Talk:Nintendo Switch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) --Bussta33 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC) This article is small because not much info surrounding the topic has been released. So far, every major video game platform has an article on Wikipedia. Today, a new major game platform was announced by Nintendo. It WILL see its own article sooner or later, that's 100% certain. And I believe Wikipedia knows that. The platform was only announced mere hours ago. More info will not be released for quite some time. However, as a encyclopedia, people should have the certainty that they can visit Wikipedia to find info about this platform. Because if this article is deleted, which wouldn't make any sense, it will receive its own article again in the near future. There's no point in deleting it. Every article on Wikipedia starts off small. Once more info is released, this article will grow significantly.

Please read WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL. All this is, is a code name. Nothing is known about the product, nor will anything even been announced until 2016. And no, it's not 100% certain that the product will be released. There's no way for you to know that. Plans change over the course of years. Other consoles have articles because there's information to document on them. There's literally nothing to document here at all yet. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

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.

---

Currently, this article needs to be redirected, as it is WP:TOOSOON for it to have its own article.

1. All that is verified is that its video game hardware. That's it. Everything else is either long, drawn out direct quotes that either say the same thing, or are extraneous detail.
2. The company has literally said that they will not announce anything new until 2016. That means there's no reasonable hope for expansion for at least 9 months, and that's on the assumption they start up right away in January.
3. It's getting coverage, yes, but only confirming its existence. When there's such a miniscule amount of content, there's no reason it can't just be a small section at Nintendo or wherever else consensus decides is a good redirect target.

Thoughts? (Support = redirect, Oppose = Keeping article)

• Support as nom. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's a searchable term but we can't say anything more than its mention at this time. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Please be specific on what the re-direct "Support" means in this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm saying, if you say "support", you say you're supporting a redirect, not supporting keeping the article. I was just defining what exactly would constitute a "support" or a "oppose". Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Sergecross. While searchable, all we know about it is that the console is in the works and is codenamed "NX." We don't know anything about it—not even its official name—and won't know anything by 2016, as confirmed by Iwata himself. It's possible—slim, but possible—that the console might not even be made and plans for it might be thrown out by 2016. Let's wait until we actually know more about this thing and redirect this page to Nintendo for now. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Support I disagree with your assertion that there is no hope of more information for 9 months - not all information comes from official Nintendo announcements. And even if that were true, there is no downside to keeping this article. It will need to be re-created in the near future, whether or not it is actually released, and there is a usable amount of content at present. A summarizing section can be added to Nintendo, list of gaming consoles, 9th generation of gaming systems, etc if you prefer. Mamyles (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • A redirect is not deletion. The idea is that once there more than just "Nintendo has announced it is working on new hardward called the NX" we can change the redirect to content. But without more than a sentence or two, an article at the time is inappropriate. And information that doesn't come Nintendo is likely to be rumormongering, so we can't necessarily include it. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• If its not coming from Nintendo, where's it going to be coming from? Any reputable company who would know anything is going to be under a nondisclosure agreement, and any journalists doing articles on it are just going to be writing speculative articles about what it'll be, which can be okay in a limited fashion, but you can't make an article entirely out of simply a name and speculation to what that name is or means. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• To add onto that, if there is analysis like this article [1] that speculates how the NX is going to fit into Nintendo's larger strategy, and it is considered a common agreed opinion, that still can be summarized in the main Nintendo article were we talk about its hardware. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Good points. I was too in the mindset of a deletion discussion, which this is not. Per WP:FUTURE point 5, a redirect is appropriate until there is more than a product announcement. I still think that will be sooner than 9 months, but exactly when it happens is irrelevant. Mamyles (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yeah, I didn't take it to AFD because I do think its a viable search term, and belongs on the project in some capacity. Just not in the form of a dedicated article yet. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Agreed that it's WP:TOOSOON and would be more appropriate as a passing mention in the Nintendo article. I can also see this article being a potential target for unsourced claims and speculation. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support without prejudice for recreation, of course. KonveyorBelt 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I of course definitely support it being spun out into an article someday. (Unless they give a new/final name for it when they reveal it - then we'd change the redirect target to the products final name, and build the article there.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic discussion regarding WP:AFD

@Sergecross73: This discussion should actually be on WP:AFD, given that "redirect" is a possible result there... Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC) @Steel1943: - It is a possible outcome, yes, but I've observed many times that if the nominator specifically recommends an action that's not deletion, like Merge or Redirect, at AFD, then it's thrown out by default. See WP:KEEP for the theory, and here for it in practice. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Per WP:GD#Considerations, "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." Mamyles (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Weird. Turns out that I was just pointed out yet another process in Wikipedia which I believe should be changed to better suit the community and for better record keeping purposes, but have no desire to start a discussion to change the process since I know that I'd be beating a dead horse due to it already being proposed several times in the past. *sigh* Oh well... Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not especially fond of it either. I mean, I get it, it probably helps AFD from being too backed up, but it seems counterproductive in time's like my cited example above, when it gets in the way of a clear consensus that was developing... Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I actually took a similar bold action as the nominator did with this article before it was reconverted to an article. It's far too soon. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Any chance of having the redirect protected as well? - X201 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that was the plan, especially now, with the strong consensus that is forming. I was going to protect this and a few of the likely alternate names. (It was created under NX (gaming platform) for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• If this title is going to be protected, it would probably be wise to move this article to the draft space so that editors can work on it before the draft is approved as an article via references. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Theres...really not much to move though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with that, but due to the popularity of this announcement's "announcer", there's probably always going to be an editor who wants to edit something in regards to this subject. Might as well let them edit out their thoughts ... in the draft namespace. It's probably a better outlet than an unprotect request that gets granted by an uninformed admin. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The1337gamer (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I went ahead and redirected this, per the unanimous results in this discussion. I also tried to move it to the draft space per Steel1943. However, I must admit, I've done very little moving of articles to draft space - not sure I did it right. Salvidrim!? Can you double check it for me? Or fix it if I messed up? Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You did alright. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:19, 23 March 2015 (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.

Protected edit request on 24 March 2015

Could each of these redirects (Nintendo NX, Project NX, and NX (gaming platform)) please have the following rcat tags added to them:

{{R to anchor}} {{R fully protected}}

Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Appears uncontroversial, all 3 tagged. -- GB fan 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I had already created a few other potential naming conventions for this article - NX (video game console) and NX (console). (Sources don't actually seem to call it "Nintendo NX", and that could be as redundant as calling it the "PlayStation PS1" or something.) I've added the tags to them as well, and redirected their talk pages here as was done to the others. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent sources

I've been hearing more and more about the NX. Maybe it could be worth publishing the draft? This Digitimes article has been reported on by many of the regular outlets (Gamespot, IGN, CinemaBlend, SlashGear), discussing the start of the manufacturing process, and the fact development kits have gone out to developpers already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think its content worth adding to the draft, but I'm still not really for having it be an article. Technically, we still don't really know what it is even. It literally still has no definition beyond "a future platform by Nintendo". Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 April 2016

The NX has been officialy announced, the Console should have it's own article, any news can be put on this page Jerrylee16 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment WP:CRYSTAL #5 probably still applies. The NX had previously been announced, nothing new there. "NX" is still being reported as a "codename" in the reliable sources, and no details on the console itself are available. In short, it's still a short article that mostly covers the product announcement alone. I'd say it's close though, and even if it's not going to be shown at E3, Nintendo may let some more information out then. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was already "officially announced", the reason it didn't have an article was because literally nothing was known about it. Things haven't improved much - now all we have is a vague prospective release timeframe. If anything, an article could be further out now, with the announcement that it won't be present at E3 2016, further information on it may be even farther out than expected. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: disabling request pending consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Game list

Since games are starting to be announced, and the system is rumored to be revealed in September, (meaning we'll probably create the article soon) I figured I'd start a draft for a "list of games" too. Its at User:Sergecross73/List of NX games. Feel free to add to it as more are announced. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Might as well move that to Draft space ;) -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually wondered if having it in my userspace would help discourage newbies from moving it into the mainspace prematurely. If that's weird or against norms or something, I can move it though. I'm a relative newbie myself when it comes to drafts - I really only recently started doing them, due to either time constraints or other reasons like this, where it wasn't quite ready for mainspace right away for various reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Move-protection (or salting the mainspace title) is always an option. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

True, though you're not really supposed to protect preemptively. (I always remember that, since I almost tripped up at my RFA and said the wrong answer on that one.) Premature creation hasn't actually happened yet, I just imagined it as likely considering how many issues we've had with the main NX article, the 9th gen article, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's time...

