Talk:Wii/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Sensor bar

Any idea on which physical principle it works?--Nemissimo II 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wii Remote#Sensing. JQF 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing infrared, like most remotes use. Jecowa 05:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The bar has infrared LEDs on each side, and the Wiimote detects these and uses this to estimate where on the screen it is pointing. TheWarlock 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, on the question about why the American Wiis came with Wii Sports and not the Japanese is simply because Nintendo wanted North American to become more fimilar with Wii's new technology- J CIP 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently a pair of candles work instead of the sensor bar, i saw a vid on youtube while i was looking at "Wii have a problem." the link is http://www.wiihaveaproblem.com/index.php?p=2, the inserted window under the title "sensor bar optional!?" 69.210.208.47 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The sensor bar emits infrared light at both end of the bar. The remote sees these two lights, and judging from where the lights are in it's field of view, it can see which angle it is pointing relative to the screen. Based on the height of the two lights to each other, it knows if it is tilting one way or the other. Finally, based on how far apart the two lights appear from each other, it knows how close or far away it is from the screen. Adding this information to the remote's own tilt sensing and accelerometer (motion sensing), this gives the system a great deal of data explaining the remotes location and orientation in 3D space. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/Adeon/bar.jpg Bradibus 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

should Wiimote be mentioned?

Its called the Wii-mote not wii remote, If you dont know about it dont edit it!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zach The Video Game Guy (talk • contribs) .

It's called the Wii Remote, not Wii-mote. And this is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. // Sasuke-kun27 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sasuke is right, it's called the Wii Remote. It was the press who started saying Wiimote/Wii-mote, but the controller is still the Wii Remote. TJ Spyke 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that it's fine to call it the wii-mote on the talk page, just not in the article.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but doesn't it at least deserve a mention in the article? If no other reason than for clarification of the distinction between the two? I believe that the word wiimote, which I believe was coined by Matt Cassimisina at IGN Wii, has had a profound effect on many people's perception of Nintendo PR and Marketing. In fact, I remember an interview with Perrin Kaplan, VP of Big N's Marketing in the US, where she specifically said that someone had made a slip during a speech and had called it a Wiimote, making the joke that Matt had done some marketing spin for them. LavaHot 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Although Nintendo has referred to it as the Wii-mote before, the retail package used in North America reads "Wii Remote / Télécommande Wii / Control Remoto Wii." "Wii Remote" seems to have been their final decision for the English name. Jecowa 05:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wii Remote was always the correct name. Every statement released by Nintendo (not interviews with PR people) only says Wii Remote. Also, The Wii Remote page makes mentione of the incorrect name. TJ Spyke 05:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, Wii Remote is the correct name, bu i haven't heard anyone say wii remote in everyday conversation for months. as just about everyone calls it by the incorrect name i think it diserves to be mentioned in the artical. J.L.Main

The only people i've seen call it Wiimote are people on messageboards. It's mentioned on the Wii Remote that it's unofficially called that. No need to mentione the wrong name anywhere else. TJ Spyke 00:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you even discussed it outside of messageboards? the point of wikipedia isn't to provide some information on some topics. the point is to be an encyclopedia and like it or not the wiimote is most often refered to as wiimote not wii remote.J.L.Main 00:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ already said that "Wiimote" is mentioned in the Wii Remote article. Besides, just because one name is used more frequently than another name doesn't mean we have to say it everywhere.

P.S. - You misspelled encyclopedia. // Sasuke-kun27 00:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

i'll grant that but even so we should mention it to try and prevent as much confusion as possable. Both my mom and the guy i bought my wii from thought that the wiimote and wii remote were two different things. we can help to prevent this type of misconception by simply sticking in, "sometimes refered to as the wiimote or wii-mote."J.L.Main 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The wrong name should be used as little as possible. There is a link already to the Wii Remote page, we should try and provide factual and correct info and not spread the idead that Wiimote is in any way correct. TJ Spyke 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the nature of wrong and right? If the public commonly refers to it as the Wiimote, then it's at least worth mentioning. Similarly, PS3 isn't a trademark of Sony, and yet it's used continunously in the article and in general to refer to the system. 221.19.139.92 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The company does call it the PS3 as well, Nintendo doesn't call it the Wiimote (I said company, Reggie mentioning it in a friendly conversation isn't official). TJ Spyke 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong." They should instead follow procedure to determine common usage on an objective basis. Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The most common use of a name takes precedence. If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names. The name "Wiimote" is 1.61 times more prevalent than "Wii Remote" in the Google search excluding the term "wikipedia" and only showing results in English (other languages uses are not relevant on the English Wikipedia). Below are Google result numbers as retrieved on November 27 2006.

• The query "Wii-mote" yielded 564,000 results.
• The query "Wii controller" yielded 739,000 results.
• The query "Wii remote" yielded 900,000 results.
• The query "Wiimote" yielded 1,360,000 results.

Is it acceptable to use "Wiimote" as the section name and use "The Wiimote, officially named the Wii Remote, is a one-handed controller that…" as the opening line? Jecowa 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to state "The Wii Remote, more commonly named 'Wiimote'..." to avoid confusion. Just64helpin 17:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

i think it has been shown that the term wiimote should be at least breafly mentioned.J.L.Main 09:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the Wii Remote page, that is more than enought. Wikipedia is not the pace to help spread misinormation. TJ Spyke 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

wiimote is the most common name for the item, many people think that the wiimoat and wii remote are two different things and wikipedia is a place for all relavent information to be presented.J.L.Main 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiimote is 100% wronf though. Unless you find a good reason to keep it in, then it will be removed. The $300 version of the Xbox 360 is commonly called the Tard Pack, but we don't include that in. Where has anybody been stupid enough to think they are different things? The fact that people incorrectly call it the Wiimote is already mentioned on the Wii Remote page, there is no reason to mention it here as well. TJ Spyke 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already given good reasons to include the term "Wiimote." Consider the naming conventions and the naming conflict guide. "Wiimote" is not only as commonly used as "Wii remote," but has 161% the hits that "Wii remote" has. "Tard pack" only has 1.3% the hits that "Xbox 360 core console" has. Stupidity is not relevant. Titles do not have to be official legal names. Most common usage is what matters. Consider Samuel Clemens. Jecowa 05:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you would presume to reply to the talk page without reading what has been said before. you have not made a single new arguement and every one you have raised has already been refuted. if you had read just my past posts you would be awear of two people who thought they were different. and then there is a third person just today that overheard me talking about the wiimote with a friend and, thinking he would join in, stated that he thoughtthe wii remote was cooler than the wiimote. i am not going to discuss this with you any more untill you read the past posts on the subject. it just shows how terrably stupid you are when you try to enter a written debate without reading what has already been said.J.L.Main 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight son. I did read the repies, none of my points have been refuted (the main one being that the only correct name is Wii Remote). Your "friend" thinking they are different is not proof. Even if you had reliable sources (which you don't) that anybody is foolish enough to think that "Wii Remote" and "Wiimote" are different things, it wouldn't make a difference. Mentioning the wrong name on the Wii Remote page is more than enough. TJ Spyke 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wiimote" is nothing more then slang, and is mentioned in the separate article. Do I call it the "Wiimote"? Yes, but that doesn't make it the correct term. ConnertheCat 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wiimote" is not slang. "Slang - Language that is outside of conventional usage" - wiktionary:slang. "Wiimote" is definately in conventional usage. It's even more-used than "Wii remote." Jecowa 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiimote is slang, and is not the correct term for the controller. TJ Spyke 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's slang, it's still the most commonly used term for the controller. There are guidelines that support using the most commonly used name of a subject. According to Wiktionary "Wiimote" is not slang.Jecowa 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

| ||Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 6,912,671 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop arguing! And for the record, it is called the Wii-mote. Check the nintendo page for the wii, it says it on that web page. So, someone change the name of the remote to the Wii-mote!! Oh, and you can also hook up another part to the remote called the Nunchuck. Oh and also, how can anyone edit it if you keep protecting it you [Thoughtless comment removed.]! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) .

