Talk:Wii Sports

Wii fitness age

I believe we are missing an important detail in the wii fitness section. Is it better to have a higher or lower age? We should include the answer to that question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.178.8 (talk)

Wouldn't that be obvious? The lower a persons fitness age, the better. TJ Spyke 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we include that the wii fitness age calculation is designed for adults and that children might get an inacurate scoring? Moccamonster (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for it, I don't see why not. Depending on the content of the source, it would either need to go to the "Gameplay" or "Reception" section. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

GA

Congratulations! I have decided to pass wii sports's GA nomination. Wii sports is a very well written article, with plenty of references (it would have too many if there was such a thing). It is also well illustrated. I have just one question. The picture with guest B bowling, what platform is that? :) RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the article was passed as a GA, one of the requirements of the GA criteria states that non-free images need fair use rationales. The image in the infobox and the screenshot both need detailed fair use rationales or the article may be delisted. Leave a message here once the FURs have been added. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How silly of me, thanks for catching that. Fair use rationales have been added.

RC- Per your question, I assume you're referring to the video game console the screen shot is for. It is from the Nintendo Wii. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

It's was supposed to be a joke. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whew, thank goodness. Sorry I didn't get it, that's a problem with reading text instead of hearing it. I didn't want to be rude by ignoring. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Sa'right. Usually when I put a :) after something, I'm usually joking. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:P would be better. --haha169 (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Easter eggs?

I've seen easter eggs on YouTube and I think that they should be included in this article? Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.240.88 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on how notable the easter egg is and if there is a reliable source that mentions it. Do you know of any other source besides YouTube? It isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia because the content is user created and there is little to no editorial oversight. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Easter eggs are not generally notable, and in this case they definitely aren't. Easter eggs are only notable in cases where they significantly change the game, cause controversy covered in news sources (like the GTA3 "Hot Coffee" incident), or otherwise do something that the world finds really interesting. I don't think changing the color of your bowling ball or causing the pins to explode count. In any event, the section is also poorly written and does not meet WP:MOS or VGProj guidelines. I deleted it outright, but an anonymous editor saw fit to revert the deletion, so I'm bringing my concerns here. The section is tagged for WP:GAMECRUFT for now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very notable. Ghost109 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? With respect to WP:N, can you point us to anything that says these Easter eggs are notable? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the pins fall in the shape of a heart, it shows Nintendo loves their gamers. Ghost109 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very nice of Nintendo to do that, but when we say notable, we mean has a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, TV show, etc.) felt it was worthy of being mentioned? That's the threshold of inclusion we have to follow when writing articles on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

Also, unless we had a source directly at Nintendo that said that was the reason they put that Easter egg into the game, it would be original research to arrive at that conclusion. It's like saying "The Miis are meant to represent people of all races and genders" or "the blue ball is meant to symbolize Nintendo's love of the color blue" or something like that. Without a source that can reliably back up such a claim, it's inappropriate to include. And without a notable reason for the Easter egg, the egg itself doesn't belong in the article.

Additionally, dozens, if not hundreds, of video games have hidden messages from their developers to the gaming audience, some in the form of Easter eggs, others more directly stated within the game's context itself. Most of those are not included in their respective articles either. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry guys. Ghost109 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that's what these talk pages are for. I know without them I wouldn't have learned what I know, and even then I'm still in dark about other policies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Yeah; unless I'm mistaken, WP: N dictates subject topic and not content, so we should be careful when using these links that are supposed to be supporting the case while also educating less experienced Wikipedians. Despite that, I agree with everything that's been raised in opposition to the section. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the Wii Sports beta?

Mario series characters were originally meant to be used in Wii Sports.[1] I think this deserves a mention in the article. FightingStreet (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really cool. Is there another site that has screen caps or info like that? Unseen64.net doesn't look like it would pass as an reliable source. It doesn't say who owns it or where its content comes from. That's still a very cool site, maybe after the site is finished, it'll provide enough info to see if it can be a RS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

It was mentioned in Miyamoto's 2007 GDC Keynote. Here is a link from Gamespot where it is mentioned. [2] -Zomic13 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the link. I'll try to add the new content today. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Game Cover

Why is the game cover the PAL region one? How come it isn't the U.S. version (since this is English Wikipedia)? --haha169 (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been several similar discussions on other game talk pages and the VG Project talk page. I don't believe there is a project-wide consensus as it all boils down to personal preference. For instance, a counter-argument to using the US version because this being the English Wikipedia is that the UK, Australia, and parts of Europe (all PAL regions) speak English. I personally don't care, but I think in this case it's just easier to not do anything as the PAL cover gets the job done. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, probably. If the image got past FA assessors, then its fine with me. Just curious. --haha169 (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed the English Wikipedia. We speak English over here in England, and yet we use the PAL TV system. How remarkable! Tim (Xevious) (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Critical response clean-up

I added a clean-up tag to this section. It's poorly organized. Several sentences read like lists of pros and cons taken straight from reviews (i.e. "IGN liked this but didn't like this." "Gametrailers said this was bad.") Many of these criticisms are the same and don't need to be restated at scattered points throughout the section. For instance, it's mentioned several times that the game, or parts of the game, lack depth. Rather than stating it and restating it without any sort of smooth transitions, the point could be condensed into one or two senteces: "A common criticism of Wii Sports is the lack of depth found in several games" and then list one or two examples from reviews. There doesn't need to be so many quotations of specific review points if they're all referring to the same thing.

I'm also not sure about the few instances where ratings for specific parts of the game are mentioned ("GamePro rated the graphics xx/xx", "IGN rated the control xx/xx"). It seems to me that including that a review called the graphics "generic" and "archaic" is enough to get the point across. I guess the ratings just seem arbitrary to me when we're using the text.

Anyway, it needs a bit of a rewrite. The way it is now, it just reads poorly. Pele Merengue (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, when doing the re-write for this article for FA, this section seemed the weakest. Mainly because of the disjointed comments. I'll see if I can tweak things to improve the flow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Multiple Versions

I herd there were two different versons of Wii Sports. One newer than the other. Superjustinbros. (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

Please do not provide information about a sequel without providing a reference. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)