I believe it's almost time to bring this into the mainspace. The Nintendo NX reveal is TOMORROW! (Excuse me while I go yell it to the world!) I'm going to go ahead and "reserve a space" for getting consensus on moving this article (once all the WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff and userspace links are removed) into the mainspace. Remember that, if we do move this to the mainspace, someone who can move over redirects will have to do it. — Gestrid (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, once it's actually defined, I remove all objections to moving it into the main space. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to call in OS so there's no evidence they ever objected. ;) — Gestrid (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

We also need to be prepared to move User:Sergecross73/List of NX games into the mainspace as well. — Gestrid (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning on moving that into the main space after the official announcement too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Are there any objections to just doing it now? It's going to be much messier if we wait until the actual announcement czar 04:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, if we wait there might be a need for a history merge with a new article. SNS (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd say to just do it now to avoid the mess that will come if we wait. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @SNS: The title "Nintendo NX" has been protected so only admins can edit it (so no accidental creations at that title), and people here are pretty quick with moving stuff. Back when they first gave The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild a name, I immediately thought to come here and move the page, but it had already been done. That was about a minute between the title's announcement and my discovering it had already been moved. As I said, people here are quick, and, because it's something we know about in advance, there'll probably be someone here (who can move move-protected page) who'll be ready to "flip the switch" when it's time. Plus, we still have a bunch of WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff that we can't really get rid of until tomorrow. — Gestrid (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Support going live now. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
        • If everyone else feels it's ok, I guess I'll support it since it's only an hour away. — Gestrid (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with either, but if someone makes a crappy one line article before we get the chance to move the article into the mainspace, all we need to do is just have an Admin move the draft over the newly created article, deleting it. I doubt there'd be much worth attributing to in a hist-merge. It'd probably be a silly "The NX is a 9th gen console by Nintendo. Ref=ign.com/home - not particularly insightful or worth saving. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @Sergecross73: I think you should just do it. :) -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Images

The Switch logo should qualify at minimum as PD-USonly, at the moment can't remember how threshold of originality works for Japan, but we can readily include the logo on en.wiki.

As we are not likely to get free unit pictures until closer to release, I do believe there are a few good representative images from Nintendo's patent filings that help to demonstrate the nature of the unit. I have to check the specific patents closer, but patents are generally not covered by copyright law unless specific language is placed into the patent by the filer. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• If the infobox image (logo) isn't fair-use, wouldn't we be fine using a fair-use image on the console until a free equivalent is available? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The logo should definitely be PD on en.wiki (under US copyright), which means it doesn't fall under non-free criteria. I also believe that per Commons:Threshold of originality, for Japan "Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general." - that the logo also fails copyrightability in Japan, so it could be uploaded to Commons. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I've uploaded a version to Commons (File:Nintendo Switch Logo.png), but it seems one is already in use here. Which one should we keep? — Gestrid (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And now someone's uploaded another version to Commons. Again, which one should we keep? — Gestrid (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The one on Commons seems preferable to me. The version you uploaded has much more empty space (and a lower resolution, which shouldn't matter since the logo is in the public domain). —zziccardi (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded four different versions of the logo over at the Commons category. Currently, I've opted for the wordmark-free transparent logo for the .en wikipedia's article, because it looks aesthetically better for the infobox, in my personal opinion, than the other three versions I've uploaded for use on Commons. Plus, the name "Nintendo Switch" name is already in the infobox as part of its title. Philip Terry Graham 19:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

We need some picture of the console at least. Max Lazy 10 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

When we get a non-copyrighted, free media image of the console unit, yeah. But for now, the only images available are copyrighted by Nintendo. Philip Terry Graham 19:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Which wont happen until Nintendo shows the system as some press event or conferences, where somebody can snap a photo themselves. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Partner list

The official publishing partner list (or a sample of it) has been confirmed: http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/13345640/nintendo-switch-third-party-support-bethesda-ea-activision/in/13110115. This is significant because of the lack of publishing partners for the Wii U. — Gestrid (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Made A Ninth Gen Page

in case it turns out this is a ninth gen system, i made a ninth gen placeholder article History of video game consoles (ninth generation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin1503 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. We don't make pages "in case it turns out". -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we don't just have empty pages hanging out just in case. Speedy deleted. We need to wait until 1) Source discuss it and 2) there's something to be said there that doesn't belong on the Nintendo Switch article. Otherwise, its just going to be entirely redundant to the Switch article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you clean up Category:Ninth-generation video game consoles as well? I've asked the creator to not add it any more until there's sources backing it. -- ferret (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 with the prediction that Generation 8 will be the last console generation. What a bold prediction. xnamkcor (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Its not that, its that Wikipedia reports the news, they don't "make" the news. If sources aren't calling it 9th gen yet, then neither do we. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Assassin1503 Actually, even if we did, the article would have to be called, "Ninth generation of video game consoles" in terms of how the current generation article name is written, not "History of video game consoles (ninth generation)". 108.45.29.72 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Primarily handheld vs primarily home console

There seems to be some debate on this. http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/20/13347910/nintendo-switch-home-gaming-system reports that the positioning seem to be "home console" first. I've seen some argument that this could just be marketing speak, but...I haven't actually seen a policy/source based argument for "portable first" either.

Or maybe there's a third or compromise approach possible. Wasn't so much trying to solve the issue as just getting discussion going. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It is both. The guts are in the tablet, only because it can be used standalone (unlike the Wii U GamePad which was de facto a thin client). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Start_menu#Neutrality_of_the_point_of_view_regarding_Windows_8. Sources are regarding this as a hybrid device that is equally a home and portable console. Thus, we must adhere to this to comply with the neutral point of view. That is, we can mention Nintendo's POV as long as it is attributed to a secondary source pointing this out. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo literally stated it's a home console first: http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/20/13347910/nintendo-switch-home-gaming-system Max Lazy 10 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that we can mention that Nintendo said this (the article already does), but that it must also support the position by others that it is a hybrid console because this is how other reliable secondary sources describe it. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that its a hybrid/both, and that the home console first is more of a marketing thing, my main concern was when you were saying things like "change wording to put portable first" - I don't feel like "mentioning portable first" was necessarily the only way to convey that it's both. The article keeps getting altered at such a crazy rate I don't even know what the current wording is, I was just concerned with the direction of some of the edit summaries like that... Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I did that to emphasize that the core unit is a portable device. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Developers confirmed" image