Be civil. If you would like to edit a semi-protected page, you can do one of three things - Register/Login, request for unprotection, or discuss your change in the talk page. The Wii Remote is called the Wii-mote by lots of people, but the official name is "Wii Remote." Where exactly on Nintendo's website do they still call it the "Wii-mote?" All I can find is "Wii Remote." Jecowa 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's spelled "Nunchuk" and not "Nunchuck". TJ Spyke 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, would you please continue to discus here. You had stopped responding to the discussion here. Jecowa 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy applies to the main article. The Wii Remote article does mentione the wrong name, that doesn't mean that every article that mentions the controller needs to mention the wrong name. The commn usage policy says to use that for the object's article, and like I have said before it does. TJ Spyke 02:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The naming convention (common names) guideline, by the way, says to use the most common name in the article's title. This is not being done on the Wii Remote article. Why should it not be mentioned here? The main article mentions it. It's not hurting anything. To clarify to readers that "Wiimote" is not the official name, how about starting the section with "The Wii Remote, unofficially known as the Wiimote, is a…" This would teach readers that "Wiimote" is not the official name which would have a side effect of deterring angry people telling us what name is the "right" name on this talk page. Many people use the term "Wiimote." Many of them might be interested to know that it isn't the official name. Jecowa 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this discussion is happening. The official name is Wii Remote, that's a fact. By not having the "unoffocial name" "Wiimote" in the article, I believe people would realize that the official name is the Wii Remote. Also, I see that you used Google as part of your argument, I'd like to point out that Google searches are not definititive, terms can often be spammed to increase the count. Dionyseus 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Wii Remote" is the official name. I'm not saying that the official name isn't "Wii Remote," I'm saying that "Wiimote" is the more common term for this subject and should be included. The Google tests show wich terms are most commonly used. The Google page says that the Google test is great for determining popular usage. Jecowa 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refer to the Q & A section at the top of this talkpage. [1] We don't call it The Wii, or the Nintendo Wii, the official name is Wii. Similarly, we don't call it the Wiimote, or the Penis, the official name is Wii Remote. Dionyseus 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Wii" is a good title for this article. "Wii" is about four times more common than "Nintendo Wii." The term "Wiimote" is used much more often than "Penis" to refer to the Wii Remote. Jecowa 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "Nintendo Wii" seems to be more common than "Wii" in retail marketing (for clarity if nothing else), and referring to the console with a "the" is common grammar for mass-produced items (as contrasted to a company or group name, such as Apple or Microsoft). As for the Wii Remote, I agree with Jecowa's last statement in that the nickname "Wiimote" is already mentioned in the Wii Remote article, but for sake of factual accuracy needs little to no mention in other articles which refer to it. --Stratadrake 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is factually accurate that "Wii Remote" is the official name. It is also factually accurate that "Wiimote" is more common than "Wii Remote." Jecowa 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The only people I see saying "Nintendo Wii" are people like retailers, who usually get many terms wrong, but that's besides the point. I think the mention in the Wii Remote article is enough. TJ Spyke 04:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people besides retailers call it the Wiimote, but that's besides the point. I don't think the mention in the Wii Remote article is enough. Users have changed "Wii Remote" to "Wiimote" a many times on this article. People have made it known that "Wiimote" is the official term on this talk page. Clearly, the article as is isn't making it clear enough that "Wii Remote" is the official term. By explicitly mentioning that although "Wiimote" is more commonly used it is not the official name, people will be less likely to think that it is wrong and change it. The naming convention suggests that the the most common name be used. Because we are not, it should be mention what the most common name at the article and it's section here. If we do not mention it here, then I think we should move the article "Wii Remote" to "Wiimote" per common usage. Jecowa 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The solution is simple, next to all mentions of Wii Remote, put in hidden text the following: "Do not change this to Wiimote, see discussion." Dionyseus 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus is correct, just put it in hidden text. That way if someobody tries to put in the wrong name they will see they are not supposed too. There is no reason to habe to mention the wrong name on articles other than the one about the controller. TJ Spyke 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, putting notes in the source would help. It does not hurt to mention the most commonly used name in the article, though. We can do both. Jecowa 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is lasting so long. its not that big a deal. im not asking that we right six paragraphs about the term "wiimote." all i'm asking is for seven words, "more commonly referred to as the wiimote." i don't understand why you think this is going to bring about the downfall of civilized culture and destroy wikipedia as we know it. and T.J.spike, i'm the same age as you are, don't refer to me as son. and you main argument is that there is no point to place "wiimote" under the section on it and this has been refuted. please get you facts straight. J.L.Main 07:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't try and insult my intelligence if you don't want to be called "son". Also, my argument has not been refuted. TJ Spyke 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since the term "Wiimote" is so common, explicitly stating that it is just the more common name would clear up many people's misconceptions. Readers should not have to visit the Wii Remote article to learn this. Being that the unofficial name so much used that it's more common to see than the official name, this information is relevant enough to present here. Jecowa 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the Wii Remote though, it's about the system itself. TJ Spyke 04:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

if we were to follow the standard rules of debate, i know we aren't but for the proposes of this post i'm going to assume we are, if we were to follow the standard rules of debate it would be the case that any of my points that you didn't counter would be granted. in my last post i made the claim that your main argument is that there is no point to place "wiimote" under the section in discussion. you did not refute this claim and in such you granted it. my subsidiary point was that the claim "there is no point to place "wiimote" under the section in discussion" had been refuted. your response to this was "my argument has not been refuted." you have provided no points to support this and in such you are taking the six year-old's approach to this and simply saying "ua-ua." Also, if you don’t want me to insult your intelligence than try posting an intelligent response. later i'll post a list of your arguments and how they were refuted. J.L.Main (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately you continue your argument, User:Jecowa. If people truly cared about what the common name for the control is, they can type "Wiimote" in the search bar and they will be redirected to Wii Remote. It's not necessary for the Wii article to contain the common name "Wiimote." I hope you will drop this argument, but if not I guess we will have to undergo dispute resolutions. Dionyseus 10:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that necessaty neither is nor should be basis for exclusion. if we were to remove everything in wikipedia that isn't necassary we would hve to remove all of wikipedia. the question is not "is it necassary" the question is, "is it relavent and useful" and the answer is yes. J.L.Main 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"if we were to remove everything in wikipedia that isn't necassary". 100% false. Is it relevant and useful on the Wii Remote page? Yes. Is it relevant and helpful on the Wii page? No. TJ Spyke 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28common_names%29 Clearly states that the common name is to be used and whilst it talks about the page titles as a special case, it does not make a distinction against titles of things used in a page. It's been demonstrated that its common name is Wiimote. Placing the hidden text about not changing it without consulting the talk page was presumptious because this dispute has not been solved. It is a fact that according to Wikipedia guidelines the title of the section and the title of the separate article should be Wiimote, with the official name mentioned in the text of the article. Ajmayhew 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TJ, it seems you are out voted. You, Jecowa and i are the only constant posters on this discussion page. two of us say it should be included and we provide good backing as to why. you are the only constant poster arguing against it and you have yet to raise one good argument against its inclusion. we have shown that "wiimote" is more than relevant as it is the most commonly used name. We have shown that it is not redundant, more people read this section than read the article on the wiimote and some people don't realize they are the same thing. Now, unless you can show that it is offensive it should be included. I know you find the term offensive, but i'm afraid that your hatred for the term is not criteria for showing it to be offensive. J.L.Main 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, it's just that there is no need to mention it on the Wii page. The policy you pointed out applies to the article on the Wii Remote, where "Wiimote" is mentioned. The policy doesn't say that every page where the Wii Remote is mentioned has to include the nickname. It's your opinion I haven't presented a good argument, I know I have. TJ Spyke 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that when J.L.Main says you find "Wiimote" offensive, he means that the term annoys you as you mention in this talk page and this edit summary. You seem to have some personal problem with the term "Wiimote" considering the remarks you made in [this edit summary. Civility is a rule for edit summaries, by the way. Jecowa 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hated the term ever since the gaming press started using it because I knew situations like this would happen, and people would think that "Wiimote" is a correct name for the Wii Remote. TJ Spyke 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried saying this at the bottom of the page, to make the discussion easier to find, but I'll recap here real quick: "Wiimote" is an entirely acceptable nickname. It isn't "incorrect". There is every reason to use the term on the Wii Remote page. However, there's no need to include nicknames on the page for the system itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bladestorm (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

The policy applies to every use of the name of the article, not just the title of the page about the article

"Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things

Where's the distinction? 155.198.149.16 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TJ, you don't even provide a defence of yourself. the only thing you say to defend yourself against my claim that you fail to defend your position is "I do to defend my position" that being said... WOULD A MOD PLEASE MAKE A DISITION HERE!!!! I DON"T CARE WHO"S SIDE YOU TAKE, I JUST WHANT THE ARGUMENT TO STOP!!!!!!J.L.Main 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a defense, but you choose to ignore it. BTW, technically there aren't any mods here, I think you mean Admin. TJ Spyke 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'decision'? Alos, on the one below it is 'thus' or possibly 'those', not 'thuse'Zarroc 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, tell me what is is then. like this,

