Talk:List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)/Archives/2009/December

IGN as a source
I disagree on IGN being a source. They're only a news site and they post news articles related to video games, such as the Final Fantasy article also sourced. The listing for Genghis Khan II has no news article and is listed among such inaccuracies as Goldeneye 007 (Which I notice is now listed as rumoured). IGN also lists many Japanese VC games as well. The only reason IGN has it on their site, to my knowledge is the ESRB rating it got recently, which isn't a reliable source for this list. Unless there's an actual announcement from Nintendo or Koei themselves, it should be removed. Cloud789 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this. IGN is only playing the guessing game. They know just as much ahead of time about the Wii Shop as we do. Several times they have stamped release dates for Wii Shop games that did not have an official announcement and they have always come out wrong. Although I'd hate to shorten the list as I feel the ESRB should still be considered a reliable source. 98.213.36.235 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're not counting IGN as a source, then why are most of the future releases IGN sourced? 76.126.21.16 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried editing out the IGN sources but they keep getting re-added. Someone is really adamant in thinking IGN is a reliable source. A couple of those Arcade games don't even have ESRB ratings and Clayfighter 63 1/3 was a mistake listing on the ESRB's part that was later corrected. The ESRB is more reliable but I'd rather have no listings outside of company PR rather than IGN's guesses. Isn't there anything that can be done? 98.212.99.78 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this would probably defeat the purpose of having a future releases section, as my proposal would make the list almost empty, but if we are really worried about reliability, shouldn't we rule out both IGN and ESRB as sources, unless it is a published article stating a specific game is being released on a specific date? If the whole idea is to not predict what is coming out in the future, then we should really only use the sources that have never given false information. S275ironman (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IGN is a credible and reliable source, so they are allowed. As for ESRB, that is also reliable as the publisher submitted the game to the ESRB (and paid the fee) to have it rated; while the company could then decide not to release it, getting it rated means they intend to. Not to bring up other pages, but you should take a look at List of Xbox Live Arcade games (where they even list RUMORED games, games not even confirmed to actually be coming).  TJ   Spyke   22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But WHY is IGN a credible source? They really aren't. Some of those games they list aren't even ESRB rated like their pages claim. It's not like their getting VC release data ahead of time and witholding it from us. IGN should only be a source if they break the news of a confirmed VC Release timeframe. Either the ESRB should be our main source or we're stuck with whatever's directly confirmed. Wariofan63 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not like them, but IGN IS a reliable source (even though it's common sense, it is also approved by WP:VG). If a game on this list has the wrong ERSB rating, feel free to correct it. As for your last statement, no. If a reliable source confirmed a game will be released, we will add it. If you find a source that says a game won't come out, that can be discussed. Th bottom line is that if a reliable source confirms a games release, there really isn't a reason to not include the game on the list. Would you also care to explain why you think the list should only include games already released in other regions? There have been many occasions where North America was the first region to get the VC version of a game.  TJ   Spyke   00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that was a boneheaded decision based on the fiasco awhile back based on people not wanting the ESRB as source. I wanted to add the others. I thought as long as the game was available elsewhere, the ESRB couldn't be credited as making a mistake. And I know IGN can be a reliable source for news and the like, but in matters like these I really don't think that just because they make a game page for it confirms it. Especially since stuff like Clayfighter 63 1/3 and World Heroes 2 were definitely based on ESRB ratings that have since been removed. Should they really be granted that kind of immunity? Wariofan63 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying IGN doesn't make mistakes (even the most reliable sources and news sites make mistakes from time to time), I just think it's a bad idea to remove all of them.  TJ   Spyke   01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm sorry for acting rashly. I thought ESRB not being a source was still in effect and I was pretty sour from that. Are you giving the green light that we can use ESRB ratings as a source again? Also, can we at least remove Clayfighter 63 1/3 and Strider? The only hint Clayfighter was coming was based on a mistake the ESRB made. Strider is likely there because of it's European ratings so at the moment theres no American release confirmed. Wariofan63 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been in favor of including games listed by the ESRB, it was others who were against. What makes you think ClayFighters was a mistake though? It's not like it can't happen (since the Genesis version of the first game is already on the VC).  TJ   Spyke   17:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is the possibility that it could, just as of right now our only lead on that was that old rating. When Clayfighter 63 1/3 had a Wii listing, the original Clayfighter did not. While at the same time, everything else that Interplay announced had a rating. When the Genesis Clayfighter finally got a Wii rating the 63 1/3 rating dissapeared. Wariofan63 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

is super smash bros.coming out next week
is super smash bros. coming out out monday 14th. and if not whats the released date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far 2 games have been announced for next Monday: "Rubik's Puzzle Galaxy: Rush" for WiiWare, and "Blaster Master" (from the NES) for VC.  TJ   Spyke   18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

where do the information about future virtual console games release dates come from?
can someone tell me where it come from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Each game has a reference column that says the source of the info.  TJ   Spyke   22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

what will be new in the wii shop channel tomarrow
will super smash bros.be released tomarrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

is there a chance it will be released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopas rulez (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of things: 1)Sign your posts. 2)There is no need to make 2 sections asking the same thing. As for your question, yes it's possible. Just a friendly reminder though, this is NOT a messageboard. The talkpage of an article is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of the subject.  TJ   Spyke   18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo Life as a source
--Koopas rulez (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)nintendo life announce north american titles and someone should add it as a source p.s. the future titles release dates need to be edit.

--Super Smash Bros. Fan1994 (User talk:Super Smash Bros. Fan1994) Nintendo Life is accurate in most cases, so they are work looking over (Although there are exceptions such as Tetris Attack where the game is mistaken for Panel De Pon). I personally go there myself and they are very trustworthy. Try adding those games to the Wikipedia list that have an ESRB rating or have been announced for our region, but nothing more.