The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just unecyclopedic trivial listcruft at best. A different way to play Wii games is somewhat important, but a whole list on it isn't helpful. I think this would also fall under, some kind of how-to play guide: as generally video game articles do NOT list every way you can play them. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. | ” |
“ | Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
These arguments lead to the following conclusions:
So, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy. Enthusiastic editors are encouraged to put thought and care into collecting information for meaningful articles. |
” |
This is discriminate (no indiscriminate) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | This article is basically how to play Wii games differently, and which games they are. Knowing alternate control methods isn't important information in general. | ” |
“ | If someone wants to know this information that badly, they can look at the back of the Wii box in the store or go to a video game website where the information should be... not here. At best, compatibility for a specific controller should be noted in the game's article - more specifically, the infobox on a game article, which includes an entry for control schemes. Having a whole page dedicated to this, especially when only a small minority of the Wii's sizable library actually supports it, seems excessive. |
” |
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | It is not "Articles for discussion", it's "Articles for deletion". An AFD is not necessary to facilitate a redirect. I am not saying at this time that to redirect right now was a good idea, however. MuZemike 06:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW (just a general question) how is stripping a page of content and turning it into a redirect significantly different from deleting it? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK good point, anyways, I have notified the two other editors who have edited the page (the bulk of the page was built by me and then rest was done by bots and IPs and two editors) and User:Stepheng3 (who proposed the creation of this page when the category was deleted) of this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
” |