1. wiimote is a stupid term. thuse it is irrelevant 2. only wiinies use the term wiimote. thuse it is superfoulis ok? you do that and then i'll either consend and drop the point or tell you why each of your points fails to prove you position. than you can post why i'm incurrect. we keep the 1,2,3 format so that it can be more appearent who is correct. also, make sure to include what you are arguing, is it superfoulis, irrelevant, or offensive?J.L.Main 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it had been made clear why "Wiimote" only needs to be mentioned on the Wii Remote page, but fine. When I log back on tomorrow we can do that, and anybody else can do the same thing. TJ Spyke 06:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that "Wiimote" is more commonly used and therefore deserves at least a "...Wii Remote, sometimes referred to as Wiimote,..." statement in the Wii article. It doesn't matter which term is the official or unofficial one. As long as "Wiimote" is a frequent term - even more frequent than "Wii Remote" - it deserves to be mentioned in the Wii article. Lord E 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) i assume you mean the wiimote section of the wii artical. the wiimote artical already mentions it.J.L.Main 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) TJ, its been two days. where are your arguments? did you discover they were indeed non-existent? if you don't reply soon i'm going to assume you have conceded.J.L.Main 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for TJ but I have certainly not conceded. The word "Wiimote" does not need to be mentioned in this article, for the reasons I have stated above. Dionyseus 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

all you've said is that it is superfluous because it is mentioned in the wii remote article. you have not addressed the claim that it is important enough to be mentioned in both places.J.L.Main 07:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe my reasons are good enough. If you disagree, I guess we should move on to the next step in the dispute resolution process, an RfC. Dionyseus 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree completely that we should move on to the next step. when the debate on weather or not to add "more commonly referred to as wiimote" becomes longer than the actual argument, then it is time to move on to the next step of dispute resolution.J.L.Main 13:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what about a vote. If i ask everyone to vote on weather or not the term wiimote should be mentioned will everyone here abide by the decision of the masses? since logical argumentation isn't getting us anywhere i think a vote is a good solution.J.L.Main 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I want to go by policy rather than what the masses want. Dionyseus 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't go by "policy" because it doesn't cover such trivial issues. For example, both Grasshopper Manufacture and Goichi Suda refer to Suda's nickname, Suda 51. I suggest you ask at WT:CVG and WP:RFC for some outside input. As for myself, I really don't give a damn. - hahnchen 04:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

you want to go by polacy? does that mean you are switching over to the side of truth, aka the one that wants it mentioned? cause every policy that i know of either wouldn't apply or would have it metioned here.J.L.Main 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

you guys are all idiots. Nintnedo power launched information about how people in japan who signed up as a nintendo rewards member during a certain time frame recieved a television remote shaped exactly like a wii controller with the exact same button layout. this remote was packaged and released as the official "Wii-mote". The official name for the wii controllers are the "Wii Remotes"

Bobcheezy 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

first, with one exception i think we are all reasonably intelligent. sorry, now that you’ve posted i guess there are two exceptions. second, the TV remote being called a "wii-mote" has little barring on this conversation. we are all in agreement about the official name. the discussion is on whether or not the term "wiimote" should be mention in the section on the wii remote as it is more commonly referred to as wiimote.J.L.Main 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Would you idiots stop reverting each other for a moment?. I logged a RfC because none of you have the presence of mind to escalate the dispute resolution process. Stop editing the damn article until we get some external commentary.Sockatume 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I told him we should escalate to an RfC on the 10th, [2] apparently J.L.Main preferred to simply revert. Dionyseus 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

J.L.Main agreed to your request for comment on the same day.[3] Why didn't you request one? Jecowa 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He's the one that wants to include the nickname, he should have requested the RfC instead of revert warring. As noted by one of his revert summaries, he actually thought revert warring would help us reach some sort of agreement: [4] Dionyseus 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't make it clear that you expected him to do it before. The way you said it, it sounded like requesting a comment would be something you would both do together. I don't think he would have started changing the article if someone would had continued to discuss with him on the talk page or requested a comment. Do you think he knows how to request a comment? He didn't even know the 3RR applied to a 24-hour period. RfC was your suggestion. Why didn't you do it? Is there a rule saying that the party wishing to include a nickname should be the party to request the comment? Jecowa 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I expected User:J.L.Main to request it, instead he continued to try to force his edit without concensus. Besides, User:Sockatume has requested an RfC earlier today, we shall await the comment. Dionyseus 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've never participated in an RfC before, but since an RfC has already been requested, should we prepare a neutral statement before the commenter gets here? Here's an example of an RfC statement. In the example it looks like one person from every side makes a comment for the statement. In our case we have two sides, correct? Jecowa 05:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After i agreed to move on to the next stage of dispute resolution Dionyseus stopped posting here. my rv. to the main page were intended to get his attention so that he would start posting here again and we would be able to move on. And i would like to point out, it worked!!!J.L.Main 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been taken much further than is really needed. Wii Remote and Wii-mote, as far as I know, are not used more than the other by a significant margin. I have friends who each prefer different terms. Regardless, Wikipedia's primary purpose is to dispense information while not completely confusing the reader. I would personally support mention of the "Wii-mote" nickname in the section of this article that discusses the Wii remote. However, in order to avoid confusion, I think that when reading an encyclopedia article a person often expects a "formal" tone to the writer. For this reason, I think that the title for the Wii remote article should remain as the official name. If the nickname Wii remote was used almost exclusively among the population I would be in support of using the Wiimote nickname. More important than those opinions however, is perhaps the resolution issue in a civil manner without any more name calling. Keep in mind that because there is not a significant difference in popular usage between the terms that this tiny bit of information is not nearly as consequential as the length of this disscussion suggests. Agaib 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Oops, apologies, I didn't notice the discussion below.

Agaib, your tone is both civil and respectful. It doesn't go unappreciated. However, while although I too actually like both names, this is the article for the console, not the peripheral. That's what I think it boils down to. Popular nicknames are very much pertinent in articles discussing the wiimote itself, but far less so for articles that are about other topics altogether. Mentioning wiimote in the wii article would almost be like mentioning urine in the "wii remote" article. Are they related? Kinda-ish... I guess... but information is best used where it's most relevant. Bladestorm 07:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term Wiimote or Wii-mote should be mentioned only in the remote article itself, and not the console article. As my 2c of reasoning... a search of "wii remote site:http://www.nintendo.com" on google will return many links, while either a search of "wiimote site:http://www.nintendo.com" or "wii-mote site:http://www.nintendo.com" will return only a few links, none of which contain either reference anywhere on the pages. A look at the cache of those pages shows that the only reason they appear in the results is because links to those pages from outside the Nintendo site contain those terms. In short, Nintendo does not even officially acknowledge the existance of the "wiimote" or "wii-mote" as alternate names for the peripheral; and as such, I believe it should not be included in the brief remote section of the console article. Pictorkeb 17:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardware details

Wasn't it decided to hold off on posting MHz details till IBM, ATI or Nintendo said something on the subject? When did the IGN numbers get added back in? Is there a new more reliable named source for them? The IBM technical specifications on the processor that is suspected to be the Broadway (the 750CL) has a clockspeed listed of up to 900MHz and it is apparently designed to use speed step quite heavily, the rumor has been going around since those details were made available that the rather odd clockspeed of 729MHz is simply an average speed.

In fact it looks like the sourced IBM numbers were replaced with the IGN numbers from the unnamed source in this update. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&diff=88148062&oldid=88140082

I guess that until Nintendo tells us what's inside or someone opens up his Wii and takes a look at the partnumbers on the chips, we won't be certain what's inside. IMHO, the info put on the page should reflect the information currently released. And that means it's a PowerPC codenamed Broadway produced on 90nm SOI CMOS. Everything else is pure speculation. (Mausy5043 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

I think its about time the specs are put up. I also think the IGN specs are correct, as how GameFly, PC Magazine, etc are all using the numbers.
Plus IBM released a specs sheet about 1 1/2 months ago which is the same specs IGN released. This probably refers to the Wii's (Comment: The keyword here being: probably -Mausy5043) CPU.
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/2F33B5691BBB8769872571D10065F7D5/$file/ppc750cl_ds_dd20_5oct06.pdf

The IBM Spec sheet actually says it is anywhere from a 400MHz(IBMPPC750CLGEQ4024) to a 900MHz(IBMPPC750CLGEQ9024) procceser and there is no 729 at all in the documnet(Catprog 1:31 + 1000, 20 November 2006)

There's no mention anywhere that this chip is in the Wii. Anybody got a picture of the CPU inside the Wii? Mausy5043 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is USA today combined with the IGN article enough to put the hardware details in? (Catprog 05:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC))

I personally think it matters not how many sites on the Internet use the "729MHz" figure, they're still just speculation. They ALL cite the exact same source, which, in turn, is from IGN, and has no source of its own; they did not get the figure from IBM, Nintendo, or anyone reliable.

