Template talk:Dedicated consoles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Gen 2 should be split[edit]

I think gen 2 should be split between Intellivision and Magnovox Odyssy 2. Do you aggree? --SeQel (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Is there a reason this template starts with fifth-generation consoles? I think it would be a good idea to add the other four.

I wonder about the second-generation designation; at the time there was a broad differentiation between earlier devices (Atari 2600, Odyssey 2) and the more sophisticated machines that came several years later (Colecovision, Atari 5200). Perhaps we should split the differencce, as with mobile telephony, and introduce a 2.5G? Just a thought. ProhibitOnions 17:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a similar discussion here. Diceman 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Geo, CD-I[edit]

I argue that the Neo-Geo was a niche console, and thus does not belong in this list of "Major video game consoles," which is the title of the box. Neo-Geo was a major arcade system, but not a major console. CD-I wasn't a major console either. - Slo-mo 22:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the subheading of this template became selected video game consoles instead of major video game consoles, I'd like to argue that the Neo-Geo is kept in the list, if only because of its somewhat unique connections with the arcade industry. --Revlob 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--- On that note, I say the playdia should also be omitted from this box. non major console. It's like adding in that FM Towns Marty. -- 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not too sure about the Playdia, I don't know much about it and the article isn't very thorough. However on the same grounds as the Evo: Phase One I removed, I don't know if the Pippin belongs here. It's more of a personal-computer-that-plays-games rather than a dedicated console. However, the article states that popular opinion held that the Pippin was a console, so I'll abstain from removing it. --Revlob 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've removed the Playdia, the Evo, and the CD32. --Kuroki Mio 2006 15:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Seventh Generation really 256-bit??[edit]

I think the bit classification of video game systems starting with this generation should not be placed on here. The last video game systems classified by their companies with bits were the 128-bit Sega Dreamcast and PlayStation 2. These new seventh generation consoles (XBox 360, Playstation 3, and Nintendo Wii) don't actually contain 256-bit processors. Even the most powerful consumer home PC computer systems either contain 32-bit or 64-bit processors.--Mark Nguyen 15:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed Lumina83's edit, which I agree with. I think the "bit values" were valid ways of differentiating between console generations, despite their abuse (the N64 wasn't strictly a 64-bit computer, I think the value came from adding the word-length of the various different processing units in the machine). However, I don't recall the term "128-bit" being used very much outside of Gamecube/Dreamcast prototype discussion, and virtually never saw "256-bit", so I think both terms are superfluous. --Revlob 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct... I should've also mentioned that in my last edit.--Mark Nguyen 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no such thing as a 256-bit processing unit (other than a general idea or hypothetical design). Stick with generations, because processor bits are becoming more level and are staying the same, essentially. --CanesOL79 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think consoles can also be classified according to the word length of th GPU,not only by CPU.

Remember TurboGrafx 16 had an 8-bit CPU,but 16-bit GPU. Today's 7-th gen consoles are all 256-bit,according to the the GPU wordlengths. But,then you have the XBOX with its' 32-bit CPU and 256-bit GPU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I believe the seventh generation consoles XBOX 360, Wii, PlayStation 3 could be the 256-bit era when you look at it. Okay the CPU in the XBOX 360 and Wii are 64-Bit while the PlayStation 3's Cell is 128-bit, but the graphics card in all three consoles has an internal 256-bit engine and the graphics is really what counts.

Evo: Phase One[edit]

Leave it up their, its a new console that wants to compete with the next gen consoles, I think the word should spread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elven6 (talkcontribs) 04:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I took some time to spruce up the Evo: Phase One article a bit. I made it more Wikipedia-like, if you know what I mean. Feel free to add to it and help out. --CanesOL79 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Evo: Phase One deserves to be in the list of "dedicated video game consoles". For one, it's currently vapourware, and for another, it's just a PC (built using off-the-shelf components) branded as a media-center/gaming machine. Revlob 08:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • When I think of Evo: Phase One, I get pictures of the Phantom in my mind. And you're exactly right, it's a drastically underpowered computer with some added software that allows it to perform non-Windows-related actions. Personally, I think we should remove it from the Vidoegames Table we have on consoles, because this is nothing but a joke...if not a joke, a pathetic attempt at competing with the Big Three. --CanesOL79 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

