Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archive 9

Unknown ESRB Rating
Would there be a difference if we used "RP" (Rating Pending) instead of "unknown" for games that have not been rated? "RP" would be better to use since it is an ESRB rating indicating "unknown".Mmark089 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good idea. I think I'll implement it, but I want to hear some other opinions before I go ahead with the change. If no one comments then I will make the change by the afternoon. Neo Samus 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... I'm not sure about using the RP indicator. But if that's what you think is best for the article, then go ahead. But you'll need to explain somewhere that's not a rating. I just don't want it to look like something's gotten a rating, when it hasn't. LN3000 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I got an idea then. How about putting "Rating Pending" instead of RP? Neo Samus 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ESRB Titles
Titles that are currently listed on the ESRB site should be added here. There's absolutely no reason for the recent listings to be excluded. For titles that no longer appear there, it'd be fine to remove those here as well. --Cheesemeister3k 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we came to a preliminary decision before to leave them off, but I agree with you and think they should be listed, so I wouldn't mind bringing the topic up again. Looking at this week's releases, Ninja Gaiden 2 had shown up on the ESRB site a while before its release, and both Gate of Thunder and Metal Marines were added in this week's ESRB update. I don't think there should be any question of the ESRB's reliability. I know some people mentioned that the ESRB doesn't give exact dates, but then Sega's press releases don't either, and they aren't particularly reliable in pointing out "imminent" releases (ESWAT and Crack Down have lingered for a while now, and I don't even need to mention Vectorman). I think the other issue is that the Upcoming Releases table would get much larger than it is now, but I don't think that's much of a problem either. If that many games are planned for release, then there's nothing we can do about it. The Crimson Shoe 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My two cents: if the ESRB lists a title, so do we. If a title gets removed later on, we can just remove it. TJ Spyke 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have to agree. I tried staying neutral on the issue but I really believe that ESRB is a valid source.  Neo Samus 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was the one who suggested to leave off the ESRB-only games. And then I implemented it, as well. I was just concerned that the list was starting to be filled with fluff, and since we had no way to say which games would be released or not, or when. If it's not really a big deal to you guys having an over-inflated list based solely on the ESRB, then I'll agree to them being re-added. LN3000 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, that sound's good to me. We should also do random checks every once in a while to make sure that all games that have an ESRB source are still on ESRB site.  Neo Samus 19:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you re-check all those old games that I originally removed from the list? There were 30 games on the list before I reduced it to 8. And all of them were ESRB games, so if you are going to add in new ESRB games, you might as well add the other's too. Exactly the problem I thought we were going to avoid by not listing the ESRB games. LN3000 08:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to suggest this... but is it maybe possible to have a separate table that lists only the games confirmed by a source (not related to the ESRB)? Then there would be a "Future Releases" section and an "Upcoming Releases" section. LN3000 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the way we have it now, where the solidly confirmed games are listed above the ESRB ones by default, should be enough. There's no need for separate tables. The Crimson Shoe 16:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said when I made the edit. We will keep a watchful eye on all titles that have an ESRB source.  If they are removed from ESRB, they're gone from the VC table.  Neo Samus 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 22 Genesis
The October 22 update for the Genesis is out of order. 24.4.131.142 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look that way to me. LN3000 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's like that when sorted by release date. 24.4.131.142 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be fixed. --Cheesemeister3k 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

October 22 NES
What's up with the Japanese titled game? 24.4.131.142 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the name of the game. It is a Japan VC import game. LN3000 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should say import next to the titles somewhere for the import games. --Ashitaka96 undefined 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've figured out how those are being handled. For now, I think it is best to not have any "import" tag. LN3000 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the VC Shop Channel does place them in an import genre, and the games have little Japanese flag icons beside them. But, I agree that it's too early to make any changes regarding them, there's still too many variables (if they will be released regularly, how much translation will be done, etc). The Crimson Shoe 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing, the consistency hasn't been worked out yet. Battle Lode Runner is technically an import, but there is not special marking for that. LN3000 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update for 11/5