In fact, it's pretty clear when you look at it; when you compare the clock rates given, they merely increased the clock rates of the Game Cube's chips by 50%. Aside from that, IGN's figures pretty much claim that they are exactly the same chips, only they aren't; if Gecko were converted to 90nm (it was originall 180nm, for one quarter the space efficiency) it'd be FAR smaller, and consume much less than "30% less" power.

Similarly, the graphics chip cannot be simply a Flipper with a 50% clock rate increase and 24MB of EDRAM built-in. As it is a form of DRAM, I doubt that it could make the chip package as large as it appears, and it would not have added, for instance, the necessary pixel shader capacity to add the effects seen already in some games, such as how Twilight Princess uses a good deal of normal-mapping as well as HDR in the game, features that not even the original Xbox could hope to manage.

So, for the time being, I think it is best to remove any figures aside from those from IBM and Nintendo themselves. At the very least, try to select numbers that make sense; using a 90nm SOI process at IBM and TSMC's fabs, both yields and power consumption/heat loss would be such that one could easily push far higher than IGN's 'specs' and still get it all functional in such a tiny package. The CPU is perhaps up in the air, but the graphics chip was of the same generation as the rest of ATi's X1k-series GPUs. Nottheking 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, in case you haven't noticed, Twilight Princess runs on the Gamecube and is 100% graphically identical to the Wii version (with the exception of 16:9)...I sure wouldn't be using it as an example of why it simply can't be a faster clocked Flipper. Evilgrug 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So it's settled that IGN isn't a trustworth source? I'm removing it now. The Captain Returns 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article states "24 MB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics die" but http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20061127/124495/?SS=imgview_e&FD=-623367583 possibly shows two separate dies... Note can't actually tell what the two dies contain from the photo. This memory is probably on the graphics chip? but not necessarily on the same die. Can anyone check this.. Thanks.87.102.4.180 16:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vertex Shaders

Hollywood doesn't have Vertex Shaders? The article linked as a source for this reference offers no data to support this, and does not make this claim. It actually stands to reason that the Wii's graphics chip would be smaller than the Gamecubes because the Wii's chip is made on a smaller process (90nm instead of 180nm). As the Wii seems to be perfectly capable of the same kind of effects that the gamecube is I'd mark this claim as highly questionable, especially based on the poor evidence provided and would suggest that it be removed quickly. 64.6.0.233 06:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

the change in question was here. How he got the idea that the Wii's graphics chip lacks features that the gamecube's chip had while still retaining compatibility from that article I do not know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&diff=94593118&oldid=94593045

Mummy, I need a Wii.

Yes agree - I too spotted this - the article linked is interesting (thanks) but says nothing about 'vertex shaders' - please correct>87.102.4.180 12:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't edit the article yet. Can someone remove the 'No Vertex Shaders' claim? Zeebo-010 20:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

removed. Scepia 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement said that the Gamecube lacked it as well, rather than the Gamecube supporting it. As far as I know it is true that the Gamecube lacks pixel and vertex shader support. As for the Wii, I'll research this. Dionyseus 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its back again. If it is meant to indicate a similarity to the Gamecube its phrasing is odd, and can be easily read to mean that the Wii lacks a feature that the gamecube possessed. Also, as mentioned, the linked article provides no evidence for the claim. Couldn't it just say that the Wii is believed to be based on the same R300 style graphics core as the Gamecube based on physical evidence? That would at least be less confusing. Zeebo-010 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like in the short time it took me to write that last entry it was removed again (helps if I remember to log in) Zeebo-010 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, the "Hollywood" is simply an overclocked "Flipper." I'll keep researching. Dionyseus 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article here from Kotaku claims that the "Hollywood" costs about $30. Dionyseus 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not overclocked if its designed to run at that speed. You wouldn't consider an Athlon 64 4800 to be an overclocked Athlon 64 3000 after all. There are a number of hypothesis about what the hollywood is, most would seem to indicate that it is derived from a new laptop integrated graphics chip which may or may not be based on the R300 core. Costs in bulk for chips are typically fairly low especially in the kind of batch sizes that Nintendo will be ordering, so unfortunately it doesn't tell us much. For all we know it could be based on an entirely new ATI core design specifically intended to reduce cost, die size, and power consumption. Zeebo-010 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think the Wii's Hollywood and Broadway are basically speed bumps of the older Flipper and Gekko chips, just made on a manufacturing process that's half the size (180 or .18 nm on GCN originally, then 90nm on Wii). The fact that Broadway is about 50% smaller than Gekko supports this(they probably didn't add any extra L2 cache either). Hollywood is larger mainly because it houses the 24 MB 1T-SRAM module under the same heatspreader. Plus, to maintain such a high degree of backward compatibility with GCN software at the hardware level without integrating any extra older chips (ie PS2 containing the PS1 CPU) means Wii's components are basically the same as Flipper and Gekko. This isn't necessarilly a bad thing, as it helps Nintendo profit and kept their R&D costs lower, since most of their time and money was probably spent refining the Wii remote technology. In this regard even Xbox beats Wii, as it had early Pixel Shader 1.4 support (Just compare Far Cry on Xbox to Vengeance on Wii. What a difference shaders can make if used well!) Nintenboy01 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Far Cry: Vengeance sucks because Ubisoft barely put any effort into it. There is no reason a Wii game should look that bad. TJ Spyke 03:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamecube's Flipper is supposedly the prototype of what would become ATIs R300 core, if this is true and the Wii's Hollywood is a descendent of that design it would likely have at least 2 vertex shader units. Zeebo-010

Ah, just found an article that shoots the idea that the gamecube had it down at least. http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=1566 However the time of the Gamecube's release, the acquisition of ArtX and the release of the R300 does still seem to back up the fact that they are closely related designs. Its entirely possible that the Wii would be based on a more recent revision of the core which would include the more modern features. Zeebo-010 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NES, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64 and GameCube games

I've heard that NES, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, and GameCube games work on the Wii system. Is that true? If it is, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Voortle 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, some of them will be part of the Virtual Console (which IS mentioned in the article). The GameCube games part is mentioned though under the Backwards Compatibility section. TJ Spyke 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You can download NES, SNES, N64, Sega Genesis and TurboGrafx-16 games onto the Wii for a price. The price is from $5 to $10. You can play the Gamecube games straight from the Cube disc in the Wii. For more detailed infomation, see the Virtual Console (Wii) article. dposse 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think its worth mentioning that the wii is the only 7th gen console that is fully backwards compatable with its predessesor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.L.Main (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Considering I actually own the console in question, I will settle this one: Yes, gamecube games are fully compatible with the Wii, and there is a a set of four ports on the top under a flap that allows for plugging in the Gamecube controller (Wii looks a little weird when you have Wavebird controller adpaters sticking out the top!). NES, SNES, N64 (and a couple others i think) are available for download from the online shop for the virtual console. It's 800 Wii points for a Mega drive game like Sonic, and about 1000 (£7.99 sterling) for N64, others varying.Zarroc 11:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Brazil's Price

I am surprised to see Brazil's price, which is far higher than the rest, and I am wondering if this is the official price from nintendo.--w_tanoto 10:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these are the prices from Nintendo. It seems there was some trouble importing these consoles into Brazil. You can read more about it at one of these two articles below. Jecowa 10:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• translated to English article
• original Portuguese article

• Unfortunately, it's the official price from the official Nintendo representation in Brazil. Not-so-legal imports can come to as "low" as R$1400.00 (roughly US$600.00). When questioned about this unbeliaveable price, all that Nintendo has to say is that "they analyze each country and adapt the best strategy for the local situation". The taxes for imported consoles are of 80%, but (US$250*1.8) is still very far from the suggested price. Pmbarros 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the price difference is so large? It costs upwards of $1,000 in Brazil, for crying out loud. Does anyone know why this is? --Poromenos 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Inflation, and import costs. I believe, unless the product is manufactured in the country, the costs are ridiculous. 74.137.230.39 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I was mainly referring to the price in Greece (249.99 Eur), I can't make any sense of it. As far as I know it's produced in Japan (no?) so why would it be $250 in the US and 250 Eur in Europe? I was wondering if anyone knew definitively why this happens. --Poromenos 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's how game systems (at least from Nintendo) are priced. If a system costs $200 US, then they charge 200 Euros for it. Don't ask me wh they do it though. That IP is right about Brazil as well, anything not produced in Brazil will have huge importing costs tacked on. TJ Spyke 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I am suggesting that unofficial price should not be put to the table, because it is unreliable. example is PlayStation 3 in Indonesia. Some Shop sells it to equivalent of £700, and some £600. It will confuse the reader.--w_tanoto 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic too, but in Colombia, though not so high, is the same or higher than an xbox 360 core, so I think is ridiculous to make a cheap console to sell at relatively high prices in poor countries. 200.21.238.118 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically I think it just depends on what has to be paid to get the consoles into the coutry, then accounting the inflation costs of the ocal country as well. (Yes, I am typing this while watcing my £179.99 Sterling Wii download Sonic and Bomberman, sorry.) Zarroc 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Competition against 360 and PS3?

