Talk:Wii U/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Delete

This page should be deleted simply because it is based on speculation and rumors from websites that doesn't give any credible sources. Neither Nintendo or any other official source has confirmed it and it is not credible at all.

To be honest, I have concerns about this page. It definitely warrants a section in the Wii article, but I feel that it shouldn't be an article... yet. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Crystal would seem to apply, so yeah, deletion is probably best (at least until it is officially announced). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I use the wrong template?--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true Alphathon. WP:Crystal also says: "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." You don't have to agree with me, but the article is full of reputable sources in the video game industry. UPDATE: If that doesn't persuade you, CNN just recently did an article on the new Nintendo system: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/04/15/nintendo.wii.2.mashable/index.html . Case closed. This page should not be deleted according to the Wikipedia rules, because of expert sources and recognized entities. --MeleeDude (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Case reopened. CNN merely recycled the same rumor from Kotaku. Kotaku is not a reliable source for information and regularly reports rumor and speculation as fact on their page. The only thing this proved is someone at CNN's web page was asked to add the rumor. heladyacross (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I used CNN as an example of a "recognizable entity"; not an "expert source". However, Game Informer, IGN, EDGE, CVG, and Kotaku are "reliable, expert sources". You don't have to agree with Kotaku, but it is most definitely a reliable source in the gaming industry. Case closed again. MeleeDude (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rumors are never reliable. Experts do not broadcast rumors. Case thrown out. heladyacross (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to CNN, IGN, GameInformer, CVG, EDGE, Kotaku, etc., etc., etc. MeleeDude (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

http://gear.ign.com/articles/116/1163325p1.html says this; "According to sources with knowledge of the project, Nintendo's next console". This is no longer a rumor according to IGN. They claim to have sources inside Nintendo. IGN is also on the list of reliable sources for the gaming industry. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#General Leprecon (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

IGN is reliable, yes. But is IGN's source to be trusted? Lowe's post about this source pretty much said, "We're IGN. Trust us." TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. But, let's not forget that that is all IGN can say, because their sources are tied by the "disclosure of the invention" agreement. MeleeDude (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --69.131.13.28 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, three periods is a very logical reason. Look, there is no actual proof of any console. Only speculation and rumours spread by gaming sites. Until Nintendo is used as a direct source, this article should NOT be made.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

