Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo Revolution games

Crystal Ball is not a factor. I have proven that every single game on that list (with the exception of WarioWare and Camelot RPG, which have not had the word of Nintendo or Camelot presented as of yet), and thusly, not speculation. Anyone who claimed Crystal Ball should now be supporting this. No speculation involved. Thoughts from deleters? -- A Link to the Past 04:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

A large part of my problem is that I think it's inappropriate to put games in development in lists of this type; mixing released games and unreleased games can be very confusing. This applies to any game list of this type, not just the Revolution list. In addition, lists of games which will be released in the far future often turn out to be incorrect despite the best efforts of the list's compilers. Take Mario 128, for example, a game which could have legitimately been placed on a list of Gamecube games when that system was being revealed several years ago. As we all know, however, this game never materialized.

I think game lists on the Wikipedia should stick to released software. Seperate lists for rumored and otherwise forthcoming titles may be appropriate, but I'm not certain. Kairos 05:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, Daikatana came out in 1997, and Duke Nukem Forever is coming out in 1998. --Carnildo 06:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. Twilight Princess is, in fact, an unreleased game. The fact that it may be deleted is irrelevant; Twilight Princess, while almost impossible, is not exactly impossible to be cancelled. These are known to be in development, and I would be lying if I said I thought that there would be no games confirmed in the near future.

1. 2. We're not writing on stone tablets, so the idea of a changing list is of no inconvenience to anyone.

1. 3. Yes, and you know what we would have done? We would have made it so that Daikatana was listed as confirmed for 1997, and Duke Nukem Forever was confirmed for 1998, until it turned out it wasn't. We go on accurate information, not 'it could get cancelled'. Wikipedia articles are not set in stone. This list will have games being added and games being removed, years after the Revolution is released. -- A Link to the Past 06:05, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Please re-read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not in the business of making predictions here. --Carnildo 06:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carnildo, please read, period. If Miyamoto is speculating that HIS GAME is being developed, then who the Hell do we treat as a correct source? God almighty? Do you want me to spoon feed you the links on Nintendo Revolution proving these games are in development? Or would you prefer to ignore them so that your already debunked argument is preserved? -- A Link to the Past 06:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • And on top of that, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess would fall under Crystal Ball. Unless, of course, you make the exception that a game doesn't apply because it is that far in. Both are confirmed to be coming out and in development (one lacks a release date and screenshots), so if one of those is to apply to Crystal Ball, so shall the other. -- A Link to the Past 06:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. On the one hand, we have a game that is far along in development and for which there exists a reasonable amount of information. On the other, we have a collection of games which exist in the public eye only in the form of "untitled games of X series, possibly being released on this upcoming system, whenever it does come out". I don't personally think it's that fine of a distinction. Kairos 06:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more likely than not that these games are coming. Not because of common sense; but because they are saying so. We should assume that they won't be cancelled, because there's no reason to believe it. -- A Link to the Past 06:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I think this is all getting a little heated. If the article is deleted, it can be easily created again once there is the kind of information available that would prohibit deletion. If it is kept, it will eventually morph into something more concrete. My concern with the article is that these games are only 'confirmed' in the sense that they might be delayed, cancelled etc at some point in the future. Since there is uncertainty of this degree involved, I'm inclined to think it does require use of a crystal ball. However, I presume the article as it stands has been constructed from an adequately authoritative source, and so it contains verifiable and currenly correct information. On this assumption, the use of the crystal ball is not in the article, it is in Nintendo's Head Office and that's different. Can a suitably authoritative reference be put in the article to show this? I mean something proper — not just an enthusiastic games mag saying how much there is going on, but a source from e.g. Nintendo or their dev teams or something. I think also that a {{current}} template of some appropriate flavour might help a little. For now, I'll leave my vote at delete, but will change to keep (or perhaps abstain given the tentativity of this article) if what I said above can be confirmed by someone who knows where to look. -Splash 16:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it work out if I gave you an IGN link where they talked to various people in the industry, and got confirmation of the games? -- A Link to the Past 18:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure of what an IGN link is, but if it is confirmation from Nintendo, or someone suitably close to them then yes, I imagine that would help. If you can confirm that the games are being developed, I think I'd not have too much problem with the article. (But put the info in the article, rather than giving it to me.) -Splash 15:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • IGN is the well-known website, while disliked for its IGNsider crap, it is still informative. Posted, now, is it encyclopediatic? -- A Link to the Past 02:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)