Actually, you changed your definition of 'domination' along the way to try to skew numbers to make yourself look correct.  Please realize that your definition need not be spelled out.  We are all (for the most part,) thinking, intelligent individuals and can understand your intentions without them being literally stated.

Look at the bolded statement above.  You can easily derive from that statement that domination is not dependant on selling multiples.  If your premise all along was that 'Nintendomination' (lame) is reliant on selling multiples, the implicit idea that not outselling by multiples is still domination would not be there.

Not only that but you continue on to say that the domination was not apparent that week because Nintendo outsold the competition by "the smallest margin."

So using your original definition, yes the domination has continued, using your modified version, I still say yes it will continue any way, maybe around the beginning of the 2nd quarter of the year.  I think Nintendo will have huge momentum going in to 08.

Sorry Dodece, the holidays showed us the Wii isn't going anywhere.

I think this chart is enough to prove Nintendomination:

http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&weeks=156

Strange I asked a question, and clarified exactly what the question was. Then for some strange reason people are upset that my question wasn't something they can twist. The fault is not mine I asked a rational question, and all that comes of it is irrational answers. Do my fellow posters actually want me to ask idiotic questions with no points of reference?

I defined Nintendomination if you want to have another definition for it by all means express your definition, but the question was placed in the context of my definition. The question was did you think at the time whether Nintendo would return to the kind of comparative sales it had been seeing up to that point. The answer is no it has not. For a week they saw a obscene spike. They need to see that kind of margin for some time to see that return.

Would you say Nintendo was losing the console wars if for a week they lost in a single market, or say they suffer a severe supply shortfall next month, and the competition does not. No you wouldn't you would say its a short term fluctuation. When I posed the question I wasn't citing a week. I was citing the culmination of many weeks.

Regardless a question is not a statement. Instead of attacking me personally why not answer the question in the context in which it was posed. You might not like the question, and if you do not think it is a fair question. You have a great option in not replying.

On a side note I have to ask the question didn't any of you hardcore Wii loyalists get any decent games to play for Christmas. I know I have spent endless hours playing games since the holiday. Hardly having time to get on these forums.

 Wii is almost in a vertical climb

Well, I could be wrong but I suspect what is really annoying people is the vast number of threads that cherry pick numbers and use arbitrary definitions to make the claim that the 'Wii is Dying' or 'Nintendomination is at an end' ...

When looking at data in the videogame market you have to look at the data in a long enough timeframe and consider the context in order to have an understanding of what is happening; realistically, anything less than (about) 3 month time intervals is not really meaningful because of the impact of individual game releases, price reductions and bundles.

That might be an enjoyable change of pace. Then again, maybe not. Maybe you could just ask idiotic rhetorical questions? Maybe that would work out better.

Spot on. Don't contradict yourself Dodece. By your own statement, Nintendo is still easily dominating.

 I'm not christian