Jump to content

Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:List of Wii games

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WaldirBot (talk | contribs) at 19:26, 26 September 2014 (→Format as a table: replace superseded template {{?}} in tables (see talk) / general fixes using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Release Dates

I think release dates are worth mentioning.
Agreed, 100%, and regional sorting. I don't care about when Naruto is coming out in Japan. That gives me no way to determine when it is coming out here, and is information that should be sorted out of my way... just like for a japanese-based reader, information about when Naruto is releasing in the US is useless and should be sorted out of his way. JudgeX 16:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for released games

Are sources for released games really necessary? I completely understand why we have them for when the games are in development, but after a point doesn't it become common knowledge enough that they don't need it? It's like citing a source that Harrison Ford was in Star Wars. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Honestly I don't think it needs its own box within the table in any case. K1Bond007 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a game has been released, a source isn't so necessary. But a source column definitely is necessary now considering the vast majority of the games on the list are unreleased and every day there are clowns listing fake games. But if we do eliminate sources for released games, I'd rather not have an empty source box. Could we just shade those source boxes in black? --enbob89 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea to me. Would would that look like? Perhaps the standard could be to remove confirmation links for games that already are released and have their own article? -- Exitmoose 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRICE of the games

I would like to know the price of the games (Specially the Zelda one and the Red Steel one), thanks.

Game prices vary from region to region, and more importantly, over time. Furthermore, there are sales and bundles that further complicate pricing. As such, they can be documented for each game on its respective page, but to put all of those details on this list would simply clutter everything up. I suggest we do not add this information to this page. — Aielyn 06:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization (Add Online Enabled Game Category?)

It would probably be a good idea to add another category to the list for games that are online in some capacity. Although since 'O' is currently in use maybe 'I' should be used for 'Intenet Enabled,' or something of that nature? ITZKooPA 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, the number of players would be handy here rather than having to load each game's Wikipedia entry. Krisjohn 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before we add any more categories, the page should be redesigned with a more organized layout, if anyone can come up with one. --enbob89 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Aspect Ratio", "Resolution", and "Controller" columns

I think the list of games should add the columns "Aspect Ratio" and "Resolution" to the list of columns. Some games are made in 16x9, some 4x3 and the same goes for 480i/480p. Adding these two columns would make it easy to see what each game offers.

I also think it would be good to add a column that describes the number of controllers necessary for each game. The format could be wiimote/nunchuck/classic where 4/4/0 would say that 4 wiimotes, 4 nunchucks, and 0 classic controllers are required. Ajwillys 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purpose of this list is just to list which games exist. Details should be put in the games' respective articles or in a Comparison of Wii Games article. I feel like the online column is out of place too. --enbob89 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Compare List of PlayStation 3 games or List of Xbox 360 games or List of GameCube games, all of which have a similar format. This list is already on the verge of being cluttered with too much information. Title, Developer, Publisher, Release Date, and Region are more than enough. -- Exitmoose 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've successfully removed the online column without screwing up the entire page. I think a good alternative would be a List of Online Wii Games. Such an article would list all of the online games as well as useful information like how many players and WiiConnect24 usage. Just seems more organized and practical to me.--enbob89 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive list/table

Would it be a good idea to make a separate page for wii exclusives?

I would happily make one if I get the go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bfscr (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do not believe that a separate Wii-exclusive games is warranted; the idea of this list, or so it appears, is to offer a unifying list of Wii games, a one-stop shop. Additionally, the creation of a separate page can be confusing to casual Wikipedia browsers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.181.225.103 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

List of Virtual Boy games table format.

The List of Virtual Boy games is a featured list on Wikipedia. It happens to be a list of console games for a particular console. I think since it's a featured list, this should be the baseline for all other lists of console games. The List of Nintendo 64 games is setup in a similar way. I've done some work for the List of PlayStation 1 games to make it look similar as well. Here's my question.