Tomorrows games have been confirmed. JSnake (a poster on Wikipedia who reviews Virtual Console games for the website hookedgamers.com, and last week also confirmed which systems would get games) has confirmed that tomorrows update will be Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES), Power Golf (TG16, although Hudson Soft already announced this) and Alien Soldier (Genesis). . TJ Spyke 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no way they are able to know ahead of time what the games will be. No Original Research on Wikipedia WP:OR LN3000 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are told on the Friday before hand since they contacted their normal Nintendo rep so that they can have reviews up on Monday morning. They just can't reveal it ahead of time due to NDA's. The only reason he let it be know this week is because another site already revealed which 3 games are coming out (and on YouTube), so he figured he might as well post his reviews tonight. He also revealed last week that the update would be 1 NES/1 TG16/1 NG game and that turned out to be correct. When this turns out to be true, will that be enough proof for you? TJ Spyke 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to check the validity of that, and it would be hard to seriously use that as a source. Until a valid source is able to confirm anything, we cannot add that in. I know I am not being unreasonable. Whether it may or may not be true is besides the fact. A youtube 'video' of a phone call cannot be used as a source. LN3000 06:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, folks. --Cheesemeister3k 06:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what? You KNOW that a youtube video like that cannot be used as a reliable source. Ever. Unless, of course, it was posted on Nintendo.com or something. Do not get me wrong, I am praying that it's true, and it does sound like Charles Martinet, but any serious Wikipedian will tell you that it is poor to use that as a source. LN3000 06:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Using this source. --Cheesemeister3k 06:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am about to give up arguing with you LN, it seems like you are unwilling to compromise on any issue on this page. I can't/won't revert this again, but I gurandammtee that in about 10 hours or so you will see the standard e-mail from Nintendo stating SMB3/AS/PG as this weeks games. Next week I will post what systems are getting VC games (i.e. 1 NES/1 Genesis/1 TG16) and that will also be correct. TJ Spyke 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When NOA notifies the press what titles are, it's not by accident. A site like Hooked Gamers that receives PR notices from Nintendo wouldn't intentionally post incorrect titles, as the site would lose credibility and PR contact. --Cheesemeister3k 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do indeed get lists of VC games from my NOA contact. I get them every friday and I usually post the systems the game will appear on over at NeoGAF. I sign NDAs, but that youtube video leaked it so I posted my reviews earlier. JSnake9 13:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The PR is up, so I did move them to the confirmed upcoming section.Tkrausse 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you know the list ahead of time, but based on the 'mysterious' youtube video, we couldn't use that as a source. LN3000 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But you also reverted the souce I used (hookedgamers.com). The YouTube video was originally posted by GoNintendo.com, who I think also get the releases early. TJ Spyke 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it sounds like a good source to me. I'd use it. It makes a lot of sense now about media sources getting info early. I always wondered how IGN Wii was able to post reviews of VC on the day of their release most of the time. Neo Samus 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this will be a regular thing or not. Jsnake only posted his review early because GoNintendo had already revealed the games ahead of time, so Jsnake couldn't get in trouble. Maybe he can contact his NOA rep to see if he can post the reviews early on a normal basis though. TJ Spyke 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He knows each and every week. I have a friend who writes for an unofficial Nintendo site and he is told the games the preceeding Friday so he can start his reviews over the weekend as well.  This does not mean that the source should be used on Wiki, though... I think that the games should only be posted once the update is on the Wii Shop channel. Miles Blues 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Turrican
Sorry about changing the links to Super Turrican 1&2 to point to Turrican like that, but I don't think they are notable enough to get individual articles until they have at least been reviewed. As sections in the bigger article it is easier to understand the context in which they were made. So I set up the redirects, which is easy enough to turn into a real article anyways. So... no edit war.Spriteless 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you reviews of the VC versions or the original games? I was aware that there is an article on ther series, but by having the red links they encourage articles to be created (it's happened before. Many games on this list did not have articles created until they were annnounced for the Virtual Console and listed here, like with Moto Roader). By having them link to the article and appearing as a red link, it will hopefully encourage someone to start an article.  TJ   Spyke   00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghosts N' Goblins
Ok, so I was performing my routine check to make sure all games on the upcoming VC titles with ESRB source were still on the list. When lo and behold I did a publisher search for Capcom and I noticed Ghosts N' Goblins on there for the Wii. If I'm not mistaken this would be the NES version......should this be added to the upcoming list?? Neo Samus 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes.... The list continues to over-inflate with ESRB-only games... LN3000 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of them, but I'm afraid that's simply the nature of the thing. The VC grows very fast, so new titles will always be popping up and getting rated to prepare them for release. At least we manage to knock one or two off the list every week, even though they tend to be rated faster than they get released (which wouldn't be a problem if we got as many games a week as Japan, but that's another issue entirely). The Crimson Shoe 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the ESRB-rated titles are removed, there'd be nothing left of the upcoming list most of the time. This site also lists multi-region titles as upcoming. We've seen that old multi-region games that are released on VC generally show up in the other applicable regions not long after debuting, though the delay can vary. --Cheesemeister3k 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your recent change of the article supports part of my reasoning for not having ESRB titles there. We do not know which system some games would be released from, since ESRB only gives "Wii" labels. --LN3000 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one of the few exceptions to the rule. Yoshi's Cookie is the only NES/SNES multi-platform game I can think of off the top of my head that's VC-eligible. Why suppress one of the only valid sources of information when readers of this article would surely want to know what's coming? Lately, it's only been Hudson's website outside the press releases morning-of. I don't understand your reasoning. --Cheesemeister3k 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also Wario's Woods (NES and SNES versions both came out in December 1994). I agree that the ESRB is still reliable since only a small amount of games had multiple console releases.  TJ   Spyke   00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol just being stubborn I am. I love Yoshi's Cookie. It's a LOT better that Yoshi (NES) --LN3000 06:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We couild put unknown in the system box. But I have this feeling it might be the NES version. Neo Samus 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

