Talk:Wii/Criticisms

Priority Issue, Full Protection
The page has been fully locked due to constant editing issues over the Critisism section, It's not pretty I know, but in order to access the article for editing again this issue MUST be resolved, I call upon both parties to address their current stance on this issue, your statements must be legitimate and in accordance to the Wiki guidelines, and no name calling either,Dctcool 12:17 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No it's not pretty, and I don't see the point either. Why is this at the top of the page? --gatoatigrado 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree, not much of a precedent to request full protection over. If it's been confirmed by Nintendo that it's just "Wii", then that should be enough to allow editing again, making sure that people know it's now just "Wii", not "The Wii" or "Nintendo Wii" --Alfreido 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the issue that led to the protection. Dancter 03:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what was mentioned on the comment at the top of the article. And the other comment was about fanboy wars, which shouldn't be enough to warrant full protection. There's been worse attacks than on this page which didn't get protection.--Alfreido 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Go down to the criticism section. The page is locked because one user kept adding the criticism section back in but refused to make sure the section was right and that the sources were correct. The correct option in my opinion would have been to just block the user, rather than make it so none of us can edit the article. TJ Spyke 06:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that user has anyone seen him lately has he finally given up? and does anyone know how to request a user block for a single page because I'm pretty sure there has to be more than one person who has to make the request -- Dctcool 07:21 12 October (UTC)
 * Spyke: Wrong. Certain users kept removing the criticism section. I merely re-added it so that it so that it could be improved rather then simply die off as the corroders were trying. Dctool: I've been busy with real world issues. I have not 'given up' there is nothing to 'give up', this isn't a game. I am not the problem here. I have the best interests of wikipedia at heart.--Josquius 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Complaints can be made here but I don't know how long it'll take before some action is taken, I never even new that place existed until I just went looking for it. -- Doc711 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify : is the edit war (which led to protection) based on this user and this edit? --Oscarthecat 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we are refraining from naming names, but yes. It was reverts like that which led to the page protection. Since it seems the discussion on the issue has stalled for the most part, is it safe to assume that there is enough consensus that a "criticisms" section can be included immediately, provided that the information is directly verified and properly contextualized according to WP:NPOV? Or are there still those who disagree? It seems that for the most part, all the arguments have been addressed. I think it's time for the full protection to be lifted. Dancter 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the page has been locked long enough, think we should unlock, but I think we should agree that before we add something into the page, we talk about it with everyone to avoid an edit war.--Dctcool 00:03 17 October 2006
 * i agree with Dctcool as well as a criticism section is needed to maintain a NPOV. also major edits should be discussed before hand. (minor being spelling ect)Shinigami Josh 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No it is not needed to maintain a NPOV. The GameCube, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, PS1 articles don't have them. The only other system I can see that has one is PS3 (which actually has been criticised, whereas the Wii not really). TJ Spyke 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
Is, to be fair, rubbish. No sources for the critism of European price. Out of the three sources of critism for the graphics 1 of them heaps only praise on the console, and 1 of them barely mentions graphics (and is largely innacurate in the rest of the article). The last one is a barely comprehensible fan site. I'm not even sure that "graphics aren't as good as the others" is a valid critism anyway as this is the stated intention of the product. The price may be a valid critism and there are articles on gamespot which can be sited if needs be. Ajmayhew 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The diff for the criticism removal is here.  Probably best to leave the criticism section removed for now, and wait for the product to actually be released.  Am sure there will be plenty of reviews/criticism/comparisons then. --Oscarthecat 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree after reading the Critisism section the claims seemed to be more fancruft than encyclopaedic I will continue to monitor any such additions until the product is released, wait until we hear what the consumers have to say. Dctcool 21:59, 29 September 2006 (AEST)

