Talk:Wii U/Archive 4

Why I was in a rush was exactly because non-nintendo avreage non-tech gamer would find ANY bit thing to discredit the WiiU , as many PS360 people have not been following the tech they expect WiiU is 5-year old tech and as barely powerful as X360, I know it'll be all sorted out once the hardware get's opened up and there's proof no more words, I just wanted to help in stop spreading very unaccurate stuff so it doesn't make BS negative press such as sites who never check anything and just post random rumors. And I have to tell you nothing on neogaf or any other forum or any other gaming site is 100%, ofcourse I don't take it as such, it's just meausred in level of accuracy, and for example bluetooth for GamePad is very unlikely, to say that it's very unnacurate, there is a percentage, because most of what I deal with it's analysis of existing information, and we don't make micheael pachter-style predictions, we get out the best assumption as possible on the information we gathered and anyone could gather, it's constructive speculation, not just the stuff I posted, there was other people telling that they asked a real nintendo rep at game show about the range of the GamePad and he told them they saw one working at more than 30 yards, everyone knows bluetooth doesn't reach that far. I know it doesn't use exactly the 802.11 because as I said nintendo will do modifications which make it non-standard and incompatible with any Wi-Fi stuff. I'm just naming it like this to refeer to, because it's the closest possible term and as accurate as possible on the indications we have. I just wasn't explaining this early enough I kind of expected to have trouble getting this sourced right but it's at least something before the console gets out, I was going to provide justification and explanation before this section was made, but someone beat me to it asking about the source. Okay fine I'm not forcing to get that neogaf post cited, just keep bluetooth for Wii backward compatability only (all wii accessories), there was another guy yesterday coming to my aid (probably not noticing this talk first) saying exactly what I was explaining that Connectivity entry in infobox is too vague, so it usually means user-accessible features, but bluetooth is not a user-accessible feature on Wii nor WiiU, it's not officially recognized as a connectivity method. Can you see if there could be a custom infobox entry for specifically user-inaccessible (internal) connectivity methods, for all other devices, that would be great. Xowets (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also excuse english, it's worst when I have a lot on mind to say, I'm not english guy,... no, I'm not below 20yrs old.Xowets (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No source ever will be 100% accurate though Techni (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you inferring? The Wii U is so complex that no one source could fully understand it? Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that as long as we are unsure about this claim and its source, we shouldn't make the specific claim at this time.

talk

) 02:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's so, then i think it's best to remove bluetooth altogether from that list, as was it said, it will not be user-accessible i am 99% sure as pointed out by others, and you don't see BT anywhere on nintendo sheets of tech specs or features. Xowets (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

IGN is wrong, as usual, and no "consensus" will change that fact. Wikipedia kids will continue to be wrong for the sake of being wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.117.22 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And you prefer the alternative, listening to random editors without any sort of proof, or random messageboard posts? This is what you believe will get you closer to the truth? Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request editing the GPU part in tech specs.

The Wii U may have a E6760 based GPU, but it is neither a GPGPU ("General Purpose computing on GPU", that isn't even hardware!) neither a E6760+ (which doesn't exist), neither known to be enhanced.

It is a GPGPU (Iwata himself stated as much) but not specifics about the model have been released beyond rumors.ViperEmpire (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that despite Iwata claiming that it is a GPGPU, the term is rarely used to describe actually pieces of hardware that are capable of general purpose computing but are designed as graphics processing units and is more regularly used to discuss the field of computation that uses GPUs to perform general purpose computation. In translating what Iwata said, it would be better to describe it as a "GPGPU capable GPU" instead of what is there presently. I agree that the rumors of an E6760 are not confirmed from any reliable sources. This blog post is the best source I could find.134.173.203.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's true that Iwata literally said it, then it's going to take something better than a non-notable Nintendo blog to trump that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I changed the language and ref to reflect nintendo's official page which calls it "AMD Radeon™-based High Definition GPU." Sailsbystars (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Awww its Locked We Cant Edit it anymore Only the Admins Can we Cant? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionelTheDeal (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Any GPU with modern unified shaders can perform GPGPU functions, a GPGPU isn't a "thing" to be inside the Wii U. I know where that came from, Iwata said the Wii U has "a GPGPU", but it's more correct to say a GPU with GPGPU capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.94.15 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

firstly if the 3rd party reliable source says that we dnt argue with it, to say different to the source would be original research. but on another note ifa gpu that does gpgpu isnt a gpgpu then what are you tryign to say it is ? because if it does something then by english defintion it is that.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

GPGPU is a GPU feature, whatever wikipedia says about the source, it cannot change reality. Xowets (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia can change reality if that what the sources say, we dnt make our own assumptions of what the sources say we put it as the sources does but written spo not to copyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

1st unsigned IP is refering to the fact that GPGPU means "General Processing GPU", not a physical piece of hardware. It could be just that Iwata missused the term while referring to something about programming / architectural design. Qwerty12356 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I would add this after reading what was listed on the page. I believe this is one of the most important parts of the page for the fact the controller is what makes the system so expensive for Nintendo (they themselves in a financial report said it will be sold at a loss) and will only increase when someone has a chance to take on apart.

What's missing in Gamepad section that I noticed:

Gamepad has infrared light in top of controller for communication with other devices (seen this for myself on a demo unit, I'm sure this can be confirmed through another source) Ok...just checked and noticed it is included in the tech spec below its section, so maybe mention the ability to communicate with other devices using this "transceiver".

The infrared sensor strip is mentioned but not elaborated on about its use (for use with Wiimotes camera in Wii games possibly WiiU games as well) unlike the NFC sensor which is elaborated on.

The technical spec section does not specify the cameras resolution which is 1.3MP

The screen size and type is specified but not video resolution which is 854 x 480 I found a source to support this. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412292,00.asp 71.3.207.240 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)OmegaRed 11/29/2012

Wii U can support two gamepads but has been reported to drop frame rates to 30FPS

and as an added note about the Pro controllers likeness to XBOX 360's....Microsoft and Nintendo were sued over their controller designs (Nintendo's Gamecube controller that is)...it was said Microsoft copied Nintendo who ripped off someone else, thus they both got sued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.193.212 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think someone should update the Wii U logo here on Wikipedia, since that is no longer the current logo of the system.

It now has a darker tone of blue instead of the more light one, in the 2011 version.

Take a look for yourselves.

