This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS" North America – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Per WP:NOPRICES, pricing information for Virtual Console or 3D Classics software is not encyclopedic and therefore should not be added to this article. Even if there is only one purveyor of such material (that being Nintendo itself), it's still not appropriate. -- McDoob AU 93 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So, delete the prices column on the list of dsiware games, too? :P
Sontuk96 (
talk)
07:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this in some lists but not in others. I'm certainly not married to it, since the main article for the game has this information. About the only exception I would make (thus far) is for the 3D Classics, because it looks like the conversions may be done by other companies not related to the previous release; for example, 3D Excitebike was developed by Arika, which is not connected to the original NES title. -- McDoob AU 93 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I was as surprised as anyone seeing Nintendo slash the price of the 3DS and announce a bunch of free games as make-goods for those who already have the system. To that end, how should we distinguish the GBA games that are supposedly only for those who are "ambassadors" (fancy marketing-speak for those who log into eShop by a certain date)? -- McDoob AU 93 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Technically, the games were pushed to the eShop on August 31st, even though the announced release date was September 1st. Should we correct this? - Crimsonseiko ( talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As this has been attempted by at least two anons, I figure it's time to add a section for this, as I have a feeling that we'll see it attempted again and again for a while, even after release. OK, at E3 Nintendo announced that it would be making Legend of Zelda: Four Swords available as a free download in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Legend of Zelda franchise. Some editors, in good faith, have added this game to the list of Virtual Console releases for the Nintendo 3DS. It sort of makes sense, since the game was originally on the Game Boy Advance and the 3DS' Virtual Console will have GBA support soon (at least for Ambassadors), but there's technically a problem with that ...
At the time of the announcement, and in recent press announcements, Nintendo has said that this is a "DSiWare version" of the game and not necessarily a Virtual Console port of the original GBA version. Since it's DSiWare and not Virtual Console, it wouldn't belong here. Further, it would be misleading to show it here since the game will be available to any DSiWare-compatible system, including the Nintendo DSi and Nintendo DSi XL, neither of which have access to the 3DS' Virtual Console service. -- McDoob AU 93 00:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay maybe the price of each type of game should be ignored but we need to keep track of how many games each console/handheld has added to the VC service since the Wii lists them for each of its own VC collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Good News:
They announced 5 new titles for the Game Boy Advance Ambassador Program, and we are going to have:
Source:
DigiPen92 ( talk) 06:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It makes it look more intelligent to the person seeing how many Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Gear, NES, and 3D Classics are available to download. Both PAL and Japan has the # of each platform available so why not North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 05:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Good god is anyone smart enough to realise that PAL and Japan's VC keep track of games but not NA? What the hell?
Okay look at this:
Nintendo Entertainment System
There are currently 91 titles available from the Nintendo Entertainment System, which was launched in 1985.
from the List of Wii VC Games (North America) Wikipedia page.
How hard is it to do that for the 3DS VC? 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 05:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There I put the "tildes" in but please tell me why PAL and Japan have their's numbered. Japan I understand but PAL has 33 GB games, 4 GBC games, 4 GG games, 4 NES games, etc. Why does PAL have numbered entries but not NA? 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 05:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Well that's dumb that NA can't do the same? Wow, are people really this lazy anymore? 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 06:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
All s/he has done so far is send me useless automatic messages. 68.189.128.167 ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A comment was deleted from here by McDoob. It countered McDoob's statement "someone has not read WP:BRD" by similarly suggesting "perhaps it is you who didn't read it." Why should McDoob's statement stay while the other is removed?
The comment also clarified the suggestion above about McDoob being dictatorial about the page by pointing out what is the reality of how the page is being editing and as such illustrating that there is no consensus in any sense of the word: "you are dictating the page in that you (and solely you!) are deciding whether something "sticks". As such, there was never was a prior 'consensus.'" What is wrong with providing a clarification about something that was challenged?
The comment further challenged McDoob's use of unsubstantiated language and false statements and also pointed out how doing so is related to the assertion of McDoob being dictatorial by saying, "I would argue that you are mistaken with your statements that use the words 'should', 'inaccurate', 'plain wrong', 'inaccuracies', 'proven', and 'inferior'." Those are all statements someone trying to dictate a page would use." Why should McDoob be able to make questionable statements, while another editor's challenge to those statements is removed?