Would this picture be able to be used in this article to illustrate how many developers have confirmed they are working with Nintendo? — Gestrid (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, because a free text list is a free replacement, while as some of those logos are non-free , would make that image non-free as well. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch has amiibo support

Hello, according to sources:

(http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/10/nintendo_declines_to_comment_on_touchscreen_enquiry_but_confirms_switch_dock_and_amiibo_features) (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/20/nintendo-confirms-amiibo-support-for-nintendo-switch-clarifies-additional-features)

Nintendo confirmed to IGN that the Nintendo Switch "absolutely" supports amiibo,

Can we add this in to the document ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonniH (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Already done It's already in the article. See the very end of the Hardware section. — Gestrid (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Crowded images

The infobox looks a little crowded at the top with the way the images are. They take up half of it. Would it be better to move the pictures of the console down to the Hardware section and, when a better one becomes available, put that one in the infobox instead? I've already tested out the way the image of the console would look in the hardware section using the Preview button, and it looks fine to me. — Gestrid (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any issue with it. The infobox will continue to get filled with more information over time, and it also wouldn't be consistent with other console articles if we did that either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

'...just 6 years after the launch of the Nintendo 3DS and just 5 years after the launch of the Wii U.'

Why is that relevant? The GBA was released only three years after the GBC, and the DS was released only three years after the GBA. The 3DS was released 'only' six years after the DS too, give or take a couple of months. Similar happened with the home consoles. In fact, 5-6 years is a pretty standard timeline for a home console. ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, while the message is generally okay, the "just" part should be removed - it sounds like a POV violation, like someone trying to editorialize that's happening sooner than usual, which as you say, isn't really abnormal... Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit Requests

I've protected the page, since there has been so much vandalism from IPs an new users lately. If you are locked out of editing the article, feel free to post your request in this section, and upon approval/consensus supporting it, someone will add it to the article for you. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

*The* Nintendo Switch

Surely the article should start with "The Nintendo Switch"..., like "The Wii", "The Wii U" etc. --Liquidmetalrob (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It does seem like many other articles do it that way too, like PS3 and PS4. I've implemented it here too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Media?

What kind of media will the system have? It doesn't look like it will be running optical media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.129.25 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As the article states, its using a "game card" - cartridges again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Good ol' Nintendo. One step forward, two steps back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.129.25 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, as several YouTubers (which does not qualify as WP:RS) have stated, cartridges are better, overall. For one thing, they have faster loading times. — Gestrid (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason why you have to install the whole game into the hard drive with the PS4 and Xbox One. It is because the Blu-ray reader is very slow. We don't have to worry about that when we use a game card.(76.1.121.138 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC))

Region free?

No one talks about whether the Nintendo Switch may be region free or not? －yhynerson1 (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It has not been stated, and we're not expecting more details for a few months now. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's rumored that there will be no region lock, although there will be no official announcement until 2017. anowlcalledjosh 🦉 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And we don't generally include rumors in articles without good reason. — Gestrid (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So many publishers!

Do we really need to list so many publishers? While Nintendo's list is pretty long, that doesn't mean we need to list half of them in this article. (I'm not kidding. This article lists 24 out of the 48 publishers.) I suggest we thin out the list to about half its current length or less and only include the most prominent publishers. — Gestrid (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Verge specifically identifies Activision, Bethesda, Electronic Arts, and Ubisoft as "major third-party publishers" that will support the Switch; those four seem good enough to me. —zziccardi (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better for the future state of the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, too. I'm just waiting a little bit in case other editors want to chime in before we remove 20 publishers from the article. — Gestrid (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. We can always add a few more back if deemed necessary for completeness. —zziccardi (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Sega and Capcom being mentioned, but it's probably fine the way it is now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Makes sense to me, and the Polygon article cited in the next sentence explicitly mentions those two, so we're not just reflecting our own opinions. —zziccardi (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

3D? motion controller?

This is the next generation partial overlap with the DS-line and the Wii-line, has any of the press releases mentioned if this has 3D display support (or the pad is 3D?) and if the minicontrollers have motion sensors (like the Wii). The presense or absence of such features should be detailed into the article if such information is available -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Switch is a "home gaming system first and foremost" (Polygon) – it appears to be a successor to the Wii U rather than the 3DS. As far as I know, there has been no announcement regarding accelerometers/motion sensors or a 3D display. I guess we'll have to wait and see. — anowlcalledjosh 🦉 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What is everyone's deal with dates!!??

I would like to know exactly WHY the heck dates have to be in a certain and odd way! I love to keep the dates as I, ME, and Myself, see fit! I have a certain type of OCD, (doesn't really go along with what I'm talking about) where if I see something that bugs me a lot, I fix it to MY liking. Hopefully we can settle this right, cause I don't like the way you guys do things here. And anyone with the name 'Anonymous user' needs to be looked into very closely as they have some need for adding ridiculous edits. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DATERETAIN. You should not change existing date formats based on your personal preference. This article was established using dmy format very early on. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Successor to Wii U?

What's gonna be the stance on this? Should we consider the Wii U the Switch's predecessor? Many news sites are reporting it as a successor and the Wii U Wikipedia page also lists it as such. Since they're both considered home consoles by Nintendo, it would make sense to treat switch as a successor to Wii U (no matter how different it is), similar to the Gamecube to Wii, and Wii to Wii U. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Lazy 10 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally not sure yet. I believe Nintendo's official stance is that its not a successor, but they also said the same thing about the Nintendo DS not succeeding the Game Boy Advance, and that view is pretty thoroughly rejected by third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo hasn't had a "successor" to a system since the Gamecube. The Wii was a mild upgrade to the GC, the WiiU a mild upgrade to the Wii and this handheld/console mutation thing they are doing now is probably going to be as powerful as a WiiU with more RAM. I'm not even bashing Big N, that just seems to be their MO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.129.25 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends how you define "successor", but usually I believe it's more or less if its a new home or handheld console, regardless of "how much" it improves on the prior. I think the question is more can it be considered a successor if its really more of a hybrid/new/"mutation" type scenario... Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And every single time Wikipedia has referred to the next console as a successor on their article pages. Max Lazy 10 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources are clear. The point of view of Nintendo is a primary source not a secondary. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: the opinion of Nintendo is not a secondary source but a primary source. The secondary sources are clear and the consensus too. Also, Nintendo will stop the Wii U after the release of Switch. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a much longer, second discussion taking place farther down the talk page. There, you'll see there's no consensus for your change yet. Please adhere to WP:BRD and only make changes when there is a clear consensus. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ninth Generation?

Is this the start of the 9th generation of game consoles, as this is the successor to the Wii U?? TJD2 (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still unknown how it will be classified. No reliable sources are calling it either, so neither should we. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to wait for what RSes tell us about whether its 8th or 9th, but I have a feeling they will consider this an 8th gen because it is not pushing hard on any hardware, and the PS4/Xbox one systems still have 3-4 years of planned development due to the 4k/VR-ready interim versions of these consoles.

But as a successor to the Wii U, it might as well practically be, but Nintendo has clearly stated it should not be considered the Wii U successor, so we have to avoid that assignment. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Much of the now-standard numbering system for console generations used across the 'net is derived from Wikipedia, and even Wiki's current categorization is itself apparently a combination of synthesis and original research. There are only a couple of sources prior to the console generation pages being founded here that numbered the generations, and each one has used slightly different numbering (a 2002 paper ignored the "Pong machines" era entirely, and split what Wiki calls the 2nd Gen into two distinct gens, while this 2005 article did include Pong machines as the 1st Gen and split the 2nd Gen up into two generation, making the NES 4th Gen, the "16-bit era" Gen 5, and so on, making the PS4 & XBO 9th Gen by the author's reckoning).