--Arkhandar (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it already has the new logo.

in this article, it states that nintendo is targeting ªcoreª gamers. however,b after watching the recent ads i have reason to believe they are targeting a more broad audience. such as families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.100.25 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The part about core gamers is sourced and we will need another source to say otherwise before we change that and a personal analysis of adds would go against

WP:OR so it can't be used. Also even if specific adds were aimed towards families does not mean that Nintendo is not aiming for the core audience as well since they could very well try to do both.--174.93.171.10 (talk

) 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile to update somehow into the information of external memory capabilities that the WiiU will not allow you to save downloaded software to a SD card. If your 8/32GB runs out you will have to purchase an external drive that utalise's USB http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wiiu/support/qa/software/index.html A translation of the relevant section can be found here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44199378&postcount=1

Q. Where is software that I purchased a download for saved to?

A. Internal memory or USB media. Download software can't be saved to the SD card.

Original text being

ダウンロード購入したソフトはどこに保存されるのですか？

本体保存メモリーまたはUSB記録メディアに保存されます。SDカードには保存できません。

Weeman com (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this change. I have read many places the SD storage is for Wii saves and Wii downloaded content. Also probably for media content such as pictures and music. Also it is stated in the acticle that it is expandable with HDD...it supports any type of USB storage such as thumb drives and solid state drives. As stated by Nintendo "It also supports external USB storage" does not specify what type. http://www.nintendo.com/wiiu/features/tech-specs/ 71.3.207.240 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)OmegaRed

I Heard Nintendo Will Be porting Games to The Virtual Console Most Games Can Be Downloaded on E Shop is That True? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionelTheDeal (talk • contribs) 07:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been said that each game developer decides themselves if their games are added to the Eshop. It's not porting, since the games are supported without actual modification to the games programming. It is also the responsibility of each developer to assure that their game will run properly, Nintendo simply hosts them on the Eshop servers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.148.12 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reggie Fils Aime officially stated that there is not currently any official announcement about GameCube games appearing on the Wii U Eshop, which would include virtual console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.148.12 (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2012‎

sounds like we should pull it from the page then. I'll do it-FUNKAMATIC ~talk 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be better, rather than remove it outright, to keep it in there, and then add RFA's commentary clarifying it. Otherwise it may be re-added by less-informed editors. (Assuming this is true - that IP didn't supply a source for this informatio as far as I can see. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses ... "no official announcement" is not a denial, much less a debunking. That's more akin to the usual "we don't comment on rumors or speculation" than anything. The only statement that would necessitate the removal of this phrase is something along the lines of the following: "Nintendo will not release GameCube titles in any form on the Wii U." I'll be restoring the phrase to a modified form suggesting the possibility instead of it being definitive either way. However, if consensus says it should be removed outright, I'll go with it. Until that time, we go with the cited sources, instead of an uncited statement from a talk page. --McDoobAU93 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Under technical specs, it states that the Wii U has 512MB of RAM. However, the site that it has cited for the info states that it has 4 4Gb (512MB) coors (correct term?), which means it totals out at over 2GB. This should be changed as it is misconstruing the information so as to present the Wii U with a quarter of its actual power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.1.63 (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the "Wii Thrii" in the HTML comment in this article?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's made up nonsense. Good catch, I've removed it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You think if I search,I would find anything on it?~Tailsman6720:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.121 (talk)

If it were a real thing, I'd think it'd be relatively well known. Also, consoles are never named that far in advance. We still don't know the final name of the "Xbox 720", let alone the successor's name for the Wii U, a system that's been out for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So it's kinda like Xbox TEN?74.163.16.121 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

At least Xbox Ten was a rumor, I don't even see rumors for a "Wii thrii", it looks like most hits are pun names for the Wii's third birthday. This doesn't even seem to make rumor status. I think it was just well-hidden vandalism. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm too lazy, you know what to do. [1], [2], and [3] « Ryūkotsusei » 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are the sorts of articles we should be using for sourcing on specs, not Neogaf or any of those random blogs people are always trying to use. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I hereby submit my image of the system and the gamepad, feel free to use it in the article if you deem it good enough. Cheers! Takimata (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I replaced it. I'd rather have a real picture than an illustration that may not be 100% accurate. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, you're very welcome. I corrected some things in the image in the meantime. Takimata (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference 80 does not mention the GPU having eDRAM, I can only find mentions of the CPU having eDRAM in the press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.32.39 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"The GPU itself also contains quite a large on-chip memory." http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/console/0/0 --46.223.55.116 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been a lot of reverting over the tech specs, between two versions, shown here.

Now, I don't know much about the numbers, I don't personally care about tech jargon, but we need to stop reverting this endlessly and discuss it out here.

Personally, I'm against using the twitter account as a source, something like this should be verifiable from a

Several information in this articel goes back to the same source (tri-core processor, codename Latte and Espresso). Much more important is that this guy was involved in hacking the ps3, nintendo wii and now the wii u. This is why many reliable tech- and news-magazines take up this story: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-hacker-reveals-wii-u-cpu-secrets, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/11/29/nintendo-wii-u-cpu-and-gpu-clock-speeds-revealed/, http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/29/wii-u-cpu-gpu-details-uncovered, ... --46.223.55.116 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but use one of those sources, not a Twitter account. That will lend to more credibility, and be less likely to be removed by other editors. (Assuming the articles covered the info in questions.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What credibility? There's absolutely no difference between either sources since the all the other sources source the Twitter account.---Arkhandar (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Alone, it's just a random person's Twitter account. Not typically useable. With using the

reliable source's account of it, it's been verified by an editor/staff/writer, even if it does trace back to the work of the random Twitter account. And again, like I said, for future reference, people are far less likely to argue/contest this if it's backed up by a website that's considered reliable. If no other reason, use the video game sources because it's more likely to stick in the long run. Sergecross73 msg me

20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

one thing that could be added is that it upscales wii games to 1080p. i dont however have a source because i found it out myself through testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that's not true... Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Giant Bomb and 1UP.com have confirmed it doesn't upscale to 1080. While not a reliable source, the IGN Wiki explains why the image looks a little nice even though it's not actually upscaling. The Wii U has better connection cables than the Wii did. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a Wii U, it definitely doesn't upscale - it will simply use oversized pixels to stretch 480p to 1080p on HDMI. --00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That´s exactly what upscaling is! Upscaling does NOT mean that software is rendered in a higher native resolution. Some non-tech people seem to have mixed that up. And of course: the Wii U is capable of doing this as well. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-u-backwards-compatibility-analysis --46.223.55.116 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The very source you linked to clearly states, in one of the large quotes, with the PAL console unable to upscale to HD resolutions...so I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That´s just true for component, not for HDMI. "with the PAL console unable to upscale to HD resolutions or run in progressive scan over component" "Bizarrely, non-HDMI PAL users are penalised for reasons we can't quite fathom." --46.223.55.116 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

