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

The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic
Alright, two last questions: Can you find the Japanese pictures for R-Type II (I tried practically every combination and couldn't), and can you find the downloadable Channel pictures (Everybody Votes and Internet)? -MrDrake 10:04, 30 April 2007 (GMT)
 * Dunno about the channel pics (I've never bothered with them even for NA), but here's R-Type II. -Arcanelore 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Nothing really new for Europe tonight: Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle, Virtua Fighter 2, Wonder Boy in Monster World and Shockman. -MrDrake 16:19, 3 May 2007 (GMT)

US update: Mighty Bomb Jack, Final Fight and Ordyne. -MrDrake 16:28, 7 May 2007 (GMT)

For the first time in quite a while, it looks like Europe gets only 2 games: NES Open Tournament Golf and Ninja Spirit. -MrDrake 19:20, 10 May 2007 (GMT)

Interesting that we haven't been able to find screenshots on the server BEFORE Monday here in NA for the last three weeks. Looks like they might be getting wise to our schemes and are waiting until Monday to start uploading the materials. --Bishop2 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven't committed a major faux pas by partially archiving this topic, but while this topic is still active it didn't seem to me that three months of old news was contributing much in the way of context. - Arcanelore 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with trimming the topic by a few months. Now where's the screenshots for this week's update? Thores 01:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pac-Man, Ninja Gaiden, and Ninja Spirit. -Arcanelore 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

An extremely awesome European update, two days early because of Ascension Day on thursday and friday: Mario & Yoshi and Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest. -MrDrake 19:48, 16 May 2007 (GMT)
 * I don't understand the point in uploading early. Here in North America, we have gotten new titles every Monday (including on Christmas, a far bigger holiday). TJ Spyke 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's nobody at the headquarters on friday, then there's no way to update. It could be possible that some NoA employees still come to work on Christmas, or something. -MrDrake 13:14, 17 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Or, someone maybe just stops by the office and updates the server and some other random work then leaves. Neo Samus 13:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the pictures for the last NA and EU update (Arcane didn't update for NA again): NA: Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, Streets of Rage 2, Blazing Lazers. EU: Mach Rider, Super Mario Bros. 2, Blazing Lazers.

NA update: ActRaiser, Kid Chameleon, J.J. & Jeff. -MrDrake 20:21, 28 May 2007 (GMT)

Damn, I was hoping for F-Zero X to be released.....maybe next week. Neo Samus 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

EU update: Kid Chameleon, Streets of Rage 2, ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron and World Sports Competition. -MrDrake 00:23, 1 June 2007 (GMT)

No screens yet, but next Monday's NA release should include Dead Moon (according to vc-pce) and Zelda II (according to this Nintendo press release). -Arcanelore 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So Zelda II is fianlly coming out wkat. 3 months later. LOL Neo Samus 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NA: Zelda II, Milon's Secret Castle, ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron, Dead Moon. -MrDrake 13:19, 5 June 2007 (GMT)

EU: Adventures of Lolo, Balloon Fight, Dead Moon -MrDrake 14:19, 8 June 2007 (GMT)
 * I believe Dead Moon has already been released. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the EU update, not the US one. -MrDrake 18:43, 8 June 2007 (GMT)
 * I noticed... I just thought that it might be a little better served on the EU List, unless this post was meant to garner speculation of possible title releases here... --PeanutCheeseBar 19:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr.Drake always posts the EU update on this talk page. As you can see it's much more active than the EU talk page. ;)  Neo Samus 16:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do notice that he always posts it here (which there's nothing wrong with, considering that it's not affecting article content), but perhaps increased posting on the EU page might encourage others to update it as well. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the EU talk page hasn't had any new posts in like a month, except for the Wii Points discussion. That's why I post them here. NA update today is Lode Runner, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Golden Axe II btw, no pictures yet. -MrDrake 14:01, 11 June 2007 (GMT)

And here they are: Lode Runner, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Golden Axe II. -MrDrake 15:02, 11 June 2007 (GMT)

EU: F-Zero X, J.J. & Jeff. -MrDrake 14:05, 15 June 2007 (GMT)
 * So now every other region has F-Zero X. I guess we can expect it on Monday here in North America. TJ Spyke 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, but stranger things have happened. Actually I have a question regarding dates. If a game is mentioned in ESRB or Nintendo Power would adding the year be ok since it is cited in one or more sources?  Neo Samus 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I've generally left it alone when others do that, I'd rather we didn't. It's been a few months since Vectorman appeared in NP for instance (and no date of any kind was stated.) What if it had appeared in the November 2006 issue and it was now January 2007? ESRB is even worse; hasn't Pro Wrestling been up since last year? -Arcanelore 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point Arcanelore. That's why I asked,  I was kind of stuck in between if it should be there or not.  Actually, if you look at the ESRB site now, almost every game that is currently on the list before is not there anymore (i.e. Duck Hunt, Metroid, etc.)  It almost seems like Nintendo tells them to remove the games untill the are close to release.  Even Vetorman is not on the ESRB list anymore.  Neo Samus 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing for NA that's completely new, but still: NES Open Tournament Golf, Bloody Wolf, World Sports Competition. -MrDrake 15:58, 18 June 2007 (GMT)

EU update (Two games again!?): Mega Man, China Warrior. -MrDrake 23:25, 21 June 2007 (GMT)

I just checked Hudson's VC-PCE site and China Warrior will be coming out on June 25. Neo Samus 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this recent post (the complete post is here-Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not): The screenshot thread only continues because some people enjoy cataloging the screenshots. I suppose you could argue that it should be taken elsewhere since it's no longer relevant to the maintenance of the article, and I would be hard pressed to find a valid objection to that. -Arcanelore. It leads me to believe this talk page is suffering from general discussion, not content discussion. If that's the case: take it elsewhere, this isn't a message board or a fan site. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but talk pages serve only the purpose of discussing article content changes/discussion of changes, and that should be followed. RobJ1981 09:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the problem? This thread has been here for a long time, and does not hurt anyone. In fact, it DOES help the article, since it's about possible future releases. Let's focus on the matter at hand, before attacking other aspects of the talk page as well. LN3000 17:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at the talk page I posted. The fact this has been here long: doesn't just give it the right to remain. It may not hurt anyone, but that doesn't mean it's on topic or belongs here. By the "it doesn't hurt anyone" logic: all talk page sections that don't do harm should remain. That's not how talk pages work. Talk pages should be followed, not ignored just due to the fact the section has been there a while or because people like to post in it and/or read new additions to it. RobJ1981 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, however, that you are trying to find something new to attack. LN3000 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone know what titles were released today? Someone updated the VC main page from 106 to 109.  But no one has posted the titles here yet.  edit:  just saw the editproteted request.  My mistake.  Neo Samus 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

NA: F-Zero X, Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting and China Warrior. -MrDrake 16: 32, 25 June 2007 (GMT)

Wii Points doesn't need to be listed
I really don't think listing the price is helpful. Seeing as how regular video games don't have their prices listed, why should Virtual Console games have it listed? Being a download that costs points (instead of actual money) doesn't make it an exception at all. Especially since the points originally cost money. This is an encyclopedia: not a guide to prices. RobJ1981 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Not only is it consistent with sections like the Xbox Live Arcade area, but it also allows us to point out the different "points" setups between various regions of the country.  And it's good to indicate what games are dubbed worthy of breaking the set price structure, such as R-Type for TG-16. --Bishop2 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment about "breaking the set price". Isn't that just original research? Saying things such as "I think the price of this game or that game will be higher" is opinion, not factual. Correct me if I misunderstood that. RobJ1981 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I meant that the points listing allows us to delineate which games have broken with the set points structure for the VC games. For example, most TG-16 games cost 600 points, but then R-Type was released and was announced as costing 800 points.  This is the only example in North America so far - Japan has a lot more examples of breaking with the standardized structure. --Bishop2 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that including the price is interesting and helpful information. The prices of regular video games change from store to store and as time goes on; none of that is true for the Virtual Console, so the analogy's not valid. TomTheHand 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regular games are the same price at most stores: the only exceptions are sales on them, and the used stores such as EB. WP:ILIKEIT applies here, in my opinion. It being "interesting and helpful" isn't a correct reason to keep it. Many things are interesting: it doesn't mean we should list them in the article. As I stated before: it should be all with prices, or none at all. Downloads should be no exception, period. This is an encyclopedia, not a guide to prices (as I also stated before).RobJ1981 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most games have the same MSRP, but stores don't always follow that. Wal-Mart usually is lower than it, and EB Games used to be higher (I remember EB chargin $53 for games most other stores had at $50). They also drop prices and have sales, something that doesn't happen here. Also, that "all or nothing" demand doesn't work. TJ Spyke 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Best Buy and Toys R' Us frequently set their own prices as well. Walk into EB Games and get Gunstar Super Heroes for $29.99. Walk into Best Buy, get it for $19.99. Walk into Toys R Us, it's now fixed at $9.99 and has been for the last 6 months. There's no such thing as set pricing. --Bishop2 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief, pretty soon we'll be lucky if the game title will be left. What is with the constant complaining about what the chart has? Controller compatibility, price, system, developer/publisher... Ryuzx 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just keep the price. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it's useful. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia entry that it is useful. I agree, the reason other games shouldn't have a set price listed is because there IS no set price. Different stores have different prices, and there are sales and price drops. So far, though, we haven't even seen Virtual Console have price drops, and it would be very surprising if they had any sort of sale. The prices are set for each region and so they are constant. So that throws out the argument that other games don't have set prices listed. This is a different situation. And we're taking off too much useful information, so just leave this on. Soon there won't be any useful information other than what games are available... unless someone has issues with that, too? I stand by my case that encyclopedias are for useful information that is constant, and the prices for the Virtual Console games are both useful and constant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.9.170 (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The excuse of "it doesn't hurt anybody" doesn't apply to this. As I've stated before: this is an encyclopedia, NOT a guide to prices. How are the prices useful? If people want to buy the games, they can easily go to the official source to find out. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for this purpose. What do you want next on Wikipedia: a guide to where you can actually buy a game? There needs to be limits somewhere. Also: what exact "useful" information has been taken off the game charts? So called "useful" information isn't always useful, if only a few select people care about it in the long run. RobJ1981 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "If people want to buy the games, they can easily go to the official source to find out." Then why have anything but the title listed? If people wanted to find out other info, like publisher, release date, ESRB rating, etc. they could just go to the official source to find out. The point value is important and should remain on the list. Zomic_13 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point!Lamename3000 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Bishop2 is correct for the fact that not all Virtual Console games for one particular system share the same price point (which could potentially set a precedent for pricing of other games released in the future in the shop), though since VC games are only available as VC games from one source (and given the fact that the article is a list of games to be released on VC), the prices should stay. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We now have two games (R-Type for TG-16 and TMNT for NES) that have different prices than the rest of the games in their category. Although some feel it is probably repetitive, it shows that points can vary and that there is a need for the points column. Zomic_13 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It goes back to listing prices for normal games: they are all the same price (with the exception of sale prices, certain stores, and used game stores). Just because something varies in price, doesn't mean it makes it special and/or notable for the article. If this was the case, there would be mass price listings at movie and CD articles stating where it's cheaper or more money. That's not the case, and this certainly shouldn't be an exception. I don't want to sound like a broken record but... Wikipedia isn't a guide to prices. How exactly are download prices, encyclopedic? They remain the same, but I certainly don't think that's enough to prove it's encyclopedic. RobJ1981 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The price is pertinent to the article just like the ESRB rating, publisher, etc. What makes having the ESRB rating so encyclopedic and prices not? Zomic_13 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets vote to put an end to this otherwise endless debate. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you wish to KEEP the "Wii Points" column or DELETE it?
VOTE EITHER KEEP OR DELETE
 * Keep - The Wii Points column is no less important than any of the other columns. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I not only agree with the above, I also think it's MORE important than some of the columns. The release dates have little relevance after they've passed, for example, but points continue to be relevant. --Bishop2 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Useful and notable information; comparing this with listing prices for other objects is not valid. TomTheHand 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue?? Neo Samus 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's informative information and very helpful. TJ Spyke 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are now two examples of deviations from "standard pricing." Wii Points are also a notable feature of the VC. --Billdorr 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the standard pricing is no longer guaranteed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As I stated in my argument above, prices may not be consistent for all games of a particular system; today's VC release of TMNT proved me to be correct on that matter. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Since it can get very complicated with some games, as demonstrated by TMNT and R-TYPE, games from one system aren't always the same price, so I vote Keep. Lamename3000 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I say it is useful information, especially if there are going to be games (like TMNT) that are going to be a different amount of points from other games on the system. Minirogue 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. What does that do to the consensus? --Deskana (AFK 47)  21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's worth keeping, if only because it'd be useful to someone. The way I see it, if Wikipedia is lacking information that somebody wants (within reason, of course. No need to have a full game guide, for instance), then it should be there. If not, either it needs to be there, or is completely unnecessary. In this instance, it's the former. 141.156.14.34 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the points, and I am very disgusted that this article has been ruined over this. SashaNein 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * INDIFFERENT Why are people arguing over this? I don't feel there's a good enough reason to keep the points in the article, but I also dont feel there's any reason for them not to be. --Evildevil 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No real arguments for not having them. DurinsBane87 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wii Points issues (again)
I've started this on the Video Game project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games. Feel free to comment. The whole vote last month was a joke, and certainly isn't the end of this. Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide just because the Wii Point price doesn't change. RobJ1981 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be a sore loser. It was agreed to keep them in, so they are staying in. TJ Spyke 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Drop the issue. There is a good enough reason to keep the Wii Points list. Neo Samus 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically you feel the vote was a "joke" because it didn't go the way you wanted, and now you're just going to keep on making us vote on it until you get your way, i.e. for all eternity? --Bishop2 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Please add your opinions there. Carcharoth 12:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Bishop and TJ; a vote was called on the matter, and given that you did not participate in the vote, I really do not think you are in a position to criticize the results. Calling more votes just because you don't like the outcome of the first vote serves no constructive purpose. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, polls don't determine how an article works. This has been stated in the other discussions. Wikipedia isn't a democracy: polls don't just control the article forever. If you read the other discussions, you can clearly see I'm not the only one against these prices being listed. The poll isn't a factor in this anymore, so drop it already. RobJ1981 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue was settled, and the points are staying. TJ Spyke 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Voting is a perfectly fine way to settle an issue, especially if the outcome is unanimous. Zomic_13 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If polls are not a factor, then why did you bother to mention it? That aside, there are nine other people who seem to think the information is useful; we shouldn't simply strike things out because one or two users dissent on the matter, or find no use for the information. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't settled, TJ. As many people are still discussing it, so don't ignore discussions just because you don't agree with them. One or two? How about reading the other discussions on this? It's certainly more than that. Check out Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games if you don't believe me. It's certainly more than just 1 or 2 people against this matter. I think it's just plain and stubborn to "claim the points are staying" when the issue is still ongoing, and NOT settled. RobJ1981 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "don't ignore discussions just because you don't agree with them" <-- You are clearly ignoring the results of the discussion previously held on this talk page. Zomic_13 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, many (but not all) of the people arguing against adding points were against it because all the games were the same amount of points (which is no longer the case). While there may be a few people arguing against, it is pretty clear that there is a significant majority in favor of keeping the points. Zomic_13 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, your argument would be more valid if the games were all the same point values, but they aren't; that having been said, this article was not created specifically for the purpose of listing prices, but rather listing the games, ratings, and release dates. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Significant majority? Statements like that tell me, you obviously haven't read the current discussions on this matter. Next time read the discussions, instead of just posting your opinion on what you think is the so called "majority". I never said the page was created to list prices. But that's what it's turned into. People have listed compromises, but there just isn't budging when it comes to certain people. RobJ1981 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, Zomic was by no means incorrect when he stated a "significant majority", primarily because he was referring to the poll; rather than attack Zomic, you need to take things into context before replying. That having been said, you've taken the concept of this list and completely underscored the purpose of it; the reason this list has prices is because they're not all the same.  However, since it would be ridiculous to start an article just based on prices (and because of the aforementioned Wikipedia policy of not being a price guide), it does stand to reason that there should be some mention or inclusion of some prices being higher than others.  I'm not necessarily saying we need a list of prices of each game, but more rather an addendum or footnote that states that some game prices are higher; it keeps the pricing table of Virtual Console factually accurate, and Wikipedia is still factually in the clear for not just making a blanket statement that might be untrue. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Polls on talk pages are just there to obtain a consensus. If someone objects to it, then they are free to persist on the issue. There is no point where we are to tell someone that they cannot bring up an old issue. As RobJ1981 stated, polls do not control articles, and discussing issues again after previous consensus can always be brought up again. Nishkid64 (talk)  23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What just happened?
Why is it no longer sorted by console? 67.188.172.165 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it just makes good sense to keep it by console. I mean when you buy a game from wii shop it has them sorted into the five different consoles. Not to mention that it keeps the points equally separated, which is of course the price of the title. This is anarchy.

Agree: I second that. You can sort the VC games by release date AND by console, as is being done now - there is no argument to be had here. One of the cornerstones of the Wii concept is the "historical" aspect of video games. Not only does sorting it by console acknowledge that, but it's handy information to know. The long list is cumbersome, besides. I *want* to be able to see what console a release is for when I'm looking for a particular title. -Emichan032 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been fixed. Thanks. 67.188.172.165 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, its been reverted back to one list again.....Personally I consider this vandelism. Is anyone good at editing the changes? I'm still trying to get the hang of this (I'm getting beter though!) I don't want to completely screw up the list's. Neo Samus 13:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphabatize
Just a suggestion, but wouldn't it be easier to read through this if the games listed were alphabatized. I realize that it's convient to be able to come here on Mondays and look at the bottom of the list and see the new games, but I was just trying to find out if a game was released and had to read through the entire list. It was kind of annoying. I thought I would suggest that it be alphabatized and then maybe add a new section listing the last two to three weeks worth of additions. -Shavron 08:18 15 May 2007 (CENTRAL)
 * You can sort on any of the columns, including game names. -- MisterHand 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just use Ctrl+F next time. Takuthehedgehog 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to sort the whole list if it weren't broken up into five sections. I checked this page to see what new games were available today; instead of being able to sort one list, I had to look at each of the five tables to look for what games were released today. Wouldn't it be more practical to merge the five tables into one, and add a new column for system? I don't see any important reason to have them broken into system, either.  --Brandon Dilbeck 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree -- there should be two tables: one for released games, one for upcoming. System should be added as a new column. Makes a lot more sense since, as you stated, a lot of people will want to know what the latest games are regardless of systems. -- MisterHand 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree -- That would make one thing better, and many other things worse. All things considered, the current layout is preferrable. 'System' should NOT be a column within the tables. Also there are dozens of other places online that list the newly released games, or alternatively, people can check the bottom entries on the tables to see which games have just been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.129.230 (talk)


 * Do you have any reason for saying that things would be worse? Or is it just a given?  --Brandon Dilbeck 03:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine with me, but the other people who edit this page on a regular basis should give their input. TJ Spyke 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A prototype is available in my sandbox. If I had more patience or knowhow, I would sort them differently; arranging them by release date and grouping by system isn't what I would call ideal&mdash;perhaps not quite encyclopedic.  Having it sort the games alphabetically would be nice.  If someone can easily do that to my sandbox, please take a stab at it.  --Brandon Dilbeck 04:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out we've been down this road before. The sortable tables were originally introduced] as single tables for all systems... and lots of complaints and revert wars broke out. (Several topics in [[/Archive 3, [[Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)/Archive 4#Request for Comments: Table Layout|/Archive 4], and the [[Talk:List of Virtual Console games (Europe)#New List|VC Europe talk page] deal with this.)