(originally wrote this seperatly as I didn't notice the above) Would certain people please stop removing the criticism section. It is utterly irrelevant that you think the Wii is the best thing since sliced bread, this is supposed to be a NPOV article and so the criticism section is needed- especially since the PS3 article also has this. Also could some of the decent members of the community please watch out for the Nintendo fanboys doing this and reinstate it when they hide it. __ Yes the section wasn't that good, I said as much when I made it. The point is though that it is there and it does need doing. Waiting until its released- maybe. However the PS3 article has a criticism section despite being further away from release then the Wii.--Josquius 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There can be a critisism section,as long as the statements are accuratly sourced. They weren't and thus, removed.  Find sources, than readd it, and it can be kept.-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the Price has been critisied esp in uk and Ireland (we are a eurozone country you fucks, why charge us more)Owwmykneecap 22:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything costs more in the UK/Ireland. You can't include that because the PS3 and Xbox 360 cost more in the UK than in North America as well. TJ Spyke 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is a tricky one actually. Both sides are right I think, there are some criticisms that exist now and there are some which may surface or vanish after it launches. I'd say that we try to keep the criticisms minimal (even though I have a ton of them) because at this point it's mostly just speculation. Some things which might be criticised includ the price (being too much for the non-gaming community, especially as it lacks DVD playing abilities) and the graphics (given that HD might really take off during its life span). As with the name criticism I finally got added, this stuff will take a good bit of citations from reputable sources to establish that they are real concerns that the press and gaming circles have. I do think, however, that just as the article is allowed to contain information about all the theoretical boons of the system, it should be allowed to contain information about all the theoretical problems with the system. After all, NPOV! The price in Europe isn't something I'm going to comment on because I haven't really heard much about it... --Twile 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the Graphics critisism would now be irrelivent from the new screenshots of Red Steel, the graphics in those shots bring it up almost to 360 standards, you can see these screens in their official blog, [], remember the console is still in early stages so later on graphics are bound to improve, and you cannot place critisism on the Price when you look at the Playstation 3's pricetag

That however is irrelevant. Its not about what you think its that criticisms do exist. Logically one of two things must happen here, either:
 * The Wii is allowed a criticism section
 * The PS3 isn't allowed a criticism section
 * The allowence of a critisism is not the case and is pure fanboyish, what is the case is keeping the facts in sources in order, the sources provided so for provide no hard evidence, we're not picking on the PS3 but unless solid sources emerge of a professional analyst or critic directly critisising the Wii's features the Critisism section will stay out.Dctcool 09:12, 01 October 2006 (AEST)

Both are in the same stage of not being released so the arguments about whether there should or shouldn't be a section should mutally apply to both. Hell the PS3 is even further from release then the Wii. Sources: I did have sources. Hard to find since I get my computer game press from the real world not the internet but I foudn them.--Josquius 11:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some valid critcisms for the PS3: the delays and the high price (both partially caused by the Blu ray feature.) The Wii, however, has the somewhat inferior graphics and the initial reaction to the name. The latter is (or should be) in the name section, and the former isn't enough to base a criticism section on. The european pricing doesn't seem to me to be worth mentioning, particularly because it was unsourced. Once it is released, there will be either a criticism section or a reception section. I prefer the reception section, you can include positive and negative reactions in the same section. Tuesday42 14:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This section exists because people like Don_SF are so insecure that PS3 has points to be critical about, PS3 fans feel insecure about thier system choice and want Wii to have bad opinion-based points made against it because there are so many valid against the PS3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.62.223 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * sigh* Here we go again. ::rolls eyes:: Anyway, casting aside my issues with having a purely perfunctory criticism section for now, how is it that HDTV technology is "widespread"?  Simply put, it's not.  The number of people with HDTV's pales in comparison to those still with regular TV's. Sure, that will change in the next several years, but for now, sorry, Nintendo is right. Plus, I think they're secretly hoping the PS3 and/or 360 will pull a "Dreamcast" and pave the way for the "Wii-HD", saving them money for now. Danny 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism (cont.)
Since it was moved to the archive rather fast....

The allowence of a critisism is not the case and is pure fanboyish, what is the case is keeping the facts in sources in order, the sources provided so for provide no hard evidence, we're not picking on the PS3 but unless solid sources emerge of a professional analyst or critic directly critisising the Wii's features the Critisism section will stay out.Dctcool 09:12, 01 October 2006 (AEST)

