Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dedicated video game consoles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To get things started, both parties, please state your arguments below. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a template of "selected" video game consoles, which unfortunately is pretty vague. But we obviously can't list every video game console out there, so I figured we only needed noteworthy ones. Consoles that made breakthroughs in video game advancements, consoles that had really high publicity and/or success, or market failures that brought an end to a famous console "lineage" such as Sega or Atari. These are the kind of consoles I'd think most people would find convenient in an overview of console history, and if they want they can go more in-depth on each generation's page.

While Artipol seems wants to add simple stand-alone market failures that essentially popped up onto the market and died with little to no impact on the industry. More accurately, the Emerson Arcadia 2001 which was "essentially considered dead upon arrival", and the Amiga CD32 which made a little splash in the then-fledgling UK CD-ROM market but failed to really catch on and due to company bankruptcy was "discontinued only months after its debut". (Note that I pretty much have to rely on their articles for info, as I have no outside knowledge of them.) - Joshua368 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Emerson Arcadia 2001: This was hardly a "stand-alone market failure", it was in fact released by over a dozen different manufacturers at different times. It doesn't seem credible that all these companies would be willingly to release clones of a machine that was a "failure". Obviously it must have been quite profitable for them. For example, the MPT-03 (Arcadia-compatible) system was the #2 system in Australia close behind the Atari VCS. This was the first multi-vendor console, and indeed the only such until the 3DO ten years later. Also it was the first console family to use a region locking system. It was also the end of the early Philips lineage, which includes the Interton VC 4000 console family and the Philips Videopac G7000 aka Odyssey2. When one considers the other members of the family, not just the Emerson, and the other countries they were available in, not just the USA, the system was successful. Unlike almost all other consoles, the Arcadia 2001 was sold from many different firms under different names. Also, it was the world's first portable console. Various versions were released in USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Australia, West Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Spain, etc. In fact in some of these markets there were 2 or more different manufacturers competing against each other with other with different variants of the basic Arcadia. This is an entire console family, so it seems reasonable to have at least one representative member of it on the list. I also note that the number of Arcadia-family games exceeds the number of Vectrex games, far exceeds the number of Coleco Telstar games (apparently it only had 3 games!), and exceeds the number of Odyssey games, all of which systems are on the list.

CD32: This was the feature article in this month's Retro Gamer magazine and they dedicated 10 pages to it, including "sales of CD32 software far exceeded those of any other CD-ROM medium, including the Mega CD and even PC-CD." It was also the end of the Commodore lineage. It was also the only console AFAIK to be expandable into a complete computer system. The Wikipedia entry also notes it was "fairly successful during its lifespan", hardly a failure then.

The user has not even attempted to justify why they have persistently removed the Interton VC 4000. They have also not fixed the relevant pages that use the template, leaving them "orphaned", this is just very poor and careless editing. User has also by their own admission not bothered to do any research on the systems in question, but seems happy to wreck content added by a subject matter expert such as myself. Also, utterly obscure systems like the Coleco Telstar have been listed in the template for some reason, this is just another generic Pong clone, it was only sold in North America. (In fact the template in general seems to have a distinct American bias.) See, for example, http://darkwatcher.psxfanatics.com/console/pong.htm - So, effectively, that system is listed twice, once as "PONG" and once as "Coleco Telstar". I also note that the Atari 5200 was "unsuccessful" and "the system is generally considered a failure". The Atari 7800 does not seem to have done any better either.

Finally, I should point out that none of the systems which Joshua368 is hell-bent on deleting were first added by myself, these were all originally added by other people. Obviously I am not the only one who realizes the historical significance of these systems. Artipol 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Emerson Arcadia 2001: It seems that you edited it's wikipedia page a bit, but I'm having trouble finding sources to back up most of your claims. Yes, it appears to have been copied by dozens of companies in dozens of countries, but does that automatically mean it was successful and influential. This was back before you needed a be a huge company with millions of dollars to burn before you could create a console, so sheer ammount doesn't nessecarily mean it was anything special (and some of its successful markets may have been small; sales figures would be appreciated). Some evidence would be nice (links to websites and such), as currently I can't seem to find much about it other than it being a very rare collectable. Also, it came from Emerson Radio Corporation, not Philips, so that's simply incorrect information. Also, the Oddessy² sold over a million copies... that's why it's there. Can't find much about the Telstar though, so I'm not so sure about it.

