Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus to delete. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is just unecyclopedic trivial listcruft at best. A different way to play Wii games is somewhat important, but a whole list on it isn't helpful. I think this would also fall under, some kind of how-to play guide: as generally video game articles do NOT list every way you can play them. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be of interest to others to read the discussion about this article at WikiProject Video Games. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on much discussion that has taken place on the above link, specifically the comment by Stepheng3. The list does not fail WP:N from what I can see, nor does it fail to meet other requirements to be constructive to Wikipedia. This list would be of use to those interested in the use of backwards compatability on the Wii, and is well suited for those people as it is well referenced. Something trivial to one person maybe be valuable to another, and personally I think there would be enough people who would not see this list as trivial to merit its inclusion on Wikipedia. --Taelus (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. Some of them need sources and it looks a little messy, but Taelus has some good points.  TJ   Spyke   15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Why does the list exclude WiiWare games? —Ost (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because much of the header was copied from List of Wii games and that statement was not removed. Feel free to remove that clause from the intro and add WiiWare games. As other users have mentioned, this article is still a work in progress and needs some cleanup Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can't really see how the subject fails WP:N, especially with its current sourcing. Definitely needs cleanup, particularly in terms of expansion on the intro, but these "trivial" claims seem to be little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments at the moment. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to violate the guidance against indiscriminate information; just because something is true and useful doesn't mean we need to include it.  Powers T 17:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, if all control devices were listed for all games, they would be endless. I don't see how this one is notable or encyclopedic.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I don't think this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as it is not a list of statistics. In addition, this is about backwards compatability as much as it is about control devices. --Taelus (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many more ways in which the article could fail that guideline. Powers T 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please show more ways. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is not a "Plot-only description of fictional works", "Lyrics database", or a "News report"; those are the other ways to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and this articles does not qualify as any of them
 * Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
 * This commentary about statistics is not meant to be associated with list articles. Having a list in a list article does not reduce neatness, but having a huge list in a non-list article can reduce neatness. Also these aren't really statistics, and reiterating Taelus's point it is as much about controller backwards compatibility (there is well documented desire of wii owners wanting to know which games will allow them to use their old GCN controllers, do a simple google search and see how many yahoo answers, wikianswers, and forum posts there are about this question) as it is about using different control devices. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The list at WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not exhaustive. Powers T 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is that mentioned? Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be mentioned? You aren't seriously claiming that those four examples are the only types of information that are unsuitable for Wikipedia, are you?  Powers T 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Discriminate vs indiscriminate information this is clearly discriminate information. Discriminate vs indiscriminate information supplements WP:INDISCRIMINATE in defining indiscriminate information. If you put this page through the "indiscriminate test" (see the cquote below) you will see that this is discriminate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That essay does indeed make clear the difference between an indiscriminate list and a discriminate list. However, where the essay errs is in suggesting that the difference is relevant to WP:IINFO.  The guideline says that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, not simply that individual articles must not be indiscriminate.  It's the encyclopedia as a whole that must discriminate and carefully select its information.  (Note that none of the four examples listed in IINFO are indiscriminate in and of themselves; it is their inclusion in Wikipedia that would be indiscriminate.)  What IINFO means is that we don't include information just because it's information.  It has to be encyclopedic and further the goals of the encyclopedia.  What information falls under that rubric and what information doesn't is a judgment call, on which reasonable people can disagree.  Powers T 13:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The essay explains that the list is discriminate. WP:IINFO and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are two names for the same policy, switching the name you use does not change the meaning. Discriminate and indiscriminate are antonyms. Something can't be both, it is one or the other; this article is discriminate, meaning it cannot be indiscriminate and hence WP:IINFO (aka WP:INDISCRIMINATE) is not applicable.


 * "What IINFO means is that we don't include information just because it's information. It has to be encyclopedic and further the goals of the encyclopedia." You are guilty of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. No WP:IINFO doesn't; it says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:'" (then the list of four things). It qualifies its statement to say that it should be from the list of four things and you have yet to provide any evidence that the list is not exhaustive. You arguments are not inline with any of the written policy of WP:IINFO. It appears you continue to incorrectly invoke WP:IINFO (it's not just me saying this, most of the other keep votes say the same thing) so that unlike RobJ you can avoid being called out for [WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] (aka WP:ITSCRUFT) and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; you really need a new argument Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discriminate vs indiscriminate information These arguments lead to the following conclusions:
 * That would be why there are -other- WP rules. You are most welcome to quote all of them if you can show them to be relevant. Those are indeed the four only types of information that are unsuitable for Wikipedia under WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as far as anyone knows until evidence to the contrary is found. Evidence which I asked you to provide. Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering this article in no way resembles any of the things listed on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, even if the list is not exhaustive (as you claim) you really can't use WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you are going to argue that an unwritten policy exists in order to delete a page, you are at least going to need the page to resemble at least one for the four things listed on said policy page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a difference between a "discriminate" collection and a "indiscriminate" collection
 * 2) An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner.
 * 3) A discriminate collection of information is one gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner.