No, its to counter fanboyism that the Wii does need it and it is due to fanboyism that it is not here. There are plenty of major games magazines that have commented on neegative aspects of the Wii (i.e. Edge had a piece on the Wii with a rather large criticism section)--Josquius 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some valid critcisms for the PS3: the delays and the high price (both partially caused by the Blu ray feature.) The Wii, however, has the somewhat inferior graphics and the initial reaction to the name. The latter is (or should be) in the name section, and the former isn't enough to base a criticism section on. The european pricing doesn't seem to me to be worth mentioning, particularly because it was unsourced. Once it is released, there will be either a criticism section or a reception section. I prefer the reception section, you can include positive and negative reactions in the same section. Tuesday42 14:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wii is also criticised in the press. And stop the source fascism, I should not be the only one having to do this. It is quite obvious that it is true Europe is more expensive however as the article itself says so much. Game central had a rather large moan on this fact. The Wii is not immune to criticism, there is a lot of it out there. Maybe not as much as the PS3 (due to anti-Sony fanboys being a far more vocal bunch then the generally more 'casual gamer' Sony 'fans') but it exists and if one is mentioned so should the other.--Josquius 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, do not remove a section in an article just because another does not have it, that is exactly what we try to prevent. This article needs a criticism section, but so far everytime I had tried to add one, consensus was not to have it. You can continue trying here, but please, don't remove similar sections from other articles. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is fine but professional sources are absolutely essential, otherwise it is just fanboyism and should be referenced or deleted. BrokenBeta &#x5B;talk · contribs&#x5D; 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section significantly and added a warning for future edits. Just64helpin 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it needs to be removed the section is very very poor. The first sentence makes reference to [49] which does not say anything about the graphics being 'no being much greater than' GameCube. Wii being more expensive in Europe etc. with no Citation is a joke - all the consoles are this way. [53] also has nothing but priase for the Remote, which it is a reference to saying "the remote is the source of much criticism". I am all for a criticism section but the citations are borderline pathetic. Most are not even crediable game sources. 49 for example - I doupt they post more than 1 or 2 game related posts a year and they don't even give their sources.


 * I don't think that the part in the criticism about the lack of DVD playback should be added because consumers can still watch videos by using the OPERA BROWSER, and going on Youtube since the Wii Opera Browser has Flash.
 * See, that's the thing. Just because you don't buy into a certain criticism doesn't mean that it's not a valid one.  It's important that we mention all of the highly-mentioned criticisms, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. --Maxamegalon2000 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The source for the "major" criticism should be removed, I don't believe this is a major criticism, even the link that is footnoted doesn't stress how this is such a big deal, just labeling it as a downside.--Signor 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to look at all the citations, but the one for the Wiimote production problems was not very good. It said that production problems were why Nintendo hadn't commited to a release date, and the whole thing stated it was a "possibillity" and was based of translation of a japanese site called "PC gaming" or something like that. Since this is out of date I ask someone to remove this criticism or find a better citation, since I have to log off. Tuesday42 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs to be cleaned up. The writing isn't very good and it does need more citations. I also find it odd that they mention the controller is hard to manufacture--the only people who would be criticizing that would be Nintendo management folks, I can't imagine other people complaining ("Hey Ted, have you heard about those Wiimote yileds?" "Ugh, don't even get me STARTED."). At the same time it seems lacking in criticism for the lack of DVD functionality, which I'm sure has been brought up in articles (though of course I lack any right now). Basically, I think that the idea of a criticisms section is a good one, but this one needs some polishing and citations. --Twile 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was something about the lack of DVD playback. Someone deleted it though, look above to see someone whining about how it didn't need it due to youtube and so it shouldn't be mentioned--Josquius 13:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The info about DVD playback was moved to another section and not deleted. Just64helpin 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the statement about manufacturing issues was probably my doing. It can be deleted if desired. The previous statement mentioned something about accuracy concerns about the Wii Remote, but the associated reference didn't say anything about accuracy, but of manufacturing and quality control, so I adjusted the statement to match the source. If people want the original statement, they'll need to source it better. Dancter 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

