Talk:List of Wii games

Archives
May 20, 2005 – December 13, 2005 14 December 2005 – 18 February 2007 19 February 2007-26 February 2007 FAQ Discussions 3 March 2007-22 March 2007 17 March 2007-22 September 2007 22 September 2007-9 April 2008 Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 8

Discussion Archived, Various Updates

I took the liberty to archive the previous discussion into the archives; if any part was still under discussion, please feel free to move it from the archive to the Talk Page.

In the hopes of increasing the verifiability of this list, and the general accuracy of it as well, I'm proposing that we use only the official Nintendo websites for each of the regions as our primary sources (as opposed to IGN's list, which is the current method). Any titles that do not appear on these lists will require a citation. I know it'll take some effort to go through the list and comb through everything, but I think it'll really help. Let me know what you guys think of the idea; any input is much appreciated!

Depending on the feedback, I'll be adjusting the FAQs a bit as well, which is why they're not here at the moment. Thanks for everyone's contributions, they're truly appreciated! -Digiwrld1 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, IGN seems to be a decent job of updating their lists, so I suppose we can use a combination of IGN and the Nintendo lists.

I've gone through the Japanese release dates and checked them with Nintendo.co.jp's list, and was not able to find the following games on the list(that have supposedly been released): JAWA: The Mammoth and the Mysterious Stone, Shiren the Wanderer 3, The World of Golden Eggs: Nori Nori Rhythm-kei Nissan Note Original Version, and Bust-a-Move Bash. Every other game is listed on the list, and I double checked to ensure I hadn't missed it, so if anyone knows whats up that'd be great.

If anyone can help comb through the European and North American releases to ensure that the dates are correct, and add/remove references as needed (ref no longer needed if on the list at Nintendo, and/or IGN), it would be much appreciated. -Digiwrld1 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no list of upcoming games on Nintendo of America's website. enbob89 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Crash Dummy Vs. The Evil D-Troit (and Starblaze: Ultimate Battle). http://www.thewiire.com/news/594/1/Twelve_Interactive_Becomes_Official_Wii_Developer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withgiven2009 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request: Share Sorting Code With Other Lists?

Hi. I hate to possibly bring up an issue that has already been brought up, but could someone who knows the code to this list take a look at Chronology_of_PlayStation_2_games and List_of_PlayStation_2_games? Those two pages could easily be merged and simplified if someone could do for them what has been done so nicely for the Wii. Thanks. - Keithustus (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just a standard wikipedia sortable list. The biggest technical hurdle was settling on a standard format for entering data into each column so that it would all sort the same. As for easily merged, well this list was re-done from scratch. As one of the people who did it I can vouch that it was a lot of typing, even though at the time there were far fewer games. If you want to update a mature list like the Playstation 2 one I'd suggest bringing it up on that discussion forum and enlist the help or at least agreement of any maintainers over there. For the technical side, just copy and paste the code from the start of this list to the end of the first game, change the game information and copy/paste from there.Telvin 3d (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Release dates.

I have a dumb question? What are the release dates for Australian games for the Wii? If you don't have an answer to it then how should I find out? Please let me know. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs is a good source, but like I've said many times, THIS is why release dates shouldn't be included in the list. This is almost as bad as when editors were basically ignoring the existence of Europe for Heaven's sake. They've taken notice of Europe, but they still act like South Africa and Australia are European for some crazy reason - that, or irrelevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They're useful to have, if the size of the article is an issue you should consider splitting it into two or more articles. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just removing the dates was a stupid thing to do. Now there's just less information available on Wikipedia. If we're going to remove the dates from this list, why not add a chronological listing, which lists games by region including my own Australia, South Africa, etc? In the meantime, the main list can have the "first-released" date, listing just the date that the game was first released to a region (as in, if Japan got the game first, it's listed with the Japanese release date), as well as a "regions-available" listing. Aielyn (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NO gameFAQS is not a source, nice try but no maybe you should do your reading again LINK huh.--Lbrun12415 03:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