But what part of the article supports your claim that it can upscale wii games to 1080? Can you quote that part here? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"As expected, there's no magical native HD resolution rendering in HDMI mode, but the upscaling from 480p and conversion of 576i games is handled fairly well."; "Here's how Wii U's hardware scaler (and in the case of MadWorld, the deinterlacer) processes original Wii games." + 1080p sample above: http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/3/3/4/4/1/resi1080p.png; another articel by DF [4] refering to Wii U software: "Wii U scales on the fly to 480p, 720p, 1080i or 1080p. Here's a comparison of three of those modes";"but just like Xbox 360 the console outputs at any resolution you select, upscaling - or indeed downscaling - to your preferred video format." (I suggest to search for quotes via STRG + F) --46.223.55.116 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Game Industry article doesn't appear to be about playing original Wii games. As far as the DF source - I don't know. This tech stuff is getting beyond me. Does it matter that it never says "upscale to 1080p"? It always says "scaler" or numbers other than 1080p? Also, regardless of what DF says, I still can't get over the number of sources, with info straight from Nintendo themselves, that say it doesn't upscale. A sample:

Makes an allusion to scaling on Wii games

1. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-u-backwards-compatibility-analysis

Says "No upscale for Wii games"

1. Giant Bomb - straight from Mark Franklin, head of Nintendo's public relations.
2. 1UP.com - straight from Nintendo of America's President Reggie Fils-Aime
3. Ars Technica - straight from 4 Nintendo reps

• I could go on and on. It really doesn't seem like Nintendo executives and employees would be wrong on this, not to mention there seems to be endless people around the internet grumbling about this as well. I kind of think your definition of this stuff differs from the mainstream, typically understood definition. As is, I don't know how we'd add what you're proposing without people removing it instantly due to the multitude of sources that say otherwise... Sergecross73 msg me 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What I state is that Wii U is capable of upscaling Wii software, but it´s not able to render Wii software in a higher native resolution. Those are two different things and some nintendo staff (or/and the press) indeed seem to have mixed this up (link 3 by the way doesn`t contradict with what I say). But upscaling (and this is not just my definition of the word) is pretty much stretching a video signal to a higher resolution while doing some interpolation to reduce different digital artifacts (see also Video scaler or [5], it´s also what a DVD or Blu-ray player does when they´re dealing with low resolution content - completely post-procession and not equal with native resolution [6]). As more people know about the right definition of the word, there was some confusion within fans as well: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/379590/wii-u-upscales-original-wii-games-to-hd/ --46.223.55.116 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

http://n4g.com/news/1135826/wii-u-upscale-explained-wii-games-do-in-europe-with-hdmi-doesnt-up-render --85.216.97.230 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the problem seems to be that different people have different definitions regarding "upscaling". I don't believe the argument that "Nintendo/journalists" don't know what they're talking about; they're experts in their field. Additionally, certainly, if it were any sort of true upscaling, there's no reason for Nintendo to deny it. It would be a positive, marketable trait if it were true. Nintendo would only benefit from calling it as being able to upscale original Wii games to HD; it's a desireable trait, and they've only received backlash for now having it. That being said, it does seem to make the image better to some degree, reliable sources have confirmed that as well.

My proposal - find a way to word it that shows both sides - something along the lines of Nintendo states it doesn't upscale original Wii games to HD, but video game journalists have found that it does make the image better. I realize that's probably not the correct wording, and that's why I havne't tried to add it to the article myself yet, but something along those lines of what Nintendo has said versus what has been found. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, coming from a WT:VG thread on this, if you ignore the word "upscaling", the sources appear to agree on what the Wii U output for Wii games on high-def monitors; its the word "upscaling" in a nutshell that is the minefield because of it having different connotations. The best solution is to explain without using "upscaling" what the Wii U output is for the Wii, and if Nintendo doesn't call this "upscaling" the word shouldn't be mentioned, or have Nintendo's position explained out. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• A quick thought, as far as I can understand (disclaimer: from a brief review of the sources provided) the WiiU is capable of upscaling in the sense that the TV will receive a signal with 1080 horizontal lines. As far as the TV is concerned a 1080p signal is being output from the WiiU. The WiiU will be rendering the Wii games in SD and then using the hardware scaler to upscale that picture to the 1080p resolution it outputs. Regarding the fact that Nintendo doesn't refer to it as 'upscaling', I don't see how that's relevant to what it's doing. If I release a new console that has a great new feature, the 'SuperDuperPictureExpander' which takes a rendered 480p image and scales it to a 1080p output signal, it's still upscaling despite me calling it something different.
  Sign
  ) 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The word upscaling - allthough most of you might hear it for the first time - is a well known technical term, it´s clearly defined and has already been used for years (http://hometheater.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=hometheater&cdn=gadgets&tm=31&f=11&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.hometheater.com/content/scaling-size-matters). Journalists or marketing guys of whatever company are for sure no experts in these kind of things. Let´s just take a look at the GPGPU statement from Iwata, already discussed on this page (he claimed the Wii U uses a GPGPU - meaning a special kind of chip - however GPGPU refers to "General Purpose Computation on Graphics Processing Unit"). Just because Nintendo uses another technical term in a wrong way, doesn´t change the definition of "upscaling". There is also no such thing as "different connotations" regarding this term, especially if they mean exactly the opposite (upscaled vs native). At this point the opinion of "expert sites" like digital foundry should be taken first. --149.172.85.46 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The notion that Nintendo isn't an authority on it's own hardware is rather ludicrous. Like I said, their stance needs to be included to some degree, or otherwise it's just going to lead to arguments or edit warring in the future, because there are so many reliable sources claiming that it's not possible. (Additionally, even the Digital Foundry source...isn't exactly a glowing review of the feature. Whatever it's doing, it doesn't seem to do it that well...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Nintendo's goal is to sell you their system, and they will use any peacocky buzzwords to do that. If only Nintendo is calling this feature "upscaling" while every reliable tech site is decidely not (specifically denying this) then we really need to go with what the tech sites say. A good question: has any tech site specifically countered N's claim here ? If so we can say "While Nitnenod has called this feature 'upscale', tech sites like Blah and Blah point out that it only does..." which is true to the sources. If no one has called out N on that directly, we have to be a bit more careful on the language. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