Should this be the standard on Wikipedia for lists of games for every console? Ceros 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such a format may be suitable, but I can think of at least one modification I would make to the format to suit the Wii - namely, I would add a column listing the control setup (ie/ Wiimote only, Wiimote+nunchaku, Dual-Wiimote, Classic Controller, GameCube Controller, etc). However, I think we should wait until launch before modifying it, as it is a big task.
This seems unnecessary to me. As Ceros mentions, too much information would defeat the purpose of the "list". -- Exitmoose 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I would suggest that games that have been released be marked as such in some way, and the link proving its existence removed (such proof can be found via the game's wikipedia article, once the game has been released). — Aielyn 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought other details besides who, what, when, and where belonged in another table. You could name this table Comparison of Wii games. Someone at the talk page for playstation 3 games suggested there be a column for ps3 exclusives. I said that would be best placed in a table on it's own in which there could be all kinds of details such as first party, third party, 1080p, etc. I also mentioned the Comparison of audio codecs table which is the idea I have for this seperate page. Ceros 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The list already borders on containing too much information. Something like the List of Virtual Boy games seems like a great way to structure the list, and will get rid of the awkward parenthesis. -- Exitmoose 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format as a table

Wouldn't it make it easier to view if the titles were listed as a table (preferably a sortable one)? There could be different columns in the title to denote things such as whether the games are online-capable, first party, etc., and maybe some room for notes if so desired. I myself want to see what unreleased Wii games there are; it's hard to do this when the games are grouped alphabetically. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is overdue for a reformatting. Table sounds nice. --enbob89 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title Launch Released Exclusive Online
Battalion Wars 2 Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY
Elebits Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN
How's that? 76.5.18.0 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Except the released column should specify the regions in which the game has been released, not just a check or an x. So it should say US, EU, JP or AU (or any combination of those). There should be a column for the source link too.--enbob89 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title Released Developer Publisher Exclusive Online Source
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Red XN Retro Studios Nintendo Green tickY ? Joystiq
Elebits (L) JP NA Konami Konami Green tickY Red XN IGN
100 Bullets (C)(?) Red XN TBA D3 Publisher Red XN ? IGN
Let me "kick this up a notch" BAM! Got rid of launches, there would be tons of red x's years from now. FMF|contact 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but I think we should lose the party column. I feel like it's unnecessary. How about publisher/developer columns instead? Also, I think there should be a separate table for untitled games. Just more organized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enbob89 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Updated table, is that fine or should developer/publisher be separated? This chart just covers those that actually have titles. Someone can work on that later - I just want to focus on this and get it up. FMF|contact 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be separate only because there can be multiple developers on one game and having a developer column would make it more organized. Make that change and put it up. It looks great. Also, games that are tweaked versions of other games (Madden, Call of Duty 3) don't count as exclusives. Only games that are completely exclusive to Wii count. --enbob89 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, about the legends. Those not already covered I have added, also I have a urge to switch the legends of online to (O) and other consoles to (C). FMF|contact 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the new format we don't need any of the tags, except maybe the launch tag. There are online, publisher and exclusive columns, so we don't need the tags at all. They would only be redundant clutter. --enbob89 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering purchasing a Wii and was hoping Wikipedia would have a good list of available games for me to research before buying. Unfortunately, this list of games sucks. The tables need to be separated by regional availability AND actual availability. For each region, planned games should have a table, and available games should have a table. It's not hard... but I can tell you what's retarded... having to search through a list of 50+ games for 10 games that are actually available. JudgeX 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a few things you said don't really make sense to me. What do you mean by "actual availability"? And do you mean to say that there should be a separate list of planned games for each region? Most games will become available in all regions; listing them four times (once for each region) would be pointless. While the current format isn't perfect, I wouldn't say it "sucks".
No, man, it sucks. Never before have I seen a list of planned titles sum itself up to be so useless. Fact is, average readers don't care about the release dates in Japan, Europe, etc if they are from the United States (the converse is true as well). If they do care about the release date other than for the region that they reside in, they can go to that region's planned releases. Saying that "most games" will make it to EU or US is certainly true, but only by a narrow margin... there are tons of Japan-centric games for every other nintendo system that never saw the light of day here, pending translation and or import.