plus gamefaqs is all original research.--Lbrun12415 03:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd argue that GameFAQs is fairly reliable since the release data is shared between it and Gamespot, Gamespot itself being a decent enough source. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes tht is ture but since GAmefaqs is Like wiki every one can add something it is not a relieable source. --Lbrun12415 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Data submission on GameFAQs appears to go through review before actually being posted, but I could be wrong. In any case, wouldn't be too fussed as Gamespot has release data as well, on most occasions. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. GameFAQs has no ability to let anyone just add any content they wish. And Lbrun, don't vandalize Wikipedia by editing other peoples' posts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really I added something about Iron man the video game that was false but they added it any way proving that GAMEFAQS have no idea what they are doing.--Lbrun12415 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, begs the question of why you added false information in the first place, but I'm really uninterested. GameFAQs really isn't the only place to pick up release date information anyway. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Animal Crossing Wii has only one proven release date, being a 2008 releas in Japan from the 2007 annual update released by Nintendo of Japan. I am editing the North American and European release dates to be TBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.64.232 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should released and unreleased titles be separated into two different lists?

Not just for this list but should this be a standard for any list of games for a platform with still frequent releases? It tends to be the case that unreleased titles have far less reliable information available for them so this makes the list overall less reliable. A seperate list would also make it easier to seperate speculation from the confirmed of unreleased games. If there isn't enough reliable information about to make an article for a game there should be at least a link to a reliable source confirming the developer is planning on making the game or has started work on it. -Hybrid360 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea as an interim solution. The lists should be divided into released or confirmed with specific release dates, and unconfirmed unreleased. For example, the title should have a confirmed specific date like July 30, 2008 in at least one region. July 2008, Q3 2008, TBA, and such doesn't cut it. This would reduce the size of the list about in half. As the Wii matures and release dates become less important, a different solution such as the GameCube list can be used. Not only would this cut the size, but would remove speculation to another list, remain sortable, reduce confusion and everyone is happy.Ether7 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

Nothing fancy, just start dividing the alphabet into more manageable chunks. Perhaps List of Wii games 0-M and List of Wii games N-Z. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the Wii games list isn't that big. At this time, it shouldn't be split. If I checked right: only a few platforms have been split into several lists: Amiga and Commodore 64. Take a look at List of PlayStation 2 games, it's over double the size of the Wii list, and I see no issues with size there. One thing the Wii list should have: section breaks for each letter, that would help editing. Here's an example of what I mean: List of Game Boy Advance games. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but that would make the sortable table utterly pointless. --Conti|✉ 21:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is in response to A Link to the Past's removal of release dates citing the size of the article. And as far as the sheer size of the article goes he's right. Even on a Pentium 4 this article takes a while to fully load, for the sake of people running slower machines than I it really needs it. If the List of PlayStation 2 games is twice as big then that article too needs to be split.

Also the table of contents really doesn't go well with a sortable table. If you sort first then try to use the table you're sent to the wrong place in the list due to the table's links being hard-linked to specific titles. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought it should be split in three; one page for each region. Each page would have two less release date columns and also fewer games since not every game is released in every region. That would allow for Australian release dates too, as so many have requested. --enbob89 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with region lists as well. Overall, they would be very redundant for the most part. Just about every platform list isn't split into region lists (the only exception is Virtual Console from what I can see). If it's not broken, don't fix it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of region lists is that everything remains completely sortable. This functionality is what makes this page so useful and splitting the page any other way would ruin it. I'm open to any split that keeps all of the current functionality. --enbob89 (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The release dates should stay its useable information. I think we should move it from # - N and O - Z. I also Undid what Link to the past did because it was not right what he did by taking out important information. We should just make two pages. # - N and O - Z.--Lbrun12415 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believ that this should be removed

This is a sortable list of released and upcoming Wii games, referred to by their English titles. The Wii first launched in the Americas on November 19, 2006 with 23 titles, including Wii Sports. Release dates for individual countries may vary from the regional dates listed below; a title is listed as 'Unreleased' if it will not be sold in that region. This list does not include games released on Nintendo's Virtual Console or WiiWare services. For lists of those games, please see List of Virtual Console games and List of WiiWare games. For additional information on the Wii's release, including the list of launch titles and the regions they were released in, see Wii launch. --Lbrun12415 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you citing Featured Lists? No? Then what does that matter? Yeah, of course, you don't cite List of Nintendo 64 games. Which acknowledges Japan, ALL PAL regions, and North America. Yeah, I guess being a Featured List isn't enough - the only thing we should base this list on are Start articles without any structure or any attempt to feature them! - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the 0-9, A,B,C e.t.c sections of the page as there easier to edit and search through.Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But then the list would not be sortable. --enbob89 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They do it on DS Games.Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And that list is not sortable. --enbob89 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it need to be? I see games lists that are one page and still not sortable. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think it should remain sortable. That's what makes it so useful. --enbob89 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't Split: One of the most useful features is being able to sort by release date, which is currently not possible on the DS games page. I have requested that that page be modeled after all the other list of console games pages. 137.244.215.51 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To do list

From the to do list:

   * Add Price of each game

Add the number of players and genre for each game

Can't you add players on the page in the game template and prices are ever changing so you can't do that Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the to do list. All that information isn't needed for this list. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the list

My suggestion for the list fix.

