View source for Talk:Wii/Archive 11

{{aan}}

{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
| style="font-size:90%" |
*[[Talk:Wii/Move to Nintendo Wii|Requested Move to ''Nintendo Wii''<br /> (17th-22nd May 2006 - concensus: '''Not Moved''')]]

*[[Talk:Wii/archive1|Archive 1 (May 2005 - July 2005)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive2|Archive 2 (July 2005 - September 2005)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive3|Archive 3 (September 2005 - December 2005)]] 
*[[Talk:Wii/archive4|Archive 4 (December 2005 - March 2006)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive5|Archive 5 (March 2006 - April 2006)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive6|Archive 6 (April 2006)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive7|Archive 7 (Pre-E3 2006)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive8|Archive 8 (E3 2006)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive9|Archive 9 (Post E3 2006 up to 20th May)]]
*[[Talk:Wii/archive10|Archive 10 (20th May - 31st May)]]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

== Franchises  ==
I edited this section per request by Ladlergo. To me it doesnt look right but I am on the way to try to make it look more presentable. But, once more titles come out, I would like to have it the way it was with a row of 4 or 5 titles under each party.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 00:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:It might look better without the bullets and with spacing tags added to separate the columns.  Italics is another thing to try. 
:I really will contest a set of lists (as you had it before).  It inflates the page length and causes eyes to skip. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 00:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::once new games get announced, we will discuss it again. --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 04:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::BTW... fixed it so it looks better for now. tell me if you like it. --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Very nice.  I just edited it to put the lists in alphabetical order. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Well Like I said before, from now until the launch and even after, there will probably be more titles added to this list. At least once more games get confirmed such as Mario Kart, Mario Party etc. Once the list gets to long vertically, I shall format it back to the way it was with the new franchises.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I think it looks really good like this. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 12:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to hear why we are yet again just listing the "popular franchises". Given the innovation behind Wii, it would make sense to highlight stuff like Wii Sports, etc.  Can someone explain why this is beneficial to the article?  Can someone explain why this section needs to exist at all until the games/system even come out?  Personally, I think we should scrap the whole thing until stuff comes out and then we can highlight what games become the most popular sellers, best reviewed, etc.  Right now it's just a section stating, "Wii will release new titles in popular series like Mario, blah, blah, blah..." That just seems like "Duh!" to me. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:Because [[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] and [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] had been debating the "key titles" issue quite extensively, and this was the compromise they had come up with. I hadn't really engaged myself in the debate, but I had expressed that I disagreed with the section. Considering all the edit-warring that involves just that section (party status, what qualifies as significant-enough franchises, series and not games, etc.), I think its removal would solve quite a few headaches. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::Even though it ''seems like 'Duh!''' to [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]]it might not be the same case to EVERYONE else. What if some one that has not even played a Nintendo, let alone heard about it, reads this article. that is what you have to think about when writing. You have to state the obvious sometimes. If you want to add a section for games that fully utilize the Wii-mote, I do not have a problem with that. But games like Wii sports and Wii oricstra are not Key franchises, they are just new games. Who knows if they will turn into a full series of games and into a key franchise. A key franchise to me is a franchise that spans atleats all current or most of the previous console of the company. For example: Mario Party is a good franchise, Red Steel is not.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Quite right, I don't see how Red Steel is a franchise as it has no past history - franchises are made over time (with good games), not spawned out of nothing with only the promise of a good game?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::True, but part of my question is ''why'' is it exclusively just "franchises" and not inclusive of anticipated games (since we obviously can't put popular titles until at least Jan. 2007) and on the flip side I asked why does the section have to exist at all at this early stage? Plus, not all 'popular games' turn into 'franchises'.  Look at Kid Icarus. Games like Wii Sports, Excite Truck and Red Steel have been pimped heavily by Nintendo and they were huge hits at E3. We have a list of Wii games, people can read there if they want to see what's coming.  The section as is (with the exception of the 3rd party support info) really doesn't serve much of a purpose but to take up space.  It seems like the only games we should really mention are those that are confirmed as launch titles, and we have section for that. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 20:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Good point - which is one good reason to create a new article "Wii games" (see my plee in section "the article - length and games an other things".
::::EDIT - I added a subsection for new titles and headed the franchise section with "Franchises".  I think it needs to be fleshed out some, but if we are planning to keep this section then at least the new stuff doesn't encroach upon the franchises now. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::What you've done seems right.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, but I don't like that addition.  Again, it's up to personal taste as to what games are under that category, and I'm rather against arbitrary inclusions. Now, I'd be ok with a section for games that companies hope to establish as franchises - two of the games listed fall under that label. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

== Talk Topics ==
It seems this page has mostly disappeared in the last 24 hours. Some has been archived, but I am not sure about all of it. If someone who has done more on this article wants to revert some of it or explain why it was deleted that would be a great help to me. Thanks.  [[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:I checked and it is indeed all there. there were 35 topics before I archived, and in the latest achieve there are, well, 35 topics.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::I guess when I looked at it I didnt realize that the entire discussion had been archived.  I thought you had just archived the oldest topics.  I was just confused when I saw that some topics which had recent posts were archived. [[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 18:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== "Blanking" ==
Doom127, please note that Dannybu2001 and myself are opposed to the paragraph that we keep on "blanking."  HappyVR has also stated a preference for removing the section.  Please explain why removing that paragraph is vandalism.

In addition, the paragraph contained an unconfirmed statement ("in response" may be true, but there are no Sony reps who have stated as such) and "had created gyroscopic PC controllers years before" gives false implications. Gates' quote, by itself, gives a biased view of how the gaming industry views the controller; there are no developer quotes, for example, and I would consider them more important than what the non-developer head of MS says. 

The paragraph is also in the wrong place, as that paragraph is about the reactions to the controller, not the name.  However, you may note that it is under "Reaction" under "Console name".

Unless you can give a rationale for keeping the paragraph, I will be removing it. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:I have re-removed and posted a message on Doom's talk page regarding the matter.  I don't see why he thinks this is relevant info, much less that it's even properly categorized. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Your POV responses are disturbing, to say the least. The article heading had already been changed to "console" response (as opposed to name), but someone changed it back. Furthermore, the response of an individual who is speaking from terms of experience in the industry (what he said applies to ALL positional controllers, not just his own, or to the Wii) IS relevant. The Wii controller, given that it IS a positional controller, will have the same issues as other positional controllers. 
::That is, given any amount of fatigue and the requirement of holding the controller in a specific position, the arm or wrist will have a natural tendency to lower itself, and the lowering will register within the game and will disrupt gameplay. Removing what is a factual and nonbiased paragraph benefits Wikipedia in no certain way. 
:: Even more certain than that is the need for addressing RSI potential with the wrist/arm movement inherent with the controller.
::Indeed, this article needs, I believe, what other articles have- a criticism section. The Wii's unusual controller has caveats, and they cannot be merely wiped away. When I get back from vacation, if there is no such section, I'll certainly make sure that one gets created, and no amount of repeated vandalism will deny the truth as it stands. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, please remember there were two issues here - the content - still being debated, and the position - it was in the wrong position - that will have been one of the reasons for the removal - changing the article heading to 'console response' didn't solve that problem as it was still in the section 'name'. - that's like having 'key first party titles' in the section 'technical specifications'.
:::Your points on RSI are interesting (and personally I've been a bit worried about this too) - however to address this issue we need some specific info and not an amusing and insightful quote (no sarcasm intended) from Bill Gates about 'put the controller down and the plane crashes' - though I still think it's a good quote I'd be 50/50 on it's inclusion.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I hate to break it to you, but Gates has close to zero experience in the game developer area, so I'd put his quote very low down on the list. Try actual developers first. I'm not against a quote from Gates (although given that he's head of a company that's competing, I think PoV is close to automatic), I'd just like to see quotes from EA, Activision, Ubisoft, et al added before we get to the heads of Sony and MS.  	 
:::That said, RSI is a good point to bring up. 	 
:::BTW, the section was originally just on the name (way back when). It has been a fairly recent change to make it about the system as a whole. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Gates' quote is relevant in this case since he is a well-known public figure and the spokesperson for a major competitor of Nintendo. I added it under a new 'Criticism' section, which hopefully will be expanded, since many people have criticized the Wii, as sad as it may be, and no matter how much I disagree with the criticisms. [[User:Voretus|<span style="color:Green;">'''Vore'''</span>]][[User talk:Voretus|'''<span style="color:Blue;">tus</span>''']] [[Special:Contributions/Voretus|'''<span style="color:Black;">the</span>''']] [[User:Voretus|'''<span style="color:Black;">Benevolent</span>''']] 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::Gates has risen to prominence through his software company, not through games, and he shouldn't be treated like a game guru.  	 
::How about a "Game developer responses" section? I believe that would be much more balanced (Gates is going to be biased whenever he speaks on the record), as it would have hardware and software company execs and programmers giving their opinions. One quote by the head of MS does not a balanced article make. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The problem is, any criticism section is going to have POVs, as that is the point of criticism in most cases. The best Wikipedia can do is report neutrally on what others are saying. Two seperate sections on criticism or any such responses would unnecessarily clutter up the article.
:::Gates is not being treated like a game guru, he's being treated as a prominent figure who is working with the Microsoft company, which is, as said, a primary competitor of Nintendo. If we were going with what game gurus had said about the system, we might say something about what [[User:TSA|TSA]] has said about Zelda in the Zelda articles, or some other equally experienced, but non-notable people in other articles. Since he is the spokesperson for the company, I feel as if Gates' quote should remain. [[User:Voretus|<span style="color:Green;">'''Vore'''</span>]][[User talk:Voretus|'''<span style="color:Blue;">tus</span>''']] [[Special:Contributions/Voretus|'''<span style="color:Black;">the</span>''']] [[User:Voretus|'''<span style="color:Black;">Benevolent</span>''']] 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the relevancy of the criticism section, but I'll go with the flow now that it's at least properly categorized. But Doom's behavior is actually in violation of wiki-policies: Accusing others of vandalism when they are not is clearly "assuming bad faith" and he removed my legitimate comments from his talk page about the reasoning for removing the Gates comments, a clear violation of wiki-policy for talk pages.  Bottom-line, his grasp of the rules seems slim at best so if it weren't for Voretus' stepping in on the matter I'd say not to add this content at all as Doom is on the edge of being a vandal himself. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed. Removing biased and unsourced content (and it was) is not vandalism, especially not when multiple editors do it. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That Bill Gates quote is almost nonsensical by itself... It doesn't add anything to the article for me (and of course Bill Gates is going to be biased.) I feel that the criticism section should be removed until more people have actually played the Wii in order to criticize it. Just my two cents.  [[User:Grandmasterka|<span style="color:red;">Grand</span>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<span style="color:blue;">master</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<span style="color:green;">ka</span>]] 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:I agree. The criticism section soley consists of a quote from a major competitor of Nintendo and provides no real constructive criticism of the console. It should also be noted that Peter Moore, who is also high up in Microsoft (their game division, specificly) has praised the Wii on multiple occasions.[[User:Phoenixj91|PhoenixJ]] 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::I agree Bill Gates is just trying to diminish the hype behind the Wii and by putting this content before the Wii is even released it very premature. I mean...has Bill Gate even used the Wii controller, I doubt it, so why would his opinion matter if he has not used it. And on top of that, game are still underdevelopment, what it boils down to is not necessarily the movement of the controller then the sensitivity of it as well as the usage of the movements within a specific game. So I say remove it and possibly make a '''Criticism and Appraisal''' section later on once the Wii is released if we all agree. --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Good point.  Of course we're all apparently going to be in ''big twouble'' when Doom127 gets back from vacation if there isn't a criticism section. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: One last comment as I wait for my flight (wifi on a laptop), especially given the POV rolling in from heretofore unseen editors here. Anyone who actually read the Gates quote sees, quite clearly, that he isn't "diminishing" the controller, nor is he being "biased". He's clearly speaking from a viewpoint of design work; that is, that positional based controllers are subject to some specific problems inherent in requiring the controller to be in a specific position. He wasn't even '''attacking''' the controller, the most strong words he had to say about it were "there's a lot to be learned about these controllers". The flaws aren't the controllers themselves, but the need to keep them in a certain position for an extended period of time- a neccessity in the way they operate. Furthermore, Danny and co '''HAVE BEEN''' vandalising the page, using Wiki's plain and simple definition- "Removing all or significant parts of articles". The Wii controller, as I said before (which was also entirely ignored in his attempt to attack me), is a positional controller, which carries with it a specific set of both advantages (which have already found their way into the article) and problems; problems including both what Gates spoke about (steadyness and fatigue), and the problems that are inherent with repetitive stress injury. If Gates were "just trying to diminish" the buzz regarding the Wii, the very specific nature of the comments wouldn't have come forth, he would have been much more vague. The article does need a critcism section, no matter how much editors with an agenda (including one who keeps jamming a "vandalism" warning onto my talk page, grr) might want it out. It's not just a problem that occurs with the Wii; the specific wrist and arm motions that cause the RSIs are present in other activities; the problem lies in the extent of said activities- while most won't play a game of Tennis, for instance, normally for five hours at one time, its not an unheard of length of time that is present within a video game. Fatigue, RSI and the nature of the aforementioned things are extremely important, as they can directly affect the health of the individual using the system. I'm sorry if there are individuals who think that I may be "attacking" the system they like needlessly, but it's something that needs to be mentioned within this article. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Deleting ''legitimate comments'' from your talk page and then calling it ''vandalism'' is a violation of wiki-policy, as I mentioned on your talk page. Wait, you deleted it again, and I have in turn reported you to the admins. And it's pretty clear you're only here to defam the Wii, not improve the article, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to comments like, "I'm sorry if there are individuals who think that I may be "attacking" the system they like needlessly, but it's something that needs to be mentioned within this article."  I don't recall reading any policies that say criticism sections are mandatory. And "needlessly"? What is that? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Regardless of whether it was PoV, several editors agreed that it was in the wrong location. That alone is cause for removal. Please also note that Sony has denied that their controller was in reaction to the Wii's; making that sentence unsuitable for inclusion. Whether we believe them (and I don't) is a separate matter. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the article needs a critisism section, considering some of the controversy there has been around the design. However... it needs to be a much better fleshed out than a single quote from a direct competitor. I'll see what I can add. --[[User:Ritz|Ritz]] 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:I don't believe that it should matter if the notable figures criticizing the Wii are doing it fairly (since it's not even out...), it's still being criticized. The criticism section is legitimate, as it is I don't think it shows any POV, and many, many good articles about huge products like these have a criticism section. I don't think the article would be as complete without one. Since the information is encyclopedic, it should definitely be left in.
:On another note, I'm looking forward to this system the most out of any of them; it pains me to see criticism of the Wii since most of it seems unjustified to me, and I'm sure Nintendo has taken every precaution against hand and nerve troubles with using the controller. The criticism section, however, I must reiterate, should stay in. [[User:Voretus|<span style="color:Green;">'''Vore'''</span>]][[User talk:Voretus|'''<span style="color:Blue;">tus</span>''']] [[Special:Contributions/Voretus|'''<span style="color:Black;">the</span>''']] [[User:Voretus|'''<span style="color:Black;">Benevolent</span>''']] 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::I can empathize, Voretus, being a fan of Nintendo myself. As long as it remains NPOV, it should be ok though. As you might have noticed, I've added to it and included statements from third party developers. I think its better than the stand alone quote that was used previously. --[[User:Ritz|Ritz]] 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:I see that there's the bit from the creator of KD.  Good choice.
:IGN also had a bunch of quotes from developers (pre-E3).  Generally positive, but a few people were skeptical. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is debating the validity of RSI concerns.  However, given that the system hasn't been released, I think we should be cautious.  Real data will come after it's been out for several months. In the mean time, does anyone know if physical therapist or other medical professionals have talked about the dangers of video games? That would work the best for now. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I too am concerned about the requirement of positioning the Wii Remote and the dangers of RSI, constructing a 'criticisms' page on the Wii before it is released is both inappropriate and preemptive of public opinion. Perhaps we should wait until the console is released and more criticism is made by consumers before such a sub-topic is placed on the page. Sure, such criticism is valid, but as the only supporting criticism is made by Bill Gates it clearly shows bias as he is a highly opinionated stakeholder with regards to the issue. Bill's comments should be placed under a  'reactions' sub-heading or something else more appropriate instead. [[User:Smithers109|Smithers109]] 09:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Use of "the" prefix ==
I had asked a related question earlier [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wii/archive6#Removing_.22the.22_prefix.3F] regarding the use of putting "the" in front of the name Wii. I noticed that user [[user:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]] had made an edit to place the word in front of the name at the beginning of the article in an attempt to be consistent with the majority of the other console articles. However, soon after that, user [[user:Dannybu2001|Dannybu2001]] removed it "per context usage and general consensus". In the archived discussion, user [[user:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] argued that context didn't merit the removal of the prefix. Nor have I been able to find a consenses on the subject yet. So, since the edit really doesn't have a huge impact on the article, rather than edit back and forth, I thought it would be better to discuss what would be most appropriate first. Thoughts? --[[User:Ritz|Ritz]] 08:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:It's "Wii" not "The Wii" end of story. It's not a word, it's a product name. You don't say "The PlayStation 3", you say "PlayStation 3, same with "Xbox 360", not "The Xbox 360". Just remove it has vandalisme, warn the user who added. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, it seems that based on [[user:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]]'s edit, we do say "''the'' PlayStation 3" and "''the'' Xbox 360", judging by the other console articles. I decided to check this myself, and sure enough, the text of those articles seems to favor "the" in front of the names. I'm not saying that it's the proper usage, but it is the prevalent usage. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 09:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::That's how I was seeing it; every other console article I've found so far ([[Nintendo Entertainment System|NES]] - [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|SNES]] - [[Sega Genesis]] - [[Nintendo 64|N64]] - [[Xbox]]) has used "The" in reference to the console's name. It's not part of the official trademark, true (hence it's not in bold), but it seems to be a common usage convention when referring to a console itself. --''[[User:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]] 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)''
::::I have edited [[PlayStation 3]] and [[Xbox 360]], it's the wrong practice if you ask me, plus it sounds wrong. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::(sarcasm ->) Then don't forget about the 2600, 5200, 7800, NES, SNES, TG16, Genesis, PlayStation, Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube, and PlayStation 2 articles then, they all use the same manner.  (end sarcasm).
:::::But all joking aside, I'm just wondering what makes it sound "wrong"?  --''[[User:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]] 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)''

