Talk:Nintendo Switch

How is this NOT the successor to the Wii U??

We know the sequence of NES, SNES, Nintendo 64, GameCube, Wii, Wii U, Nintendo Switch. But, what argument is there that supports the statement that this is NOT the successor to the Wii U?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo has explicitly stated it is not a successor, not is there any announcement concerning any sort of discontinuation of the Wii U or Nintendo 3DS. We have to wait for sources to make a call on this one. It could end up being a co-current product line. -- ferret (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo has explicitly stated that it IS the successor. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a source to back your stance? They've stated the focus is as a home console, but their literal stance, straight from the President of the company in 2016, is "The NX is neither the successor to the Wii U nor to the 3DS". Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

At an Investor Q&A session (I'll look for an English translation) it was explicitly asked if NX was the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS to which Nintendo responded that it was the successor to the Wii U. As for that quote you keep citing, you're posting an incomplete quote. Read more than the headline. The full quote (and the earlier comments from Iwata corroborate), state that Switch is the successor but because it's a new hybrid style of game play, it's not a pure successor to either has been traditionally seen when a new system releases. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please show the sources/direct quotes that show this. Because I read on in the source I provided, and it says that NX/Switch is ...a new way of playing games, which I think will have a larger impact than the Wii U, but I don't feel it's a pure replacement for the Wii U. which sounds like even more proof that its not a "successor". Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly; and the only comment on the Wii U is that they've said they're going to start slowing production of it, but never said discontinued. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything though. PlayStation 2 production didn't end until 2013[1] - the same year the PS4 launched. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

How can you act so bewildered without even looking up Nintendo's stance on it? Or even doing the most basic Google search. Yeesh. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It is replacing Wii U and in terms of generations, it is absolutely the next generation. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So. Where's your source? -- ferret (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The 3DSXL "replaced" the normal 3DS, but we don't consider that to be next generation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That's because a 3DS XL is still a 3DS. Everything is the same, except for the larger screen size. It plays 3DS games. Also, the XL didn't replace the non-XL either. The Switch is a brand new home console. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But as Nintendo has said, it's not replacing the functionality of the Wii U. It can be taken as a different product line, a less powerful console that can work as a mobile device, rather than dedicated. That's why it's not a successor. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's replacing Wii U as Nintendo's home console going forward. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You understand that essentially every source we currently have contradicts you, right? -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree on that. Switch is their next home gaming system. Per Nintendo. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

They did say that, but they also said the Switch would not replace the Wii U or 3DS. — Gestrid (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Switch is their next home gaming system" and "Switch is not a successor to the Wii U" are not mutually exclusive statements. Take for example, how MS is positioning the "Project Scorpio" unit as being a 4K, VR-ready Xbox system but one that does not displace the current Xbox One. This is the same thing. It is a different home console, but not meant to surplant the Wii U (partially indicated by the lack of backwards compatibility); they can co-exist. This makes both "Switch is their next home gaming system" and "Switch is not a successor to the Wii U" equally valid. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility is not a factor in whether something succeeds the other. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Plus, as of yesterday, we know the Switch will be part of an "ecosystem" of systems of some sort. It could be that one of those is a Wii U successor, not the Switch. — Gestrid (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the source of this "ecosystem" talk? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg interview with Tatsumi Kimishima. — Gestrid (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

He's talking about accessories or add-ons to Switch. Nothing was said about entire other systems,. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In your very first comment in this discussion, you claimed you had explicit quotes from Nintendo calling it a successor. Where are these references and direct quotes you speak of? You keep arguing, but everything so far has been vague anecdotes and original research. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