Unless I missed it, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a console generation on this site. For the longest time, it seemed that there wasn't a need: Gen 1 systems are Pong machines, Gen 2 was pre-crash cartridge-based consoles, Gen 3 was the NES era, Gen 4 the 16-bit era, and so on up to the 8th and current generation. The generations seemed distinct, and that's what Wikipedia has settled on. As for handhelds, they were just kind of thrown into whatever home console generation their initial release date was (oddly enough making the GB Color 5th Gen, even though it was simply an upgraded Game Boy and not a "next-gen" handheld like the GBA was).

But the Switch challenges this. Even ignoring its status as a hybrid handheld/home console, it's odd launch timing right smack in the middle of an ongoing generation poses an issue. How do we define a generation? Is it simply a matter of "Console B from [console maker] came after Console A; Console A was n generation, therefore Console B is n+1 Gen"? That can't be right, though, because by Wikipedia's very own classification Atari released two distinct systems (the 2600 and 5200) in a single generation, and this could be a repeat of that. In fact, the "Second Generation" is a very fuzzy and nebulous one, and generations arguably didn't become that distinct until the 16-bit era.

So, the only other alternative would be to define a generation something along the lines of "a cohort of systems released within a relatively narrow time frame and nominally serving as direct competition for each other." That suits Wikipedia's system of classification quite well, at least so far. But the issue of what the Switch is going to compete with isn't quite so clear. If it's considered a hybrid and thus technically both a home console and handheld, that means it'll likely be spending the first 4-5 years of its life competing against the PS4 and XBO, and is likely launching closer to the PS4 & XBO than to any 9th. But then again we don't know if the next-gen PS and Xbox systems (assuming they ever come) will launch in 2019, 2020, 2021, or even later. The release timing of next-gen PlayStation & Xbox systems could effect what the Switch will spend the bulk of its life span competing against.

Considering that the console makers themselves don't ever get in on this numbered generations thing, Nintendo is unlikely to clarify this. If Wikipedia is going to have numbered generations and pages for each gen, then there's going to have to be some kind of consensus on what exactly defines a generation, and which one the Switch belongs to. The system Wikipedia's been using for years has worked fine all the way up until now, but we now have a spanner in the works with a mid-gen launch of a hybrid console. — JGoodman (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on this. Generally, we cant come to a consensus on how the generations are defined. As such, we wait until reliable sources direct state it for a given platform. We're currently waiting for what sources say on Switch. So far, they havent said anything, so neither do we. Sergecross73 msg me 05:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides, if we were to have this conversation (again, apparently), we'd have to do it at a larger venue such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, not on an article's talk page. — Gestrid (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing. We'll never see "reliable sources" tell us which generation the Switch belongs to. They never told us the Wii U, PS4, and XBO were 8th Gen, or that the 360, PS3, and Wii were 7th Gen, and so on. Wikipedians made that up for the most part, because while there were a couple of independent sources that numbered the generations before Wikipedia did, they all came to different conclusions regarding what system belonged to which generation. I will indeed bring this up on that page you mentioned later tonight, because this is something that needs to be clarified. JGoodman (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the issue in the past, wikipedia is the likely responsible entity for the generations metaphore for the first 6 generations. By the time PS3 and the Xbox 360 came out it was sufficiently well established that the gaming press used that approach for calling those as the 7th gen systems. We are now officially stuck with it (see this IEEE timeline) but that's fine, we'll see how reliable sources classify it. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We went through the same thing in 2010 when the 3DS was first announced. At first no one talked about generations because it was the first new system of the 8th gen. Then eventually sources started making a call on it. It'll happen eventually. We just need to be patient. It's been announced for less than a week, and we still know little in the ways of specific details. Don't rush it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of reliable sources outside of VG focused RS's have begun using "ninth generation": http://news.abs-cbn.com/life/10/22/16/nintendo-switch-what-you-should-expect http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-nintendos-new-switch-console-w445780

For what it's worth (Not much), the Nintendo Wikia has already labelled as 9th. I've seen a lot of "next-generation console" in VG RS's, but that language is iffy. It's clearly the "next" generation of Nintendo hardware, but does not necessarily mean the "next" industry generation, you know? I've also seen language like "last-generation" in referring to Wii U.

What I'm not seeing anywhere so far is sources referring to it as eighth generation or current generation. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, whether this system is 8th gen or 9th gen, regardless of what it really will be, the fact remains that the Switch is the successor of Wii U. There's no doubt about that, and I see sources that call it successor too. This is separate from the discussion of what generation it is in - it remains the Wii U's successor and therefore should be mentioned on the article. --G&CP (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought

Eurogamer's sources say that Wii U will end production this week. Occum's Razor points to this even furthering proof that the Switch is meant as its successor but we do absolutely need sources from Nintendo itself to make the claim. But I would keep our eyes out for any such ones at the end of this week moving forward. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A new well-backed industry rumor

Eurogamer reports that the Switch is a capacitive multipoint touchscreen based on its sources that had affirmed the Switch details prior to the trailer. Obviously not N's own words, and thus I'm hesitant to include immediately, and looking for opinions before including it. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It strikes as one of those things where we may as well properly add it ourselves - with reliable sourcing and appropriate context (that its a rumor) or otherwise we're going to be dealing with 2+ months of sloppy passerby editors adding it as fact, considering Nintendo likely won't confirm/deny it until mid January 2017... Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If we do add it we clearly need to indicate it is "Per sources speaking to Eurogamer but not confirmed by Nintendo, the Switch has a ...", but I do agree adding it will prevent sloppy editing prior to January. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - its not only not from Nintendo, but its not even from Eurogamer itself, but a source that told them. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing other outlets picking this up (through EG, so not necessarily corroborating) so I'm going to go ahead and add this to stem off problems for now. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with its inclusion as long as it's explicitly stated that it's a rumor, but only because Eurogamer's sources concerning what the Switch actually is were completely correct (to my knowledge). — Gestrid (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Another hardware rumor [2] but unlike the above one, I'm not sure on the origins of the source (that is, EG has a reasonably strong reputation that I can trust they're not BSing on rumors, but VG247's source is not one I'm sure about). Mostly about storage aspects for the device, which are less a priority as the touchscreen aspects. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What's Let's Play Video Games? I've never heard of it. Does it stand up to WP:VGRS? — Gestrid (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I've only heard of it in the last week or so in relation to the Switch. Hence why I'm not sure about including this rumor. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I decided to start a discussion on its reliability over at WT:VGRS#Let's Play Video Games. It should be evaluated if Switch-related rumors keep coming out of it. We want something to point to if it turns out it's not VGRS. — Gestrid (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Could we request a page protection against numerous times anonymous users have made edits that are unsourced and/or ridiculous/silly information? I don't know why we don't these days to protect the pages who want people to know some true facts, and for people who are not in their right mind or thinking straight. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is the current level of traffic is not disruptive enough. Outright vandalism is very low right now, and many IPs are making valid contributions. There's enough eyes on the article to clean up the IPs that make inappropriate edits. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Be prepared for protection after January 12, when I really expect vandalism as Nintendo announce more about the console. --G&CP (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the Japanese even necessary here?