:::::I see you changed many of the older systems. I'm thinking that probably wasn't the right course for consoles such as the Super NES, for which the official title acts more as a descriptor than an actual name. It's only recently (the last couple generations) that treating titles as proper names has become common for consoles. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::Isn't "Wii" basically short for "Wii game console"? Wouldn't you say "The Wii game console kicked tail at E306" instead of "Wii game console kicked tail at E306"? [[User:Chromudgeon|Chromudgeon]] 14:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The name is "Wii", not "Nintendo Wii" or "Wii game console" or anything like that, it's "Wii" and only "Wii". I have removed the prefix on the consoles and handhelds I could think of at the top of my head. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 14:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::While I agree with you that the name of the console is Wii, I totally disagree with not using the word "the".  When I am refering to a car I say, the BMW Z3 is the best roadster ever, or for computers I say the Dell Dimension is a subpar system. For this console it should be the Nintendo Wii is the best console Nintendo has made yet. The word "the" isnt part of the title it is just proper english and the reference to Nintendo is the brand that it falls into.  The article should be titled Wii as that is the product's name. When refering to the Wii though, it is more then proper to use Nintendo in front of the name and just plain good english to refer to any product using the word "the". [[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::See, this is where I disagree. While there's nothing too wrong about using Nintendo in front of the name Wii, I don't see many cases where it would be too necessary. How often do we need to call the iPod the "Apple iPod"? And "any product" is too much of a blanket statement to me. As a device, it's fine to use "the", but when referring to Wii as a platform, I think it's more appropriate to omit "the". As a platform, Windows is pretty much never prefixed with "the". [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::It is kind of tricky. I prefer to refer to Wii without using "the" in front of the name when I write sentences. Due to this, I do prefer omitting "The" from the beggining of the article. However, when looking at products and brands like the [[Walkman]] and [[iPod]], the use of the word "The" is used to introduce the subject. Looking at the article for the [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|SNES]], I notice it doesn't read very well without "The" introducing the subject.
::::::Hmm... I come to think of an article like [[fire]]. It makes total sense to not include the prefix to introduce the subject. You don't say "The fire" when refering to combustion. However, if Microsoft, for example where to introduce a new handheld called "Fire", an article based on it would most likely use "The ''Fire'' is Microsoft's first handheld system" to introduce the article. Considering Wii is an console (object) and not a state (like fire), including the "the" prefix may be most appropriate afterall. --[[User:Ritz|Ritz]] 18:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Or, "The firefighters put out ''the'' fire." [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My use of the word "context" has to do with the grammatical nature of the particular sentence.  I have stated previously that if a sentence requires the use of "the" before Wii, then by all means it should go regardless of Nintendo's wishes.  But if it can be used properly without "the", then it's fine. The opening sentence can be read properly sans "the". [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:it is all about sentence structure. This is ok: ''Wii is the name of Nintendo's fifth console'', '''''The''' Wii can accept wii games and gamecube games.'' This is not ok: ''Wii's has 3X the power of gamecube'', the correct sentance structure is '''''the''' wii has 3x the power ot '''the''' gamecube''--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 20:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your changes, Havok, and am reverting them. The manuals for all my Nintendo products use the prefix "the" when referring to the console. It's common usage and proper grammar. "Where'd I leave the game?" "On top of PlayStation 2" is wrong. --[[User:Poiuytman|Poiuyt Man]] [[User talk:Poiuytman|<sup>talk</sup>]] 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Very well. The poll still stands on the CVG Project talk page, and if you havn't read it you should. If consensus was met on this page, the question should be re-asked for everyone who contributes to the computer and videogame articles on the project page, and not here on the Wii article. And before you go an attack my grammer like everyone else, read my comment first. They are both right, and I just happen to think that removing the "the" looks better. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 22:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Using prior consoles as a reference is incorrect. We call it what '''Nintendo''' calls it, and they specifically call it "Wii", even in instances where people would otherwise think to use "The Wii", if it were indeed "The Wii". For example, on Nintendo's official Wii site <nowiki>http://wii.nintendo.com/philosophy.html</nowiki>, the word "The Wii" isn't used whatsoever- take these quotes, for instance. 

* "Thanks to our unique controller, anyone of any age or skill level can pick up and play games on Wii." -Note that they don't say "The Wii". They just say "games on Wii".
* "In fact, Wii gives them the best gaming experience yet." - Again, no "the". Just "Wii".
* "When you get a chance to play, you will believe Wii is the next leap in gaming to a new generation."
* "Wii returns gaming to simpler times while innovating game development at the same time."
* "Wii shows that games have not outgrown them."
* "Wii makes you feel less like a player and more like you're in the game."

It seems obvious Nintendo does not intend on having Wii use a "the" in front of it in any capacity. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:It's not used on the [[Game Boy Micro]] article either. And before anyone starts saying that it's gramatically wrong to NOT use the prefix "The" in these instances, are infact that people who are wrong. It is just as correct as using "The", so saying "The PlayStation 3" would be just as correct as saying "PlayStation 3". Of course you can't say "Please hand me PlayStation 3", it would be "Please hand me the PlayStation 3". But at the beginning of these articles it's not wrong to keep it out. My feelings on this subject is that it looks nicer without the "The" infront of it, so please do not tell me I am at fault, when clearly I am not. This is my opinion, and everyone can share theirs [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Discussion|here]]. Thank you. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 22:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:: When thinking about that, you are right- it is referring to a proper name after all. People don't call me "The Daniel"... --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 22:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::True, but then, "Wii" is a proper name of a thing not a person. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::In the case of "hand me that console" above, "the" is used because the person is asking for a specific object. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Another example, on the Game Boy site at Nintendo.com <nowiki>http://www.nintendo.com/systemsgba</nowiki> they don't use "The" infront of the start of the article. Plainly stating "''Game Boy is all about great gaming on the go.''" <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this "pure" interpretation is taking it way too far. As I've said, we cannot ignore proper grammar because of a marketing decision. And I know that Nintendo has gone out their way in interviews to not use 'the', but have they specifically said anywhere not use 'the' in everday common use? The only compromise is to purposely structure the sentences in this article to not require the use of 'the', and to use weasel words like ''the'' "console", ''the'' "system", etc.[[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:As stated before, it is not incorrect grammer. Please read the discussion going on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Discussion|here]]. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::That's a nice discussion, but the person who said that "the" modifies nouns was correct.  Opening the article without a 'the' is acceptable, blanket dropping it from '''all''' uses ''is '''not''' proper grammar''. Just because people ''decide'' it is, doesn't make it fact. Read any grammar book. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This issue has seemed to die down recently, but I just had a realization yesterday:  When one says "the Wii" in everday use or in an article, they aren't saying it like: '''The Wii™''' as if the "the" is a part of the brand name, they're simply saying it like the '''Wii™'''.  No different than any other product that doesn't have "the" as a part of its brand name: the '''iPod™''', the '''Swiffer''', the '''Playstation™''', the '''Fusion™''' razor, and so on.  No different than saying, "I bought '''a''' Wii", "I borrowed '''their''' Wii", "I'm going play on '''my''' Wii [insert inappropriate joke here]", "Target has '''the''' Wii on sale", etc...
Also look at articles about ''the Wii'' at IGN, Gamespot and others, they use "the Wii" a lot.  Probably the main reason Nintendo refrains from using it is so they can more easily say phrases like, "Wii will change everything."  I'll again restate: marketing does not dictate proper grammar. Just had to say that in order to give some insight to the "no the" purists. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:That's right.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Grammatically, brand names should be used as adjectives anyway (e.g., LEGO ''blocks'', Kleenex ''tissue''), so if we went by that rule, we would end up saying "The Wii ''console''" all the time.  But trademarks are weird that way, and generally get used either as a proper name (e.g., Microsoft), or as an ordinary noun (e.g. popsicle).  And to make the issue muddier, I've seen articles in print (Game Informer, etc.) which refer to the console name both with and without the "the".  --''[[User:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]] 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)''

There is no water to muddy here - use english (the common sense, correct grammar type).[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

==Criticism section==  	 
I agree that readers should be able to get a "well-rounded" viewpoint from this article. However, having a dedicated criticism section (as it currently stands) doesn't seem to be the proper way to do it. I've checked the other 7th gen console articles (it's a new era, so I personally don't really care what's happening at the SNES, Genesis, etc. articles, related to the Wii article), and while they have references of criticism peppered throughout their articles, they do not have dedicated "Criticism" sections (unless you count the [[Xbox 360|360's]] malfunctions section.) Further, we already make reference to Bill Gates' comments about the controller... in the ''controller'' section. I do not see why we have to repeat this info in the criticism section. But if it were removed, then that leaves the final ''wiik'' comment (that could also be properly integrated into the controller section) kind of hanging. I think we either need some better critiques added, or we need to scrap this section... but, with any future criticism being added to the specific section (i.e. complaints about no HD or 5.1 audio be added somewhere in the hardware section, controller complaints in the controller section, price complaints [if any] in the price section, and so on.) What does everyone think? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Hmm... if you look at the discussion under the title "Blanking" a lot of this was discussed. Someone vowed that they would keep a criticism section in, or continue to add it in if kept being removed. However, when I made my initial sets of edits, the original section had a single verbatim quote from Bill Gates and it clearly wasn't good enough and didn't warrant a section on it's own. However, to avert an edit war someone promised to make, I tried to include a diverse set of quotes from industry professionals. I will agree the reaction made by Mark Rein that I included is not really relevant anymore.
:If we are to keep a criticism section, we should pull out negative remarks and reactions from the specific sections and collect them all into one place. If we do that, I suggest the same be done on the other two articles speaking on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Otherwise, scrap the criticism section altogether and just add specific criticisms to thier appropriate sections. --[[User:Ritz|Ritz]] 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:: You're forgetting that a critism section can contain both addressing of problems AND their responses- as I said last night, the Wii controller has caveats (problems) like fatigue. It also needs to be addressed that the controller deals with addressing RSI potential- the Wiimote will no doubt be helpful in addressing the problems of tendonitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, so it should be easy to include both viewpoints, both negative (fatigue) and positive. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I like the new RSI section.  In practice, waving your arm around is actually less straining in the long run compared to my typing on a keyboard right now (i.e. different muscles with different sensitivities.)  However, are there any reports about how difficult it is to hold a remote control up for long periods of time, related to the Wii Remote or not? EDIT: Also, the Wii Remote has a dedicated page, wouldn't it be more appropriate to but these issues there? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I just reviewed the history, Doom127, and I must ask: How is saying an unsourced claim needs a citation considered POV? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'd prefer a criticism section as per 'Xbox 360 overheating' - that is - based on fact rather than personal preference - if when the console is released there are problems eg RSI as mentioned above then obviously they should be mentioned in the article. However suggesting that RSI might be a problem falls (with no info. presently as to whether the controller will/wont cause RSI) under 'wikipedia not a crystal ball', however I think it is good that this topic has been raised.
:In general I'd prefer an article about the Wii using the facts that we have. I tend to view some of the added criticisms that have been in the article as 'Point of view comment by proxy'.
:As for things such as no HD support - yes it should be mentioned - it's true - but to specifically criticise it is uneeded (in my opinion), like criticising the acceleration of the [[mini]] car. I think we need to accept the product that Nintendo is intending to produce - rather than filling the article with complaints about lacking features.
:As a final note I think I'd find it strange to find General motors wikipage peppered with comments from executives of the Ford motor corporation and Mercedes. Just my opinion.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a Google search list considered acceptable as a citation? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:: The thing is, HappyVR, that the Wii controller isn't something unknown- we already know how it's going to be used very specifically, which allows us to trace exactly what kind of muscle movements are utilized in it. Honestly, it seems that Danny is more interested in extolling the positive aspects of this controller, rather than the caveats, the negative ones. Danny, you had no problem with the fact that the Wii solves the problems of RSI to any kind of an extent, but the oppositive POV of discussions around the web that (although unfounded as they may be) that attempt to link the Wii with RSI you are obviously trying to remove. Given that we have to keep a POV free area here, we need to keep both sides of the issue here. It's hard enough trying to add paragraphs here as it is- you need to help add to the article instead of trying to attack anything that doesn't fit into a specific point of view. I appreciate your grammar edits, for instance. Things like that, it's fine- but let's not get into another spat please. Keep a cool head here when you're doing your edits. And Danny, the citation merely needs to prove that discussions have been raised regarding the Wii- the reference link clearly shows that. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 18:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Did you change your mind on the Google ref? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: Yeah- when looking at it with a clear head, Google really shouldn't be used as a reference at all here on Wikipedia. Your addition of a citation tag was appropriate. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 21:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Cool [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd like to point out that even though we "know" how vitamins are used in the human body, and biologists theorized that taking multipurpose vitamins would be a good thing, a review of the literature shows that it might not be the case. I would suggest that an article detailing why there may be RSI problems is appropriate, but we should wait until adding one that says that there ''will'' be problems.  	 
:::I would also say that adding RSI-related literature just in regards to the Wii, and not mentioning other possible RSI-inducing activities (other console controllers, typing, etc) gives the impression that ''only'' the Wii may be notable for this. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 19:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::The positive side had a source.  The negative side originally did not, adding "citation needed" to an uncited claim is neccessary, it's not like I flat out deleted it. And I was unsure if a Google (or any search engine) listing was acceptable as a citation, since ever other cite I've ever seen has linked to specific articles on the subject (and not just here.) [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm personaly wary about using a Google search engine as a source considering content on that page is dynamic and there is no way to grab hold of a static page for reference. Results within the linked search may change dramaticaly overtime and I am not sure that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
:::I also don't think requesting citiation is at any point grounds to accuse someone of POV. Original research is not allowed, and unless its common sense (like "diamonds are hard") concepts and ideas should be sourced whenever possible. --[[User:Ritz|Ritz]] 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a simple request for this section. to also add positive feedback from others, and have the section ultamitly named '''impressions''' or something.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 00:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of most of the section either way, but surely a paragraph dedicated to the opinion of the CEO of a competing company isn't really warranted? -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 04:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, someone should create a critisism section for ALL consoles and lock them down, because of the risk of fanboys getting upset about their "most favirote console in the world" and blanking the critism section or just changing it to somthing like: There are no critisisms of the <console name> because it is perfect. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.108.220.137|70.108.220.137]] ([[User talk:70.108.220.137|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.108.220.137|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
:That's not democratic at all. Anyone could blank most any page if they wanted, so what? Fanboys are likely far and few between on Wikipedia, except for me :) 
:However, I must say that the critcism should be realistic and not criticizing to critisize. [[User:Scepia|Scepia]] 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== Caricatures ==
According to Game|Life blog, Wii will store caricatures in the hardware, and later use them in some games. ''Katsuya Eguchi: Yes. The caricatures will exist in the hardware, as data, as one of several profiles that you could save in the Wii. And if you insert compatible software into the Wii, it will pull up the images that you chose. '' <nowiki>http://blog.wired.com/games/index.blog?entry_id=1493873</nowiki> -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Huh? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Something along those lines was mentioned in the Kotaku <nowiki>http://kotaku.com/gaming/shigeru-miyamoto/e306-video-shigeru-miyamoto-interview-174909.php</nowiki> (interview) with Miyamoto. That's already in the Wii Remote article, because it mentioned how the profiles can be associated with individual Remotes, but I didn't even consider its relevance to the main article. I think I read some other interview about Wii Sports that indicated that the caricature editor was actually in the game software, and only the saved profile is actually in the hardware. The seeming contradiction can probably be chocked up to imprecision of language, but whose? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, okay, I get it now.  If that's legit, that is awesome!  I think we should wait for a more official announcement from Nintendo (which they'll probably do roughly two weeks ''after'' the system launches), before we add this. Very interesting though. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 07:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Does Nintendo Power count as Nintendo? Their August 2006 periodical says it will be part of the system. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Could you provide details such as quotations, article titles, page numbers? The problem isn't so much the reliability of the sources, but ambiguity of the statements. It seems clear that there will be a caricature editor, and that the profiles will be stored in hardware, but will the actual editor application be lie in the hardware, like the Opera browser? I don't consider Nintendo Power as official as an announcement or a press release, but it's a pretty reliable source. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Just checked it and it only says there will be a face editor. Page 40, picture caption. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 22:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It looks like it's already been put in. Twice. There's even another long quote. *sigh* [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wii60]] article ==
Opnions please. --[[User:Ragnarok Addict|Ragnarok Addict]] 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry, but I think it should be deleted.  Internet memes are contentious articles on WP, and this one isn't even well known. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm with Ladlergo; this doesn't deserve its own article. I'm not sure it even merits a mention in the console articles. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Not deserving of an article.  Maybe a tiny passing mention in Wii and/or [[Xbox 360]].--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've nominated it for deletion. The concept may be somewhat notable, but I don't think "Wii60" is all that notable. --[[User:Optichan|Optichan]] 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
What's next, a "GameCube 1.5" article because Matt at IGN.com says it? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think it should stay. I mean seriosly a Wii=a 360 costs less than a ps3. Wii60 ftw!![[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Voted delete. We are not an "ad" site, or commercial for that matter. We don't care if it cost less then PS3 etc. Besides, [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an indiscriminate collection of information. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Havok, '''You''' might not care, but lots of '''Consumers'''(aka the important people) do care.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I believe that most people are capable of doing simple arithmatic. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:I dont.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
wii60 is just a trolling phenomenon, designed to arouse the ire of Playstation fans. It's not worthy of an article unless it becomes more prevalent.
:Could somebody tell me what Wii60 is? The [[Wii60]] history doesn't show anything, and the deletion talk doesn't reveal anything, and following the deleted page suggestion of searching for Wii60 didn't work.  So what the heck is Wii60? [[User:Tophu|Tophu]] 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

