Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archives/2008/November

We need a block column
This new column would let people know how many blocks a certain game is. That way, people who download a ton of games can research how big it is and decide if they want to have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennAwesome (talk • contribs) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that has the info, I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would have to be the actual block size (the number of blocks a game actually takes up is lower than what is shown in the Wii Shop Channel).  TJ   Spyke   13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A block column isn't notable. Video game articles rarely have sections listing how much memory they take up, this is no different. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Other articles that discuss downloadable content, like Sony's Playstation Network, Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade, and Nintendo's WiiWare list's are listing the file size data. I'm all for it as long as we can source it, but now that I think about it I wonder if the other articles source the info? Oh TJ, that only occured for the titles that were released within the first 6 months or so. All current titles show the proper file size. Neo Samus (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The last game I bought was Paper Mario (although someone gifted my Phantasy Star II back in February).  TJ   Spyke   15:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, games that were posted prior to August 27, 2007 are listed on the Shop roughly 72 blocks over their actual size. Those posted after that date are within a block or two of their actual size, not counting save data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.6.230 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've brought this matter up at the Video Game project here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * File sizes for downloadable games are highly trivial and unnecessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove all titles referred to as future releases by their ESRB rating.
Far too many titles have come and gone after having been rated by the ESRB. Just being rated doesn't mean that the titles are going to be released, since it's common practice to plan ahead just in case they decide to release them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look two sections above. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess this means Chrono Break is coming out, since Square Enix likely had to pay to file a patent for the name Chrono Break. And Viewtiful Joe 3, since Capcom registered the domain name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I've looked through the history, and noticed several titles that were once listed on esrb.com, but was removed, such as Kirby Super Star. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If a game is no longer listed on ESRB's site, it shouldn't be listed in the future releases section here. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be listed if it's still on. The history of games being rated by the ESRB and then being dropped tells us that just being rated doesn't mean it's going to be released in the future. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree (as I stated in the above section), but no one wanted to listen in that discussion. Perhaps we should bring this up at the Video Game Project for outside opinions on this matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I thought you were only commenting on past releases. But I agree, it should be brought up at WP:VG. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made this discussion about the matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, the problem is that people are equating the sourced statement "The ESRB has rated game X for the Y console" with the moderately more OR and CRYSTAL-esque statement "Game X is coming out for Y console's retro games service", often with the implication that it will come out real soon now. Just how OR and/or CBALL it is is up for debate, but I can't help but notice some games have been up there for an embarrassingly long time now (Pilotwings, Pro Wrestling, and Kirby's Dreamland 3 have all been on there since January of freakin' '07), which IMO is grounds for removal. Nifboy (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added ESRB-rated titles under a separate table, with a disclaimer stating that they're not guaranteed. If you don't agree with this proposed compromise version, please discuss it and reach a consensus before editing. Thank you. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not guaranteed (which you admitted to in your post): that's crystal balling, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Also, putting something into the article...then telling people to discuss instead of editing is a bit hypocritical. You didn't discuss before you added that new table in. Next time use your user space, and post it here for people to agree on. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're so concerned about following policy to the letter, you should argue for the deletion of all such list pages per WP:NOTDIR. ESRB-rated titles are relevant to this list. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the ESRB-rated titles table, we all (or most) have to agree in the discussion page, which most do not. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to throw in my two cents. I have for a long time been vocal on my opinion that the ESRB-as-a-source was very un-wikipedia-like. I am glad that this issue is being brought up, and me vote remains to leave the "Upcoming Releases" to be about ones where we actually have a source, other than "It's rated! *thumbs up* " LN3000 (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. It was discussed at WP:VG. No one in support of the list of games rated by the ESRB explained why the ESRB was enough of a reliable source to list them here. Should we also list Viewtiful Joe 3 on List of Capcom games because Capcom registered ? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No one for the ESRB list has given a decent reason for it to remain. As Link stated (here, as well as on the discussion at the Video Game Project): several games have been rated, then not even came out. This proves ESRB isn't accurate and shouldn't be used. Here's a good suggestion for people that want to see an ESRB list: post it in a word document or on your personal website: then you have it to view whenever you want. It's simply not suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Registering a domain name is very different from registering an ESRB rating: any ol' domain squatter can decide to register something based on an IP, so the IP-holder may register it out of the possibility that it may someday create a game with such a title. New domain names can be had for $10. ESRB ratings, as of June 1st, 2003, cost $250 for re-ratings and $1500 for new ratings. All classic titles from before the establishment of the ESRB would need new ratings. No sensible company would spend $1500 left and right on needless "what-ifs." --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So because certain games didn't get released, that means ESRB is unreliable as a source? What if they come out tomorrow? Does that mean it's suddenly reliable again? I think EA, Capcom, Namco, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, Sega, and others have announced a few games in the past that ended up never coming out. Does that mean any data from them is unreliable now and unacceptable for Wikipedia? On top of this, game sites like IGN often have game pages for games that get canceled or weren't even announced for a certain system in the first place. That must mean they are really unreliable, right? -Zomic13 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, just wondering, why is it that your argument only works with speculation? So, ESRB rating a game means it's coming out. Yeah, that'd be a good source if ESRB themselves said that EVER. Nintendo makes tons of money. I'm kind of skeptical that a company that makes nearly a billion dollars every quarter of a year would not register titles that they may localize. A game being rated is not a reliable source of information in any capacity. The ESRB is not listed on WP:VG's Sources page, and until it's listed, it's not a reliable source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)