The official name of the console in Japan is just "Nintendo Switch". "Nintendo Switch" is also the name of the article on Japanese Wikipedia, where the majority of sources also refer to it by just the English name. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, some users on here have some strange obsession with adding Japanese names to everything related to Japan, even when they officially use English names. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Both of your comments are exactly what I've thought as separate points... Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Switch "available" for pre-order

One company has already started "taking pre-orders" (in a way), though it's taking them in a somewhat unique way. See: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/11/random_game_opens_nintendo_switch_pre-orders_though_using_paypal_is_a_bad_idea
— Gestrid (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Reception

What are people's thoughts on maybe doing some light revision here? The section seems a tad negative at the moment. Currently, the paragraph on the response from the financial analyst community is mostly expressing the views of a single NYT editorial and the analyst they quote. Obviously it's important that this reaction is communicated, but the system also received a more positive reception from other industry experts (contrast with here) and from chunks of the industry press. Maybe we can round up some more RSs in order to paint a broader picture? The rest of the section detailing industry response and the extent to which the reveal was popular online could also maybe be expanded. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We can add more from industry aspects. The financial picture is only one aspect but the one easily found. (And there's actually two analysts plus the stock market effect that is very easy to judge). --MASEM (t) 06:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the stock picture is pretty clear, and mentioned explicitly in the section, which I think is useful. Regarding the analyst side of things again, it does seem to be a pretty mixed bag. We've got sources which are pretty positive (such as here) as well as more negative or mixed responses (see here). A lot of the responses note similar things, like concerns about uncertainty regarding 'make-or-break' unknowns like price. We've already got a nice bit near the end of the paragraph discussing some of those general concerns, but maybe we could flesh that out a bit on both sides of the spectrum in place of some of the first two thirds of the paragraph. Obviously the NYT is a RS, but currently it feels like we're just repeating its particular view on this in that part rather than providing a broader picture of the spectrum of responses. MarioFanNo1 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarioFanNo1: I did my best to find a more positive opinion from a financial analyst (also quoted by the NY Times, actually) to round out the coverage a bit and added it here. As you noted, other expert opinions exist and can be added. I think the bigger issue is that the section is lacking the opinions of game journalists, which I plan to add when I get the chance. Of course, the console was only just revealed, so I'm sure there will be plenty more to add in the coming months and once it's actually released. —zziccardi (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nintendo is saying there won't be any more info from them until 2017. — Gestrid (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely agree about the need to include journalist's impressions. I think the section's looking great now that one's been added as well as expansion on the analyst side of things has been approached! As you say, no doubt it'll continue to be a section in flux as more impressions are published, too (although there may be some calm before things really pick up in 2017, as Gestrid notes). MarioFanNo1 (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that I'm not saying other companies may comment on the Switch or the games they have planned for it. — Gestrid (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Could we use this?

GameXplain, which is unfortunately a YouTube channel, just conducted an interview with one of the actors from the Switch ad. (I'm not gonna say his Twitch username for fear of any profanity filters we have, but it's noted in the video's description.) He is one of the actors in the Splatoon scenes, the one that has a red jacket and a beard. Is this usable in any way in the article? (I realize we have WP:USERG.) — Gestrid (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the video provide any information about the Switch that we don't already have in the article or can't attribute to a better source? If it's only about the actor's experience with playing a part in the video's creation, then there probably isn't any content we should add. As for sources that aren't major publications listed at WP:VG/RS, if the source has interviewed a major figure like Miyamoto, then I'd say that would be a situation where using the source is acceptable. Otherwise, the fact that an RS hasn't specifically covered some tidbit usually indicates that it's not terribly important (see WP:UNDUE). —zziccardi (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, he's one of the first people to see and touch an actual Switch. For the most part, those weren't props they used (although the games we see them playing were added in post-production). He doesn't just talk about his experience in creating the ad. He talks about his experience with the Switch controllers ("non-detached regular" and Pro), as well. It would be good to add something about the controllers from someone who actually got to use them. — Gestrid (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of it zziccard's camp here - this doesn't sound too terribly important to note... Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What specifically were you thinking of adding (about the controllers or otherwise)? Do you have a time stamp? Also, even if the content isn't super relevant here, readers of NintendoWiki might appreciate it. —zziccardi (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: The interview you brought up has been mentioned in articles from Eurogamer, Ars Technica, and possibly other RSes. That said, I think the following snippet Masem added earlier should suffice: Nintendo later stated that the footage on the Switch's screen does not necessarily reflect any confirmed titles for the system, and were only selected to demonstrate the Switch's range of functionality. —zziccardi (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Plural of Joy-Con

Regarding the Joy-Con syntax - for consistency, which is proper?:

1) Joy-Con Controller or just Joy-Con (singular). Note: This seems redundant. Is the word "controller" part of the proper noun, or is it an adjective. In the Wii Remote article, for instance, the word "controller" is not part of the proper noun, the device is a "Wii Remote" or "Wiimote" not a "Wii Remote Controller".

2) Joy-Con Controllers or Joy-Cons? Or Is Joy-Con plural (e.g., I have two Joy-Con). - superβεεcat  19:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

seems to have 4 gigabytes of ram

according to a leak i heard of on youtube.84.212.111.156 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a confirmation from Nintendo on that... Sergecross73 msg me 11:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

used processor

these lines are a proposal for the article:

At some locations it was stated that the SoC is a device called Tegra X2 along with main specs on cores that do quite well resemble what is already known with codename "Parker" or maybe T186 from the automotive "Drive" series. This means two Denver (customized ARM Arch64) cores, four ARM Cortex A57 (ARM Arch64) and a GPU core of the Pascal generation.

At least Nvidia themselves confirms that it "powers" the device and that it will provide a few APIs for it: https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/20/nintendo-switch/

--Alexander.stohr (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm also against including this. (As was The1337gamer.) We really want to keep the rumor/speculation stuff to a minimum, and have only allowed a few instances in - like the touchscreen rumor - because they were so prevalent, and we were concerned people would keep adding it in as fact. This doesn't seem to be the case here: According to SegmentNext, this is based on an old a rumor from 3 months ago, before the system was even revealed. Not only that, but we're supposed to be writing for "general audiences", and there's a ton of tech jargon without any sort of wiki-link or context. "SoC", "Arm Cortex A57", "Pascal generation" - this sounds like gibberish to the average person. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

The MRSP price leak

[3] (this is just one example). Like the issue of what the touchscreen was, I think this is one of those that we might want to consider putting in (with all necessary wrapper language to explain the origin), but not in the infobox yet. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The only reason I supported the touchscreen rumor addition is because it originated from Eurogamer, which has been completely correct about everything else having to do with the Switch. I don't think we should include this. Where do we draw the line with putting rumors in this article? Pretty much any rumor about the Switch will end up as widespread as this one or the touchscreen one at this point as people continue to dig and dig for more information.

An alternative to putting a bunch of WP:CRYSTALBALL rumors in this article is to create a temporary WP:EDITNOTICE for the page stating that we don't allow unproven rumors in articles. If we were to do that, though, I would suggest we act fast before the semiprotection on the article runs out tomorrow (EST).

— Gestrid (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree too. It's not like price is typically covered on Wikipedia much anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is the successor to Wii U.

