU93  01:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That you've allowed the status of these games to be properly shown, I applaud you. But like I said upon giving this further thought, these policies are here for a reason. For something the scope of Wikipedia with so many individuals contributing, the only way to control quality is to stick to standards.

I won't summarily remove content, especially after what has happened on this talk page, but consider discussion to have been opened on holding this entire page to the same standards. Clearly, the vast majority of the information here is unsourced. And as a Wikipedia editor, I think it's your obligation if you're overseeing this to try to work to resolve that. I don't know what I can do except slowly contribute to fix this. I don't even know if I can flag this article for containing so much unverified information to bring it wider attention.

So I hope you do your duty. I'll certainly help by helping post sources in the talk page for you to utilize as references since I'm not familiar with the in's and out's of Wikipedia code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not that it's been "allowed", so to speak, but it was reviewed and checked against Wikipedia policy. As I noted, while it's not an ideal source, it's the best one available, and it has nothing to do with having any official statement from either Nintendo or whatever company/agency has control of the licenses for these titles. Before doing anything, it would behoove you to become more familiar with said ins and outs, most notably this section on sources and especially this section on why it may not be all that necessary to locate all those sources. Becoming more familiar with the ins and outs is essential for any Wikipedia editor. -- McDoob  AU93  02:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I could care less if I gained any sort of power around here. It's all about consistency in applying rules. What you linked to me was all about gaining consensus in edits upon disputes. So you might wish to refamiliarize yourself with what's on that page since it wasn't applicable.

As for the quality of the source, I'll quote multiple things from you that suggests you're not following what you claim are Wikipedia's standards.

"Again, you will need to produce a reliable source indicating the games have been permanently removed from VC before ANY discussion of their absence (temporary or otherwise) is included in the article."

"What we are looking for is a statement from Nintendo that the games have been removed and will not return, preferably indicating why (lack of demand for the software, licensing for the software has expired, etc.) the games have been removed. This statement can come from Nintendo itself, or it can be reported by a major reliable gaming news website, such as GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, etc. This does not include posts on forums, fan-produced blogs, and the like."

And especially pay attention to that last line which certainly these "sources" you're deeming acceptable are falling under.

"Forum posts are not reliable sources. Neither are articles whose only basis is the response of two individuals who may well be encountering the same error. Now, if/when one of these sites decides to contact Nintendo and publish Nintendo's response to the matter (which I am surprised NOBODY has done yet, if this has indeed happened), then we would have a reliable source that would back up the edit."

Yet you're utilizing a source here which falls exactly under this. You cite a page at a Nintendo fan site where a user emailed in letting them know about the C64 library no longer being available that was confirmed by another reader.

Again, I think the crux of disagreement here between contributors to this page and you is your failure at consistently interpreting and applying Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You proposed a source A source was proposed, I disagreed with it and removed it (as have other editors), it's been discussed, and now determined to be probably the best source we can get. The edit is made, using the same source, and yet now you're arguing AGAINST IT? This suggests to me you're either wanting to cause trouble or you're otherwise being POINTy again. As such, the safest option at this stage is to back away and recommend that you be bold and make changes that you think are for the better of the article. But if they get reverted, be prepared to discuss them here. -- McDoob  AU93  03:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I never proposed a source.

And I said that I was glad that their status was finally being correctly reflected after two months of nonsense. I simply think that you didn't follow the rules in the process and only are doing it now because you finally deemed it correct by your terms rather than it finally meeting the criteria of Wikipedia. As for my arguments, I've been after the implementation of logic and consistently following the rules since I first spoke up here a few days ago.

I've made my point about what I think of your actions so I'll call it a day since clearly there's nothing that I can do about your abuse of power here. The iron hand you're using here to control this article and only make edits you decide upon goes against the very foundation of what Wikipedia is about.

Look through the history of edits. Contribution after contribution from multiple users that are consistently and across the board reverted by a single individual that has adapted this page as their own and feels as if they're the only one that should be allowed to edit it and have the final say.

There was no deliberation here. It was people arguing with you to no avail until you decided to at long last edit their current status with a source that doesn't even meet the standards you were holding everyone else to as you held this article hostage. In other words, it was only finally done because it was under your own terms. You decided when, you decided how to do it, you decide what requires a citation and apparently also what doesn't, and you decide what's appropriate.