By "actual availability", I meant there needs to be an updated list where a user can go to quickly see what titles should be available at the local distributor without having to skim through "upcoming" titles. This would be more useful to people researching the Wii... while planned releases can be seperate completely. It really only requires 3 tables, ordered properly. I propose the following:
Table 1: Region 1 Titles available via retail at time of edit sorted alphabetically, sub-section: upcoming titles with release dates.
Table 2: Region 2 Titles available via retail at time of edit sorted alphabetically, sub-section: upcoming titles with release dates.
And so on and so forth. This allows an extra tier of usefulness in that it includes the release dates for each region for the second part of each table... Imagine the much improved look and feel of being able to go "what all titles are available on Wii... oh, there they are, all 35 of them... and here's the article about this game... awesome." and then being like "I heard Domino Rally was coming out on the Wii, let me check... *scroll down* ... ooh, here it is, April 14. That's awesome." Currently, when you come and want to see what all titles are available, you'd better come ready to look for green checkmarks and copy out the title name into notepad or something if you want to see a list of what you can get right now... as this is a terrible mish-mash of crap... even without the added research of getting an actual release date for each game for each region, it would be HUGELY beneficial to break it up like this. I'm not saying the article is completely without use... I'm just saying it could use serious logical reworking... as I don't know of many people in any region other than Japan that care at all about "Noumiso Konekone Puzzle Takoron", which would almost undoubtedly be retitled for release here in the US anyway...making that game title completely worthless for EU and US readers, and putting yet another time-wasting and confounding entry into the overly humongous table. JudgeX 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the four table idea (North America, Japan, Europe, Australia), but it would make this article way too long as we'd be listing the same games for each table. If we did that, I think each table would be a separate article. Also, a lot of games are regionally ambiguous - nobody is really sure about the regions in which they'll come out. Another thing is, we don't know anything about retail availability, so it'll be released and unreleased. --enbob89 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would be cool too. Honestly I'd love to see someone step up and make the table more useful. I would but i don't have time, and the current table is absolutely useless. I've tried to use it 2 or 3 times now but cannot deal with sifting through that many "theoretically one day available to you" games. I applaud the original work for being thorough and it is of ultimate use, but, without better formatting, it fails. Honestly this would be about perfect if we could use a datagrid here on wikipedia ;). Then we could just sort by columns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JudgeX (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How about this, separate the current table into two tables: one for released games and one for unreleased games. The former will specify regional availability and the latter will look like the existing format except no "released" column. --enbob89 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost agree with this, but like I said, I would like for users to be able to see a list of games that they can get... so, if you sorted it by region and then alphabet for released games, that'd be perfect for me, but without that sorting you still have like 30 games that are unvailable to you appearing in a list of 55 games total, which means you're wasting like 50% of your time... I'm not nitpicking here, I just can't find a solid, currently updated list of games that I can actually go look for in my local market, and that's 1) ridiculous, 2) bad for nintendo, 3) bad for me... because without a list to go on, I simply don't have time to browse 5 or 6 stores every week for new games. Wikipedia is the perfect place for game availability lists because of the ease of updating and the readily accessible links to NPOV wiki articles about the games and external reviews. JudgeX 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need for the red "X" and the green check mark images? Wouldn't a simple "Yes" or "No" suffice for the "Exclusive" and "Online" catagories, and a listing of the regions a game is released in for the "Released" catagory (with a simple "No" for unreleased games)? I'm fairly certain that having so many images on the page makes it significantly bigger (if they don't make the pages bigger though, you might as well disregard this comment). - Ecksem Diem 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the list needs to be overhauled simply because it is useless as a source of information. Unless you already know what title you are looking for it is very hard to find such information as 'what has been released in my region' or 'what exclusives does the system have'. A sortable list would be a very strong solution to this. I spent a few minutes and came up with this. I think that there could be some changes (dates for release instead of Y/N?), but I think it shows the idea. I used the 0-9 and A sections of the current games to fill it up. What do people think? If anyone wants to play around with he idea, I have it up in my user space. Telvin 3d 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Developer Publisher Exclusive AU EU JP NA Source
100 Bullets D3 Publisher D3 Publisher No No No No No Go Nintendo
Alien Syndrome Totally Games Sega No No No No No Sega
Alive Ubisoft No No No No No Go Nintendo
Animal Crossing (Wii) Nintendo EAD Nintendo Yes No No No No Go Nintendo
The Ant Bully Artificial Mind and Movement Midway No No No No Yes Midway
Avatar: The Last Airbender THQ Studio Australia THQ No Yes Yes No Yes THQ


I think Telvin's table is the on the right track in terms of making this list the most informative and presentable. I've taken his table and modified it somewhat, a format which I believe is the best (Updated):