Remember when Nintendo stated the DS wasn't a successor to the GBA or to the GameCube? Well, turns out it WAS a successor. Same thing here. 187.79.221.15 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

See above discussions. On Wikipedia, we need sources to verify. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SoC Specs

It seems like the 'used processor' thread has run out, but I tried to add specs of the Tegra processor as published by Ars Technica and Digital Foundry. These were reverted based on the desire to exclude leaked specs, despite these being reputable sources. While I understand the good faith desire to keep speculation out, I would disagree with this approach for a number of reasons. A similar discussion has occurred in a RfC here and an agreeable compromise was found. I believe this is a worthwhile compromise of phrasing in order to include specs published by reputable sources, but as yet unconfirmed by the manufacturer(s). Dbsseven (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

At some point before we has Eurogamer's reported source that it was a 10-pt touch screen which had been included (attributed to EG in the same manner as the PS4 Neo specs) but was removed by users because they felt it was still speculation/industry rumor. I do note we're under 4 weeks until full reveal, so it seems okay to just hold off until Jan 13 when we should have zero guesswork of what the specs are. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm torn on what to do here. I mean, I'd like to agree with you, but I'm not sure. Jan 13 will certainly clear up our recurring issues with whether or not some of these tech demos are actual games or not, but I'm less sure about some of the tech stuff. I mean, I'm not tech-head, but I think we still don't know some of the tech specs to the 3DS or the Vita. Then again, I don't think we had "Digital Foundry" digging into stuff back then either... Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the hesitance to exclude prerelease information. However, exclusion presumes the information is incorrect, and there is some cost to revision. Delaying until release also presumes the manufacturer(s) will confirm/confirm the specs. I find 'zero guesswork' to be unlikely. Even for the PS4 Pro and Wii U, detailed SoC specs were not released after launch by the manufacturer. Dbsseven (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It violates relevant Wikipedia policy, which explicitly states that "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" ViperSnake151  Talk  20:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The same thing you just quoted also states Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. It acceptable to do in limited amounts with the proper context when properly sourced, it just can't be the foundation of an article (which is why the article didn't exist until the official reveal in October.) The question is more 1) should we 2) how do we and 3) how much is too much? Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we should force any non-confirmed info into the article, especially as in just a few weeks Nintendo will announce everything themselves. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on full specs being released just because the product is released. Frequently manufacturers never release these specs directly themselves. And currently this content is being forced out. We are trying to find a consensus on if this content should be included. I believe it should, per policy on reliable, expert sources. Dbsseven (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Unspecified specs determined by a reliable third party after the units release (possibly obtained from a hardware breakdown) are fine. But again, we have no deadline and we should be getting more specs in under three weeks now, so we arguably can wait.--MASEM (t) 20:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the question is if post-release specs are acceptable. Of course they are. My point remains they may never come (ie. PS4 Pro and Wii). And I believe a blanket exclusion of specs from a reliable source is inappropriate, even if it is pre-release. What is the concern? I believe the consensus is that Ars Technica is reputable. There is no deadline for inclusion, but there is no WP policy for exclusion either. And revision is always available if necessary.Dbsseven (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pricing section

I'm a little dubious about this particular line "Nintendo does not plan to sell the unit below manufacturing cost, as they had done for both the 3DS and Wii U at their respective launches" as I've always been under the impression that the 3DS was not initially priced below cost, but fell below that with it's massive price cut. Not sure where I could find a source on that though. --Thunderbird8 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thats why the language says "at their launches", so we dont need to qualify later prive drops. -MASEM (t) 04:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Source calling Switch 8th Gen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

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

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

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

Australian pricing AU$469.95 should be included

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thanks, looking forward to them if ever published then. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi, i made some pictures on a press event in Munich today. You can find them here: [4] Elvis untot (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Elvis untot: Thank you very much! They look great given what you probably were able to take --MASEM (t) 14:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DMY instead of MDY?

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

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

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

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

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

I've boldly changed to MDY, as no real opposition was voiced here. Note that List of Nintendo Switch games was already unified on MDY separately. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox logo image

• 
  Neutral
• 
  Red

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Possible alternative - Nintendo has an SVG version of the logo here - problem is, it's all white, and the red background is applied via CSS. Apparently the official color is #E60012 from a look at their CSS. The "wide" logo linked here would probably be better for an article header, and better, it's SVG. It would just have to be modified to have the background be part of the file, since I don't think there's a way to do the appropriate CSS trickery here without engaging in a bunch of weird tricks. Karunamon ^✉ 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Which exact red?

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

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

• Use official From http://www.nintendo.com/switch/, Not a preference on color, simply that it's the actual logo from the official page. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose using opaque backgrounds per my argument above. Philip Terry Graham 09:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that opaque backgrounds look bad and should be avoided WHEN POSSIBLE. However, the logo is the logo, and it has an opaque background. There's nothing we can do. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Use official Switch logo, from http://www.nintendo.com/switch/. It's the easiest to justify and I think the color is a little less harsh. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Issue sorted, use the .svg darker shade image. --Pincerr (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources Calling Switch 9th Generation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry if I'm not very good at formatting but, frankly, Rolling Stone Magazine, nor online edition, should not ever be considered a reputable source for video games, the video game industry, nor for critical analysis of the artistic elements, nor business practices, within this field. Not only is the number of errors, bad calls, and unethical review policies too numerous to even bother citing a source, but no industry-vetted journalist has Ever cited the magazine as an expert source, or opinion, that I've ever heard of, and, unless things have changed very very recently, I don't even think they have anyone on staff who is an industry-vetted journalist to even bother citing. I'm sorry, but I can't let that pass without a bit of my scorn. Sam (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Checkmate824 17th January, 2017 ed: WOOT SWITCH HYPE WOOT and I don't think "9th" generation should be defined so quickly, especially considering the wierd environment in the industry at this time, with all the PS4.5s going around. Having said that, there are many examples of multiple consoles being released, by the same company, within what is considered a generation within the industry as a whole; Nintendo being a prominent example. But, as I said, it's too early to tell, if these companies supporting the PS4 and Xb1, their Wii Us, their 3DSs and their Switches, within 10 years, then I think they'd all fit in nicely as the 8th Generation, but maybe a new competitor, or new system could change that. My main worry is that this debate has less to do with history and more to do with fandom insecurities.... just saying. WOOT SWITCH HYPE! WOOT Sam (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So...other than the entire gaming media uniting in agreement, which is obviously an impossible task, is there really anything we can do to solve this problem? Or should we start planning for a future without generational articles? Wicka wicka (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We should wait until the console is actually released. Hardware reviews may give some insight on how it'll be classified. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We also might have to wait for the Xbox Scorpio details to emerge, so that the industry knows collectively how to refer to the Switch, the Scorpio, and the PS4 Pro hardware. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

About the section "Reception"