The comment then laments on first having a hope to reach consensus with McDoob and then being discouraged by McDoob seeming to have no interest in doing so by stating, "I asked to try to reach a consensus with you and I assumed good faith on your part, but you have now demonstrated that that was a foolish assumption for me to make." Given how important reaching consensus is for the mission of Wikipedia, is it not helpful to indicate when a editor is apparently departing from that mission, to hopefully encourage that editor to return?
The comment finally mentioned that the editor would need to leave because the editor's romantic partner was wanting attention and then restated the insulting name that the romantic partner had called McDoob. The comment only quoted the insulting name and did not assert that name itself. How can that be considered a personal attack?
To conclude then, the comment pointed out how McDoob acting in the way that had been criticized earlier would result in the dictatorial process that had been argued for earlier by saying McDoob being that way "has again resulted in you being able to dictate how the page will be." Why would it not be helpful to provide a vivid example of the dictatorship claim that had been challenged before?
74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No important message found, and much more was in that message than just that tiny portion that you seem to consider a "personal attack." 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I quote, "Secondly, consensus is reached a second way: through editing. If the edits remain in a given form over a period of time, then that means that other editors accept that, and thus consensus is reached." That is not true and that is not what has happened. The edits remain because you keep removing the changes that others make. That is hardly consensus by any stretch of the word. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, there was no second editor and no proof was given. When you give proof, you shouldn't just just say, "this is the way it is" but actually demonstrate why. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe there is any "us" just you. Clearly most of the comments on this page are ones that disapprove of your edits. But when you are ready to openly discuss improving the page rather than being so hostile to anything that challenges your control of the page, please let us know. Ultimately those table would be much easier to read quickly if they were not filled with the exactly same Ambassador release date in every line, making it hard to quickly identify the non-Ambassador release dates. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No, if you read their comments, they last post they made was still disagreeing with you. You have no evidence that they ended up agreeing, and almost certainly they did not. What of course most likely happened is they got tired of the terrible way you treated them and they left. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I fully support McDoob on this one. There's no reason for the IP's changes; they just create redundancies. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is poor Wikipedia practice to use multiple usernames to appear to be different people. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You're free to believe what you wish, in spite of excessive evidence to the contrary. You'll see that games are listed in release order, making it easy to find when a game was released, as the games released last are at the bottom of the table. If we get to the point where all the NES titles are available to the general public, then it would be something to look at. But that time isn't now. Also, removing the dates entirely from the GBA section, again, is completely incorrect, because those were the dates on which they were released, and any suggestion of an upcoming release (suggested by words like "TBA", "TBD" or "Unknown") would be ... again ... factually incorrect. And again, another editor has chimed in to say they disagree with the changes you made. Any further accusations of sockpuppetry without proof will be treated as a personal attack against both editors and handled appropriately. -- McDoob AU 93 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why the time is not now. It would definitely be helpful to people trying to quickly read the page now as it would be at any other time. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course someone can figure it out with more time, but with the previous edits it still was quicker to read. (Plus it made the tables and the page more compact.) If you can improve the experience for Wikipedia readers, why not do so now?
Continuing to wrongfully accuse me of accusing sockpuppetry, I think is bordering on a personal attack. Again, I'll ask you (or anyone else) to show me the name of any editor in my statement who is accused of sockpuppetry. Please be more careful. 74.85.71.56 ( talk) 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If the IP was inferring I was a sockpuppet of McDoob, I'd like to point out that it's extremely rare for there to be sockpuppets where there's a history of both of the accounts possessing tens of thousands of edits spanning multiple years. Also, a check at SPI would dispell that miniscule chance as well.