While the article will probably be deleted, it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also changed the generation note because it is possible for a successor to a console to be part of the same generation (the Atari 2600 and Atari 5200 are both considered to be second generation systems). SNS (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari 5200 is not a true successor to the Atari 2600. One is just a higher end model of the other. Same deal with the Atari 7800, all of them played the same games too. However, notice that the first two are within the second generation and the 7800 in the third generation. It's because the first two were available retail within the same five year cycle. I already made this point before. Yet people keep claiming that Project Cafe wouldn't be considered eighth generation until some source coins that phrase. Not true. It's based on a five year cycle. Therefore, Project Cafe would be an eighth generation console. MeleeDude (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Color TV Game be considered a second generation system then? Also if Sony & Microsoft wait to release the successors to the PlayStation 3 & Xbox 360 respectively until the successor to Project Cafe is released (let's say they feel price cuts and/or more accessories would be better then new systems, especially if Project Cafe isn't that much stronger), would that mean the eighth generation only had a Nintendo console? Or are the PlayStation 3 & Xbox 360 then considered to be part of two generations (seventh & eighth?). SNS (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, no. The first video game console was the Magnavox Odyssey, which debuted later in the year 1972. Nintendo's Color TV Game came out earlier in the year 1977 (the last first generation console to be released), putting less than six years between the Magnavox Odyssey and the Color TV Game. Although, if you feel it should be considered second generation, I suppose you could always debate that with whoever would object to you fixing it. If Sony and MicroSoft decided to keep the PS3 and 360 for another generation, it wouldn't make them seventh and eighth generation consoles. Just seventh generation consoles that remained active through the eighth generation. Example: Sony's PlayStation 2 is a sixth generation console that remained active through the seventh generation. However, it is not considered a sixth and seventh generation console. It just depends on when the original machine was available for retail (also, other models of the original systems don't effect this five-year cycle). MeleeDude (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is NO "five-year cycle rule", the 5th generation for example lasted from 1993-2006, and the 6th generation has been going since 1998. Even the current (7th) generation has been going for some 6-7 years alone--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Note: I am not user 69.131.13.28) This page should not be speedy deleted because, while it is only rumour and speculation, it is no less valid a topic for an article than Nintendo On, which was believed by a large number of people prior to it being confirmed to be a fake. The page should remain, but until a solid source confirms it, the page should emphasise its status as uncertain. The end result can then inform whether the page should be deleted, retained similar to Nintendo On, or turned into an article about the real product, should there be one. Meanwhile, the article can catalogue the claims made by various media sources. Aielyn (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Another idea could be to redirect to the successor section of the Wii article with and then add a brief mention in the section that the rumored codename for the next system is project Cafe. I don't think it needs a full article at this point.--76.66.189.236 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a delete and redirect would be a good idea. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I just copied the entire article, and pasted it to the Successor section, and redirected the article to that.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I sense someone has a Pet Article. There is no reason for this page to exist when the information is perfectly summarized within the Wii article. 99.224.252.43 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Say what you want, but there is NO reason to delete this article. It follows the Wikipedia rules. There was even an article a lot like this one back in 2005 for the Nintendo "Revolution" (codename for the Wii) before Nintendo even announced it. MeleeDude (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference is Nintendo themselves dubbed it the Revolution. This Project Cafe rumor is from an unnamed source desperate to make this rumor stick. heladyacross (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? They're "desperate" to make the rumor stick? Or did you just add that word for dramatic affect? This is the same "desperate" source that described the technical specifications (which were later confirmed) of Sony's NGP before anyone else even knew it existed. MeleeDude (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the page should stay. Recently there was a wiki page about "PlayStation Phone", which had a Wiki page for months before they officially announced the device, the Xperia Play. ⒹylanⓈpronck 00:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanspronck (talk • contribs)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --186.66.251.19 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The new Wii is happenig and wikipedia should keep people informed.

But Wikipedia is not a site for keeping people up-to-date on the newest gaming systems. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is a rumor at the moment, and rumors are lucky to be even included at all in any part of an encyclopedia, much less having it's own article. Melee Dude, who is presumably the creator of this page, is simply keeping this as a pet article, as evidenced by their continued edits removing the deletion discussion tag from the article and not discussing on the talk page here. Delete the junk. ImmortalPeasant (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Read more than the first sentence "The Stick Man". The second sentence says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This does not apply to Project Cafe. A few guys might not agree with it, but I'm sure many people have come to Wikipedia in recent days just to look at an article like this. Please, just let the article remain.

Also, I would like to respond to ImmortalPeasant:

You claim delete the junk. Yet every major video game source has only added to this "rumor" and the list of "speculations". Including Game Informer, IGN, Kotaku, CVG, EDGE, etc. EDGE even got information from Ubisoft, Activision and EA about the new system. They even said they've had development kits for months! These are the biggest 3rd-party developers across the globe! Game Informer, IGN, and many other sources have reported many of the same details. Read this article: http://www.next-gen.biz/news/sources-confirm-more-details-on-wii-successor

You claim no news reports and so did "The Stick Man"... as I've already said. Yet this rule gives specific examples of what it applies to. "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This rule DOES NOT APPLY HERE. That rule is for daily weather, sports, and other stuff that happens every day.

You claim not a crystal ball. Once again, DOES NOT APPLY. This rule 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." I have already pointed out all of the major sources of information, and they are all very reputable sources.