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Release date	Regions released
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	Template:Dts2	Japan, North America, Europe, Australia
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz	Amusement Vision	Sega	Template:Dts2	North America, Japan, Australia, Europe
Super Paper Mario	Intelligent Systems	Nintendo	Template:Dts2	North America, Japan, Europe, Australia
Super Smash Bros. Brawl	Sora Ltd.	Nintendo	Template:Dts2	Japan, North America, (Australia, Europe)
Super Swing Golf Pangya! Golf with Style EU	Ntreev Soft	Tecmo Nintendo EU	Template:Dts2	Japan, North America, Europe, Australia

Information is covered, and the kb size goes down. Everyone's happy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Below I made some slight adjustments. Let's use flag icons. Also, while subsequent release dates are not as important as first release, future dates should still be noted like I've shown. Ether7 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Release date	Regions released (Future release)
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	Template:Dts2
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz	Amusement Vision	Sega	Template:Dts2
Super Paper Mario	Intelligent Systems	Nintendo	Template:Dts2
Super Smash Bros. Brawl	Sora Ltd.	Nintendo	Template:Dts2	( Template:Dts2)
Super Swing Golf Pangya! Golf with Style EU	Ntreev Soft	Tecmo Nintendo EU	Template:Dts2

As I'd imagine the majority of the traffic is from North America, would it perhaps be advisable to use the NA dates as the primary set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.37.231 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do... you actually have any basis to say that the majority of the traffic is from North America? Chan Yin Keen | ^UserTalk _Contribs 08:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, better the article represent a worldwide view, and show absolute first release date and country(ies).

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Initial Release Date	Additional and (Future) releases
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	Template:Dts2

See how the flag of the original release is with the date? Maybe that will make more sense to on-lookers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The original release can be indicated in the heading. Also, putting the flags in their order of release will make it understood which was first.

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	First Release date	Regions released order (Future)
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	Template:Dts2

Ether7 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not use Flag Icons, as it slows down the loading of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean in comparing the load time with the gamecube and N64 lists. For now lets just use abbrevations NA, EU, JP, AUS.Ether7 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Start of Edits 0-9 & A

I don't hear any objections, so shall we begin? Lets create section headings for each letter on this talk page so we can easier manage/review changes, minimizing double work (We are NOT adding sections to the main article). Post a section for whichever letter you are working on and sign it before doing the work so we know who is doing what. When all is done we can move everything over at once.

Please review the below section for errors. I still need to put all the dates in the same format.-Ether7 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	First Release Date	Region(s) Released
12 (Games)	Phoenix Games	Phoenix Games	TBA	Unreleased
250 Mannin no Kanken Wii de Tokoton Kanji Nou	IE Institute	Konami	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
428	Chunsoft	Sega	2008	Unreleased
New Beginning, AA New Beginning	Daedalic Entertainment	XIDER Games	2008	Unreleased
Action Girlz Racing	DDI	Conspiracy DDI EU	Template:Dts2	EU, NA
Active Life: Athletic World	Namco Bandai	Namco Bandai Atari EU	Template:Dts2	JP
Adventures of Pinocchio	Phoenix Games	Phoenix Games	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None	AWE Games	Adventure Company	Template:Dts2	EU, NA
Alan Hansen’s Sports Challenge	Oxygen Studios	Oxygen Games	Template:Dts2	EU
Alien Syndrome	Totally Games	Sega	Template:Dts2	NA, EU
All Star Cheer Squad	Gorilla	THQ	TBA	Unreleased
Alone in the Dark 5	Hydravision	Atari	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
Alvin and the Chipmunks	Sensory Sweep	Brash Entertainment	Template:Dts2	NA, EU
Amazing Animals	ZzTBA	Success	Template:Dts2	JP
AMF Bowling Pinbusters!	Mud Duck	Bethesda Softworks	Template:Dts2	NA, EU
Animal Crossing Wii	EAD Software Group 2	Nintendo	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
Anime Slot Revolution: Pachi-Slot Kidou Senshi Gundam II - Ai Senshi Hen	Sunrise	Namco Bandai	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
The Ant Bully	A2M	Midway	Template:Dts2	NA, EU
Anubis II	DDI	Conspiracy DDI EU	Template:Dts2	EU, NA
Aquatic Tales	GAMEINVEST/SEED Studios/RTS Studios	GAMEINVEST	2008	Unreleased
Arctic Tale	Atomic Planet	DSI Zoo Digital EU	Template:Dts2	NA, EU
Army Men: Soldiers of Misfortune	ZzTBA	DSI Zoo Digital EU	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
Asterix at the Olympic Games	Etranges Libellules	Atari	Template:Dts2	EU
Avatar: The Last Airbender—Into the Inferno	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	Template:Dts2	Unreleased
Avatar: The Last Airbender—The Burning Earth	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	Template:Dts2	NA, EU
Avatar: The Last Airbender Avatar: The Legend of Aang EU	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	Template:Dts2	NA, EU

