Talk:Wii U

Why was note on compatibility removed?

The following was removed on 14:06, 6 April 2013‎ by Teancum citing «rem unreliable sales source per WP:VG/S»:

• It [the Pro controller] is also not compatible with New Super Mario Bros U (even though the controller has the input mechanisms neccessary for multiplayer mode) or Nintendo Land, Nintendo's two top selling games for Wii U

Maybe the sales source is unreliable, but I think there is little doubt that New Super Mario Bros U and Nintendo Land are major titles, quite possibly the two top selling items. Is incompatability with these items not noteworthy? Bjornte (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the User was probably more about challenging the part about Nintendo Land being the top selling game. I see no problem re-adding the information about incompatibility with a different source and leaving out the bit about the fact that they're the top-selling games for the system. (I mean, it's likely, and we'll find out in the next month or so when Nintendo reveals their yearly sales, but I don't know if we have official figures for that yet.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the source Vgchartz unreliable, I feel this sentence doesn't belong in the article at all. There is no source given for the incompatibility part, so why is it singling out those two games when there are other Wii U games that don't support the controller? And what do sales have to do with a game being compatible with something? It subtly feels more like a complaint against the fact these two popular games don't support the controller but "should." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too, I have no problem with leaving it out either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with ThomasO1989 on what he said. The pro controller is basically the "classic controller" made for the Wii U (this is a fact). It isn't compatible with a lot of games and listing those 2 as the top selling is a biased statement complaining about it. I think the article is fine as it is and that should be left out. Tyros1972 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference [87] is wrong ("the same processor technology found in Watson")

It was denied. http://paritynews.com/hardware/item/357-ibm-wii-u-has-a-power-based-cpu-and-not-power-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.204.81.180 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

EA

• Recently, Electronic Arts had announced that they stopped making games for Nintendo Wii U. Should this be added on the article? TwinTurbo (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would think so, they're a major player in the industry, and there's pleny of sources covering it to verify facts. Just as long as it keeps to WP:NPOV of course. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the safer statement is that they currently don't have anything in production for Wii U. That at least gives some wiggle room if they decide to start up again (unlikely, but still). --McDoobAU93 23:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. That's the wordin they're using too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"875% increase in sales rank"

"Following the reveal of the rival Xbox One, Amazon UK announced that Wii U sales on the site had immediately risen by over 200% and that the console's sales rank had jumped by 875%.[135]"

This sort of editorialized non-sense doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's obvious anti-Xbox whining that should stay on reddit, where the author probably found the article in the first place. The only reason the sales rank jump is given in percentages is because it sounds more impressive than "jumped from rank 400 to rank 40". It's utterly transparant and should be removed. I didn't think anybody would have a problem with me doing so, but apparently this is "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.227.56 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about all of that, but I do agree that its not a very noteworthy stat. Percentages can be skewed, especially when its in references to increases of small amounts, which applies here; the Wii U has not been selling well. Additionally, the increase was only noted by one singular retailer, in one particular region. I support its removal as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, "MyNintendoNews" is not a reliable source either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The main reason I undid your edit and gave you a warning was it was an unexplained and unsourced removal of content, and anon's are usually noted to vandalize! I recommend registering an account as you will be taken more seriously by many editors. Now that I can see what's going on, yes please go ahead and remove that as I agree "mynintendonews.com" is not a reliable source. Tyros1972 Talk 18:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate commentary in lead moved to reception

“ (although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification) ”

I reworded this clause from the third sentence of the lead and I moved it in Reception. The neutrality of putting criticism that early on in an article is highly questionable. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It is important to note that its 'next-gen' status is disputed though, so it is worth noting when discussing the generation in the aticle. On WP we do note it as an eighth generation console, because it technically is, that's how generations work. But its gen has been a serious point of contention by various figures in the industry that it is probably worth noting. That statement wasn't really criticism, it was just mentioning that some disagree, even though their argument doesn't really make sense. Some people may suggest that that statement should be returned to the lead, although if it is in Reception then that's probably ok also. DarkToonLink (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point is all the arguments they are applying the Wii U and the 8th are 100% applicable to the Wii and the 7th. Personally, I think the idea that the Wii U will compete with PS4/Xbone to be a bit of BS, since Nintendo has been going its own path since the original Wii came out. Its stuff is supposed to be complementary to the other two. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not quite though, the Wii launched after the other 7th gen consoles. The PS/MS fanboys don't want to think that Nintendo started next-gen. I personally do consider it next-gen and its classification is technically 8th gen, so that is listed in the article, and the questioning of it seems to belong well in the Reception section where you moved it (It is hard to deny many don't consider it next-gen. As far as I can tell, the only major company to publically call it so is Activision). I understand your point about not being in direct competition, but it still is a competitor to the PS4 and XBONE so I feel that the way the article currently handles these discussed issues is adequate at this point in time. DarkToonLink (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I jumped through the last 500 edits, and I randomly (or as randomly possible) asked registered users who seemed to have edited the page on multiple cases to discuss. I then realized this could possibly be interpreted as canvassing, so I stopped opened a Request for Comment as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that canvassing, but it was a good idea to open up an RFC too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is it appropriate to cite criticism of the Wii U's hardware and its "eight-generation" status in the first paragraph of its lead?