But, it's the exact opposite as what you described above - Nintendo says it doesn't upscale, it's just various tech websites make allusions to it though. That's a main part of my argument actually, if it were upscaling, it seems like Nintendo would use it as a marketing term. But they're not. They've said point blank, literally "No, it doesn't do that". See the 3 sources I gave above - three different occassions, three different sets of Nintendo executives/reps. Nintendo has no benefit in being untruthful about this - it's really only perceived as a negative that it can't do it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as Sergecross73 already pointed out Nintendo´s interpretation of the word "upscaling" is not for their own advantage, it´s really just a complete misinformation. But again, Reggie Files or Mark Franklin (head of Nintendo's public relations) are no tech guys. --149.172.85.46 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As i'm understanding it: No Nintendo tech person has used "upscaling"; the public faces (those doing the PR) have said it doesn't do upscaling, and only some tech sites are associating the 1080p + blurred pixels as "upscaling"? And that "upscaling" does have vague meaning across the board (much like the term "indie game"?) Correct? --MASEM (t) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds correct to me. (And I think your example of how the world uses different definitions for the term "indie" for games and music is pretty spot on too. Good example.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I would write the line as "The Wii U renders Wii games from their native 480p resolution to produce 1080 lines using pixel blurring but otherwise does not improve the resolution. While sites like X and Y have referred to this as "upscaling", Nintendo's Files has asserted that the Wii U does not upscale Wii games to 1080p." (or something like that) That's an accurate statement that captures the whole scenario without introducing OR and appropriately addresses the vagueness of "upscaling". --MASEM (t) 15:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I was going to write if/when I took a stab on it. I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There are not only some tech sites that define upscaling as "1080p + blurred pixels", the whole bunch of home cinema sites are doing this for years([7][8][9]), as well as some video games sites regarding upscaling in the ps3 and 360 ([10],[11],[12],[13]) not to forget this articel on wikipedia itself (Upscaling).--149.172.85.46 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only "some tech sites" that are specifically saying it in regards to the Wii U/Original Wii game scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why I used the language, "While sites like X and Y..."; pick a couple strong representatives that clearly call it upscaling. We're not denying what they said, just that what they say and what Nintendo says it is called is different. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be ok, even though Files is not even quoted saying the Wii U won´t upscale (instead he used the term "upres", which would be absolutely right). The same for Mark Franklin, IMO it´s not clear whether he actually used the word "upscaling" or not. But as I said I´m fine with the solution you found ... --149.172.85.46 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The July 2011 quote from a director of marketting about GameCube games being downloadable on "WiiWare" is trumped by NOA President Reggie Fils-Aime straight up saying in September 2012 that they have nothing tp announce regarding that. http://kotaku.com/5944545/10-gamecube-games-that-should-be-downloadable-on-wii-u As such, the article should not be stating that this will happen. ArtistScientist (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source, but again, this is not a debunking or a denial. Reggie is saying just that: "nothing to announce". It's not saying "we're definitely not doing it", nor is it saying "we're definitely doing it". To that end, I have added a statement indicating Nintendo hasn't said anything definitive yet, and added the source provided. --McDoobAU93 17:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it was exactly what I was going to do had you not beat me to it! Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be doing that a lot lately, Serge! Great minds and all that ... --McDoobAU93 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking I could add to the article,no?74.178.177.48 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to remove the russian release date and the 'Introductory Prices' section from the info box, but thought I'd run it past any regular editors first. Other console pages just have the JP/EU/US release dates (if at all), and none have initial prices listed. Should these therefore be removed? :) Darrek_Attilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone with time and inclination should go over the list of launch games. I see edits like this and wonder if people aren't getting confused and marking games as "yes" when they are finally released weeks after launch. Anomie⚔ 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think it should be removed outright, partially because of that, and partially because it seems more appropriate for the list of Wii U games article. (Its going to be less and less relevant as time passes. Sergecross73 msg me 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll also mention that the "Nintendo eShop" column on the right varies between regions so I think there should be a note about that. DarkToonLink (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and took your suggestion, Sergecross73, after an IP yet again screwed around with the list. I left in just the basic statement of how many launch games there were, which could use sourcing if anyone is up to it. Anomie⚔ 02:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If people want to track that sort of thing, they can mark games as "Launch Games" at the List of Wii U games article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we get someone to clean up the reception part of this article? I mean the Wii U has gotten mostly positive reviews and the sections just lists one choppy negative review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.244.120 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Again...reviews have been more positive than mixed....can someone put better reviews on the system than just TVii and the controller life.

"It is the first entry in the eighth generation of video game home consoles, however this is a point of contention." Just becasue the EA guy was pissed Nintendo didn't use Origin doesn't mean it's not an 8th Gen console... It's an 8th gen console because it's part of the 8th Generation of consoles... A recent edit suggested a discussion on this.DarkToonLink (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the quote only referred to the system's perceived graphical capabilities, not its literal release as a '00s video game console. One person also doesn't make it "a point of contention". Maybe "However, EA's Bob Bobson disputes that its capabilities are characteristic of a new generation". ArtistScientist (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning, but I don't think a sentence like that should go in the first paragraph. Whilst some may say its graphics aren't advanced enough to be called 'next-gen,' it is part of the 8th Generation.

I'll go ahead and remove the point of contention thing but mention it somewhere else. Actually I'll wait for more input. And if others disagree, well, there can be further discussion here. DarkToonLink (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot it was the opening paragraph, I don't think it should be mentioned there either. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the power issue does not make this a seventh generation console any more than the Wii was a sixth generation console despite being less powerful than either the PS3 or the XBOX 360.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

While I believe it to be "8th gen" too, it's hard to argue that some people hold that fact in contention. I think it's okay to mention, although I also agree it doesn't really belong in the intro/lead either... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it looks like someone made the edit. It now seems a bit cleaner but I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere else, because as Serge said, some people do hold it in contention, and as a

Flat Earth Society...Thanks, DarkToonLink (talk

) 08:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I included the sales of the PS3 and 360 in the paragraph on the Wii U's sales was because the section only provides a comparison with the phenomenal sales of the Wii, which, combined with the critics' forecasting Nintendo's supposed doom because of lower than expected sales, gives the reader the impression the system is selling very poorly, which isn't an informed view. Other console sales are needed to prevent the reader from getting a very skewed impression. The 360 and PS3 are from last generation, but their successors haven't been released yet so that's the only comparison that can be provided for now. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo's doom is not going to happen from one console that hasn't sold well or they would be out of business. They seem to make their money in the children's toy market with their hand held gadgets and not on consoles. I am not sure why that PS3/360 comparison was removed since many sites are using that except perhaps that they are older generation consoles? Perhaps if you can find sales reports on past Nintendo consoles (N64, GC, Wii) or use Nintendo hand held sales (GBA, NDS, 3DS) it would shed a better perspective of how Nintendo is and their market? Tyros1972 (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should be a comparison to put the sales figures into context, I don't see a problem using the 360 and PS3 for that. I've rephrased that sentence a bit though, so let me know if you prefer it the way it was (or just revert it anyway!). Also, I think the sentence about Wii U sales after 41 days is made redundant by the next paragraph - thoughts? Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

IGN ^[1] Techradar ^[2] Engadget ^[3] Telegraph ^[4] Guardian ^[5]

92.28.88.227 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It says to Wii U GamePad's battery life only lasts 3.5 hours, It's supposed to say 3-5 hours since the battery life isn't definitive based on what one person experiences compared to official reports. Here's some links:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/351727/wii-u-gamepad-battery-lasts-3-5-hours/

http://www.destructoid.com/e3-wii-u-gamepad-3-5-hours-battery-2-5-hours-to-charge-228836.phtml

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/11/07/wii-u-gamepad-lasts-3-5-hours-fully-charges-in-2-5-hours/

72.86.42.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Well, it's not really a typo, that's what the quote says for that review, and if you read the review, 3.5 was the typical amount that reviewer had in their personal experience. You can't fix a direct quote, and no fixing is warranted here anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If their were other reviews that said otherwise, would it be different? I'm not expecting too much or asking you to change it, I just saw the quote, and thought it was typo since when the official was asked they said 2-5 and 3-5 hours.