it's not a _dedicated_ template, it's a _selected_ template. apple pippin is not dedicated too. pippin is never known well. anyway... in template said - "Selected video game consoles" --Lone Guardian 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The title of this template is "Dedicated Consoles". The term selected in the list's subheading is only there to clarify that it is by no means a comprehensive list (there were numerous variants of the Atari, plus countless relatively unsuccessful dedicated consoles in the first few generations). I've removed (again) the Evo, and also the Pippin to reduce confusion. --Revlob 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. -Lone Guardian 10:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a better argument when reverting an article. To avoid an edit war, I'm submitting a request for comments, on the CVG Noticeboard. --Revlob 13:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not reverting article. You can check my ip. Lone Guardian 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
On the basis of keeping it factual, I think that we should restrict the list to major gaming-first consoles. The Evo: Phase One is merely a drastically underpowered Media Center PC that hooks directly up to a TV, that has USB controllers. If we're going to list the Evo: Phase One, we might as well list the Phantom and other pointless "gaming consoles." Keep the table relevant; exclude no-name gaming consoles and left-field attempts at making one. --CanesOL79 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ironically enough, the Phantom was actually added to this template a while back by an anon. When I reverted it, there wasn't so much as a peep out of anyone, unlike the current situation with the Evo. --Lumina83 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
People need to understand that Evo: Phase One is NOT a gaming console. It is a Media Center PC that hooks up to your TV that can play games through USB controllers. Last time I checked, I can hook up my Media Center PC to my TV, plug in a few Xbox 360 Wired USB controllers and play a compatible computer game of my choice; but I'm not calling my PC a gaming console, am I? --CanesOL79 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like an Xbox 360. -- ReyBrujo 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
EVO is in the same competition as PS3, and the others. No matter how much Nintendo says its console/handheld are not in the same market, consumers still perceive that they are. As this new article shows, it is a competing console and readers are going to be expecting to see info on it in the seventh generation consoles article, and this template. 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Dude, if the Evo really IS a competitor, how come it's said to play PC games and NOT Evo designed-formatted games? The only reason WHY the Wii (despite the fact they say thier console is not competing with PS3 and Xbox 360) is still considered a competitor because it plays Wii and ONLY Wii games and does NOT play (for instance), Xbox 360 games. The Evo playing games that were made for PC is something odd and NO legitimate console [consoles on this template excluding the Evo], play games made for competing systems or versions of the same game made for the competition. That therefore, prooves the Evo is a console not competing against (as CanesOL79 says) "The Big Three".Samusfan80 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't "show" anything. I think the presense of a question mark in the title is evidence enough of its speculative nature. --Revlob 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Already, well I have cited my source, so now you cite yours? Otherwise, my citation suggests that it is in competition. 22:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Another citation, [1].
The Kotaku article is just a copy-paste of the Evo's press release, and simply illustrates Envizions' intention to compete. Until there is any actual evidence of competition, the Evo doesn't belong in a list of dedicated video game consoles. --Revlob 10:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
See my commment below. And "dedicated" is in my opinion a weasel word which Wikipedia shouldn't use. 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, my understanding is that it is a gaming console that plays P.C. games. Just because it plays P.C. games doesn't disqualify it from being a gaming console. Its definetly not created with the intention of being a computer anyway.(It also has CD and DVD capabilities as do the other gaming consoles) 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) One other thing to point out is that just because it plays computer games, doesn't take it out of the market. People may be more interested in this hybrid model(no matter how unlikely) which takes away sales primarily from the computer and gaming console industries. In otherwords I believe it is competing in two markets. 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that there is no chance in hell that this thing is going to legitimately compete. It's a computer made to hook up to a television instead of a monitor. And to ReyBrujo, no, I was talking about my actual Media Center PC. I made that point because you can purchase Xbox 360 wired USB controllers for use with computer gaming. I made the analogy because that's exactly what the Evo: Phase One is. It's a Media Center PC that can play games via a USB controller. It's nothing special, there's really nothing unique about it. Personally, I don't think it should be considered a "gaming console," nor should it be put on this table. No need to flood the table with speculation and pointless hardware. (Though, on a sidenote, did anyone here? Infinium Labs changed their name to "Phantom Entertainment" --Engadget). --CanesOL79 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how its not a "gaming console". A gaming console is simply an ambigious term to describe some system that plays video games. This system fits the definition. My suggestion is to instead create a template that has the minor consoles on it. The only issue is that we "technically" can't look into a crystal ball and determine that this is going to be a major or minor gaming system. 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) >>>EDIT: I gave you another indent so as to not get confused with the posts --CanesOL79 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)<<<
I agree with you about making a second template about "minor" systems in each generation. It's only fair and it only makes sense. I just don't think that the Evo: Phase One is a legit gaming system. While it plays games, it's merely a Media Center PC that hooks up to your TV. Sure, the same can be said about a lot of "gaming consoles," but the thing that separates the "others" from, say, the Evo:PO or Phantom, is the fact that neither of them create their OWN games; rather, they just make a standard input device and market the whole thing to families. We should work on a standard definition for gaming consoles if we're going to settle this depabte fairly, though. --CanesOL79 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is it in the 7th Generation article, but not in the 7th Generation summary box, that is just confusing. We need someone to make a decision. It is information about a useful console. I for one would have never known about this system if I had not seen it on Wikipedia, I vote that it remains until it's demise and see if it does make an impact in the gaming community. Pumapayam 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I already find this to be an awkward template (vertical?) but regardless, I agree with most here that the Evo should not be included. It seems pretty obvious that this is not going to seriously compete with the PS3, Xbox360 or Wii, it's just a Media Center PC. The system's notability is highly suspect, as it was only announced less than two weeks ago, and this template doesn't look like it's trying to predict or gauge such things. --SevereTireDamage 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're not including Phantom, why are we including this? And if this makes it, why don't we include cell phones, iPods, and Nuon? This thing's too obscure to be on the **selected** list of consoles, and it's not a dedicated console, either. It's a computer, not a console. Every single other system on this template has its own games. The reasons go on.--llamapalooza87 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I would also like to propose that each generation get an additional template which would default to hidden under this one on appropriate articles, so that the selected list can remain selected while obscure systems will be available in the second template. --llamapalooza87 03:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's an IBM-PC! It's not even a console, so regardless of obscurity or not I can't see why it is on this template. Artipol 07:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus.. Evo is not a home console, doesn't have specifically games is simple a media center PC. I'm removing this nonsense right now. --Ciao 90 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

evo should definately be in there. I have it for myself and is ALOT like a home system. I dont know about you but i'm deleting V.Flash and putting in Evo.~~union_K

Bit Count[edit]

I took away the "(128-bit)" designation at the end of the Sixth Generation section. It's not 128-bits. Bit counts are getting to be unnecessary, as there won't be a huge leap in processing power for a long time. --CanesOL79 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did so AGAIN after seeing it was added back in and out several times. It's incredibly stupid and inaccurate - I dont think you could find an established source that calls it as such. The gaming industry absolutely does not. Deusfaux 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we get the IP Address of whoever makes changes to the template. Is there a way to restrict editing of the template to legitimate editors? --CanesOL79 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have something called semi-protection, which if successfully applied for will prevent edits by anonymous or new users. However, the status is only granted as a last-measure, usually against pages which see heavy traffic and frequent vandalism. I don't think this template qualifies, as the changes are easily reverted, and I'm sure with further discussion we can make a good case against the Evo/Phantom's inclusion. --Revlob 08:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
CanesOL79: I think you misspoke. There has been a steady increase in processing power. What you meant to say is, "there won't be a huge leap in bit-width for a long time," and bit-width does not have a direct corrolation to processing power. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did mispeak. Thank you for understanding what I meant. Regardless, bit-width isn't going anywhere any time soon -- we'll be staying at 64-bits for a while. This generation isn't 256-bits or whatever the template had before, because that's horribly inaccurate. --CanesOL79 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that you should include bit-width but not into the table. Are you sure that the limit is 64-bit? maybe for computers but not video games consoles - FMasic 10:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that you should include bit-width but not into the table ALSO. The limit is not 64 bit, that would be operating systems. The 6th generation consoles were all 128 bit-count. I say it should be added because it WAS extremely important in the past, and WIKI is supposed to have all the facts. Bit-Count should be added. - anon