For a while now, we've had the line, "it is the successor to the Nintendo GameCube and competes against Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3."
Now, here's the thing... When they first announced the concept behind the revolution (eventually renamed wii), they made it very clear that they weren't directly competing with Sony and Microsoft. They were aiming for a different market (which actually touches on what Stratadrake was mentioning). To that end, both Microsoft and Sony endorsed the wii, for the sake of turning people away from their actual competition (ie. Microsoft wanted to steer people away from PS3, and Sony wanted to steer people away from the 360).
Certainly, the case could be made that the wii is still competing anyways... but that would really be just a point of view.
More specifically, if Nintendo's plan was to not compete against the PS3 and 360, then you'd have to make a pretty strong argument to definitively state that they are in direct competition anyways. Otherwise, it's POV and unacceptable content.
Opinions? Suggestions? I'll leave it a day or two before I make the change to the article. Bladestorm 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Nintendo isn't really directly competing with Sony and MS in the sense that their system is significantly cheaper and has a very different and non-traditional input method and decidedly poorer graphics. This makes a Wii a poor candidate for direct cross-platform ports unless they use the classic controller, but even then the graphics may suffer compared to PS3 and X360. Sony and MS have gone the more conventional route and just released consoles with considerably greater horsepower and a few new features here and there. Still, like what Stratadrake said above in the "Visual Fidelity" discussion, Nintendo is nevertheless still competing for most gamer's limited budgets and preferences for one console over another. Still I think most gamers who plan on getting two new consoles would probably choose a Wii and a 360 OR PS3, for greater variety (Since 360 and PS3 have basically the same graphics and share many 3rd party games). Nintenboy01 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that you're making the same mistake (at least from the standpoint of being objective) that Stratadrake made. They aren't just targetting gamers. PS3 and 360? Just gamers. But nintendo's looking to make games that your mother will want to play. That your girlfriend will want to play. Peculiar little nuggets of amusement that don't put people off with crazy button layouts. (For reference, I actually happen to be fond of ridiculously high numbers of buttons on my controllers; I'm just talking about nintendo's approach here) Comparing the graphics of a Wii to a PS3 isn't even entirely appropriate, as the PS3's horsepower is also geared strictly to gamers. (No average non-gamer really cares that much whether or not a basketball player has rendered sweat on them) But all of this is beside the point anyways.

The point is that Nintendo said they weren't interested in direct competition; that they were aiming for a broader (and thus different) market. The article currently conclusively states that the Wii is directly competing against the 360 and PS3. You can certainly make reasonable arguments to back up such a statement, but the point is that you shouldn't. It's a point of view. We're not supposed to push specific points of view here. Statements should be well-researched and verifiable.

If Nintendo says they aren't interested in direct competition, and you want to definitively state anything to the contrary, then you need a looong laundry list of citations absolutely and conclusively proving that it is absolutely and completely in direct competition. And if nobody presents such citations within the next day or so, it'll have to be stricken from the article, per wikipedia policy. Bladestorm 20:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, both Sony and Nintendo also said they weren't targeting the same market when the PSP and DS came out, and indeed, it's usually only hardcore gamers who own BOTH units, while the more technically inclined tended to get just the PSP. The DS, on the other hand, seemed like a simpler system so a wider range of folks picked it up instead. This is kinda like the Wii philosophy right? But I do agree Nintendo really isnt targeting just the gamers or Sony or MS; they're going after EVERYONE while Sony alienates with PS3's confoundingly high price, and Microsoft perpetuates the conventional style of console gaming. Nintenboy01 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a statement that the wii is a major video game console of the _th generation along with ps3 and 360. That is verifiable I'd say, then again sony said this generation doesn't start til the ps3 is released :). Chris M. 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 articles mention competition with Nintendo's console. Just64helpin 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing it as being part of the same generation is, indeed, verifiable and accurate. I'd greatly prefer it that way. (of course, I already stated that I wouldn't touch the article for at least a day, so I'll hold myself to that; but feel free to make the change yourself if you like). Bladestorm 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo may not be saying they are competing, but the fact of the matter is that the Wii is competing with the Xbox 360 and PS3. That's not POV, it's a simple fact. Sony says the PSP isn't competing with the DS, but it is. TJ Spyke 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that is POV. Since there is no source for that. It would be good that you stop pushing forward your opinion with edits. I like much better the other formulation, wich only states facts. If it's that obvious that they are competiting, then just stating the facts is enough. And everybody will understand. They are released on more or less the same date, as video game systems. That indeed strongly suggest that they are competiting. However, there is no source prooving that people won't buy Wii + another system, or that people buying Wii would have buyed another system otherwise. Therefore, no matter how obvious it seems, we cannot state as a fact that they are really competiting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.25.232.221 (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, I think it's been a day now... I'll be making the change to indicate that it's of the same generation as the PS3 and 360, and let people draw their own conclusions as far as competition is concerned. My primary point was that Nintendo originally said that they weren't directly competing, and if you're going to contradict Nintendo in a Nintendo hardware article, then you need to back it up. The assertion that, "it's a simple fact" isn't really sufficient without something to back it up. So, um, yeah. I'll just list the verifiable parts. If it really is obvious that it's in competition, then people should have no problems drawing that conclusion for themselves. :) Bladestorm 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Well, I've done the best I can. I couldn't find a way to mention the PS3 and 360 right in the article, though of course you can see their names by following the 7th gen link. (For that matter, it isn't necessarily necessary to mention other hardware that isn't directly related to the topic) Anyways, if you can think of a better way to phrase it, without making direct claims of competition, feel free. Bladestorm 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