== Wii Microphone ==
Should there be something about the wii mic in the article. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:69.141.186.125|69.141.186.125]] ([[User talk:69.141.186.125|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.141.186.125|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:Eh...what microphone?--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::They're talking about <nowiki>http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=24657269</nowiki> (this rumor). [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Then...no.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think we should include it as speculation based on patents. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think we should probably be able to cite the specific patents before we even attempt to include it. They are the primary sources, after all. I've only been able to find <nowiki>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060094501%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060094501&RS=DN/20060094501</nowiki> (one). Yanko indicates at least four. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:::<nowiki>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&OS=AN%2FNintendo+OR+Nintendo&RS=AN%2FNintendo+OR+Nintendo&TD=742&Srch1=Nintendo.AS.&Srch2=Nintendo&Conj1=OR&NextList2=Next+50+Hits&StartNum=&Query=AN%2FNintendo</nowiki> (Here's) all the patents with 'Nintendo' inside the assignee name field. One of them (number <nowiki>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=51&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&s1=Nintendo.AS.&s2=Nintendo&co1=OR&p=2&OS=AN/Nintendo&RS=AN/Nintendo+OR+Nintendo</nowiki> (20060052166)) appears to refer to the wii-mote's ability to act as a pointing device. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] ([[User talk:Jaxad0127|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jaxad0127|contribs]]) 20:35, 4 June 2006  (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] -->

::::I don't know about you, but I'm not digging through all that. And considering that Nintendo has officially confirmed the pointer function, citing a patent application isn't really necessary for that. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::Wikipedia is not the place for speculation or rumors.  We will add it only if it is confirmed. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== party status ==
An editor has recently been making [[Special:Contributions/64.223.36.31|changes]] to some Nintendo-related articles regarding party status, taking a bit of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&diff=prev&oldid=56719136 brusque tone] with those who have may have some misconceptions about the issue. As this issue seems to [[Talk:Wii/archive10#WarioWare|recur often]], I feel that the issue needs to be directly addressed. I'm posting about it here because it does affect this article, and it seems that some of you may have relevant insights into the issue. My question is this: what is the defining characteristic of a second-party developer? As I understand it, there are two schools of thought; one which says that operational autonomy distinguishes a second-party from a first-party, the other says that ownership does. Which is it? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Why not just use the definition from [[Second-party developer]]? This seems to be the commonly accepted one. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::(From [[Second-party developer]]) In the video game industry, a second-party developer is a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer.
:"Seperate entity" makes it seem that ''full ownership'' makes one a first party. Even if they generally act autonomously, there is no true autonomy of a fully-owned subsidiary. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::You do see why I felt it necessary to ask, though. Perhaps another source of confusion is the availability of reliable and up-to-date information on ownership? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Nintendo ON ==
Should we add an article on this? It's a lot more well known than Wii60, or some other stuff I've seen.--[[User:Supermariorobot|Supermariorobot]] 06:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:Rumored name, don't add. Try an internet slang dictionary instead. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::It's not a rumored name, it was a rumored eighth-generation Nintendo console.  I don't really think it has all that much to do with the Wii itself.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumored? Not to do with the Wii? No, this was an entire HOAX aimed at tricking viewers into beliving that what they were watching ''was'' the true "Revolution" console--[[User:Supermariorobot|Supermariorobot]] 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo ON was just a fan made video. Nintendo had nothing to do with it and it's in no way official. Also, this also "Wii60" thing is retarted and I wish people would stop using that term. [[User:TJ Spyke|TJ Spyke]] 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a fan made video. And I know Nintendo had nothing to do with it. But I beleive the publicity it recieved deserves some recognition. It tricked me, and everyone I showed it to, until Nintendo came out and said they had nothing to do with it. Doesn't that mean anything? Why don't you people understand? ''Why?''...*''sob''*[[User:Supermariorobot|Supermariorobot]] 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not a collection of memes. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::[[Internet phenomenon|Or is it?]]--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::While I don't like that list, notice that almost all of them are based off of actual objects, even if they're flash videos.  Nintendo ON exists as a rumor and nothing more. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah...while I still think Nintendo ON could use a mention ''somewhere'' on Wikipedia, you do have a point.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Thanks...I'm glad someone sees things my way. After the publicity ON got, I really think it deserves a mention [[User:Supermariorobot|Supermariorobot]] 02:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Nintendo ON exists, regardless of what some may say about rumors. A incredibly widely-known rumor is definitely worth a unique page, assuming that it is made clear that ON is/was a hoax. By the way, I made the page a while back, which was admittedly not factual enough, which got deleted. [[User:Scepia|Scepia]] 08:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with having an article about the 'Nintendo ON' video, in fact I think it's a good idea. However note that Nintendo have denied any connection with it and any connection to any console is pure speculation at the moment. So it would be a short article, if you wan't to make a page about the video go ahead, that's my advice. (And come back and tell us about it when it's made)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 13:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

== Criticisms ==
Well since no one answerd my question from the above conversation about the Criticism section, I will re-state it here. I think that there should be positive criticism in this section too, not just a referance of one sentence. Does any one else agree?--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:There should be an equal amount of negative aswell as positive criticism in this section. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::How about renaming the section to "Opinions" or "Response?" [[User:Atomic Cosmos|Cosmos]] 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:::''Possibly'' "Response."  Not "Opinions," because Wikipedia isn't really an opinion place.  Well, on the other hand, I guess such a section would be full of opinions...--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I renamed in to impressions mainly b/c is sounds more neutral the criticisms. Do you guys like it, hate it, what?--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 03:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::"Reaction" would be my suggestion. <code>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</code> <code>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</code> 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:I renamed the section back to "Criticism" and removed the pov flag.  It seems to me that the term criticism implies more negative comments than positive.  If anyone disagrees, feel free to undo my change and/or add the pov tag again.  [[User:Wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Changing it back to impressions b/c there will be more added positive ''impressions'' later on during this week.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Include ALL criticism. Not half good half bad. Thats stupid.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Impressions" is a bad title for that section, IMHO. It gives me the impression (heh) that, say, Gates has actually tried the controller and is speaking from experience, rather than just trying to downplay an important part of a competitor's strategy. Indeed, I don't understand why he needs to be quoted in this article at all. For example, the "put the controller down" part. That is hardly specific to Wii. If you use a normal controller for a flight game and stop controlling the plane it'll crash too. It's just plain nonsense and an attempt at finding something negative to say about the Wiimote. Are competitors quoted in other Wikipedia articles? [[User:Numbnumb|Numbnumb]] 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:'''Criticism''' works great, why change it? <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:My suggestion remains "Reaction". Ideally, this section will be exceedingly brief, with only the most significant points on either side quickly made and closed. <code>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</code> <code>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</code> 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:As I asked before, why does Gates get a paragraph with a quote anyways? He's the CEO of a directly competing company. There are no quotes in the [[Linux]] article about how SCO thinks they've infringed on copyright, or information on Microsoft's various TCO studies. Having the Katamari guy in there is probably fine, since he's an independent developer, but Gates? -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think I've said it before, but I'm very opposed to quotations except where truly necessary. It looks amateur when we have blocks of quotations because people are too lazy to work on a way to paraphrase something well. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I totally agree with you Dancter, I think that this whole section is unnecessary and we should move the important quotes where they fit... if 1. they are important, and 2. if they fit with the article to make it better as a whole.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Quotes are a good way to highlight something, but shouldn't be used in any other situation if you ask me. Its use should be paramount to the article. And I agree, why is Gates quoted in the article? <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::ontop of that... non of the other console atricles have a critisim section, why does the Wii need one?--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm actually beginning to think the same, why do we have it? <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::We really don't. The other articles are actually encyclopedic, ie. they discuss the facts without allowing in much of any sort of bias. The criticisms section here only has negative feedback, and so it is a disproportionate amount to that which the console has actually recieved from developers. Besides that, positive or negative feedback really ''doesn't matter'' in an encyclopedic article. Again to [[Linux]]: no one questions keeping competitor's and other's negative opinions out of it. I scrapped the Bill Gates quote, and wouldn't mind if anyone took out the rest, since the consensus seems tilted that way. Straw poll? -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Because this article is better then the others :)? Seriously, though, criticism sections are almost standard on featured articles now. The trick with these is to make sure you get responses from nintendo to the criticisms as well - also, I DO disagree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&diff=57229802&oldid=57229363 this removal] - a quote from gates is definately worthy of being included, even if he may have little actual knowledge. Also, in response to Crustacean on of the reasons Linux isn't going to be featured anytime soon is because of the lack of criticisms (see the talk page). You don't have to have a criticism section, but otherwise you need to have the criticisms inline with the article content, which often times makes it difficult to organize stuff. [[User:RN|RN]] 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Atleast tone it down. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 19:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Gates is a direct competitor to Nintendo. Why do you think his comments do not violate the neutral point of view? He's not a neutral party. The Katamari developer, on the other hand... -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::"Why do you think his comments do not violate the neutral point of view" - Quotes are not required to be from a "neutral" party, neither are they expected to be from a NPOV - NPOV applies to article content, i.e. if we said in the article that Gates was a loser that would be POV, but if we quoted Linus Torvolds on that it wouldn't neccesarily be NPOV - but we'd need a response from the other party as well. If the quote is too harsh (which this one probably is) we can tone it down by paraphrasing it, but simply saying bill gates doesn't think the controller is ready for the mainstream takes out too much context - I'll try to redo it a bit. [[User:RN|RN]]