Title Developer Publisher Online Japan Japan Europe Europe United States North America
100 Bullets [1] D3 Publisher D3 Publisher No TBA Q3 2007
Alien Syndrome [2] Totally Games Sega No Q2 2007 2007-06-30June 30, 2007
Alive [3] TBA Ubisoft No TBA TBA
Animal Crossing (Wii) [4] Nintendo EAD Nintendo Yes TBA TBA TBA
Ant Bully, The [5] Artificial Mind and Movement Midway No 2007-03-02March 2, 2007 2006-12-11December 11, 2006
Avatar: The Last Airbender [6] THQ Studio Australia THQ No 2007-02-09February 9, 2007 2006-11-19November 19, 2006

Notes

  1. ^ http://gonintendo.com/?p=12735
  2. ^ http://www.sega.com/corporate/corporate.php?item=pr_20061212a
  3. ^ http://gonintendo.com/?p=12735
  4. ^ http://gonintendo.com/?p=12735
  5. ^ http://www.midway.com/rxpage/mpr_4257.html
  6. ^ http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=96376&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=846277&highlight=avatar

I look forward to your comments, and if nobody raises any objections I will begin reformatting the current list into the one presented in a few days. It's clear that this list needs an overhaul, and I figure that we might as well start doing it. Digiwrld1 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite good! The "Developer" and "Publisher" columns should come first, as they are more important IMHO, and an "Exclusive" column might be neat too, but otherwise I really like it. --Conti|✉ 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did with it. I agree that the dates in the release column are better. Other than that, I am curious why Australia is no longer part of the list? As far as I know, they get release dates that are separate from any of the other regions. If I am wrong in this please correct me. Also, there needs to be a 'source' column. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which mean everything needs to be referenced. In theory, we could put all the references at the bottom of the page, but with at least one reference per entry that list would be at least as long as the games list itself, not to mention keeping track of it would be a nightmare. It is far easier and cleaner to keep the reference as part of the entry for the game. Those two entries are more important in my eyes than either an 'exclusive' column or an 'online' column. Either of those things could be found in the game's own page, where as 'source' and 'Australia' are directly relevant to the list itself. Telvin 3d 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the consensus on other "List of games"-lists is, but we usually use footnotes to provide the sources, and I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't do that here, too, as it would save one additional column. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, taking into account everybody's suggestions, I've updated this table. Placing the names of the Developers and Publishers put the text blocks together (the names), separated from the dates by a thin column of online. I know some people really would like an 'Exclusive' column, but I believe that such a column is unnecessary-looking at other such lists, nobody else has an 'exclusive' column. Rather, that would be better suited for a separate page which can be linked to in a 'See Also' column.
For my Aussie friends, after much debate I've come to the conclusion that although Australia does have different release dates than other regions, they are kept relatively close to the European dates. Looking at a number of other 'List of Games', nobody else had listed the Australian release date separately. One could make the argument that if Australia receives its own column, then countries such as China and South Korea, which also have their own release dates, deserve their own columns. Taking all of these factors into consideration, and giving the most weight to how other such lists of games are presented on Wikipedia, I've concluded that there is no need for a separate column. I apologize to any Aussies that might be upset about this, but I think it's the best method. I have no problem having the Australian release date within each specific game link, as I believe those game pages should contain all such relevant information. Already, whenever possible, I've updated those game pages to include such release dates, but I'm focusing moreso on the table itself.
Lastly, I've implemented the footnoes as suggested by Contil, and I'm in favor of it (although some of those sources are pretty sketchy-perhaps another cleanup is in order later on). The only downside I can see is a relatively long list of 'Notes' at the end of the page, but seeing how its directly linked from the title there should be no problems here. Once again I thank you for your comments and if there's no objections I will start updating to the format seen above in a few days. Digiwrld1 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough as far as the Aussies go. I was curious why they were removed, but the reasons are sound. About the notes though, I still disagree. I mean, look at the sample list that we have already put together. The notes section is at least as long as the list itself. Can you imagine what it will be like once there are 100, or 300 or 1000 entries (as there will be in a couple years)? If the notes are listed at the bottom for each game by its very nature it will be so messy that it will be useless in terms of real information or keep it updated. Since the notes get ordered by date added, they will soon bear no relation whatsoever to the games they are associated with. Finding space for a small notes column (look at my sample one, it doesn't have to be very big) would be as simple as removing the flags from the country columns. Telvin 3d 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the current table layout, so I just want to make a few quick corrections here: See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how footnotes work in Wikipedia, updating the references is as easy as it is right now, there's no difference. Also, the references are ordered in the same way the games are ordered, so there's no problem there either. And we could use templates as Template:Cite web to provide much more information on the sources we have if we'd use footnotes (which, basically, is the whole point of using footnotes in the first place). Anyhow, it's not a major issue, and I'm fine with the way it is now. --Conti|✉ 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for everyone's input and responses. I think that this list is shaping out to be really accessible and informative. Telvin, I've thought about what you said about having a large list of notes, and I agree that this will be quite cumbersome. After playing around with a number of ideas and such, I've modified the table to include the sources in such a way that it doesn't look like it has too much stuff. The solution is simple-an arrow next to the name which contains the external link to the source. This way each source is kept adjacent to that game. I think this is the winning formula. It takes what everyone has suggested and puts it together in a way which I think suits (most) everybody. I'm sure its not perfect, but that's the beauty of Wikipedia-anybody can improve it. -Digiwrld1 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what I am seeing. I have 2 final thoughts. The first is why an 'online' column instead of an 'exclusive' column? Personally, this is a list about the games on the system, and whether or not a game is exclusive is quite relevant in that context. In comparison, 'online' or not feels like more of a game specific concern without much relevance to the system as a whole. That may just be me. I am more interested in people's reasons than any real disagreement.
My second comment is more of a format issue. I don't think any of the columns should be left blank. It doesn't work as well with the sortability in my opinion. If no release date can be found, I think a TBA, N/A, None Expected or similar should be instead of a blank. Telvin 3d 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the input. I've implemented both of Telvin's suggestions and I think that this is it. (I've added all of the 'B' games as well). I used the term 'unreleased' for games that were not/will probably not be released in a region-this way it will be at the bottom when sorting by release date. All in all I think we've got it--now comes the fun part of filling in all the information.