See my above section. The whole reception section needs serious expansion. I don't know how you can call reviews "mixed" and only reference 2 of them. 78.150.239.132 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, it definitely needs to be expanded... Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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^[1]

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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

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?

I reviewed this RfC based on a request at

bot

!) 06:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. Neutral - I still don't see the harm, but I dont' really care either way, and it looks like people are getting awfully worked up over this, so I don't wish to prolong it. Let's wrap this up and work on something more constructive in the article... Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Is that a signal to call a closing admin per
    WP:SNOW? Thegreyanomaly (talk
    ) 15:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I guess, if you feel that to be necessary. Its already been removed, and there's no way this discussion is ever going to lead to a consensus to include this, so whether its closed right away or not, everything's pretty much in place... Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering just as many game pubs/devs are calling the Wii U 7th gen as they are calling it 8th gen, it would be biased to not have this mentioned in the lead - many have incorrectly suggested the Wii U being 7th gen is a minority view. After having looked for evidence, it seems that just as many are for it being 7th gen as they are 8th gen. mazty (talk) 20:00 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
    • Can you provide sources for all these companies you're citing? Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My assumption (possibly incorrectly) did not include media outlets due to the likelihood of circular reporting/reporting the Nintendo stance on their console rather than having an independent standpoint. Nevertheless, while this debate has been occurring, Ubisoft have aired the view that the Wii U is not next-gen, meaning that both EA [14] and Ubisoft [15] do not believe it to be 8th gen which, given their market position, should give the comment weight. On top of that Epic Games[16] and Red Thread Media [17] have openly declared it not next-gen. If we're to include external media as well, CNET [18] have classified it as not next-gen, although I'm not sure if this holds true with all the articles they have written, and likewise Digital Foundary classes the Wii U as being in a "different league" to the PS4 and Xbox 1 [19]. On the contrary, Shin'en Multimedia [20] have come out in defense of the Wii U, as well as leading publisher Activision [21]. In summary, when looking at the views from withing the gaming industry, it does appear to be divided. Many haven't said anything about it at all e.g. Bethesda, Blizzard, Konami, Capcom, Sony, Microsoft etc, but some of those who have are very large figures and therefore should give the comment weight. Please let me know your thoughts, thanks. mazty (talk) 00:40 GMT+2, 03 July 2013
• 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)
        • That is a wholly false assumption. Having looked at what publishers and developers have said, the majority have not stated anything about the status of the Wii U, whereas more pubs/devs have stated it is not 8th gen when compared to the amount of devs for it being 8th gen. Here's a breakdown of the sources for, against and neutral - FOR: Activision, Shin'en Multimedia, Forbes. AGAINST: EA, Ubisoft, Epic Games, Red Thread Games, Digital Foundry. NEUTRAL - Bethesda, Sony, MS, Valve, Sucker Punch, Guerrilla Games, Naughty Dog, Konami, Crytek, 343 Industries etc. The reality is most devs and publishers won't get involved in the cat-fight of which gen it is, and therefore will not air their views on it, however more are against it than for it. Considering both Ubisoft and EA clearly believe it not to be 8th gen (with ubisoft directly referencing hardware), it seems flawed to categorize them as a minority. mazty (talk) 13:35 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
          • Incorrect assumptions on your side - you are holding the opinions of single individuals at four gaming companies, as representative of whole companies, and your majority is 3-4. Ubisoft referred to the system "It’s not necessarily next-generation, but it’s next-generation thinking" [22] - kind of ambiguous as do still regard it as next-gen but aren't very clear (note the word "necessarily"). Also, some companies are inherently more important than others (e.g., a large company like Activision will hold a lot more weight than a small company like Red Thread Games, which I've never even heard of and apparently just was founded in late 2012). Also, please don't
            WP:Crystal Ball about what those neutral companies think. Thegreyanomaly (talk
            ) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Incorrect - the EA CEO stated that the Wii U did not make the 4th generation cut. It would be absurd to think that the CEO's view on a console is separate to that of the company he is part of. Ubisoft stating "It's not necessarily next-generation, but it's next-generation thinking" shows that they believe the console hardware is not next-gen, otherwise the 2nd part of the statement would not be necessary. Ironically it is you who is speculating to what the companies believe as you are claiming to think the Wii U is 7th gen is a minority view, when in fact more companies have stated it is not next gen than it is next gen. That should be, and is, the definitive point of this argument - more large companies state the Wii U is not next gen as apposed to companies stating it is next gen. To not include that in the lead is illogical as it would mean ignoring some of the biggest players in the industry, and instead adhering to the smaller voices. In fact, it could very well be sensibly argued that the entire article, because of this, should be altered to state the Wii U is 7th gen. mazty (talk) 20:00 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
          • Mazty, for every one source that questions or doubts the Wii U as 8th generation, there are at least 10 more that don't. You have to remember that reliable sources aren't limited to gamer and enthusiast web sites. Any reputable media outlet (e.g., ABC News, NBC News, Forbes, etc.) that has published the Wii U as an eighth-generation console counts too and trust me, that number heavily outweighs the gamer/enthusiast sites that question the classification. It would be
            original research for us to weigh the credibility among reliable sources, and therefore, we must count each as one. If you still want to challenge that it's a minority viewpoint, I suggest moving the discussion to a new section on this page and continue it. As the article stands now, it is being treated as a minority viewpoint, so the article would need to be changed first. --GoneIn60 (talk
            ) 18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
            • One issue with news sources is the potential for circular sourcing, and, while speculation is not valuable, one does have to question if news sources are merely following the Nintendo fact sheet rather than independently analysing it's generational status. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, if the aim is to find if the claim has due weight, having two of the largest, most well established publishers (EA and Ubisoft) claim that the Wii U is not next-gen, should be weight in itself, also backed up by Epic Games, a very well established and large game developer. I would think that Ubisoft, EA and Epic Games carry significantly more weight than Forbes or ABC News with regard to games and games consoles - let me know your thoughts. mazty (talk) 00:25 GMT+2, 03 July 2013
              • Yes, I would think that as well, but it is the sheer number of news sources that haven't published the criticism that puts it in the minority for now. We can only speculate why there is a lack of coverage. Is it editorial oversight? Do journalists that typically cover the gaming industry disagree? Are they just not aware? I'm not saying it isn't a valid point, but really the article needs to be changed to reflect that first. Then, if it becomes a main aspect of the Reception section through consensus, it would warrant inclusion in the lead. I'm not sure this RfC discussion is the best place to discuss those changes, but opinions on the subject that move us closer to a resolution are certainly welcome. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
              • You're putting too much weight into EA/Ubi/Epic's wording... Whatever they said was just a highly subjective opinion purely based (and biased against) on the Wii U's specifications and different hardware architecture which would require a lot of extra work and time (which basically means "more money") spent on optimizing their in-house game engines for it. I personally would not consider such non-neutral opinions to be worth of any use here, but whatever...173.68.110.16 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 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)
        • Please refrain from needless profanity and creating strawman arguments - I never claimed the Wii U was not a step up from the Wii, or the Wii from the Gamecube. You need to consider that the Wii is almost identical in power to the original xbox, and the Wii U is more powerful than the existing consoles as the xbox was to the PS2. Who is this "we" as well? From claims by EA and Ubisoft, it seems to be that they do define generations by hardware and both are companies which have been around since the early 80's. mazty (talk) 13:30 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
          • You claimed that yourself that "it was only until the 7th generation that a console emerged that did not have much technical improvements over it's predecessors". What is the predecessor of the Wii, the GameCube - you claimed the Wii was not a step up from the GameCube, don't backtrack. I am not sure of any reliable source other than one quote from Microsoft that makes that argument. Also, you arguments are thoroughly focusing on a single issue, graphics. The Wii original could lots of things that the original Xbox was not capable of such as motion control. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Note that predecessors is plural. There is no logical reason why you should compare one console only to it's immediate predecessor rather than the generation as a whole, something you've actually done by mentioning the GB and Game Gear. Please don't move the goalposts to suit your argument. Actually my argument is to do with hardware as a whole. Eyetoy showed motion controls on the PS2, and both the PS2 & Xbox can play DVD's with HDD support. In some ways, the Wii was a step backwards in terms of hardware. Nevertheless, both the Wii and the Wii U do not collectively show significant performance increases over the preceding generations. mazty (talk) 20:00 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
              • The CEO is a business man, not a computer scientist or a programer of any sort. A CEO is just a leader of organization, the collective organization does not have to follow the same position. Wikipedia treats the Gameboy and the Gamegear as the same generation, that is why I brought it up. Playing DVDs is not really a technological leap when you are using DVDs as your medium (and also has nothing to do with gaming). Nintendo opted to develop their own proprietary disc format, that is as much as lead as using DVDs. All you are doing here is spouting anti-Nintendo opinions, show me some reputable, sources that say the Wii original was weaker than the Xbox original (other), until you can do that your opinions have no merit. The consensus is absolutely against your position of putting the comment in the lead, so me debating you here has no function other than keeping me away from my work. Goodbye. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
                • The CEO clearly stated that the company did not see the Wii U as a gen 4 console. To presume a CEO would make a comment which is not a view held by his company seems baseless, and playing DVD's was one of several features mentioned. To label my comments as "anti-Nintendo" is a fallacy as my comments are neither criticism or praise, but commenting on generational status. Also, my comment was that the Wii was only marginally more powerful than the Xbox, not that the Wii was weaker. If you find that you cannot remain emotionally removed from this debate, it may be wise to avoid Nintendo discussions in the future. mazty (talk) 00:25 GMT+2, 03 July 2013