For one, half of it is outdated, due to ongoing events, but another thing I noticed is the system hasn't been released yet, and most of the reception cited, comes with that caveat, so.... is this really a "Reception" section, or a "News" section? It just felt odd to me, but I suppose the word "Reception" technically applies, just to the promotional material and not the system itself, which is the purview of the article. Altho! I feel much of this Would fit nicely, with a little reworking, into the "Switch" section of the main "Nintendo" article. Not sure if I'm off-base on this, or not.... Sam (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC) or maybe it could be moved into a deeper section called "Announcement" or something, cuz a lot of this would be noteworthy, even after the release of the system. Sam (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC) @Ferret: I can't stand waiting around, what do You think? (i saw you've worked on this article) Sam (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Critical reception at its announcement and reveal is a real thing that should be documented. And which parts are outdated? A lot of that can be fixed with a simple tense/grammatical shift. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said, "will be outdated", or at least, "the time for relevance or noteworthiness has expired", but, again, for some, not all. Could be cleaned up, basically. Sam (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Eventually it'll be headed under a "Pre-release" subsection, but as long as it doesn't have any "post-release" reception, it's really not necessary to make the distinction yet. I don't see any issues with it's current state. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking, after release, it could be moved to another section, cuz I wouldn't want to downplay the significance of several factors involved in this particular hardware release, notably: a) the part about the youtube, which could possibly be expanded due to the absurd amount of coverage of all this has garnered and b) the very short timespan between announcement and release, which.... I'm not sure I've ever heard of, short of the New York test market release of the NES. It may be notable, as time goes on. But I'd argue a lot of the stuff about the press and such, NOT ALL, just... a lot... isn't particularly noteworthy outside of this short window of pre-launch hype. Brevity is the soul of wit, and that Reception section is longer than most hardware and software that actually has been "received", as it were... Sam (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't really be moved anywhere - it's definitely "reception" type content. But yes, over time, it'll surely be trimmed back. It doesn't need to be now, but down the line. Same things happened in the Vita and Wii U articles. Paragraphs and paragraphs of rumors and speculation from reliable sources and analysts from 2011 were fascinating for a while, but were trimmed down to mere sentences on it 3-5 years later, when the system's traits and fate has solidified. The same will happen years from now too. No need to worry about it now though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

k Sam (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC) on second thought, as "fascinating" as it is, as you say, Which it Is, I'm thinking external links? might be a more appropriate format for this sort of thing. I'm not saying I'm the Wikipedia expert here, but I know the object of Wikipedia is to inform first, and entertain second, and all of this is, frankly, MISinformation... I'm just saying.... Sam (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

okay, so the original version is longer than the rest of this chat box combined, and with me talking, that's saying something, so, bear with me. Having said that; Here's an idea, of an edited version, I urge you to consider(maybe not copy, but see where I'm going with this.

"Reception

Financial analysts had a mixed response to the announcement of the Nintendo Switch.[27][28] Following the financially under-performing Wii U, analysts had expected that Nintendo would recognize their vulnerable position in the console market when developing their next console, believing that the company would find a means to draw back the core gamer market. Instead, initial promotion of the Switch appeared to appeal to an audience that fell between the core gamer and casual gamer markets, the latter being mobile game players who would want a more engaging experience but would not be willing to play for hours at a time, according to The New York Times.[27] Analysts were unsure if such a market existed in large enough numbers to justify the Switch.[27] The company's stock price, which rose by 4% on the day before the Switch's announcement, in anticipation,[100] fell by 7% the next day due to unanswered questions about it's technical specifications.[27] That said, stock research analyst John Taylor expressed the opinion that Nintendo "checked off an awful lot of boxes with [the Switch]".[14] Taylor also approved of the company's decision to introduce the console prior to the holiday season, when Microsoft and Sony would attempt to attract casual gamers to their consoles.[14] Rob Fahey, writing for GamesIndustry.biz, noted that within Japan, many young adults do not own a high-definition television, which has affected newer console sales such as the PlayStation 4, and the Switch would be an attractive product for this demographic.[101]

Following the technical presentation of the Switch in January 2017, Nintendo's stock price fell by more than 5% the following day, with one analysis stating that the markets were concerned if the Switch would attract new gamers outside of the core Nintendo fan group.[102] Another concern from analysts was that the Switch's price point of $299.99 was higher than the anticipated $250; these analysts observed that this is about the same cost as the current Xbox One and PlayStation 4 consoles, but the Switch does not appear to be as powerful as these units.[43][103] Some pointed to the small numbers of launch titles as a concern, tying the success of the Switch to the critical reception of games such as 1-2-Switch, a key launch title aimed to showcase the Joy-Con technology.[104] Other analysts were more optimistic, stating that the higher price and online subscription cost help to distinguish the Switch as a more robust system compared to Nintendo's previous consoles, and will likely sell better than the Wii U, with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild being a key sales driver.[103] Some added that the console fills an appropriate gap in hardware for those seeking more complex gameplay that is not offered in tablet and mobile gaming but don't have the need to purchase a powerful "boxy" console.[105] Most analysts agreed that the success of the Switch depends on Nintendo's support and avoiding mistakes the company had made in marketing and promoting the Wii U.[105]

Game developers were more positive towards the Switch, seeing the system as "a more unifying experience between their handheld and console divisions", but expressed concern on unanswered hardware specifications, and how Nintendo will market the unit to draw in developers.[90] About half of 4,500 developers interviewed in a January 2017 survey believed that the Switch would outsell the Wii U.[106]

The October 2016 trailer became Nintendo of America's most-viewed video on YouTube within 24 hours, and was the top trending video on YouTube for about a day.[109] Retailer GameStop also stated it believed the Switch would be transformative in the market, as CEO Paul Reines stated that the company believes the Switch could be another "game-changer" that could "expand the audience for gaming".[111]

"

here's what was cut and why "Engadget editors were generally impressed with the Switch on reveal, seeing it as a means to bridge home consoles with portable devices, experiments that Nintendo had tried before with inter-game connectivity between the 3DS and Wii U. The editors potentially see the Switch as a unified console and handheld device, aimed to be a console gamer's second device and where the player does not need the time investment to sit down and play most console games. One editor did express concerns on the hardware's durability given its modular nature.[110]" - basically, these "editors" are describing the entire design focus as if it's commentary, and is thus useless and noteworthy as about nothing.

"Other concerns about the Switch's announcement were related to yet-to-be-confirmed details that could make or break the system, such as its retail price, whether the unit includes a touchscreen, the unit's battery life, and the type of games that development partners will bring to the console.[100]" seriously, someone's reaction to rumors is still on this page, and you ask why I said it was outdated? Simlarily; "fell by 7% the next day due to these issues." was changed due to being entirely specualtive.

"Ubisoft managing director Xavier Poix noted that unlike the Wii U, Nintendo had demonstrated a clear concept of enabling continuity, stating that "The way it changes the way you play doesn't come necessarily with the controllers, because they were here with the Wii as well ... but in the way it is mobile."[107] Following the October 2016 reveal video, Phil Spencer, the head of Microsoft's Xbox division, was asked about his thoughts on the Nintendo Switch, and replied saying that he was impressed with Nintendo's ability to "state a bold vision and build a product that delivers on that vision". Xbox head of games marketing Aaron Greenberg also commended Nintendo for the unveiling.[108]" was cut entirely, altho I found it personally interesting, isn't really relevant to anything, and, frankly, just sounds like corporate talk with no substance.

so... that's thatSam (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I get where you're going with this, and I don't think you're entirely wrong, but as Sergecross73 says, all of this will be naturally trimmed down over time. Right now, in the early stages of the device's existence, details about the initial reception are more important than they will be later on, which is why this section is so large. It won't always be that way, but now isn't the time to change it. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the price of online subscriptions?