360 and PS3 should be mentioned to establish context (see WP:LEAD). Whether the consoles are in competition or not shouldn't be an issue. Just64helpin 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd say your revision looks a lot better than mine. Bladestorm 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you guys are taking Nintendo's statements too seriously. Remember that since the days of the N64 Nintendo has sort of lived in its own little world and tends to ignore what its competition is doing, making some decidedly dumb business decisions like many other comapnies do (IE, using limited cartridges for N64, releasing the awkward Virtual Boy, using their own mini-DVDs for GCN rather than higher capacity discs, etc). In terms of content and style they're in a class all by themselves, but they ARE still in the same overall market as Sony and Microsoft, so in that sense they are still competing for the gamer's dollars. Nintenboy01 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is overlap with the 360 and PS3 markets. However, the main intent is still to market to a different audience overall. Look people, if you're going to say it's directly competing, then cite it. Otherwise, it'll be vandalism. This isn't rocket-science. If you're going to contradict the manufacturer over what you think their intent is, then you bloody well better back it up. I'm reverting the article to remove the statement of competition. Take it up here first if you want to dispute. I showed respect and waited a day before making the change. Present a citation here or in the article, or drop it. Bladestorm 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I think the current phrasing is a reasonable compromise. An unofficial/unspoken rivalry between the systems is okay to include. Bladestorm 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it sounds dumb. It unofficially competes against the other consoles? Some marketer's official policy shouldn't have any bearing on this article. I just tried something else [5]; competition is implied by mentioning that all three consoles are in the same generation, but it's not said outright. Of course, someone will not doubt find something wrong with this one. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's great, crustacean. (That was what I was aiming for the first time around, but just couldn't get the wording right) Bladestorm 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't look like anyone (i.e. TJ Spyke) has reverted it yet, so hopefully it'll calm this for now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone makes a really great microwave, and it cooks food extremely efficiently and well, yet they state they aren't competing with other brands of microwaves on the market, however many many people buy this microwave because it does the job well, then its competing with other microwaves, right? Even if one person buys a Wii instead of a PS3 then they are competing. It many people buy Wii's instead of PS3's then they are in direct competition.--220.237.10.97 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just because Nintendo says they are not competing with the PS3 and Xbox 360 doesn't mean that the Wii isn't competing with them. TJ Spyke 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Nintendo may want to act all independent or consider themselves in a totally different class from their rivals, but many, many people will undoubtedly choose a Wii over a PS3 or X360 and vice-versa, and in that case that is indeed competition. It's just that Nintendo also happens to be trying to reach out more to average Joes who never really used to give videogaming the time of day. Nintenboy01 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That logic is entirely inaccurate. First off, remember that they aren't specifically trying to get people to get a wii instead of a PS3 or 360. Second, just because a person may still end up choosing one over the other, that doesn't mean that there's a direct competition. I might decide to get a bicycle instead of a car, depending on my needs, but that doesn't mean that Schwinn is directly competing with Ford. Different technology. Different design. Different focus. Different markets. Sure, they're both transportation, but if Schwinn were to say, "We're not interested in competing with Ford", then you must provide a proper citation showing that they're lying (or wrong) in order to say otherwise. Anyways, it seems a bit odd to continue arguing about it at this point. The current revision (thanks to crustacean) entirely acknowledges the other systems of the same generation, but without making unfounded or unverifiable claims. Bladestorm 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we mention both? Nintendo is targeting a different market (older people) than the other consoles, but as a seventh generation gaming console it competes with Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 at some levels. Jecowa 19:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll say it now. I still don't like the current version. I reallyt thought it was better to simply say that it's of the same generation as the 360 and PS3. (Silly me, I prefer articles to be free of POV, and only contain verifiable facts...) But, meh. I'm not going to gripe about this version any more unless it gets edited any further. Bladestorm 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reggie Fils-Aime himself (at the E3 2006 Nintendo Press Conference) stated that the Wii is not Next Generation but New Generation... now we all know Reggie is a very smart man just look at his credentials[6] it would be very odd also given the scope of the English language to misguide his audience with false information... If he didn't want people to take what he said literally then he would have used different vocabulary. [7] 69.116.77.160 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Per my comment below: that was just PR speak. "New generation" sounds better than "next generation". TJ Spyke 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

i found this in the reggie-fils anne page: "One of our competitors is a manufacturer in Japan who wants to capture every one of your entertainment dollars transporting all your content between all of your electronic devices on their memory sticks. We are not that company. And there is another company out there who doesn't care what you do, as long as you do it on their operating system. We are not that company either." - Regarding Nintendo's competitors (Sony and Microsoft, respectively). this is a quote from the man himself. im still undecided either way though Pandapatrol 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

False shortage?

Nintendo has created a false shortage in the United States with the Wii. Unlike the PS3, which involves a new technology, there are no parts or chips in the Wii that are in short supply; thus there is no reason to make it unavailable to people during the holiday season. Based on sales of Game Cube and DS, Nintendo had to have had an idea of what to produce and put into the market place, and would surely want the fourth quarter sales. It will be unfortunate if children bear the brunt of this cold marketing ploy. Shore828 - can't find a tilde on my keyboard.

Do you have a source for this information? Just64helpin 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget how Microsoft created a false shortage of 360's last year when they decided to not have a single U.S. factory producing the units, and shipping them by -- well, ship. Lol. Speculation and POV, non worthy of inclusion. --Stratadrake 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "false shortage"? The fact that you can't find a Wii in the store? If so, like Just64helpin said, do you have a source for this? Second, and most importantly, is this noteworthy, or just a PS3 fanboy thing?--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fanboy thing. The assumption that Nintendo, or any company, has essentially unlimited manufacturing capability has got to be. No new technology, wakkawakkawakka, etc. 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)-- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

And let's all remember that a surplus of demand is not the same thing as a lack of supply. --Stratadrake 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They've sold out pretty quickly. This speaks more of the Wii's popularity than anything else, since it's sold over a million worldwide in under a month. That's a lot, even if Nintendo were manufacturing them quickly, that's still a lot. JONJONAUG 12:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wal-mart might have something do do with the "shortage". They only get 3 wiis per store. (at least where I live)Cfive 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In my area Wal-Marts (at least the two I asked) were stocked with 20 Wii units on launch. The Hastings in my town was given (hearsay). Anyway, Wal-Mart can't fix the shortage. I'm sure Wal-Mart would love to sell more Wiis if they had them. Jecowa 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Best Buy has an agreement with Nintendo to be the primary retailer for Wii. Just like they were for the XBOX 360. This may have affected distribution to other stores. As an employee there I can agree that the demand for the systems is more than anyone ( including Nintendo) ever expected.Bf shade 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reggie Fils-Aime himself (at the E3 2006 Nintendo Press Conference) stated that the Wii is not Next Generation but New Generation... now we all know Reggie is a very smart man just look at his credentials[8] it would be very odd also given the scope of the English language to misguide his audience with false information... If he didn't want people to take what he said literally then he would have used different vocabulary. [9] 69.116.77.160 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1)That has nothing to do with this section. 2)That was just PR talk (since he was still in the PR department at the time). TJ Spyke 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently found out that the Wii was the fastest selling platform in Europe, o heres a Brits POV on things. Personally, If you don;t have the sense to make sure that you have apreorder, or are going to go somewhere that will possibly be importing three thousand (thats the current chance of picking one up here BTW, 3,000:1, until more come in next Wii-k, get it?) then you really are't gonna get one by xmas. the problem is that if the stores are flooded, then the whole point of capitalism drops off the table, cos there are so many. It's bit of a delicate balance, and definitely NOT a false shortage Zarroc 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wii Remote/Wiimote naming convention

Hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd resume the discussion down here, because it was getting a bit high up in an already full page. (Incidentally, if anyone knows how to archie this talk page, it'd be much appreciated)
I think it's important to distinguish between a "common name", and a "nickname".
Wiimote is a nickname. (To be fair about my own personal bias, "wiimote" is what I personally choose to call it)
Wii Remote is the official name. Many people (myself included) like to refer to it as a 'wiimote', but very few think that 'wiimote' is the "real" name of the device. That's why it isn't used as the "common name". "Wiimote" is just a fun thing to call it. Nobody would ever seriously suggest referring to GW Bush as "Miserable Failure", even though I'm getting 351,000 hits for miserable failure, specifically within the context of bush. You'll notice that the PS3 article is listed as "PlayStation 3", even though "ps3" gets nearly three times as many hits as "playstation 3". That's because, while although more people tend to use the nickname of PS3, people still mostly recognize "playstation 3" as being the 'real' name of it. The only difference here being that PS3 is still very much acknowledged (and probably trademarked) by Sony, whileas Nintendo seems to be avoiding "wiimote" in general.

Or, if that's too long to read, a nickname isn't the same as a "common name". And I think most people know that it's "really" known as the "wii remote". That said, I would still absolutely oppose any suggestion in articles that "wiimote" is in any way "incorrect". It can be affectionately referred to as the "wiimote", colloqu... uh, I can't spell it, but you know what I mean... It can even be "unofficially referred to as the 'wiimote'", but not "incorrectly". :) Bladestorm 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the official name of the PS3 is the PLAYSTATION 3, in all caps. :P --Guess Who 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. When talking with people, I will call it the "wiimote" because that is a viable nickname. The real name, the one given to it by Nintendo is "wii remote". I think it's noteworthy enough to be mentioned on the Wii Remote page (and it is), but it is unnecessary for the actual console page. Besides, if you type in Wiimote into the search bar, it will take you to the page that will inform you about it.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"PS3" is an acronyms and guidelines recommend against using acronyms as article titles. "Miserable Failure" as a title for the George W. Bush article is against the guidelines of neutral point of view. "George W. Bush" is used 17.6 times more on the internet than "Miserable Failure". "Wiimote" is used time more on the internet than "Wii Remote". Additionally, it's unlikely for someone to believe that an acronym, such as "PS3," or a possibly libelous name, such as "Miserable Failure," would be the official or legal name for a subject. "Wiimote," on the otherhand, sounds like it could be the official name for the subject. Portmanteaus are very commonly used in product names, and I believe Japan is especially fond of them. Aquafresh, HeartStart, PlayStation, Famicom, VideoBus, OpenOffice, Adidas, Winterfresh, and Timeblaster are all examples of this. Why do you not want this mentioned? Are there any policies against it? Mentioning "Wiimote" will clear up some people's misconceptions about the name of the controller. As J.L.Main mentioned, some people think the Wii Remote and Wiimote are two different controllers. By saying, "The Wii Remote, unofficially known as the 'Wiimote,'" we would be clearly defining that they are the same as well as alluding that "Wii Remote" is the official name. It would be nice to mention this here at least while the Wii is new and until more people are aware of the official name. "Wiimote" isn't going to be the most common term forever. When it becomes much less common than "Wii Remote," it won't be necessary to mention it here, as people will accept that "Wii Remote" is the real name when they readd it here. Jecowa 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wiimote" is mentioned on the Wii Remote page, where it belongs. Why should it be mentioned on the page about the Wii system? Besides, if someone types in "Wiimote" or "Wii-mote" they will be redirected to the correct page. BTW, PlayStation isn't a portmanteau of anything. TJ Spyke 03:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here to inform the readers of this page. The page encompasses more than just the Wii console itself. It's okay to talk about the Wii's controller here. Jecowa 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I imagine that people participating in the discussion have probably read the article as well. :)