:::::::::::That's not what I meant, but ignore it. Keeping his view points in there is fine, but not giving it such a large quotation. The rewording is good. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::No problem - sorry about that :). Anything else that needs to be tweaked? [[User:RN|RN]] 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Gates' comments do not merit the space taken to express his point. Heck, I'm not even sure if Reggie's quotation needs to be in here. Any quotation longer than a sentence needs a serious justification for its full inclusion. People who want to read the Gates quotation verbatim can follow a link. Chop it down. This isn't a newsmagazine. Soundbites do not belong. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a vote on this??--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'd rather discuss it instead (I thought it was ok as-is). Like I said before, it doesn't have to have a criticism section - it just needs to have the criticisms someplace :). If people think it is a better idea the other way I can take a stab at that as well :). [[User:RN|RN]] 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:Also, I've been thinking - the second paragraph there seems exclusively directed at the controller - what about moving that into the wiimote article, and then moving the first paragraph to the remote section in this article? [[User:RN|RN]] 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
::why not just move the good links to the proper places and delete the section?--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Game Informer ==
Game Informer seems to have given more information about Wii according to a post in the Nintendo boards. <nowiki>http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=revolution&message.id=1260806&view=by_date_ascending&page=1</nowiki> There are some surprises there (Wii including a PPU? That is something not likely at all), but worth a view. Someone with access to the GI magazine should check if what it is being said there is real. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:Screw the PPU, a built-in camera! Joyness! Anyway, what country is Game Informer in? Is it exclusive to the US or is it a worldwide deal? [[User:Ixistant|Ixistant]] 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::Not sure, but it's published in my city, Minneapolis, Minnesota!! Anyway, I have a subscription to it (and access to their full website.) I'll look into it later. [[User:Grandmasterka|<span style="color:red;">Grand</span>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<span style="color:blue;">master</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<span style="color:green;">ka</span>]] 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:A PPU? I'm doubtful as well, but I'd love to see confirmation on this. Not sure if a magazine such as that is enough to include the information in the article (unless it's specifically sourced from Nintendo and not a rumour), but either way it could be interesting. Notice that the poster called it an ''upcoming'' issue, though. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 04:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::[[Game Informer]] has an article in Wikipedia and is a notable magazine. Any speculation they include in the magazine can be added, as it comes from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Even if they don't say from where their sources are, [[WP:V#Verifiability, not truth|Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability]]. However, I am awaiting to get confirmation about the magazine contents, as all we have now is a post in a board and some gaming sites. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 04:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::A magazine talking about a ''rumour'' does not constitute verifiability (magazines post rumours that turn out incorrect all the time). It could be included in the article because Gameinformer is so notable, but would have to make specific mention to the fact that it's but a rumour. If the magazine said it came from Nintendo though, then it could be included outright. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I was not commenting against stating it is a rumour. I was saying that, due Wikipedia policy, we can add a rumour that appears in Game Informer. Because of the same policy, we can't add the exactly same rumour if it appears in Joe's cafe blog. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Aye. Pie. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:"A magazine talking about a ''rumour'' does not constitute verifiability (magazines post rumours that turn out incorrect all the time). It could be included in the article because Gameinformer is so notable, but would have to make specific mention to the fact that it's but a rumour. If the magazine said it came from Nintendo though, then it could be included outright. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | "    When did that happen? I must have missed it.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think that we should add the rumours to the article, but specifically state that they ARE rumours and that they came from GI, much like how the [[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]] article added the rumours that were printed in [[NGC Magazine]] (which turned out to be correct) about LOZ on the Wii. [[User:Ixistant|Ixistant]] 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::I'm going to fight you on adding rumors.  "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."  Unless GI's source is revealed and can be questioned, it is a rumor and should not be included. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I am backtracking somewhat on this. I dislike adding rumours as well, unless they come straight from a Nintendo person (ie. through the Dojo or something). However, it is somewhat expected that an article for an unreleased system may be slightly speculative. But considering how much official information we have from Nintendo to make up the article, I don't see a particular need to include the GI stuff. Unless, again, it's presented as a non-rumour, but by the time such information would be out and verifiable in the magazine, other sources would have it as well. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Turns out this was a hoax, the new game informer issue will not have this info. Nintendo.com has even deleted the message from the site. [[User:Jedi6|<span style="color:#000080;">Jedi6</span>]][[User talk:Jedi6|<span style="color:#00A86B; font-size:smaller;">-(need help?)</span>]] 08:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:Message? I don't understand. Nintendo.com had a message on a site? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::Someone posted it on their message boards. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah. But wouldn't Nintendo delete it just the same if it were true? I mean, if it's a secret and all... Anyway, the rumor sounds absolutely ludicrous. It mentions a camera to capture an image for the face feature, when almost everything else out there indicates that the faces are "built" in a software application. It mentions a headset, but Iwata stated in an interview that part of the reason for the Remote speaker was because headsets were too complicated. It also mentions that Nintendo would release officially-branded SD cards ranging from 2GB to 7GB. Have you checked the prices of SD cards lately? How could anyone find this plausible? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

==NOT a next-gen console==
Wii (pronounced "we", IPA: /wiː/) '''is Nintendo's 7th generation video game console''', Nintendo's fifth home console and the successor to the Nintendo GameCube

According to Nintendo, this is a new-gen console (whatever that means), and since it's not competing with the Xbox 180 or PS3, is it really part of the 7th generation era, or a new era? What do you guys think?

<nowiki>http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152265.html</nowiki> ([[User:McDonaldsGuy|McDonaldsGuy]] 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

:It's called the Xbox 360. And Wii, like it or not, is still a 7th genereation console. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 06:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:: That's not what Nintendo thinks, they make it quite clear that this is not a next-generation console (and therefore, not part of the 7th generation). It doesn't matter if I like it or not, but I am just going by what Nintendo says. ([[User:McDonaldsGuy|McDonaldsGuy]] 08:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

::: The context of "Wii is not next-gen" is: <<"Next-generation" implies that the console is an extension of previous installments.>> (Iwata) So it's just marketing. Nintendo is trying to set itself apart from the other "extensions of previous installments". By that logic, Wii is indeed next-gen, since it's an extension of the previous installment. Moreso than the PS3 or Xbox360, since it's heavily based on GameCube hardware. It doesn't stop being next-gen just because Nintendo says so. [[User:Numbnumb|Numbnumb]] 16:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I'd say it's part of the seventh generation consoles, but a new era for Nintendo, who hopes it'll spread/evolve. That's what I think, anyway :) [[User:ShaunES|ShaunES]] 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Psssst. The link doesnt work.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:Despite what Nintendo's saying, it's a 7th generation console.  They're not reinventing the wheel. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::I thought Wikipedia goes by facts? I guess we should delete this article because we are getting it all from Nintendo? [[User:McDonaldsGuy|McDonaldsGuy]] 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Hence the future product warning at the top of the article. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:The generation typically refers to the time period anyways, as each of the major companies release new consoles. Besides marketing, there's no reason to not call it 7th generation. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Exactly.  We don't call Xbox 360 second generation because it's Microsoft's second console; we call it a 7th generation console because it is part of the seventh generation of consoles in general. --[[User:Maxamegalon2000|Maxamegalon2000]] 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "7th generation" refers to the generational ''time period'' that consoles/handhelds are released, not their technological capabilites or marketing schemes.  Wii may not be "next-gen", but that's different than not being "7th gen".  That's like saying I'm not a part of "Generation X" just because I don't act like everyone else from that generation. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:But Nintendo says it is NOT a next-gen console, so we have to go by what THEY say in order for this article to be 100% accurate. Whether or not it's a marketing scheme is irrelevent. [[User:McDonaldsGuy|McDonaldsGuy]] 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Apparently you missed my point.  I didn't say it ''was'' a "next-gen" console, that doesn't negate it being a "7th gen" console.  There is a difference.  "Next gen" = PS3 and Xbox 360 with their 'lastest, greatest' tech (at least to gaming consoles.)  "New gen" = Wii with an entirely new take on (hopefully) mainstream gaming interaction.  "7th gen" = ''All three'' simply because they are being released around the same time period.  It's no different than if Nintendo, instead of releasing the Wii now, bowed out of the console game for another five years and released it if/when the "Playstation IV" and "Xbox 720" come out in 2011, it would then be a part of the 8th generation, "new gen" or not.  Again, "new gen" does not equal ''not'' being "7th gen". [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:: Good point. I think they're going for a new species instead of a continuation of what already exists, so to speak. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 05:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::That presumes that Nintendo is not only an infallible source of information, but 100% honest. We should ''not'' blindly go by what Nintendo says if we are committed to being accurate. Semantics aside, it is worthwhile to establish these systems in relation to one another somehow, if only to position them in a chronological context. Whatever the manufacturers are saying about not being competitors does not negate this. Xbox 180? It doesn't sound like an argument made with objectivity in mind. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 05:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Im sure Nintendo knows more about their new console than you, and since they say it is NOT next-gen, then why shouldn't we believe them? Should we now, say, take down the Wii-mote section of the page because the Wii-mote might actually be a bomb (I dont mean it, just an example)? [[User:McDonaldsGuy|McDonaldsGuy]] 06:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm sure Nintendo knows more about their new console than I do, too. That's not the point. Why shouldn't we believe Nintendo when they it's not next-gen? Same reason why we are skeptical when Sony says that they removed vibration from their PS3 controller because it interferes with motion-sensing. Nintendo has an interest in distinguishing their console from Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 by claiming that what they are doing is something totally new, even when it is not quite the case. Sony is also claiming that what they are doing is not comparable to other consoles, and is the only true HD console, in part because of its Blu-ray capability. Should we believe them, and not try to compare PS3 to 360? While we're at it, let's not compare PSP and DS, even though they're both portable game-playing systems, released in the same general time period, with buttons and screens and Wi-Fi and game software that you insert into them to play games. Sony and Nintendo have made statements they're not comparable, so why shouldn't we believe them? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::As it has allready been stated, the generation is a marker for when the console is released, not for how "high tech" it is. I re-added the line to the article. I would also suggest people to check the little box on the right at the bottom, Wii is placed next to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, should it have it's own line? "Not 7th gen since Nintendo dosn't want it to be." (''this last part was a joke by the way''). <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Why is this directed at me? I agree. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::The :'s got a bit to much for me. :P Sorry about that. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:The link works now btw.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "next gen" is both vague and ambiguous in nature for the most part. Modern systems during pre-release are oftentimes referred to as "next-gen" as a standard practice of marketing, it's been that way for decades. Being such, the term has a tendency to only denote a console for a short period of time; the system stops being "next gen" when the "next" "next-gen" comes about. This, of course, makes the term differ considerably from calling the generation "seventh generation". That doesn't stop some people from confusing the two, of course (as seen above). If Nintendo doesn't want to call their system "next gen", that's up to their convoluted marketing department. But in terms of system release, it '''IS''' part of the seventh generation of consoles, as its release falls squarely into that timeframe. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:As opposed to vague and unambiguous, or clear and ambiguous? ;) [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:: ambiguous: "open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain nature or significance." <nowiki>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ambiguous</nowiki> Nintendo's definitions tend to be both vague, and leave much open to debate and interpetation. And they like it that way. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter if Nintendo says it's not next-gen? What if they said that the console is actually so far ahead of the PS3/Xbox 360 in gameplay that it should be considered a 9th-generation console? Would we have to put that in the article? -[[User:68.114.154.249|68.114.154.249]] 04:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How about if we say that even thought it is being released in the same time period of 7-th generation consoles, Nintendo insists that it is not next-gen. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:That would still be unneccessary as the two terms don't directly relate. Even if they did, we can't ret-con the chronology of 25 years of gaming over semantics. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nintedo might say Wii is not next-gen, but that is akin to saying your child is not part of the next generation and part of the current one. The whole new-gen thing is a marketing device designed to highlight that Wii is not continuing where GameCube left off, but rather a first-generation console of a previously unseen type. However that first-generation happens to coincide with the 7th console generation making it a 7th generation console. Likewise parts of Sony insist that Playstation 3 is a computer, so technically we should remove that from 7th generation consoles as well? [[User:202.6.138.34|202.6.138.34]] 15:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

==Continuation from pg.7-"Creepy thing with the name..."===
'''This is a continuation from page 7, in the Wii Talk Archives.'''

:::: but anyway, let me just make it clear... I WAS KIDDING. And as far as [[User:Doom127|Daniel Davis]]'s observation is concerned, ironically enough, I saw that episode right after posting this... and the first thing I thought was that someone would say I was copying. Also, I did not intend for this to be in the article, just wanted to say it. Just wanted to make all this clear. [[User:Aido2002|aido2002]] 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== removed criticism edit ==
{{"|John Guilfoil, of the Public Relations Blog, <nowiki>http://www.PRrag.com</nowiki> , cites that while Wii features a great new technology, it's video and audio fall short of both Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Wii only supports up to 480i resolution and has no digital audio outputs. Both Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 feature 1080 resolution and Dolby Digital compatible sound. <nowiki>http://www.prrag.com/2006/06/wiire-gonna-fail.html</nowiki>|}}

While I'm sure someone criticized it like that, I don't think referencing a blog without an alexa ranking it the right way to go about it (also, some of it is self-evident). [[User:RN|RN]] 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:The editor has had a history of adding links to content by John Guilfoil. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it's obvious the person quoted doesn't even have their facts straight: "Wii only supports up to 480i" and "Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 feature 1080".  Wii is 480'''p''', which is different than 480'''i'''. And Xbox 360 supports 1080'''i''' which is different that PS3's 1080'''p''', he curiously just says "1080". [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

==Second Party/First Party==
Moved "Metroid Prime" from the first party section into the third party section because it is being developed by Retro Studios, a second party company. Also shortened "[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]" to simply "Super Smash Bros." because the list was listing franchises, not induvidual games. --[[User:Coolbho3000|Coolbho3000]] 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:Good catch on "Smash Bros." It'd probably be best to cite a good source for Retro's second-party status. There have been some [[#party status|disagreements]] about that. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Retro is a first party as this these articles show <nowiki>http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/metroidprime/news.html?sid=2863826</nowiki> <nowiki>http://www.planetgamecube.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=7303</nowiki> It needs to be changed back. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.48.110.201|70.48.110.201]] ([[User talk:70.48.110.201|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.48.110.201|contribs]]) 22:27, 7 June 2006  (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] -->
:See what a good reference can do? Hopefully, the whole second-party/first-party debate can be considered settled now, at least for Retro Studios. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:And please [[WP:SIG|sign your posts]]. ;) [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
::Retro is a second party.[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:::So, majority ownership still means second party, full ownership means first party. Am I understanding this correctly? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds good. What about something like Pokemon, where several companies control the franchise? [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::To my understanding, party status applies to companies, and not games. But there are plenty of people who seem to understand all this better than I do. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 05:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::WP's definitions say that party status refers to the developer, not the game. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::It refers to the developer, not game. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Upon further review I now have solid evidence that Retro is a first party. I discovered that by clicking on the company tab Retro's main site it was stated that they are a wholy owned subsidiary of Nintendo Company, Ltd <nowiki>http://www.retrostudios.com/</nowiki>. This means that they are without a doubt a first party. If anyone still has an objections to Metroid Prime being listed a first party game again please state it.[[User:70.48.109.154|70.48.109.154]] 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::According to <nowiki>http://www.elspa.com/assets/files/0/20060505174657708_319.pdf</nowiki> (the ELSPA report) (PDF) for 2005 about the UK and Europe gaming industry, page 21:
:::::<blockquote>Software developers fall into 3 categories:<br>* 1st party: in house ie Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo owned<br>* 2nd party: independent developer published by console owner<br>* 3rd party: independent developer, independent publisher (for example 88% of PlayStation 2 software sales at retail are from 3rd parties)</blockquote>
:::::Just wanted to point out. Anyways, Retro is a first party, as the site claims. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:About the Super Smash Bros. series, the franchise is Nintendo owned, but the latest title, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, is developed by a second party, so do we list franchises by their owner or current developer? I'd say by owner (making Super Smash Bros. first party) as what would happen if for some reason Nintendo decided to internally develop a Super Smash Bros. title adjacent to Super Smash Bros. Brawl? Currently that would require us to list as both first and second party wouldn't it? [[User:202.6.138.34|202.6.138.34]] 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