Beyond that, please, enough with the bickering, IP. Based off of it, it's rather clear you don't have the best grasp on Wikipedia policy, so you'd be better off stopping with the games, and getting back to why you think your way is better, something you've failed to convince anyone of yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the public launch of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link has yet to occur, why is it shown as being released in the NES subheading? The only date that should appear there is the September 2011 launch for 3DS Ambassadors. While the scheduled release on November 22 for the general public is 99.9% likely to take place, that likelihood isn't 100%, as any number of things can happen. Not the least of which is Nintendo deciding to take advantage of a sudden surge of interest for another title and putting it in that place instead. Also, please remember that a number of Game Gear titles were slated to be made available as part of the 8-Bit Summer promotion (they appeared in the ads for said promo, but with no release date), and they've yet to show up. So release dates do change, even if they're mentioned heavily in a Nintendo press release. -- McDoob AU 93 17:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be totals for Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Gear, NES, and 3D Classics like Europe and Japan have. ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Update: I just added them so please don't remove them, thanks! ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Look there's 79 games and the total count is going to get out of control. ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Please keep the numbers on there, EU and JP has them so NA should have them too, thank you! ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC))
Please just let me number the amount of games okay! JP and EU have them so why not NA? Right now, there are 81 games; 39 Game Boy, 7 Game Boy Color, 10 Game Boy Advance, 16 NES, 3 Game Gear, and 6 3D Classics. ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC))
You guys are being difficult, there needs to be a # track just like the North American selection of the Wii VC has. I'm going to put them and PLEASE don't remove them again. Like I said, EU/AU and JP has the and NA should too, good day! ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC))
It's so annoying that you guys flat out refuse to keep count of VC games but EU and JP does! That sure makes a lot of sense! SARCASM much? ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 07:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
Oh for crying out load! EU and JP has count of their # of VC games and NA needs to as well and if you guys can't let me do that, then you guys are being stupid. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 07:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
Ahem, let's see; Eruope and Japan keeps track of VC releases by the numbers and I think NA should and don't give me that " consensus" nonsense, NA needs to keep track I mean look at the NA Wii VC one:
List of Virtual Console games (North America)
( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
I'm sorry but this is too complicated. Just makes things easy and let me keep total. The North American Wii VC keeps track of the # of games on 3DS should too. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
Okay someone told me on the PAL 3DS VC that NA is the only one that has both the "Developer" and "Publisher" columns and both EU and JP have only the "Publisher". Case closed ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 07:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
Well the Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Gear, and NES don't have a huge list but the Game Boy games are currently at 39 games. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 04:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC))
What's this so called "Note 2"?
It's supposed to be a reference/source for proof that Sonic Blast, Sonic Labyrinth, Super Mario Advance 2, and Super Mario Advance 4 are arriving on the VC in the future, yet simply says "Note 2", in just plain text.-- The Ultimate Koopa ( talk) 00:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the only GBA games that are rumored are; Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, Mario Pinball Land, and Mario Golf: Advance Tour as N4G reported earlier this year. However there are still no release dates for the 10 ambassador games yet. It also says that Sonic Blast will be releasing on December 20 alongside Wario Land II which was confirmed by Nintendo back in August I think. I doubt that the Mario Advance games will come because Japan just got the NES/Famicom version of Super Mario Bros. 2 (Super Mario USA) and they'll probably be getting Super Mario Bros. 3 soon as well. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC))
Done Another footnote was removed, leaving behind what was previously Note 2 as Note 1. The references in the table have been corrected to say Note 1, since this was the source used to add these games to the list. -- McDoob AU 93 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows what a Game Boy is. This is 2012, not 1989 and besides the PAL and Japan regions don't have them. ( 50.121.45.225 ( talk) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
Minority who doesn't know what the Game Boy is? This is 2012, EVERYBODY knows what the Game Boy is! It looks odd that it says "Nintendo Game Boy/Color/Advance" and it sounds so stupid and not that professional at all. ( 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
There I fixed it, it now says "Nintendo" in the descriptions of the Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance entries like this:
Game Boy
These games were originally released for use on the Nintendo Game Boy system, which was launched in 1989.
( 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
2 reasons; 1, the company that made should be in description and not the title header, it doesn't really make difference but as long as one of them says it and 2) EU and JP doesn't have them and I understand Wikipedia is not American centric but still. I also have Autism and some things do bother me when they look odd or crooked. I just hope you guys understand and at least let me keep it as "Game Boy" and mention Nintendo in the description of the handheld, it looks better than way. I thought anyone can edit Wikipedia and I don't like people saying it MUST be like this. It looks too weird saying "Nintendo Game Boy" instead of "Game Boy" I do understand about it saying "Sega Game Gear" instead of "Game Gear" though. ( 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
Please just do it like that okay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now here's my reason for this. I would think that it's already labeled as a Nintendo handheld in its wiki page itself, why is it needed?? I get Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, but NOT the Game Boy line on the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U Virtual Console pages. Could we issue a new consensus on why it should be the way it should be written in the actual wiki page itself? I totally agree with all the anonymous IPs changing it, but with all the registered users changing it back has to stop. I know this was 3 years ago, but seriously, come on! Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, so there has been some arguing over certain aspects of this article, and it's PAL equivalent, so I wanted to start up another discussion so we can point to it and say "Here's where the consenses, here's why we do it this way". Feel free to start up further subsections as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some editors like keeping a running tally on the number of games there are. Other's don't. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some editors approve of this. Others don't. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Policies like WP:OTHERSTUFF say that they don't necessarly have to go by the same agreements, but if we do, it may solve future headaches before they come up. Thoughts? If we do make them consistent, what should be added or removed? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, while we didn't have the biggest amount of participation, it's been running for almost 2 weeks now, and it does seem like we've got a general consensus on things:
Three oppose, and only one supports, so at best, there's consensus against inclusion, at worst, there's WP:NOCONSENSUS, which defaults to "not making the change", so either way, there's no support for this change.