Amiga CD32: Once again, evidence to back up your claims. Most of the stuff you say I can't verify, so see if you can find an Internet article out there with this information. As for the Wikipedia article, it doesn't seem to have much information on its success or failure... only that it had success in Europe but was still a market failure, particularly in the US and Canada. Now this is probably well he gets all this "American bias" crap from... but he still can't bring up any information on how successful it was. But if it was discontinued in only six or seven months... I highly doubt it could have made too big of a splash. Even the ill-fated 3DO console lasted for three years. On a side note, its Commedore "lineage" consists of PCs, not video games.

As for the Interton, it seems that someone else had initially removed it, and then it sort of got stuck in the revert war. I really can't seem to find anything at all anywhere to help me decide if it should stay or go. But apparently I'm not the only terrible monster hell-bent of eradicating poor innocent consoles from this template. >_> - Joshua368 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Emerson and compatibles: Well, why would all these companies have licenced the designs from Philips if they were losing money on it? That just doesn't make sense. I don't have any sales figures unfortunately, I'd appreciate seeing them too. It was clearly designed and licenced by Signetics who were and are a wholly owned subsidiary of Philips (see eg. Digital Archaeology site), Emerson seem to have been the most licencee who were the best-known to Americans, due to them being the manufacturer in the USA, and possibly one of the earlier licencees. I could have just as well referred to it as the Tempest, or the Hanimex, or the Poppy/Rowtron/Intervision/Robdajet/Leisure-Vision/Leonardo/MPT-03/Palladium/Tele-Fever/Hanimex/ Tempest/Tryom/Tunix/Emerson/etc. but that would take up a lot of space in the template. The individual manufacturers were just that: manufacturers...possibly they may have done some case design, and of course each did their own marketing and manufacturing, etc. but that's about it. I wasn't questioning the Odyssey2's right to be on the list, the only mention of that machine I made was to note the Philips connection. But by your own reasoning, the Arcadia would be the end of the Philips lineage, which would be a "great" lineage as it included the very popular Odyssey2, and thus deserving of being listed. The machine I was questioning was the original Odyssey, not the Odyssey2. Also, must I repeat that it was the first portable console. Clearly the Telstar shouldn't be on the list, at least there seems to be agreement on that point.

Amiga CD32: I referenced the Retro Gamer article, I have scans of this if you want them. CD32s were certainly available for longer than "six or seven months", Commodore UK, for example, lasted several years longer than the other subsidiaries and were still selling CD32s during that time. Also, Commodore didn't just make computers, they also made, apart from the CD32, the C64GS and the CDTV, both of which were consoles rather than computers. Again, regarding how successful it was, more CD games were sold in 1993 for CD32 than for any other platform. Including IBM-PC, 3DO etc. Also, given the strong demand in Europe for the console it was unsurprising that insufficient quantities were made available in North America, and thus not much point in doing any marketing of it over there.

Interton VC 4000: OK, I accept that you removed it accidentally. But then after I pointed it out and fixed your mistake for you, you persisted in continually re-removing it. Given that you have no reason to remove it, why do you persist in removing it? Artipol 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We could go back and forth like this forever. Where the heck is that DanielRocks guy, and what exactly is he supposed to do? - Joshua368 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page, hopefully he will soon return. Artipol 06:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by the mediator

Hello. I'm sorry that it took so long to get back to you guys. I've been busy the last couple of days with some real world stuff. Anyway, I'm here now. It seems to me that what needs to be done here is to establish a standard for video game consoles. I have a suggestion, feel free to discuss it. I'd like to here about what you think. Why not include every video game console that is notable enough for a Wikipedia page? That seems simple enough, and should be fairly straight-forward. What do you guys think? --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Primarily, there's way too many for that to be convenient. There are fifteen consoles in the second generation alone. The third generation has seven. The template would simply become too bloated and impractical. Secondarily, while they usually go hand-in-hand, having a wikipedia article doesn't automatically give something noteworthiness, and not having one doesn't nessecarily denote a lack thereof. (Of course, we couldn't link to something without an article, but just because something has one doesn't nessecary mean it belongs on a main navigation template.) - Joshua368 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion Danielrocks123; indeed I already proposed this solution previously. I don't see how it would inconvenience anyone and it would allow people to get a better view of what was available in each generation. Looking at the current template gives the impression that approximately the same number of consoles were released in each generation, this is simply not the case, as Joshua368 has noted. So every single seventh generation console is listed, whereas few of the second generation consoles are listed - that hardly seems appropriate. Eg. I think that is why the utterly obscure Coleco Telstar was in there, simply because there is room for it in that part of the table, while there are 2nd generation systems missing out just because Joshua368 wants the table to look nice and have almost exactly the same number of consoles in each generation. I suspect if the Telstar was 2nd generation it would have been removed long ago. I say present the information: if this makes the table not look as "nice" or whatever then so be it: that would be a problem with the table layout, not with the actual contents of it. Don't make the information fit the layout; instead make the layout fit the information. The layout is only useful as a means of presenting the information, not as an end in itself. There are other templates that are larger. Every console that has a Wikipedia page has presumably passed the notability guidelines. Either something is covered in Wikipedia or it is not. Artipol 08:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua368, I'm not completely sure that I understand your argument. Anyway, the problem clearly is that we do not have a standard for these video game consoles to be included. Would you be so kind as to propose a standard? --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 12:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This template is supposed to be a brief overview of all the video game consoles, something that can fit on the side of the console's page and allow access to the various generations of video games. It isn't nessecary to list every little console that existed, expecially back in the old days when any company was trying to get one on the market (many failing without doing anything signifigant). I don't see why we would need to crowd down a generation with a half dozen unnotable failures. The standard I proposed quite I while ago was to only feature consoles that...