November 12 update
From the same reliable source as last week: this weeks releases will consist of 1 NES game, 1 SNES game and 1 Neo Geo game. The SNES game will be a "widely-loved space shooter".  TJ   Spyke   22:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with the article? There is nothing from that source we can use in the article. --LN3000 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)It's informative. 2)To show you again that the source is reliable.  TJ   Spyke   22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's too vague. And a source can't 'prove' it's reliable like that. Besides, as I've said, it doesn't matter if it ends up being true or not.. it's not a source we can use. The only way I could think of that being a usable source is if nintendo linked to it, or IGN or some other (legit) reliable source. --LN3000 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable, they have been right since they started doing it a few weeks ago. The only reason he can't be more specific is because he signed a NDA with Nintendo in order to get the info 3 days early. It's fine if you think it's not reliable, I will be happy knowing for a fact that it is reliable.  TJ   Spyke   22:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't listening. It doesn't matter if we think it's reliable. We cannot use it as a source. Please, if you feel like it is SUCH a valid source, go ask an admin. If an admin says it's ok, I'll be the first person to add the information to the article. --LN3000 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think we shouldn't use it? I am willing to listen to your arguments. I am also gonna help out by posting here the confirmed info for that week since it is reliable. It probably won't be specific game names (last week was because other sites had already spilled the info), but it will be accurate and informative. Regarding the NES game, the source said it is a sports game that starts with "V" (the only game that qualifies is Volleyball, which has been out in Europe for awhile now. I do realize that we can't add Volleyball yet though since they didn't say it directly).  TJ   Spyke   00:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are answering your own questions. What do you expect to add to the article? "Such and such fan website has given vague and unverifiable descriptions that an unknown NES game, an unknown SNES game, and an unknown Neo Geo game will be added to the Virtual Console on Monday November 12th." Feel free to post in the Talk page (However, remember the fate of the Virtual Console screenshot thread, the difference there was THAT was reliable and verifiable..) Any uncited, and unreliable information will be reverted from the article. Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research, no matter if there's an NDA whatever involved or not. Speculation is not allowed. --LN3000 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should speculate about which titles they will be, i'm just saying I will post what CONFIRMED info we have. Our reliable source says that tommorows update will be 1 NES/1 SNES/1 Neo game, the SNES game is a space shooter, and that the NES game is a sports game that starts with "V". Part of this is to show that they are reliable in case of a leak like last week (when you reverted the releases).  TJ   Spyke   01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is... there is NO confirmed information. I do not understand what you are trying to do. All I'm saying is that any article changes cannot be related to some vague information. As soon as some reliable site like IGN or Nintendo, or whomever gives VC updates, we can't do anything, that is why I reverted the recent DK64 changes. --LN3000 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another possible problem is where it is impossible to access the article except via a direct link. Where is this mysterious information? --LN3000 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also would like to know this source. As LN said: unless it's IGN, Nintendo (or some other reliable source) we can't just speculate because some random site listed it. RobJ1981 01:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not some "random site". It's a site that reviews VC games (and video games in general). The guy who does so contacted his Nintendo rep (which is just the person at Nintendo who they talk to when they have questions/requests) who gives him the names of the games on Friday so they can prepare their reviews and have it up on Monday morning. The guy who reviews these games also posts at NeoGAF, and he posts these hints in the Virtual Console thread there (and he confirmed this in the thread on this page, his name is JSnake). I am not saying we should change anything on the main page based on these hints, I just figured it might be interesting for everyone else here to know this info ahead of time. I support reverting unsourced info or info from unreliable sites (like GameFAQs).  TJ   Spyke   01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand that it's irrelevant. If you aren't trying to suggest changes to the article, then what are you arguing? As I said MANY times, feel free to post these claims in the discussion, but as I have also said, even if they say which games come out, we can't use that in the actual article. May I also question why these reviews are inaccessible except via a direct link? --LN3000 01:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if he does post the reviews early then they will be added to the article since it's a reliable source (and has proven so over the last few weeks). Also, all of his review roundups are here: http://www.hookedgamers.com/columns/blogs.php.  TJ   Spyke   02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I am arguing. It is a legitimate website, but we cannot use any of it's 'insider-information' as as source. Feel free to try to add stuff into the article. It will be reverted without a reliable source (which this IS NOT.) As I've said, and you aren't hearing, if you have a problem with what I am saying, take it up with an admin. If an admin tells me any NDA-related future-related information that comes from this source is OK, then it may be used, and I will even be one of the people to add it in myself, if I am first. Otherwise, I will revert 'future-knowledge' that comes from this source. If OTHER sources ALSO have it, THEN we can find the source that has better reliability. --LN3000 02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had made this clear, I am not advocating putting speculation into the article. I am just saying that IF they post the titles ahead of time (which won't happen on a regular basis, last week was an exception), then they will be reliable enough to update the page. Last week had both GoNintendo.com AND this site listing the info, and you still reverted it. If a reliable site posts what games will come out, what reason is there to not list them? Feel free to ask an admin, I will tomorrow if I get a chance (I am busy tonight).  