 * Like TJ Spyke I personally don't have a preference either way, but if we do make the change this is probably what we'll be in for. -Arcanelore 04:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Regardless if we change the tables or not, I'd still recommend anyone just wanting to find out what the new releases are should check Nintendo's press site, since they put up an announcement each Monday before the games are actually available. -Arcanelore 04:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An argument I saw rise a few times in those archived discussions was that some people were intimidated by the size of one table. Well, that's nothing compared to the list of Pokémon.  Imagine if we grouped that list by generation (RBY vs. GSC, etc.)&mdash;it would be a pain to have to sort each table by name and look through each one to find one Pokémon.  --Brandon Dilbeck 04:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I don't have much of an opinion in this case, but if you're looking for one pokemon(or video game) you can simply click CTRL F and type it in. DurinsBane87 05:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's true, but I imagine that not everyone knows how to do that. Also, some browsers don't have a search function, so that isn't an option for some people. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and inserted the merged table into the article. (I had to painstakingly manually alphabetize the items in the code to get it to arrange that way by default.) I really hope people will give this a chance before angrily reverting it, because the list really is more functional this way. If people want to see the games arranged by console like it used to be, there's a button that'll sort them that way. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I had to spend 20 minutes putting it back in chronological order, which is how the old tables were and what most people want. You can still search alphabetically, but the default will be in chronological order. TJ Spyke 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The important thing is being able to sort the whole list. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This new layout is not better. It's not like there's thousands of games that people need to sort through in order to find new releases. It's much better by system. A better solution would be to make a new list at the top that will only list the newest releases, that way we can avoid this huge list of games. --sevenduffs 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask what makes the older system any better? The disadvantage to it was that it was impossible to sort everything as a whole.  At least this way, you can still have it sorted by console, or by release date, or whatever.  --Brandon Dilbeck 22:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that one table is way more functional that many. However I think that it does not look that nice. (it looks realy better the other way ...) The question here is - what is wikipedia good looking or functional - so I vote for one table. I did a rollback because the rollback made by the guy before me where not commented. As I said in the comments I would like to see the merged table ordered by date and system - so you have kinda the old view. Moooitic 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The new system is HORRIBLE. Please go back to multiple tables. I mean this new one table is EWW. Lamename3000 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only negative opinion I've been hearing about the single-table layout is "it's ugly, I don't like it!" People all have their own opinions about what they like, and it's both a great and horrible thing that people's opinions are not always the same. It would be great if someone had a more objective reason to oppose the single-table format. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no way to argue for or against this change without bringing up personal opinions. I'm sorry, but is there any good reason to put it into a single table other than "I prefer it this way, it's easier for me"?  Until we can figure out solid arguments for WHY or WHY NOT this change should be made that do not involve personal opinions of "it's better" or "it's worse," I think we should cease the editing. --Bishop2 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really care one way or the other, but I do think that for the sake of being able to sort games fully a unified list makes more sense. Why separate based on system but not month of release or whatever? Seems like a half step to me to let you sort everything BUT the original console. Eusis 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that people have a genuine reason for wanting to break the list up, other than the fact that they're intimidated by a large list and need to break it up to avoid being overwhelmed. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think someone should find a random experienced editor unattached to either side to mediate, because no consensus is going to be reached this way. To throw in my opinion, I believe that while the multiple tables is more attractive, the larger table is the better encyclopedic choice, as well as being easier to use.DurinsBane87 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BRANDON, stop going back and forth with the new list and the old list. We need to keep the old list while the new list is being debated. Really, stop it. Lamename3000 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He has a point. The edit wars will continue until a decision has been reached. But I really doubt our ability to reach a consensus, I think we should bring the debate to a larger audience. Maybe present it on the video game project's talk page DurinsBane87 21:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should, since I think that all 4 Virtual Console list pages (North America, Europe, Australia, Japan) should have a similar layout. TJ Spyke 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) All right, I've requested comments from the Nintendo and Video Game WikiProjects. For those unfamiliar, I'd like to post examples of three sort systems that have arisen over the past week:
 * one complete table, sorted alphabetically
 * one complete table, sorted by VC release date
 * split by console and sorted by VC release date
 * --Brandon Dilbeck 22:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It really makes sense to have it in split by system, as it's how the Virtual Console is. It should also be in Release date order, so that it's easier to update. If people want it in alphabetical order, they can click the button to do so. But it should still be in logical split format. Lamename3000 00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the games should be separated by system, just as they've always been; having one large table looks quite unsightly and unprofessional, and I'm quite used to looking at games by table every Monday when I go to check for Virtual Console releases. At least, in this manner, the games can be sorted by system and then by date (or alphabetically, given that option in each column). Also, I guess it goes without saying that as Lamename3000 has previously stated, we need to keep the old table in the meantime because it will just create chaos and confusion to visitors who regularly check the Virtual Console game page. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you're used to it isn't an acceptable argument, and they can still be sorted by system and date in one large table. If you were to click on the date column and then click on the system column, they would end up being dorted by date and system. in one table.DurinsBane87 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should clarify, since you didn't fully read or understand my statement; I'm not suggesting keeping this merely because I'm used to it, but rather because the layout of one large table with all of the titles looks unsightly and unencyclopedic. Sure, it sorts out the way you said it would, but it means we would have to add one more column to the table for system names(which I don't imagine would go over well, especially given the debacle we just experienced with the Wii Points debate), and it would mean listing the name of the console over and over again, when it really only needs to be listed in one place. --PeanutCheeseBar 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Wii Points column isn't that it's "one column too many". Indeed, having rows and columns is the only way to organize info in a table. The problem with the Wii Points column is that some view it as being trivial, since it's potentially unencyclopedic to list prices (some would consider it as a price guide).
 * I don't exactly see how combining all 5 tables into one would make it any more unencyclopedic (you are suggesting that a split table is more encyclopedic?), and the opinion of what is "unsightly" shouldn't be considered at all (unless it makes it unreadable), since I consider the split tables to be unsightly and abrupt.
 * And listing the console "over and over again" would be a fair compromise to be able to sort the other columns in the table. If there were no console column, someone sorting the list by release date would complain that they wouldn't be able to see what console the games are for. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, "one column too many" IS the apparent problem with Wii points, as the editor who started the whole debate has stated he's fine with the information, as long as it is presented in a different way. -- MisterHand 01:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That same user has been complaining non-stop, even after he lost the vote here (look further up). Wii Points aren't being discussed here though, the tables are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs).

( ← moving back to the left) I don't see why this is even being debated--arranging it alphabetically (with systems as a column) is unquestionably. Why do I brazenly state this "opinion" as fact? Because of the sortable buttons. The very reason for this brilliantly intuitive functionality being developed is to allow users to rearrange a complex list in whatever way they want without even reloading the page. Additionally, consider that many readers might know the names of a handful of VC games but not be sure about what system they originated on (and, to a younger gamer, that's largely immaterial). Look at the other Lists of video games. They are all alphabetical. None of them discriminate based on the system a game was ported from, and this list breaks from that standard.

As for the Wii Points, they must go. Not only are they questionably encyclopedic the intro already covers how much each system's games cost, and as far as I can tell only one game (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) has a different price from its brethren--there's no need for a special column just because of one game! This would be better covered in the intro (where it serves a better purpose as an interesting titbit). GarrettTalk 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having it listed by date (be default) is easier for editors and makes more sense when it comes to what most users would be looking for (the newest games). Also, more than 1 title differs, the prices are important info and will be more useful if/when we switch to 1 table. TJ Spyke 08:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not compromise the design of a page for the benefit of editors; if a page looks great when rendered but is a confusing mess of wiki syntax when edited that's not a problem. Nor are we here for the benefit of gamers looking for news. We are here to encyclopedically assess and describe the topic in question--release dates are immaterial. And you're right, there's more than one game that differs. There are TWO. That is not enough to keep a whole column for. I've removed them now. No I didn't wait for consensus. No I didn't check the history. I just did it because it's for the better. Even when the tables are merged (which they should be) prices are immaterial, as the system name corresponds to the price except in these TWO cases. Again, we're not here for gamers, and for the purposes of an encyclopedia prices are beside the point. GarrettTalk 08:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Garrett, this is not a discussion on Wii points; this is a discussion on whether or not to merge all tables into one. The Wii points issue does not need to be debated in this section.  That aside, "as they should be" sounds like more of an opinion; given the long debate we've got going here, it's quite obvious that not everybody is agreeing on what is "encyclopedic" in terms of this article.  As much as you want to make changes immediately "for the better", the only result will be that someone else will revert it, and people will get upset or feel like they're getting their toes stepped on. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Master Thief Garrett's reasoning. The information can be conveyed much more concisely by listing the standard points for each system and noting the two exceptions. It doesn't matter whether you believe that points should or shouldn't be included in the article, it's nonsensical to have a separate column to accomodate two exceptions. ChazBeckett 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask what benefits the reader gains from having the table split that they can't get by having them merged together as one. The only benefit I've read is that it may be considered by some to be more attractive, but I personally think that form should follow function (the ability to appropriately sort the table should be our priority).  --Brandon Dilbeck 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Does nobody have an answer?) --Brandon Dilbeck 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it comes down to this - you are the ONLY person I can tell that wants it all merged. You want to make it your way for some unknown reason and are trying to impose your will upon everyone else. Please stop it. It is clearly the consensus that separate tables is better. You've lost this battle, move on already. --sevenduffs 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly guys does it really matter either way? Maybe I'm acting a bit uninformed here, but people are going to get the same information no matter which way the table is organized, so just flip a coin or something...Kingston Jr. 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate here is whether to combine all five of the lists at once to enhance sort capabilities, or to separate the table arbitrarily by console for God knows what reason (because it looks pretty??). It's taken for granted that the same information will be in the article either way. And seven, there is yet to be any consensus here, and from what I've read, arguments are pretty divided.  I'm starting to believe that we need to request mediation here, because arguments don't seem to be going anywhere.  --Brandon Dilbeck 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I want them put together because it makes it a whole lot easier to search for games.

Wii Points: a new attempt at consensus
The above section has been hijacked by this discussion, so I thought I'd start a new section to keep us on-topic.

A compromise version of the page (seen here) has been proposed. This version removes the Wii points as a column on the tables, but retains all the information in prose form at the top of the page. I don't think anybody wants to have an edit war over this issue. Can we possibly agree that this version of the page is best for all parties concerned? -- MisterHand 16:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, I think this version makes sense regardless of your position on the inclusion of information about points. If you support their inclusion, all the information is now concisely stated and the exceptions noted. If you oppose their inclusion, well, at least the extra column has been removed and discussion can continue on whether they're appropriate. In any case, this version is definitely superior to the previous version. ChazBeckett 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Superior"? Unfortunately, that's a matter of opinion, and matters of opinion are hardly meant to be taken as encyclopedic; that aside, this is quickly turning into an edit war, and both the quality of the article will suffer as well as users who tend to read more than contribute.  Regardless, if we absolutely MUST remove the points column and include exceptions elsewhere, I certainly don't think it belongs in the header of the article; a few exceptions now doesn't mean that more won't be generated later, and the header will eventually just become a list of exceptions to normal point values. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never intended to my opinion to be "encyclopedic", just an observation from someone who hasn't --PeanutCheeseBar 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)been in this seemingly endless debate. I'm not seeing how the article suffers by presenting the point values in a concise manner. Perhaps the information could be moved out of the header, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm not entirely sure that points should be included in the article at all, but this seems like a fair compromise in the near-term. ChazBeckett 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a compromise at all, that is removing the points all together. No agreement has ever been made to remove the points, and they should stay unless there is a consensus to remove them (which there isn't). TJ Spyke 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this appears to still be an issue because some users are continually showing discontent with the current system in place (namely, by complaining or making changes in total disregard of the discussion). The end result is that they're going to keep complaining and wanting to debate until they get what they want, and if nobody respects the consensus, then the issue will be perpetually debated and the quality of the article will suffer due to pointless revert warring and lack of participation; a consensus really is the only way to resolve this peacefully and in a long-lasting manner. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. All of the information on points is still in the article (note that I'm referring to this revision). Enough information is provided that a reader will know the cost of any game in the article. How exactly is that "removing the points all together"? ChazBeckett 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not everybody on both sides of the debate view your solution to be a viable one; some users want to keep the points, and some want all mention of them stricken entirely. Part of the frustration with the issue here is that users have gone "vigilante" and chosen to make edits regardless of the discussion.  Though I admire your attempt to create a compromise, I don't think it's viable for the fact that there are likely to be more games with differing point values in the future, and listing them in the beginning section of the article sets a dangerous precendent (we can't list them all).  Exceptions might be better as a section unto themselves, but that's just one suggestion on my part. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very redundant to list the same price for each game over and over in the table. A few exceptions is certainly not enough to justify it either.A note by the exceptions or a table for the exceptions is a reasonable compromise. The current state of the table: a price guide. Even if that's not the intention, it's still a guide to prices. An encyclopedia (online or not), shouldn't be used for this type of information (just because some people think its useful). RobJ1981 01:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not created as a price guide, and the addition or removal of the Wii points column is not going to change that, or the purpose that the list serves; furthermore, the listing of point values does not appear to be an issue for the XBLA page (the last commentary on the subject's talk page was posted in the beginning of March). As such, since the prices come from one source (i.e.: you're not going to be buying XBLA games from someone other than Microsoft, VC games from Nintendo, etc.), you're not comparing values from two different retailers.  Furthermore, those who do not own a Wii don't have access to the Wii Shop, and do not have the option of looking up game prices elsewhere (the nearest match is the Nintendo site, which lists the same information we do, sans point prices).  --PeanutCheeseBar 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't use XBLA as an example, as it's making the listing here sound like "other crap exists" (there is a Wikipedia policy on this, I cant remember the exact link) as a reason to justify this. The fact it has other information, doesn't make it less of a price guide. Without the prices: it would be a listing of the games (who made them, what system they were originally for, and so on), encyclopedic content. With the prices, it's a useful list, with prices: unencyclopedic fancruft. While the list isn't completely prices: it's still a guide to them, which isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. RobJ1981 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I don't think you know what cruft actually means. Just sayin'. --Bishop2 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those point listings are trivia and not relevant to an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a price guide (regardless of whether those prices are in dollars, yen or Wii points).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not trivia and are relevent. They are one of the things Nintendo usually focuses on when talking about the Virtual Console. They are informative and another way to compare the VC games, and if the tables are combined into 1 it will be even more helpful. I just can't believe that the issue has caused the page to be locked because Rob admits that he will not give up trying to remove them. TJ Spyke 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained myself about "not giving up". But I will do it again: I never meant I will continue to try to remove them (no matter what happens). All I meant was I wont give up, until an actual consensus is made (poll consensus isn't the way to go, as it was simply a joke). As an admin stated on this article: polls don't control the article, so stop acting like they do. Stop assuming, and trying to make excuses. Other people are clearly against your opinion on how the article should be presented: deal with it, instead of being uncivil and dragging misunderstood comments into this. Things can't always go your way. RobJ1981 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No consensus has been made either way, which means by default the points should stay listed unless there is a consensus to remove them. They would still be in there right now but an admin locked the page after someone else removed them (it's like when an article gets locked adter Burntsauce blanks a wrestling article). I was going by one of your previous statements where you did say that you will not stop trying to get the points removed. TJ Spyke 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous.
I am sick and tired of the edit wars about the Wii Points and the split tables. Grow UP everyone. Right now, I don't care if the Wii Points are in the table, or not. I really thought it was better when they WERE in the table, but I can deal with it not if everyone is going to act like idiots about it. The Split table format IS the best way to go, and all the other regional lists of VC games are set up in split format WITH the Wii points. Why can't you few people who are having a cow over this realize that, and get OVER it. We should have split with wii points included, as that is fine, nothing WRONG with that, AND the other regions use that list. If you guys throw a fit over them HERE, why not go cry over there as well. see what they say. I'm going to bet that most of them will want to keep their current layout. Lamename3000 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, please calm down; I'm sure you are not alone in your frustration, and the purpose of my last revert was to set the tables to the way they've always been until a consensus has been reached. As I noted above in the "Alphabetize" section, I also felt it would be better left the way it has always been to deter such pointless edit wars and so that all parties involved could maintain a level head.  Though some of what you state seems to fall in the line of letting opinion affect the content, I believe things should stay the way they are, if only to prevent further heated exchanges and to not embarrass any of us further. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, but someone reverted back without the point values. I have to agree some of you are acting like Children. Maybe you are a child. But the point is you need to stop this. Do not make drastic changes with out consulting others first. Neo Samus 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, some users feel that WP:BOLD gives them free license to make such changes despite the will of others to maintain the status quo until a compromise or better agreement has been reached. I've reverted once, Lamename3000 appears to have reverted more than once, and other  users are just changing it back to the system it was before (seemingly without regard to the discussion at hand). --PeanutCheeseBar 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'm trying to do is keep the page in it's original format, to reflect the format of all the other Virtual Console formats, until an end to this BS is reached. Lamename3000 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no policy on Wikipedia that all the pages have to be the same. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If nothing else, I think one conflict should be resolved before bringing in another (or dragging up an old, finished one). This 'let's go argue about Wii Points! Again!' thing is utterly stupid and it seems that people who otherwise wouldn't give a crap about this are being dragged in just to make things go one person's way. Worry about the damned systems first, then revisit prices I say. Eusis 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wii points issue has been ongoing since it was first raised by RobJ1981. Every single time a discussion fails to result in consensus, he just keeps starting a new discussion and a new vote.  So really, that's the problem we should still be focused on based on your logic, because it's never stopped since it first came up thanks to this one-man crusade. --Bishop2 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that for contested information like this, the standard is to keep it off the article unless it can be substantially justified - the standard is most emphatically not to keep it on the article because some people like it until a vote proves the contrary.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that the standard was to keep the article as it originally was, not to suddenly go in and delete it because it's under debate. --Bishop2 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "One-man" crusade? I count a lot more than one man opposing the inclusion of points, especially in table format. ChazBeckett 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only since Rob started bringing in other parties because the first two debates and votes didn't go in his favor, sadly. --Bishop2 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Know what? Things on Wikipedia aren't done by voting.  We're supposed to be building this thing by consensus (and this is an official policy).  Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and refusing to discuss something based on impromptu poll results is immature and contrary to the very nature of Wikipedia.  --Brandon Dilbeck 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Bishop: an admin agreed with me (with a comment RIGHT here on this talk page): polls don't control articles. I had every right to go elsewhere to get opinions on this matter. Also (as I've stated before as well): this talk page discussion doesn't control the article either. If a major discussion happens at the video game project talk page about new policies (about this, or anything else): then those can be applied to this article. Stop assuming this article's talk page and the poll controls the article. Also: that one-man crusade comment wasn't needed. How about being civil? Editing on Wikipedia is supposed to be about discussing content, not the editors. RobJ1981 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, that was the view of ONE admin (and as you should very well know, the editors on Wikipedia are quite diverse on some matters, interpretation of rules and guidelines included). Just as much as you use that one admin's comment as justification to not let this die, someone else could find another admin that thinks you're simply a malcontent and won't be satisfied no matter what.  It's a two way street, and you're only looking one way; as a result, you're taking what little civility some of these people have left, and kicking it to the curb.


 * The initial poll actually did serve as a consensus; the debate was over whether or not to list the points, and (at the time) there was not any discussion at the time about separately listing exceptions to the base point costs. Since the discussion was (for better or worse) quite black and white, I think the poll was an adequate way to reach consensus; however, given that Rob has brought other people into the discussion as a means to turn the tide, I think it quite clearly shows that he's still bitter about the initial poll, and he's attempting to compensate by bringing in more like-minded individuals.  Reaching the consensus is still the issue at hand, though some of the users that Rob has brought into this fiasco have insisted on taking matters into their own hands rather than participate in the discussion at hand, and only exacerbated things in the process. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Straw polls may not count as a consensus, but the bottom line is that you already brought this issue up elsewhere, and the result of that discussion was no consensus. Then you just kept posting it AGAIN.  Which is pretty well outside the rules. --Bishop2 06:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look as a person who comes here to take a look at what comes out every monday I liked the way the format was. There was nothing wrong with it. So what if points should or shouldn't be there. How does the the old adage go. If it's not broken don't fix it stupid. Being a reader and not a contributor I would prefer it to just stay the way it was. If you need to find a certain game use the find command almost everyone uses IE or else a browser that uses Mozilla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.28.91 (talk • contribs)

Protected
The article has been protected to stop edit warring. Please discuss here and try to reach consensus. Kusma (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what we've been trying to do for some time; however, rather than attempt to reach a consensus, most of the users in favor of removing the points have done so regardless of the discussion at hand, and THEN tried to justify their actions afterwards. Unfortunately, every time anybody decides to make a change in a manner like this, it just frustrates everybody on the other side of the debate, and now we have another user who has stepped into the fray and has TWICE reverted the article in this fashion, only choosing to participate in the discussion after someone has reverted his changes;   as a result, NOBODY can add new games to the list. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE, my dear. Most of the users in favor of retaining the points have done so regardless of the discussion at hand, and THEN tried to justify their actions with the old chestnut that "there is insufficient consensus to change away from the version I voted for". Et cetera.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant (and many others) didn't remove the points, they reverted to a version that presents the points in a more concise format. Attempting to reach consensus would involve some sort of compromise, not insisting that points be included and that they be presented in a table. ChazBeckett 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're incorrect Radiant; the points have been there longer than not, and removing them despite the discussion at hand is changing what's been previously maintained as the standard. The show would certainly be on the other foot had the points not been there prior to this discussion and the dispute was over adding them, but you simply stepped in from nowhere to make changes BEFORE even participating in the discussion; it's evident by comparing the times you made the edit to the article, and then followed up by making your argument for removal on the discussion page.
 * Chaz, I agree with you fullheartedly over reaching the compromise; my dispute in this isn't over the points not being included (indeed, I've stated repeatedly in the past that there just needs to be some note of the exceptions, not necessarily a list of each individual exception or a list of prices). The fact that users have tried to change what has been the standard without participating in the discussion, and then trying to use what is contained in a Wikipedia guideline or essay and treat it as policy is what I have a problem with; it undermines the point of discussion if certain users do not feel the need to hold constructive talks before making changes, and instead resort to making pithy comments as some users here have done. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly from nowhere, I was asked to comment on my talk page. Also, this issue has come up on the village pump and some policy pages recently. And finally, it is simply wrong to assume that the page must stay in the version you prefer until there have been sufficient arguments to persuade you.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Standard Wiki etiquette states that in a content dispute like this (i.e. no vandalism, slander, etc) that things be left alone until consensus is reached. This is to prevent edit warring, which is exactly what happened here. -- MisterHand 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. "There is no consensus so we must stick with the version I like" is precisely the attitude that caused this dispute. Additionally, this attitude implies that one side of the dispute is unwilling to compromise, since by blocking all efforts at consensus they can ensure that their version remains. That is precisely what TJ Spike has been doing over the article, and it is strongly implied by the fact that on this talk page, several people are more focused on saying how evil and out of process their opponents are, than on the actual content.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "there is insufficient consensus to change away from the version I voted for" and "There is no consensus so we must stick with the version I like" may be the way that you choose to perceive this issue, but I stand by what MisterHand says: things should be left alone until a consensus is reached. As I stated earlier, I'd go so far as to argue about keeping the points off had they not already been added, because that's the way things were.  Furthermore, Rob didn't exactly ask for your commentary; he made an off-handed post on your page about how the points will keep getting reverted back in, which comes off as a subtle "please do something about this".  It's rather unfortunate that Rob feels the need to keep trying to invite people who only see things the way he does and utilize the same tactics he does rather than participate in the discussion; you weren't a part of this discussion prior to that, so naturally I would expect that you keep abreast of the discussion at hand before making changes.  As I stated previously, I'm not exactly gung-ho about keeping the points (which would put us on the same side of the debate), but I don't approve of the means by which you attempt to justify your edits, and I will fight to make sure things are done properly, and consistently. --PeanutCheeseBar 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're twisting my words. Here's what I'm saying: when there's a heated content dispute on the talk page, and consensus hasn't been reached, it's not a good idea to wade in and start changing things. Why? Because an edit war will almost certainly result. There are exceptions, such as libel and such, but those concerns are not part of this article. By making sweeping edits on an issue that is in discussion, editors are not helping the situation. The result is a locked page, and now nobody is happy. -- MisterHand 14:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- it's sad that it came to this. There's been months of civil discussion, then suddenly a edit war erupted the other night. All this over a single column in a table. It's time for both sides to get some perspective. -- MisterHand 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, we could just agree to disagree, and settle on a compromise version. Incidentally I believe the current version was intended as a compromise between people who want those prices there, and people who don't. Given the length of this talk page already, perhaps we should stick with that and call it a day?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement. This is exactly what I was hoping to accomplish with my "Wii Points: a new attempt at consensus" section above. -- MisterHand 14:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a viable solution; it's convenient for you because it ensures the outcome that you desired, but it goes outside of the process that many other people here have tried to follow, and no consensus has been reached (which hardly sets a good example or precedent). In addition, you did not need to add a new section to this talk page; this section was quite adequate, and you're stretching out the debate over into a whole new section (as if the other two or three or sections this is currently being discussed in are not overkill).  Please, play nicely. --PeanutCheeseBar 14:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't write that version. Second, the "version I desire" would be to remove the information, but I'm quite willing to compromise (which, in my book, is nice). Third, asking for opinions on a compromise is a very valid way of consensus building. And fourth, none of the arguments you made are in any way about the page content, rather they're all about the behavior of people who disagree with you; I'd say page content is more important to an encyclopedia.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've stated time and again that I'm not strongly in favor of keeping the points (and as I've also stated time and again, that puts us on the same side of the fence), but you tend to ignore that point; my issue is that you're not following the process that most of the other users are attempting to follow, which is neither very diplomatic nor is it constructive. You can't just make changes like you have been in the middle of an ongoing discussion; it sets a dangerous example or precedent because it enables other people to believe that "Hey, if that guy did it without repercussions, so can I", and that is NOT how Wikipedia works.  Page content is indeed important, but when certain rogue users decide that they're going to go outside of the process to make changes that are already under debate, them it's the page quality that suffers.  Ultimately, the editors will only get angrier (which is certainly the case here), or they'll just leave, disgusted and likely disenchanted. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what we're trying to do here: reach consensus on a compromise version of the article. One that incorporates the Wii points, but not in the table. We'll never have consensus AND have both sides getting their way. Somethings going to have to give. -- MisterHand 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate
We've heard several arguments why the prices shouldn't be here, e.g. that they're trivia, not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a price guide, and they tend to lack external sources. I haven't heard any argument for including them, other than that people like them, that other articles have them, and that they were removed out of process. So what are the arguments?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is "encyclopedic"? I shall assist.  "Encyclopedic" is defined by Webster's as being comprehensive on a branch of knowledge.  In the interest of being comprehensive, naturally we would list prices that are completely standardized - these aren't prices that change from store to store, like most products that might go on "sale" at any time. This isn't a "suggested" retail price, it's a flat price across the board anywhere.  This isn't trivia.  This is something that is solid fact connected with the items in question.  A copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles downloaded off of the Wii Shop Channel is going to cost the same in North Pole, Alaska as it is when downloaded in Enid, Oklahoma. And what do we want to be as an encyclopedia? We want to be informative. Useful. That's the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. So again, to be informative and useful... we list the prices, because that is both. I also notice that when people link to the "Wikipedia is not a price guide," debate, well... it's precisely that.  It's a debate. It's not an official Wiki policy. It's just something that's being DEBATED as maybe EVENTUALLY being a policy. That's not the same as something we can take a hardline stance on. And even if we could, something that is a standard flat charge without concern of taxes or sales would be a natural exception. --Bishop2 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For "encyclopedic", see our policy WP:NOT. Being useful is considered an extremely poor argument in any case. The prices are absolutely trivia, because whatever its price happens to be at the moment is in no way defining for a game that was over a decade old when the Wii was first introduced. Aside from that, I've seen no promise from Nintendo to never ever modify these prices, so they could likewise go on "sale" at any time; and several games do have different costs in different areas of the world (e.g. LOZ:OOT in Japan).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Different costs in different parts of the world are irrelevant. This article is only about the Virtual Console games in North America. There also appears to be no violation of the "NOT" articles. Finally, "usefulness" is a poor argument according to the author of that page.  As it says on that very page, that is an essay, and it is not official policy.  I don't know anyone who's interested in using a reference source that places no value on whether its information is useful or useless. --Bishop2 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