== Messaging Service ==
Yeah, so that patent Nintendo was just granted for a console messaging service was applied for before the GameCube was even released. The illustrations show an N64. While it's likely that Wii will feature similar messaging functions, just like the microphone rumor, I don't think it belongs in the article. There has been absolutely no confirmation or even hints dropped by Nintendo that this is happening for Wii yet. What does everyone think? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 04:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 04:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:but it wasn't finalized until June 6, 2006, so if you want, hide it but do not delete it.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 05:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sure, but I'm a little confused. Weren't you the one who said to wait for a confirmation by Nintendo before adding something here, regardless of the likelihood? Lately it seems like you've been adding quite a bit of speculative information. Did something change? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Isnt a pantent that was finalized just a few days ago by Nintendo confirmation enough?--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The reason I figure I would add this info is, one my statement above. Two it does come from IGN, a site that I am indifferent about but won the chance to make the article. And three, some one would have added the same information, I just wanted to put it in the article in the correct format, with decent information from the patent itself. But like I said, we can hide it for now and see what Nintendo mentions about this in the coming weeks.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Oh yea and four, it kinda makes sense that they would at least put in in the Wii.--[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 05:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::It just seems to me that many of those arguments are ones you seemed to be dismissive of before. Eh. Maybe I'm the one who's changed. I mean, I've been convinced for a while that I understand how the basic technology principles of the Wii Remote work, and have wanted to add to the Wii Remote article about it, but have mostly kept it out pending outright explicit confirmations. A decent body of evidence can be cited for the microphone rumor, too, but nothing concrete, so I've supported leaving it out. I'm quite conservative when it comes to keeping to what was explicitly stated now. I suspect I wasn't so conservative a month ago when I started working on these articles. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::And point-by-point: One, no. Corporations try to patent everything under the sun, often with no intent to ever actually use the patents they are awarded, at least in the way described in the patent. I don't consider an awarded patent an automatic confirmation of any feature for any product. I consider the timing incidental. Two, just because it was decided that IGN would be allowed as an external link doesn't mean that we have accepted their information wholesale. Last time I checked, we're still keeping out those tech specs IGN mentioned a while back. You're right about three. I think I addressed four in my previous paragraph. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I just took the liberty to hide it, and once the Wii launches we can delete all the hidden info that does not belong. --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Mentioning the patent, even if the Wii does have something of this feature, seems fairly pointless (many things mentioned in the Wikipedia are patented, but we don't extoll on each and every one). If we were to mention it as a feature, we should do it as such, not giving the patent its own section. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I think hiding it was a decent compromise. We'll almost surely have to rewrite a bit when Nintendo reveals everything, but at least we'll have a tentative framework in place. And while I agree that once Nintendo reveals everything, mentioning the actual patent will be irrelevant, it seems just as pointless to invest much energy into editing text that is now hidden. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 
::::::::Fer shure. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 07:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::We have '''nothing''' connecting this messaging patent to the Wii. Just because the Patent was just accepted this week means nothing. They applied for it back during the N64 days, and specifically referred to the N64. The time it was accepted means nothing, except that the USPTO finally got around to reviewing it and Nintendo is now free to sue people / demand licensing fees with it. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 06:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: Agreed. The image on the patent, bafflingly enough, shows Super Mario World playing on an N64 with the round Game and Watch controllers from the 80s- but I didn't see anything at all about the Wii in regards to it. --[[Image:Tinyducksig.jpg|20px]] [[user:Doom127|Daniel Davis]] 05:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, I'm the one who seems to be the most anti-crystal ball here. ;)  I think that hiding it is ok, but putting it into the article is not.  However, it could have a place on the [[Nintendo]] page, ''if'' someone were to add a section on patents they hold but don't appear to have used yet. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== Layout of article looks different ==
Woah, I noticed the nice tables and the new photos.  Two weeks ago the list of expected launch titles were not in a neat table.  I also like the list of expected software library.   Thank you everyone for improving this article!  Cheers.  --[[User:Starionwolf|Starionwolf]] 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

==rechargeable==
Removed this from introduction " Some have criticized the Wii controller because it cannot be recharged, unlike the [[Xbox 360]] controller."
The introduction is not the right place for this even if it is suitable at all. Also note that rechargeable AA batteries are freely available.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 11:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:This is a little off topic, but oh well. I dont know how long the charge on a 260 controller lasts, but I do know (from personal experience) that Wavebird controllers (for gcn) last for about 3/4 of a YEAR (This is in the controller I use most, so it has heavy usage, my other one, which is only used for multiplayer, lasts well over a year.)with one pair of AA batteries.  So I doubt people will mind having to change the batteries if they last that long(heres hoping they will).[[User:Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz|Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz]] 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::I remember reading that AA batteries would last around 30 hours at Kotaku, but since there hasn't been confirmation, we should wait. However, if well sourced, the comment about not being recharged is good enough to be included. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 12:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Don't forget, the Wiimote is going to have Rumble ''and'' Motion sensing, which was excluded from the wavebird because it would drain the battery. Not only that, but the Gamecube is already a few years old. Imagine how often they are going to have to be changed on a new system people are going to want a chance to play with at any moment of free time they've got. [[User:Supermariorobot|Supermariorobot]] 16:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

== External Links: Revolution-Europe.com ==
Hey, i am a forum administrator on Revo-Europe.com. I previously added the site in the external links section, before being told that you have to go through the proper channels first. Forgive me for my mistake, as i am not very familiar with Wikipedia and how things exactly work around here. 
Basically, i'm trying to go through the correct channels now and explain why i think Revo-Europe would serve its purpose well as an external link.

I'm not sure if you have heard about this site before, but we used to be called Cube-Europe. Here is our page on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube-europe

We are in our third re-iteration of our site. Previously, we were N64-Europe, then we became Gamecube-europe. And now, revolution-europe. 
We started off a fairly small fansite. But, as our wikipedia page suggests, things have got a lot bigger. A hell of a lot bigger. Tim Symons, who was formally our director, has moved onto bigger things in Nintendo Europe. We have gained status as a respectable website and are fairly up-to-date with our news, previews and reviews. 

But, this is only half the story. The other part of our success is a thriving forum. It is no coincidence that we still have people visiting our site and forums since the N64-Europe days. Our forum has such a good community. Our servers crashed many, many times when we opened up the Revo-Europe forums, due to the amount of people signing up and visiting us in our "third coming."

I have been visiting the site and forum since the early cube-europe days. I've worked through the ranks and have become part of the forum staff. If there's one thing i've noticed about our site, it is that we are hard working and we are a friendly site who try to please other Nintendo fans. You can see this in our regular features, such as "fireflower."
I have joined many forums over the years, and visited many sites. Revo-Europe/Cube-europe is the only one that keeps me coming back. 

If there's one place that Nintendo fans, or people just generally curious about Wii need to be, it's at Revo-europe. This is why i think our site is worthy enough to be placed in the external links section.

Thank you very much for your time, and i hope you take all what i have said into consideration.

[[User:Fierce LiNk|Fierce LiNk]] 16:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

: If other external links such as the smaller C3 are allowed, why not [[Revo-Europe]]? [[User:Tphi|Tphi]] 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::As he stated he added it without going trough the channels to have it added. Plus, adding your own site is a no no. Other then that, I see no problem with adding this to the section. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much for your fairness and adding our link to the page. Thanks again for your time. :)[[User:Fierce LiNk|Fierce LiNk]] 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a full review of all external links might be in order.  I know on one of the game articles we decided that no community pages could be posted since that opens the flood gates for any and all pages.  Maybe going back over the pages linked here to see which ones are of the highest quality and provide one of a kind information might be appropriate.  [[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:On [[Spore (video game)]], it was pretty much decided that we would link only one plain fansite (GamingSteve's, which has an incredibly active forum with no others coming close in that regard), and a Wiki. The External links section there has also been the source of much annoying vandalism and long discussions, but besides the occasional vandal it has settled down. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think that pretty much follows what was decided for [[Wolfenstein:_Enemy_Territory]].  We are still debating including a site similar to the one you are refering to that has probably the best collection of information outside the official sites.  Besides that it was getting a bit crowded. [[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I think you'll all be rather impressed with the amount of attention given to external links in the most recent archive of this talk page.  If you'd like, we can certainly have another vote. --[[User:Maxamegalon2000|Maxamegalon2000]] 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
::::You are right I am impressed.  For some reason I missed that stuff it must have been archived just before I started following this article.  As long as the community agrees then those links should stay but all other additions should be brought here first as we did with this current one.  Thanks Max. [[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

==Publishers Launch Dates==
This information has been added twice.  I like Dancter's idea of discussing it here first.  I think if we can find two good sources that show this is true then it can be added.  But it needs to be worded in such a way as to not be "crystal balling" as it was put earlier.  Not entirey sure how to do that.[[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 15:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Well, here's the <nowiki>http://wii.ign.com/articles/712/712283p1.html</nowiki> (source) I've seen.  IGN has said it few times, this article just being the most resent. [[User:JQF|JQF]] 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

==Wireless capabilities==
How far will its Wireless range reach? Mine would be in another room if I got one. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Eric55673|Eric55673]] ([[User talk:Eric55673|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Eric55673|contribs]]) 01:59, 15 June 2006  (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] -->
:As far as I can tell, no mention has been made about the range of the Wi-Fi capability. But if <nowiki>http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=854744</nowiki> (Broadcom's press release) is any indication, it should be okay. Considering that it's built-in, Nintendo could stand to receive a lot of flak if the Wi-Fi reception wasn't good. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::As long as it complies to the 802.11b/g standards then I don't forsee range being an issue in the same house.  Most wireless cards for computers and laptops are able to receive the signal from a good distance away from the transmitter.  Your transmitter is where you can gain alot or lose alot as well.  Obviously every Wii will have a MAC and some basic IP routing as well and hopefully the Wii will have a built in firewall that only allows VPN connections to other Wiis and to Nintendo.[[User:Sir hugo|Sir hugo]] 11:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:It'll likely be very similar to the DS' wireless ability. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I'd assume it would have further range than the DS wireless capabilities, being more expensive and a console and the like.[[User:Falco1029|Falco1029]] 06:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

== Sources say that Wii is before ps3 ==
" On top of everything else, this week industry sources have relayed that - in something of a surprise attack -- "Nintendo is planning to launch Wii before PlayStation 3." The latest word jives with publisher release calendars, whose Wii titles are scheduled in many cases for a mid-to-late October debut or, in some cases, very early November. "

<nowiki>http://wii.ign.com/articles/712/712283p1.html</nowiki> <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:72.148.120.170|72.148.120.170]] ([[User talk:72.148.120.170|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/72.148.120.170|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:Who are these "sources"?  WP is not a crystal ball. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::We shouldn't care. We do not judge from where IGN picks the information, but we care the main news (''Wii will release before PS3'') has came from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], which [[IGN]] is. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

:::We are not a news site, and I don't think this should even be in the article. Besides, many things IGN say should be taken with a grain of salt. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) IGN is a valid reliable source, and information posted there can be included in Wikipedia. After all, the article is using much worse sources than that. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::By that token, it seems the alleged specs IGN reported could be included, as well. Am I understanding this correctly? The addition of this sort of information has been a recurring issue, and I would like to know where all of this falls in terms of actual policy, regardless of which it happens to be. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think it's physically or morally possible for individual editors to decide when and when not a source is being reliable. I think it belongs, and could easily be rephrased as "IGN has reported such and such". <span style="plainlinks">[[User:Kilgamesh|<span style="color:Blue;">'''Kil'''</span>]]<span style="font-size:x-small;"><sup> [[User_talk:Kil|'''<span style="color:green;">(</span><span style="color:blue;">talk</span><span style="color:green;">)</span>''']]</sup></span></span> 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Let's not bring morals into this. That just introduces a whole new set of unnecessary problems. And the fact is that we need to [[WP:RS#Evaluating sources|evaluate sources]]; it cannot be avoided. This shouldn't be confused, though, with evaluating individual ''claims'' made ''by'' the sources, which is a related but different issue. And I do try rephrasing at first. Here's the pattern. Someone will add the latest rumor, asserting it as fact. Then I will try to edit it to establish the proper context for the info. Soon after, someone will delete it outright. Then for every subsequent time it's added, I tend to favor keeping it out, because I figure it's the safer course in the case of a dispute. This needs to be settled. I'm tired of this. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::While I usually HATE anything resembling CBing, given the pattern of release dates, I'm ok with leaving the info in ''as long as it's emphasized that it's still dubious''.  I'm ok with something like "IGN has reported that industry sources claim that the Wii will launch before the PS3, but is unable to verify reports of a release date." Key words being "claim" and "unable to verify" so that it's emphasized that it's still a rumor, even if it does come from a site that usually gets these things right. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::I know you do, and while I am actually pretty averse to crystal-balling myself, I am even more weary of edit-warring. If you've ever witnessed the activity at the article for [[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]], I think you'd understand. I've added my edit from a while back. Everyone let me know how it looks. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I've used what I came up with and the previously-existing sentence to write something I think is ok.  While it's currently unverifiable, the release dates do fall in line with it. Hope you like it. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I like how you're attemting to keep the speculative element out, but it's hard to do without somehow becoming misleading. For one thing, I don't think IGN said anything about the industry sources mentioning October or November, just that Nintendo plans to launch before PS3. IGN is basing the October from the publishers' schedules, and the early November from the pre-PS3 word from the industry sources. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Whoops, there goes my brain.  How about now? [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, to be super-picky, the industry sources said "Nintendo is planning to", which isn't quite the same as personally claiming that it's going to happen. But I'm liking the changes. I imagine some will probably want a stronger assertion of "between mid-October and early November", but I'm not one of them. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't mean to purport that sources shouldn't be evaluated, really what I'm asking is how IGN in this case can be reliable only sometimes, and who gets to be the judge of when? This article cites IGN several times. Should those references be removed? The Wii release is a future event that obviously can't be factual until it has occurred, and I'm not saying IGN's story should be touted as factual evidence for a Wii release date, just that "IGN has reported that such and such", with proper care given as to not mislead, merits a mention somewhere in this Article's Launch section. I also think editing issues regarding previously sensitive edits are beyond the scope of this specific matter and shouldn't be a deciding factor in its inclusion. <span style="plainlinks">[[User:Kilgamesh|<span style="color:Blue;">'''Kil'''</span>]]<span style="font-size:x-small;"><sup> [[User_talk:Kil|'''<span style="color:green;">(</span><span style="color:blue;">talk</span><span style="color:green;">)</span>''']]</sup></span></span> 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Why not? To me, it's the same matter: questionable information from generally-accepted reliable sources. If you can argue that we can't treat IGN as a reliable source only sometimes, then that applies to those other issues. If I'm understanding you, we can't be selective. IGN is either reliable or not. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::''IGN is either reliable or not.'' - Pretty much. Also, I'm liking that edit. <span style="plainlinks">[[User:Kilgamesh|<span style="color:Blue;">'''Kil'''</span>]]<span style="font-size:x-small;"><sup> [[User_talk:Kil|'''<span style="color:green;">(</span><span style="color:blue;">talk</span><span style="color:green;">)</span>''']]</sup></span></span> 18:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", one thing to keep in mind is that this article, as tagged, is about a ''future product''.  It says right in the header that some info may be of a speculative nature.  Granted there's a danger of people abusing that if they interpret it too loosely and "speculate" by means of original research.  However putting info in based on a reliable source (which, IGN is, frankly) is appropriate considering ''that's all we got until the sucker comes out!'' Do we need to put in every small rumor? No. Stuff like Nintendo getting an IM patent isn't appropriate until we get some word it's ''actually'' going in the Wii, otherwise it is completely unrelated info.  Companies get patents all the time for crap they never make or don't get around to using for 10 years. But specifically regarding the release date, that is kind of a major tidibit of info. While Nintendo has unashamedly not given a release date yet, there is plenty of info regarding probabilites.  And we would be doing readers a disservice if we didn't give them this info.  Also, I don't think we have to tailor each instance with "according to Gamespot, blah blah blah", we can simply say, "It has been reported..." or something like that and put a ref link at the end. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How about having an article on the 'Wii' rather than an article on speculation on the 'Wii'? (mild sarcasm)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 09:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit says Nintendo has said in a press briefing that Wii will launch before PS3, but doesn't cite a source. While I very much suspect it to be misinformation, I feel obligated to bring it up for discussion here, if for no other reason than to say I gave it a chance before it was deleted. If anyone wants this kept, speak up here. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they ever said that it WILL launch before the PS3, just that they plan too. [[User:TJ Spyke|TJ Spyke]] 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:Okay, but that's not quite why I brought it up. This is a new claim. We had the stuff about IGN hearing this from industry sources, but it isn't currently in the article, having been moved to the talk page for discussion. ''This'' claim was that Nintendo said it at a briefing, which is significantly different. It would be a direct confirmation by Nintendo, which carries much more weight than IGN's anonymous industry sources. This is why confirming or refuting it is important. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

==pointing device==
I added a mention that the wii controller can be used as pointing device - I've added this before but it keeps dissapearing - I assume it's relevant.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 10:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This belongs on the wiimote page, because tghe wiimote is a pointing device, not the Wii itself. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:Well the 'Wii-mote' seems to be essential to the proper functioning of the Wii console and it could be argued that the remote is an integral part of the console. Also the subsection on the controller already contains info on other aspects of the controller - peripherals, distance of operation, industry figures comment.. So I would think it makes sense to have both of the two primary functions (of the controller) mentioned?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

::Right, but not as a category for the article, which is was. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You must mean <code><nowiki>[[Category:Pointing devices]]</nowiki></code> - I've added that as a category to the 'wii remote' article - I didn't know it had been used as a category in the main wii article.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
::::It was earlier. That was the focus of my first comment. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 22:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

==Zelda: Twilight Princess==
I can defer my opinion for now that it's just plain silly to only list the franchises and not the anticpiated individual games that are coming to the Wii, as it strikes me as not giving proper information in the article (i.e. "Wii will only have re-hashed franchises.") But what I cannot do is follow the ''two'' invisible comments that we shouldn't link the Zelda franchise listing to "Twilight Princess".  Fortunately, someone else beat me to the punch on correcting this rather odd decision (odd, considering TP is one of the most anticipated games, if not ''the'' '''most''' anticipated game for the console.)  Just because TP is coming to Wii ''and'' GameCube doesn't make it '''not''' a Wii game (especially when considering the control differences.)  That's like saying the Xbox version of a multi-console title/franchise can't count as an Xbox game cause it's also released for Playstation (Tomb Raider, Need For Speed, Sonic, etc.)  In other words, it doesn't make any sense! I'm not sure who or whom has made this decision, but if you can come up with a really good reason why this is beneficial to the article, then at least only put in the message ''once''.  Doing it twice is simply not neccessary and is frankly, kind of rude. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with you on everything. Any game on the Wii should be considered a Wii game, even if it is on other consols. The Wii version of TP will not only have a radically different control scheme from the GCN version, it will also have a new item (iron boots) and a new dungeon (the one show at E3), not to mention a fairy. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 17:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Wait, wait, the iron boots are inboth versions I believe, and so is said dungeon. The fairy is just there as a part of the control scheme on Wii. [[User:Scepia|Scepia]] 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

== trademarks ==
I fail to see the point of including information on the trademarks registered by Nintendo, when we have little idea what they're actually for. Yes, I've heard the speculation that !!M refers to the IM feature described in that patent that got approved recently, but speculation is all it is. While we're at it, why don't we include the other Wii trademarks Nintendo has registered, like "Wii Active 24" and "Wii Alive 24"? Haven't heard much about those ones. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

==Speculation and uncited comments - removing==
I thought there was supposed to be no speculation in the article but it keeps creeping in. Maybe there should be a specualtion section again like there was before?