Three support keeping this in, one is neutral, and the only oppose was from an IP who has a history of being disruptive, and is extremely close to being banned, so to me it seems there is consensus to keep it this way.
No one opposes, but no one's especially acting on this either. Looks like this will probably just be an ongoing effort.
This is good, now we've got a standing consensus to refer/link to in the future. Thanks for participating! Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a sentence explaining the significance of the Ambassador GBA titles, but this was removed by McDoob, his reasoning being: "That information is already covered and will be unimportant when first public GBA release occurs. "
I highly disagree with McDoob's assessment that the information doesn't need to be covered. It is not "already covered" in this article, and it is a bit much expecting the average user to see the footnote, click on the footnote link, and read about the Ambassador program. If they don't do that, they have no indication whatsoever that these were exclusive titles.
Furthermore, there is currently no evidence Nintendo has any plans to ever release additional GBA titles for 3DS VC; if that situation ever arises, we can easily add another sentence of explanation. Even if Nintendo eventually releases a different GBA game on the VC, that won't make the information about the ambassador games "unimportant". Some guy ( talk) 00:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article lists the ten Game Boy Advance (GBA) titles that were released under the Nintendo 3DS Ambassadors program; these titles were made exclusively available for Ambassadors and Nintendo has indicated they have no plans to sell them at a later date. No other GBA titles have been announced or released for the 3DS VC.
Should a sentence be added to the top of the section explaining that the current GBA titles were exclusive to Ambassadors? Some guy ( talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
{{Request close}}
107.4.155.52 reached the exact same conclusion I did, and you ignored his main point, which suggests to me that you know he is right - only a handful of people watch this page closely and are exhibiting WP:OWN symptoms. Browse this talk page and all you see are the same four people parroting each other and resisting every single kind of change to the article. Some guy ( talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Donkey Kong Land and Super Mario Bros. Deluxe are confirmed as they have been ESRB rated. ( 216.252.30.100 ( talk) 04:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC))
I was told to discuss an edit to this page here, because it contained "extraneous information". There were several aspects to the edit, not merely adding information that could be considered "extraneous", so I'll break down what was changed.
I would request that it be explained which parts of the edit add information which is extraneous, and that in future only parts of an edit that are undesirable are undone rather than it in entirety. I feel that all information added was relevant to this page and useful in general. -- Snorlax Monster 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I'd like to propose some rewrites to the article that will add more content and (hopefully) eliminate the need to footnote information. This is my initial proposal for the NES subhead:
For the Game Boy Advance section, which has had a contentious past:
In the NES section, the only remaining footnote should be to flag the Ambassador titles, so readers will know they launched first. For that matter, if we identify how it's tagged in the prose, the footnote wouldn't be needed. In the GBA section, there would be no need for a footnote at all until and unless Nintendo releases other GBA titles to the 3DS Virtual Console.
-- McDoob AU93 15:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's their names but they don't show up like that on the eShop nor the 3DS Home Menu. ( 216.252.30.100 ( talk) 06:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
They were recently removed from the NA, EU, and JP pages since someone said they were not part of the Virtual Console. They still need to be added back these pages but they should be noted that they are not part of the Virtual Console but still fit the whole "Retro re-releases". ( 216.252.30.100 ( talk) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC))
Hello. I have something that is not on the list, and that is the list of Future Releases of games coming. This is quite bugging that the games aren't listed. I was wondering you'll put games on that tab. Thanks!
Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS" North America – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Per WP:NOPRICES, pricing information for Virtual Console or 3D Classics software is not encyclopedic and therefore should not be added to this article. Even if there is only one purveyor of such material (that being Nintendo itself), it's still not appropriate. -- McDoob AU 93 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
So, delete the prices column on the list of dsiware games, too? :P
Sontuk96 (
talk)
07:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this in some lists but not in others. I'm certainly not married to it, since the main article for the game has this information. About the only exception I would make (thus far) is for the 3D Classics, because it looks like the conversions may be done by other companies not related to the previous release; for example, 3D Excitebike was developed by Arika, which is not connected to the original NES title. -- McDoob AU 93 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I was as surprised as anyone seeing Nintendo slash the price of the 3DS and announce a bunch of free games as make-goods for those who already have the system. To that end, how should we distinguish the GBA games that are supposedly only for those who are "ambassadors" (fancy marketing-speak for those who log into eShop by a certain date)? -- McDoob AU 93 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Technically, the games were pushed to the eShop on August 31st, even though the announced release date was September 1st. Should we correct this? - Crimsonseiko ( talk) 22:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
As this has been attempted by at least two anons, I figure it's time to add a section for this, as I have a feeling that we'll see it attempted again and again for a while, even after release. OK, at E3 Nintendo announced that it would be making Legend of Zelda: Four Swords available as a free download in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Legend of Zelda franchise. Some editors, in good faith, have added this game to the list of Virtual Console releases for the Nintendo 3DS. It sort of makes sense, since the game was originally on the Game Boy Advance and the 3DS' Virtual Console will have GBA support soon (at least for Ambassadors), but there's technically a problem with that ...
At the time of the announcement, and in recent press announcements, Nintendo has said that this is a "DSiWare version" of the game and not necessarily a Virtual Console port of the original GBA version. Since it's DSiWare and not Virtual Console, it wouldn't belong here. Further, it would be misleading to show it here since the game will be available to any DSiWare-compatible system, including the Nintendo DSi and Nintendo DSi XL, neither of which have access to the 3DS' Virtual Console service. -- McDoob AU 93 00:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay maybe the price of each type of game should be ignored but we need to keep track of how many games each console/handheld has added to the VC service since the Wii lists them for each of its own VC collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Good News:
They announced 5 new titles for the Game Boy Advance Ambassador Program, and we are going to have:
Source:
DigiPen92 ( talk) 06:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It makes it look more intelligent to the person seeing how many Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Gear, NES, and 3D Classics are available to download. Both PAL and Japan has the # of each platform available so why not North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 05:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Good god is anyone smart enough to realise that PAL and Japan's VC keep track of games but not NA? What the hell?
Okay look at this:
Nintendo Entertainment System
There are currently 91 titles available from the Nintendo Entertainment System, which was launched in 1985.
from the List of Wii VC Games (North America) Wikipedia page.
How hard is it to do that for the 3DS VC? 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 05:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
There I put the "tildes" in but please tell me why PAL and Japan have their's numbered. Japan I understand but PAL has 33 GB games, 4 GBC games, 4 GG games, 4 NES games, etc. Why does PAL have numbered entries but not NA? 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 05:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Well that's dumb that NA can't do the same? Wow, are people really this lazy anymore? 63.134.188.237 ( talk) 06:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
All s/he has done so far is send me useless automatic messages. 68.189.128.167 ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A comment was deleted from here by McDoob. It countered McDoob's statement "someone has not read WP:BRD" by similarly suggesting "perhaps it is you who didn't read it." Why should McDoob's statement stay while the other is removed?
The comment also clarified the suggestion above about McDoob being dictatorial about the page by pointing out what is the reality of how the page is being editing and as such illustrating that there is no consensus in any sense of the word: "you are dictating the page in that you (and solely you!) are deciding whether something "sticks". As such, there was never was a prior 'consensus.'" What is wrong with providing a clarification about something that was challenged?
The comment further challenged McDoob's use of unsubstantiated language and false statements and also pointed out how doing so is related to the assertion of McDoob being dictatorial by saying, "I would argue that you are mistaken with your statements that use the words 'should', 'inaccurate', 'plain wrong', 'inaccuracies', 'proven', and 'inferior'." Those are all statements someone trying to dictate a page would use." Why should McDoob be able to make questionable statements, while another editor's challenge to those statements is removed?