Anyways, I have no problem calling it a 'wiimote' in normal conversation. That's what I do, myself. (It's actually the only reason I accepted a stupid name like, "wii". It's fun to call the thing a 'wiimote') As such, it's entirely appropriate to acknowledge 'wiimote' in the main article for the controller. However, I'm not seeing a reason for why it's necessary in the article on the wii. The small amount of information they have in the wii article is intentionally as short as possible. Mentioning nicknames is contrary to that concept. It's just a small technical blurb, and a link to the main article for it. That's appropriate. It isn't that 'wiimote' is offensive (at least, not to me), it's just that it's unnecessary padding.

Frankly, I don't see any reason to include the nickname other than the fact that you want it. As for people believing that the "wii remote" and "wiimote" are two separate devices... well... um... I really don't think that wikipedia should have its articles dumbed down to accomodate people who make mistakes like that. (Seriously, who makes that kind of mistake? The same people who don't know that Clark Kent and Superman are the same dude?) Bladestorm 04:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jecowa does have a point, Wiki articles should generally be optimized for readers over editors. And as we know, Nintendo's own statements have had no effect on common usage; "Nintendo Wii" has stuck for clarity, and "Wiimote" sticks as a catchy nickname for the Remote. --Stratadrake 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about this phrase making the Wii Remote section too large. As it is, it is so small that its picture is protruding into the Technical specifications section. A better way to reduce the size of the article would be to move the list of titles to its own article and optimize the references in the article. I think I'll work on that right now. Jecowa 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a mere four words (i.e. "sometimes called the Wii-mote") is hardly going to affect the overall size of the article or its section. WP:LAME indeed.... --Stratadrake 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Size has never been the reason it shouldn't be included. TJ Spyke 04:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what official wikipedia guideline or policy "WP:LAME" is, because, obviously, if that were an insult, then that wouldn't go over well as a response to editors acting in good faith.
Anyways, saying that it should be "optimized for readers over editors" still doesn't explain any reason to include it. Saying that it's short isn't any reason to include it. Nicknames of peripherals don't seem necessary or appropriate in an article on the main system. That's my argument. What's your direct reasoning for including it? Without insults, please? Bladestorm 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I could ask what solid arguments there are for not including it? Anyway, remember WP:LAME is not a policy itself but just a documentation on the silliest things that Wiki editors have argued over. And really, this whole edit/revert war over whether or not to mention the Remote's common nickname (a mere four words) fits the common theme exemplified by WP:LAME, i.e. protracted edit and/or revert conflicts over something extremely minor. --Stratadrake 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, read the arguments already given. It's unnecessary for an article about the wii. It's mildly inappropriate for a quick technical description of the device. Not every nickname needs to be echoed every time an official name is used. And, most importantly, simply because there's disagreement as to whether or not it should be included, and zero justification for including it.

That is, if people give reasons not to, then you have to give a reason to. Bladestorm 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to state, again, why "As J.L.Main mentioned, some people think the Wii Remote and Wiimote are two different controllers." is not a reason to include it. If you type Wiimote into the search bar, presumably because you want to know about it versus the Wii remote, you will be redirected to Wii Remote, where it clearly states: "The Wii Remote, also nicknamed 'Wiimote.'" I also think having a mention of Wiimote on the Wii page is getting crufty. Again, as mentioned above, Nintendo's official term for the controller is Wii remote, not Wiimote. Now, what reasons to include it are not covered by that paragraph?--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are two reasons that this should be mentioned. The term "Wiimote" is a very common term for the Wii Remote. On the internet it is used more often than the official name on English pages. Although this section is just a summary of the main article, several people feel that fact is interesting enough to mention in it.

The common naming convention, as Ajmayhew said, "[c]learly states that the common name is to be used. … [W]hilst it talks about the page titles as a special case, it does not make a distinction against titles of things used in a page. It's been demonstrated that its common name is Wiimote." If we went by the common names guideline, "Wiimote" would be mentioned in every instance. Can we at least mention it in the "Wii Remote" section once? Jecowa 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If we were to go by naming conventions, as you suggest, then the one that was selected for the main article's title already should be the one used (and the one we already use). Also, there is no need the be redundant when the user can easily click on the link to Wii remote and see that it is also the Wii-mote, or they can type in Wii-mote into the search bar and get there as well on this page. There is no need for it to be in the console's article.

No one is disputing that Wii-mote is used. Most of us say we use it in everyday speech and Nick found a reference below that the NOA President uses it. That is not the issue. The issue is should we use it inside the article for the console. Why? Yes, several people think so, but several other people disagree, so please come up with another argument.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, NOA President Reggie Fils-Aime calls it the wiimote in this video interviewIt's at about 2:58 left. NickCharbuski 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't notice that the discussion continued in another section. Please look at the bottom of the above section if you're interested in My input on the topic. Agaib 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody: Please keep in mind that already Wii-centric sources are probably just going to call it 'the Remote' or something similar. Just because there's more usage of "wiimote" than "wii remote" Entirely, doesn't mean that people referring to it as a 'remote' in general should be discounted (these people can just as easily type "wiimote", remember). It's what it is, it's a Remote. For the Wii. Wii Remote. There are 13,700,000 hits for wii AND remote, so I dunno if that means anything. Webrunner 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

External link request - ntsc-uk hardware overview

Please can I add an external link? http://www.ntsc-uk.com/feature.php?featuretype=hdw&fea=NintendoWiiHardwareReview —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesr (talk • contribs) 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

We don't have any links to a review of the system itself yet. Presently in the unofficial category we have three game review sites and a forum site linked. I'd rather have this page than the IGN and GameSpot pages linked. The IGN page is a big eyesore and the GameSpot page isn't far behind it. IGN and GameSpot seem really similar, do we need both of them, or either of them? Jecowa 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of objection, I think that's a yes. Be bold. 217.206.142.66 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooops. I tried adding the link myself, but it got removed. I just read the external links thing again and noticed I'm not allowed to add it myself, especially since I'm the Editor of said site, so apologies! I'll let someone else add it if they want. If you need any more persuasion, ntsc-uk is a non-profit site, with writers that write for free (we get a few games a month from our affiliates in return for a single unobtrusive advert on each page, but no cash profit is generated, so we aren't bothered about generating traffic). Our similar overview of the Panasonic Q has been linked on the wiki's Q page by someone. --Charlesr 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Event tag

I got rid of the Current Event tag. It's been a couple weeks since the launch, so I think it's appropriate. The PS3 article already had it removed.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wii is launching tomorrow in Australia, and the day after in Europe. I think that's current. The PS3 had it removed because it won't launch in those markets until at least March. TJ Spyke 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we should add it tomorrow, then. Just64helpin 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my plan... sorry that I didn't mention that.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 01:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It has already been released in Australia since it's about 3PM there. So I will add it back in now. TJ Spyke 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I really need to remember that there are time zones... thanks TJ...--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Iwata's Comment Be Mentioned?

Hehe! Ok, I wont antagonize anyone anymore about whether or not the Wii is in direct competition with its fellow 7th gen consoles (It actually seems to be in competition with the DS more) but should Iwata's friendly jab at Sony be mentioned in our article? I quote, "We aren't planning on competing with the PS3, but we'd like it to be said that in the end, Nintendo sold more." Check it out on IGN if you haven't seen it yet. Nintenboy01 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because it really won't matter even when it comes true.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats happened to the table!?!