I refer to !!M trademark, IGN guesses at release date

Also in name section it states at the end "Since E3, it seems that more people have accepted the name than when it was first announced"

If there is no reason to keep these I'll remove them. Also does anyone want a speculation section reintroduced?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 08:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Remove all speculation, only if there is a source for it, or it's written in a non-speculative way should it stay. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 08:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Do you mean that if speculative data has a source it should be kept? That seems like a bad idea.. Then we have do decide what speculation is good and what is irrelevant. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] ([[User talk:HappyVR|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HappyVR|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::No, I mean that if the information is viable, and there is a source attached to it (a notable source), then it should be keept if written in such a maner as to not have words like "It has been said by many gamers..." etc. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and speculation/rumors should be keept to the absolute minimum. If that made any sense? <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes makes sense I think - what I worry about is what to do when notable sources eg IGN and other web based console sites - appear to be speculating (see below)?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 10:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I would say there are various degrees of speculation, it is something that should be discussed on the talk page before adding though. Although something might be worth mentioning, should we? <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/[[User:Havok/Contributions|C]]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Havok c]) 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put this here for re inclusion if people disagree with it's removal:

"According to gaming website [[IGN]], industry sources have indicated that "Nintendo is planning to launch Wii before [[PlayStation 3]]." IGN also cited publishers' scheduled Wii title releases—some as early as mid-October—as evidence of a possible October launch. The website was unable to validate rumors of a November 6 release. <ref name="before PS3 IGN">{{cite web|last=Casamassina|first=Matt|authorlink=|coauthors=|date=[[2006-06-12]]|year=|month=|url=wii.ign.com/articles/712/712283p1.html|title=Wii Before PS3|format=|work=IGN Wii|pages=|publisher=IGN|language=|accessdate=2006-06-13|accessyear=|curly=}}</ref>"

It's written in a balanced way - but is it verifiable etc.

Removing the rest.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 09:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a statement saying that the face-building feature would be used with a [[Wii Messaging Service]] for a couple reasons. First, the messaging service is speculation based on a granted patent and a trademark registration. Second, there seems to be no evidence whatsoever that the service would utilize the faces stored in the personal profiles, other than it "makes sense". Any objections? [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== Article name is wrong ==
Surely it should be '''Nintendo Wii''' rather than plain old '''Wii''' ?  We've already got [[Nintendo GameCube]], [[Nintendo 64]], so surely this needs a similar name? --[[User:Oscarthecat|<b>Oscarthecat</b>]][[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:How many times are people going to argue this? We've debated this over and over, and we stuck with "Wii". -- [[User:VederJuda|VederJuda]] 21:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, as VerderJuda said, it's been discussed. See the talk archives and whatnot. Wii was kept because it's the title used by Nintendo and their marketing, just as they used the full "Nintendo Gamecube" when advertising and referring to that console. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::That's why the old Wii/Nintendo Wii move request survey is archived separately from the rest.  We've been through this issue almost as many times as people have made silly jokes about the Wii name. ;)  --''[[User:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]] 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)''

::Fair comment, didn't spot that. Apologies! --[[User:Oscarthecat|<b>Oscarthecat</b>]][[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==wi launch before ps3==
removed this " At another briefing, Nintendo stated that the Wii would launch before the [[PlayStation 3]], which is launching on [[November 17]], [[2006]].{{Dubious|Sources say that Wii is before ps3|date=April 2008}}" ok - if there was such a briefing (a press briefing I assume) where is it? - Let's put this in if and when it is confirmed.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:You are correct, the Wii will most likely be launching around November 6th in the US, and it being half the price of the PS3, it should draw even more customers. If you need a citation, look at the list at the bottom of this page.--[[User:Yoshi032192|Jak]] 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

==ds wii connect==
removed 'citation needed' tag from this - the interview transcript (and I assume the video interview) - makes it clear that connectivity is possible (but 'they' haven't decided how or if they are going to use it). Additionally - both have WiFi - of course they can connect.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==Article Length==
The article is 50KB in size - it needs to be trimmed, likely into some sub-articles, and also examined for trivial information. [[User:Rebochan|Rebochan]] 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:Given that this article is at least half the size of the other 7th gen console articles, it's not that bad really.  We already have separate articles for several key features of the Wii (Wii Remote, games list, Virtual Console, WiiConnect24, etc.) if we do too many than readers will have to jump to 10 different articles simply to read about Wii.  However, I personally think the ref list has gotten out of hand.  Stuff I've read about refs on Wikipedia state that if you're going to have a lot of them, then perhaps the Harvard method isn't the best choice.  Maybe there's a way to streamline them or else maybe we should switch to one of the other methods. Also, the messaging service, if confirmed, is lengthy enough to warrant its own article, perhaps we should place-hold the info here on the talk page, rather than leaving it up as an invisible future additon? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::The messaging service already has it's own article. At least it did, I can't find it right now. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::That (below) is way to long to survive in the main article - also I've commented it out as it interferes with the talk page headings - if anyone knows of a better way do that. Honestly the instruction manual would be shorter.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==!!M Placeholder==
Given that this info is not officially confirmed by Nintendo, it is still speculation.  However, given the likelyhood that "!!M" has to do with "Wii" it will probably be confirmed.  But, the length of this section is a third the size of the whole Wii article, and thusly warrants its own article when/if Nintendo confirms it.  I am placing it here for now until we get such a confirmation. When/if that happens a ''small'' blurb should be added to the main article, with a direction to the !!M article. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Messaging service text appears here [[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 19:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:
 <small><code><nowiki>
===Messaging Service (!!M)===
Nintendo was granted a [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=nintendo.ASNM.&OS=AN/nintendo&RS=AN/nintendo patent] with the U.S. Patent Office for a "messaging service for video game systems with buddy list that displays game being played." A trademark registered by Nintendo of the name "!!M" (which looks like the name "Wii" upside-down, and resembles the initialism "IM" commonly used for [[instant messaging]]) has been speculated to be associated with this feature.[http://wii.ign.com/articles/713/713210p1.html]

The patent document reports an instant messaging service that isn't exclusively proposed for any one game system, and which would share messages, user accounts, and buddy lists across different systems. One might guess it could be used to send messages between the Wii and the DS, or even for future Nintendo consoles and handhelds.<ref name="Messaging Service">{{cite web|last=Hatfield|first=Daemon|url=http://wii.ign.com/articles/711/711865p1.html|title=Messaging Service|date=[[2006-06-08]]|accessdate=2006-06-08|publisher=IGN}}</ref> 

Nintendo further details a buddy list, similar to [[Xbox Live]], that lets you see what activities in which your buddies are engaged in. The user and his/her buddies can then communicate with each other on an individual basis and private chat sessions can be set up. These chat sessions are typically text-based, but it also possible to set up voice over Internet sessions between two users.

Before a user can add another user to his/her "buddy" list, the new buddy must approve the addition. Thus, the messaging service notifies the new buddy to request the new buddy's approval for addition onto the user's buddy list. Access is granted or denied only after the new buddy accepts or declines his/her addition to the buddy list. If the buddy accepts, his/her username remains on the buddy list. If the buddy declines, he/she is removed from the buddy list.

=====Block List=====
In the event that a user does not wish to be notified of a request to be placed on some other user's buddy list, the messaging service client enables the user to access the network server to add the name of that other user to a Block List listing the usernames of those other users that he/she does not wish to hear from. 

=====User Preferences=====
The messaging service client enables a user to set and modify certain preferences at any time. 

=====Profile===== 
The user can set a preference to determine whether:
# Everyone can see his/her user profile
# Only buddies can see his/her user profile
# No one can see his/her user profile.

The administrator of the messaging service may also provide certain limitations on the access to user profiles by users of the messaging service in order to protect user privacy. 

The profiles may also specify how much information may be provided to any or all buddies on his buddy list. This specification may be made by a user, a user's parent or guardian or an administrator of the messaging service. This feature may be provided to, among other things, protect the amount of online information that is available to others about children. Thus, for example, a user may specify in his profile that a particular buddy cannot see what the user is doing. That is, the user my specify that a particular buddy may know that the user is online, but not be able to determine the activity in which the user is engaged. The user may also specify that a particular buddy can know only certain activities in which the user is engaged (e.g., playing a particular game or games). 

=====Access===== 
The user can set a preference to determine whether (1) everyone can search for him/her, (2) only allow buddies to search for him/her, or (3) no one can search for him/her. The administrator of the messaging service may also provide certain limitations on searching for other users in order to protect user privacy. 

=====Status===== 
The user can set his/her status to be:
# '''Available'''--able to send/receive messages
# '''Invisible'''--online, but not able to send/receive messages
# '''Busy'''--online, able to send, but not receive messages. A user can, for example, broadcast a message that he/she is online but does not want to be interrupted. A busy icon may be used to notify others that the user is online, but does not want to be bothered. A user can also be invisible; such a user is online and can determine what his/her buddies are doing, but the buddies don't know that the user is there. 

=====Rules===== 
A user can create a list of rules that can be selectively turned ON or OFF. For example, a user may have an Auto Reply rule that can be turned ON or OFF. When the user sets his/her status to busy, the Auto Reply rule may be invoked to generate a personal auto reply message that automatically informs a message sender of the user's status. 

=====Alerts===== 
Alerts may be audible and/or visual and include: 

*Message Alerts that alert a user when a new message is received 
*E-mail Notification Alerts that alert a user when his/her mailbox receives a message. That is, a user's e-mail service may be configured to send a notification to the messaging service client when an e-mail message is received by the e-mail service. The notification may include an identification of sender. The user can set a preference determining whether the messaging service client generates an audible and/or visual alert upon receipt of such a notification. In response to the alert, a user can if desired launch an e-mail client to read the e-mail message.
*Buddy Signs On Alerts that alerts a user when any buddy (or some particular buddy) signs on. 
*Buddy Signs Off Alerts that alert a user when any buddy (or some particular buddy) signs off. 
*Reminder Alerts that remind a user of some event or activity (e.g., "Television program X starts in 5 minutes.")
 </nowiki></code></small>

If the article really gets to long it will be easy to cut down - lots of 'fluff' in there. However for now I leave it as it is. - It isn't that bad in terms of length.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)However if there is a consensus that it needs shortening I'd be happy to make a start...[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 19:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:I like the box to differntiate it from normal talk, thanks! Although, it's "exploded" off the right in my browser (Netscape). Is it just me?  If not, is there a way to format to keep it contained? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

::Unfortuneately, those boxes are just glorified pre tags, so no. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==the article - length and games an other things==
Carrying on from a few different discussions - I couldn't help thinking that what is REALLY needed is an article "Wii games". Yes I know there already is "list of Wii games" - but it is just that - a list - not readable and no good except as a sort of index. I'd like to just start this myself - but I haven't really made myself an expert on this subject, can't keep up with what is/isn't 1st/2nd/3rd party/launch title/not a launch title etc. It's a topic that definately needs a separate article (assuming the Wii gets off the ground once it's released) and obviously this page would link to it. Seems it would solve many problems. Expect the volunteers to gain some sort of inner reward. Please help.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:Good idea, but really, many (most?) of the games have their own articles, so I'm not sure what the purpose of what could basically be an expansion of the games list would serve. Though, maybe once it's out we can have stuff like "[insert title] was the smash hit at the Wii's launch" and "[insert title] failed to catch on with non-gamers" and so on.  So yeah, maybe it'd make a good article, but it still falls under the same problem we have now where we can't predict the future, and best guess, Jan 2007 would be the soonest we'd know how all this pans out.[[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 

==Excite Truck: new game or franchise continuation?==
I know Nintendo said we might "recognize the pedigree" of [[Excite Truck]] but have they ever actually said it's a franchise continuation of [[Excitebike]]?  They even use a different naming convention. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
:I say franchise - same people (nintendo), both have excite in the name - plus as you said - Nintendo themselves made the link to 'excitebike'. Definately a continuation of the 'excite ''motorvehicle''' franchise.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::On the one hand I agree, however, at their e3 confrence they said they had three 'new' something or others (I forget the term Reggie used) and then proceeded to display Red Steel, Project Hammer, and Excite Truck.  They never directly said anything about Excite Truck being a continuation of Excitebike, "Excitebike" was never even spoken, just the 'pedigree' comment/hint.  Thay's why I'm confused.  Maybe it's just like their "new gen" thing, it doesn't really mean anything where continuity is concerned, but it'd be nice to have some clarification if anyone has any sources. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
::::<nowiki>http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/previews/wii/Display.php?id=8</nowiki> (gamenikki.com), <nowiki>http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64857</nowiki> (euromgamer.com), <nowiki>http://uk.cube.gamespy.com/revolution/excite-trucks/707573p1.html</nowiki> (gamespy.com) all refer to 'exite' or 'excitebike' franchise and helpfully nintendo's own e3 coverage states "Excite Truck builds on a classic Nintendo franchise"  <nowiki>http://e3.nintendo.com/news/nintendos_console_takes_the_next_leap_in_video_gam/</nowiki> That's convinced me.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

== Misleading Launch games ==
I think we should revamp the Launch titles section. As it stands, the six confirmed are a footnote; we give no distiction between expected and confirmed launch games. We should either only list the six confirmed launch titles and mention that its not the final count or keep only the six in the table and list the unconfirmed below after an explaination (similar to how the software library games are handled down the page.)--[[User:Dr. Eggman3|Dr. Eggman3]] 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I went through earlier and made a note of it so people could see easily see which games have been confirmed by Nintendo to be launch games. [[User:TJ Spyke|TJ Spyke]] 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to re write the launch games section. --[[User:D-hyo|D-hyo]] 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Interesting link ==
I was scanning though the web and came across <nowiki>http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/23/nintendo-wii-mockup-next-to-stuff-lots-of-stuff/</nowiki> (This) Joystiq article... It is not a great article, but the mock up pix are awesome. My question is, do we include a link in the article? --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Pictures are good, but I can't justify inclusion (my opinion)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 14:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