The comment then laments on first having a hope to reach consensus with McDoob and then being discouraged by McDoob seeming to have no interest in doing so by stating, "I asked to try to reach a consensus with you and I assumed good faith on your part, but you have now demonstrated that that was a foolish assumption for me to make." Given how important reaching consensus is for the mission of Wikipedia, is it not helpful to indicate when a editor is apparently departing from that mission, to hopefully encourage that editor to return?
The comment finally mentioned that the editor would need to leave because the editor's romantic partner was wanting attention and then restated the insulting name that the romantic partner had called McDoob. The comment only quoted the insulting name and did not assert that name itself. How can that be considered a personal attack?
To conclude then, the comment pointed out how McDoob acting in the way that had been criticized earlier would result in the dictatorial process that had been argued for earlier by saying McDoob being that way "has again resulted in you being able to dictate how the page will be." Why would it not be helpful to provide a vivid example of the dictatorship claim that had been challenged before?
74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No important message found, and much more was in that message than just that tiny portion that you seem to consider a "personal attack." 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I quote, "Secondly, consensus is reached a second way: through editing. If the edits remain in a given form over a period of time, then that means that other editors accept that, and thus consensus is reached." That is not true and that is not what has happened. The edits remain because you keep removing the changes that others make. That is hardly consensus by any stretch of the word. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, there was no second editor and no proof was given. When you give proof, you shouldn't just just say, "this is the way it is" but actually demonstrate why. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe there is any "us" just you. Clearly most of the comments on this page are ones that disapprove of your edits. But when you are ready to openly discuss improving the page rather than being so hostile to anything that challenges your control of the page, please let us know. Ultimately those table would be much easier to read quickly if they were not filled with the exactly same Ambassador release date in every line, making it hard to quickly identify the non-Ambassador release dates. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No, if you read their comments, they last post they made was still disagreeing with you. You have no evidence that they ended up agreeing, and almost certainly they did not. What of course most likely happened is they got tired of the terrible way you treated them and they left. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I fully support McDoob on this one. There's no reason for the IP's changes; they just create redundancies. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is poor Wikipedia practice to use multiple usernames to appear to be different people. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 05:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You're free to believe what you wish, in spite of excessive evidence to the contrary. You'll see that games are listed in release order, making it easy to find when a game was released, as the games released last are at the bottom of the table. If we get to the point where all the NES titles are available to the general public, then it would be something to look at. But that time isn't now. Also, removing the dates entirely from the GBA section, again, is completely incorrect, because those were the dates on which they were released, and any suggestion of an upcoming release (suggested by words like "TBA", "TBD" or "Unknown") would be ... again ... factually incorrect. And again, another editor has chimed in to say they disagree with the changes you made. Any further accusations of sockpuppetry without proof will be treated as a personal attack against both editors and handled appropriately. -- McDoob AU 93 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why the time is not now. It would definitely be helpful to people trying to quickly read the page now as it would be at any other time. 74.85.70.190 ( talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course someone can figure it out with more time, but with the previous edits it still was quicker to read. (Plus it made the tables and the page more compact.) If you can improve the experience for Wikipedia readers, why not do so now?
Continuing to wrongfully accuse me of accusing sockpuppetry, I think is bordering on a personal attack. Again, I'll ask you (or anyone else) to show me the name of any editor in my statement who is accused of sockpuppetry. Please be more careful. 74.85.71.56 ( talk) 22:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If the IP was inferring I was a sockpuppet of McDoob, I'd like to point out that it's extremely rare for there to be sockpuppets where there's a history of both of the accounts possessing tens of thousands of edits spanning multiple years. Also, a check at SPI would dispell that miniscule chance as well.