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

Ok, I apologize for the harsh comments I put in that post, but I never once said I owned the article. You guys are acting like a corporation planning a hostile takeover of the article. I'm being nice, I promise. Neo Samus 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this nice at all: User_talk:TJ_Spyke. Assume good faith next time. Edit wars and content disputes happen. A hostile takeover of the article? That's a bit too far as well. Changes can and do happen: people that refuse to let changes happen, are certainly trying to control the article, in my opinion. RobJ1981 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, you're just as guilty as he is, so I really don't think you have a lot of room to speak, at least concerning that matter. You can't attempt to seek help from editors on their talk pages, and then fault editors on the other side of the debate for doing the same.  Plus, in all fairness, you've been just as steadfast and controlling about lobbying to have the points removed, so I would tread lightly about accusing others of control if I were you. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never once called people names over the matter, like Neo Samus did on that talk page. Just because there is disputes: doesn't give anyone the right to insult others about it. RobJ1981 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You might not have resorted to calling names (which I don't approve of either), but I'd hardly say you've been as civil as you'd like to think you have been. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My temper got the best of me....sorry. I apologize to everyone for my rudeness.  But the reason why you are "staying calm" right now is because you have the upper hand with the article at the moment.  It got locked right after it was edited to the form with the point removed from the list.  If the points were still on the list when it got locked I could see your blood starting to boil, not ours.  I'm still some what new to this (like I've said in previous posts) so I'm still learning.  So cut me some slack Rob.......  Neo Samus 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, drama. Just take another vote and end it. --Cheesemeister3k 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no porblem with that. I really don't.  But here's what I see happening; we vote, most user vote "for" the wii points on the table, the other guys don't like the out come.  Demand another vote until they get their way.  It's gonna be an endless cycle at this rate.  I think I might take up TJ's idea and get a mediation.  But I haven't finalized anything yet.  I would like to see this resolved by monday so we can add next weeks titles.  Neo Samus 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I hereby volunteer to fill out the request for mediation tonight, as I haven't been a part of this debate. --Cheesemeister3k 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What time, I want to make sure I'm there during the mediation. I'm hoping that I'll be home when it starts.  Neo Samus 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this page, "Formal mediation is not a rapid progress; most cases take weeks minimum and months on average to reach a resolution." The case would have to be accepted first, then go through the mediation process, which apparently doesn't happen overnight. I have to wonder if it could be resolved by Monday... Perhaps a vote would be a better option. --Cheesemeister3k 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Neo Samus' comments, as well as the "take another vote" comment. As stated before by admin (right on this talk page): Polls on talk pages are just there to obtain a consensus. If someone objects to it, then they are free to persist on the issue. There is no point where we are to tell someone that they cannot bring up an old issue. As RobJ1981 stated, polls do not control articles, and discussing issues again after previous consensus can always be brought up again. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC). I had every right to bring the issue up (after a vote), so drop it. Let's say for example: the vote is tied, then what? What about if it's a close vote, then people vote later and the other way is in favor then? Do we just change the article each time the vote changes? That would be pretty stupid in my opinion: having to check the talk page to see if the vote changed, so the article gets changed or not. A consensus needs to be reached: but certainly not by a poll with votes. Also, as stated before: admins can make edits. So this article does not have to be unlocked for the new titles to be added. Issues can't always just be instantly solved when you want them to. This shouldn't just be rushed because updates need to take place: admins can make edits to the article while it's protected, if it's needed. RobJ1981 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rob, but that still doesn't let you off the hook or justify what you've done; as stated in WP:CCC: "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." Sorry, but the excuse that the "admin said it was okay" has gone on long enough; as I also stated earlier: "Rob, that was the view of ONE admin (and as you should very well know, the editors on Wikipedia are quite diverse on some matters, interpretation of rules and guidelines included). Just as much as you use that one admin's comment as justification to not let this die, someone else could find another admin that thinks you're simply a malcontent and won't be satisfied no matter what." --PeanutCheeseBar 12:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had every right to continue discussion about the Wii points. One poll doesn't determine how the article is setup forever. I'm sure some editors wished that was the case, but it's not. I didn't instantly just go looking for help, after the admin said those comments. I asked for help, long before the admin posted. So to say I just did all this because of an admin's thoughts: is completely untrue. RobJ1981 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really; one poll does not determine how the article is setup forever, but given that you've tried and failed twice (and you're still going, all while forum-shopping, also a no-no), you're violating the policy that states that you should not continuously go after an article until you reach the desired outcome, which is what you have been doing. That aside, for someone who was "seeking help" before the debate, you certainly had no problem justifying your crusade over and over by using the opinion of one admin. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the opinion on an admin in a few posts I've made. I don't mention it all the time to just get my way or anything like that. You've read many of my comments: so you already know this. It's certainly not over and over: so don't assume, and get the facts straight. I'm not going to waste time counting, but I do know it wasn't as much as you are assuming it is. A few times in many posts, isn't a big deal. I'm sure you would think differently about it, if I was for the points and not against the points in the article. So just drop it, and move on. As for the tried and failed twice: I didn't feel the poll or any of the discussions were a clear consensus. Accusing me of "forum shopping" is just bad faith and being uncivil, in my opinion. The main editors of an article don't own or control the article, so I had every right to ask for outside help in this case (and I didn't do it because of an admin's comments). Stop being uncivil, because I don't agree with you. RobJ1981 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to just "drop it", because doing so would be condoning your blatant violations of Wikipedia policy; forum shopping as a means to change the consensus is frowned upon, as both MisterHand and I have outlined, and multiple users seem to be in agreement with us. That having been said, stop being so quick to jump the gun and call me uncivil; you've been quick to throw that label on anyone who brings up your rulebreaking, and your continued insistence on doing so doesn't draw any more attention away from what you've done. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been reported to an admin. I shouldn't have to put up with this garbage. A tiny consensus of a few editors isn't a clear consensus, my so called "forum shopping" isn't the case at all. A few regular editors don't own or control the article (as I've stated before), so I got some other's to voice their opinions. Why is that hard to understand? In my opinion, you are upset I don't agree with you, and that the page is protected: has made you uncivil and just harassing in my opinion. This certainly doesn't need to be happening. RobJ1981 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted in other areas on this page, please keep this discussion restricted to this page, for the sake of simplicity. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta say you have a point on all counts. As I said above, straw polls may not be consensus, but if you fail to reach consensus, standard policy is to leave the article as is.  At least wait a few months, don't keep bringing it up AGAIN AND AGAIN for another debate.  That's obviously outside the rules.  Even locking the page down in the changed version - which was changed without discussion - is another thing people have perpetrated here that is outside the rules. --Bishop2 06:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The protection note clearly says this: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Did you even bother to read that? The admin that protects, doesn't just go back to the version before the edit warring began. Read up on protection next time. I'm pretty sure it's against no rule. Complaining about what version the article is protected in, isn't helping solve this issue. RobJ1981 06:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Current version - let's discuss
Let's discuss the current (protected) version. Is there anything specific about this version that you dislike? Please address only the content of the article, not the actions of users or previous discussions. ChazBeckett 15:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Content-related comments

 * Everything else in the article is fine. But you know my stance about the "current" article.  Neo Samus 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think these are very nice tables. When I first stumbled across this article, it was one long table with the Wii points attached at the end, which struck me as a little strange. Pretending I have never seen the table(s) before, I think the new tables split by console would have given a better first impression. Considering what the Wii stands for (and the fact that this is an encyclopedia), I think it makes sense to give a nod to each console. As far as the Wii points go, my opinion of including them has changed several times. It gives the page a weird price guide feel, but it's also useful information. I'll leave that one for others to discuss. Emichan032 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (Oops! Thanks for adding the bullet.)


 * I find it impractical that I cannot sort the titles beyond the confines of a single system. Merging each of those separate tables together would allow me to sort everything together.  --Brandon Dilbeck 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may find it impractical that you cannot sort all the data beyond the system criteria, but what need do you have to have all the data collected in one table? What need do you have to sort everything together, all at once? --PeanutCheeseBar 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's say I want to sort all the titles alphabetically. I can't, it won't let me this way. I can only sort within each of the five tables. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the "want" part, but once again, what need is there? --PeanutCheeseBar 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you ever want to sort all of them alphabetically? Would it really kill you to use the search function of your browser or sort each of them individually? --sevenduffs 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have to be predicting the needs of our readers. All I'm saying is that whatever their need is, it'll go unfulfilled. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Brandon, but WP:NOT#CBALL does not apply to this issue, considering that it applies to predicting what TBA content is placed in the article, not what manner in which readers expect that listed information is sorted. So far, I have not seen a real need to merge all tables into one. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that WP:NOT did apply! I just linked to it for the heck of it.  So, you want a real need?  How about a hypothetical one?  Let's say I'm a parent.  A concerned parent.  I'm afraid of exposing my precious 7-year-old to old video games that might not be appropriate for her.  Under ideal conditions, I could sort the ESRB column and all the games would sort by the ESRB rating, and it would be very easy to see what E-rated games I can purchase, and what T-rated games I should avoid exposing my child to.  --Brandon Dilbeck 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then what was the point of mentioning WP:NOT#CBALL in the first place? Regardless, the ESRB reason has some validity, although some other users here are debating on removing it; I'd suggest trying to convince them as well. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine. The original version was also fine. I also think a table that lists the platform under its own distinct area of a single table would be fine. I'm pretty much fine all around. --Bishop2 17:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That version is just fine. There is absolutely no reason to be redudant and list the same price over and over in the table. A few exceptions to a certain set price, doesn't justify a redundant price listed many times. RobJ1981 23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This version is NOT fine or acceptable. It's missing the Wii Points (there was NEVER a consensus to remove them, a small group of users kept removing them without and consensus to support them and caused the article to be locked). I don't care if it's one table or multiple tables. 1 table makes it easier to sort based by date, but multiple tables looks nicer. The Wii Points are an important part of the service and very informative, leaving them out is like taking the developer out or the release date out and WILL go back in. TJ Spyke 00:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same version that I am? The points information is listed at the top of the article. ChazBeckett 02:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IN the table, not this so-called "compromise". TJ Spyke 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, just so I'm clear, you're unwilling to compromise on the presentation of the points? Basically, unless Wii Points information is included in the table, you consider it unacceptable. Am I understanding your position correctly or is there some compromise you'd be willing to accept? ChazBeckett 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The points had already been mentioned at the top of the page for several weeks (I should know since I added them), so the current version of the page is not a compromise in any way. TJ Spyke 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It is a middle ground between two extreme positions, that by definition makes it a compromise.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not; this issue is (for most purposes) black and white; either the points are listed in the table or they're not (which is what TJ Spyke has taken an issue with), no middle ground there. Given that TJ Spyke does not agree with what you suggested, that does not create a compromise. Granted, we cannot satisfy all desires of every editor, but unless we reach something that appeals to everyone, then there's no consensus; given that the edit warring will likely continue after the article is unlocked. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a compromise between those who want points listed in the table and those that want information on points removed from the article entirely. Taking the current approach of including a concise description of point values and noting exceptions is middle ground. It's true that not everyone likes this version, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a compromise. Those that insist on making it a black or white issue risk ending up with nothing. ChazBeckett 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a compromise at all, the points had also been listed at the top of the page for several weeks (maybe months, I forget when I put them in). So this is still just about including them in the table or not including them. TJ Spyke 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Realize that, unless we reach a compromise, this article will likely stay locked for a while. Do we really want to miss Monday's update? If people are still unhappy, we can continue to discuss. But for now I say we all agree to stick with the current version. -- MisterHand 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too thrilled about missing an update either, but some people on both sides of the debate seem unwilling to find or agree on a middle ground, and as soon as the article is unlocked, the edit warring will likely continue. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is still locked on Monday, we can ask an admin to update the article with the information. TJ Spyke 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They aren't informative: they are price guides. An encyclopedia shouldn't be a price guide, just because some people think it's useful or informative. Prices can easily be found on many video game sites, an encyclopedia certainly shouldn't be home to them. RobJ1981 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't a price guide. They are informative because it lets users compare games in another way, and will be even more useful if they get combined into 1 table. TJ Spyke 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But if the "other way" you're comparing games is prices, why wouldn't that be a price guide. I could then say that i want the price of every game on each of their articles so i can compare them.DurinsBane87 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like how the release date, the developer, and the ESRB is listed. Doesn't that seem repetitive when you can go to the article dedicated to the game for that junk? The ESRB on most of the games is E so why does that need to be there? It's highly repetitive and gets on my nerves. I mean, the list would be a LOT more encyclopedic with just the list of games, like the article is meant for. Lamename3000 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable and acceptable, although I'd prefer to leave the price information off entirely (it's already better covered in Wii points). I believe it would be beneficial to create one table, rather than four, as this makes for better sorting. "Giving a nod to each console" is not an encyclopedia's job.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Going back to the discussion I was having with Brandon (see above), what is the need and reason to merge the tables? --PeanutCheeseBar 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think before this article is put back into the wild you guys need to find a consensus not only with each other but also with the people who edit the XBox Live Arcade page, which has some of the exact same issues.Randomengine 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the matter on thus: Everything should be one table because the system distinction is arbitrary. It is just another column of data and can easily be sorted using the column sorting. The Wii Points should be removed. What happens tomorrow, hypothetically, if Nintendo changes all the point totals. It is a mess and prices are irrelevant anyway. Go to any game page and you will find no prices. Most prices fit a certain mold and should be mentioned elsewhere with a trivia section for ones that don't fit that mold. ESRB ratings are not necessary either as they can be found within each game page and have little bearing on the Wii Virtual Console. If any of it stays or goes, whatever, just keep in mind the most important data sets. Title and Date. Everything else is extraneous information that can be found within the game-specific articles. That is not an endorsement for a 2 column table, but I am just keeping things in perspective.Randomengine 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having the prices in the table? Kendamu 21:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes the article a price guide. An encyclopedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide, just because some users think it's "informative" and "useful" and so on. The purpose of an encyclopedia, isn't to help people decide on what to buy. RobJ1981 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then I guess that articles about movies and games shouldn't tell how well-received said movie or game is, either, because those help me in deciding on buying/seeing/playing said movies and games.Kendamu 02:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When I first saw that the Wii Points column was gone, I was furious. Now that I have read through the entire talk page and thought about it a bit myself, I prefer the current version in regards to Wii points at this time. I absolutely believe that the Wii Points are an important part of this page, but I think the current layout is more clear in that a long list flooded with the same number consisting of one outlier is useless. Pointing out the exceptions is far more efficient at this time. If there are more exceptions later on, I might go back to wanting the Wii Points in the table. However, if there is a way to denote an exception within the table without having the extra column, I would be highly in favor of that. Perhaps an asterisk or a parenthetical statement (probably unsightly, but much more informative) would be in order. As for the issue of one list vs. five lists, I personally like the separate lists by system, but there's really no reason for it, and after reading every post on this page, I found no one else who had a reason supporting the five lists, so I think the single list would be more appropriate as long as the default sorting is by 1) system and 2) release date. I would also like to bring up a third issue that I have not yet found here concerning controller compatibility. The redirection to the Virtual Console page as a resource is insufficient as it has the value of "some" in the chart for certain cells. I would like to see a column for controller compatibility in our table. Of course, this would be almost as repetitive as the wii points column, so I'm sure the idea is going to be shot down, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case some other people may feel the same. Actually, this may create an actual argument in favor of separate tables for separate systems as we would only need the column for the systems that have "some" compatibility (Sega and TurboGrafx-16). Briggity Brak 11:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There were once not one, but two controller compatability columns. It was as repetitive and unsightly as you say. --Cheesemeister3k 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non content-related comments (please don't post in this section)
What I dislike is that the Wii points wree removed from the table. None of you had any right to just up and change it. What you guys keep talking about in previous "talks" are guidelines, not rules. Please just revert it back to how it was and stop all this. Neo Samus 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked nicely that people address the content of the article, not other users or previous discussions. In the interests of keeping this section on-topic, I'm creating a subsection for non content-related comments. Again, please keep your comments in this section focused on content. ChazBeckett 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I could just as easily say "what I dislike is that the Wii points wree added to the table. None of you had any right to just up and add them". And with such statements, we'd both be equally wrong.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the points have been there longer than not, and they were there before you joined in the discussion (in fact, you made two separate efforts to remove them yourself); that doesn't give you a lot of ground to argue on. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By its very nature a wiki is always in flux. Information isn't kept simply because it's been in an article for a while, nor is it deleted because it was never there before. From my perspective it seems like there was a core group of editors that liked the article a certain way. As a broader group of editors began commenting and editing, the core group became unhappy with the changes and began to exert some degree of ownership over the article.
 * Perhaps I'm misreading the situation, but a section in consensus can change seems especially relevant: "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." ChazBeckett 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, but you also left out "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." Given that Rob has continually lobbied (and tried to rope in other editors for his cause) for the removal of points despite two separate discussions resulting in a "do not remove" consensus, I'd say that he's quite guilty of this, though he relies on the misguided blessing of one admin as his sole reasoning as to why he doesn't have to stop.  However, since no formal consensus or compromise that people on both sides of the debate agree with has been reached, things should not change for the time being. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also relevant is the discussion on WP:CONSENSUS regarding forum shopping -- that is, taking an issue around to several different areas of Wikipedia looking for editors sympathetic for your cause. This behavior is discouraged. -- MisterHand 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, nominating an article for deletion and debating over presentation of content is not very comparable. The former brings a much wider group of editors into the debate while the latter is often limited to a small group of editors who share the same interests. Second, the fact that a fair number of editors are against including the points in the table means that a consensus no longer exists, even if it once did. That means that discussion needs to take place with the purpose of creating a compromise version. If the current version isn't acceptable, then editors are free to offer alternative versions. What isn't especially productive is for editors to focus on the actions of other users or discussions that happened in the past. ChazBeckett 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not comparable? The statement is referring to continuously attempting to bring about change until the desired outcome of an editor or editors has been reached; you're placing too much emphasis on what is only one outcome.  Rob is steadfast on attempting to bring about change until he reaches his desired outcome; however, as both MisterHand and I have shown, Rob has also been trying to bring other people into the discussion for the purpose of changing the consensus in his favor (which as Misterhand and I have also both said, is highly frowned upon); given that, that calls into question the credibility of both Rob AND the other authors he's been trying to drag into this mess. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point: there isn't any consensus. Maybe there was in the past, but there isn't now. This isn't one editor going against everyone else, it's a whole bunch of editors with different opinions. These editors (myself included) can't just be dismissed as people that Rob has dragged here. I know that I've never had a conversation with Rob, before or after I began commeting here. The goal now is to form a consensus, not to discuss one that may have existed at some point in the past. ChazBeckett 17:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you're the one that's missing the point; I've stated time and again that there is no consensus (hence the ongoing discussion), and I believe you're giving Rob (as well as some of the other users) too little credit. Part of the reason that this debate is going on is because some editors in favor of removing the points did so without participating in the discussion, when they should have left the article alone until a new consensus was reached. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. When you have a debated issue like this, you should not change something without consensus. That means that the Wii Points should not have been removed unless there was consensus to remove them (which there isn't). TJ Spyke 20:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. But that's all in the past. We're now at a point where it's clear there isn't consensus to either remove Wii points entirely from the article or to have them in the table. You may feel that the article is currently on the wrong version, but the reality is that the only remaining option is to achieve some sort of compromise. ChazBeckett 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paper Mario
I got the latest Nintendo Power and it said Paper Mario was on the VC. Is it? You guys don't have it listed. (Zojo 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC))
 * if you look at the future release's section you'll see its there. Paper Mario has not been released yet, but there is a good chance that it will be some time in June.  But there is no conformation about it though.  Neo Samus 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nintendo Power's track record is starting to get questionable. They also said that Vectorman and Zelda II would hit the VC in April.  At this writing, they're STILL not available. --Bishop2 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the titles not appearing on the Virtual Console hurts NP's "Track Record" at all. They have the closest relations than anyone to the people in charge of the VC. They were told that Paper Mario, Zelda II (Which has been released elsewhere already), and Vectorman, so they relayed that to their readers. It's not their fault if decisions are made to post-pone the titles. Patience.Lamename3000 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I was saying, patience. Zelda II has now officially been announced for release on Monday.Lamename3000 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the release be June 2007, or at least 2007? Nintendo Power issues are earlier, so that means it will probably release in 2007.--Scotty12 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, when it comes to magazines, they often write them 2-3 months in advance. I knew a friend at Nintendo and was able to obtain a game, some years back, quite a few months before it was released and even mentioned in Nintendo Power. So while its true that Nintendo Power is an inside source of information, at times their info can be outdated. Because NP is housed in Nintendo HQ itself, they are able to write advance copies of magazines for games that will be released in only a few months (such as in my case) and release the issues in order to coincide with game releases. Drumpler 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, even in 2-3 months in advance, it will still come out in 2007. The list should probably say 2007.--Scotty12 14:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
As I wrote in a discussion above, I'd like to volunteer to submit the Wii Points issue for mediation. That is, if both sides can agree to abide by the resulting decision. I'll be happy to compile all the necessary information for the case and write it up neutrally (I did not take part in this current debate), but just need volunteers to represent each side of the issue. Please post a response here if you'd be willing to take part, and I'll pick some/all of those who volunteer. Can we get through this by Monday? Here's hoping. --Cheesemeister3k 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, could you throw in the issue of one table vs. separated tables as discussed above? There's been plenty of discussion about it, but hardly any step towards consensus. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it to one issue at a time, as this page indicates that scenarios more complicated than a single issue with two clear sides are more difficult to resolve. The Wii Points column is clearly the more pressing issue. --Cheesemeister3k 04:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to be part of the mediation (as long as its not time conflicting. Also, Brandon, I'll consider the one table idea if can find a way to color code each system. Unless it's to difficult or near impossible to do. But I'm still weary on that issue. Neo Samus 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would take some time to manually do it, but different colors for each system could be added. TJ Spyke 01:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will point out once again: admins CAN make edits to protected articles. The article doesn't have to be unprotected by Monday, just so people can add the titles. I don't think things should be rushed, because people are worrying the article will be outdated. Admins can add the titles, if the page is protected. This has been stated before. RobJ1981 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the mediation process. Let's keep things civil and tempers down as we get an official agreement on whether or not there should be a Wii Points column. Unless there are any objections, we'll have a single spokesperson per side. Although he didn't specifically state his volunteering to represent the side in favor of removal, I take RobJ1981's posting here as a tacit agreement to represent that side. Please clarify if I inferred incorrectly. Neo Samus will represent the side in favor of retaining the Wii Points column. While the request is submitted and pending, please familiarize yourself with the mediation process and be prepared to abide by it. --Cheesemeister3k 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not entirely clear whether "mediation" in this context is referring to formal mediation (WP:M) or the MedCab.
 * I strongly disagree with using formal mediation to attempt to solve what is essentially an editorial issue. This isn't a dispute between two editors and there aren't two distinct "sides". Opinions range from keeping the column, to including Wii point information in prose (current version) to removing all point info from the article. Attempting to boil the dispute down to Side A and Side B would be quite difficult. Further, formal mediation usually has some degree of confidentiality, which would be counter-productive in this case. As mediation isn't binding, the goal of any process needs to be to convince editors to accept a compromise, and this requires complete transparency.
 * As for MedCab, it's possible that this process might help to focus editors on the core issues, though I'm not convinced it will actually solve the dispute. However, it would be far more useful than formal mediation as the cases are public and it's can handle a large number of participants (example).
 * Whatever process is used (if any), it's essential that it be open to all. If editors feel that their opinions weren't heard during the discussion process, it's likely that the situation will remain unchanged and we'll be right back at revert warring or a protected article. ChazBeckett 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any mediation effort should include not just this article but all the Lists of Virtual Console games, as well as Xbox Live Arcade. We should strive for consistency across all articles. -- MisterHand 12:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, this is really a broader issue than just this one article. I'm also wondering if a venue such as village pump or RfC might be appropriate for discussion. Thoughts? ChazBeckett 13:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should conduct a new straw poll here first, before taking the step of mediation. I'm curious to see how many people REALLY feel that the current version is totally unacceptable. --Bishop2 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above section wasn't a straw poll, but it did provide people with a chance to give their opinion. My interpretation of the comments in this section is that most editors found the current version to be acceptable, though not necessarily ideal. It appears that only one user found it to be "NOT fine or acceptable". ChazBeckett 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