Ugh, for crying out loud, just split the wii game releases into region-pages, like the wii virtual console is. Problem solved. AND it would help everyone. Americans get their page, and they can look up data; Europeans get their page, and they can look up data; and the Japanese get their page, and they can look up data. - Dwaggie - 8:29am GMT 20/6/08

I'll hold off on continuing this effort until there is a greater support for one format. Part of the reason for starting this is to see how it looks more extensively. Seeing the way the last column sorts does not seem very useful, unless you want to group everything that was released first in each region.

I'd be all for region lists. One complaint is the redundancy, but that can be reduced by putting only certain things for each list. For example, have the master list with just title, developer and exclus. Region specific info is then on the region list: title, publisher and date... Publisher because they are sometimes different for each region. The only thing repeating is the title. We could also add genre to the master list, and rating to the region list.Ether7 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No region-specific lists. Just because the VC games do it doesn't mean ALL lists should. We DON'T need release dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to put each list into regions. -Wiki131wiki (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Either every single known release date should be listed (Remember Link, that's why you got mad at this page in the first place) or we should go with Wiki's suggestion. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What amazing logic - even though there are many more ideas for the article besides the two ides you claim to be the only options, what you pick are the only options.

Yeah, I'm going to dismiss your silliness. Perhaps we could, God forbid, not list release dates? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to nurture that kind of attitude towards other editor's opinions will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. Act mature towards other even if you don't want to or this is not the place for you. We've already gone over your deletion suggestions, they've been turned down by a multitude of editors. Therefore it would be prudent to lean to other ideas instead of standing your ground in bitterness. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And continuing spitefully responding to my post with "the only options are this extreme or that extreme, make your decision!" gets you nowhere. No other list of console or handheld games separates by region, the only exceptions belong to the VC titles, and only because, as observed, the four region lists have a distinctively different list of games. And I'm sorry, but you and Wiki still clinging to "hey let's keep dates on the list!" does not become a "multitude of editors opposing the idea". I don't see how a discussion which ended with a multitude of editors discussing how the changed list will look is bad for my position. And I'd prefer not to be told to "accept others' ideas" by someone who demands that only two extremely black and white ideas be the only possible options. And just a hint - when the discussion went in my favor, I have no reason to be bitter. The fact that you came in and began taunting me by saying I wanted to list "every single release date that can be found for every single game" (which the only way you could really believe that if you didn't even, you know, read the discussion), and then act like you're in a position to decline sane ideas. The former idea is obviously a joke, trying to force me to accept another user's idea, and you have yet to provide a legitimate reason why reproducing the list x4 is a better idea than simply shrinking the kb size of the terribly large article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Link in that all or nothing are not the only options. What about the above list idea? Just showing the first release date will keep the artical neutral. Subsequent releases are not important for a listing unless you want to see future releases. I would prefer separate lists for released and unreleased titles over region lists. Thats two lists instead of four, and no redundancy.Ether7 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate lists for released and unreleased titles would also take any confusion away from this last column. No parenthesis or future dates, just show regions it has already been released, moving them over from the unreleased list as they become available.Ether7 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply call it Unreleased solves that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling what unreleased solves what? The purpose of the unreleased list would be to show dates.Ether7 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the regions released in with an Unreleased allows the info to be under one list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the above like you suggest. I like it, makes for a cleaner list. If we are going to go with this however, I think we still need a separate list to show future releases. Or, maybe add a section at the bottom of this list.Ether7 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I change my mind. Let's just do region lists like most here are supporting. That is the simplest thing to agree on, and will show the information everyone wants.Ether7 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It will take some doing, but I'm in support of this. It would keep the individual article sizes down while increasing the informational value of the list altogether. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Send in the recruits! There is already a North America list that redirects here. I'll copy this list over and then we can start weeding it.Ether7 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which table design are we using at this point? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be decided on a region by region basis. For now I am just using the current table layout, putting the appropriate titles in each region. North America is done, but needs to be checked over for blunders. I would consider removing the exclusive column and adding region specific ratings, genre, etc. as space allows.Ether7 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Region split discussion