About the line "The Remote is also the source of much criticism from those who would prefer a more traditionalist approach from Nintendo's next generation console." I read the links. One of them was just not really good, but the other was a high quality analysis of why the Wii might fail. However, I've seen mostly praise for Nintendo being so original, and the good citation didn't really say they wanted a more "tradionalist approach," it was more of a possible outcome based on events involving the Gamecube, N64, and DS. I'm going to delete this part, but if anyone wants it back, please re-write it. Info on wikipedia should be made to fit the reseach, it shouldn't be done so the resource is forced into the site to fit the info. Tuesday42 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

looking at the critisim page, there is only one citation and it isnt relivent (the link has nothing to do with what it is to be surpporting and is out of date (360 + ps3 releas the same) and comes across as biased) and all the other ones dont even have citations Shinigami Josh 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I personaly think that the criticism section is not really nessesary for now. The console isn't even out yet. And when it is out, the graphics will be better. Not to mention that is is also a "FUTURE PRODUCT AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE Wii." And the name, I don't think that critism over the name is a big deal, I also think that the article on the criticism part on the name is a P.O.V. Many people think it's kiddy while many people think it's not. And since when did the name become a criticism???? (74.111.14.37 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do people still keep placing the lack of graphics power in the Critisism section have you not seen these shots from the Red Steel Blog []
 * The only reason I can think that the lack of graphics power might keep leaking into the criticisms section is THAT IT IS A CRITICISM. Whether or not YOU think those screenshots are mind-blowing doesn't matter, because we're trying to gather criticisms that have been repeatedly brought up by credible sources in the gaming community. Another thing is that we're dealing with relative comparisons, people are generally comparing the Wii with the Xbox 360 and PS3 (as the consumer will ultimately have to decide which one(s) to spend lots of money on). Unless ATI and IBM came out with miracle technologies that take almost no power, put out almost no heat, give mind-blowing performance, and they're willing to part with these technologies for very cheap (and they've come out in the ~1 year between Xbox 360 and Wii hardware being finalized), the Wii will, plain and simple, not have the same graphical power. Now you might say that this isn't a problem because it doesn't look that bad right now. Max Payne looked gorgeous back in its day, but 5 years later (the lifespan of a console) its graphics are several generations old and they look it. So these criticisms aren't necessarily saying that the graphics are terrible here and now, they're saying that compared to what the other consoles will have, and given that these graphics still have to impress several years down the road, Wii might be in some trouble. Ultimately however, it's not really up to you or me to say that the complaint is a moot point because a few pictures show what you consider nice graphics. It's still a valid concern. --Twile 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

People say look at the graphics now and that they will improve, but the fact is, you aren't going to see much improvement. Developers have already stated in interviews with Madden they are pushing the hardware to the limits graphwise at launch or near launch. So the lack of graphical power is a valid criticism. Also, in there it sates taht Nintendo said the console can be up to 2-3 times as powerful as the gamecube. This was a comment made in the summer of 2005, and it was later retracted as not being fact. That comment needs to be deleted from the Wii page. Coolluck October 7, 2006


 * These Claims are nothing but people looking for something to critisise the Wii for and have given us irrelivent information so far that is not encyclapedic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dctcool (talk • contribs).

I agree. Plus why should the grpahics be critisized? IT IS A FUTURE PRODUCT AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE Wii. Plus I played Wii just a few days ago, and when I saw the grpahics, I said... Wow. We are gonna be playing Zelda and you will be saying wow, you also be playing Red Steel and you will say wow. Plus if the graphics weren't good, at least the games are great. Like what people say "Playing fun games are better than playing terrible games with good graphics. It's about how fun the game is, not the graphics. And if you don't believe me, just look at the DS sales charts! DS has sold millions more than PSP! Even though the DS has N64 graphics while the PSP has PS2 graphics, consumers choose DS over PSP because of how fun the games are (games like Pokemon Diamond and Pearl which has already sold more than million copies in two weeks!!) E.A. has also said that games means much more than graphics and they are ready to leave Sony if Sony doesn't improve. 74.111.14.37 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, personal impressions don't matter, that is considered original research, and is one of the things Wikipedia does not accept. The article must be neutral, thus we need to add information from both the good and the bad. The console hasn't been released, yes. So, we should not include criticism information? Then we should not include launch games, because it hasn't been launched yet. Wikipedia is based in facts that we can verify in reliable sources. Your impressions and mine mean nothing to the article. We need third party people talking about the console. If they are critic, even when the console hasn't been launched, we can include that information. If they later retract, we can add a note saying they were critic but later were convinced. As for the DS vs PSP, I would remind you of Virtual Boy. -- ReyBrujo 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey The Link in the Critisism section is linked to a website where anyone can submit articles, don't articles need to be professional or something like that?
 * Good Point I must have overlooked this section, the Author has alot of Inaccurate information about the Wii, She claims it has A Hard Drive right out of the Box (It has Flash memory not a hard Drive) she also claimed it has free online games (It has free online access, games cost between $5-$10). This is Enough evidence to remove whats left of the Critisism section, so unless anyone provides evidence (new sources) to keep the section It will be deleted within 24 Hours

-- Dctcool 14:48, 10 October 2006 (AEST)


 * err how about...No?