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

Is it just me, or are we just going in circles? Repeating the same things over and over again? Is there anyway we can get a cusensus from some admins on the situation? Or is that similar to mediation? Neo Samus 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus isn't decided by admins, so that isn't an option. Mediation might work, but it's not especially effective for editorial issues where there's so many editors with different opinions. The reality of this situation is that there isn't any solution where everyone will be happy. The only way to move forward is to have a general agreement that a certain version is acceptable. Maybe not everyone's idea of the perfect article, but good enough to move forward.
 * The unfortunate downside is that those editors with "all or nothing" views will inevitably be unhappy with the compromise version. If Wii points are included in the article, some people on one extreme will consider this unacceptable. If points don't have their own column, editors on the other extreme will find this to be unacceptable. It's simply not possible to please everyone. I've suggested using the current version as the acceptable version. That doesn't mean it's the ideal version, just that enough people will agree to put the revert warring in the past and move forward. ChazBeckett 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's great enthusiasm for the retro game download topic and can certainly understand the passion with which editors here have been working towards improving this and other related articles. The development of a sense of ownership over the topic isn't unexpectectable. The way I read the arguments, there are indeed two clear and distinct sides: those who favor removing the Wii Points column and those who favor retaining it. The side in favor of removal has proposed including notes on exceptions to standard Wii Point values, which to this point has been refused by the opposing side. Please correct me if I've read this incorrectly. If this issue isn't resolved among the editors involved and mediation or MedCab aren't agreed to, it could alternatively go through arbitration, which would provide an official and binding resolution. Since this is an issue that impacts several other articles, including versions of this article for other regions, XBLA, and the list of PSN games, arbitration to apply to all articles might not be a terrible alternative. The discussion at the village pump has not yielded any feedback, though an RfC may be an acceptable option. --Cheesemeister3k 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note: The ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, so that's not an option. ChazBeckett 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The inclusion or exclusion of price-related information seems to be more of a policy issue, IMHO. --Cheesemeister3k 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, please do not interpret my reading of the issue as a preference one way or another. I'm merely trying to facilitate the resolution of this issue. --Cheesemeister3k 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't assume I volunteer for mediation, because I posted. I don't have the time to do it, nor do I have interest in it. I can somehow bet mediation will be the same as this: an arguement that gets no where. Regular editors of the article will want the article back to how they see fit, while myself and others wont. RobJ1981 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, again we are back at square one.......man this is fusterating. Realistically, what are are options to get this matter cleared quickly? Neo Samus 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Things can't always be solved quickly. Why the rush? As I've stated before: admins CAN make edits to the article. Problems can't instantly be solved, just because people want to edit the article. RobJ1981 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to move forward, both sides need to at least agree to a process by which to resolve the issue. It seems that both sides are currently unwilling to consent to a process for fear of "losing." Either losing side would then be uncontent with any unfavorable outcome to the point of starting another revert war. Right now, we're stuck in a game of chicken. Both sides are unwilling to even budge on a process, attempting to wait until the other side relents. The | list on Nintendo's site is just one of many such VC lists on the Internet. If everyone agrees that we don't want to leave the page as protected and we don't want to simply scrap the article altogether in favor of a link to Nintendo's official list page, then everyone must agree to work towards a resolution. --Cheesemeister3k 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My view is the same: Wikipedia shouldn't be a price guide. The article (as it is now: in the protected state) is fine, when it comes to the points being listed at least (the table being split or not is a seperate issue). Some people (possibly just TJ Spkye) think it's not a compromise though, so they refuse to accept it. Redundant price information shouldn't be listed, if it doesn't need to be. It's a compromise: due to the original thought of removing all price information (so even a price note at the top, like there is now) would be gone. If that's not a compromise, I would like to know what one is. RobJ1981 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The starting prices had already been at the top of the page for several weeks (I added them). The issue is whether the individual points values should be listed in the table or not. It's not a price guide like Rob continues to claim, and the info will be even more useful if the tables are combined (which I actually think is pretty useful, especially when trying to find all the games that were released on a certain day). I agree that any discussion should also involve editors of the other 3 Virtual Console pages and the Xbox Live Arcade page. What about Japan? The Japanese Virtual Console has many games that deviate from the starting price and wouldn't be worth removing the points (since you would need an entire paragraph just to list the games that differ). TJ Spyke 01:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing points is a price guide. What do you call it then? It doesn't matter if the note at the top was there before or not. That note is all that is needed. If the tables are combined: it doesn't matter, the points being listed is still a price guide. Showing the fact that games differ in price, is clearly explained in the note at the top. For the most part: video game articles don't have prices, these lists having them shouldn't be an exception. It's a clear price guide, no doubt about it. People shouldn't be visiting Wikipedia to find out download prices, which isn't what an encyclopedia is for. When there is numerous video game sites (as well as the official Wii Shop that lists it), there is no excuse for making this a price guide. Yes I know sites can have same information, but the fact of the matter is: showing the fact that games differ in price, is clearly explained in the note at the top. Why be redundant and list the same price over and over again? Once again: the note at the top clearly explains it. There is no reason to be redundant. Lastly: comparision of useful things is encyclopedic, but a comparision of prices is unenyclopedic fancruft/listcruft/price guide nonsense. We don't compare how much a Mario game is a certain price at one store, then cheaper if you buy it at Walmart or online or whatever the case might be. This isn't much different than that. So by TJ's logic: we should do comparision price guides for regular games as well, right? RobJ1981 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Mario example doesn't apply here. Normal games vary by price from store to store, a game on the Virtual Console will have the same price in the entire region (North America in the case of this page). I'll add more tomorrow, it's 3AM where I live and i'm going to get some sleep. TJ Spyke 07:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A constant price doesn't make it any different. I'm pretty sure Nintendo has never said prices will stay the same always. If/when the price of the downloads go down, your excuse of constant prices being acceptable for an article wont work anymore. But in any event: things change in price, things remain the same in price: either way, it's still a price, and a price guide. Take the prices elsewhere, as this is an encyclopedia, not a guide to prices. RobJ1981 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, timeout, people. Arguing over the subject itself isn't helping; the point of this discussion was to establish a means of resolution. Let's take a one-week breather, shall we? Maybe people will be more willing to choose a resolution method then. If not, since neither side seems to be open to mediation, I'll look into seeking arbitration (no need to reiterate comments against that particular means). --Cheesemeister3k 02:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely up-to-date on this situation, since I've been responding to comments here and on a few different talk pages; however, I suggest that we attempt to resolve the issue for the Wii points before anyone tries to apply our example to XBLA, since they don't appear to discussed this to the same degree that we have, and there might be editors that are more resilient to change (prompting what might turn into another edit/revert war). That aside, I've seen some interesting assessments from both sides of the fence. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Rob J that video game articles do usually include the price if it is diffrent then the rest of the games also this page should not be scrapped because there are links to games so people can learn about said games which wikipedia is about and also having separate sections for a certain consoles and the amount of wii points is for easy acess for casual wiki learners like myself and finally you could say that most games are the same price but what about the future there could be more diffrently priced games and who knows nintendo could have price downs on less bought games. Marioman12 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelda 2
Zelda 2 is finally coming to the American VC on Monday. Source UltraNintendoEntertainmentSystem 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Arcanelore meantioned it in the "Wii shop server screenshot topic". But its cool.  You are the third person to mention this. ;)  Neo Samus 21:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, someone should at LEAST put the date up on the article and/or un-protect the article UltraNintendoEntertainmentSystem 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not gonna be unprotected untill a consensus is made. Also to note, the press release from Nintendo states that Zelda II will be the 100th VC game.  So except two more games on Monday with Zelda II and Dead Moon.  Neo Samus 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request for June 1, 2007
editprotected

I'm requesting that this version of my sandbox be made the current page. Changes made are as follows:

- Added release dates for Dead Moon and Zelda II (per www.vc-pce.com and the referenced Nintendo press release)

- Added Milon's Secret Castle and Ecco: The Tides of Time to Future Releases section (both appeared on ESRB today.)

- Fixed some sorting issues.

Thanks. -Arcanelore 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. We now return you to your regularly scheduled content debate. :) GarrettTalk 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute
left me a note on my talk page about harassment and accusations from. From what I can see, PeanutCheeseBar has not been the most civil person in this dispute (read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), but I do think his points are valid. Rob, if your attempts have failed in the past (I didn't look to see the actual discussions in the past), you should probably wait some time before submitting another request (per WP:CCC). Also, note that protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page, and it is only requested in times of heavy vandalism, or edit warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will admit I should've waited a little longer, but that doesn't justify his harrassing of me in many posts he has made here. RobJ1981 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Multiple people here have pointed out your mistakes Rob. not just me; just because I've been the most diligent about responding to your comments doesn't mean I am harrassing you (if I or other people can't speak to you, then how is any consensus supposed to be reached?) I believe I have maintained my civility quite well in this matter (as well as the two other users who have made note of Rob's violations of Wikipedia policy, as addressed on Nishkid64's talk page.)  I have also encouraged others to maintain their civility as well (as demonstrated by my comments towards Neo Samus earlier in the dispute); with this issue having been addressed by an admin, hopefully this discussion will be more productive. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider it harassment, and it certainly wasn't civil. (I posted most of this on your talk page as well): You said I violated policies: I admitted I should've waited a little longer. Other than that, I'm pretty sure I've violated nothing. Unless I'm missing something: the CCC is only one thing. In my opinion: this is defamation of sorts, in an attempt to either get the page unprotected or get in me in trouble for getting people to voice their opinions against the points at the list page. If it was one thing: then you should've said policy, not policies. I didn't see you rushing to fix it, so I'm going to assume (for now at least), you are accusing me of violating several...when I didn't. RobJ1981 18:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, rather than posting this discussion in three or four different places, please restrict it to one; it keeps everyone on the same page, and it makes it much easier to respond. That having been said, you apparently forgot that Bishop2 made note of your "forum shopping", and MisterHand has loosely referred to it as well; that aside, I reverted the article once, since I did not want to get involved in a pointless edit war, and hence my further participation in the discussion page rather than the actions taken by a few other editors in editing the page back and forth.  I'm not going to rush the discussion just for an admin to unprotect a page, only so the fighting will continue; the purpose of the discussion is to end the fighting, but as long as you continue to take anything someone else says so personally, that's likely the way things will turn out.  In addition, your steadfast "I'm pretty sure I violated nothing" is only serving to engender more uncivility (as well as demonstrate your unwillingness to compromise or ability to admit you made a mistake), and that same attitude is what is causing other people to turn on you and point out your mistakes as well. We're all supposed to be on the same level here Rob; please do not lose sight of that; I don't care how long the page stays protected, so long as the edit warring and reverting does not continue after we reach some consensus or have a mediator assist. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt mediation wasn't the route to go, so I said that. That's not uncivil: that's just not wanting to be in it. From the talk page (in the mediation section): It's not entirely clear whether "mediation" in this context is referring to formal mediation (WP:M) or the MedCab. I strongly disagree with using formal mediation to attempt to solve what is essentially an editorial issue. This isn't a dispute between two editors and there aren't two distinct "sides". Opinions range from keeping the column, to including Wii point information in prose (current version) to removing all point info from the article. Attempting to boil the dispute down to Side A and Side B would be quite difficult. Further, formal mediation usually has some degree of confidentiality, which would be counter-productive in this case. As mediation isn't binding, the goal of any process needs to be to convince editors to accept a compromise, and this requires complete transparency. As for MedCab, it's possible that this process might help to focus editors on the core issues, though I'm not convinced it will actually solve the dispute. However, it would be far more useful than formal mediation as the cases are public and it's can handle a large number of participants (example). Whatever process is used (if any), it's essential that it be open to all. If editors feel that their opinions weren't heard during the discussion process, it's likely that the situation will remain unchanged and we'll be right back at revert warring or a protected article. ChazBeckett 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I agree with Chaz on this one. So by your logic, that person must be acting uncvil as well...because he didn't agree with mediation. Nice try, but not being in a mediation isn't a policy violation. I suppose it could be considered as uncivil to some, but who exactly said everyone must volunteer and agree with mediation? Mediation was a suggested method, not a set in stone method that everyone agreed on in the first place. Please get the facts straight, before accusing me (again) of so called "policy violations". I see this as an attempt to get me in trouble, which is just bad faith. We should be discussing compromises to the actual article, which is the issue here (as the page is protected). RobJ1981 19:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could have just said "No, I don't think I'll participate", or opted not to say anything at all; instead you said: "Don't assume I volunteer for mediation, because I posted. I don't have the time to do it, nor do I have interest in it. I can somehow bet mediation will be the same as this: an arguement that gets no where. Regular editors of the article will want the article back to how they see fit, while myself and others wont." You even went out and tried to cast doubt on the whole discussion, and the one other user (Bishop2) opted out because he agreed with Chaz's observation, which was that you were the only person that was unsatisfied with the results:

''The above section wasn't a straw poll, but it did provide people with a chance to give their opinion. My interpretation of the comments in this section is that most editors found the current version to be acceptable, though not necessarily ideal. It appears that only one user found it to be "NOT fine or acceptable". ChazBeckett 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)''


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

From that point, you still participated in the discussion that you said you didn't have the time for, and even now you still continue to take this personally and act as if I'm trying to undermine you. I've not threatened once to report you to an admin, yet you did just that to me, and then accuse me of trying to "get you in trouble"; the thing is, the things you've been saying and doing likely are not making yourself look very good in anybody else's eyes. If you're that worried about being "defamed", then you need to calm down and stop acting like I or anybody else here has an agenda against you; if you continue to carry on like this, people aren't going to like you because of the things that YOU are saying and doing, not what anybody else has said. At that point, the times that you've broken any rules will be insignificant and trifling in comparison because your behavior in this discussion will far overshadow any violations of Wikipedia policies. Other than that, if you want to focus on the article, then from this point on, let's do that, and drop this. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is Rob J is saying you are pointing out problems that are so small that don't need attention and basically calling it out to say Rob J is not a credible wiki user. but he is and I think you owe him a apology.Marioman12 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would propose that we accept that a majority consensus has been reached, that how this consensus was reached be forgotten, and that Rob J agrees to end the edit warring. Many people find listing the prices helpful, and I always advise editers to err on the side of more information when the information is accurate and relevant. With your agreement Rob, can we end this in a civil fashion? Thedeiningers 00:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the only one edit warring, check the edit history instead of blaming me for all of this. More information is useful: but in this case it isn't. Prices aren't encyclopedic in this manner, as it makes the article a price guide. There is no consensus currently, so there is nothing to accept. Why are clearly ignoring how people feel on this matter? This isn't something that can just be ended like that. Read the other posts instead of trying to solve this with one very incorrect post. RobJ1981 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob might have been the most vocal person on this debate, but he is correct in that he was not the only person that was edit-warring; that said, we need to move beyond the finger-pointing. We really shouldn't be having this debate over the points (at least, not this soon after the previous debates  were found to favor keeping the points), but we're here now.  Rob learned that he needs to wait longer before resuggesting something for debate, some attempt at mediation has been made and participated in by a few users, and the longer we continue to be uncivil, the longer this article will remain protected. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If consensus will never be reached for whatever reasons, aim for compromise instead. The current revision briefly describes the prices and their exceptions without using a whole column, and judging from the responses in people are relatively content with this middle-ground solution. If most or all can agree that this compromise is OK for the time being the page can be unprotected and normal editing can resume. Then again, maybe the issue of merging into a single table (with the originating platforms in a sortable column) should also be sorted out before the page is unprotected. GarrettTalk 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version isn't a compromise. All that happened was that a user removed the points from the table. The starting prices had already been listed at the top for a long time. The issue has been to either list them in the table (s) or note. Giving one side everything it wants is not a compromise. TJ Spyke 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is a key difference. The current version lists the prices AND the exceptions. So there is no information that wasn't present in the tables. Which is why it's being presented as a compromise. -- MisterHand 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the points are listed in the table, wouldn't you be getting everything you want? What would you consider to be a compromise? Basically, what are you willing to give up in order to achieve consensus? ChazBeckett 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request for June 4, 2007
editprotected

Again I'd like to request a version of my Sandbox be made the current article. This update just adds today's releases. Thanks. -Arcanelore 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The protection is scheduled to expire at 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC). It's better to wait a couple days until everyone can edit, rather than have changes made by an admin that can't be corrected except by another editprotected request. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a time-sensitive article that is now outdated. Request again? --Cheesemeister3k 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Current status of the article
Wading through the paragraphs of discussion above, my conclusion is that everybody accepts the current version except one editor: TJ Spyke. Is this correct? If so, I have two questions: Thanks. -- MisterHand 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) For TJ Spyke: even though this is not the version you want, can you agree for the sake of the article that we accept this as a compromise for now? The discussion can still continue, of course.
 * 2) For everybody else: if consensus is reached on an article by all but one editor, is there another route we can take to prevent edit warring besides locking the whole thing down?