No one has any legitimate reason to delete this page. The Wikipedia rules defend the "Project Cafe" article. Quit bossing other editors around. By the way, this is MeleeDude, and I did not create the article. I've added about half its content and included all of my sources. It isn't a "pet" page, though I have put much research and work into the page. Please, everyone, I've already proven that there is no reason to delete this page. Claim what you want, but you are just trying to find reasons to delete it until it is announced. If you want to delete it so bad, wait until after E3 2011. If it's not announced then, you have a much better argument against this article. MeleeDude (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have a page for it that much, wait until after E3 2011. If it's announced, then you create the real deal. This time with the facts on your side. Until then, it is only rumor and speculation. heladyacross (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you read my post above, you would understand that Wikipedia allows for a page like Project Cafe. Therefore, there's really no point in deleting it. It should remain. Then when it's announced at E3, we can modify anything in the article that may have been incorrect. Much easier and much more rational. MeleeDude (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... -- MeleeDude (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It contains information gathered from numerous sources that agree on the majority of details stated in the article. Although much of this article may be speculation from developers and publishers in the video game industry, it has relevance. Not to mention reasons to back up why a new high performance Nintendo console is likely to be announced soon. Just because another Wikipedia editor might not agree with the article, should not give them grounds to delete the page in its entirety. This article is history in the making. Therefore, it should not be deleted because some details might not be correct. As more information is released to the media, we will be able to either correct or confirm the information in this article. Many of the details in this article have come from very reputable sources, including information from Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts (the three biggest 3rd-party game developers globally) as reported by EDGE (magazine). There is much more to this article than just rumors and speculation. Please, let this be an article where people can come and view what all the video game sources are saying about the potential of a new high performance Nintendo console. Thank you. MeleeDude (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:JUNK,WP:NOT#NEWS,WP:Crystal all apply here. There is no evidence, only industry rumor propagated by unnamed sources. It only warrants a mention in the Successor section of the Wii article. ImmortalPeasant (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in another response, none of those rules apply. WP:Crystal even defends the article. Read the whole thing, not just the first sentence. --MeleeDude (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

-All of those rules apply. Ubisoft, Activision and EA have not confirmed any of this. Only more rumor and speculation from a desperate anonymous source running out of ideas for rumors. Nintendo has even come out and said they do not comment on rumors and speculation, which is what all this amounts to. There is only one source. It spread from one website to another and to another and so on, like a virus. That does not equal numerous sources, as you claim. Just websites looking for hits based on heresay. It is becoming more and more apparent that this rumor is nothing but another hoax.

This page should be deleted. heladyacross (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. This coming from the person who won't stop vandalizing the page. MeleeDude (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted. Its about time this has its own page. And the Stupid NGP got a Wikipedia page before anyone knew if it was real. TheBradford msg Bradford 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"It's about time" isn't really a valid argument either way... Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well how about his NGP comment? Or Aielyn's comment on Nintendo On? Both of those had pages before they were verified. MeleeDude (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete

All of the rumors are the same ones that popped-up about the Revolution in 2005. They're obviously all fake. Wait until E3. Until then, this should at least be hidden.

Oh, really? Because I remember visiting the Nintendo Revolution Wiki page on almost a daily basis, and I can say that these details are nothing like the details covered in that article from 2005. On top of that, most of the rumors about the "Revolution" were correct. You say the details are all fake? Let's see at E3 2011. I've read several articles on this new console, and the only inconsistencies are based on the resolutions and power of the controller screen and console (and that could just be inconsistent based on different people's perception of HD resolutions). For a rumor of this magnitude this early in the game, it's very impressive that those are the only inconsistencies. Until E3, the most rational solution is to let the page remain. MeleeDude (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably get farther voicing your opinion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Cafe Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Until E3/official source confirms it, it should be gone. All information can be summarized in the Wii article. I support the notion that it is not up to notability requirements for article creation. On a side note this very much appears to be a "Pet Article" situation with the only real argument against deletion being that it will likely be confirmed at E3. However, Wikipedia can do without it until then; just be patient until after E3. Pikmin 3 is confirmed to be in development by Nintendo, yet it doesn't have it's own article. Explain why this should receive different treatment. ImmortalPeasant (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are so many rumors going around. Many contradict each other. I say delete this page until a confirmation from Nintendo comes up.

Mmark089 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources also just seem to be repetitive and run in circles, with source Z making a claim, source Y stating "Z said", and X stating "Y said Z said." If the claims are not tracked back to 01.net, they are come from the ambiguous "multiple sources" which doesn't say anything. Until source Z is actually Nintendo, delete the article or otherwise rewrite the article so that it isn't listing off every single claim floating around. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Voice your opinion here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Cafe Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5