One dodgy link does not make for the entire section being bad.

Much of the discussion above is just proving my original point about fanboyism...--Josquius 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Josquius I deleted your Critisism remarks for many reasons:

1. Some links have no sources 2. The Links that do DON'T DIRECTLY CRITISISE the issue, simply saying that the Wii is missing a feature DOES NOT make it Critisism, 3. Sources are not professional sources most of the claims are fanboyism and so far Josquius you seem to be the only person who keeps adding more and more false critisism

so in all it comes down to one key issue: Sources Sources Sources Sources. and that link you provided about the production issues turned out to be false, In fact the [] as this link says the Wii is ahead of schedule, If there were problems they wouldn't be ahead would they? You know what I'm just going delete the whole section and request full protection on the page .--Dctcool 21:04, 10 October 2006 (AEST)

Would a vote be a good way to approach this?Tuesday42 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow...You really are determined for everything to be totally pro Nintendo aren't you? YOU are the fanboy side here. I am simply on the side of NPOV. If you don't think the criticism section is good then thats fine, wow. But deleting it is not the wikipedia way, improving is. You aren't happy with the sources- find some better ones! --Josquius 21:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your job(and it's your fault the article was fully protected so none of us can edit it). Either find good sources of the info will be deleted. TJ Spyke 21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

'My job'??? Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. It is not 'my job' to do anything. And it was Dctool who got the page protected (after ensuring the version he liked was established of course)--Josquius 09:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right it's not you're job, it's no-one's job. however if you are to add a criticism section it's your Responsibility to make sure the sources are valid, if you can't maintain that responsibility then you should not be an editor, yes I was the onewho protected this page, I protected it from you since everyone else here says that your critisism claims are a load of garbage which are poorly sourced. Don't try and pin the blame on other people, and besides I don't think you know what the word "Criticism " means, Criticism is supposed to bad a rebuttle based on an action which as caused a negative effect, now so far the claims you have made are not claims which has caused a negative effect, where as the PS3's Criticism claims have, the reason the PS3's Criticism had remained is because the negative effect form the PS3's high price has caused Sony's stock prices to drop, and has turned away developers. what negative effect has the Wii cause in the claims you made: None, simply saying the Wii is lacking something DOES NOT make it criticism, yesterday I removed a criticism claim from the PSP page about the lack of "Ice Cream Maker". now of course the claim is stupid but it means that there is a fine difference between a fan's demands (which is basically what you've made right now) and somethig which has caused damage to another industry, besides not every Wiki page needs to have a criticism section, PS2 doesn't have one, GCN doesn't have one,and both Xbox and Xbox 360 don't have one, you are the only person who thinks that a Criticism section is needed, but the fact of the matter is: the console is not yet out and i has not yet caused a negative effect in any way, If you're saying the Wii page needs a criticism section then you're saying that all the other pages I mentioned needs a criticism page, but of course I'm not going to add such a claim on any one of those pages because there is nothing I can find on any of those products which has caused a negative effect, just let it go Josquius it's not my fault this page it protected, It's YOUR fault for making fancruft claims saying :"The Company should do this, the Company Should do that" just let the issue go Josquius so we can all get on with our lives. and for god sakes please spell my name right. I've also posted more comment's further down the page.--Dctcool 01:22 12 October (UTC)


 * Some of you seem to be attempting to obfuscate the fact that Wikipedia criticism sections are often composed indulgently and after considerable debate about why a "criticism section" is both necessary to a NPOV article and ultimately fair game for inclusion (both spurious from my perspective), are added with little regard to their actual worth. Of the handful of criticism sections I've seen on Wikipedia (generally dealing with bands in my experience), they seem to skewer bias and purport to be worthwhile inclusions merely because they are linked to a vaguely relevant article.