 * I should point out that consensus is not the same as unanimity, so "consensus by all but one editor" is nevertheless consensus. And yes, we do have another route to prevent edit warring, although I'd sincerely prefer not to.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would say we do have consensus on the current version. -- MisterHand 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article might need to stay locked for a little bit longer; we still have not resolved the issue about whether to merge the tables or keep them separate, and I think that if we unlock the article now, we will likely come to blows over that as well and resume edit warring (especially since we can't trust people to leave the article alone while a discussion is taking place). That aside, I think we should remove the exceptions from the article, or if not that, then at least make a section for them somewhere farther down in the article. There's not a lot of exceptions now, but the more that Nintendo adds farther down the line, the bigger the intro paragraph will eventually become.  Given that that's done, I'd be content with the article. PeanutCheeseBar 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on a comment in the above section, the article will automatically be unlocked on Wednesday. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail when it does. Regarding the exceptions paragraph, I think that we can revisit the issue of how to list exceptions if and when more occur. -- MisterHand 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem from this talk page that the "one table vs. several tables" issue is less big a deal to most people.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but we should still try to agree on something before the article is unlocked, in case an admin does decide to unlock it on Wednesday; I don't want to see another war break out. PeanutCheeseBar 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Off-topic: as far as I can see, only one editor really wants to merge the tables, but has yet to present it in a way that's acceptable to anyone. --Cheesemeister3k 16:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone please tell me what games got released today? I am at work, and will be stopping by the store if I need to get some points. This used to be a great resource for finding out what games came out, but with all of the teenage girl-style bickering, y'all got it locked up. Who cares if the points are there or not? Nintendo might change the amount of money the points cost in the future, but they won't have to change the points for the games. Alot of the games are 20 years old. If they are still considered to be worth 500 points now, then it won't change in the next few years. As for the seperate charts...it is much more helpful to see them dosplayed by consoles, especially since it is informative as well. I really think everyone needs to grow up and just fix the page back so we can see what games are released. If the crying persists, be the grown-up and let them take off the points, we all know how many points the games are anyway. Let them look stupid. 150.226.95.18 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MikeM.
 * Check ArcaneLore's post in the section above; there's a link to the Nintendo Press page with today's releases. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows I too use this site at work for one very important reason: most other ways of finding out what comes out are blocked at my workplace as I am sure it is at MikeM's and many others. We cannot just go to the Nintendo Press page, for most of us this is our only resource save for the Wii itself and I cannot even check it on the Wii because I am using Windows Vista and I do not use wifi except for my Nintendo Wifi USB Connector, but I like to keep up to date on what comes out every week at work until Nintendo updates their drivers.Randomengine 11:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I, too am one of the many who use this site to find out what came out for VC every Monday while at work. Neo Samus 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * MisterHand. I will only accept it as a compromise to get the article unlocked. I will continue bringing the issue up until they are put back in (the same way Rob kept bringing it up over and over and bringing the issue up at every page he could, including the Administrators Noticeboard). There is no consensus, people are just sick of Rob and some others who won't accept that they are in the minority . TJ Spyke 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about being civil? Attacking me (and the others that don't agree with you) isn't needed one bit. Don't ignore what's in clear sight on this talk page, just because you don't agree with it. In the section: "Current version - let's discuss", you seem to be the only one strongly against the current version (as stated before). As Radiant stated: I should point out that consensus is not the same as unanimity, so "consensus by all but one editor" is nevertheless consensus. So being uncivil about all of this, really isn't helping matters. RobJ1981 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the comment. As for the section before, the others were commenting on the one table/split tables rather than the Wii Points issue. From what i've seen, the longer an issue is dragged out, the few people who continue discussing it. Also, what about when it was clear consensus to keep the points in but you brought the issue right back up? There is not a consenus here, people are just sick of the continued arguing and getting the article locked because some editors have some objection to important and encylcopedic info being in the article because they don't like it. Just like you yourself said, it is my right to continue bringing this issue up. TJ Spyke 22:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who really cares about all this actually? If someone is so upset over an article containing the amount of points a game costs that their life comes to a complete halt and they have to let everyone know they aren't happy by griping until they get their way, then just be the more mature person and give it up. It's such a trivial issue it's borderline stupid.--76.177.174.173 01:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly ignoring what people said, isn't helping things. A page being protected isn't the end of the world. I highly doubt it's just a case of people being sick of the protection, so they give in and agree to the current article. How about, not assuming? I see no proof that people are just giving in so the protection can end. You are the only one against the current version of the article: while everyone else is fine with it. That's a consensus, even if you don't like it or don't want to admit it. RobJ1981 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In all honesty what's stopping us from doing exactly what was done before? We never reached a consensus on the issue, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be reverted back to it's previous version. But of course the second that happens, the edit warning will happen again and it will be admin protected again. sigh. Neo Samus 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's precisely why people should discuss possible compromises. The attitude of "I see no consensus so I'm going to revert to the version I like" is very unconstructive.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is, many of the people who reverted the article weren't trying to "revert to the version they like", they were trying to revert to what was standard and commonly accepted before the discussion began; such is normal practice unless the content being debated is of a libelous nature. Everyone and their brother attempted to edit out the points, and only justify it afterwards. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some editors though fail to get a consensus in their decision so they continue reverting the article to the one that they want. TJ Spyke 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True, true. That was more of a comment not an actual threat.  So this version will be how it is in NA, but what about the other pages then? Like Europe, Australia, Japan and XBLA, articles?  Neo Samus 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's foolish to have one page formatted one way, and ALL THE OTHER pages formated a different (my opinion, better) way. An encyclopedia isn't good if it isn't CONSISTENT with itself.Lamename3000 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But that's the way Wikipedia is! It's always growing and evolving, some pages faster than others. Don't worry, it won't be too long until those other VC articles catch up with this one. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the Japanese article, their VC prices vary a lot more. It would be much easier to keep the prices in. What some people see as "evolving", others see as "devolving". Lrrr IV 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with other regions
Should it be noted that Super Mario 2 was released in Europe, Asia, and Australia but not in North America? Retromaniac 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are other games that have been release in some regions but not others. Also, You apparently didn't check the games. The game that Japan calls Super Mario Bros. 2 is not the same game the rest of the world calls Super Mario Bros. 2. The game Japan knows as SMB 2 is called "Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels" everyone else, the game the rest of us knows as SMB 2 is called "Super Mario USA" in Japan. TJ Spyke 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is the North American site, and the game that Europe, Asia and Australia call SMB2 is in fact the same version that we in North America call SMB2, so it counts. --Bishop2 14:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If Retro is refering to Asia as Japan then Super Mario 2 is what we call "Lost Levels". Neo Samus 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Update
editprotected

This page needs to be updated. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, Milon's Secret Castle, ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron and Dead Moon were all added to the VC last Monday. Volker89 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, half of those are given the right date in the Future Releases section. Savvier readers can go there to ascertain that Zelda II and Dead Moon were released yesterday.  Dunno about the other two... --Brandon Dilbeck 21:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made this request yesterday but it was denied (scroll up a couple of sections.) However, if another admin wishes to reconsider, again I've already got the update ready to go in my sandbox. -Arcanelore 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the protection. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reducing the protection. Neo Samus 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the protection has been removed entirely. This probably will not end well. -Arcanelore 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way where we can ask for semi-protection again? Neo Samus 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_page_protection -Arcanelore 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected

In the paragraph following the Future releases heading, it is noted that new games are released every Monday at 12PM EST/9AM PST. I would like to have this changed to "every Monday at 12PM ET/9AM PT" to reflect that it is Standard Time during the winters; during the summer, it's Daylight Time, so the appropriate abbreviations would currently be EDT/PDT, but it's probably best to avoid this altogether (we wouldn't want to have to change it every time we switch our clocks) and just leave it at ET and PT for "Eastern Time" and "Pacific Time", respectively. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad suggestion, but it can wait, given what the admin had stated previously; just make the change then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs)
 * I've reduced the protection. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Dual Page
In regards to the single or multiple tables debate. Is there a way to have one table with the titles, sorted by release dates or whatever, with link at the bottom to change the format to the multiple tables divided by the original consoles? You would be getting the same information but be able to choose which format to view it in. That way we all get (closer to) what we want. BornOnDate:TheGreatQuake 09:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Brilliant. Make it happen. That is if people are willing, or if it can be changed yet. Also this is only if people are still having problems with the way it is now. BornOnDate:TheGreatQuake 09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if we make the section headers part of the "big table", we can have a big table that initially looks like four smaller tables, but is sortable as a whole.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at this version. I've only done one header, but you can extrapolate from there. Would this work for people? I'm sure we can tweak the layout a bit.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a somewhat novel idea, but I'm not too terribly fond of it, to be honest with you; maybe with some tweaking it might work, but in its current form, it's too hard to say at this point. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. I think keeping the "organized by games" list as a separate archive version will really fly if we can link it from the main page.  But you'll have to keep the game list updated of course. --Bishop2 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that works, as when you sort alphabetically, unwanted things happen to the header. Next time do testing on a separate page, like your own user page, instead of messing up the article with "tests."Lamename3000 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also can't see that working. If for instance you were to sort everything alphabetically, you wouldn't be able to tell what console each game originally was for.  This is why a merged table would need to have a console column (which I suppose would effectively replace the price column).  Another little irritating thing is that these console names you listed within the table would be sorted like everything else, which really shouldn't be the case.  I'd like to point people's attention back to this version, but ignore the price column; this seems to be a fuctional sort method. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh.. no. Lamename3000 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... yes. (Score!) --Brandon Dilbeck 18:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Though it is functional, it's not visually appealing; on top of that, it requires adding another column to the table, which might not go over well. After all, why add a column of repeating game system information over and over when you can just have a table header with the information listed once? --PeanutCheeseBar 19:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole purpose is to allow all games to be rearranged by the sortable buttons, not just on a per-system basis. As far as I'm aware there's no way to have the headers part of the table without them all being lumped at the top or bottom any time things are sorted, nor is there a way to mark them to hide when sorting. GarrettTalk 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why exactly would another column "might not go over well"? The page isn't that wide as it stands.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For two of the same reasons that some people didn't like the Wii points column (namely, that it DOES make the page wider, and that it's repeated, redundant information). --PeanutCheeseBar 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would have been useful to me today if the list were merged into one: I had to scroll through all five tables today to see what games were new.  It would have been better if I had to sort and look at only one table.  Adding another column to this page won't make it anywhere near being uncomfortably wide.  If you want to see a wide table, see the list of Pokémon.  And the Wii Points column was unencyclopedic because it was basically a price guide.  A console column wouldn't at all be unencyclopedic.  --Brandon Dilbeck 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the debate on Wii points is not over yet, we're not just dealing with one extra column, we're dealing with TWO, hence the concern for extra columns; that aside, as Garrett already stated (as far as he knows), there hasn't really been an effective way to include the headers as part of the table and have them sort properly, so that's out too. It takes minimal effort to look at the bottom of each table and see whether or not something new has come out, especially considering it sorts by date by default. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If all you're concerned about is accessing the list for a given system, then perhaps a more viable alternative would be to include anchored links in the TOC. Clean and simple. --Cheesemeister3k 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe a compromise can be established. We could have a small table near the top of the page with this weeks new releases. Would that make everyone happy? Is that a decent compromise? As that's the only real benefit for having one list. If you want to take it a step further, than go ahead and add another table that has it all together, like the XBLA has it. While that is an extreme last-option thing, it may help give Brandon what he wants, and then he can stop whining. Sorry for my attitude right now, but this is ridiculous. I think I gave enough suggestions right now, to where this whining and debating can STOP now. What do you think?Lamename3000 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'm tired of arguing with whiny video game geeks." Wow, that's sorta being a hypocrite, eh Brandon? You've done nothing but complain about everything. Sorry that nothing is good enough for you. As I said, it's not perfect, but it can be fixed with time and patience and LESS COMPLAINING. Lamename3000 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As Radiant had so ironically suggested earlier, a consensus does not necessarily mean that every user's desires will be fulfilled; that said, we don't need to engineer a solution just to make Brandon happy, especially after the "I want to point out that your suggestion is not at all what I want for this article." comment (because it's not really about what one user wants). Short of resolving the Wii points issue, I believe there is nothing wrong with the article; there's no need to have tables for each game system, and then one table with ALL games.  If Brandon does not want to participate or play nicely, don't antagonize him; he'll just be one less person who is unhappy with the way things are now because he's choosing not to participate.  All that aside, new releases towards the top of the article almost sounds like a good idea, but it smacks a bit of advertising too...--PeanutCheeseBar 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "New Releases" near the top is the only addition that I really like to my sandbox page. I'm actually hoping that we can add that. It'd be a nice addition. But then again, people will complain, as it does seem a bit advertising-ish... But if you can get past that, it'll really help solve a problem that I've heard a few people complain about, and I like it a bit, too, if someone is able to tweak it and word it properly. As for the table structure, I really like the split format, and really only think a solid table would be useful if it was in-addition to the split, not in place of. Regardless, the XBLA page needs serious help. Lamename3000 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Compromise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lamename3000/Virtual_Console_North_America

So, what does everyone think? I know it's not perfect, but it at least gives a decent attempt at a compromise. Lamename3000 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I commend your efforts to reach an agreement, I personally don't like it. Firstly it's confusing that the newest games are at the top, while the "soon-to-be newest" games are at the bottom with the "old" games between them. It's also potentially confusing that these new games, while available, are missing from the "available" table. Basically, I disagree with pandering to those wanting to use this page to find the newest releases; the sortable buttons make that information just a click away and has the added bonus of not impacting the page layout seen by those who don't care about dates. We're not a news site--we cover content irrespective of its age (having a separate table for unreleased games is another matter, as they are clearly differentiated from unreleased games). I also disagree that adding a new column will greatly affect the table width--your mockup retains the Wii Points column; if that were to be swapped with console abbreviations (GEN, TG16, etc.) it would actually take up slightly less space (since "console" is shorter than "Wii Points", and thus stretches that column, and in turn the whole table, far less). It looks great at 1024x768, fine at 800x600, and only starts becoming awkward at 640x480 (which the Wii Points column was causing before this whole matter arose). Anyway sorry for the very long reply, but that's my take on the situation: by swapping the Wii Points for the platform there can be one unified table--this means that anyone unhappy with its layout would simply hit the appropriate sortable button instead of arguing about what is merely the default. GarrettTalk 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with what Garrett said. I don't really see how printing the information twice is going to improve the page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't meant as a definite solution, just something to give ideas, to get people thinking. To get the people who are complaining something that might satisfy them. I do not know what Garrett is talking about. All games are accounted for. There are no missing games. I'm sorry that my mock has the Wii Points listed. Deal with it. It's a mock-up, not a final production. Lamename3000 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I agree that the single-table here should be removed. At least we can agree on that. Lamename3000 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The games in the new section aren't in the available section (even though they ARE available) which is what I meant by saying they are "missing". Putting the "new games" table above the available table makes it more likely that people see they have been set aside, but I'm not totally convinced this is the best course of action for an encyclopedia. As for Wii Points I was only referring to them to point out that, for the same space they currently take up, the system names could be included. Surely if everything were in one big mega table with sortable applied everybody could get what they want out of this page (and those still unhappy could just stop complaining about the compromise not swinging in their favour). GarrettTalk 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wii points issue still seems to be up in the air for all the VC lists (since it doesn't appear that a clear compromise has been reached), so we still need to plan around that issue if we want to add another column (since we're now dealing with two, instead of just the one). That said, I'm more in favor of adding a TOC to the page than I am to merging all tables into one; one click takes you to the section you want to see, without having to sort and sort again to see what titles came out when, and where in the table they're located. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see why it needs to be split up by console. You'de be able to sort by any criteria you want if it's in one big table. If it's split up than you'll have to look in each table, unless you happen to known what the console the game you're looking for came out on.DurinsBane87 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to make this into another debate about single table versus split table. A single table brings more harm than good. So for the time being, stop flooding the discussion with it.
 * Also, Garrett, I reiterate, the games listed in my new table are listed in the available tables in their right place. I do not have any clue what you are talking about.Lamename3000 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How does a single table "bring harm" the only real argument against it I can recall reading was that "it doesn't look good" and you'd have to add a system column. lets not be overdramatc. DurinsBane87 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see I was mistaken. Perhaps I was looking at the main article rather than your version. It wouldn't be the first time. :P GarrettTalk 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a single table would be best. It would let people search through ALL games (not just one systems games). A single table does not hurt the article at all (and can not understand why Lamename thinks there is any harm), the only argument against a single table is that it doesn't look good. I suppose you could color code the systems (so that all NES games are red, SNES games purple, N64 games green, etc.). Lrrr IV 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A color-coding scheme was suggested a little while ago, but fell on deaf ears; that aside, I'd still favor a table of contents towards the top of the article, for the above stated reasons. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that with either table set we have, there will still be the same amount of positive/negatives. Your only argument is that "it'll make sorting easier." I don't see that being blanketly 100% true, as a split column can be of more use sometimes. And your only reaction to the critics of the single-column is that everyone else only says, "It just doesn't look good." It really is a stalemate. Either way, it will be very hard to justify a switch to a single-column format at this time. The only thing I think of that will satisfy most of the concerns of the split table format (and of the people against the single-table) is to add a "Latest Additions" sub-table. Lamename3000 23:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Another try
Ok, here's an update to reflect a possible update to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lamename3000/NA_Virtual_Console

Here, we can clearly see the latest additions, that way people who'd prefer not to look at each system on it's own, can look at one place, near the top, to show the latest additions. This pretty much solves any realistic issues people would have with a split table. The only issue I can see is that there will be some people who complain about the Wii Points, but I think that isn't a big deal at the time, and there was never any real decision on the matter. Until then, I think that we should be able to let this take the place of the article, and then we can start focusing out energy on other things. Or am I still overlooking something? Lamename3000 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have two problems with that version. First, adding the Wii Points will likely bring back revert wars and endless discussion. The current version (without the points) seems relatively stable so I'm very hesitant to add this column. The second problem I have with that version is that having a separate "latest additions" section makes the article seem less encyclopedic. The games are already sorted by their release date, so I don't see a compelling reason to have a separate "what's new" section. For now, I'd prefer to stay with the current version. ChazBeckett 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the current version is fine. A "latest additions" section isn't very encyclopedic in my opinion. Sure, it's useful to some people wanting to find out the newest Virtual Console games: but overall it's not very suitable for the article. Also: trying to put the points back into the article (with no agreement to do so), certainly isn't acceptable. RobJ1981 00:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The points were originally removed with no agreement to do so (and causing the article to be locked). I do agree about not having a seperate "new releases" section though, since that does seem like advertising. Lrrr IV 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was NOT trying to "sneak" the points back in. I based everything directly from the main article, with minor tweaks here or there. The Wii Points was listed in previous versions before the "edit war," and so, I tried to have it reflect the original as best as possible. So, you guys won't be satisfied at all unless it is changed EXACTLY how you want it? And I did make a version of the page without the Wii Points, but forgot to post the link (I new you would flip out over them)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lamename3000/NA_Virtual_Console/No_Wii_Points

Lamename3000 04:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As Lrrr stated: it seems like advertising (in reference to a latest addition/new release section). I agree with that. Wikipedia articles shouldn't have sections like that, just to promote the newest things. An encyclopedia shouldn't be used for that purpose, period. It's like putting "look at what's new at Target for this week" on the Target article (that's the only example I could think of right now, so feel free to post a different one that fits this better). I didn't flip out, I just stated my opinion on them. So don't make accusations of people flipping out. Stating my opinion and flipping out is two completely different things. RobJ1981 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody should be complaining about the Wii points being in the article right now, since they were there before the edit warring had begun (which shouldn't have happened in the first place, given there was a discussion about the presence of the points), and Lamename3000 is correct in that no consensus was reached about a possible compromise. The "stability" of the article will only be in jeopardy if immaturity seizes some of the editors and they opt to edit the points back out independent of the discussion at hand; also keep in mind that when the article was locked, it was noted that locking was NOT an endorsement of the current version of the article.  This shouldn't be news to anybody.