Beyond that, please, enough with the bickering, IP. Based off of it, it's rather clear you don't have the best grasp on Wikipedia policy, so you'd be better off stopping with the games, and getting back to why you think your way is better, something you've failed to convince anyone of yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the public launch of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link has yet to occur, why is it shown as being released in the NES subheading? The only date that should appear there is the September 2011 launch for 3DS Ambassadors. While the scheduled release on November 22 for the general public is 99.9% likely to take place, that likelihood isn't 100%, as any number of things can happen. Not the least of which is Nintendo deciding to take advantage of a sudden surge of interest for another title and putting it in that place instead. Also, please remember that a number of Game Gear titles were slated to be made available as part of the 8-Bit Summer promotion (they appeared in the ads for said promo, but with no release date), and they've yet to show up. So release dates do change, even if they're mentioned heavily in a Nintendo press release. -- McDoob AU 93 17:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be totals for Game Boy, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Gear, NES, and 3D Classics like Europe and Japan have. ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Update: I just added them so please don't remove them, thanks! ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Look there's 79 games and the total count is going to get out of control. ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC))
Please keep the numbers on there, EU and JP has them so NA should have them too, thank you! ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC))
Please just let me number the amount of games okay! JP and EU have them so why not NA? Right now, there are 81 games; 39 Game Boy, 7 Game Boy Color, 10 Game Boy Advance, 16 NES, 3 Game Gear, and 6 3D Classics. ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC))
You guys are being difficult, there needs to be a # track just like the North American selection of the Wii VC has. I'm going to put them and PLEASE don't remove them again. Like I said, EU/AU and JP has the and NA should too, good day! ( 50.121.115.151 ( talk) 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC))
It's so annoying that you guys flat out refuse to keep count of VC games but EU and JP does! That sure makes a lot of sense! SARCASM much? ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 07:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
Oh for crying out load! EU and JP has count of their # of VC games and NA needs to as well and if you guys can't let me do that, then you guys are being stupid. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 07:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
Ahem, let's see; Eruope and Japan keeps track of VC releases by the numbers and I think NA should and don't give me that " consensus" nonsense, NA needs to keep track I mean look at the NA Wii VC one:
List of Virtual Console games (North America)
( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC))
I'm sorry but this is too complicated. Just makes things easy and let me keep total. The North American Wii VC keeps track of the # of games on 3DS should too. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
Okay someone told me on the PAL 3DS VC that NA is the only one that has both the "Developer" and "Publisher" columns and both EU and JP have only the "Publisher". Case closed ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 07:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC))
Well the Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Gear, and NES don't have a huge list but the Game Boy games are currently at 39 games. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 04:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC))
What's this so called "Note 2"?
It's supposed to be a reference/source for proof that Sonic Blast, Sonic Labyrinth, Super Mario Advance 2, and Super Mario Advance 4 are arriving on the VC in the future, yet simply says "Note 2", in just plain text.-- The Ultimate Koopa ( talk) 00:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the only GBA games that are rumored are; Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, Mario Pinball Land, and Mario Golf: Advance Tour as N4G reported earlier this year. However there are still no release dates for the 10 ambassador games yet. It also says that Sonic Blast will be releasing on December 20 alongside Wario Land II which was confirmed by Nintendo back in August I think. I doubt that the Mario Advance games will come because Japan just got the NES/Famicom version of Super Mario Bros. 2 (Super Mario USA) and they'll probably be getting Super Mario Bros. 3 soon as well. ( 50.121.47.143 ( talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC))
Done Another footnote was removed, leaving behind what was previously Note 2 as Note 1. The references in the table have been corrected to say Note 1, since this was the source used to add these games to the list. -- McDoob AU 93 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows what a Game Boy is. This is 2012, not 1989 and besides the PAL and Japan regions don't have them. ( 50.121.45.225 ( talk) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
Minority who doesn't know what the Game Boy is? This is 2012, EVERYBODY knows what the Game Boy is! It looks odd that it says "Nintendo Game Boy/Color/Advance" and it sounds so stupid and not that professional at all. ( 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC))
There I fixed it, it now says "Nintendo" in the descriptions of the Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance entries like this:
Game Boy
These games were originally released for use on the Nintendo Game Boy system, which was launched in 1989.
( 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
2 reasons; 1, the company that made should be in description and not the title header, it doesn't really make difference but as long as one of them says it and 2) EU and JP doesn't have them and I understand Wikipedia is not American centric but still. I also have Autism and some things do bother me when they look odd or crooked. I just hope you guys understand and at least let me keep it as "Game Boy" and mention Nintendo in the description of the handheld, it looks better than way. I thought anyone can edit Wikipedia and I don't like people saying it MUST be like this. It looks too weird saying "Nintendo Game Boy" instead of "Game Boy" I do understand about it saying "Sega Game Gear" instead of "Game Gear" though. ( 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 01:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC))
Please just do it like that okay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.94.174 ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now here's my reason for this. I would think that it's already labeled as a Nintendo handheld in its wiki page itself, why is it needed?? I get Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, but NOT the Game Boy line on the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U Virtual Console pages. Could we issue a new consensus on why it should be the way it should be written in the actual wiki page itself? I totally agree with all the anonymous IPs changing it, but with all the registered users changing it back has to stop. I know this was 3 years ago, but seriously, come on! Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, so there has been some arguing over certain aspects of this article, and it's PAL equivalent, so I wanted to start up another discussion so we can point to it and say "Here's where the consenses, here's why we do it this way". Feel free to start up further subsections as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some editors like keeping a running tally on the number of games there are. Other's don't. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Some editors approve of this. Others don't. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Policies like WP:OTHERSTUFF say that they don't necessarly have to go by the same agreements, but if we do, it may solve future headaches before they come up. Thoughts? If we do make them consistent, what should be added or removed? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, while we didn't have the biggest amount of participation, it's been running for almost 2 weeks now, and it does seem like we've got a general consensus on things:
Three oppose, and only one supports, so at best, there's consensus against inclusion, at worst, there's WP:NOCONSENSUS, which defaults to "not making the change", so either way, there's no support for this change.