Title and Source Developer Publisher Exclusive Japan Japan Europe Europe United States North America
100 Bullets → D3 Publisher D3 Publisher No Q3 2007 Q3 2007 Q3 2007
Alien Syndrome → Totally Games Sega No Q2 2007 Q2 2007 Q2 2007
Alive → TBA Ubisoft No TBA TBA TBA
Animal Crossing (Wii) → Nintendo EAD Nintendo Yes TBA TBA TBA
Ant Bully, The → Artificial Mind and Movement Midway No Unreleased 2007-03-02March 2, 2007 2006-12-11December 11, 2006
Avatar: The Last Airbender → THQ Studio Australia THQ No Unreleased 2007-02-09February 9, 2007 2006-11-19November 19, 2006
Baja Destruction → Broadsword Interactive Conspiracy Entertainment| No Unreleased 2007-03-30March 30, 2007 Unreleased
Baja Mania → Broadsword Interactive Conspiracy Entertainment No Unreleased 2007-03-30March 30, 2007 Unreleased
Balls of Fury (video game) → Zoo Digital Zoo Digital No Unreleased TBA TBA
Barnyard → Blue Tongue Entertainment THQ No 2007-04-05December 8, 2006 2006-12-08December 8, 2006 2006-11-19November 19, 2006
Battalion Wars 2 → Kuju Entertainment Nintendo Yes TBA TBA TBA
Ben 10 (video game) → D3 Publisher No Q4 2007 Q4 2007 Q4 2007
Big Brain Academy Wii → Nintendo Nintendo Yes TBA TBA TBA
The Bigs → Blue Castle Games 2K Sports No TBA TBA Q3 2007
Bionicle Heroes → TT Games Eidos Interactive No TBA Q2 2007 Q2 2007
Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII → Ubisoft Romania Ubisoft No Unreleased 2007-03-30March 30, 2007 2007-03-20March 20, 2007
Bleach Wii: Hakujin Kirameku Rondo → Sega Sega Yes 2006-12-14December 14, 2006 Unreleased Unreleased
Blitz: The League → Midway Games Midway Games No Unreleased Q3 2007 Q3 2007
Bomberman Land → Hudson Soft Hudson Soft Yes 2007-03-08March 8, 2007 TBA TBA
Boxing Action → AQ Interactive AQ Interactive Yes TBA TBA TBA
Broken Saints → Gnosis Games TBA No Unreleased TBA TBA
Brothers In Arms: D-Day → Ubisoft Ubisoft No Unreleased Q1 2007 Q1 2007
Brunswick Pro Bowling → Brunswick Crave Entertainment No Unreleased TBA TBA
Bust-a-Move Bash! → Taito Majesco Yes TBA TBA 2007-03-15March 15, 2007