 * I'm not particularly fond of having a "new releases" table; we shouldn't have one table that has Wii point values while the others don't (though given that some prices are different than others, I can see where it could be useful to list them). Listing the same data in two places is a bit redundant, and seems a little bit like advertising. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article's stability seems to indicate that there's some degree of consensus on the current version. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees that a particular version is ideal, only that enough editors consider it acceptable. After seemingly endless discussion the vast majority of editors agreed the current version was good enough. The content of the article at some earlier point in time is pretty much irrelevant. ChazBeckett 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was agreed that we'd leave it this way to avoid the edit warring while the discussion on whether or not to include the points continued; as stated before, leaving it this way was not an endorsement of this version, no "mass majority" of editors has agreed on anything and I certainly didn't see you continuing to participate in the above sections and saying "Do you find this version to be acceptable?" (conversely, I don't see anyone else coming out and saying "Yeah, I'm okay with the results." or "Let's go with this.") No consensus has been reached; you simply didn't keep debating the point because you became complacent with the fact that it was generally agreed upon to leave the article as-is until a consensus was reached, and as such, you've chosen to interpret the "leave it as-is for now" as "this is the final version".  That's not how it works, and given WP:CCC, we know that Wikipedia does not ignore precedent, which makes the "The content of the article at some earlier point in time is pretty much irrelevant." argument null and void; in addition, that also doesn't give you the right to jump on Lamename3000 like you did because he re-added the points in a sandbox version, considering they should have remained in the article while the discussion continued. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, the whole endorsement note is for the page being protected only. The current unprotected version was agreed on (as people didn't have a problem with it, which was listed in the section called: Current version - let's discuss). Why are you ignoring that section? If I remember right, only 1 person disagreed. That's an agreement and/or consensus (as consensus doesn't have to be everyone, just the majority). Ignoring a recent discussion isn't the way to go here. It's not set in stone, the current version will stay..I admit that. But the points shouldn't be just thrown into a compromise version: as the points haven't been settled yet. RobJ1981 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, please calm down, you seem to be taking this far too seriously. I didn't "jump on Lamename3000", I stated reasons why I didn't like his version of the article. That's what a talk page is for, discussing the article's strengths and weaknesses.
 * I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believe this is a final version, but this is a wiki, there isn't a final version of any article. However, there are versions that remain stable because of general agreement that it's acceptable. You seem to be hung up on the fact that some specific process wasn't used to reach the current version. Sometimes consensus is indicated by editors agreeing through a discussion that a certain version is the best. In other situations, consensus is shown by the lack of any strong opposition to a version. Numerous editors did agree in above sections that this version was "fine" or "acceptable". That doesn't mean the article's perfect or final or that further discussion can't occur.
 * What isn't especially helpful is to keep insisting that some process wasn't followed in the past, therefore the "consensus" is that points should be included. Wikipedia isn't about process, it's about product. If you truly believe that the inclusion of points would improve the product, your best option is to make a good case. ChazBeckett 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're taking my words too literally; it's quite obvious that there is nothing "final" about Wikipedia, though you seem to accept the removal of the points as the "outcome" because you've become complacent, and gone so far as to discourage further discussion: "I have two problems with that version. First, adding the Wii Points will likely bring back revert wars and endless discussion." Long discussions are inevitable on Wikipedia, especially considering the diverse beliefs of the different editors, and statements like the above only serve to discourage others.  You've chosen to believe that the discussion was over, yet beyond the unprotection of the article, you've stopped discussing it because you got the outcome that YOU wanted (something an editor on your side of the debate had accused someone on the other side of).  The process exists for a reason, and is just as important as the "product"; one user who elected NOT to follow the process is part of the reason why the debate was re-opened and why some people participated in the edit warring.  I'm not saying that nothing positive can be accomplished if the process is not followed, but it seems to be a general policy you're endorsing (and a bad one at that).  Only one or two users stated that they accepted something as consensus, but where did the other users agree with them?  You seemed quick to dismiss it and write off those few as a "majority".  That's quite condescending and rude. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm going to ask you to please tone it down it a bit. This is a discussion about an article and making it personal certainly won't help in any way. I see plenty of value in discussion of content, but not of processes that may or may not have been used in the past.
 * Product always trumps process, that's at the core of what Wikipedia is. If you're concerned about the product (i.e. the content of the article), by all means continue discussing. However, if you're looking to debate whether a process was followed correctly, I see little benefit to that. I'm asking you to please return to discussing content instead of other users or processes. You're of course free to ignore this request, but be aware that I won't participate in further non-content related discussions with you. Thanks, ChazBeckett 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my belief that process is as important as product, for the fact that Wikipedia has policies on how to follow a process to obtain the product, and if some editors see another get away with ignoring process and achieving their results, it sets a bad example and encourages others to do the same (see WP:BEANS). You've asked me to "tone it down" twice, despite the fact that you've taken up a condescending attitude towards me with your past few statements, and I simply believe that you do not want to discuss the Wii points issue further because you (currently) have the desired result (as per Radiant's previous comment: ""there is insufficient consensus to change away from the version I voted for").  So, for what it's worth, you're effectively stating that you will ignore communication with me if it's not exclusively about what you want to talk about, and if that's the stance you're going to take, you're only going to encourage more fighting.  In the meantime, I'd ask that you please step down from your pedestal; just because you don't want to talk about something doesn't mean it's off the table.. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think those who did agree in the discussion above just wanted the fighting to stop and gave in. THey never actually agree on the current page. IF this version is so "acceptable" why hasn't it benn forced on to other pages, like EU, AUS, JP, and the XBLA article? Those pages haven't been touched (except for minor edits) but you guys watch this page like a hawk. What makes this article so much different form the others? Neo Samus 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The main difference seems to be that this page has very few variations in point values, whereas the other pages have a wider variety. -- MisterHand 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But remember points are not "encylpedic". They are "trvial".  So would it matter if there was a difference in point values in their eyes?  ;)  Also, EU and AUS have no differences in point values.  Neo Samus 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neo Samus has a point about all-around enforcement; that aside, I'm not seeing much more support for removing the points. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And on the flip side I could say "I'm not seeing more support for keeping the points in". That's certainly not a reason to add the points back in. No real consensus has been made. Also it should be noted: all similar lists pages don't have to be the same. Look at console lists: they differ in ways, and no one is throwing a big stink that they must all be setup the same way. So in my opinion, I think the whole "all should be the same" is an excuse and just an attempt at forcing the points back into this article. RobJ1981 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The points should have stayed in the article the whole time, and given the oft-repeated (and yet continually ignored) rule that the protected version was not an endorsement, that's what we're still debating; in case you've forgotten, when the debate began, it was whether or not to remove the points, not whether or not to put them back in. That aside, I'm seeing more activity from those in favor of keeping the points than I am from those in favor of removing them, and consistency across an encyclopedia isn't an excuse, it's necessary to maintain integrity, especially since I'm fairly certain that this is not the first article where people have argued about consistency and standards. PeanutCheeseBar 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that some will be content that the points are gone and have moved on, while others will have simply become tired of the whole issue. Their absence, therefore, does not mean that their stance, as presented during the lock, has to be restated to remain valid. GarrettTalk 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the users in support of removing the points used less than honorable or civil tactics (as noted several times earlier in the discussion) by which to get them removed, and their complacency with the fact that they didn't feel the need the keep "pressing their case" once the article was unlocked (and yet the discussion was still in progress) shows that they really do not care; the ends certainly aren't justified by the means. Furthermore, the promise by a few individuals in favor of keeping the points to not revert the article back while the discussion was still going was interpreted by those in favor of dropping them as an endorsement, which a few users have stated was NOT the case; this type of behavior should not be rewarded, especially given that they are willfully choosing to not see this through to the end.  A few users in favor of dropping the points have already acknowledged above that they're not going to keep participating, which shows me that they really don't care. PeanutCheeseBar 12:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Commodore 64
Epyx announced Commodore 64 will be added to Wii's Virtual Console, the first batch of Commodore 64 titles for Wii will be Impossible Mission 1 & 2, Winter Games, Summer Games 1 & 2, Pitstop and Jumpman Junior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs)
 * This is actually pretty old (last fall). We eventually decided not to include it becauese Magic Box never cites their sources and doesn't provide proof of Epyx doing it, no mentione at all by Nintendo (on any of their websites or magazines or PR releases). I hope it does happen though. TJ Spyke 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see C64 come out soon, because I never owned a Commodore 64. I was too young and into anything Nintendo at the time.  Neo Samus 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stay on topic here, Neo Samus. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article only, not your own personal opinion on the Commodore 64 (or anything else not directly related to the article itself). RobJ1981 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting me Rob. Neo Samus 22:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, these games will not be virtual console games. They will be remakes of the original (not emulations), and available via a different download system. -- MisterHand 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did you hear that, MisterHand? Is it an online source, or print?--PeanutCheeseBar 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really reliable, since it mentions "internet rumours" right in the first paragraph, but here's an article about it: -- MisterHand 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"this is an encyclopedia, not a price guide"
Interesting how this assertion has become a "fact" only due to the propaganda tactic of repetition when it is only an opinion. I have found nowhere justification why the Wii Points were removed from this article, nor an explanation why they remain in the other regions' Virtual Console pages (that used this article's original layout as a template) and the XBLA list (the latter being the 'template' used when creating this article). Interestingly, the latter handled the issue with such ease, shot down the assertion nicely, and further added a nifty graphic since cementing their stay. Could someone please cite why this article is how it is? If any consensus would be reached regarding the assertion in the subject, then I would expect to find it here: What Wikipedia is not I do not, even though it was argued on its talk page and has since been archived: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 10 Even though I disagree with the information's removal and want the Wii Points properly listed in the table, the rules should be consistent across an encyclopedia and, if this is how it has to be, then the issue should be raised with the applicable articles: List of Virtual Console games (Europe) and List of Virtual Console games (Australia) and List of Virtual Console games (Japan) and Xbox Live Arcade Ryuzx 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a lot of opinions have become "fact" or "policy" over the course of this discussion... One user had suggested in the past that the points were not encyclopedic, and wanted them to be removed; a poll was held to see if more people wanted the points to stay (and the reasoning why), and the poll was hugely in favor of keeping the points.  In response, the aforementioned user resorted to forum-shopping (violating WP:CCC in the process) and attempted to change the consensus not long after the original poll was held; the end result was that users in favor of removing the points were doing so while the second discussion was being held, and resulted in an edit war.  Since nobody has edited it back to the way it should be with the points (in order to avoid another edit war, as stated earlier in the discussion), those in favor of removal have said that it must be an endorsement and the current version must be acceptable, since nobody is changing anything back; in reality, a lot of people seemed to forget that when the article was protected earlier, it was NOT an endorsement of the current version.
 * In response to your observation about consistency, the couple of users in favor of removing the points from the article have only voiced concerns about removing them from this article (not others), and have stated repeatedly that "consistency is not an excuse" to keep the points in. However, I've been presenting the point that consistency is an issue all across Wikipedia, and the debates concerning one article should not affect others, since forcing changes on articles that someone has had no prior involvement with will only engender spite and more fighting. PeanutCheeseBar 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. I mentioned about makeing the articles even a couple of discussions above and was told this Also it should be noted: all similar lists pages don't have to be the same. Look at console lists: they differ in ways, and no one is throwing a big stink that they must all be setup the same way. So in my opinion, I think the whole "all should be the same" is an excuse and just an attempt at forcing the points back into this article. RobJ1981 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 
 * So it seems like this comment is a contradiction. Care to elaborate? Neo Samus 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, I have been in favor of keeping the points because it is informative, and that is what Wiki should be about. I think it is petty and simple to argue that the points don't belong...but the world is full of people who disagree just to disagree. I have to say, even though I like the points in the table, I think this is a win/win if it keeps them quiet. We still have the point prices listed above the table with exceptions (TMNT 600 points, ect...) so we get to have the points, without the drama. Mike M 11:58, 18 June 2007 (EST)
 * As much as I would like peace concerning this article, condoning this would just set a bad example, confirm their "facts", and give them carte blanche to do the same to other articles as well. That aside, are you a registered user?  You signed with your name, though the change was made by an anon. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, it would help if you would assume some good WP:FAITH on the people involved here. There was a debate, and a compromise was found. That can't be bad.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the previous statements and catch up, Radiant; no compromise was found, because most people in favor of dropping the points left the discussion after those in favor of keeping the points said they wouldn't re-add the points right away to avoid an edit war (which those in favor of dropping the points are now mistakenly trying to say is a permanent measure), and some of those in favor of keeping the points are still trying work it out with the one person who reignited this debate in the first place. I think good faith went out the window when those in favor of ditching the points kept editing them out during the debate (as well as resorting to other tactics in violation of Wikipedia policies), stayed out when the article was unprotected because they believed the agreement not to immediately re-add the points was an endorsement, and will likely not return until they stop trying to inconsistently impose their ideas on others and maintain a greater level of civility.  I'm not saying that one side is completely blameless, though those in favor of removing the points have certainly been more antagonistic and less conciliatory; if you would have read the discussion that's been going on for the past few weeks, you might see that. PeanutCheeseBar 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that this continues... there was no compromise; there was no explanation or utilization of the rules. I'm guessing no arbitration either. Last I can tell, the burden of proof is on the one that states that the Wii point prices is a price guide AND on if a price guide is not encyclopedic or not. I haven't seen any of this when I scowered over these discussions. One thing is obvious---the consensus shows that 3/4 of the regional VC articles, the XBLA article and many contributors and readers of this article disagree. The argument against this mass consensus that agrees with listing the price is that having the points violates some "I LIKE IT" policy; one I couldn't find searching Wikipedia's Help listings. The reverse is just as true, that "price guide is not encyclopedic" assertion, is no more than opinion and remains so; therefore, that angle is moot and trumped by the larger consensus that disagrees. The other argument, using MSRP, is inapplicable because these prices are not 'suggested'---either you pay that price or you do not get the game, period. These aren't sold at retail, there is no competition to effect price discrepancies, and Nintendo and Microsoft has not once offered any sales or discounts on any of their downloadable games offered. With regards to the latter, that's basically acting on a probability; an encyclopedia's goal is not to predict the future and be concerned with possibilities. If that were the case, I'd load up the "Future releases" with a wishlist. Ryuzx 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has ever proved Wii Points are encyclopedic (except for the fact people want them, and find them useful, which falls under the I like it policy). Why can't people realize, Wikipedia isn't a price guide? This type of content is clearly turning the article into a price guide (even if that wasn't the intention). People shouldn't be using an encyclopedia to find prices. The prices are constant as of now, but who is to say they will change later on? None of the companies have said anything about them remaining the same forever. When the prices change: then what? Then will people finally realize it's a price guide? I doubt it. If anything: when the prices change, people will want to compare the prices or whatever. It will be "this was the original price, now the new price is this". That's certainly another element of a price guide: comparing. Assuming the prices will remain the same, isn't the way to go here. The compromise: the points listed in a small note at the top works just fine for this article. A redundant table section of the same points over and over and over again, isn't helpful. And then there is the whole "one table" comparision excuse people have gave: "if it was one table, it would better show how the games differ in price". That's yet another price guide element. Yes, the games (if you compare by different system they were originally on) differ in price: but look at console games, they differ in price from the start as well. The MSRP is $50, but several places have it for a lower price at the start. That's certainly not notable or encyclopedic as well. Plus every article (for video games, as well as many other things) would have price cruft: people would post prices at their local stores for things, website prices and so on. It would be a huge mess. Perhaps I'm assuming a bit much, but the fact of this matter is: prices aren't encyclopedic. Just because people like them and find them useful, isn't a good enough reason to keep them in. Go to the official source if you want to know the prices so badly, period. RobJ1981 19:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just a side note: WP:ILIKEIT is not a policy, it's part of an essay of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- MisterHand 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Rob, as MisterHand stated above, WP:ILIKEIT is an essay (not a policy), refers to subjective content within an article (not just so much the reasoning behind including it or for the article's existence), and refers to articles up for deletion (which this article this article certainly is not). All that said, you've been consistently arguing that this article became a price guide when someone decided to add prices, and was no longer a price guide when they were removed; the problem with that logic is that it completely ignored the fact that the article provided ESRB information, developer info, release dates, and (at one point) controller compatibility.  If we follow your logic, then this article should be deleted simply because it has prices, which ignores all the other merits of the article (which are linked to, and likely used by the readers as well).  Nobody is attempting to compare prices of a game when it was first released compared to now; the only comparisons are between exceptions in VC games (which we've touched on several times over).  You likely don't see (or shouldn't see) the prices for the games listed within each game's article, as THAT is what the "price guide" statement is meant to discourage. PeanutCheeseBar 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about reading what I posted more closely? I never said people were trying to compare prices: I said the following- When the prices change: then what? Then will people finally realize it's a price guide? I doubt it. If anything: when the prices change, people will want to compare the prices or whatever. It will be "this was the original price, now the new price is this". That's certainly another element of a price guide: comparing. Perhaps I was crystall balling, but whatever. Look at console game lists: the other information is useful and encyclopedic: prices are not (which is why the console lists don't have the prices). A price guide compares and lists prices: which isn't what these articles should ever do. A list (the one currently here, and at other game lists) is just fine. A price guide (and even a buyer's guide) = listing and comparing prices, it's not that hard to understand. This article should be neither. Listing important information like a developer, release date and so on (which is in articles for actual video games), is useful and encyclopedic. Prices here or on the article itself is still the same = price guide garbage not suitable for an encyclopedia, period. And to briefly talk about the exceptions: they are listed just fine in the start of the article. A redundant list isn't needed, just to show that a few games are different in prices. In the future more games may differ in price, but it still should be listed in the list's starting section. If it gets too big: just list it on the game article itself I suppose. Lists don't have to have everything, as articles should be the place to go in more detail. RobJ1981 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, listen folks. The whole meaning of the word compromise is that not everyone will be happy, but they accept it as the best way forward. The current revision has the prices in the article, but keeps them out of the table. We only need to reach consensus on the current revision, not unanimity. Stop going on and on like a stuck record about who said what and how they left after they "won". If you have a better alternative to the current revision, I wholeheartedly encourage you to make it and show us; if you don't, however, the current revision IS the compromise, and you'll just have to put up with it. GarrettTalk 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, I did read what you said before, but I'm not simply being shallow and reading only what you typed above, I'm taking EVERYTHING in this discussion into account; concerns about using this article for price comparisons have come up before, and since the answers aren't apparently to your liking, you're bringing them up AGAIN.
 * Garrett, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you; given that there's a few other people here in favor of keeping the points and only one against, I'd say that keeping the current version in the favor of the one present (and the others who decided to stop discussing it) is not consensus, especially when it has been stated time and again after the article was locked without the point values being included that it was not an endorsement of the current version. Right now, there's only one or two people who were in favor of keeping the points that "accepted" this so-called compromise, if only to stop the edit warring while the discussion went on; I'd hardly call that a "compromise".  That aside, the people in favor of keeping the points are trying to justify to the one person that still did stay in this discussion why the points should stay (which, we really don't need to do at this point, since we shouldn't be considering the needs of the many over the wants of the few).  Only one person has had a consistent problem with the points being in the article, and given the way things have been going, he'll just continue to debate it until he gets the result he wants.  He kept modifying the article and removing the points despite the discussion at hand, which inherently encouraged others to do so, and kept doing it before because he thought he had the blessing of an admin to do so (until that admin told him it wasn't okay); a few users tried to point out that he was violating Wikipedia policies in the process, and yet he still continues to do so elsewhere.  --PeanutCheeseBar 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I encouraged others by my actions? I don't think so, so stop assuming and acting that way already. Others shared my opinion: so they removed the points. That's not encouraging: that's them agreeing with my opinion. Also, just because I'm the only one actively posting against the points, doesn't me I'm the only one left that doesn't want them in the article (so get your facts straight!). Next time, actually have the facts straight before you post. As for the admin comment: I never ONCE used that as an excuse to remove the points. I mentioned the admin's comment before (in a few comments I posted) and that's all (I dont recall the exact discussion on this talk page), but I then dropped it. But you can't drop anything, can you? You just drag anything you can into this, even if it's not even completely true. Bringing my other dispute up in this: not needed, and very bad faith. If you were in other disputes: I wouldn't bring this into this and say "look he has other disputes as well".  You need to learn to be civil and assume good faith alot more. RobJ1981 23:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it "bad faith" on my part if you've violated policies in the past, showed no atonement or remorse, and continue to do so even now? Granted, nobody likes being caught when they're doing something they're not supposed to be, but after what happened earlier in this talk page, I thought you would have learned your lesson; you shouldn't be angry with me simply because I demonstrated that you continue to make changes to an article that others are discussing and debating about making said changes.  If you want me to have "good faith" towards you, you need to acknowledge when you make mistakes, and correct them accordingly instead of maintaining an attitude that you've done nothing wrong, telling others to "get their facts straight", and to "be civil", especially when there's other people besides myself that have drawn attention to what you've been doing.  That aside, I find it funny when you say that some of these things are "not even completely true", because that inherently implies that there is some truth to them; I don't need to go very far out of my way to show where you've violated policies, considering you're still doing it even now, and it doesn't make me a bad or uncivil person to point out that you're doing something you're really not supposed to be.  I originally went on your talk page to attempt to work through these issues with you and commend you for making some attempt to improve, but apparently that was a mistaken notion.  I don't need to keep reposting and repeating what you've done wrong, because it's all in the history of this talk page; anybody can read the above sections to see what you've been doing that you shouldn't have.  It's reasons like this that I don't condone (or "forgive and forget") what you've done to this article, considering you keep doing them, and it's the reason why I keep trying to demonstrate to Garrett and others that you feel no remorse for what you did, and will continue to do it.  In addition, I will not have you continually blackmail me with the threat of "admin action" in an attempt to silence me because I show where you blatantly and continually violate policies.  PeanutCheeseBar 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What policies have I broken in my latest posts? I stated my opinion on things, that's not a policy violation. Read up on policies a little more, instead of assuming ones exist that refuse to let me have an opinion that differs from you. You have absolutely no right to accuse me of violating policies "continually" when I havent. Forcing me to agree with you, seems to be the only way out of this. I refuse to agree with your opinion, you need to realize that. RobJ1981 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of acting all indignant at my so-called "baseless accusations", why not read the previous statements that I've typed into this talk page; I've linked to them before each time you have requested me to, over and over, and I'm not going to keep doing it only so you can continue to threaten me because I did what you asked and it demonstrates you've been doing things you shouldn't have. I have no intent or desire to "force you to agree" with me, and I know it would be fruitless to attempt to do so, considering that you will not acknowledge that you've made mistakes, even when other people in this discussion have agreed with me.  Even if other people agree that the points should be kept and the outcome reflects that, you'll likely just contest the results again like you have before, and continue to make changes to the article contrary to that outcome.  In the meantime, if the discussion is making you this upset, perhaps you need to withdraw and take a Wikibreak.  I completely respect your right to disagree, though I don't respect the "holier than thou" attitude you've radiated this whole time, nor do I respect when you make changes that are already in discussion, as you've done with this article, and as DarrenHusted has pointed out on your talk page in pertinence to a separate article.  PeanutCheeseBar 00:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I would like to comment on the fact even though I have not said much in any of the discussions, it's not because I don't want to. PCB (I hope you don't mind that I abbv. your name) has basically said almost everything I feel about the situation.  If I were to say something, it would be like repeating the same comments over and over again.  Neo Samus 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, harassing me like this isn't needed. Holier than thou? Give it a rest, I don't think that at all, so don't assume things in an attempt to either get me in trouble or just make me more angry with this situation. To comment on this: Even if other people agree that the points should be kept and the outcome reflects that, you'll likely just contest the results again like you have before, and continue to make changes to the article contrary to that outcome. I believe you brought up a similar point before (or someone else did): and I will respond the same way I did before. I didn't feel a small poll on this talk page was much of a consensus: so I went elsewhere for opinions on the matter (which I had every right to do, even if you hate that fact and disagree with my actions). One poll on a talk page doesn't forever control the article (as I stated before). Consensus can (and does) change, but you dont want to agree with that either. The article isn't how you like: so you harass me and refuse to have good faith, and refuse to be civil in discussing a compromise or anything at all actually related to the article. (I'm not discussing the article either, so we are even on that one. But I'm just trying to defend myself, as this kind of treatment isn't needed at all). If I were to take a break (which I'm not): I can imagine you claiming my opinion on the points doesn't count anymore. And lastly: you bring in another dispute I currently have, so I'm going to mention this- User_talk:PeanutCheeseBar. It was months ago: but that's besides the point, several editors didn't think you were being civil (no surprise there). But anyway, you need to read Wikipedia policies on good faith more, then perhaps you wouldn't harass someone that doesn't agree with you. RobJ1981 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am trying to stay out, but Rob. After the poll here, you took it to WP:VG where there was no consensus but you brought the issue uo again the next week. Lrrr IV 05:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I addressed that issue already. But (in case I havent): I admit I should've waited longer to bring the issue up again. However: that doesn't give PeanutCheeseBar the right to be rude like he has. RobJ1981 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I addressed everyone of your complaints before you reiterated them, and I find you have yet to provide adequate reasoning. I disagree with you shifting the burden of proof on those that want the points listed, and I agree with the others that the I LIKE IT essay is not enough mainly because it cuts against your assertion just the same. Further, your entire argument rests on parallels that do not work (as previously explained) AND on assumptions of probabilities, which is original research based on crystal ball reasoning. When the time comes, you can say "I told you so"... until then, the wide consensus is that the prices should be in the article. I remain unconvinced and apparently so do many others---the compromise is unnecessary because Wikipedia isn't here to please you. This article should join its template article (XBLA) and its sister articles and return the Wii points to the table because you've brought nothing to this entire fiasco that can be duplicated to the rest of the applicable pages. This IS NOT MSRP; this is the ACTUAL PRICE. There is no suggestion; it is solid and so far unwavering. Ryuzx 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to bring it up Rob, but it doesn't have a lot of relevant meaning or bearing on this discussion, given that this article is not up for deletion, trying to point out one of my past, unrelated conflicts in what may be an attempt to demonize me will contribute nothing constructive to this discussion, and the difference between you and that other user is that he had both reasonable logic and the courtesy to come out and admit that he sometimes gets a little too far into the debates (he even went so far as to apologize!). My issue with him was his civility, not his reasoning; with you, we're having problems with both, especially since some users are still looking for justification from you on why we need your permission to change the article and include the points.
 * Ryuzx, is Rob arguing that parallels don't work? I'm asking because he had asked an admin to make changes to the other VC lists so that they look just like this one.  He says he hasn't had the time, but it's been a few weeks since he made the request, so perhaps he has changed his view since then, or maybe is opting not to use the "parallels" argument anymore.  That aside, I do think that he is speculating to some degree, given the assumptions of probabilities. PeanutCheeseBar 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By parallels, I mean trying to argue against the points being listed because of retail games' MSRP and capitalist price competition, neither of which are relevant to these online download services, so I said the 'parallels' don't work. Other than taking advantage of a propaganda tactic, which can easily be cited, I have not accused him of anything (such as the shopping and all that); I'm focused just on the validity of his argument for consistency's sake. Ryuzx 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake; by parallels, I was referring to his statement before that consistency was not an excuse to keep the points, followed by the link to the request where he asked for all articles to be made the same. However, in your case, you are correct in that the online prices are irrelevant to what traditional brick-and-mortar stores have.  PeanutCheeseBar 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before: constant price or not (MSRP or otherwise), it's still a price. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide either way. The note at the top is perfectly fine, period. But of course you can't except a compromise, because you have to get your own way. Since you aren't getting your way: you harass me and make all kinds of accustations. You claim I violate policies alot: but you haven't even mentioned WHAT policies they are (except for bad faith I believe). I'm not asking you to list where I violated, I want to know the policies you "claim" I violated continually (and apparently in just about every post here from the sounds of your post). RobJ1981 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and as I stated before, I said that it wouldn't kill me if the points were gone, and that they could be useful when it came to sorting. The problem is that you don't read everything I type, or rather you pick and choose what you want to read and address; when you do that, people have to repeat what they've said before, or otherwise a third party that joins the discussion will look at what you  say and think that it's one-sided, when in reality you chose to ignore arguments previously stated in the article.  Other users don't accept your argument that the points are not encyclopedic, and as such, they don't have to keep the article this way just to make you happy, its your word against theirs; they're free and able to change the article as they wish, with the only thing stopping them being the promise they wouldn't get into another edit war.  As for the rest, it is your choice if you want to keep attacking me here and on the admin's talk page, but it makes you look like a hypocrite when you continue to do so and then lambaste me on "good faith".  Time and again you've threatened me after I answer your requests to present proof of your violations, and I'm not going to do it anymore; I'm not your dog, and I'm not going to do everything you command. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud. I came looking for this monday's releases and what do I see? A bloody revert war. Over prices. Anyone who took the time to look would notice that indeed wikipedia is a both an encyclopedia and a "price guide". Simply look at these consoles to see that they all keep track of the pricing history of the consoles: PlayStation_Portable, PlayStation_2, PlayStation_3_launch, Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube. What doesn't keep track of prices? The Wii and the Virtual Console. Clearly both the Wii page and this page are not following the Norm. Grow a consensus guys please. Prices in the same table as the games list or in a separate "history" box I don't care, but indeed wikipedia does keep track of prices. --Dharh 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken Record
Listen folks, I don't think listing the Wii points is a bad thing. First, there is nothing wrong with listing the Wii Points since they are sorta tied in, related to the subject of the whole article. By nature, Virtual Console is about buying games, and listing the Wii Points is very helpful. Also, price guides tend to compare the price of something at different stores. That's not an issue here. Wii Points do not change. And you can't say, "well, what IF they change?", because that's crystal balling, which Wikipedia is not. If for some reason individual games change their Wii Pointage, then I'd vote to remove the Wii Points to prevent problems, but that's not the case here. It is really hard to say that the article is not a good encyclopedia article with a small column with the Wii Points in it, but it's magically all better without it. Really, this needs to end, as it's going in circles. Stop with such extreme fingerpointing of each other, and let's put back the points. Consistency is another reason why we should bring back the points. Consistency DOES help makes a good encyclopedia.Lamename3000 06:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree completely. So does this mean that the Wii Points column is the only thing left here? Or are we still debating the one huge list thing too? BornOnDate:TheGreatQuake 06:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It flips back and forth, depending on what is being attacked or whatnot. But yeah, there's still debates on both topics, and this is past ridiculous, so I'm doing what I can to get this resolved. Lamename3000 07:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll go on record now for saying that I think the Wii Points should be included, and that there should be one table. I won't bother stating why, my reasoning has been stated far too many times in other peoples posts. DurinsBane87 07:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone here already knows where I stand on this issue and why, but I think the Wii Points should be included. As for the tables, I think multiple tables looks nicer but I do like being able to sort through all the games at once (especially when wanting to see all games that came out on a specific date without having to check multiple tables). TJ Spyke 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think multiple tables are consistent with the XBLA article (the template article), considering how they break up their page by category. Regarding usability, I really think it is best to have them separated, just as Nintendo has them listed on their site (excluding the VC's "New Releases", which isn't the de facto listing). Ryuzx 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping the tables separate, and exceptions from the base point values aside, the only reason I can think of to keep the points is if we had a single table. The information is a bit redundant, but if push came to shove and we had to have everything in one table, the points would be another category by which we could sort the list.  All that aside, I'd favor keeping the points just to remain consistent with the other VC articles and the XBLA article. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Wii points is not trivial.  It's infromation, how can that be trivial?  I like the multiple tables but if someone can come up with a clean, eary to use single table I will consider going for it.  But right now the current tables are fine, they just need the Wii points added back in the table asap.  :)  Neo Samus 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before: prices aren't encyclopedic. Constant prices that don't change: still not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, don't forget that. We can't just throw in any information just because we like it or find it "useful". The compromise of the note at top (even if people don't want to admit that's a compromise) is perfectly fine for this list page. Similar list pages don't have to consistent. Look at console game lists: they are similar to a point, but they differ in ways as well. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says "all lists of the same content must be the same". But for whatever reason, people think there is. The excuse of "these tables have points still, so this one should have them again" doesn't work very much as an actually reason to re-add them. RobJ1981 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Rob, quite a few people are disagreeing with you on the issue of this "compromise" being acceptable, because there's plenty of people on one side of the debate that want to keep them, and a few really vocal ones that want them gone. That aside, if all pages don't have to be the same, then why were you asking an admin to format all the VC lists to be the same, especially when we were in the middle of a big discussion (that turned edit war).  The changes sparked some controversy on one page, so why drag it out to two or three more? --PeanutCheeseBar 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And as you can see by the date of when I asked to format the pages: it was a bit ago, I posted one message then I dropped it when I got no reply. Yes I realize people disagree with me, what's your point? I didn't say everyone has to agree with me or should be forced to agree: so stop assuming already. I'm not stupid, I understand what is going on here, you don't need to point out the obvious that's right in front of my face. I don't post and say "Well PeanutCheeseBar, not everyone agrees with you, people don't want the points back". Your attitude in that post was very disrespectful. RobJ1981 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rob, don't comment on other people's attitude until you work on your own. Lamename3000 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The status of other pages is indicative of a more general consensus that disagrees with you; the points are relevant and should never have been removed. Considering that to obtain the '1st party' source requires signing onto the Virtual Console to learn of the various prices, it makes having Wikipedia as a resource useful.  Also, just because you keep repeating "price guides aren't encyclopedic" doesn't make it true---as cited in the other section, the "Wikipedia is not" page does not reflect your opinion. Ryuzx 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I see no reason why the points should not be reinstated. Anyone have a copy of the article with the points back in the table...I'm not...well you already know. ;)  Neo Samus 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing the same price over and over again: very repetitive and redundant (as I've stated in the past). People can learn about prices in the appropriate places: the official source, and a numerous game sites which specialize in this. An encyclopedia shouldn't be abused, due to this. Several people saying the points are useful (relevant, helpful, etc) doesn't make it encyclopedic or true either. The points are relevant to people that refuse to look elsewhere, in my opinion. It seems like people think "I must go to Wikipedia to find out prices", when they can easily find it elsewhere. Information can be listed on multiple sites, however when it comes to prices: they should be left off this encyclopedia. The fact I agreed to the compromise, and others seemingly refuse to compromise, isn't helping this issue. As stated by others in the past: this shouldn't be an "all or nothing" situation. A compromise doesn't always mean everyone gets their way. But certainly going a certain set way (and not budging) is no way of compromising. This goes back to the note at the top, which everyone can clearly see when they first go to the article. Having the note and the redundant points listed over and over = more redundant information. To respond to NeoSamus: the discussion about points isn't over, don't try to encourage people to put them back in the article at this point in time. RobJ1981 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a resource; there is no reason why it cannot attempt to fulfill that role. The consensus across the relevant Wiki articles are against you.  The note should be deleted and the prices reinstated.  It isn't our fault Nintendo is redundant regarding these prices, but it is a small column and isn't the focus of the article and is not distracting or consuming the article.  There really is no reason to compromise regarding this issue honestly, since it was always a moot argument regarding what a minority against the consensus does not like to see. However, if you can get the other pages to agree with you, then I will gladly join your crusade for the sake of consistency.  Ryuzx 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about this page's points and that's it. This was clearly noted in the past, and it still holds up. RobJ1981 21:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice to know, but it doesn't change the fact that this article is a part of a larger project and that Wikipedia has other articles that help reflect the general consensus, and that overall consensus disagrees with your opinion. As it looks, the points shall be readded.  You don't own this article and your arguments, though repetitious, have yet to be overly convincing.  I only urged you to share your arguments with the other pages so that we can better understand the true nature of the general consensus---if what you allege (repeatedly...) is true, then it should be true across similar articles and you should have your way.  I'll agree to the overall consensus, even if it agrees with you, but right now I don't see why you are getting your way.  Ryuzx 22:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Listing Wii points for individual games is trivial information at best. There's no real value in listing them here, and it does make the article seem more like a price/game guide than an encyclopedic list. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like nothing more than opinion, continuing the repetition thing, with a cite that lacks any obvious reason for being cited. Could you be more specific on *how* your opinion can better sway the general consensus that listing the Wii/Microsoft points in article lists as being trivial and the alleged harm of the so-called "price guide" that is so often claimed to be un-encyclopedic? Ryuzx
 * I'm sorry, but general consensus is not on your side. My "cite" was pointing to the three main reasons we have lists, to give a general idea of how they should be used. We've been over this already, but if you really want I'll take the time to dig up links to past discussions, summarize major points made, etc, but if it didn't sway you the last time then I don't see how it would sway you now. -- Ned Scott 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I sat out the earlier discussions, and I've seen how things have developed. So, by all means, I'd like it for someone to make a worthwhile case.  Otherwise, consensus is on the side of leaving the Wii points included, so I have no any idea why you don't think so. Ryuzx 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that Wii Points don't have consensus. Most of the editors want them, 2 don't. Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. DurinsBane87 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it seems pretty obvious that the consensus is that Wii Points should be inlcuded. TJ Spyke 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As an outsider who discovered this page on WP:EAR, I'm inclined to agree. Nintendo is in total control over what Virtual Console games you can play on the Wii. They are the ones you download the games from. They are the ones who take your money. There are no "Virtual Console" competitors -- just Nintendo. If there were other competitors, I can see why it wouldn't be wise to include them (as there might be various prices and to do so would be to support Nintendo and not the competitors), however, since Nintendo holds a "monopoly" in this market, I believe the Wii points should be readded. Drumpler 07:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although on the same note, I also see that this is mentioned in the first paragraph. When the Virtual Console listing gets larger, might this be insufficient, especially when different titles carry different prices, irregardless of platform? Drumpler 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially, this all goes back to the ridiculous statement that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page." While this is a nice notion, it's just plain not true. Having a certain version of the page locked inherently endorses that version. Once the protection is removed, everyone is wary of making any changes out of fear that it will create another edit war. That being said, there is absolutely no reason why the points shouldn't be re-added. There was never a consensus reached to remove them, and as we can see in this discussion, the consensus clearly remains in favor of keeping them. I have plenty more to say, but most of it would be reiterating things that other people have said, so i'll leave this relatively concise for now. Briggity Brak 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think whatever the consensus is, editors who disagree need to agree to disagree. Is it really worth getting an article blocked? Over such a trivial issue? Drumpler 10:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Durinsbane, no, most people who frequent this article and appear to be Wii fans favor the inclusion of the points, but most people who give outside opinion and appear to be neutral with respect to Wiis do not favor them. That is why such things are not decided by headcount.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how is consensus even reached? Drumpler 11:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While the opinions and edits of neutral editors are welcome in any article, there needs to be perspective in terms of the reader. What sort of information would somebody who reads this article be looking for? What an outsider might consider "trivial" might be considered important to editors and readers familiar with the subject area. For example, I don't know anything about crochet. If I were to go and start removing information that I felt was "trivial" from those articles it would be unhelpful and disruptive to the encyclopedia. This is why forum shopping is discouraged under the consensus policy. -- MisterHand 12:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In cases where information is difficult to understand or highly specialized (technical, medical, scientific, etc...), it's true that "outsiders" may not be the best judges of what should be included. However, prices are easily understood by everyone; Wii points aren't a difficult concept. Also, the real dispute at the moment isn't the inclusion of information on Wii Points, but whether they need to be presented in a table. Chaz Beckett 12:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? The pros out weigh the cons in this matter.  Neo Samus 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unclear who you're replying to, but what do you consider to be the pros and cons of a price column? Chaz Beckett 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pros: Not a "price", People who visit this page may have a Wii, and want to know what games are available and what the Wii Points value is, if they don't have an active internet to their Wii. Cons: People who complain about it.
 * Other than that, I think it'd be safe for someone to re-add the Wii Points. Lamename3000 19:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a price. A price is "the sum or amount of money or its equivalent for which anything is bought, sold, or offered for sale". Note the "...or its equivalent..." part; a price does not have to be expressed in terms of some currency. Also, the Wii Points information is included in the article, right in the introduction. That point seem to be getting overlooked quite frequently. Chaz Beckett 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why that "point" seems to be frequently overlooked is because that part of the article is frequently overlooked. Anyone who comes to this article comes to it for the table. They'll skip right over all the words at the top and go straight to the table. The table is the meat in this article. Everything else is, well, trivial. Briggity Brak 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if linking to this page might be a reasonable compromise? Its on Nintendo's own site. Drumpler 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sole purpose of a table is to complement the text, never the other way around. If users skip the text and go straight to the table that's their fault not ours. GarrettTalk 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in basic agreement with Garrett. People have a tendency to skip to the tables, but even from my earliest grade school days, I was taught the importance of reading instructions first. This reflects more on a problem with society than it does Wikipedia and I don't think it should be encouraged. Drumpler 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing is we should keep the Wii Points column (which Chaz should not have reverted...) because it's easier to list the individual game Wii Points than list all the exceptions. The exceptions may get really long, so having a small, unobtrusive column will solve all those problems. Stop with the reverting Chaz (and everyone else) Lamename3000 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it so much a societal issue rather than human behavior; it's a natural human tendency to look at or skip to something that stands out more or is more visually appealing. As such, we're not really encouraging a problem, and even if it was, it's not the social responsibility of Wikipedia to make it stop; as Garrett said, it's the user's fault if they look at the table first rather than the introductory paragraph.  However, that introductory paragraph will only continue to grow as long as Nintendo keeps releasing titles with non-standard base point values, and I hardly think the introductory paragraph is the place for exceptions, given that the section will only get bigger, and the data would be more useful in a sortable table.  That aside, a simple Google search of "wii points" will turn up the Nintendo list linked to above as one of the first few results; given that, those without a Wii can still see the point values, though the table from the link is not sortable.  However, as stated numerous times before, the addition of the points column does not reduce the purpose of table to a price guide; indeed, if the points were in the table and the tables merged into one (as some have suggested), then it would be another criteria by which to sort the information.  --PeanutCheeseBar 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really now, people. Stop reverting back. You are in a minority, but that's not the point. The point is I'm trying to put the article back into normal standing, and you are being uncivil. Lamename3000 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When multiple editors are reverting your changes, that's a strong indication that there isn't consensus. Chaz Beckett 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is you and Rob, that's it. Conensus does not need mean everyone has to support it, it's clear that the the majority of people think points should be included. So as of right now, it's obvious that the consensus is to include them. TJ Spyke 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the argument against having the Wii points column has failed; no other editors of other articles agree. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that's enough reason to remove it---after all, you don't own this article nor do you make the rules by your whim. And don't pretend to think there is a debate; repeating your same unproven assertion ad nauseum is not debate. If you have something more, bring it on, otherwise the Wii points column should remain; it is the status quo. Ryuzx 23:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make an edit to the page as an attempt at compromise. Until I'm sure there's consensus either way, I'd ask that no one remove the edit unless there is a reasonable reason to do so and it is discussed on the talk page. Drumpler 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll be the one to point out that Rob's claim that it shouldn't be changed while discussion continues is hypocritical. That's exactly how it ended up the way he likes it. DurinsBane87 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides and am making an attempt to merge both sides of the coin. Providing a link to the official Nintendo site, in my opinion, should be sufficient. It keeps one from listing prices on Wikipedia itself and allows one to go to the source in the event they change. Drumpler 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But in that case, it makes the whole Wikipedia article superfluous, since it's all there on the website. So making people go there for the points, we might as well make them go there for everything. This is a "List of Virtual Console Games" in North America. It should be as complete as possible, and adding the Wii Points adds that completeness. If we just list the Wii Points and exceptions in the intro, it has the potential to get way too long, and confusing. Having a simple, small column keeps things under control. Lamename3000 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At that point I call that this article be deleted and a link to that Nintendo page be added to the main Virtual Console article. How's that for a compromise? Ryuzx 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the motion! :P Lamename3000 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly if that's what all parties desire, it can be nominated for WP:AfD but I think you're acting just a bit prematurely. I'm sure there are several things that can be added to the article which one might not be able to do from the simple list. Drumpler 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Although now that I think of it, your suggestion may have merit. Linking to the list of regional Virtual Console titles on official Nintendo Wii pages might be sufficient. Drumpler 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind going straight to the Nintendo page to see what is released, although:
 * How will we know when there's upcoming games, lest we place the links in the main VC article?
 * What about the other VC lists? Should we scrap them too, or find the appropriate international Nintendo links?  In addition, the Japanese VC article has translated names, while the official Nintendo page does not; I'm capable of reading Japanese, but what about the other users who can't?
 * I also think it might be a bit premature to blow away the article entirely (I think this is a "heat of the moment thing"), but if consensus wants it gone and has adequate reasoning why, then there's no stopping it. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does Nintendo typically announce upcoming titles? My understanding is that they just post new titles on Mondays. I think if a significant source is released that tells what VC games are released when, your suggestion might have merit. Drumpler 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Come un guys... Lets keep the page. Is this really all about the wii points. Cause if so that's pretty lame. BornOnDate:TheGreatQuake 00:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is quite lame that this article has been hijacked by a repetitious minority who feels that this article should be inferior, and one of their arguments were that IF someone wants complete information THEN they ought to seek the first party source---this bypasses the disappointment of an incomplete, inferior Wiki article and gives that minority what they want; which I guess is to send people away from Wiki and toward Nintendo's website. It didn't seem to me that the one who seconded my motion was being serious, but I am.  This ends this petty "debate" that is allegedly going on (somewhere other than here, I guess) and this article at the same time.  How can that be lame?  If the general consensus across Wiki is against this minority, and yet they won't relinquish to the wikiality and end this until they come equipped with an argument, then this contentious article is an embarassment, superfluous, and, in their hands by design, useless. Ryuzx 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a collection of links at the bottom of the article; a lot of these titles showed up when people looked up "Wii Games" on the ESRB page, and older titles that were released in the past came up in the query. The Nintendo Press Room didn't always say what titles were released on that Monday, but just recently they've gotten into the habit (at least, for now).  However, the Official TurboGrafx-16 site seems the most diligent about listing upcoming games.  As for getting a general idea of what's coming out before it's released in Nintendo's Press Room, The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic is usually updated weekly; the games come from links to the Official Nintendo VC store, which can be accessed using Firefox (after tweaking it a bit).  Granted, all of these links could be put in the VC article, but it would put the task of seeing what's yet to be released on the readers, instead of compiling it all in one place (as is being done now).  --PeanutCheeseBar 00:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't a separate article then be made for upcoming Wii Shop releases based upon reliable information? The reason I ask because it seems superfluous to include a list when official sites already include it, thus making a link the only necessity (in my opinion). One could compile the links to the differing Wii Shop lists, which include both the point values and game list. They can also add a See Also section on the Virtual Console article which links to List of upcoming Virtual Console games (or some other title). Drumpler 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ryuzx is right, this should not be allowed to go on much longer.