==DS connectivity==
I removed a link (no useful info there as other editor User:Dancter suggested). The DS can connect wirelessly to Wii, we already have a video interview confirming this (ref no.35 <nowiki>http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/shigeru-miyamoto/e306-video-shigeru-miyamoto-interview-174909.php</nowiki>). DS has WiFi, (not bluetooth?) so it must be WiFi. Is this ok.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 14:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not disputing that Wii and DS can connect wirelessly, but I haven't found the information that confirms that ''local'' Wii-DS connectivity works ''through Wi-Fi'', and not the proprietary wireless protocol that is used for direct DS-DS connectivity. I am under the impression that DS units cannot connect ''directly'' with one another via Wi-Fi, and must use the proprietary local wireless to connect in the absence of Internet connectivity. I presume that Wii can connect with DS directly, without the need of an Internet access point. Which leads to some questions. I remember hearing rumors a while back about Wii having Wi-Fi routing capability, which I don't believe have been confirmed. I also remember rumors about the DS being able to act as a Wi-Fi repeater hub, which I believe were proven incorrect. In any case, I don't think the question of how local connectivity between Wii and Nintendo DS works is conclusively answered. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Check out the article called [[Ni-Fi]]. According to this, and the link off of it (Darkain's website, he's a fairly respected homebrew developer person), Nintendo's proprietary communications whatchamacaller works ''on-top of'' Wi-Fi. It replaces TCP/IP (layer 3), but still uses 802.11b (which only defines layers 1 & 2). It would not be inaccurate, therefore, to say that the DS will connect via Wi-Fi. ;) -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 18:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks! This clears up quite a bit of the confusion I've had concerning Nintendo DS wireless. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 19:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

== Other Announced Titles and Reception ==
Do we really need these sections, first off the 2 Announced titles are already linked in the franchise section. As for Reception, shouldnt that just be cut down and added into maybe the first section and not have it own little section? --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 18:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:You've removed ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' + ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]''.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&diff=60524283&oldid=60520657] '''Where in the article do they remain referenced?'''  Surely they warrant a mention the Wii article? --[[User:Oscarthecat|<b>Oscarthecat</b>]][[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 19:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I've now spotted them, shown in the article as ''Super Mario'' and ''Super Smash Bros.'', which link to the appropriate Wii game. --[[User:Oscarthecat|<b>Oscarthecat</b>]][[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

==controller - competitors reaction==
I removed all references to 'competitors reactions' in the controller section. Just to see if there was a consensus that its better off out. The arguments for removing are long and complex so I won't start listing them here. Obviously if everyone disagrees with this removal meaning I've totally misjudged what is right for the article I'll just accept I was wrong.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed; obviously, they're going to say it's bad.  People from Sony and Microsoft aren't going to say anything positive about it, so it's not really giving any info people don't already know. -[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] 15:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== Wii Play ==
It's been added three times by now.  <nowiki>http://s7.invisionfree.com/wii_play</nowiki> (Wii Play) is merely a forum, and should not be re-added.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 05:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:Agree. Unless someone from Nintendo is an active member, that is. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 05:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::Uh...I still don't think that would qualify it.  Wii Play is a forum where people discuss stuff about Nintendo.  It's not like someone from Nintendo would give out inside information on a common forum.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 05:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

==Sensor Bar==
There's a new section 'sensor bar' been added. I've made it a subsection of the controller section since without the controller the sensor bar is irrelevant. I've also removed edits stating what exactly the sensor bar does - these statements may not be correct - is it known that the sensor bar is also the bluetooth reciever?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 12:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:I cleaned it up a bit. You should probably check up on it and see what you think. -- [[User:Masamunecyrus|Masamunecyrus]]<sup>[[User_talk:Masamunecyrus|(talk)]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Masamunecyrus|(contribs)]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Your much better at writing than I am, Thanks. Not sure if 'senses' really needs to be in 'quotes'.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::You can take out the quotes, if you want. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for puns. ^_^ -- [[User:Masamunecyrus|Masamunecyrus]]<sup>[[User_talk:Masamunecyrus|(talk)]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Masamunecyrus|(contribs)]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Tragically such nuances of language are lost on one such as me - the sensor that senses - this could take weeks for me to come to terms with.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:I think the sensor bar section should not be included in the controller sections as the sensor bar is part of the system and, although it helps to revieve data from the remote, is not part of the remote. It does not ship with controllers when they are bought at a shop. I think that this should be included with its own heading in the hardware section as it is as much necessary to play games as the system is. ([[User:ItIsMe|ItIsMe]] 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

== Backwards compatible ==
How do you get the little Gamecube disks in the right place? [[User:Philc_0780|<span style="color:Green;">Philc</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Philc_0780|T]]</sub><sup>[[User:Philc 0780/Esperanza|E]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Philc_0780|C]]</sub><sup>[[User:Philc_0780/Improve me|I]]</sup> 19:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:Good question, anyone know how the dual disk slot loader works?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Magic! But seriously, while Nintendo hasn't said specifically, it probably works on the same principles as a vending machine. Just as they can tell the difference between a quarter and a dime (and usually even foreign change), the slot drive probably has sensors, guides and whatnot that can tell what size a disc is and place it accordingly inside the Wii. I've been keeping an eye out on the specifics myself, hopefully Nintendo steps forward soon with the info so we can add it to the article. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I hope it's not the same way vending machines do it (different sized slots for different sized coins). Maybe the larger Wii disks activate sensors (on the top/bottom) so they can be handled differently. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Um, all the snack and beverage vending machines I've ever used, and even the self-checkouts at grocery stores, have one slot for coins. What are you talking about? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Inside. They roll along, falling into the first slot they can. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 20:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::Ah, I see what you're saying. Let me clarify then, presumably the inside of the Wii will have different holders (or perhaps a dynamic, size-changing holder?) that will handle either a GameCube disc or a Wii disc.  It's up to whatever sensors are in the Wii to determine what's what as a disc in inserted in the slot.  Just as coins roll to where they "fit" the Wii will have to tell where a disc "fits" and place it accordingly (whether it's a matter of disc placement inside the machine, reading sensor placement, or both, no one knows until Nintendo steps forward.)  It's still the same principle (albeit applied differently, and probably more technologically based than mechanically based.) [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Like I said earlier. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::"''the slot drive probably has sensors, guides and whatnot that can tell what size a disc is and place it accordingly inside the Wii''".
::::::::"''Maybe the larger Wii disks activate sensors (on the top/bottom) so they can be handled differently.''"
::::::::I think we said virtually the same thing, just differently. oh, well. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::Since it isn't out yet...no.  I'm not sure I've ever seen any other disk drive that takes different-sized discs in that matter.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Makes sense.  Why didn't I think of that?--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:I imagine that inside that bright blue slot there are two loaders: one Wii-disc sized one and one NGC-disc sized one. They're propably side by side, both using the same laser. That's my speculation because until now, no slot loading DVD\CD drives have ever taken smaller discs (the small ones weren't that important) --[[User:Thaddius|Thaddius]] 12:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It must work by having a standard slot for the Wii 12 inch disks, and then it can run Gamecube disks because the must have some sort of emulator. --[[User:D-hyo|D-hyo]] 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Um...we're talking about how it can pysically handle two disc sizes, not how it can run two disc formats, thats obvious. [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad0127]] 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

==Semi protection==
Can we, or is there any reason why we can't have [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy]] on this article? Bearing in mind the number of minor reverts that have to be done - and that semi protection doesn't stop anyone actually editing the article. It might make 'them' think a little more before they type.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what the policy is on this either, but I'm getting tired of seeing and/or fixing stupid little edits like changing all the mentions of Wii to something more "interesting". Saying there's three USB ports. And most recently adding a bunch of random asterisks to the launch titles section indepenedent of the facts. Heck, outside of this article, in general, there should a "blatant vandalism = automatic block" rule or something, this place is too open for juveniles (and the juvenile-minded) to mess with for kicks. Sorry, but my time is precious, I shouldn't have to spend it fixing the jollies of those with too much time on ''their'' hands. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've already requested it - don't think this will be refused. Hopefully having to type a username and password will cause more people to think a bit more seriously. (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]]).[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
:::We can hope, but reading through the policy on this, it sounds like it could be a longshot at getting approved. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't know.  It falls somewhat under the category of anon vandalism, and not under any of the listed categories of when ''not'' to request semi-protection.  --''[[User:Stratadrake|Stratadrake]] 04:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)''

== Online Play ==
A while back, I included something in the article that mentioned Wii's use of a friend code for online play/lack of a standard interface being similair to that of the DS, and it was removed. I was wondering why, as both of these seem relevant. <nowiki>http://revolution.ign.com/articles/707/707865p1.html</nowiki> (This) is the article that I cited for information. I don't want to edit the article without knowing why it was taken off before for obvious reasons. -[[User:Super_Genus|Genus]]

:Don't know ''exactly'' why it was taken out. The reference seems fine to me, and if it was mentioned with your contribution.... I suppose one problem could be that you stated that it will require friends codes ala the DS (interview doesn't state exactly what capacity they're used in). Also, saying that it has "no standard interface" is a bit vague. Xbox Live!, at least on the Xbox 1, doesn't really have a standard interface per-game either (though many look the same since they are based off of sample code); I suppose they were trying to ask about a Dashboard or Xbox Guide interface thingie, but didn't do a good job of it. -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== Wii Predessors Question ==
can you connect the wii to your computer and save stuff to it because if u could couldnt people like download emulators and games to the wii for freehow do u make your own question thingy [[User:Oomblag|Oomblag]] 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:Just like I just did. Use == Heading ==. Just look at the above examples. As for the other part, there's been nothing announced. It's not likely that Nintendo would willing let people upload pirated games to their Wii though... -- [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]] | [[User talk:Consumed Crustacean|Talk]] | 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::Yes. With 2 usb ports, you could easily attach an [[external hard drive]] to your PC, download whatever you wish, and put it on your Wii. Providing, of course, you could get around the numerous piracy blocks Nintendo will put in place. Also, it do esn't take a console/PC uplink to play pirated games. Look up [[modding]] and go <nowiki>http://www.gscentral.org</nowiki> (here) if you're curious. Also I just cleaned up the heading/analgous user tags--[[User:Super Genus|Super Genus]] 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== im bored and decided a line bothered me ==
Whenever I read the line "The console is confirmed to have a stand-by..." in the intro it sort of bugs me for some lame reason, because it makes it sound like everyone was spectulating on that feature and we finally got confirmation at E3.  In reality, it's just another feature. --[[User:Joeblack982|Joeblack982]] 09:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Too right. Just an example of verbal diarrhea. I've cut it out.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

==Sensor bar==
Removed the part about the " appears to have a significantly longer cable than the power or AV cables." - no doubt this may be true, but it the length of the cable really relevant and is it verifiable - how long are the av cables for instance? - they can be quite long.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 13:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

==New titles section==
Given the arbitrary nature of the section, I propose that we create a "New franchises" section to follow the 1st/2nd/3rd party franchise list.  D:DoC and PH can stay, other new games can be added once sequels (or the intention of a franchise) have been confirmed.  As it stands, there's no criteria for what should be listed. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:Not sure I understand - as far as I know no new franchises have been announced - there are some old franchises continued and some new titles (that may or may not prove to be franchises).[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::Well, Nintendo has said that D:DoC and PH are going to be new franchises.
::Do you agree that the list, so far, is arbitrary? [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I didn't know that those two had been earmarked as new franchises - have you got a reference for this?
:::Otherwise, these new franchises could go into the current franchise sections (marked as new) or stay as they are. I've no objection to this. Is that the final division of the wii games section - or are there further criteria to split titles into?
:::Go ahead if you're sure - it sounds about right.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::(Do you mean the 'new titles' list is arbitary - not sure what that means exactly)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::ok I looked up abitrary - yes the list of new titles is an arbitrary list - though it seems to have been sensibly selected.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Archival ==
I just thought I'd post a reminder that this page should probably be archived at the end of tomorrow. It's become ''gigantic'' in size. -- [[User:Masamunecyrus|Masamunecyrus]]<sup>[[User_talk:Masamunecyrus|(talk)]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Masamunecyrus|(contribs)]]</sub> [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Zapper shell and Virtual Console controller ==
I just noticed something, there isn't any section on the Wii's Zapper Shell and Virtual Console Controller, can anyone write these when we get editing back? Thanks.
--[[User:D-hyo|D-hyo]] 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:There used to be but it was removed - it's all covered (in depth in the article [[Wii Remote]] which is linked to from the top of the controller section.
:(We still can edit this page but you need to be logged in -as you are)
:Given that the info. is well covered in [[Wii Remote]] do you still want it in the main article?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 15:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::I think a decision needs to be made. There seem to be a significant portion of edits in the Wii article tending to expand on the control functions, but the additions tend to obviate the need for a separate Wii Remote article. If it is decided that the info be included in the main article, perhaps there should be a merge. The Wii Remote article could always be recreated when there is enough unique content to justify it. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::No to a merge - there is too much info on the [[Wii Remote]] page - one of the reasons why it was created I imagine. Can't people see "Main article : Wii Remote" or something? At most I'd just mention that various add ons exist without going into detail. (which already seems to be present)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 16:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Personally, I would rather not merge, but for a separate article to be justified, we can't keep expanding the control-related content in the main article, which is what many editors seem to want. Even the detailing of the sensor bar, which someone argued as a console feature rather than a controller feature, seems inappropriate to me. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I also say no to a merger, the Wii Remote is such a unique control scheme that there is a lot of exaplaining to be done that would take up too much room in the main Wii article.  And unless for some reason Nintendo announces additional uses for the sensor bar that are independent of communicating with the remote, it is, by its very function, a direct part of the overall Wii Remote control scheme, not just some "feature" of the console. For the main Wii article, we simply need to relay the info that "it does this...", for explaining the specifics of "'''how''' it does this..." that is addressed in the justified, separate [[Wii Remote]] article.  If anything we need to slim down the controller info in the main article and direct folks to the Remote article. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok so it seems the current state is ok. Though possibly the section is a little long - I couldn't shorten it much more to be honest. I think it covers the topic as briefly as is possible. It that ok (don't reply if no problem)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:I cleaned it up some by tightening up the wording. And just a note that it's a "Classic Controller" not a "Virtual Console" controller, it has the proper buttons to play everything from NES through GameCube. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::Good, re-added pointing device functionality in nine words. That should do it.?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Tweaked it a little, good call though.  By the way, what do they mean it can used as a pointing device?  Are they taking about surfing the web on the Wii or using the Virtual Console menu? [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Sensor Bar article is being continously deleted ==
Someone (Dannybu2001) keeps deleting the Sensor Bar article stating that it 'is more appropriate in the Wii Remote page'. The sensor bar is part of the Wii hardware not part of the controller hardware. Although it helps determine movements of the controller the sensor bar will no doubt come in the box with the system and it is a necessary part of hardware for a lot of games on the system. Some games require the sensor bar just as much as they require the controller for without both the system will not determine the movements needed for such games. As such I have put the article back into the page which is where it should stay. Deleting it may be seen as a form of vandalism as it is deleting a part of the article for no apparent reason. ([[User:ItIsMe|ItIsMe]] 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