 * Whether or not this article continues to have a criticism section is something that should certainly be decided by the masses, though quite a bit of work needs to be done to justify its inclusion in my opinion. In the end, Wikipedia isn't an advertising site and therefore it isn't our job to list our relative ideas of the "pros and cons" of a given item. Even the more vociferiously cited detractions for the hardware (i.e, the lack of HD and technical prowess) seem as if they could be implemented into the general flow of article rather than given their own spotlight for unnecessary (and certainly be to contentious) extrapolation.


 * Of course, that's just my two cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlkStarr (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They are perhaps the most difficult parts of articles to develop, and in many cases. there isn't enough dedication to bring the material to compliance with content policy, to the same standard as less-controversial material. Dancter 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So is it likely that this article will remain protected until the end of 2006, once reliable sources among the video gaming press have had a chance to see if these criticisms have any merit on the retail units? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just move this section. Funny thing is, the newest EGM magazine under "why Wii could suck", it mentions those searching for a truly "next-gen" experience may be turned off by the Wii's Gamecube-quality graphics. As for giving the "cons" per se their own spotlight, doesn't XBOX360 has an whole article dedicated to that? PS3 has an section too and a lot of that is pretty obvious. Also, that whole no HD was in the spotlight for some time in the media, for example, that 1080(I believe the name is) website that tried to persuade Nintendo to include it. FullMetal Falcon 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

solutions?
Perhaps some new ideas are needed, rather than repeating the same arguments. Would a temporary subpage be a useful approach for developing the criticisms section? As described in Wikipedia:Subpages and Wikipedia:Content forking, it would allow the content to be worked on collaboratively while the issues are discussed. Dancter 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Or what about wait for the console to be released this fall and actually do the criticism section after when it's released so we can get the Pros and Cons about the Wii? That makes sense to me.74.111.14.37 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how this got so out of hand. I thought it was pretty obvious, like that whole no HDTV when first announced, it being the weakest out of the three (yet remember the ps2) and maybe even the price, controller and name...or better yet, wait for the darn thing to come out first.FullMetal Falcon 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

After research into the history of this page it seems that Josquius seems to be the only person who keeps bombarding the page with different critisism claims which are poorly sourced or sourced to irrelivent pages, I propose Josquius be blocked from the Wii page for failing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, It seems he just wants to add something negative to be on the Wii page, he also claims to work from a NPOV yet he keeps adding different claims, thats not an NPOV that's a Negative POV. I also agree with FullMetal Falcon the Critisism section regarding the Console in terms of Graphics, Controller and HD should stay out until the Wii is released. as for marketing for Europe the majority of titles held back in that reigon are 3rd party titles outside of Nintendo's control, Thats not Critisism on the Wii's behalf. I'm also going to have to disagree on the idea of a subpage from for Critisism only as it seems more of an advertising page rather than an encylopedic page, plus the page has to be Netural, I guess if there was a pro and con page for all 3 consoles it would be alright but isn't there a page already like that? Dctcool 00:36 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it doesn't seem to make sense to lock the page when it's just one user who keeps adding info with poor or no sources and refuses to come up with better sources. TJ Spyke 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth? Its YOU who went and got the page protected, its YOU who kept subtly removing bits of the section despite the disclaimer that said to discuss it here first. Its YOU who is failing to follow wikipedia guidelines. Of course what I'm adding is a negative POV, its in the 'criticism' section. The positive POV is found elsewhere in the article. Positive + critical = neutral. That's the way wikipedia generally works. I have been a big contributer to wikipedia for quite some time and have contributed to many different articles. You however seem to have only began editing a small number of rather narrowly focussed articles- looking at your mega drive edit for instance it seems to be a rather nintendo fanboyesque 'these claims were proven to be incorrect' in response to a bit about the mega drive having a resurgance in popularity.... For waiting until its released- just look at the Playstation 3 article. Its section is there just fine already. As said many times before by several people- it doesn't matter what you think about the graphics. The fact is that many games journalists are critical of them.--Josquius 09:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? where are these claims of journalists criticising the graphics? WHERE'S THE PROOF. Remeber there is a fine line saying that the product doesn't have something, and ACTUALLY CRITICISING IT, so you said you've been on wiki longer, SO WHAT are you trying to claim that you're better than me? and I DID discuss the matter, and the fact of the matter is ONLY YOU said it was nessesary for a criticism section, Majority decission based on what everyone else here has said.--Dctcool 01:33 12 October (UTC)