The launch games table used to be clear and really easy to read but this new one is so confusing it defeats the purpose of having one. Jimmy93211 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it confusing? The regions are all clearly listed in abbreviated form. NA for North America, SA for South America, AST for Australia, EUR for Europe, JPN for Japan... I'm confused as to how you are confused. If you could be more specific, then maybe someone can fix it.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

False sales data

Apparently Nintendo exaggerated the amount of units it had sold. According to NPD, Nintendo sold 473,000 Wii units in North America during the month of November, [10] this contradicts Nintendo's claim on November 27 that it had sold 600,000 units in North America. [11] Dionyseus 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought NPD only tracked US sales. Even so, Nintendo's figure encompasses more than just North America. Dancter 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NPD tracks North America sales, that's Canada and United States. Nintendo's figures were for North America as they had not yet launched in Japan (Japan launch was on December 2). Dionyseus 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the NPD thing, but I thought the American launch included Latin American countries. Am I misunderstanding Nintendo's terminology? Dancter 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems that NPD often reports Canadian and US sales separately. Why are we to assume they mean North America this time, when every source I've seen specifically mentions that the figure is for the United States? Dancter 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I ever heard of NPD reporting Canada and US sales data seperately, do you have any evidence of this? I think when Gamedaily and Gamespot said US in their report of NPD's report, they meant to say North America. Furthermore, shipments to Canada are tiny compared to shipments to the United States, for example for the North American launch of the Xbox 360, only a little over 30,000 were shipped to Canada. Dionyseus 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers you just mentioned were from NPD,[12] in which case the GameSpot and IGN articles quoted only the US statistics,[13][14] and did not factor in the Canadian sales. In both cases, the wording was loose, implying but not stating that the numbers were for North America overall. I suspect that this would be the more likely error if there were one in the case of the November Wii numbers, but considering the wording, I think that the sources can be trusted to mean the United States. Regardless, we don't have the sales information for the other countries, so I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that Nintendo misrepresented its sales for the Americas. Dancter 03:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are right about NPD releasing US and Canada sales figures seperately. However, I highly doubt that Canada would make up for the unaccounted 124,000 consoles. Perhaps User:Jecowa is right that Nintendo meant that they shipped 600,000 to retailers. Dionyseus 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think when Nintendo said they sold 600,000 in America, they meant they sold that many to retailers. The most Nintendo would know is how many they sold to the retailers and which retailers are asking for more units, right? Jecowa 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

if xbox sold 10% of thier initial sails to canada than it makes sence that nintendo would also. even if it were only 60K, with the addition of latin america it would come pretty close to 100k that is seemingly missing. i'm going to say the nintendo probably just rounded up.J.L.Main 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The NPD data released covers the US only. Nintendo said they sold 600K in the AMERICAS, meaning it includes Columbia and Peru (where they launched in South America) and Mexico. TJ Spyke 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wii Strap Breakages?

some should really add a section already about wii remotes being thrown into TVs, vcrs, wii's, people, etc. anyone need reference? check http://www.wiihaveaproblem.com . masterhand10

This has been addressed in the wii remote article. (And I thought it was addressed in this talk page somewhere, too) Since it's related more to the wiimote than to the wii as a console, that's where the strap breakages have been mentioned. Bladestorm 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a section about the wrist strap breaking when the remote (may be) used excessively. Apparently screens are breaking from flying remotes. A critisism if anything. Gaz 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It made Reuters, should be notable. [15] WP 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While although it's a notable concept in general, I really think that it's more related to the wii remote itself, rather than the wii, as a system. (To that end, it's been included in the wiimote article for a while now. Bladestorm 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be noted that on wiihaveaproblem.com, there are only about 15 reports of this happening. its overhyped.

It is just overhype, some people are being careless with their controllers, that's it. TJ Spyke 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sites are reporting that replacements now have thicker straps, but this should probably stay on the Wiimote page. - hahnchen 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo has started making thicker straps on all new remotes to address the problem. These are also available on any remotes Nintendo replaces from this point on. Bradibus 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a third party strap whch is actually thinner than the standard,and I haven;t had any problem with it. You only have a problem if you physically let go of the Wiimote/Wii-mote/Wii remote (to appease those who think it matters what it is called), and send it through the window while playing baseball or tennis. Seriously, the games are designed so you DON'T have to use that much power, I've sent a 914 ft bat on Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz without sending the controller through my window. if you're using it that hard, you should really take a good look at how you are playing, and read the manual a little more. Zarroc 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well evidently Nintendo thought there were enough accidents to recall all the straps http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236687,00.html--Dm-schmieder 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry link got messed up there http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236687,00.html Dm-schmieder 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the recall and the reason for it should be mentioned in the article. I do not see it as of this writing. Monkeybreath 09:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not technically a recall (it's a voluntary product replacement; some difference, mainly that it doesn't pose an immediate safety risk and doesn't need replacing), and it is already mentioned. "In response to incidences of strap failures, Nintendo is now offering a stronger replacement of all Wii Remote straps." See the source: [16]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah they did beef up the strap diameter. It went from .024in. to .04in!!!!!Colin Reding 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst they did increase the size of the strap it's not a recall. They're not instructing anyone who's got a strap to return it as defective. If it was a recall they'd have told everyone with a strap to return it otherwise they'd be open to being sued. By definition this cannot be a recall as it's up to the consumer if they want to get another one. Nintendo are telling people the product isn't defective, because of this htis cannot be a recall, it's as they say, a replacement.BigHairRef | Talk 01:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While it has an article, there should be a short blurb on this one and a "See Wii remote" link put in, since it's very related and most people are going to look on this article for this information first.

Assuming you're referring to wiimotes being flung to and fro, wouldn't that be slightly more relevant in the wiimote article? Bladestorm 07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A summary of the strap breakage problem is currently included in the "Wii Remote" section. We don't need to sensationalize it by documenting extreme cases. Just64helpin 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, the section should document what happened, rather than what didn't happen. Just64helpin 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add that the Wiimote strap has been recalled, I don't think I can because of it's protected status--Cadet hastings 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wiimote has NOT been recalled. According to AP, it is a VOLUNTARY RECALL and will cost Nintendo about $1,000,000, or 10 million yen. Yay Nintendo!!!!Only YOU have the guts to do this!

Quatreryukami 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The strap replacement info is already in the article. Just64helpin 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

CTRL+F > "will" > Enter, enter, etc.

Find every occurrence of the word "will" and replace it with "is" or "are" or whatever makes sense. Wii's been out, we're in the present tense...or, we will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.19.131 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Hurray for find and replace! Jecowa 05:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification: you don't want to replace every instance of the word will, Only those referring to the Wii's launch. Bradibus 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

History?

If this indeed pans out as a fork in the history of gaming, I think some serious mention of the conceptualizing of the Wii should be made. I seem to remember Myiamoto speaking in an interview around 1999 or so about his ideal system being one simpe enough to be played with one button. That stuck out to me at the time as bizarre, but it seems the vision was clear even then. I don;t have the time or resources to check this out but it might be a fascinating addition to the article. - Plasticbadge 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be working on something quite similar to that. It's a work in progress, and I won't add it until it's just right. Just64helpin 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy?

Do we need to have the same thing mentioned twice in the same paragraph? I thought that mentioning it once was enough so I deleted the second one. This, Nintendo has released an Ethernet Kit for the Wii console, which allows users to connect the console to a standard internet router without wireless support., is what I deleted. If this needs to be changed the whole paragraph needs to be reworded. Thanks,--Darkest Hour ^$_$^$_$ 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Jecowa 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We should add nintendo got sued

IGN--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting development, a U.S. company suing the American division of a Japan-based company for something developed on the Japan side of things. But better cite it to be sure. --Stratadrake 01:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kotaku, which may or may not be a reliable source, has a copy of the complaint [17]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kotaku is quite notable, but IGN is definitely more notable and should be used as the source. Dionyseus 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I linked the IGN article and Kotaku transcript, though both may not be necessary (and this was shortly before my PC froze... grr.) --Stratadrake 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. The product they claimed to have copied is nothing more than a laser pointer that also doubles as a clicker for slideshow presentations. Bradibus 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hearing the case was dropped but the sources are... well unclear. Anyone know anything?

New Thicker Wii Strap in American remotes

I just recently got a new remote and strap from Nintendo after replacing my old broken one, and I noticed the new strap is thicker than the ones that were available during launch. I've taken a comparison picture: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v143/Adeon/wiistrap.jpg Bradibus 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be the reason. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)