TJ   Spyke   02:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's my guess of the games, NES Yoshi's Cookie, NEO-GEO Blue's Journey, SNES....I'm not sure? What Shooter was very popular?  Neo Samus 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The source also has said that the NES game was a sports game that started with "V". Taking a look at List of Nintendo Entertainment System games means its pretty obviously gonna be Volleyball. Axelay was a popular shooter, and has been out in Australia for a few weeks (normally Australia gets the same games as Europe, but Australia got Axelay a few weeks ago while Europe got Super C).  TJ   Spyke   02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to get an admin, because no one is listening. It. Does. Not. Matter. What. Your. Source. Says. Stop. Arguing. --LN3000 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was erased, but I made it clear that I am not trying to put speculation on the page. IF this RELIABLE source does name exact games early (like they did last week), then it will be added to the main page with the source provided. It's no different than sourcing IGN. I know you want to have things your way and your way only (just look at this page where you refuse to budge on anything), but a reliable source is a reliable source.  TJ   Spyke   03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * why did you erase the entire conversation, Neo Samus? TJ, Good luck with your fight for this source. If anyone tries to pass this source as a reliable source, then I will revert it. If there's any mod/admin/whatever they are called that would like to correct me, then please let me know, otherwise, you are wrong. this stupid conversation has gone on long enough, because you aren't listening. --LN3000 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't erase it (check the logs before making false accusations. I see that you did check after I started writing this). It is a reliable source, and reverting it will just be reverted back. I am listening, but you have a history of not listening to anyone else on this page. I have shown that the source is reliable. Last week's incident is the exception to the rule since they don't normally post the games before Monday and only did so since other reliable sites had already posted them. I don't have to post the hints he gives, I just figured the people here might be interested in it. You act like I intend to post speculation on the page when I keep saying I would only add sourced, confirmed games.  TJ   Spyke   03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already edited my post to clarify whom I was referring to. I have a history of fighting for what's right. I'm not the one with sock-puppets. Last weeks events mean nothing. And you sounded like you WERE trying to post speculation, (this IS the discussion page for the article... not for random chit-chat) especially when I am debating the validity of your source. If you think that my reverts will be un-reverted, you are sadly mistaken. --LN3000 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What does my past (which I have admitted to and put behind me) have anything to do with this issue? You do have a history of fighting for your opinion (saying you fight for what is "right" makes it sound like people who disagree are wrong). Last weeks events were to help proove they are reliable. You don't have to worry about me posting speculation on the page (it's obvious that Volleyball will be the NES games, but I won't add it). How many more weeks of being accurate will it take for you to be convinced that the site does get the game names ahead of time (I know they do and others here know it)? Also, reverting SOURCED RELIABLE edits will not make you look good to anyone.  TJ   Spyke   03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you are the one who started talking about "my history" first. I stand up for what I believe is right. And so far, I have not been proven otherwise. Last week means nothing, it does not make them reliable. It takes time to become reliable. It is not obvious that it's Volleyball, because that is Original Research. I really don't care what you think, until someone tells me otherwise, I will not step down. ---LN3000 03:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I say that is is obvious that the NES game will be Volleyball is because there were only 4 licensed NES games that start with "V", and Volleyball is the only one that is a sports game. You are right, opposing a reliable source and reverting it is "right". They are a reliable source, whether you like them or not.  TJ   Spyke   03:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A source cannot be considered reliable if it's reliability is disputed. --LN3000 04:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Only disputed by you from what i've seen, wheras a couple of users support me in considering it reliable. I asked earlier, but how many weeks in a row of revealing what games are coming out before you admit it is reliable? I gurantee that in about 10 hours we will see a NES game (99% chance of Volleyball), a SNES game (a space shooter) and a Neo Geo game.  TJ   Spyke   06:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * *rolleyes* you still don't understand. The point isn't whether it has the potential to become a reliable source, the point is now we can't. If they have a NDA, they aren't going to be able to tell anyone what games will be coming out. And as you said yourself, last week they posted ONLY because other people broke the release thing first. That does not equal them being a reliable source. You keep arguing, go ahead. --LN3000 06:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am frustrated myself. I know they are reliable, I asked how long it would take until you admitted it. Part of the reason so if a situation like last week happens again, they can be used (without you just reverting). Geez, all this arguing just because I though people here would be interesting in having an idea of what would be coming, I was never trying to imply that we should guess what games they would be.  TJ   Spyke   07:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * TJ, I think you're missing the meaning of "reliability" on wikipedia. Reliablity does NOT mean a source is correct or truthful.  In fact, wikipedia does not care about truth - what matters is that sources are verifiable.  Check the wikipedia policy:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.  