The article until recently had a comment "(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" with references to various industry figures criticizing the hardware of the Wii U (and thus denying it "next-gen" status) in the very first paragraph of the lead. While this is a valid discussion, it is my understanding that generally criticism of a product belongs in a reception (or similar) section, and not right away in the lead. Can anyone else provide input? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – The lead section is a summary of the main topics covered in an article (see MOS:LEAD). Therefore, a brief summary of what's covered in the Reception section can and should appear in the lead. With that said however, I agree that this particular piece of information doesn't belong. It is a minority viewpoint that may deserve some coverage in Reception, but it certainly shouldn't be considered a primary aspect of the article that needs to be mentioned in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral for now – I can understand both sides of this one. On one hand, it seems too detailed for the lead, but on the other hand, its only a brief half a sentence, and the actual contents truth isn't being challenged by either side. I'm going to wait and see other rationales for now... Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral – Honestly, the whole generation system is broken. As time passes since the last discussion on the video games portal's talk page, I really come to see that there's absolutely nothing concrete to what defines a next generation system or what system started this whole generation business. I remain neutral to this question for now, simply because I don't want to risk giving a biased opinion about the subject. But the truth is that you can't cover up a broken system forever.--Arkhandar (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like this either, but its sadly one of those things that no one can ever agree on how to define, and when there is no consensus, there is no change. So nothing ever changes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Response – Well the whole thing is they are saying the Wii U is not next-gen (=8th gen) solely on the fact that it is not as powerful as the Xbox One or PS4, but the problem is that if hardware solely determines generation than the Wii should not be seventh generation. Also, it seems kind of bogus to think about the Wii (U) competing with the Xbox 360/One or PS3/4, the systems have completely different types of goals and different gaming philosophies. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this RfC asking whether or not it is valid information? If so, then expect a wide range of conflicting opinions. I assumed this was primarily about the information being placed in the lead. If that's the case, then we should focus on that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The objective fact is a (small) collection of industry figures are saying this. It is also an objective fact that other industry figures disagree on the assessment. The validity of the statements is moot given that they are all reliable sources and Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. The RfC is asking, is this discussion relevant enough and is it proper to have this discussion about a (minority) view point in the lead. I think not. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Rather let me ask you how is it inappropriate? It is just a fact. If that statement is not used in other consoles then remove it, but for now it is a Neutral statement and not even sure why it would be questioned. Tyros1972 Talk 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Response - The arguments said industry figures are making against the Wii U are essentially verbatim of what people said about the Wii relative the to 360/PS3, yet when you look at the homologous sentence on Wii, there is nothing about the Wii being weaker. As what Darrek posted below, video game generations have been historically defined by time, not by technological power as these figures are trying to change it to mean technological power. That is not a discussion meant for a lead, but instead for a reception section or an article on videogame consoles' history Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree that video game generations have been historically defined by time (never specs) and stating Wii-U is 8th generation is correct. The argument that it's specs aren't high enough or strong enough to be 8th gen is irrelevant since that is not what classifies it. I think there is a lot of "Wii-U" haters out there for whatever reason and it is nothing more then a biased opinion to say it should be put in the 7th gen. You pose an interesting question.Tyros1972 Talk 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that a discussion would be inappropriate in the lead. But the point in question is a fraction of a sentence, not a full-fledged discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep I fully agree with Sergecross73 Tyros1972 Talk 22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Smuckola below, it would be violating Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight to leave it in the lead. It is the belief of a small minority not something worthy of the first paragraph Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly in the first comment of the RfC. It doesn't pass the weight test for the lead, as it is not a significant controversy, but it may pass the test for inclusion in the Reception section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Full disclosure, I fully believe it to be 8th gen. But quite frankly, I think it could be argued that the perception that it may not be 8th gen, could very well be a defining characteristic of it at the moment. One of the reasons it seems to be struggling is because companies like EA can't use their new, "next gen" game engines running on it, and so they don't bother making the respective game for it. This makes people question which "gen" its from then, if so many games aren't coming to it. And while a whole discussion on that would be excessive in the lead, it seems like a passing comment, which would be fleshed out in the reception section, could hypothetically be acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I think it's probably worth noting, however I believe it should be in the reception paragraph rather than the opening paragraph. The term 'next gen' used to refer to the next generation or round of consoles but the meaning seems to have been skewed a bit to mean a technological leap instead. Personally I think Wii U is next gen alongside PS4 and XB1 in the same way the PlayStation and Saturn belong in the same generation as the N64, or the Game Boy, Game Gear and Atari Lynx share the same 'gen' status  :) Darrek Attilla (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm against putting it in the lead. The RFC was worded so vaguely that I'm not sure whether to respond positively or negatively, but I agree with the original poster's position that it should not be in that prominent position. On the topic of whether the Wii U is next generation, the dissenting opinion is a tiny minority, as many have pointed out; thus, I believe that Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight would call it seriously undue weight. To clarify other commenters here, I believe that this viewpoint is a factually incorrect assessment and thus a statement such as "Wii U is not next gen" should be regarded as hyperbole, or as a dissatisfaction with the fact that it is next gen. Thank you to all volunteers on this excellent article. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Include in lead - As long as its only a half sentence, and fully sourced and properly worded, I see no harm in having it in the lead. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Leave out of lead - The concept of "gen" is ill-defined, and the mere debate over the proper use of that label is not sufficiently noteworthy or informative to be in the lead of this article. Mentioning the debate over the label doesn't speak to what the issue actually is, nor does it enhance the reader's understanding of the issue. Be specific. If the point is that the Wii U is underpowered compared to its competitors, and that this is discouraging game development or sales (and enough reliable sources mention this), then say that in the lead. Save the implications for how that lack of power affects the Wii U's gen label for elsewhere in the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Avoid: Hi. "Some figures" is a potential weasel word and should either be completely avoid or supplemented with appropriate attribution. In other words, if and only if there is a paragraph detailing on the dispute and naming the people who disputed the classification, the RFC sentence ("although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification") may appear in the lead or as the topic sentence of the first paragraph detailing the dispute. What User:Thegreyanomaly explained, however, is indeed not acceptable alone. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Include in lead First of all, I'd like to highlight that stating the Wii U is not 8th gen is not a criticism - its just assigning it a generation. Classifying it as a criticism is misunderstanding what a console generation is, as what generation a system is should not be deemed something that is emotive. Second of all, it is beyond question that the industry is not unified in the classification of the Wii u, therefore it seems misleading to not mention this discrepancy immediately with regard to the Wii U. The Wii U has quite clearly shown that classification of console generations is split within the industry (From publishers, to developers and external analysts) and it is a term with little guidelines. On one hand, we consider next-gen graphics to be graphics that show a dramatic improvement over existing graphics (as shown in games like killzone 3 -> shadowfall) but then we classify systems with significantly less technical power to be next gen e.g. The Wii being classified as 7th gen. Personally I think it would be wise to consider that fighter jets have a generation classification system which states that each generation had to show numerous technological improvements over the previous generation. It's my opinion that the Wii is not 7th gen, nor the Wii U 8th gen because the consoles are not capable of what we would call appropriate graphics for those generations, therefore how can a next-gen console be so when it cannot produce next-gen graphics? This doesn't make them inferior systems, but gives much more structure to the generation system which seems to, at the moment, have no logical process behind it. Mazty ( talk) 15:12, 30th June
  • Reply it is criticism. Read the actual sources you cited. It it is all complaints about the hardware. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply Regardless of whether they think it is a bad thing that it is 8th gen, this doesn't change the important factor that they consider it not to be 8th gen. Stating the Wii U Is 7th gen is not inherent criticism and shouldn't be treated as such. What they think of it being 7th gen is seperate from the notion that they are willing to call it 7th gen. mazty (talk) 00:39 GMT+2, 30 June 2013
  • Comparing the number of people in the industry who think it is 8th gen vs. not 8th gen is like comparing the number of Windows users in the world to the number of OS X users in the world. You are talking about a small number of people who are saying this. As pointed out above, highlighting this minority position in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources - reliable sources call the Wii and Wii U 7th and 8th generation, respectively. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources also call the Wii U 7th gen, and therefore should not be excluded. Considering EA classifies it as not 'gen 4', as well as Epic Games not considering it 8th gen, they are two very large influences within the gaming world and certainly give the claim due weight.mazty (talk) 00:39 GMT+2, 30 June 2013
      • No one is one is talking about excluding them, please get that right. The point is the people who are saying this are undoubtedly hold a minority view held by a handful of people here and there. There is not enough industry backing of these opinions (i.e., not enough weight) for them to be prominently put in the lead (and most of the people here agree with me on that). They belong in the reception sentence. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• • "Personally I think it would be wise to consider that fighter jets have a generation classification system which states that each generation had to show numerous technological improvements over the previous generation." Game consoles are not fighter jets, and your opinion of the consoles is not relevant. What is relevant here is what reliable sources say and what Wikipedia policies say.
    • True; it was just an example of how the same term has been used within another industry, and that general rule of thumb seems to be edging into certain gaming companies. Albeit it's a point that won't go anywhere - consider it retracted.mazty (talk) 00:39 GMT+2, 30 June 2013
  • "we consider next-gen graphics to be graphics that show a dramatic improvement over existing graphics (as shown in games like killzone 3 -> shadowfall) but then we classify systems with significantly less technical power to be next gen" - We've been doing this for a long time. Historically "next-gen" never meant anything about specs, it has always referred to the clusters in which consoles tend to be released. That is 'the logical process behind the generation definitions. Using specs to define generations is a neologism, and the idea that they ever defined video game generations is revisionist history. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • However spec improvements, as far as I'm aware, always occured in sizeable amounts and it was only until the 7th generation that a console emerged that did not have much technical improvements over it's predecessors. mazty (talk) 00:39 GMT+2, 30 June 2013
      • The Wii was 2-3 times stronger than the GameCube and integrated lots and lots of new technologies not present in the latter. Nintendo focused their increase specs in other things such as their controller and the compactness of their technology as opposed to focusing it on graphics. Anyone who says the Wii wasn't a technological leap over the GameCube is spewing nothing but bullshit. Additionally, the Wii U is most definitely leaps and bounds stronger the Wii, and anyone who says the Wii U is not a technological leap over the Wii is spewing even greater bullshit. Finally, none of this changes the fact, we've never defined gaming generations by specs, and there have been other times when one system is significantly weaker than its same-gen competitor such as the Game Boy vs. the Game Gear. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "not capable of what we would call appropriate graphics for those generations" Who is this "we" and why is it that graphics is held above all other aspects of gaming? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "We" is what the industry generically qualifies as next-gen graphics, demonstrated by presentations seen at E3. No one is saying it is held above all other aspects of gaming. Something to consider is a hypothetical where if the next Xbox had a 133Mhz CPU, 32MB RAM, a Geforce 5600, with no internet connectivity etc, would the industry classify is as 8th gen? mazty (talk) 00:39 GMT+2, 30 June 2013
      • Nonsense arguments are not worth responding to. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Leave out of lead - I agree that such criticism should exist in later sections (whatever their names may be) of an article and not in the lead itself. I also agree with Arkhandar that the whole "generation" thingie is just a broken subjective nonsense and I wouldn't mind to see this removed from ALL of the consoles mentioned in Wiki, but such global discussion should be left for another place. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