• • "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)
        • It's not a nonsense argument - it's a hypothetical. Please do not needlessly dismiss this without giving it thought especially considering the release of the Ouya. It is a console with relatively little power and is not being considered an 8th generation console, therefore why is this if generations are not defined by hardware but by release date instead? mazty (talk) 13:30 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
          • The Ouya unlike the Wii U was not rejected by E3. The Ouya was not allowed by the gaming industry to enter the gaming industry's primary expo, that is why. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Again you are now moving goalposts. You said generation is defined by release date, but now are suggesting that it's release date & has to be accepted by E3. mazty (talk) 20:00 GMT+2, 02 July 2013
              • The definition of generations is hazy at best in Wikipedia in general, so neither side should have their argument hinge on it. It doesn't matter anyways, we're not debating what gen it is, we're discussing on whether or not its
                undue weight to bring up in the intro. Sergecross73 msg me
                17:14, 2 July 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)

Hi. It appears 173.68.110.16 has decided to join our discussion here. (See his comment below.) But unlike what he said, I am not assuming bad faith in you. The only problem is that the discussion is unnecessarily heated. I'm not saying it is bad (though, I am saying it is not good enough); but it can be better. I was talking out of my experience. For example, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 2012 R2. See? Things can improve. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are doing exactly what the IP below was saying you're doing. You are entitled to you opinion, but this discussion is not unnecessarily heated for me - I am defending my point of view as vigorously as I wish to. I've on Wikipedia for much longer than you have, I know how discussions go - I do not need to be lectured on the subject. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:09, 2 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

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)

• Leave out of lead - The reception section is the right area for this. Wii U is part of the eight generation. The area of dispute is whether it qualifies as truly 'next-gen' which is often discussed as it is currently the transition between 7th and 8th gen. Once the 'next-gen' power stuff is over in a few years, the Wii U will simply sit alongside the PS4 and Xbox One as part of the 8th gen, which should be its classification in the lead, with criticisms of lack of 'next-gen' power in the reception section. The 'next-gen' terminology is the biggest area of contention, so it is fine for the lead to call it part of the 8th gen, rather than saying it's a 'next-gen' console, as this is set terminology which classifies the product accurately, with further discussion in reception. DarkToonLink (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is closed, and those who contributed to it had to maintain

WP:NPOV

, but now that it's over, those who personally believe it to be 'next gen' could place {{User:DarkToonLink/Userboxes/WiiUNextGen}} on their personal userpages. (Whilst writing this here may not directly contribute to the article, it does allow users to put their opinion on their pages, which may lead to further traffic to this article and issue to improve it, and also possibly show peoples' biases so that others can help them keep NPOV in discussions.) DarkToonLink (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

hello i have wii u

Off-topic post

hello i have wii u games system from the nintendo. but i try and use the game controller with screen on wii but it will not connect? please be explain why i do not work? it is same system is not? thanks you 50.163.79.60 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Please don't discuss it here. Wikipedia is not the place to ask why your game system isn't functioning correctly. --•••• + DeviantSerpent 05:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC) who say i am not allow to do this? i am allow my internet says i can or do you want me to be of complaint to wikipedia father? i foght in war 50.163.79.60 (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia policy says. Whether or not you "foght in war" is irrelevant. This is not the place to discuss issues with your game console. Consult Nintendo tech support for something like that. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC) you help me NOW I PAY TAXES THAT PAY YOU 50.163.79.60 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC) You will be blocked if you keep this up. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a forum. You can find your answer elsewhere on the internet, and the answer is actually probably already in the article. Thanks, DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 10:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, as everyone has said, this talk page is for discussing writing or improving the Wii U article, not your personal problems with the Wii U. Any further off-topic posts will be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) This IP reminds me of my father in more ways than one. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) You need to re-sync your controller, if you want to know how just contact Nintendo here. It's a common problem with Wii U owners. Both of them.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 00:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Er, last time I checked, the GamePad doesn't work with the Wii, so if you are actually going to answer the question here, you may as well provide proper info to what the IP asked... One of those Wii U owners, DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 11:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I thought he meant he couldn't connect his GamePad to the Wii U. Either way, I redirected him to the Nintendo costumer support. I own a Wii U, it was just a little joke, nothing personal.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 13:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, it wasn't really a coherent sentence, but he asked if it was the same system so I figured he was one of the many confused customers... I knew it was a joke, didn't take it personally! :) DarkToonLinkHeyaah! 06:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Wii U/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