 * The way I read the subpage concept was as something like a common sandbox, and not part of the encyclopedia. The pages I linked to strongly emphasize the distinction from content forking. Anyway, if there is indeed a consensus for leaving the section out until launch, then I am all for it.
 * Though I must say, many of the arguments (on both sides) seem to demonstrate somewhat of a understanding of NPOV policy, specifically that criticisms have to be legitimate to be noted. From the NPOV policy: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." A criticisms section should not be asserting judgments of actual characteristics of the Wii, but merely describing public opinion. It doesn't matter if people are justified to believe something about the Wii. It only matters that there is a notable segment that thinks it, and that the reception is directly reported in a reputable source. Dancter 01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting totally out of hand. You want a solution? List a bunch of criticisms FROM reputable gaming news sources. If you got it from the sources, you can damn well cite them. If we're trying to remain NPOV it should be possible to list brief counter-points (example: "The Wii will not have the option to play DVDs natively or through an add-on, however Nintendo says this is unncessary as most consumers have DVD players already." or "The lack of HD resolutions has also been a large source of criticism, especially in comparison with other next-gen consoles, but Nintendo feels it is not a problem for this product generation" etc). As long as the citations are included and the sources are good, there's no reason we can't put in possible concerns people have repeatedly expressed. This section, of course, will be updated when the final reviews have been made. --Twile 17:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. Just end this.  Sure, there are critisimims, and if someone is putting up their own POV, espeically without any reputable source to back up any part of it, they should be just be removed, not the entire ability to edit the article.  Just end this.142.161.107.32 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

as said before 'One dodgy link does not make for the entire section being bad.' wereas there was only on link, and it wasnt, say bad but was compleatly irelivent to the point it was ment to be surporting, and out of date with the majority of points inacurate. compaire that to the page on the PS3, it has links for every sentance to a reputable site. @Josquius: you your self seam to be screwing up the whole point of a NPOV, with your comments. and as was stated deatails change. also as stated your links are not relivant and your main sorce is pro nintendo. Shinigami Josh 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, given that I seem to have partially encouraged this discussion I'm going to try to end it by writing a NPOV critism section with links to reputable gaming sources. The page is protected at the moment, can someone edit it properly and stick it in when the page is unprotected

Criticism

Most of the criticism of the console has been directed at Nintendo's claims that it is directed at a mainstream audience, yet its launch price is considered to be above what this audience would pay (http://blogs.ign.com/Matt-IGN/2006/10/02/32421/). Questions have also been asked about whether a motion sensing controller actually simplifies gameplay (http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/710/710381p1.html) A survey conducted by Weekly Famitsu amongst 4000 attendees of the 2006 Tokyo Game Show backed up this view, with 24% of people suggesting that Wii's controller looked hard to use compared to 24.5% suggesting that it looked easy to use.

Ajmayhew 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although the claims are relatively mild, the relationship between the statements and their sources is still a little too loose. I still think that moving all this to a Talk:Wii subpage is a good idea, not to tuck it out of sight, but to keep everything tidy. (It would be prominently linked to, of course.) This discussion alone is already more than the recommended size for a single page, even before having a full workshop of the section right on the page. This is crowding out the other discussions; unless some objections are voiced in the next couple hours, I will go ahead with the split. Also, an organized survey may be beneficial to see where everyone is on the issue, and if it is found that there isn't a clear consensus, it could also encourage all sides to develop their formal arguments in relation to article changes, instead of degrading into complaints and contributor accusations. Dancter 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the claims are specifically stated in the sources. In the first one you have the quote "$250 is not quite mainstream enough" in the second Bill Gates specifically mentions that motion sensing isn't mainstream and the third one was used to pull direct statistics that a goood chunk of the public agree with Gates.  In any case if a critism section is warranted its the kind of way we need to go.  Perhaps a reception section, with an edited version of what I've written along with the massively positive reception that the console has been getting, particualarly by developers, would be appropriate.  Ajmayhew 11:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For the first statement, the post from Casamassina's blog does not directly assert that the pricing issue accounts for "Most of the criticism", and the second statement has a little bit of weasel-wording, glossing over the fact that questions were raised by Bill Gates. Both sources present individual opinions, and do not make the assertions of a broader reception that is implied in statements. The last sentence is fine, but should have a citation, preferably a reputable secondary source that could provide a context for the data. Dancter 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources are not valid enough to be concidered for the Criticism section, first with Casamassina's blog, the section seems to be more speculation, also the blog doesn't directly criticise, it's more of concern but not criticism, the second section is linked to an article where the comment are spoken by the head of a rival company (In this case Bill Gates), Criticism from rival companies is simply not allowed in Wiki pages otherwise half the page of every product on wiki would be filled with criticism, and finally the last section lacks a source also you stated that 24% of people suggested that the controller is hard to use, remember Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. In any case thank you for posting this here first to get verifacation, -- Dctcool 01:55 14 October 2006