[2][3](English translated)[4]. We also discussed the President's comments before[5], which we disagreed about. There's plenty of older ones too, but we'll stick to the more recent. If you want other sources to cite about the use of the word "successor" [6]. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't read 1 and 2. 3 is a translation by a random twitter user - not usable. 4 is a LA Times headline. None of this is explicit, straight from Nintendo. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's from a investor Q&A session. Whether there are issues with them as a source or not, your personal inability to read them is not one of them. 3 was merely to show an English translation of what was being said in Japanese. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, we are allowed to use sources in other languages, though English sources are preferred, (see WP:NONENG for more on using foreign sources) but we can't accept tweets as official translations because that is user-generated content (see WP:USERG). Basically, in this case, the foreign source would be preferred over the tweets, as far as citations go. — Gestrid (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please find a source like one deemed usable on Wikipedia at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think this "successor" business is all pretty moot as the lead already states ..is the company's seventh major home gaming platform after the Wii U]] making a statement about it being a successor simply unneeded. Although I think it is about a billion-to-one that a latter wii u successor will actually launch, all the sources point to Nintendo denying this, so "successor" should be avoided as being unnecessary and unsupported. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• From how this is being positioned, this feels like it is slotted in between the Wii U and 3DS. If Nintendo does make a full, home console to succeed the Wii U, I'm pretty sure they won't be using a system-on-chip designed primarily for use in tablets and microconsoles. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Late October source

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/nintendo-s-big-switch-q-a-with-president-tatsumi-kimishima - This has got to be the most recent word on this. An extremely reliable source with a direct quote straight from the president, saying that their stance is that it's not a successor to Wii U or the 3DS. It does not get any direct or clear cut than this. It's not a successor to the Wii U. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that does not clearly state Switch is not succeeding Wii U. It follows in line with his previous comments that they wanted go a different route in terms of not directly following the style, etc. of Wii U and 3DS, but says nothing about Switch not succeeding Wii U. In fact, the next answer about if 3DS will be discontinued seems to support that the Switch is succeeding Wii U. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about the Wii U. It says, Thanks to our software, the 3DS hardware is still growing. So that business still has momentum. And certainly rather than being cannibalized by the Switch, we think the 3DS can continue in its own form. It seems to me you're trying to imply something the source is not saying. However, this also doesn't seem to outright say that this isn't a successor to Wii U or 3DS. The source says, We didn't just want a successor to the Wii U or the 3DS. So our original concept was, "What kind of new experience can we create?" And what we showed this time was an object that's both stationary and one you can take outside to play with anyone you want. That first sentence can be interpreted by some to mean that it's a successor to both, or it could be interpreted by others to mean it isn't a successor to either. — Gestrid (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The quote says "so *that* business [the 3DS] still has momentum [and won't be] cannibalized by the Switch". Their only other game hardware business is Wii U. This matches with other statements they've more directly talked about the impact Switch (the "next home gaming system") will have on Wii U [7] -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the part where the president of Nintendo says We didn't just want a successor to the Wii U or the 3DS. It's saying it's not a successor to either. If he wanted to express the last few of being a successor to both, he would have needed to circle back and say more about it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

As was noted by someone else, that's not necessarily what he's saying. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Saying the 3DS isn't a predecessor to the Switch doesn't automatically mean the Wii U is. I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy of some sort. — Gestrid (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Because of the EC tag, I'm not clear if this is a response to me (since I did not make such a statement), but if it is I just want to clarify that I did not say because the 3DS isn't, the Wii U automatically is. -20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. The reply was to your previous comment that begins The quote says.... I edit-conflicted with Sergecross and (apparently) you, and I didn't realize Sergecross hadn't indented their comment. — Gestrid (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources are clear.The opinion of Nintendo is not a secondary source but a primary source. The secondary sources are clear and the consensus too. Also, Nintendo will stop the Wii U after the release of Switch. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your source cites a Eurogamer rumor that hasn't been confirmed yet. We can't act on that yet. (Someone already pointed this out, directly below, as well. It's not new info to the discussion.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I am not agree. The end of Wii U is a rumor, not the fact that Switch is it successor. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the whole premise of the article is based around something that may or may not happen. Until it happens, its speculative. We shouldn't be defining the history of video games based on the speculation of a tech blog. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, we had something similar going on with people adding "March 2017" to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. We added similar hidden comments throughout the article at every mention of the release date, and the problem suddenly stopped for the most part. So I like to think that the comment in this article is working. — Gestrid (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It also does not make clear how many "cartridges" will be needed to run each game, because, as we all know, for instance, the Legend of Zelda game franchise features a huge map which can be freely explored by the player, right? I say this because I know that, when the Gamecube version of Tales of Symphonia was released, it was split into two game discs, but, since the Switch will no longer support optical discs... hence my question. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The basic fact is that in the decade since the GameCube, solid state storage has surpassed optical discs for storage and small size. I seriously doubt the Switch will have any games that have multiple game cards. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Multi-disk games are a rarity these days, and multi-cartridge games are virtually unheard of throughout all video game platforms. Not entirely sure how this factors into this discussion on video game generations, but regardless...it seems unlikely. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wii U Discontinued, Company Executives Refer to Wii U in past tense

While the Switch can't yet be considered a successor to the Nintendo 3DS (NoA President Reggie Fils-Aime has stated that 3DS will still be supported), I feel it is safe to officially say that the Switch is the successor to the Wii U. The company's main Japanese site listed the system as ending production back in November, with NoA mirroring this statement that all Wii U's for this fiscal year have already been shipped. A recent TIME interview has Reggie relate that one of the Japanese execs hopes that "consumers look back at Wii U as a necessary step, in order to get to Nintendo Switch." That first interview I linked to regarding the 3DS also has Reggie only talking about the 3DS and Switch co-existing, with no mention of the Wii U as being part of the company's future. It's safe to say that the system is done. --UBracter (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The arguement that Switch is not the successor is simply too weak. In fact I believe it was a bizzare move to even consider it not to be a successor. The interview with Reggie that you posted was from 2 days ago, after the Switch's presentation, so that should only make it more clear that the Switch is, undoubtedly, the successor of Wii U. --Pincerr (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources Calling Switch 9th Generation

We have our first source that clearly called Nintendo Switch a ninth generation console: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAHqz7bdFwI Are YouTube videos appropriate as a source? Max Lazy 10 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Generally, no. You're going to want to look at WP:VG/S to see sources that are usable or not usable. You tubers generally aren't - they're going to fail WP:USERG and/or WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though that WP:VG/S is not an all-encompassing list. If you're not sure about a website and you want to add it to the list as reliable, unreliable, or "use with caution", you can go to VG/S's page's talk page (WT:VG/S) and click "Click here to start a new discussion thread". Make sure to fill in all the requested information. Keep in mind that the discussion may be inconclusive for one reason or another. — Gestrid (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

True, but in this particular case, to make such a massive call on something like this (literally defining the generations if the history of video games, we're probably going to want to see the mainstream video game journalism agreeing with it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. — Gestrid (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay how's this for a new source? Rolling Stone called it ninth gen in the following article: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-nintendos-new-switch-console-w445780 Max Lazy 10 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"firing the starting gun on the ninth generation of video game consoles" doesn't clearly state its ninth gen, but, using the racing analogy, they're suggesting that we're getting close to starting the ninth gen. That said, I think we need to see what a majority of sources say on this issue not just one. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice find. That clearly states it's ninth gen. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be. But, as Masem said, I believe we would need to have multiple reliable video games sources (or reliable sources in general) calling it ninth gen before we include it here. — Gestrid (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd posted this and another source above at the original 9th generation section. I don't believe its enough to make the call. I'd like to remind a lot of editors here that there is no WP:DEADLINE. Waiting a month or two, or even until March, isn't going to kill us. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on all parts. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I might as well start a rant here. Personally speaking, I would drop the whole console generation classification altogether (especially considering it was invented by an editor on this very website and appropriated by "professional" websites as the years went by). I think it does nothing but over simplify market conditions and propagate misconceptions. A lot of the older consoles (such as the Atari 2600 and 5200 get pigeon-holed into the same generation, even if one was clearly intended to be the successor of the other, while other consoles (practically all the Sega ones) were intended to compete with one generation of a rival hardware and ended up competing with the next. Console generations only became clear cut around the time Xbox entered the hardware race and started launching their console almost simultaneously with the newer PlayStations (e.g. PS2 vs Xbox, PS3 vs. Xbox 360, PS4 vs. Xbox One). And even then, the last couple of Nintendo consoles (the Wii and Wii U) have been a generation behind compared to the competitors in terms of hardware specs, since they relied on experimental input devices. From my understanding, it's the same deal with the Switch, since the hardware specs are more on part with the Xbox One, which is the weaker of the main platforms, but the Switch's selling point is its portability. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If we were to remove console generations from Wikipedia, that would need a very broad consensus and would likely need an RfC (though I would suggest you look into other options first) because it would affect so many pages. — Gestrid (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we should discard generation classification altogether, since we're so used to it by this point. I'm just curious how we ended up dividing console generations the way we did at the first place when the whole thing started as OR from this very website by an editor. Originally Wikipedia used to classify consoles by "bits" back when that was the marketing buzzword for process power during the early 90s with the Genesis and Super NES, but that proved to be unfeasible from the Dreamcast and onward (nowadays companies use teraflops as their favorite marketing buzzword). Personally I consider Nintendo Switch to be a late eighth gen console, just like how the Wii U was a late seventh gen console and the original Wii was Nintendo's second sixth gen console after the GameCube, but I now a lot of Nintendo diehards will cry heresy at this statement. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the Switch is still an 8th gen console, in the same way as the PS4 Pro, Xbox One S, and likely Project Scorpio are. No one should consider this a shot at Nintendo. None of these consoles are massive updates hardware-wise and all come very soon after their predecessors. That said - I agree that the whole concept of generations is hard to keep up. It's not something that a definitive source ever decided on. The public at large just kind of accepts that we're in a new generation, then the gaming media drops phrases like "8th generation consoles are here!" in all their stories, then we report it here. This was easy in a time when there was all the major manufacturers would release consoles at around the same time, they'd coexist for several years, then they'd release brand new consoles again at the same time. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to work this way anymore. We could be wrong. We could just be seeing a one-time correction by Sony and Microsoft to take advantage of 4k technology that wasn't mature when these systems were originally released, fortuitously timed with Nintendo needing to release a system early because of the Wii U's abject failure.

I strongly disagree with the editor above who said we could wait several months before making this decision. That's only going to cause more problems. These discussions aren't going to go away, and other editors are going to constantly update the article to suggest 8th or 9th gen without consulting this talk page. It's just going to cause more churn. I'm not saying we have to make a decision right away, but discussion needs to continue. We can't just ignore the problem. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this even a real problem, though? All this debate about something that only matters for one part of the infobox, and isn't relevant much elsewhere. And if it were obviously 9th gen, then there wouldn't be any debate about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's a real problem. Have you you even been on this site before? We are going to have to deal with people adding eighth or ninth generation constantly until something is decided. It's not a simple as just waiting. BTW - just one part of the infobox? Dude, they are entire articles dedicated to console generations. Wicka wicka (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, its simple. Follow WP:V and avoid WP:FRINGE. If you can't, don't make any changes. That about sums it up as to why we're not making a call on the generations. (That and WP:CONSENSUS/WP:NOCONSENSUS.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a reason we added the hidden notice <!-- Do not add 8th or 9th generation. Any changes to this WILL be reverted UNLESS a reliable source is provided ON THE TALK PAGE so we can gather consensus. -->. You can only see it when editing. If anyone goes and tries to add the generation, they don't really have an excuse for not seeing the notice since it's right where they would put the generation. — Gestrid (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to ask, again - have you ever been on this website before? It simply does not work that way. People will ignore that constantly. You will NOT solve this problem without finding an answer to the question at hand. Simply ignoring it just creates more and more work. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"People will keep adding it" is not a valid reason to circumvent Wikipedia policy. No one is currently trying to add it anywhere (I monitor all the related pages), so that's just not even an issue right now anyway. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you keep asking that, yet you're the one who keeps proposing we ignore WP:V, which is far less viable of an option. You're also not looking at the big picture: Between page protection, and the fact that many experienced editors currently monitor the article, this has been relatively easy to maintain so far. You have to keep in mind that this is a short term issue. If you were around back in 2010, you'd know we had the same issue in the first few months after the Nintendo 3DS reveal. Everyone was worked up over which generation it should be part of. But over time, sources made it clear. The same will happen here. We're still very early on with the Switch - it hasn't even been revealed for a month yet. Like it or not, Wikipedia does not make the news, it documents the news. If its not out there, we don't cover it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to ignore any policies. Stop accusing me of that shit, it is absolutely uncalled for. I'm telling you that you are being completely ignorant to the consequences of your actions. I'm telling you to work harder on solving this problem instead of just throwing your hands in the air and assuming time will heal all wounds. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What consequences? Random editors changing the generation despite the hidden note, and subsequently being reverted, is not a big deal. If you are talking about a broader discussion about generations in general, irrespective of Switch, then this isn't the venue. Head over to WT:VG and start a discussion. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have over 45,000 edits on this site, so I wouldn't say I'm new here. Anyway, what generation it falls under is arbitrary in my opinion, and only overzealous Wikipedia editors (you seem to be one regarding this) care enough to force things that reliable sources are not currently calling it. This is really not that big of an issue (at the moment at least), and getting WP:UNCIVIL because of it fixes nothing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm also confused by these "consequences". And Wicka wicka, you proclaimed in your first comment in this discussion that it was "obvious" that Switch was 8th gen and that "we have to make a call on what generation it is". However, you have no sources to do this. This would be the failure of WP:V I'm speaking of - making a change without a source to verify it. For us to "make a call" on this, witout sources, would be a violation of policy. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

When I said it was "obvious" I was just stating my personal opinion, not calling for edit. Stop putting words into my mouth, you childish liar. Your behavior is unacceptable. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Source calling Switch 8th Gen

"Nintendo just offered a unique entry in the eighth-generation console war versus Microsoft's Xbox One and Sony's PlayStation 4. " https://mic.com/articles/157262/nintendo-switch-features-multiplayer-screen-switching-possible-price-games-and-more#.xrEvYHLed

I noticed that article yesterday while browsing the web but didn't want to edit anything without discussion first. Although this is my first time weighing on the "generations" discussion Nintendo releasing an entirely new console while the "8th Gen" is only three years old and this console being part of the "8th Gen" isn't anything new. Looking back at Atari they had the 2600 and 5200 in the "2nd Gen" and both were different from each other and the 5200 wasn't backwards compatible out of the box with the 2600. Now granted that maybe a bad example but the "3rd Gen" has a closer example of this when Sega released the SG-1000 in 1983 then the Master System in 1985. Both of these consoles are considered part of the third gen and the release dates were about two years apart with the SG-1000 being discontinued shortly after the launch of the Master System. Another point to consider is Nintendo doesn't consider the Switch a successor to the Wii U that doesn't mean they will support both consoles on the market but could mean they consider Switch within the same gen or era as the Wii U in terms of competitors current product offerings. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to decide whether the Switch is 8th or 9th generation yet, since the console won't even be released for another three months. Sources are conflicting, and there's no point jumping to conclusions. anowlcalledjosh 🦉 (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

We have at least two sources saying 9th gen as well. We need to give it time, especially with no release or reviews yet. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good for factoring in to discussions, but as the two above me mentioned, it's still too early to make a call on. We've got some reputable sources calling it 9th gen too. (I think one was like Rolling Stone (magazine) too.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should just table the issue of 8/9th gen until the specs are fully released in mid-Jan and the industry has a chance to evaluate them (which we know they will from past reporting). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've been figuring that we probably wouldn't really be able to make a call until January's more detailed reveal event, or March's actual release, with all the system reviews that will be out around launch. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The media and other outside sources are not going to help us. The system of numbering generations as widely used on the internet originates from here on Wikipedia, and most of it is original research. So, of course there's going to be conflicting sources in the media, as some observes will consider it 8th-gen because it is going to be competing with the PS4 & XBO, while others will consider it 9th-gen because it follows the 8th-gen Wii U. It doesn't help that the console makers and major game publishers themselves do not utilize the numbered generations system. The last time there was widespread use of any sort of naming convention before Wikipedia made numbered generations the standard was when "bits" were still used in the PS1/N64 era.

Only two sources predating the current Wikipedia consensus on what the generations and their numbers are also list consoles by "nth generation," and they use a different system that divides the "second generation" into two distinct generations. While most post-crash of '83 generations are mostly well-defined, the Switch throws a monkey wrench into the whole generation convention by launching in the middle of an ongoing generation. Wikipedia needs to develop a formal definition of what constitutes a generation and decide which the Switch belongs to, or abandon a system they largely created. JGoodman (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussions have occurred in the past to better define or dismantle the generations set up, but every time it's been done, there's no consensus on what to do, and and that means we're unable to make any change. As such, all we can do is follow Wikipedia policy - follow WP:V and avoid WP:OR. Which leads us to where we are now - waiting for reliable sources to classify it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

So basically the policy is "Do nothing until third-party sources come to a consensus on which generation the Switch belongs to, even though Wikipedia itself created the current numbering scheme for generations out of whole cloth and therefore the sources are going by that, and if there's never a consensus then we just exempt the Switch from generations altogether?" Essentially, Wikipedia created a system through modification and synthesis of maybe two or three primary sources and a bit of original research, and now expects third-party sources to take it from there. Sounds to me like a good reason for Wikipedia to abandon their whole generation setup altogether. Not to invoke "crystal balls" or anything, but if Nintendo stays in the hardware business and ends up staying on a 5-year hardware cycle while Sony & MS stay on a 7- or 8-year cycle, it's going to cause even more issues with the numbering scheme. JGoodman (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

We accidentally created the system that has become defacto. Now that we know we did this, we should avoid participating in extending it further because we should not be this type of authority. We have to break the cycle of citogensis, which we can now do because others (specifically the IEEE) have fully details out the generation system through 8, so now we do nothing until we can establish what generation that the rest of world places the Switch into. Removing WP from the process of creating the generation system will not impact the way sources talk about generations, so we're no longer too locked-in or essential to the process. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, as I said above, every effort to change or abandon it has not gained a consensus, so we've been stuck in a long-term stalemate on it anyways. JGoodman, feel free to start up a new discussion on it at the or something, (in a high traffic area, like WP:VG) but I bet you'll be shocked to see all the random people come out of the woodwork just to state another conflicting view. The discussions went on for like months back in 2010-2011 prior to the start of the 8th gen article, and we never got anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

One additional point I would make is that we do recognize that N seems to be on a 5-year gen cycle while MS and Sony are 7-8 years. We know that that arguably will create a problem, but we know better now not to try to solve that cataloging problem ourselves; we will see how sources treat this. I can guess that given how low on the run N is seen, their hardware releases will not be used to set the defining points for generations but instead will simply be slotted into whatever generation based on how the press defines MS and Sony's consoles. But its CRYSTAL to predict anything else at this point. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

DMY instead of MDY?

For most Nintendo-related pages, the date format is MDY. However, in this particular article, the dates are in DMY. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It was probably started that way years ago. I would not have an issue changing it (easy script) but we need page consensus per WP:DATERET .I would also recommend that for the List of Nintendo Switch games too if we go that way. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion, fine with switching to MDY. It's my preference, but I also see a lot of people against it as DMY is more internationally/globally used. Japan itself I believe doesn't really adhere to either so there's no national tie. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the most common format in Japan is YMD.

In the Japanese language, yes, but I don't think that should influence English guidelines. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

Users will be able to obtain a smartphone app that they can used to control the Switch.

Users will be able to obtain a smartphone app that they can use to control the Switch. 174.19.246.88 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

Miyamoto was not as directly involved however, which allowed him to spend more title on Nintendo's software titles around the time, such as Super Mario Run.

Miyamoto was not as directly involved however, which allowed him to spend more time on Nintendo's software titles around the time, such as Super Mario Run. Rufioh (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done -- ferret (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Australian pricing AU$469.95 should be included

As the price in Australia is considerably higher (AU$469.95) then a direct conversion from YEN, USD or CAD, it should be included.

Source here: http://www.nintendo.com.au/nintendo-switch-launches-on-3rd-march-2017

I've noticed a lot of people incorrectly doing direct conversions from YEN or USD.

Thanks. Richardboegli (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done as we usually include the AUD price in the console hardware lists. I did remove the Canadian and Hong Kong prices as those are commonly used when we compare market prices on the console generation pages --MASEM (t) 15:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

On the Switch pictures now that we're in public unveiling...