After having a brief look at the article, I have decided to quick-fail the article. It fails to meet several

GA criteria

namely 1a, 2a, 3b and 6a.

• There are numerous paragraphs and individual claims that have not been referenced. They can be found, for example, under "User interface", "Asymmetric gameplay" and "Loyalty programs" sections.
• Not all the references are filled out. The References section needs a clean-up -- hence the tag.
• File:Nintendo eShop logo (new).png and File:Miiverse Logo.png are non-free media files -- they belong in their respective articles.
• A lot of the information under "Software and services" can and should be condensed. For example, the sentence "However, such delays have not been reported by users. From February 2013 the players under the age of 12 years are no longer allowed to directly send or receive friend requests within Miiverse." and the next sentence found in "Miiverse" are not strictly about the Wii U.
• The lead is too short. According to
  WP:LEAD
  , articles that have more than 30,000 characters should have three to four paragraphs in the lead. This article has almost 50% more (43,200 characters) than the recommendation yet it only has three summarizing paragraphs.
• "The Wii U is the first Nintendo console to support high-definition graphics, capable of producing video output up to 1080p". I presume that the second clause is an extension of the first -- the way it is written tells me they are unrelated.

--They are indeed related, but 1080p is not the only output accepted as ¨HD¨, a 720i output would also qualify. I believe that specifying ¨up to 1080p¨ is valid. - Carlosfer2201 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

These are only some of the issues that this article has. Because the issues above are quite significant, and I do not think they can be addressed adequately in a reasonable amount of time. The best course of action in this case would be for me to quick-fail this nomination while you address these issues. Perhaps in four to six weeks' time the article would be improved enough for it be re-nominated for GA status. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

here

for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (

   focused

   ):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

If I may add something: the "Games" section needs work. The second paragraph which addresses the games released/being released for the Wii U in 2013 in particular needs work. It seems to indicate that neither The Wonderful 101 or LoZ:WWHD are out yet. And unlike the paragraph about the Wii U's launch games, the second paragraph doesn't mention any third party games being released, such as Batman: Arkham Origins or Watch Dogs. Dexter111344 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Be more time-accurate!

97.104.219.149 posted this comment on November 6, 2013 (view all feedback).

Be more time-accurate!

Any thoughts?

Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm... Pertaining to what? KonveyorBelt 22:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I thought I was missing something, but it's probably just the lack of context.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 00:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing some technical

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the wii u does not use the tri core for the OS

it has a ARM chip at 900mhz that does the background task with a 64kb L1 cache

the tri core has three cores with 512 1024 and 512kb L2caches

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.73.120 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done:Can you source that information? I know this isn't the first time I heard about this, but we need sources to confirm and later reference this. Thank you.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Japanese name

During the dispute that arose over the use of Japanese text at PlayStation 4, I realized that the Wii U (and the Wii and the Miis) also do not possess Japanese language names within Japan, and are simply referred to as the "Wii" and "Wii U" within Japanese text rather than the "ウィー" and "ウィー ユー". Therefore, it is completely unnecessary to include this text in the article as it is an invention on Wikipedia and it is not necessary to provide this information to readers when the IPA version is suitable. I have removed it from this page and the other pages but Arkhandar argued that there was no consensus here for removal when frankly no one really gives a shit about these things other than people who demand the status quo be kept when met with contrasting evidence.

So I would just like to point out this fact and note that this page should not feature the text "ウィー ユー" because in Japan this console is universally known as the "Wii U" and never "ウィー ユー".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Will Wii play Wii u games  ???

68.68.66.185 posted this comment on 6 December 2013 (view all feedback).

Will Wii play Wii u games  ???

Any thoughts?

No, never, new console. Wii U will play your Wii games but the Wii is not forward compatible. --FourthLineGoon (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That is both not possible technically, and also not even a logical choice, as the Wii is no longer popular anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

USA sales and NPD also Wii U world wide sales...

It seems that a lot of people are confused about Wii U sales and also Nintendo's goals when comes to sales, many people think that NPD reports presents entire market of USA which is incorrect since NPD covers 60 to 65% of US retailers and does not include major retailers like Toy R Us nor Sam's Club. Thus world wide sales of Wii U are most likely incorrect thus its likely it is 4.4 or 4.5 million by now. VG Chartz list it as 4.5 million units and which is most likely correct since they track reports from numerous firms that track hardware sales thus some other companies most likely track Sam's Club and/or Toy R Us. VG Chartz has a negative reputation by some people, reputation that it is not a credible source which it is since it tracks down all available information in hardware and software sales, reason why VG Chartz may not seem as credible source is most likely because for USA part of hardware sales it "contradicts" to NPD's report's which majority of people that are uninformed think it presents all hardware sales in market of USA. NPD does not cover all retailers in USA.

I am not trying to discredit NPD in case you think so that I am, just saying that NPD is not getting information from all retailers in US, they cover only 60 to 65% of them thus 35 to 40% of US retailers aren't covered by NPD's report.