Well that's it. I think we can start doing the overhaul soon, just wanted to show it for a bit and make sure most everyone's alright with it. If its possible to add some color to the table-alternating colors maybe between rows, I think that would be helpful, but if not that's fine.-Digiwrld1 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fantastic to me. If you would like a hand, I could start at the bottom and work my way up. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing the final product. I think your solution to the source issue was very elegant. Telvin 3d 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Telvin-thanks a bunch for all of your help and input. If you are able to, I'd appreciate it if you could help out (and anybody else as well). It's quite a list but I'm looking forward to it. If you can, be sure to check out the source links as well-I've found that sometimes it needs to be updated. This is a call for help to the Wikipedia community-please help us update this list! -Digiwrld1 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformmating of List

Hello! After much discussion I've begun updating and reformatting the list of Wii games. This reformatting will make the page easier and more efficient to use and should satisfy most everybody.

I encourage all of those who can to help reformat this list; as you can see, I have already done those titles that begin with a number, 'A', and 'B'.

You'll see that the source link is next to the title in the form of an arrow. Please follow this format and note that the arrow (right arrow) can be found in the 'Insert' section of the editing box. Also, be sure to take a couple seconds and click the current link to make sure it is legitimate and current. If not, please be kind enough to update this link.

When inserting release dates for each region, please be as accurate as possible. Q1 2007 refers to the months Jan-Feb 2007. A 'summer' release usually means a Q3 release. It is better to be conservative, so if a title is to be published in the second half of 2007, insert Q4 2007, and be sure to update the date when more details are available.

If no date is given and cannot be approximated, then insert either 'TBA' or 'Unreleased'. If a title is likely to come out for a particular region, type 'TBA'. If it is unlikely that the title will see release in a particular region, type in 'Unreleased'. It is safer to say a title is 'TBA' if you are unsure. Do not, however, leave any of these columns blank. To help guide you make note of whether previous games from that publisher or franchise came out in a particular region and use Google/Wikipedia to search for information.

Once again, thank you for your input and I look forward to everybody's help in keeping this list updated and accessible. -Digiwrld1 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of List

Hmm, using "200x Qx" instead of "Qx 200x", messes up the page sorting. Then again, it'll also be messed up when we have two different years and the same quarter. I guess we need an additional sort key for those (and for "2007", too). --Conti|✉ 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does and it doesn't. With the 200x Qx format, the entries sort to the start of their respective year. I admit that it breaks up the flow of the fully dated entries, but it still sorts cleanly. If we go with Qx 200x format, they will all sort to the bottom together, much like the TBAs and Unreleased do, but Q1 2008 will sort before Q3 2007. If you have a way to get the best of both worlds, I'd be happy to hear it Telvin 3d 18:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, sort keys might do the trick, but that would be kinda cumbersome. IMHO, the "2007" and "2007 Qx" entries should come after the more detailed "22 March, 2007" entries. My only idea to achieve that would be a sort key of "2007-12-31". --Conti|✉ 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would look better. My only issue with the sort key is that it would be a more work to maintain in the long term. Many people who make only ocasional edits may not check this page and may not realize how the formatting works. The way it is now isn't as pretty, but it is logical and makes sense. Telvin 3d 20:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. But then again, the table as it is (and tables in general are) is already quite unfriendly towards newbies, so I don't think adding another sort key for a few entries is too much. I could create a template, so that all that needs to be added would be something like {{TBA|2007}} or {{TBA|2007|Q3}}. --Conti|✉ 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you did that, it would be really cool. I think it would also be a more obvious format for anyone who isn't as familiar with formatting tags. Telvin 3d 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{TBA}} should work now, feel free to try it out. :) --Conti|✉ 22:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it works great. Telvin 3d 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, that's great--I had thought that the sorting issues couldn't be resolved because of some kind of limit in wiki editing; guess i was wrong. Thanks for all of your guys help Telvin and ContiE. The table looks great.-Digiwrld1 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wii_games/Archive_3&oldid=627194773"