I was just giving an example of how pointless and meaningless this argument is. If you get rid of the Wii Points because it's too trivial or something, then you might as well, based on that logic, remove the whole article and replace with link to the official page. But I do NOT think that is what should be done, because the point of Wikipedia is to have information in one central site based on information elsewhere. If you start picking at the Wii Points, people will start picking at other things. Anyway, you can see how this snowballs. This argument is getting NO WHERE. Since no matter who fixes the article back to what the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY things, there will be a few people who will freak out and un-vert. But no one is willing to stand up to these bullies. So, why aren't we standing up to these bullies? Let's get this article back on the right track, and tell the bullies to back off. Because that's all they are, BULLIES. Lamename3000 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You and Ryuzx are the only ones I hear bullying. Might be worth it to take a rest. I am technically not on either side of the debate just yet but am forming my own judgement from what I can cull from the sources given. To bully yourselves is not professional behaviour for a Wikipedia editor. Likewise, I play the Nintendo Wii religiously (including Virtual Console titles) -- my input here is not so much to "knock Nintendo" as much as it is to make sure articles conform to appropriate Wiki standards. Drumpler 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not bullied at all; if there is a debate then there has to be an argument from both sides. The status quo was wrongly changed before a consensus was made and without an obviously worthwhile argument.  From what I can tell, this article is inferior and nothing can be done to fix that because of the actions of a few.  I also don't appreciate you claiming that I am bullying anyone unless you have cited proof to back up your claim.  I've been civil; I expect you to do the same. Ryuzx 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm incorrect to interpret as bullying, then I apologize. However, the debate isn't about who's bullying or not, but the validity of Wii points or even the article itself. I think we can address it like civil adults without calling other people's intentions into question. Drumpler 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sharply worded, I admit, but definitely not meant to be bullying. At that point I was making a case for the deletion of this article at the rate things are going, considering the inanity of the back-and-forth edits at the time.  It appears that as long as this so-called embarassment of a "debate" is pretended to be perpetual, while it is evident a superior source of information exists that makes this page superfluous and useless, then we no longer have a need for this article.  Otherwise, the Wii points should return and allow this article to conform with its template (XBLA) and sister (VC) articles while being at least as useful as the Nintendo page with sortable tables to boot. Ryuzx 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ryuzx.