That's not what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is all about community. It isn't a dictatorship.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I was initially interested in what you had to say, but then the personal attacks started, at which point anything you said had no significant meaning. It's too bad you still keep ignoring the fact that other editors felt the same way about this content, with examples provided previously. That meant consensus was against you, but consensus can change, in spite of your repeated personal attacks and insults, especially when it looks like there's simply no other viable option. Every single statement I've made here, now or previously, is backed up by policy and guidelines in place for years. -- McDoob  AU93  04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Break 1
I'm not sure I follow all of exactly of what's going on, but in general: As far as the actual situation, if someone could sum it up briefly, I can try to offer some more specific advice. Sergecross73  msg me   15:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Requiring sources for any information that is being challenged/questioned, is not only standard practice, but one of the foundations of Wikipedia. See WP:BURDEN.
 * Forum posts are not reliable sources. They fail WP:SPS - they can be written by anyone, and thus, don't meet Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source.


 * Long story short ... apparently the Commodore 64 titles on VC were summarily removed last month. However, no reliable source was available, but editors kept adding it saying "I've seen it so it's true", which as you know fails WP:OR. The best source available is a post from GoNintendo, which references two forum posts. After a lot of policy searching and web searching trying to find something that met RS, I ultimately think the source would be acceptable under WP:IAR, since media coverage of Virtual Console is generally pretty scant, and on Wii is now almost non-existent. Again, it's the best we have, and as such the edit has been made. -- McDoob  AU93  16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, and then what is your stance, IP? Sergecross73  msg me   20:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If IP is in reference to me, I've already explained my thoughts and have done what I can to get them across. To keep it going any further would be beating a dead horse and be tantamount to trolling since it would essentially be only causing trouble at this point. Clearly he thinks I'm already breaking rules judging by his response and a message he left for me on my talk page today threatening me if I continue. And if clearly disagreeing and not putting much stock in his options is equivalent to personal attacks, I'm guilty. But I don't believe it ever came to that and snide remarks were made from both sides.

For better or worse, I've made my point. If anyone wants to put any stock in it or dismiss it, it's up to them. I've had all the say in this matter that I want. I have no vested interest in editing Wikipedia and only spoke up since I actually do rely on these Virtual Console pages as a source to keep myself updated on what's added and subtracted since for years it was the most accurate and timely source I had came across. When I came across mentions of these games disappearing elsewhere and saw the dates when it was first noticed, it was with puzzlement since I regularly come here and their status has always been available here. So I came to the talk page and found McDoob's attitude and implementation of Wikipedia's rules as rather lacking so I spoke up.

Like I said and what he found so distasteful, Wikipedia is all about community. And I don't think that what has been happening here in general has been in line with the very core of what this resource is about. But that's the last I'll be saying on this matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.199.62 (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to list your qualms with McDoob, and I didn't want you to further your argument, I just wanted you to sum it up. (Not sure if you noticed, but your conversation is a very long and confusing read.) But anyways, if you're done, so be it, I suppose we're all set here. Sergecross73   msg me   19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable!, 2 months and it finally was edited, awfully reluctantly but edited. I'm glad the rest of Wikipedia isn't like this page. This guy has sent me notices of IP blocking for making the edits. If someone should be banned is this McNoob, i mean, McDoob. I better don't edit the removal of Super Turrican 2 since October 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.114.240 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Strikethrough on delisted releases
I feel the strikethrough markup should be removed from delisted releases—it serves no purpose, as their status as delisted is indicated elsewhere, and it makes the game titles somewhat difficult to read. But I do not wish to resurrect or participate in the argument over notability of sources above, so I'll allow someone else to remove this markup. Cheers. 73.252.40.55 (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fake Games Added
I removed two games that were never released for the Wii Virtual Console in North America: Kung Fu (from the NES section) and Frogger (from the SNES section). I don't know if there's an easy way to verify no other fake games were added or not. 74.214.42.202 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I found two more in the Genesis section: Crackdown and ESWAT. I don't know if they're mistaken additions or just vandalism. (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

HA GOTTEM
HA GOTTEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.28.19 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Broken archiving
The archiving bot configured 10+ years ago is not using best practices so I deleted it.

See Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Wii_(North_America)/

The bot created 23 archives when actually there should only be 1-3 pages. It is not possible to browse the previous discussions and also the bot was not making publicly accessible links to this.

One fix could be that anyone manually moves all of these discussions to a a central page, or 3 pages, then sets up a new bot with conventional settings.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential consolidation of Virtual consoles list
I would like a second opinion on this but I was thinking consolidating the virtual consoles lists. I don’t think we need a list for each region version of the virtual console and if we merge the articles it’ll make it easier to access the full game list. I Am Hunted (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)