:Couldn't really be considered vandalism if there isn't a general consensus about what's being removed.--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]] 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree. As I see it, the sensor bar is less a part of the console than it is a part of the Wii Remote apparatus, and cannot be described except in that context. The sensor bar is included with the console ''because a Wii Remote is included''. The purpose of the sensor bar is completely for the Wii Remote. It is no more necessary than a Wii Remote is; actually less. There are plenty of uses for the Remote without the sensor bar, but ''no'' uses for the sensor bar without the Remote.
:In any case, I think your wholesale revert was inappropriate. There were plenty of adjustments made that had nothing to do with your sensor bar section. I am undoing your revert, but keeping your section while this issue is being discussed. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I didn't revert the article, I simply added the Sensor Bar part back into the article. And the sensor bar does NOT come with each controller purchased. It simply comes with the system when bought. The Sensor bar isn't part of the controller whatsoever; it helps the system detect the controller but it in no way is part of the controller. Also the bar is a mandatory part of the system. Some games may not require it but it is a necessary part of the system. Nintendo have stated this before, and every game showcased has required the sensor bar with the console. --[[User:ItIsMe]] 05:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&diff=61297813&oldid=61281728 This] was a lot more than just adding back the Sensor Bar part. And I didn't say it came with each controller purchased. Just because you don't need a new base station for each new handset of an expandable cordless phone system does not mean that the base station isn't part of the phone system. And controllers can change. If Nintendo decided to dispense with the Wii Remote and motion-sensing altogether (Let's say the motion-sensing flops. Hypothetically, of course.), the console could work just fine with whatever they decide to use in its place. Without a sensor bar. Sure, it may break compatibility with games that were designed for the Remote, but compatibility breaks for all sorts of reasons. The console could move on just fine. Also, the gameplay of Excite Truck is controlled without the use of the sensor bar. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::There is multiple polls debating this matter too. Here is a link to one of them <nowiki>http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24757612&msg_id=273114773</nowiki>
::::the general consensus is that its part of the system.
::::What you say is correct. Yes, if motion-sensing flops, they could do away with the sensor bar. But that in NO way means that the sensor bar isn't part of the system. Say if nintendo decided to release a 'new' traditional style controller, with motion-sensing capabilities; would the sensor bar still be classified as part of the 'older controller'? The answer is no. It would still be used. Would you then classify it as part of the 'new' controller? How could you change it from being part of one controller to part of another? It is part of the system and can be used for potential new controllers and the current one. It could also be used with other technologies for the system, not just controllers. --[[User:ItIsMe|ItIsMe]] 05:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps I have misspoken. Whether it is "part of" one component or another is misleading; the function it is relevant to is still the controller, and at the moment that means the Wii Remote. It's completely possible that the Nunchuk could be used with something other than the Wii Remote, and for some other purpose, but it is described with the Wii Remote because that's the connection we are aware of. If we really want to treat the sensor bar as part of the system, we'd have to describe it according to what it is independent of the Remote, which is basically a bar with a horizontal array of infrared LEDs at each end. How the sensor bar is used is up to the device that uses it, and more appropriately described in the section or article about that device. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::With systems like the gamecube the controller ports are part of the system. The sensor bar is exactely the same as the controller ports; it allows an imput mechanism to connect with the console. So, as such, we should treat the sensor bar like a controller port as they do the exact same thing; making it part of the console which is why it should be on the console's page.--[[User:ItIsMe|ItIsMe]] 11:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::By your recent edit, I think you misunderstand what the sensor bar does. The sensor bar detects nothing. It is simply a strip of infrared LEDs. The Wii Remote uses those LEDs as reference points for tracking, so that where on screen the Remote is pointing can be determined. The actual communication is with the console directly (discussed [[Talk:Wii Remote#contradiction?|here]]). And following the controller port analogy, we don't talk much about controller features when we describe system controller ports. As "part of the system", the sensor bar is a strip of LEDs for use with a controller. Any more description of control belongs in the controller section. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. The sensor bar is part of the system, the controller is part of the system. Please take a look at [[Wii Remote]] which is clealy linked to from the section about the controller. Please note that the controller bar has no function without the Wii controller (and is a peripheral) - thats why it's suggested that it be dealt with under the controller section.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I removed it ''once''. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== "Not the successor to the GameCube" ==
[[User:Mindwraith|Mindwraith]] cited a <nowiki>http://www.gamespot.com/features/6100639/index.html?type=tech</nowiki> (Gamespot) link that said that Nintendo officials were avoiding referring to Wii as the successor to the GameCube.  Technically, as Wii replaces the GameCube on the shelves, then it ''would'' be the successor, wouldn't it?--[[User:Orannis|<b><i><span style="background:black; color:silver;">The Ninth Bright Shiner</span></i></b>]] [[User talk:Orannis|<sup>talk</sup>]]
:Maybe so, but your opinion would be original research.  Wikipedia requires verifiability for facts.  See [[WP:V]]  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]][[User:Morton_devonshire|<b style="font-size:small; color:blue;">Morton Devonshire</b>]][[User talk:Morton_devonshire|<i><sup style="color:red;">Yo</sup></i>]]
:I removed it. Whether or not Nintendo considers it a successor or not is irrelevant, just as it was for the Nintendo DS with the Game Boy line. Best to leave out the issue of "succession" altogether. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Unless they're planning on the continued marketing of the GameCube alongside the Wii (like the DS and GBA), which I doubt, it is still the successor.  If Nintendo is actually saying this, then that's very misguided, but worthy of mention. If not, then it has no place in the article. <sarcasm>If this is true, then perhaps we should have a "Bold statement" section, including: "We're not in competition with the 360 or PS3", "Wii is ''new'' generation, not ''next'' generation", "Wii will not simply succeed the GameCube, it's a whole new thing, like the '''DS™'''", "'The's' are irrelevant, you will be assimilated", and "Wii will change everything".  Not to mention, "This is future-proofed tech--..." wait that's Sony.</sarcasm> [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::I just noticed the date of that article; it was 2 years ago. They were probably watching their words in case they did plan on on a seperate DS-like release rather than a replacement.  The info is non-notable for now.  If Wii isn't replacing the GameCube, than why is it backward-compatible? The simple answer is, it is the successor. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 19:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

==removal - sd card slot and button==
Ok I removed this:

On the front of the machine resides a second flap that, when opened, reveals one SD card slot in the middle and a "SYNC" button.<nowiki>http://gonintendo.com/?p=3302</nowiki>{{Verify source|date=April 2008}} Nintendo has not officialy revealed the exact uses and functions of the button, but it is widely believed that it "syncs" the Wii Remote to the system which means to "register" it to the system.{{Talkfact}} So if you were to sync your Wii Remote to your system, you'd have to sync it again if you want to paly it on another Wii system.{{Talkfact}} This function is to prevent bluetooth confusion if multiple Wii units were in the same room.{{Talkfact}}

I accept that the sd card slot is under the flap, as for the rest we probably need some sort of verification. 

It also probably needs rewriting.

Finally - what was it doing in the controller section??[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 04:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, that text ending up in the controller section was me. I was trying to sort out all the recent changes made in the article, and must've misplaced that paragraph in the process. I guess I just saw the words "Wii Remote" and automatically put it in the controller section. I didn't like it anyway, and am glad you removed it. Speculation and anonymous rumors don't belong in the article. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Well half of it is sort of related - but that's the bit about the sync button - which seems to be unsourced at the momeny. However the sd card slot is definately under the slot - will find the reference for that if it is needed.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As if by magic - <nowiki>http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/wii/pinup-of-the-wii-flap-spreadeagled-184281.php</nowiki> and <nowiki>http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=revolution&message.id=1379599</nowiki> - so this is true - now can someone explain what exactly the sync button does (no guesses please)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:The SYNC buttons would allow the Wii to detect any compatible wireless devices in the immediate vicinity; controllers, Nintendo DSs' and other Wii systems. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:ItIsMe|ItIsMe]] ([[User talk:ItIsMe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ItIsMe|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

Here's the picture, '''keep in mind it could very well be false'''. <nowiki>http://www.justpause.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/wiiflap.jpg</nowiki>. It was actually retrieved from a series of following links from the Kotaku page, getting to revogamer.net which when translated by Google had an article that linked to the picture. [[User:Scepia|Scepia]] 06:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ItIsMe, we don't know yet what the "Synch" button does, so you are just guessing. [[User:TJ Spyke|TJ Spyke]] 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== Excessive citation ==
There should not be citation for the release in Q4 2006, or that the Wii was a smash success, or that the controller was revealed at TGS 2005. The $60 per next-gen game citation is not needed. Both are common knowledge and don't need any citations (and possible linkspam) as they are common knowledge. I will remove the citations said and others that aren't needed again. They make the page rather ugly and choppy and are commonly known - E3 stuff should be cited if it is public like this info. [[User:Scepia|Scepia]] 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== NintendoWiiReviews.com ==
I think that <nowiki>http://www.NintendoWiiReviews.com</nowiki> should be added to the "Non-official Coverage" Links section. The site is run by a former games producer, and contains all the latest Nintendo Wii news, screenshots and videos. The site has already secured a lot of exclusive content leading up to the Nintendo Wii's release, including developer interviews, media and competitions. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Mocfilms|Mocfilms]] ([[User talk:Mocfilms|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mocfilms|contribs]]) 11:58, 30 June 2006  (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

:The news section is lacking, it plagiarizes information from the official Nintendo pages, and there's very little original content. '''Strong Oppose''' [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:I also '''Oppose''', it doesn't bring anything new to the table. [[User:Dannybu2001|Danny]] 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

: The website doesn't plagerise anything. All of the information to date was provided by Nintendo / other game developers PR, not simply copied from their websites. The point of this is that it ensures (from a visitors perspective) that the information is always 100% reliable, as it comes straight from the horses mouths. A lot of sites are full of uninformed guesses and predictions.  Of course the site will also have original content, articles, interviews, and exclusive features, which have already been secured for the months to come. What you are missing is that the main point of the website will be to focus on reviews, and will contain reviews of EVERY Wii game on release (hence the name of the site). Due to the focus of the site, we often get exclusive first looks at games to review. Therefore I think it is a valid and unique website to add, that will offer a unique reviewing perspective from a credited games producer. Therefore I am '''For''' adding the site. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:82.19.124.148|82.19.124.148]] ([[User talk:82.19.124.148|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.19.124.148|contribs]]) 17:39, 30 June 2006  (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

::Your use of the future tense is telling. What matters for a listing now in the external links section is the site in its current state. As it stands, I do not find enough good, unique content yet to justify a listing. In addition, it has not yet proven to be a reliable-enough source. Information may have come directly from companies' PR departments, but there is no practical way to verify that. The reputability of a site is built over time with good content. The site just does not have enough of either yet. Maybe in the future, though. '''Oppose'''. [[User:Dancter|Dancter]] 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Maybe you don't know the definition of plagiarism: "the act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation."  Many passages are taken directly from Nintendo's own site, without reference.  That's plagiarism.
::You also seem to be unaware that [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox|WP is not a place to advertise your own site]]. Your opinion is noted, but any vote you make will not be considered valid. [[User:Ladlergo|Ladlergo]] 19:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

== add online features to intro ==
It seems strange that the intro mentions the "wii connect 24" yet fails to mention Nintendo's "Wi-Fi" connection, nor does the intro talk about how this is Nintendo's first legitmate go at an online service that attempts to "rival" Xbox live. 

It also fails to mention the Virtual Console which I think is a rather important feature of the console.--[[User:Joeblack982|Joeblack982]] 11:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:The intro seems good as it is (opinion)[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 13:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== Wii RELEASE DATE ==
Ok. If you say that that website is un reliable. how about you try the other 30 websites and 2 magazines that say the exact same thing?

Si-Kids August 2006 issue page 56.

Cubes3 magazine (don't know what issue, see <nowiki>http://www.cubed3.com/news/5313</nowiki>)

<nowiki>http://news.gaminghorizon.com/media2/1149105960.4266.html</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/nintendo_wii_hitting_the_stores_on_november_6.php</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=140881</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.techtickerblog.com/2006/06/01/nintendo-wii-launching-on-november-6/</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gamingbits.com/content/view/712/2/</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://digg.com/gaming/Nintendo_Wii_to_Launch_on_November_6th_in_USA</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.dsrevolution.com/article.php?articleid=1207</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/05/31/nintendo_wii_launch/</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.venturus.com/index.php/playfeed/article/wii-launch-on-november-060210361/</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.nwiizone.com/nintendo-wii/nwii/nintendo-wii-release-date-6-november/</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-95844.html</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://digg.com/gaming/Target_lists_several_Wii_games_for_release_Nov._3</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gamingbits.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=712</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/6/13/4312</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.igniq.com/2006/06/wii-flies-in-early-november-maybe.html</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.techtickerblog.com/2006/06/01/nintendo-wii-launching-on-november-6/feed/</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gadgetell.com/tag/november-6</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gadgetreview.com/2006/05/nintendo-wii-release-date.html</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.dlmag.com/1752/nintendo-wii-release-date-anounced.html</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95844</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://gonintendo.com/?p=2852</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gamespot.com/wii/adventure/happyfeet/news.html?sid=6148863</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2006/6/15-24</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.rss-spider.com/search/26/Nintendo+Wii</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.gadgetell.com/tag/wii</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.computerandvideogames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3156</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101341</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://getwiid.com/?p=32</nowiki>

<nowiki>http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2006/05/nintendo_wii_release_date_rumor.html</nowiki>

(I have about 20 more, but wikipedia wouldn't let me post anymore) --[[User:Yoshi032192|Jak]] 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:There's no need to go to these lengths - just the source would do - are there any other sources apart from cubed3.com and Si-Kids[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 17:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:Also the Cubed3.com page states that the date 'isn't gospel' so that just leaves Si-Kids as the only source giving a non speculative date?[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
::Well that date belongs up there. Si-Kids definitly wouldn't make this up. It is possible that Nintendo wasn't going to make the announcement until August, so it was in the August issue of Si-Kids. Just buy it yourself and look on page 56. It's just 4 bucks. Anyways, it's weird cuz i get like, all of my magazines a month early (Nintendo Power, Nick, Disney, electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Insider, ect.)
:::The Si-kids date may be ok, but the cubed3.com is not - quote from <nowiki>http://www.cubed3.com/news/5313</nowiki> "Our source emphasised that this date is correct at present, but pointed out: "Nintendo aren't going to have an exact date in mind until they are sure they can meet the deadlines". Take it as a guide then if you will, but "they are very keen to be ready in time". Obviously this shouldn't be taken as gospel and we're not about to shout from rooftops that we have the final Wii launch date" etc
:::It's speculation on this site at least no matter whether the date is right or not.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 17:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:Wait a second. You tried to update the "|lifespan = x" parameter using these sources, but shouldn't the lifespan parameter be based on the actual release of the Wii? It's like saying the birthday of an unborn child is whenever the doctor thinks birth will occur. This might belong somewhere else in the article. <span style="plainlinks">[[User:Kilgamesh|<span style="color:Blue;">'''Kil'''</span>]]<span style="font-size:x-small;"><sup> [[User_talk:Kilgamesh|''<span style="color:green;">(</span><span style="color:blue;">talk</span><span style="color:green;">)</span>'']]</sup></span></span> 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::dude, I have no idea what point your trying to get accross. I will admit some of those sites may not be the best website ever to source as, but Si-Kids for sure, is something to source.

:::My point is, the Wii hasn't been released, so how can you justify saying it's lifespan begins on November 6th? <span style="plainlinks">[[User:Kilgamesh|<span style="color:Blue;">'''Kil'''</span>]]<span style="font-size:x-small;"><sup> [[User_talk:Kilgamesh|''<span style="color:green;">(</span><span style="color:blue;">talk</span><span style="color:green;">)</span>'']]</sup></span></span> 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Si-Kids is a pretty reliable magazine. It's not like they go around and say David Ortiz is hitting .400 or something. It's cold hard facts.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yoshi032192|Yoshi032192]] ([[User talk:Yoshi032192|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yoshi032192|contribs]]) 17:39, July 1, 2006</span><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->

::::Si-Kids is a pretty reliable magazine. It's not like they go around and say David Ortiz is hitting .400 or something. It's cold hard facts.
:ok ok the info. is in the article in the release date section, where it should be - if this turns out to be spot on then remember where you heared it first.[[User:HappyVR|HappyVR]] 17:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::ME!!! --[[User:Yoshi032192|Jak]] 17:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)