I've started a discussion here: :Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Wii_games_is_now_split_by_region about it. Ether made the other lists with very little discussion about the matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rob, we should discuss it here instead, because there hasn't been any response over there. I do agree with you, though - shouldn't there be more of a discussion on whether there's a consensus to split the article before doing this drastic change? Two people are not enough of a consensus to a change this drastic. The 360 and PS3 lists are more than able to handle games released in multiple regions without having to split it into multiple lists - certianly we could take some cues from them on how to organize this list instead of just changing it on a whim? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the version LttP reverted back to, it's the exact same format as the PS3 and 360 game list articles. Nobody's had any problem with that format used in those articles - what exactly was so bad about this format that the Wii list had to be different? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Xbox or PS3, but Nintendo makes a mess of things with different titles for identical games in different regions. Besides that many games are released in only one or two regions or they have different publishers in different regions. I for one liked the fact that the lists was split up for the different regions. It made things a lot clearer. If possible, please split the list again. NoAlias (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the List of Wii games should be spilt in to multiple region lists. It would make everything easier. Wiki131wiki (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked this split pages too. Much cleaner. --enbob89 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reducing the kb used, it just took the article and made it 3x as long, just separated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I like the page as it is. It's the most useful as one page, but if it's going to be split for whatever reason, the region lists are the way to go. --enbob89 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet, in region-separated lists, there could be more information. Wiki131wiki (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We split to reduce size, and the first thing that's suggested is "we can make these lists even more huge!!"? It doesn't HAVE to be a split. The only reason a split was proposed was because people wanted to put excessive information on the lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the split because you were griping about the article being too large AND demanding that Australia dates be included or else none of the dates could be included. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii games (North America) and List of Wii games need to be merged because there are revisions that are not on this page. Wiki131wiki (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This list urgently needs to be resplit. It was not just two of us agreeing, but there was much sentiment toward it before that... I see more like 4 or 5 of us agreeing. It was a lot of effort splitting it, and the longer it is reverted the more effort it will be to keep updated. I feel for regular editors like Enbob who agree the region split is the way to go. Also, It is not all redundant as publishers can be different, release dates of course, and other region specific info can be added such as ratings. As to the 3 lists combined being bigger than the original list; It does not matter as they are separate lists with less load time. Sorry I did not respond earlier to this mess being reopened, as I was on vacation this past week. Ether7 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides the fact that it takes 3x as long to find info on it, besides the fact that it makes it completely impossible to find any information outside of the three top regions on it, besides the fact that people are using the split lists as an excuse to make them even larger than they are, you want another reason on top of all of that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Most are only interested in info for their own region, so it does not take 3x as long. Info outside the top three regions can be listed on the main or a separate list (Austrailia for example). Additional info (even larger) never hurts, unless it gets too big. If you have more reasons I'll listen. On the flip side, keeping just one list is too long with the only option being less information, less usefullness. Region lists is justified for VC but I don't see it as a different situation. There are many games that are released in multiple regions for that as well. Ether7 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a claim such as that how, exactly? Did you poll one person on their interest in this list? And extra info "not hurting" is the most laughable argument in these kind of arguments. The fact of the matter is that the split is only proposed just so that the lists can have excessive information. There's no reason to split if the content of the article can be limited. No other console games list has done this, why should this one, which is much smaller than most others? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is only common sense that tells me people are interested only in information that is useful to them. If a game is not available to them it only amounts to clutter that they have to sift through. That is not true at all - the split was done to reduce individual article size and increase clarity. Additional useful information is a separate issue where further expansion is available. This is the largest of the 7th generation lists; 57 KB over its limit, and also falls in line with the direction of VC. Ether7 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. And you are whom that decides what information is useful?
2. And yeah, here's an idea - maybe it's the largest because other list makers care about maintaining its size?
3. Um, so, you're comparing splitting a list to three lists with mostly redundant content (as most games released in one region are released in others) to multiple lists for a service that has very, very, very different release schedules (NoA, NoE, NoAu, NoK, and NCL can choose to release any game they choose, and are under no obligation to follow a release schedule). It is a completely different situation that the Wii cannot relate to at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait hold on Link didn't you start fighting with people b/c you wanted to add another section that includes Ausralia. You shouldn't yell at this user b/c he wants to include it on a different page.

