Jump to content

Talk:Second generation of video game consoles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconVideo games GA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of video game consoles (third generation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second generation of video game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Second generation of video game consoles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This one has been sitting in the nominations list for a while, so I'll take a look at it. It's rather long so it might take me a little bit, but I'll promise to have it done in like the next day or two (maybe earlier). Namcokid47 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article, I don't feel like it's up to snuff to pass as a GA at the moment. The writing seems good, as do the pictures, but the references need a lot of work before it can pass.

  1. Refs 1, 3, 4, 16, 20, 44, 45, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 88, 89 and 100 do not look reliable
  2. Many of these are missing authors or dates. Ref 96 is a good example. -Warshaw, "Core Memory"- what is this? A book? A news article?
  3. All instances of "www.gamasutra.com" should be changed to Gamasutra, as that's their actual name
  4. Refs 79, 80, 82, 83 and 84 are all duplicates of each other, this needs to be fixed
  5. Ref 31 needs a date and author (if possible)
  6. Many of the refs are missing retrieval dates
    • I was under the impression for sources such as books, magazines etc, you didn't need retrieval dates. It was more for websites? Could you clarify please? CrimsonFox talk 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was referring to website. Sorry for not clarifying.
  7. I'd also personally archive all the links for the sake of thoroughness, but it's not required for a GA.

Once all of these are fixed, ping me and I'll take another look. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namcokid47 Need some clarification on point 5 but the above is done. CrimsonFox talk 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think this looks good. Promoting it now. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are Colecovision and Atari 5200 really second gen?

They seem like a pretty significant graphical jump to me TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: No, not really. Analysts at the time pegged them as the next generation, and they clearly are based on both specs and performance. The current generation system was devised within the last decade or so by people who had little knowledge of these early consoles and did not really care to complicate matters. Because of the crash cutting short the lifespan of the 5200 and ColecoVision, the whole generation thing does not account for them well. But the reliable sources have gone this silly route, so we are stuck with it for now. Indrian (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we Atleast denote it in the article or something? Call them 2.5 Generation or Lost Generation or something? Maybe toss in the SG-1000 in that pile too 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:1886:9B02:F758:4E7B (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be inventing terms for generations at this point. Of course, if there's sourced debate about how these don't fit in, we can include that. Masem (t) 02:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there’s plenty of that 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:4C87:D57F:9A96:3BBE (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost two decades ago now. -- ferret (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1992 debacle

This confused me the first time reading this article. By this logic the second generation overlaps the third. Generation is defined as when a console is released. Not by it’s shelf life UltimateGamer9000 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We define them from first introduction to final discontinuation. Generations do overlap. The second generation is one of the more severe but it happens in other places as well, including the current 8th and 9th generations. -- ferret (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like for the sake of confusion we could have it list 1982 on the main page with a note in the wikitext that the Atari was on shelf until 1992. UltimateGamer9000 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what we denote, here or on multiple other articles about the console generations. Consistency across the articles is necessary, and the note is there to educate people who do not understand the definition in use. -- ferret (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What say we compromise? The third generation page lists the end of the third generation with the emergence of 16 bit consoles, but it also makes note that the last 8-bit were commercially available until 2003. UltimateGamer9000 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this content is supported by a citation to the book Racing the Beam and coauthors of the book Nick Montfort and Ian Bogost seem to be established content experts with respect to videogame stuff, the 1992 seems to be valid at least for Wikipedia purposes. Of course, other reliable sources or content experts might disagree, but that would need to be clearly established; any interpretations or opinions we have as readers are nothing more than WP:OR if they can't be supported by citing a reliable source. One way this content could be changed would be to provide direct attribution to Montfort and Bogost as having stated 1992 is the date in their book; that might only be necessary, however, if other reliable sources state a different date. Another way to clarify things would be to move the citation to the first mention of 1992 per MOS:CITELEAD and WP:REFNAME so that it doesn't first appear at the very end of the lead section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The third generation article is consistent with this one. The end of the third generation was marked by the emergence of 16-bit systems of the fourth generation and with the discontinuation of the Famicom on September 25, 2003. It says the end was marked by the emergence of 16-bit systems and with the discontinuation of the Famicom in 2003. All of our generation articles follow this same format, and the second generation is not an exception. -- ferret (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not consistent. The third generation only lists the beginning date in the opening paragraph and only later does the 4th generation and 2003 discontinuation come up. I’m not saying change any info on here but I think we can find a way to format it in a more cohesive manner. We’ve been dancing this dance for 3 years now. UltimateGamer9000 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've been editing against an established project consensus for 3 years. We're not dancing anything. You just need to accept that Wikipedia measures it in a way you don't like. You understand that it's easy enough to piece together your editing history on various IPs right? You're still blocked on multiple IPs from this page, and block evasion can lead to your account being blocked as well. I suggest you move on from this. -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we make a Second and a Half Generation/Lost Generation of Gaming Consoles article

For the Colecovision, Atari 5200, SG-1000. and Vectrex?

The general consensus among hardcore retro gaming historians seems to be these are distinct from the second/third generation, but were cut short due to the crash and kinda missed with the generations system was popularized in the late 2000s. Fully 'fixing' the mistake and re-numbering things would be a massive nightmare which is why it's never been done, so couldn't we just make a half number or at least a 'Lost Generation' page to talk about them and their differences in detail? 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:887C:3028:54D8:1509 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_generation_of_video_game_consoles&oldid=1167336400"