The fact that these sources have NDAs implies that they cannot legally be verifiable in any given week, until Nintendo allows them to release the information, at which time there are far more visible and reliable sources that may be cited.  Before then, their information constitutes original research.  It may seem dumb, but remember, while these sources are perfectly correct, they are *not* verifiable. 70.191.193.213 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's exactly what I was trying to say. --LN3000 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we just use it as talk page info since it can't be used as a reliable soruce for the actual page. Neo Samus 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (I feel like a broken record) As I said before, that's fine, but it will probably suffer the same fate as the Screenshot "thread". Also, this discussion page is for the actual article, not on the topic itself. So using that as talk page info is nearly the same. --LN3000 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the screenshot thread died because Nintendo seemed to catch on and stopped uploading games to the server before Monday morning.  TJ   Spyke   20:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue's Journey
Can someone verify the publisher for Blue's Journey? Thanks. --Cheesemeister3k 18:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It says D4 Enterprise. --LN3000 18:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That actually brings up a question I was wondering about: When Neo Geo stuff is listed on the ESRB site, it always has SNK Playmore USA as the publisher, but when the games show up on the Wii Shop Channel, they're always published by D4 Enterprise. Should we just start using D4 Enterprise from the start, or should we keep using SNK on the Upcoming list and then changing it to D4 on release? The Crimson Shoe 18:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested (and I agreed) that we should list the original publisher and the VC publisher. That would take care of situations like this (SNK as the original, D4 VC).  TJ   Spyke   20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That'd get to be excessively bloated, as the vast majority of games are still under the same publisher. It's a trivial detail. Given precedent, it would be fine to list D4 Enterprise as the publisher if SNK appears on the ESRB site. --Cheesemeister3k 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What about listing them in the same column, and only if they are different? So Super Mario World would be "Nintendo", but something like Art of Fighting would be "SNK/D4 Entertprise"? It wouldn't be too bloated since most of the games have the same publisher.  TJ   Spyke   22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say just stick to what actually appears on the Wii Shop Channel as a rule. Any other thoughts? --Cheesemeister3k 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of Titles
There are actually 170 titles currently available, not 169.--76.177.166.65 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 51 NES games + 23 SNES games + 9 N64 games + 38 Genesis games + 43 TG16 games + 5 NG games= 169 games.  TJ   Spyke   00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it'd be useful to have the number of titles by system on the article somehow. --Cheesemeister3k 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the IP got confused because Hudson Soft has Super Air Zonk under their released list (on October 29, with Samurai Ghost). Cheese, good idea. Any suggestions?  TJ   Spyke   00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is a great idea to have a "per system" count. Maybe while you are adding the count, you can re-add the Wii Points column, since there's a lot of different point games per system now. --LN3000 —Preceding comment was added at 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, don't go down that road again. I'll whip up a sandbox demo for title numbers, but would like to see other folks' take on the presentation as well. --Cheesemeister3k 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a mockup with several different style choices. --Cheesemeister3k 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the NES formatted one personally.  TJ   Spyke   02:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused about the number because I thought four titles were released today, when in fact it was 3. My apologies.--76.177.166.65 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the NES style. I think it should be integrated in to the Europe one too.  Neo Samus 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about any of them. It needs to be simplified a bit, maybe. I still think it'd be best to re-add the Wii Points column, since there is a sizable number of exceptions. --LN3000 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind seeing them back either (I was one of the more vocal people saying they should have been kept during the month long period the page was locked), I just just want to see the page go through that again.  TJ   Spyke   04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind the column back either.....but it is not worth all the hassle we had last time. I can live with how the article is with the points.  Neo Samus 07:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not worth the inevitable can of worms. --Cheesemeister3k 14:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's Too Many Tables
Why is there a table for each system! This isn't easy to use! It's stupid because I have to look at all six tables every monday to see if there are any new games. If they were all put in one table, then I could look at the bottom of one table instead of all six! Can someone put them all together? If you do, then you're gonna need to add another row for what system the game is in. --Cyclops Pikachu (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about too many tables, but I'm pretty sure we came to the conclusion that it was better to keep the tables separate, in order to provide better viewing. --LN3000 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not better this way! I had to scroll through six lists to see what games are new, and these are long lists. We should just have one list, to provide better viewing. --Cyclops Pikachu (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One table would be just as long, with just as much scrolling. --LN3000 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That and we tried one table. It looked horrible. Neo Samus (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could do something like make each weeks new titles a different color? Just make the entire row for the game blue or something. It's not a big deal if we keep it the way it is because it takes like 5 seconds to check the entire page (new titles are listed at the bottom of the tables).  