Um, hi? I'm pretty sure that I'm not barred from arguing against something that has a nonexistent precedence. There's been no argument that the article can't be reduced to limit size, the only thing that's ever been argued is "we want this info". Instead of limiting info, which is what is supposed to be done, people split the info up. Splits are only necessary when there MUST be a split. And there only MUST be a split when nothing can be done to reduce the content. Are you implying that nothing can be done? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this Holy Grail of 'Reducing size'? Why is that the only reason to split a list. I thought that the MAIN reason to split an article would be: Clarity. Then, if this can be achieved with less data in the lists, all the better. Right now, the list is too obfuscated and bulky. Once again I state that the different regions usually have different titles for the same game. And the publishers also change from region to region. Why is nobody considering the 'clarity'-angle here? NoAlias (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is none. I completely agree that the focus should be how understandable the information is, not how much of it there is. If expanding articles was such a bad thing then stub and expansion templates would not exist on Wikipedia. Keeping the size down is a good thing, and it keeps useless information from cluttering up an article. But taking it to the point where you're worried/worrying others about adding meaningful data isn't very helpful. According to guidelines it's more important to keep individual article size down so that people with slower connections and older computers won't stall out loading the page. This was taken care of perfectly with the region split articles, despite the fact that they're totaled size was far larger than the combined article. I still vote yes on re-splitting by region, Link is the only person currently stonewalling that move. Outside of him, there is a very clear consensus on what the editors involved in this want to do. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Lets just vote and make it official... there is no use discussing it further. Ether7 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It's not the only reason. However, there's a whopping zero legitimate reasons TO split. In an article, content can be split because it's discovered to be notable, or because it's making the article too big and there's no way to fix that without splitting the content.
2. The list does not have to have excessive levels of information. If you say that you split the article for the sake of clarity one million times, it still wouldn't erase the fact that you want EXCESSIVE clarity, the ability to add much, much more content to the lists than there should be.
3. And as we can see, the famous "twisting your argument to make it seem like it's worse than ours". You call it expanding, just like someone would call adding lists of levels, items, and a full walkthrough of a game to an article. That's not expanding. That's padding the article, and so is this. Expanding is adding useful content that doesn't make the size of the article excessive.
4. I am? My bad, I guess the fact that multiple people have opposed splitting doesn't count - must be imaginary people!
5. So basically, you suggest that we should do something never done ever. The lists have never been split by region, because it's a bad idea (and by the way, those people aren't actually figments of your imagination, those ARE people who oppose the move - Hell, I didn't even know it was split until someone else disputed it). Can you give any reason why there shouldn't be an Australian list? Many, many games have been released in Australia and have a unique release date, so the list is creatable. It's a snowball effect. The only proper split of a list is A-B-C. As it stands, there is NO reason to split. People are insisting it to be the only proper thing to do even though there are multiple ways of solving the problem that DOESN'T split articles (reminder: A flower is more beautiful than scatted petals), and people are using this split to add even MORE information to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Region split Vote

Please no discussion in this section, keep that above. Just vote Yes or No to Region lists and sign your post, Thanks. I vote Yes. Ether7 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Wiki131wiki (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No. No reason to split the articles (size reduction can be done in many other ways, and splitting is only done for the sake of adding tons more content than is needed). Not one list, with the exception of a completely unrelated platform (VC), does this, and for some reason ONLY this one article has to be split? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)