And in the "joy-con" section, can someone change "ABXY buttons" to "A, B, X, and Y buttons." Thank-you. 2602:306:374A:8F70:C1E6:6A5E:913D:B1D2 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The price has not been announced yet, and as you asked last time, no we cannot "notify you" when we find out. This isn't a messageboard or social media - this is where we discuss how to improve articles. Use Google or your search engine/video game website of choice to figure that sort of thing out. Certainly when it is announced, every video game website in existence is going to write an article about it - when its known, it'll be easy to find out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What's your problem? I just wanted to know if anybody knew the price. 2602:306:374A:8F70:C1E6:6A5E:913D:B1D2 (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Oh, I see what you meant by "last time." The only reason I asked again is because the first time I asked it disappeared. 2602:306:374A:8F70:C1E6:6A5E:913D:B1D2 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No, it was removed for being off-topic. These talk pages are strictly for discussion about improving the article, not for personal queries you may have. Like I said, in the future, try a search engine like Google. Or go ask/discuss at a messageboard like Gamefaqs. Not here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it! and sorry. 2602:306:374A:8F70:C1E6:6A5E:913D:B1D2 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2017

In the second paragraph, the quote "The Joy-Con are motion-sensitive, and include high-definition tactical feedback to the user." should use the word tactile instead of tactical. BobLincolnExtraordinaire (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MASEM (t) 15:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg

please change ((Bloomberg)) to ((Bloomberg News|Bloomberg)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:78DE:A5C5:CB8B:D516 (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Another "successor" post

However, this one may possibly maybe work. Please see and comment on Talk:Wii U#I found a source that says that the Wii U succeeded by the Nintendo Switch console, which was just posted by EquestriaGirlsFan2003. — Gestrid (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding VR to the Switch

According to a interview that Tatsumi Kimishima had with Nikkei earlier this week, Nintendo is currently "studying" VR and can possibly add it to the Switch once they figure out how users can play for hours without any issues. Here is the link. Could be good as a future reference point.195.67.78.50 (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Already included under the Media section. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ninth generation?

As Nintendo plans to release its new console this coming March, will that mark the beginning of the ninth generation of video games? 47.152.93.124 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a very lengthy section about this above. The basic answer is: We (Wikipedia) don't decide. If the reliable sources say it is ninth generation, or eighth generation, that is what we will go with. So far, there's no clear indication of how it will be viewed post-release. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ferret is absolutely correct. Its go by how reliable sources (like video game and tech journalists) label it, and right now, very few are labeling it as part of any generation yet. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

PS4 Pro and Xbox One S/Scorpio are more like the mid-cycle hardware refreshes we saw with the previous generation (the "slim" PS3 and 360), except that these two are also incorporating more significant hardware upgrades due to emerging technology such as 4K, but promising continued compatibility with the hardware and software of this generation. I would still consider it eighth generation, but I'd consider Switch to be Nintendo trying a different idea for the 8th generation rather than refreshing Wii U or marking a 9th generation. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and such.

Why are some users keep making such edits that are vandalism and good faith and keep doing them, no matter how they are reverted back? This is getting way out of hand and kinda need a page protection against vandalism and good faith edits. Can we request a semi-page protection? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: There are multiple administrators watching the article. The previous protection, placed during heavy vandalism around the time of the January 13 announcements, expired yesterday. At this time, I don't think there's enough disruption to warrant protecting again. If there's persistent issues we can apply it at any time. Protection prevents good faith edits too, and since the protection expired, there has been typo fixes by IPs. -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Okay. I'd assume that some edits like this one, was a vandalism edit, Eventually someone reverted it back, so I'm guessing the Nintendo Switch page is under control by administrators like you said. I just typically hate how I get an email from the Wikipedia team saying anonymous user so-and-so has changed Nintendo Switch page, and then I view it, and it's just a wasted edit that kind of wastes my time in checking it now and then. I just wish there was a "Notify me by email when an administrator changes a wiki page" button somewhere so I don't keep getting emails from changes by anonymous users. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with ferret that it's not warranted yet, but surely if/when it is warranted, there's enough Admin monitoring it that it'll be protected when it does get worse. Also, if the emails are bothering you, I'd probably recommend disabling them - with launch coming up in a couple weeks, there's only going to be more and more edits being made to the article, good and bad. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way that I can reduce the amount of emails I get to just administrator/moderators, not just for this article? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the only email alerts I get are in regards to edits to my talk page. Why is it you want to monitor just admin edits? Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't get any email notifications except for system related ones (Such as user right changes, password changes, etc). Go into your preferences and uncheck "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I just wanted to have less emails from Wikipedia, not just to unsubscribe from all email notifications. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the only option to lower emails from Wikipedia. They don't have an option to individual subscribe to articles, only to your entire watchlist. -- ferret (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment on generations

Not being a gamer, I am alien to the culture, but by the sound of it the concept of generations strongly recalls the early 1970s in the computer field. Up to then we had had the first, second, and third generations, and it had worked because one could look at a machine and fairly confidently assign a generation, which basically was defined by whether, or to what extent, the machine was based on valves, transistors, or the degree of integration of the circuits. (There was an occasional mutter about "Zeroth gen electro-mechanical machines, and I cannot remember anyone assigning Babbage a generation, but that was mainly a bit of argy-bargy among academics, not an industry problem.)

About then however companies began to produce fourth generation machines, which was fair enough, except that no one could agree on what made a machine post-3rd generation. It had become a matter of advertising, rather than industry realities. (Sounds familiar?)

The essence of the problem, though it was not very soon recognised, was that the range of directions of technological development and their adoption was starting to explode, and the cross-fertilisation and extinction were non-generational, too confused and overlapping to classify usefully and too rapid to call. Everything entered into the shouting matches; hardware, software, firmware, central memory, mass data storage devices, you name it. I seem to remember a few 5th-gen calls, but about then it became too nonsensical to be taken seriously, and the classification battlefield focus shifted to the mainframe/minicomputer/microcomputer distinctions, which have since blurred in their turn; in the mid-seventies I was the first to my knowledge to point out that that distinction had evolved into a question of how the system was used, rather than its techology.

Meanwhile the g-word has practically disappeared in the computer field; not because it was good or bad, or right or wrong, but because generation was rarely relevant any more. Not that technology had stood still; but because advances had stampeded in so many dimensions that classifications were rarely meaningful enough to be relevant outside the academic fields any more and the advertising industry largely abandoned them as having lost their sell.

So in gaming, I leave it to you people. If the concept is meaningless or too volatile to remain useful, it cannot be of fundamental interest to an encyclopaedia and its relevance is no more than the relevance of any other advertising cliches -- OK if advertising and buzzwords are the topics, but not to be permitted in an article in the sense of technical description. And even in advertising there is a lot of overlap (annual cycle? 3-year cycle? 5-year? Moore's law cycle?) I do not say that the word must be banned, but urge that we avoid it till except where avoiding it would take an effort. Shouldn't even be worth wasting talk page space on. It is like describing clothing fashions or tennis stars; they come and go and return and vanish. Whether so much as to mention them, let alone take them seriously, is a sensitive point, and rarely important or stable enough to be worth it. By way of comparison, have a read of some tennis star articles, as compared to chemistry or maths. JonRichfield (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For the time being, it's relevant to use, as it is a video game industry standard term. It's not yet archaic. What you're suggesting seems to be this: Because the generation system may disappear in the future, we should make no mention of it now. The thing is, that's jumping the gun. We're not there yet. Changing conventions of how we write Wikipedia articles based off of speculation isn't encyclopedic. MichaelIvan 07:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Conceptually, I agree, but however, I don't think its practical within the confines of Wikipedia. I'd rather not argue about generations either, but there's always another self-professed "expert" popping up out of nowhere, and ignoring all prior discussions and sources in favor of throwing around their own interpretation as if it were fact. It occurs in other subject areas too - there's always some guy who comes around and starts giving lectures about how they know about all the silly sub-genre of metal music than anyone else too. It has to be discussed, or it'd be in a state of constant flux. At least we've so far held on to a general consensus and wait a while longer before attaching a generation to the console, which is the best we can do for now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)