TJ   Spyke   19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was a mini list at the top of the page that showed just the new games, then there wouldn't have to be ANY scrolling! --Cyclops Pikachu (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That was another thing that was brought up during the huge edit war this past summer. From what I remember no one really cared for it (again this is from the top of my head).  Neo Samus (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was the one who came up with the "table of new releases on top" idea. I would love to see that happen. However, I think TJ's idea is a winner. --LN3000 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the colored row idea as well, though blue wouldn't work since the text is blue. Yellow maybe? Either way, I think it would look a lot nicer and simpler than one big list or a "New Releases" list. The Crimson Shoe (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * NES = Red, SNES = light purple, N64 = Green, TG-16 = Orange, Genesis = light blue?, Neo Geo = Yellow. How do these colors sound?  Neo Samus (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a short list of 3 new titles at the top sounds better. No paging down, no arbitrary coloring. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think since the dust has pretty much *looks around* settled I asy we give the "New releases at the top* a shot. I kinda like the color idea too.  Could we implement both of them?  Neo Samus (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see this work. However, there's no reason for a different color for each system. Just a little darker blue to offset the current table. It doesn't need to be too blaring or obvious like Red or something. --LN3000 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've set up a test of it at User:TJ Spyke/Test. Any comments?  TJ   Spyke   07:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really like it. It works. It looks good. It addresses everyone's concerns. The page will look really nice with that. Great work, dude! --LN3000 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

November 19
No I am not suggesting speculation be put in, but here is the confirmed info for this weeks update from our reliable source who gets the PR info early in order to write reviews: 1 TurboGrafx-CD game (already confirmed to be Super Air Zonk: Rockabilly-Paradise on Hudson Soft's website), 1 NES game, 1 Genesis game. The official PR from Nintendo says "roll out the red carpet for these mega characters" (although he confirms it is NOT a Mega Man game).  TJ   Spyke   02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you are aware that we can only treat it as speculation, even if you think it's reliable, and we can't do anything about this 'information', than there is no problem. Just remember that this is not a forum, and if something doesn't affect the content of the article, it doesn't really belong here. --LN3000 (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's kinda of against the rules.....but maybe we could let this one slide? ;) Neo Samus (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just don't want anyone to get the wrong impression. Maybe I'm being a bit more aggressive than I usually would be lately, but I really do care about trying to do the right thing. Although honestly, I'd rather not have vague "1 SNES, 1 Genesis, etc" news. If there's full outright game names, then bring 'em on in. Otherwise it's pretty useless information. --LN3000 (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But He can't because of the NDA's. But at least we know we can except "1 NES, 1 Genesis, and 1 TG-CD (Super Air Zonk)".  Neo Samus (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Thunder 2 is by Namco
Not by Sega. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.129.228 (talk • contribs)
 * The ESRB is listing Sega as the publisher. Sega may be publishing the Virtual Console version.  TJ   Spyke   02:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Newest Additions
It looks very good. I have to complement you C3K. The lavender is a nice touch. Neo Samus (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V from here. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh then complements to TJ. My mistake.  Neo Samus (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing highlights from old titles and adding them to new ones is pretty high-maintenance... We've already just added numbers of titles by system. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Rob, all of the regular contributors to this article are on board with this change. A new release section is handy and more readily presents pertinent information to readers. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't throw around the word consensus, when it's only a few people that agreed to the new section. The regular editors don't own the article, nor do they control it. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the only one against it. If that's the case, there IS a consensus. --LN3000 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I have to agree with Rob on this. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. So listings of information that act as news bulletins fall under both of those. The "Upcoming releases" section is questionable also, but is probably ok since the information there is about games that are announced, but have no confirmed release dates. You guys might want to rename that section to avoid confusion with news-like info. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
 * What he said. According to WP:NOT, #ADVERTISING, and #DIR, A Newest editions section would not be in the articles best interest. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Newest releases is both unnecessary and unencyclopedic. - .:Alex:. 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that the new setup works very well. The unencyclopedic arguement has been used so much by this point that if people actually agreed, I doubt this page would still be here.Tkrausse (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not arguing whether the setup works well or not. It's a nifty idea and kinda cool, but it is not encyclopedic. If the rest of the content is presented in an encyclopedic manner, which it for the most part is, then the list can stay. So in the end, it doesn't really matter if people agree with it or not. Because it is an official policy of Wikipedia, we have to adhere to as editors on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Please don't include a newest releases section, for the WP:NOT arguments put forward above. In response to User:Tkrausse, I have to note that the adjective unencyclopaedic means anything that Wikipedia is not - it's just a nicer word, not bad per se. Furthermore, such a section is redundant with sortable tables by date. One might actually want to merge the current tables into one, adding a "system" column. User:Krator (t c) 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The table is causing no harm, and it does add something nice to the article. --LN3000 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, we're not happy to do this, it's a nice and cool idea you guys implemented. But unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place for it. And per WP:HARMLESS, just because it's harmless isn't reason for inclusion on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Agreed. The only arguments that Neo Samus and Lamename3000 have given is WP:HARMLESS and WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it and it barely does anything for the article, good OR bad, that doesn't mean it should be there. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A designated upcoming releases section is very news-like. The information can still be presented in an encyclopedic method, however, by incorporating confirmed future releases (per ESRB announcements) into the already-existing lists of available titles (and finding a new name other than available titles, obviously), and listing their date of release as "TBA."  It's not crystal-balling to do this for games known to be released in the future - see the existence of a Final Fantasy XIII article despite no confirmed release date. 129.61.46.16 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is done all the time. Go ahead and put announced games in the article, but NOT in a "Newest Additions" section. Dengarde ► Complaints 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We aren't discussing that section, and it is doubtful that the two areas will be combined. --LN3000 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a question, I noticed that the last row on some of the tables was highlighted with a different color. Is there a reason behind this other than the fact that they were the most recent additions to the list? If not, I think that the color should be consist throughout to avoid confusion among readers as there is no mention in the article as to why those rows are the color they are. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
 * The color was just an idea that TJ Spyke did in his Sandbox. I thought it look nice so I added in the article.  But I can always remove it, since because of a small addition the warzone started up again.  I hope you all realize that this argument is silly and pointless and is not needed.  *shakes head*  Neo Samus (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think removing it would be a good idea. Say what you will about the discussion, but most of us have been on both sides of something like this before. It's not about picking fights it's about following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. For what it's forth, I still think it was cool idea. Hope there are no hard feelings. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to have to use another source for VC update because this is yet another superb idea for this article that is killed by Wiki-nazis! Signed - the public that actually uses this article and liked the useful function of the lavender shade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.29 (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I removed the color.....but I still think we should have the newest additions on the top. If I'm not mistaken *cough*XBLA*cough* has something similar.  But again, nothing ever happens to that page but this page get attacked left and right.  Drives me nuts.  Neo Samus (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Ok, so XBLA doesn't have a new releases section.  But honestly does it really hurt the article that bad?  Also, would colorizing each system be a better idea than just the new releases?  Neo Samus (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Upcoming games for Xbox Live Arcade. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they have two articles for it all. The upcoming list as well as this: Xbox Live Arcade --LN3000 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So this page get harassed for, again, adding something minor yet XBLA (US only) has three different pages dedicated to it. It looks like to me that we need to pick our battles.  I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I'm just trying to state my opinion.  Neo Samus (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * XBLA SHOULDN'T have them. But this article is NOT XLBA, and it has no relevance to this article. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion about XBLA here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games. Stop talking about it on this talk page, as this is for Virtual Console, the talkheader shouldn't be ignored. Anyway, about the subject on hand: minor or not, people already mentioned: WP:NOT, #ADVERTISING, and #DIR. This isn't a fansite that has everything you like added to the article. Policies shouldn't be ignored. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If a rule prevents you from improving an article, Ignore all rules. The argument would then be "Does adding the cell colors or a new release section improve the article?" I would say yes. As we've heard many times, people come to this article to discover the new releases. It'd be easy and it wouldn't take up too much space (3 lines?!?). If we can do this to improve the usability of the article, then we can safely ignore any rules telling us otherwise, especially when taking the nature of the article's subject into account. That is why Wii Points could also be safely added back in, but that's another argument for a different occasion. --LN3000 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules is an excuse, not a reason to add something. Just let it go, and edit other articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules is just as much a policy as anything else. In fact, it's the first rule. Take your own advice, maybe? --LN3000 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The section isn't suitable for Wikipedia, so just move on and stop making excuses. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that doesn't make it true. You can't just brush a legitimate discussion off and say "move on". That is why we have a discussion page. --LN3000 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't weighed in, i've been having problems getting online. I like the new releases table, but can do without it. I do think that the newest releases should be highlighted. To Cheese, all it takes to change the game highlighted is to move 1 line ( style="background: #E7DDEE;" ).  TJ   Spyke   23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniracers?
I've been following some of the discussion, and noticed today that on the Uniracers wiki page, it mentioned it had been ESRB rated.

I looked at the ESRB website and it was indeed listed as E. Should this be added to the Upcoming releases? I seem to remember the decision was made to include those games even if the only current evidence was an ESRB rating for a game that originally had none. EDIT: I guess in fact the game was originally rated K-A, if so does that make E a rerate or just a update to the current rating system?