I am confused about IGN and other mainstream media sites about Nintendo's goal of selling 9 million consoles by March/April of 2014 since it seems that media confused milestone versus goal. I think Nintendo wants to reach 9 million units sold not sell 9 million units since Q3 2013 to Q1/Q2 2014. -- Eyeofcore (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that VGChartz doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of a

reliable source. It's just some random guys that that don't disclose their methodology. NPD, while not perfect, is a legitimate business organization, and the best we've got until/unless Nintendo reveals heir official figures. Sergecross73 msg me

19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo releases their official figures quarterly; expect figures for sales through Dec 31 to be released at the end of January. I personally don't see a whole lot of point in chasing estimates for sales since Sept 30. Anomie⚔ 19:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's all the buzz amongst the industry, journalists, and "fans". Without a stronger, policy-based reason for exclusion, I feel like we'd have quite the uphill battle against us... Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not in VG Chartz, but you(Sergecross73) since you easily dismiss VG Chartz without providing evidence of valid reasons then you abuse the system of Wikipedia to invalidate VG Chartz as >reliable source<. Yet VG Chartz is a reliable source which you will deny it and you said that they don't disclose their methodology which is fallacy since they have disclosed it one way or another and you can find about it right here on wikipedia and its reference links. Just because some/you people have consensus does not mean its valid nor factually correct, but of course I am in minority thus factual information that I put will be removed. VG Chartz exists for almost 8 years yet it seems that you people can't comprehend the fact that in those 8 years these individuals or as you say "random guys" have experience and have over time improved their own formula and methodology. Sergecross73, you have proven by your response that you are ignorant and unwilling to do research nor support your own claims and using types of arguments that can be literally be described as pathetic excuses. NPD is not the best and they only track a portion of market only in US, they track 60 to 65% of retailers not 100%. VG Chartz tracks all available reports from these business organizations, compiles them then they do their own research to find out more like calling various shops. If you prefer incorrect information over a information that is likely very close and correct then you are doing more harm than good. -- Eyeofcore (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not attack people and call them "ignorant" when they are acting in accordance to current consensus and policy. --ThomasO1989 (talk

) 22:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

As Thomas says, there is a consensus far larger than me that deems VG Chartz unreliable. It's ridiculous to lay the blame on me - "don't kill the messenger", etc. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eyeofcore: Read this article (which supports VGChartz), and then read this one (which covers its data in depth showing many discrepancies). Afterwards, if you still believe VGChartz is more credible than NPD, or that their worldwide estimates are reliable, I'd be interested to hear why you still think so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with credibility of NPD and I was explaining how NPD does not cover entire market of USA while VG Chartz's compiles reports from various analyst/business firms(which includes NPD) and does its own research and calculations. VG Chartz gives a good estimate of regional and global sales which is based around reports from various analyst/business firms/organizations while also here and there asking questions to retailers, they also do estimates in case they can't get hands on reports from retailers. I am amused that you are using obsolete information to back up your points, both of them are from 2008 which is seriously outdated and which questions your own credibility for using obsolete information that is not valid for several years. 5 years have passed since your "verdict", so you and others are judging VG Chartz based on old obsolete outdated no more relevant information in which you don't consider the amount of time that has passed since the release of those articles nor enter a factor that VG Chartz's improved their methodology over time thus argument that VG Chartz is "not reliable source" is flushed down the toilet since the argument of the verdict that VG Chartz "is unreliable source" is non valid anymore. I suggest that VG Chartz either gets status of >reliable source< or at least being removed from list of >unreliable sources< since the argument and evidence used are outdated thus invalid or you will use an excuse and abuse the system... -- Eyeofcore (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, open a new discussion at

WP:VG/RS if you want VGChartz to be re-considered as a reliable source; it's not up to the few of us. You're not going to get any traction here. --ThomasO1989 (talk

) 22:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Eyeofcore: With all due respect, I'm trying to approach this objectively. I am using the only analysis I could find. If there is a more recent analysis that shows how VGChartz has improved, I would be more than willing to consider it. I don't have an opinion at this time either way. We can't ignore the fact, however, that VGChartz has had issues in the past. The second link I posted shows concrete evidence of this, and even emphasizes that VGChartz admits to "fine-tuning" its data if NPD releases data that is wildly different. The link also explains why the European market is extremely hard to estimate, and that any estimate for this region is not likely based on reliable data.

Also as

WP:RSN), though having a discussion here might help you determine if you want to take it to the next level. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 22:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Or even the talk page of

WP:VG for maximum exposure/discussion. There's a tough road ahead though, one can argue all day how one could personally approve of it, but it'd be much harder to argue how it'd meet Wikipedias definition of a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me

23:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hulu/Youtube/Hulu Plus in Wii Mode

I was trying to to trim down the Wii Mode section some, but this part was challenged. Is it really noteworthy that these 3 apps don't work in Wii Mode? I mean, aren't they functional in "Wii U mode"? If they're ultimately useable one way or another on the console, it doesn't strike me as that noteworthy to mention. (Not sure why someone would go to Wii Mode to do these things to begin with...) Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I only reverted because I thought that since it's e an added restriction then it should be notable. But yours seems a good point, and I won't oppose a deletion. Let's just wait to see what other editors think.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 23:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the video services not being functional in Wii Mode really needs special mention, as they are available as Wii U applications, and they are most likely excluded from Wii Mode to avoid a Department of Redundancy Department issue. Now, if there was something that is on the Wii, but is completely unusable on the Wii U (I've heard LostWinds is in this basket), then it might be something worth mentioning. --Thunderbird8 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a different story if they were originally promised to work in Wii Mode or did work and were pulled at a latter date but neither are the case.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Shipped vs. Sold

The table and first line of the sales section reads "shipped", but the referenced Nintendo report seems to indicate "sold". By contrast, the table also highlights what was assumed to be a stock return to Nintendo from Europe in Q2 2013, hence the total decreasing, and indicating "shipped". However, the recent 5.86m is, according to sources reporting on it, "sold" and not "shipped". Can we figure out which figures are which to unify the reporting of sales data? SynergyBlades (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo only reports shipped units, which they sell to retailers, hence there are instances were "sold" appears on their financial reports.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: The Wii U is not part of the...

173.52.211.199 posted this comment on December 21, 2013 (view all feedback).

The Wii U is not part of the Wii product family it is a completely NEW Video game system

Any thoughts?

This is kind of a tough one. It's probably fair to say that the PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, and even the PSP and PS Vita, are all part of the PlayStation product family. Same with the Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. The difference with Nintendo is that their naming schemes aren't quite as consistent. We have the NES, the SNES, the N64, the GameCube, the Wii, and the Wii U. Obviously they are all part of the Nintendo product family (along with the various Game Boys and DSs). But the Wii and Wii U really are quite similar, and seem to have a lot closer of a relationship with each other than previous Nintendo systems have had. So it's probably fair to say that they comprise their own product family. It's also a bit telling that Nintendo, which had basically used a completely new name for each console since the SNES, chose to just take on a "U" to the Wii name for the new console. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk 00:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here, feedback person. The article makes it pretty clear in a number of areas that it's separate, as the successor to the Wii, but at the same time has similarities. (Use of Wiimotes, motion control, etc.) I don't see any problem unless something more specific is mentioned as an issue. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is the field called Product family in the info-box, which claims that Wii U is a part of the Wii product family. This same field also exists in Microsoft and Sony console articles, but unlike those articles' fields which lead to the general

Playstation articles, Wii U's link just leads back to the the Wii's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk

) 15:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because there's no Wii family or Wii line article.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 17:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then maybe it should be unlinked or removed until/if such an article is created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Its still

« Ryūkotsusei »

15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)