 * This is what makes me mad. I was told to be civil on my talk page.  Fine, maybe I was being a little rude, but I had reasons.  The three or four of you are acting like children (<---not meant to be an insult).  You have about 15+ people saying the points have merit, then there are the 4 or 5 of you that are determined to have you way by any means possible.  Again, I am being civil here.  TJ, Lamename3000 had the right to change the page back to its previous version.  Neo Samus 02:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of pointing fingers and saying who is "right" and who is "wrong", let's go back to the article and consider it by its merits. One discussion is whether the article should be nominated for deletion. I can actually see the merit in such a proposal and would see that it is enforced site-wide if such a proposal were to go through -- not just other Virtual Console lists, but likewise other gaming lists such as those pertaining to X-Box Live. Let's discuss this first. Drumpler 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned the XBLA article before, on more than one occasion. But my comments were avoided, saying they are not part of this discussion (or at this point arguing). Neo Samus 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was because doing so was inconvenient at the time with whomever it was you were arguing. Ryuzx 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if this article is deleted then the other articles should be deleted. I initially said, and meant, that if the Wii points are to be removed from this article, consistency would have them be removed from the other VC list articles and the MS points from the XBLA article, however it appears that their removal does make this article superfluous and automatically nominates the article for deletion. So, the only reason to discuss this article's deletion is if the actual consensus was to make it inferior to a linked, outside source. The best recourse, since the deletion of the Wii points has not had one viable argument, is that they be re-added as the status quo demands and be done with this nonsense. However, if that does not happen and this article is to be deleted, the only flaw to that argument is that Wikipedia doesn't promote original research; all of it must be citable. In that instance, the entire project breaks down to a series of links to superior sources. Further, I notice that none of those that want the Wii Points removed have had any further input on this talk page, even though they seem more than willing to edit the article under the claim that there is still a debate. This ... is obviously at an end. I say re-add the Wii points; considering the burden of proof was never on me to argue for the status quo and for the general consensus anyway, it is evident that this debate is over when their arguments have been summarily countered and have since ceased to be. That is, unless you, Drumpler, are for the points removal under this "price guide isn't encyclopedic" claim? I'd be more than welcome to hear why you'd say such or why they should be removed. Ryuzx 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see this has been going on for almost a month now. When I mentioned about converting the other articles was only a couple of days ago, or no more than a week. Thing is, I can guarantee that the major contributors to XBLA will not like the points removed. It seems to me (again, being civil) a few editors think they are on a pedestal and think they are better than us. That's how I feel at least......  Neo Samus 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Neo Samus; as I stated before, there's editors for the other VC articles and for the XBLA article that likely would not take kindly to seeing their articles get blown away, especially if it's just a few editors that decided it to be a new standard. This could cause a potential domino effect and make other editors angry (who are not likely "in the loop"), and would likely put up just as much of a fight, if not more. We're not really in a position to make a decision for an article that could result in the deletion of several other articles.  --PeanutCheeseBar 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say, but I have to agree with me still, and I feel my arguments for either the consensus to return the Wii points to the article or the deletion of this article are pretty solid, regardless of how other editors feel about the ramifications from this so-called "debate" to which this article has fallen victim. Ryuzx 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to avoid deletion of this article. I think it would make more harm than good. Neo Samus 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * However, there's reasonable doubt as if to it actually belongs. I have been made aware that "outside" editors don't like it because of its discussion of currency. In order to meet their concerns, a link would be provided where the games' various prices would be listed. However, on the same note, linking to said site would be superfluous as it would reproduce this list and probably lead it being nominated for deletion.


 * I'm really on neither side, but do believe in upholding Wiki protocols. I would be interested in knowing where discussion from these "outside" editors comes from. I will admit I have been tied for time and have not read through this entire talk page nor its archives. So a link to said "debates" would be helpful, if they exist.


 * I'm also going to ask some of these "outsiders" so I can get a clearer picture. I understand that several editors might be upset if this leads to limiting the extent or even deleting this article, but it should be known that it doesn't reflect on the editor nor their worth. This is clear in the "Articles for Deletion" policy.


 * I would only argue for such an extreme change in policy, however, only if no official or at least trustworthy list of games can't be found on a given console. Where such a list doesn't exist, maybe articles of this nature might be appropriate (provided this is deemed by other editors as inappropriate). Drumpler 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But if this gets deleted then that would mean that the XBLA article would have to be removed as well. Again the editors of that page would be pissed.  That's like opening up a very large can of worms that does not need to be opened....ever.  Neo Samus 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just stop already! this is such a non-issue, it is crazy. It is fine to have the points because it is hurting no one. It is fine to not have the points because it is hurting no one. This is a stupid arguement. Most people know how many points the games are, and we all know the points won't change unless Nintendo decides to go with a setup like XBL and start selling the hard drive reported on various video game sites. Just end this stupid fight...or delete the whole thing. I would rather find this same info elsewhere if it is going to be locked every week because of too many children having access to editing abilities. Maybe it is time for Wiki to find a new way to control stupid edits. They should make people submit ideas for changes and have a group that decides to make the changes or throw away the idea. Fighting on the internet is like racing in the special olypics...even if you win, you are still retarded. End this now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk • contribs)

Columns
If the whole Wii Points discussion is still going on, shouldn't the Wii Points column still be up on the article. In every other Virtual Console article there is a column for the price i.e. Wii Points. Also, can we please stop this whole madness once and for all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.25.77 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your concern my friend. But as you can see, every time it was reverted back to the version with the points in the table it was reverted right back. Last time that happened the page got locked for a week. We are trying to avoid having that happen again. Also, please sign your name after you make a comment so we know who you are. :) Neo Samus 02:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Whenever we try to follow through with that logical idea, I get yelled at by users saying I "should be civil.. wah! Discussion still going on... wah!! You're wrong... wah!" Yeah. It pretty much sounds just like that to me at this time. Lamename3000 05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since Rob was one of the people who kept removing the points last month while we were still discussing the issue. TJ Spyke 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A compromise was suggested until it was decided what we should do with them. For right now, the wisest thing would be to stick to the compromise. Drumpler 08:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because a compromise is suggested doesn't mean it's been accepted. DurinsBane87 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the same note, just because a compromise isn't being accepted doesn't mean it isn't the correct thing to do. I am polling the "outside" editors and asking them for their input, as I was attracted to this page after it was plastered all over Wikipedia. Drumpler 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thing is, there was never a consensus to have the points removed, heck when we voted back in march all who voted, voted to keep the points. So the article should be back in it's original form "until" consensus is made to have them removed.  How many times does this needed to be repeated?  But of course I am being "uncivil".  Yet it's the others (Not you since you just came into this discussion) who are being uncivil.  Explain that......  Neo Samus 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. "There is no consensus therefore the page must remain in the version I like" is neither a good argument nor a good attitude. There are several good reasons why Wikipedia doesn't make decisions by voting on them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't "that's the way we like it" thats the case here. The article had the points, discussion came up about removing them, and before a consensus was reached they were removed and the page protected. That's a very clear cut fact, I haven't seen anyone disput that. DurinsBane87 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop being a bully Radiant. You are doing the exact same thing as me, as you say "There is no consensus therefore the page must remain in the version I like".  Again if you feel so strongly about not having the points in this article, why has nothing been done about the other articles.  Geez, I feel like a broken record.  I want a real answer not excuses.  Neo Samus 09:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dragging personal attacks into it really won't help anything. You're missing the point that the present version isn't the "version I like" but rather a compromise. I'd be all in favor of likewise fixing the other articles.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't a compromise. It was suggested as one, but the opinions of both sides were never asked. both sides have to agree on something for it to be a compromise. This was just a new edit that someone SUGGESTED could be a compromise. But it isn't, at least not yet. DurinsBane87 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you think it preferable to have some middle ground, or would it be better for both sides to "dig in" and refuse to accept anything than their version? Which of the two would be more productive?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with a compromise being reached. But there hasn't been one yet, that's my only point. Neither sides discussed it, it was just made, and both sides were expected to accept it as a compromise. But that's not what a compromise is. I hated to see it be called a compromise when no one had really discussed it. DurinsBane87 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we're trying to discuss it now, only there are some people (by which I don't mean you) unwilling to discuss the actual issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Odd, Radiant, for if that were true then you'd actually be discussing it, like responding to any number of my posts that utterly refute their removal or even calls for this page's deletion due to its current inferiority. Why exactly are you ignoring that particular discussion? Ryuzx 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Here's what I think we should do. I think that since whatever decision is made will have a wide effect on the various region articles and Xbox articles, we should start this discussion at the video game project talk page and strongly suggest in the other applicable articles talk pages that they join into the debate. That seems to be the most fair thing to me. Anyone wanna second that? DurinsBane87 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the above statements by DurinsBane87; a discussion that is potentially affecting other articles would best be held on the video game project talk page, and suggestions to participate should be made in the other articles so that frequent editors on those pages have a chance to state their case. My only other concerns are the amount of time for the endeavor, and another war, but so long as nobody attempts to edit the points out of those articles while the discussion is taking place, I think we should be okay.  --PeanutCheeseBar 11:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a compromise concerning the EU, JP and AU pages hasn't been reached yet. Yet Radiant went ahead and edited the EU page anyway. --MrDrake 15: 33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There were some editors on this page concerned with the lack of consistency between articles so this may have been an attempt to address those concerns. Chaz Beckett 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While at the same time claiming discussion is ongoing but haven't discussed anything other than pretending like they won, even with such flawed arguments and attempts to shift the burden of proof. The points were readded to the EU page, just as they should be readded to this one.  There is no need for a compromise if they lack a viable argument.  Ryuzx 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit was listed in the EU VC history as a compromise, but no compromise was reached on this page; furthermore, if he was doing it to make things consistent, then why did he only change the one article? For the time being, it has been reverted, and it (and all the other VC pages) need to remain as they are, since the matter is already under discussion here, and so that another needless edit war does not break out.  No other articles should be changed to match or reflect this one, since the fate of this article is still undetermined.  --PeanutCheeseBar 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I was asked on this talk page to do that. Note that PCB has made it pretty clear here that he is unwilling to accept any kind of compromise, so his suggestion that all pages stay in his version until the discussion is finished is disingenious at best.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * False, you are hiding under the guise of "compromise" without producing a valid argument. The status quo should not be changed until you actually give a proper explanation as to why---check above, Radiant, as there have been plenty of missed opportunities for your side to explain your position, as I've went through and countered all of them as I found them.  You claim there is a discussion, but all you are doing is changing the pages to reflect how you want it without discussing anything.  The burden of proof is on you and really no compromise needs to be reached because there is no properly explained reason why one is required.  Ryuzx 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop referring to "sides" and "winning"? This isn't a game, nor are there only two options for presenting information on Wii Points. Also, when there is disagreement such as this one, a compromise does need to be reached and it helps for everyone involved to recognize that opposing views may have some merit, even if you don't agree. Chaz Beckett 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Page search shows that "winning" shows up once---in your post. If you've read my various contributions to this page, then it would be nice if you'd notice that I have made various points that have something to do with the article. Your point there does not, since it is attempting to shift the focus on me and my contribution and away from the actual discussion allegedly under way for some time now. There are sides to an argument, and right now the side that claims "victory" over this page and over the general consensus refuses to discuss its argument as to why they were able to hijack this page for so long. If you'd focus on that, as opposed to these red herrings, this discussion probably would've ended last month, long before I got involved. Thank you. Ryuzx 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In this comment you stated "...but haven't discussed anything other than pretending like they won," (emphasis mine). This isn't about taking sides or winning or losing or victory or defeat. Chaz Beckett 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Riiiight, so if the pages are not similar you'll say that's wrong, and if the pages are changed to be similar you'll also say that's wrong. Nice catch-22 here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Radiant, it comes to ownership---you don't own the page, the general consensus does. The general consensus has had no reason to be swayed into your opinion because there is no need for a compromise; there has been no viable argument as to why they should be removed from the table and cluttering up the top of the page in text. Ryuzx 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This assertion that "No consensus is necessary, no discussion exists, no argument for their removal viable..." is incredibly counter-productive. I'm referring to an edit summary by Ryuzz, but I shouldn't be singling him out. There's several other editors that are basically stating that because they don't agree with other arguments, they don't exist. Consensus does not exist for any version right now! A compromise is absolutely necessary. Digging in and refusing to move towards middle ground isn't going to accomplish anything other than getting the article protected. Chaz Beckett 16:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they don't exist. I went through and countered every argument I've seen and no one has countered since.  Therefore, the page should be returned to its initial status quo until discussion actually resumes.  Let the article be protected again; actually, if you prefer an inferior article, let it get deleted... that was under consideration earlier too. Ryuzx 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion has become quite lengthy, could you provide links to your rebuttals? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! I didn't join this 'discussion' until here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#.22this_is_an_encyclopedia.2C_not_a_price_guide.22  From there down. Ryuzx 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


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

Page protected
The page has been protected due to edit warring. The page will not be unprotected until a consensus has been reached. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think everyone saw that coming. Are we ready to actually work towards a compromise now? Chaz Beckett 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with the version that had a summary of points and exceptions in the header, but no points in the table columns? That seemed like the perfect compromise to me. -- MisterHand 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, why was there a need for that "perfect" compromise though? Ryuzx 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some editors wanted points columns in the tables, others wanted the points taken out of the article completely. The middle ground was to include points info only in the introduction. This current revert war was started when Lamename3000 reverted tand added points back into the table. Chaz Beckett 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you. That version seemed to be acceptable to many editors, though perhaps not their perferred version. Chaz Beckett 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It supplied the same information as having it in the table, yet another reason why the "price guide" and "currency" argument doesn't hold up, while cluttering up the top of the page with information that could just as easily fit in the table itself. Just like it does in the various other pages.  And, again, there is no discussion as to WHY they should be removed anyway, if so many remain unconvinced here, then the various other pages will be unconvinced as well... there is just ongoing talk of a compromise that lacks any real reason to be. Ryuzx 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason a compromise is needed is that without some sort of consensus, the page will once again revert to an edit war. -- MisterHand 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I only recall it being acceptable to one, maybe two editors. It isn't a compromise unless it's discussed by both sides and DECIDED UPON as a compromise. DurinsBane87 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would look back farther (it's pretty long though) You'll see there are many who favor the now current version. there are only a few who favored the version without the points in the table.  Neo Samus 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid any recurrence of these squabbles, could everyone involved please contribute to the discussion again so we'll know where people currently stand. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the Wii Points column should stay, as reflected by the current state of the article. It does no harm to the physical integrity of the page, and if there are more exceptions to the Points for a certain game, we won't end with a long paragraph of nothing but the exceptions. It's best to have it self contained in the article. I don't believe listing the Wii Points suddenly makes the article into a price guide, as it's been accused. The article as it is, feels right, and it fits in with the format of other related articles on Wikipedia. Lamename3000 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also believe that the Wii Points column should stay, as it was removed against protocol, in addition to the points made above. DurinsBane87 18:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is the points don't need to be listed. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a price guide, that's not the purpose of this encyclopedia. And with that, I'm done posting on this page for a while. RobJ1981 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's too bad you've given up, because I'm honestly curious as to what you consider a price guide to be? I've always been under the impression that a price guide is something that maintains a current listing of the worth of collectible items, which fluctuate in value over time.  Since Wii VC games do not fluctuate in value over time the same way an issue of Detective Comics from 1939 or a Lew Alcinder rookie card does, I can't see how the inclusion of static Wii point values in this article could be considered as a price guide. --Billdorr 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I am not the only one sick of this discussion (I think both sides are). The previous version was never accepted as a permanent solution, people just agreed to get the page unlocked while a discussion continued. I think the points should stay in, and Lamename pretty much sums up my reasons why. TJ Spyke 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read above. Ignoring the nested comments (which are replies rather than direct opinions), I counted two people opposed to that revision as a compromise, and four in favour of it as a compromise. I discounted those who asked questions and/or did not explicitly state their opinion. Now that's a rough and arbitrary method, but it shows a fair amount of support for that revision as a compromise did indeed exist, and that's not even counting those who had stated support for that revision as a compromise earlier but did not restate it in that section for wahtever reasons. Backing down simply to get the page unprotected is no way to achieve a consensus. GarrettTalk 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion will never end if those opposed to any and all compromises keep sticking to their guns and insisting that their favoured revision is the only way. I've said it before, I'll say it again: since you clearly despise the proposed compromise in this revision please come up with a better way. Repeatedly arguing in favour of the points and trying to edit them back in is NOT a compromise and never will be. GarrettTalk 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you not reading any of the discussions that have been going on since yesterday? There is no need for a compromise because the removal of the Wii points are not necessary and there is no viable argument, just an opinion, to do so. Ryuzx 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this have waited like 2 hours so I can get the EU/AU update tonight in? --User:MrDrake 20:42, 21 June 2007
 * You can alway place an edit request on the talk page. I laughed though seeing Radiant claiming there was an agreement to remove points here (as an excuse to remove the points on Europe). The Australian page isn't protected from what I can see, so you can still update Australia. TJ Spyke 21:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I say keep the points in the table. There was never a "good" reason to remove them in the first place.  It doesn't hurt the article.  Let it be.  Neo Samus 21:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the points, per LameName. Dlong 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I say keep the points, for the same reason I've said keep the points the last 2-3 times we've had this discussion. But really I don't CARE if this article is going to get locked every goddamn week over something so trivial. What I want above anything is for you guys to stop squabbling like two year olds and come to a decent conclusion. Thores 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job, kids: you managed to get the article locked yet again. This is slightly off topic at this point, and i think Ryuzx put it more elegantly already, but i'd like to point out that if we delete this article on the grounds of primary sources being available, then we may as well delete wikipedia in its entirety. That being said, could someone please give me a link to another list of Virtual Console games that i can go to (the one on the Nintendo site is not acceptable as it is ONLY sorted alphabetically)? Then i will never have to return to this God-forsaken page. Thank you. P.S. I say keep the points in the table. Briggity Brak 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. It's hard to understand all this. The overwhelming majority of the editors of this page want to keep the Wii Points column, but we can't continue our work in peace because there's a few people (Chaz, Garett, Brandon, RobJ) who want it different. Lamename3000 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there are far more people who disagree with you than you think. The Wii points column is inappropriate, regardless of how many people want them. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * well, users who disagree but don't speak up are fairly useless to an argument, and if they disagree, they should say so. If they don't, we shouldn't ASSUME that they exist. I'm sure there are also lots of other people who want to keep the Wii Points, but they havent spoken, so I don't allude to what I have no evidence of. DurinsBane87 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even if we take into account the other 3 people (including you) who have expressed disapproval in the past, but not recently, over the entire page as-is, it's still only 7 people who don't want the points, and 17 who DO want the points. Of course, there's still about 6 people who I would say are either on the border, or who have not expressed an opinion either way. LN3000 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is not determined by numbers alone, but by the arguments behind them. Poke your head into WT:NOT sometime, or nominate a page like this to be featured or for peer review. The only reason editors are not here in mass saying that price guide is inappropriate is because they have better things to do. People do not have to sign their name to re-register their position on something for each individual discussion. Sorry if you don't believe me, but it's a very accurate assumption. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I point to you exibits A, B, C, D, E, and F. PlayStation_Portable, PlayStation_2, PlayStation_3_launch, Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube. All of these have a pricing history and they are perfectly within the practices of wikipedia. It is the Wii page and this one that would be outside the norm without prices. --Dharh 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


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

I've observed this discussion for a while now in silence. It's amazing how strong some have beliefs for one side or the other in this debate, and I must say that most arguments in either direction have some form of merit to them. I think, however, that the argument of trying to maintain encyclopedic content is a valid one.

Encyclopedias are supposed to preserve historical fact. Today, the points listed on the current protected version of the page are historical fact in so far as being the original prices of the games. However, what if the prices change tomorrow? Let's say Nintendo tomorrow decides to lower all NES games to 300 points a piece -- will the article be edited to reflect that?

Of course, the argument could be made to add another column to the table if that were to happen -- a column for debut price and a column for current price. At that point, however, you're providing a historical pricing comparison, and that does seem like a price guide and non-encyclopedic.

I think that having the debut price of the games is historical information worth having on wikipedia -- for comparison, the fact that the original Apple computer debuted at a price of $666.66 is historical fact, or that the Wii debuted with an MSRP of $249 is a historical fact, so the debut point values are just as muchso.

I also think that should be the only pricing information on the article, the debut pricing, as historical fact, and no updates should be made to inform about future price changes after the initial price debut (and while this hasn't become an issue yet because prices have remained static thusfar, I'm sure it will in the future and I think perhaps others are worried about this in regards to the points issue). This stance, in my opinion, preserve encyclopedic content of historically verifiable data while not allowing the page to become an evolving price guide.DMSMac 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, most of us are basing our opinion on the matter based on the current situation, not assuming that point values will change in the future, as there has not been anything but unfounded speculation on the matter. I say that the Wii Points column is fine, as things stand now. If for some reason in the future the Wii Points change, of course my view of the matter will change to reflect that. It wouldn't be a place for an encyclopedia for variable information. But so far, on a game-to-game basis, the points are static, and will not change, in our present view, therefore the Points aren't related to a price-guide, and are safe to stay. LN3000 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to these pages: PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, PlayStation_3 launch, Xbox, Xbox360, Gamecube. Which shows both that indeed wikipedia is a "price guide" and the solution to the problem. A separate table which chronicles the history of prices for the games. It is not just the debut price, but the complete history of prices that can be kept in wikipedia. Price guides are frowned upon because they constantly evolve making it necessary to edit a wiki page constantly. However, this would not be the case because console prices (and VC prices) are consistent over year long periods. The VC pages are updated every release date in any event. --Dharh 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok here's another example, XBLA. Here's why I'm mentioning it, XBLA has a points system "identical" to Nintendo's Wii Points. XBLA has been around for a few years now. The article's table template is very similar to VC table template. I have not seen one of the opposing argue about the Microsoft points once on that page, like it has been here. No attempt to change the page like it has been done here, nothing. I keep bringing this up because, the article has been around for much longer than the Virtual Console. What make's this article so different than, XBLA?  FYI, I'm also going to post this same comment on the WP:NOT talk page.  Neo Samus 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion movement
If you guys are going to keep dragging the discussion to other pages like Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not you could have the decency to post a link to it in a manner that is easier for everyone to see, so that we can join the discussion, so it's not so one-sided. That is, unless you are trying to go behind the majorities back to get your way. LN3000 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re-added. Dumpler, Meat does not apply. I am not a sockpuppet. I am me. Just because I have a different signature doesn't make me a different person. my signature still points to my page. AND I think it is decency to keep the talk of the issue to include everyone involved, instead of wondering around different places of Wikipedia where not everyone will know to look. LN3000 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Carefully re-read WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. Drumpler 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MEAT is about creating sockpuppets to support your side, I don't see that happening here. TJ Spyke 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, as TJ Spyke said, I see nothing in Meat or Canvass that describes me or this reasonable request to not go behind the backs of the people in discussion. my custon signature does not "append some promotional message to every signed post" as stated in canvassing. Please read the pages you claim to be upholding better before causing disruption. Really, it seems you are causing more disruption than help in this whole discussion. Please tone it down. LN3000 07:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, this is my one and only account on Wikipedia. no MeatPuppets from me. LN3000 07:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEAT -- It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. '''On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible. (See: Wikipedia:Canvassing)''' [ Drumpler - as I've done once.]

WP:CANVASS -- Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.


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

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

Edit Request
Editprotected

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

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