 * 4) A collection of information gathered in such a way--with care and/or distinctions, in a thoughtful manner--does not violate the policy as stated at WP:IINFO.
 * 5) This does not mean that the collection of information would not violate any other policy.

So, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy. Enthusiastic editors are encouraged to put thought and care into collecting information for meaningful articles. This is discriminate (no indiscriminate) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It violates: What_Wikipedia_is_not in my opinion. This article is basically how to play Wii games differently, and which games they are. Knowing alternate control methods isn't important information in general. If someone wants to know this information that badly, they can look at the back of the Wii box in the store or go to a video game website where the information should be... not here. A prose on the main Wii page (and some related pages) stating GameCube controllers are an option for certain games is all that is needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm... this isn't a "how to" This article in no way describes how to play a Wii game with a GameCube controller, it merely lists which ones can. Also to imply that one should go to a video game store and look at the back of the boxes of game to get information is absurd (let alone that GCN controller information isn't always there (as I mentioned below), much of the time many/most Wii games are locked in glass cabinets preventing such action) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete At best, compatibility for a specific controller should be noted in the game's article - more specifically, the infobox on a game article, which includes an entry for control schemes. Having a whole page dedicated to this, especially when only a small minority of the Wii's sizable library actually supports it, seems excessive. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is nothing more than a big case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. THE CfD (also started by RobJ) for the category that this article evolved from called on the creation of this article. RobJ did not like that and put this article up on the WPVG talk page. Within less than 24h of discussion he used the fledgling discussion as an excuse to blank the page and turn it into a redirect (Here is the evidence, look at the time (05:23, 13 June 2009) and look at when the discussion had started (18:58, 12 June 2009)). Keep in mind, he did not even inform anyone who edits the page of his opening a discussion prior to his blanking the page and redirecting. Most of the "delete" points made above are actually false
 * This article is basically how to play Wii games differently, and which games they are. Knowing alternate control methods isn't important information in general.
 * In some cases this is not a case of "alternate play methods". In several cases the cited reviews of the games say that playing the game with a GCN is preferable than using the Wiimote or Wiimote+Nunchuck. This is extremely true for Super Smash Bros. Brawl which was designed for use with the GCN controller (here is the SSBB source )
 * If someone wants to know this information that badly, they can look at the back of the Wii box in the store or go to a video game website where the information should be... not here. At best, compatibility for a specific controller should be noted in the game's article - more specifically, the infobox on a game article, which includes an entry for control schemes. Having a whole page dedicated to this, especially when only a small minority of the Wii's sizable library actually supports it, seems excessive.
 * False arguments, in some cases there are not indication that there is Gamecube support simply by looking at the back of the box (e.g. Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2, this game uses the GCN controller but the back of the box makes no mention). To my knowledge, there is no comprehensive list (other than this) of all Wii games that use the GCN controller (I had searched for one for a long time before making the category and then again before making the article). A user searching for this information has no other reliable source (to my knowledge).
 * Apparently there is one list, but it is highly incomplete Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wii game infoboxes may often have the GCN controller listed as one of the methods of play. They don't always and they don't offer a method for a user to find out exactly which games allow for use of the GCN controller. This article has its uses, especially for Wii owner who don't have the money to buy four Wiimotes (and Nunchucks) seeking (multiplayer) games that allow him/her to make use of his/her GCN controller(s)
 * Also, if this article is "trivial", I move for List of Wii games using Miis, List of Wii games using WiiConnect24, and List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games to be deleted too. These articles are lists of "alternate play methods" and it can be argued that they are much more trivial than this one (second statement more directed at the former two than the latter) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is indeed "no other reliable source" for this information, then my delete recommendation becomes a Strong Delete. If no other source has found it worth compiling this information by this metric, then neither should we.  That's a basic tenet of Wikipedia.  Powers T 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people on the internet have asked for such resource, the only thing is no one ever came forth an assembled such list. If you google "wii games using gamecube controller" (without quotes), you will find an abundance of forum posts, yahoo answers questions, and wikianswers questions asking the very question this article answers Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be flippant, but so what? Powers T 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Better luck next time, with the not being flippant thing. Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is only my opinion here, but if we are not accepting real-world information that is actually written on the boxes that these pieces of software are distributed in as verifiable, reliable and notable references, then there is something quite wrong with this project. Please correct me if I have judged this situation wrong, but you seem to find the article at fault because you feel there are not enough sources to compile this list? They are even marketed using this data to promote backwards compatability! --Taelus (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is that this information is unencyclopedic and excessive. For a more specialized Wiki, perhaps, but as a generalist encyclopedia, we include information only if other sources have seen fit to research it.  Powers T 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any chance of a link to a WP guideline stating that? Sounds reasonable enough, but I have not encountered any such rule before. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Powers T 14:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that explains why I had not heard of such a rule before. You are claiming, in effect, that house painters cannot be paid for painting a building because builders are paid for creating one. Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said, no specialized wiki (or at least no specialized wiki that can be found on google) has took on this kind of list. Once again, this is just a big case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also as I mentioned above: "*Apparently there is one list, but it is highly incomplete" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should assume good faith than throwing IDONTLIKEIT around like it's out of fashion. MuZemike 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF is not related to this. The points of the opposers are in line with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're dismissing their arguments and attacking the persons and not their arguements. MuZemike 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I rebutted their arguments above, I did not just dismiss them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking me, and assuming bad faith (as you also did at the Video Game Project talk page). In case people didn't see what he posted there, he not only attacked me but claimed I "deleted" this article by making it a redirect. A redirect is NOT deletion, period. Also I want to point out, he keeps trying to turn this into an "all or nothing" situation, when NONE of the other Wii game lists are up for deletion or even merging. Bad faith assumptions and attacks aren't helpful, so just stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not attacking you. The discussion has been left with the ball in your court multiple times. If you refuse to volley, I think we should call those points in Thegrey's favor. Instead you accuse him of attacks. If anything, it is you who have just attacked him, although as your accusation is obviously groundless it is of no consequence. Perhaps if you spent more time reading and answering his assertions, and less time parroting MuZemike, this discussion might move forward. And in particular, what have you to say about your deletion of the page? Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing all text from a page is quite enough to be called a deletion, for all purposes other than evasion and obfuscation. For that, it would be expedient to pay close and devout attention to the technical term. Again, I say, what have you to say about your deletion of the page? Anarchangel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized the difference between deletion and redirect on that talk page AFTER I made said comments
 * It is not "Articles for discussion", it's "Articles for deletion". An AFD is not necessary to facilitate a redirect. I am not saying at this time that to redirect right now was a good idea, however. MuZemike 06:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW (just a general question) how is stripping a page of content and turning it into a redirect significantly different from deleting it? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The content can still be retrieved or reverted (as you just did) without administrator help. MuZemike 06:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK good point, anyways, I have notified the two other editors who have edited the page (the bulk of the page was built by me and then rest was done by bots and IPs and two editors) and User:Stepheng3 (who proposed the creation of this page when the category was deleted) of this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After getting that clarification, I never again accused you of deleting the page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is just as encyclopedic as any other list.  It is extensively referenced, and at least one editor  has been actively in maintaining it.  It doesn't resemble any of the examples in WP:IINFO.  I imagine it would be useful to Wii owners (though I am not one myself).  While it's surely a low priority for the encyclopedia, the marginal cost of keeping it seems slight.    --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is sourced well enough and I believe that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is being improperly invoked in the delete votes. Also, despite the attempted intimidation from prolific deletionists over Thegreyanomaly allegedly not assuming good faith with the nom and delete votes, RobJ1981's nomination rationale is actually a textbook case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (aka WP:ITSCRUFT), WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and even WP:USELESS. Throughout the nom not a single useful argument is made. Others have complained about the article being excessive, which is a styl e issue and not a notability issue. Misguided deletion votes with an extremely weak nomination leave me no choice but to vote for keep on this one. Vodello (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, please. We're all not trying to destroy one's creations around here. Watch who you are calling a "deletionist". MuZemike 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have assumed good faith and simply linked to the proper places that mimic the nominator's rationale. I would appreciate it if you stopped threatening me. Vodello (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. None of Thegreyanamoly's assertions against deletion have been answered, let alone refuted, the nomination is dubious, although WP guidelines have been quoted, their content has not been shown to be relevant to this article. Other arguments have been stated with no good evidence of those arguments' adherence to any WP guidelines. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite my noted disappointment over how this was handled Wikiquette-wise on both sides, I have to at least side towards keep. I'd like to see a discussion towards merging happen, but that would require some fundamental changes to the List of Wii games in order for that to happen, which I feel is outside the scope of this AFD. MuZemike 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge thoughts

 * Is it possible to discuss a merge to List of Wii games? I've started a talk page discussion over there which might give suggestions in which we could possibly include this information over there, given further improvements (and some size reduction which I have indicated there) to that list. MuZemike 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging could work, but I don't know how exactly it could work. My thoughts would be that one would have to put an extra column addressing these games, but then if we do this, then people would try to merge other Wii lists into List of Wii games and bloat it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of Wii games. With lists, there is a golden ratio that needs to be sought for a good list, which is hit most of the time: if your requirements for inclusion are too slack (e.g. List of black people), it becomes indiscriminate; if your criteria for inclusion are too tight (e.g. List of black indie rock musicians from London), it serves little if no purpose. While these examples are exaggerated, I think that, nevertheless, this list would fall into the latter category, but only just (as in, within a standard deviation). This indicates to me that the list may have some potential, but not as a standalone list; rather, it should be a sub-list of a list of Wii games. Sincerely, Sceptre (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * you mean like adding an extra sortable column saying "Compatible with GameCube controller" with yes's and no's? right? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That was what my recommendation sums up as, if you look at what could be done per my suggestion at Talk:List of Wii games. MuZemike 02:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, yes. Sceptre (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge My thoughts exactly. Go for it! -- .: Alex  :.  09:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess we should support the discussion on Talk:List of Wii games. This looks like the consensus on this AfD will be a keep once an admin closes it. After that, we can put a merge into template on List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller and work on merging the information. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.