Three support keeping this in, one is neutral, and the only oppose was from an IP who has a history of being disruptive, and is extremely close to being banned, so to me it seems there is consensus to keep it this way.
No one opposes, but no one's especially acting on this either. Looks like this will probably just be an ongoing effort.
This is good, now we've got a standing consensus to refer/link to in the future. Thanks for participating! Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a sentence explaining the significance of the Ambassador GBA titles, but this was removed by McDoob, his reasoning being: "That information is already covered and will be unimportant when first public GBA release occurs. "
I highly disagree with McDoob's assessment that the information doesn't need to be covered. It is not "already covered" in this article, and it is a bit much expecting the average user to see the footnote, click on the footnote link, and read about the Ambassador program. If they don't do that, they have no indication whatsoever that these were exclusive titles.
Furthermore, there is currently no evidence Nintendo has any plans to ever release additional GBA titles for 3DS VC; if that situation ever arises, we can easily add another sentence of explanation. Even if Nintendo eventually releases a different GBA game on the VC, that won't make the information about the ambassador games "unimportant". Some guy ( talk) 00:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article lists the ten Game Boy Advance (GBA) titles that were released under the Nintendo 3DS Ambassadors program; these titles were made exclusively available for Ambassadors and Nintendo has indicated they have no plans to sell them at a later date. No other GBA titles have been announced or released for the 3DS VC.
Should a sentence be added to the top of the section explaining that the current GBA titles were exclusive to Ambassadors? Some guy ( talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
{{Request close}}
107.4.155.52 reached the exact same conclusion I did, and you ignored his main point, which suggests to me that you know he is right - only a handful of people watch this page closely and are exhibiting WP:OWN symptoms. Browse this talk page and all you see are the same four people parroting each other and resisting every single kind of change to the article. Some guy ( talk) 18:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Donkey Kong Land and Super Mario Bros. Deluxe are confirmed as they have been ESRB rated. ( 216.252.30.100 ( talk) 04:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC))
I was told to discuss an edit to this page here, because it contained "extraneous information". There were several aspects to the edit, not merely adding information that could be considered "extraneous", so I'll break down what was changed.
I would request that it be explained which parts of the edit add information which is extraneous, and that in future only parts of an edit that are undesirable are undone rather than it in entirety. I feel that all information added was relevant to this page and useful in general. -- Snorlax Monster 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I'd like to propose some rewrites to the article that will add more content and (hopefully) eliminate the need to footnote information. This is my initial proposal for the NES subhead:
For the Game Boy Advance section, which has had a contentious past:
In the NES section, the only remaining footnote should be to flag the Ambassador titles, so readers will know they launched first. For that matter, if we identify how it's tagged in the prose, the footnote wouldn't be needed. In the GBA section, there would be no need for a footnote at all until and unless Nintendo releases other GBA titles to the 3DS Virtual Console.
-- McDoob AU93 15:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's their names but they don't show up like that on the eShop nor the 3DS Home Menu. ( 216.252.30.100 ( talk) 06:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
They were recently removed from the NA, EU, and JP pages since someone said they were not part of the Virtual Console. They still need to be added back these pages but they should be noted that they are not part of the Virtual Console but still fit the whole "Retro re-releases". ( 216.252.30.100 ( talk) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC))
Hello. I have something that is not on the list, and that is the list of Future Releases of games coming. This is quite bugging that the games aren't listed. I was wondering you'll put games on that tab. Thanks!
Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro