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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)