A) Was popular commercially and/or highly hyped.

B) Featured a breakthrough in the growth of video games.

C) Had a very successful predecessor... which usually leads to high hype anyway.

The template can be compact with only the consoles most users will probably care about... and those who really want the obscure systems and visit the generation pages the template links to. (One of the biggest problems is that almost all of the old obscure systems have very little information on the way of sales, often with either information on a failure or practically no information at all.) - Joshua368 13:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the consoles which are at issue here arguably meet the (A) criterion, definitely meet the (B) criterion, and definitely meet the (C) criterion, so I don't see why there is a problem with including them. The criteria being proposed are ambiguous and open to interpretation, it wouldn't resolve anything. I don't see that the template will be too large with these entries. I'm certainly not proposing that I add anything except Emerson Arcadia 2001 and Amiga CD32 (and Interton VC 4000 which was already there). Since there seems to be major concern about screen real estate, I'm willing to agree that "Emerson Arcadia 2001" be represented simply as "Arcadia" and "Amiga CD32" be represented simply as "CD32". With these abbreviations in use, no category would take up more than 1 line (on my browser at least, YMMV) except possibly fifth generation: replacing "Nintendo 64" with "N64" or "PlayStation" with "PS1" would shorten that generation to 1 line also. I think that's pretty reasonable: whether a generation takes up half a line or one line doesn't seem to be important; the x/y dimensions of the template wouldn't be affected. Artipol 07:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that the (A) criterion is arguable (really, we need more solid statistics), the (B) and (C) criteria are hardly definite for the questionable entries. Let's see if I can make them less ambiguous...

A) Have sold more than X amount of copies on a global scale (would require some research and a good base number... a million, maybe?)

B) Brought something new to the market that was later duplicated by several other consoles (CD-based technology, 32-bit, cartidges, etc)

C) Had a console predecessor which sold more than Y amount of copies on a global scale which influenced the latter console's hype

As for abbreviation, I'm not entirely sure if that's the best idea, expecially when it'd be an inaccurate abbreviation (such as PS1). Outside of NES, SNES, and maybe N64, I'm not sure if it'd work very well. It'd have to be commonly used. - Joshua368 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A: A million is much too high, especially for the earlier systems when the marketplace itself was both smaller and more fragmented. And what figures are available are often inaccurate, you can get different figures for the same machine depending on which source you consult. B: The consoles in question certainly did bring something new to the market; I have already enunciated some of these. You could reread what I have already written or I could tediously relist them for you here. C: Allowing or disallowing a console based on who made it, and based on the success of a different console, or because it was "hyped", isn't logical. According to this, if Coleco, for example, were to make a new console, it would be automatically listed, even if no one bought it. Also this is biased against the earliest consoles, which by definition lacked predecessors. PSX seems to be a commonly accepted abbreviation for Playstation 1, you could use that instead of PS1. Artipol 07:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The proposed standard does seem a little vague, but I think that it could work with some tweaking. The modified, more specific standard that you proposed is a good start. Let's see what we can do with it. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Status

It's been a long time since anybody has left a comment on this page. I would like to know the status of this mediation. Is it worth continuing? Please leave a message. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current consensus over on the talk page seems to be that these machines are quite suitable for inclusion. People seem to be content to leave them there. Artipol 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)