Thanks for keeping up a great article. 71.203.211.245 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As a rule, we don't list titles rated by ESRB under the nebulous "Nintendo" platform, only Wii. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. 71.203.211.245 (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

November 26
This weeks update: 1 NES game, 1 SNES game, 1 Genesis game. Their genres are a gambling game, a sports game and a underwater adventure. Our source also gave his opinion that all three are shitty games. I think I know what they are, but speculation wouldn't help.  TJ   Spyke   01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit, he just confirmed that the NES game is Double Dribble.  TJ   Spyke   01:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this week is gonna be crappy. I can already guess that the other two games are Vegas Stakes for SNES, and Ecco Jr. for Genesis.  Neo Samus (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide me a link? Thanks.Mmark089 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

December 3
All 3 games confirmed by our usual source (well, 2 of them since Hudson Soft announced 1 of them): Zanac (NES), Eternal Champions (Genesis), and The Dynastic Hero (TG16).

Can I have a link to our source please? Thanks. Mmark089 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New Game Confirmed To Be Released in the Near Future
Nintendo's Pokemon web site has a flash banner that says Pokemon Snap for the Nintendo 64 will be released for the Virtual Console on December 10. It needs to be added on the Future Games list. Thanks. Stncldrwg 08:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

December 10
From the usual source. 1 NEOGEO game, 1 NES game and Pokémon Snap. Neo Samus (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And some more info. The NG game is a baseball game, the NES game is from a series that has already had a SNES and Genesis version released on the VC.  TJ   Spyke   00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks TJ. I meant to add that.  ;)  Neo Samus (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do know where Rob is coming from, but since it does relate to the article, this information is ok, as long as we know we can't do anything to the article. Not sure how Jsnake is able to say ANYTHING from the PR, (Still haven't even been able to FIND where he is saying this information,) but this is fine here in the discussion side of the article. --LN3000 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He said his Nintendo rep (the person at Nintendo responsisble with giving his site PR releases and other info from Nintendo) is cool with him giving out certain info and sometimes the specific game names. I am aware that we should avoid stuff like speculation (which is why I edited my previous comment about what I think the NES game is). As far as Rob's edit summary, not mentioning anything because stuff could change seems a little too much. Yes Nintendo could change pull a game before Monday, but under that logic we shouldn't include any future stuff (not just confirmed Virtual Console games, but also wrestling/boxing/mma matches, movie release dates, etc.) since they could all change.  TJ   Spyke   02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 17
Tiles for monday are 1 SNES, 1 Genesis, and Monster Lair. The SNES and Genesis games are sci-fi related. Neo Samus (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It has since been stated that the SNES game is Cybernator and the Genesis game is Alien Storm. -Thores (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

2 new consoles?
I've heard rumors that 2 new consoles are making their way to the VC but I can't find any official word of this. Can anybody verify this? And if so, should it have a place in the article? Or should we just wait until they're actually on the VC? zabbethx 8:38 am Dec. 21, 07 —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided enough information to even speculate. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's not a rumor. Nintendo of Japan has showed that 2 new consoles are on the way on their official site. Just look at Kotaku or Joystiq over the last couple of days for proof. Secondly, we already know that one of them is the MSX. Thirdly, this is specific to Japan - we have no idea when or even if these two consoles are coming stateside. Therefore, no, no reason to put it in this article. --Bishop2 (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Only 1 new system is confirmed, saying a second one is coming is speculation by Kotaku and Joystiq (which are just blog sites).  TJ   Spyke   22:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

December 24
We are getting 1 NES game, 1 SNES game, and 1 Sega Genesis game. They are Blades of Steel, Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble, and Rolling Thunder 2. From our source.Mmark089 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And in the mean time, Europe has Mega Man and Mega Man 2 already out in Europe (the first one for several months).  TJ   Spyke   23:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

December 31
We are getting Bubble Bobble for the NES, Light Crusader for the Genesis, and Top Hunter for the Neo Geo. So much for Mario RPG being released in 2007.Mmark089 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! I forgot the source.Mmark089 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we be posting this in the article? I know the info is true, but forum sources are considered a no-no on Wikipedia.....I won't delete if you guys post it though. Just warning what might happen.  ;)  Neo Samus (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely NOT. You can NOT use a forum, (especially GameFAQs) as a source on Wikipedia. Besides, there have been PLENTY of bogus press releases on GameFAQs.... so really, don't. I will revert. --LN3000 (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't our usual source a forum as well?Mmark089 (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The differences are 1)NeoGAF is a far more reliable source and 2)The source at the other forum is a reliable source who gets their info from Nintendo and has been proven reliable (rather than a random GameFAQs poster).  TJ   Spyke   06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The person also gets insider information about the Virtual Console. He even posts the "Wii-kly Update" message that will appear on Nintendo's press site. He did one of these before the 24th and the same message appeared on the press site.Mmark089 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't change the fact that you can't use it as a source, and really shouldn't be discussed on wikipedia. We don't use any information from the other source. I don't know why we continue to have this discussion. --LN3000 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)