Now that we have public events featuring the Switch, the current picture at the top is now technically in violation of NFCC. I know that once the console is actually out and easily workable in the hands of consumers (rather than at display floors), that we'll likely get a good image from Evan-Amos (talk · contribs) as they have done for nearly all of our game hardware, but until then, please look for any free images that you might be able to find or convince an image copyright taker to license freely. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Have you been able to find any free to use images from the event? I'd like to use some images of some of the Nintendo staff on their articles, but haven't had any luck on Flickr. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, nothing yet. There's still the My Nintendo-invited events that we might get some prior to release. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox logo image

• 
  Neutral
• 
  Red

There's been a lot of shenanigans with the logo on top of the infobox. @Pincerr wanted the red opaque background version of the logo to serve as the lead. His reasoning was as follows - "Seems the red logo is the actual one, judging from both media and the official website." This doesn't really make sense, because there are many variations of the logo that can be found all across Nintendo's website. Generally, opaque backgrounds, especially coloured ones, have been avoided simply because it intrudes on the clean design of the infobox. Having a small, red square on top of a larger rectangular image, which are all encased in a larger rectangle (the infobox itself) makes for a rather unprofessional look. So, I've made a compromise. I've installed a version of the logo that is transparent, which is what I want, but keeps the red color that I'm assuming Pincerr likes and wants to keep. However, I'm not too fond of this red logo, because it is quite the eyesore, similar to one of those blue LED checkout signs that some supermarkets have. I'd argue it's possibly an accessibility issue, though admittedly when I skimmed MOS:ACCESS, I couldn't find anything about poorly colored imagery. So, what do you guys think? Should we revert back to the neutral version of the logo, or keep the red version? Philip Terry Graham 08:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• New/old red logo - The official branding for the switch is always red and white. From what I can see, the black version is only used in areas where the red one would stand out too much, such as on the console itself. A quick look at google image search shows the r/w version to be the most predominantly used one by the larger gaming community, so it wouldn't make much sense for it to be different here unless there's a bona-fide accessibility issue. Something else I just noticed is that the black version is mising the ™ symbol. Karunamon ^✉ 16:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Blah, I should have been more specific. The new R/W one above is fine, as is the original logo. I'm just against the new black one for reasons above. Karunamon ^✉ 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The only issue I have is that all the product shots show the inverted red logo (with white text/iconography) atop it. I'm a tad concerned we're interferring on how they would prefer their trademark be shown. But if we are okay in doing this, I would prefer the black version, as it just doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the black logo isn't officially used by Nintendo's marketing anywhere, I don't think it is suitable to use it here. That would be like using an unofficial or 'fake' logo instead of the real one. That also means that we would be 'interferring' more with the black one, considering the official logo uses red and white. --Pincerr (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Original white on red logo. - This is by far the most prominent branding Nintendo is using. More importantly, I cannot find a single instance of Nintendo using the red-on-white logo as seen above. I don't think that logo should even be considered. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that the logo currently in use is not a Nintendo Switch logo. I have not seen Nintendo use that specific logo anywhere. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Wicka wicka (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wicka wicka. I also haven't seen the black-on-white logo officially used anywhere. For this reason I think the black logo is simply out the question. --Pincerr (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Black before "red on white" Of the two above, the black one should be used. It's on the console itself. The "red on white" is not official or used in any way I can see and shouldn't be here. The official one appears to be "white on red". -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• White on red - It is clear that the white-on-red logo is the one predominantly officially used by Nintendo. The black logo isn't used anywhere in marketing at all. That means that the black one also is not official, and therefore should not be used. The modified red-on-white logo is similarly, not official, so shouldn't be used. That leaves us with the white-on-red one. I know, it cannot be transparent, but there's nothing we can do about that because any other logo will not be the real one, so keep it as the white-on-red. --Pincerr (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Which exact red?

• 
  White-on-red logo #1
• 
  White-on-red logo #2

While commenting on the infobox logo discussion above, I came across another interesting thing in the red logo. The two logos shown here above have a slight different tone of red in them (the second is darker). The first logo's description claims it is from a promotional image on Nintendo's official website (http://media.nintendo.com/nintendo/cocoon/noa3/images/page/switch/gallery/gallery01.jpg). I checked it and yes it's correct, so I assumed the first logo is the correct red color, - but after looking at the official Switch website (http://www.nintendo.com/switch/) the red color actually matches the second logo, not the first. The thing here is, both of them are official from Nintendo's sites, so it's weird. What are your thoughts? --Pincerr (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Use official From http://www.nintendo.com/switch/, Not a preference on color, simply that it's the actual logo from the official page. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi, i made some pictures on a press event in Munich today. You can find them here: [8] Elvis untot (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)