While consensus is not defined by votes, I thought it would worthing pointing out the balance of !votes at present: seven people (eight if you include the pre-RfC discussion) agree that the comment in the lead is inappropriate either outright or in the absence of an actual discussion in the reception/other section, three people think it is alright, and one person neutral. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Although I myself said the sentence is not appropriate, you are too quick to assume victory. A closing mediator might simply drop every single argument here as entirely lacking merit because of the consequences of the recent edits to article, lack of objectivity in most participant's comments, the fact that they seem to be totally alien to Wikipedia procedure and the hostility that sometimes outweighs the consensus-building value. If it comes to pass, he or she wouldn't utter a word; you will get a tentative conclusion, probably with no closure. Whether you'd feel the RFC was time wasted or not is anyone's guess.

So, a word of advice: Please tone it down a notch. Let's have discussion, instead of a heated discussion. Remember that we are your friends, so please treat your friends' perspective with due acceptance and respect. When the avenue of a compromise is open, go for it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I never assumed victory, I noted that consensus is not based on votes. It is not out of the ordinary to count out the number of people who support/oppose a motion. I have been on Wikipedia for a long, long time, I know how the RfC process works, and I know that this discussion is not over. It is also not out of the ordinary for discussions to be heated either. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for interjecting but I see nothing wrong with that person's comment - it was just a neutral observation of current situation. Certainly not a "victory dance" of any kind. Also, I see no need to assume anything about the knowledge of Wikipedia's procedures by other participating editors or that someone else wants to intentionally have a "heated discussion" with anyone else.

So a word of advice: Please kindly tone it down a notch. Like you yourself have said - "we are your friends" and there's absolutely no need to instantly jump to conclusions in such way and WP:ABF other editors. Thank you for your understanding. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Leave out. while there are some commentators who have made this claim I don't see anything to indicate that this is anywhere near close to widespread enough a belief that it belongs in a section which is a general overview of the article.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)