criticism continued (section created for edit link, indenting)
That criticism from rival companies is not allowed is simply not true. That they're rarely included has little to do with the fact that they're from rival companies and more to do with the fact that they're usually not significant. Also, from the "crystal ball" clause of WP:NOT: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis." If Weekly Famitsu stated that 24% of people surveyed suggested that the controller is hard to use, that is good enough, and not a crystal ball. Dancter 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference for the last statement. http://wii.ign.com/articles/738/738630p1.html It checks out. Though the "backed up this view" assertion is not appropriate, as it is a personal interpretation of the information, or original research. Dancter 02:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your link gives a 404 error. I don't think there should be any debate whether criticism is relevant, only whether it should have its own section. Anyone who doesn't think it is relevant needs to read Wikipedia's policies. It is necessary to npov, arguably the most important article principle on Wikipedia. --gatoatigrado 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The extension got clipped. It should work now. And I'm not understanding your comment about debate over whether criticism is relevant. Have I indicated otherwise? Dancter 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism (continued some more)
So wait how come every other next gen console has a criticism page yet every time a mention of it is on here it's taken down? There have been valid concerns and criticisms that have been arised, why hide them? This is an informational site, not a fanboy circle jerk.
 * Sounds like your opinions of the Wii are pretty biased. Good thing flamers like you are blocked from editing this article. And it's "jerk circle," not "circle jerk". Next time you pitch in (hopefully not) learn some basic english skills. Aside from the naysaying, I agree: there should be a section concerning this topic. 21:06, oct. 16, 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it is circle jerk, and STFU and stop flaming people or you will be banned. 12.207.127.76 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to actually check before making statements, otherwise you look like a fool. Only the PS3 has one, and that is warranted because Sony's stock price fell after they announced the price. The Xbox 360 article doesn't have a criticism section. Also, neither do the PS2/GC/Xbox/DC, etc. TJ Spyke 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the article does have some well integrated criticism in the Name section. Previously expressed concerns that a dedicated Criticism section naturally skews the opinions of readers is probably the most solid point I've heard against it. Specific criticism regarding technical aspects of the console (ie. Wii vs. the sun) should probably hold off until it's released and there are credible sources documenting it. Even then, I think it would benefit the article and avoid edit warring if an effort would be made to integrate it nicely into the other sections of the article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most criticism should be held off until the console isw launched and we can see what it can really do. Jaxad0127 20:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do think that most criticism should be held off as well, but only because it's premature to really criticize the console. However there are plenty of expressed concerns about the Wii which may or may not be valid to include. Now, you can leave these concerns out, just as you can leave out any bit of relevant information, but I do think it takes away from the completeness of the article. Other way to make it NPOV is to include counter-points. For example you could say that many people are concerned about the input style being tiring or too unconventional to be a success, but you could also point to a recent survey that showed that the majority of Japanese retailers/game devs etc think that the Wii's remote is its most promising feature (I'd say you could also point to success of interactive arcade games such as DDR, boxing simulators, motorcycle games and anything with a light gun but that's along the lines of independent research). Mention that people complained about the friends code system, and then talk about how Nintendo plans to address this or why they feel it isn't an issue. Say that the lack of a DVD attachment has been pointed to as a potential shortcoming, then find an article which discusses why it's not a problem. I dunno, I think it's possible to put down some things which people have repeatedly cited as possible flaws and also present properly cited rebuttals. That way it's not fanboyish in its inclusion or exclusion of complaints. --Twile 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)