Video game console[edit]

I've recently started attacking the video game console article, and I thought this would be a good place to advertise the fact that it could do with some attention. I think several of the disputes on this template could be resolved a bit quicker if our defining article was better formed. Subjects such as the Evo's validity as a console, and bit-count are topics that could do with development. In the talk page, I've linked to a sandbox version of the page I'm working on, which includes a few ideas which I haven't taken to the main article yet. --Revlob 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Is there a WikiProject for videogaming in general? There should be, so we could get it all organized and such. --CanesOL79 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There certainly is. There should be a link at the top of each videogame-related article's talk page, including this one. --Revlob 08:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I see. I have those little boxes that say I'm a member, but I don't show up on the member lists. Why not? Thanks for the help. --CanesOL79 03:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Swapped out the source on your userpage for the { {User WPCVG} } template. You should be in the member list now. --Revlob 08:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, bro. --CanesOL79 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Amiga CD32 and PC-FX[edit]

I beleive that there are better, more well known and less obscure, console deserving to be in here instead of thease two. The CD-i and Neo Geo CD seem to be more well known than thease two.

Removed74.33.11.34 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is a US-centric view. CD32 was the first CD-based console, and the highest-selling CD-ROM format for several years. 06:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Generation[edit]

Does this realy need to be broken into two parts? 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. These were two distinct periods, and some people refer to these as two different generations, which has been a matter of debate in the main article. The later second generation did not compete with the early second generation, they were intended to replace it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 07:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Template is named incorrectly[edit]

Why is the name of this template "Dedicated video game consoles"? That term is ordinarily used to refer to non-programmable home units such as the Pong-clones of the 1970s. Check out Wikipedia's own article on dedicated consoles. Since this template is clearly not just for dedicated consoles, shouldn't the name be changed? I'm not sure what it should be changed to, though. Also, would it be a nightmare to change the tons of references to this template within other articles, or is there some easy way to do that? Can you have a redirect for a template, if so, will that actually display the template properly when it's at its new location, even for articles which still refer to the old location? I'm too new to Wikipedia to know the answers to some of these questions. Thoughts? --Ecksemmess 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Playstation 2 is Missing[edit]

The list is missing the Playstation 2, quite possibly the most popular game console at the current time. WTF? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

It's been added now - FMasic 10:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What're you talking about about?[edit]

The PlayStation 2 is indeed included in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeta26 (talkcontribs) .

The generations are WRONG[edit]

The REAL generations are: 1- Atari, Colecovision, Intellivision 2- NES, Master System 3- SNES, Genesis, Jaguar, 3DO 4- N64, PS1, Dreamcast 5- PS2, GC, Xbox 6- Wii, PS3, 360

Anyone who knows a damn thing about videogaming knows this! Quit spreading these lies!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Thank you, but unless you can backup your statements, it is just original research. -- ReyBrujo 01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, anyone who "knows a damn thing about videogaming" would probably have heard of the Sega Saturn and included it on their list. Koweja 00:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And the TurboGrafx16 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

No... The REAL generations are:

1- Atari, Colecovision, Intellivision 2- NES, Master System 3- SNES, Genesis, TurboGrafx 4- Jaguar, 3DO, N64, PS1, Saturn 5- Dreamcast, PS2, GC, Xbox 6- Wii, PS3, 360

Evo: Phase One[edit]

I feel the Evo: Phase One console should be allowed to be included in the template. it can play games. this template should not discriminate between console and computer games. As well, i think the other "fringe" consoles (CD-i, 3DO, Amiga CDTV) should be included for their particular historical (if not "niche"/"fringe") value. Raccoon FoxTalkStalk 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a console - it's a PC. It can't/shouldn't be included for two reasons. 1) The template is on videogame consoles and 2) PC games don't exactly have generations. Where would you put it? XP came out in the sixth generation of consoles, but EVO plays seventh gen games as well. If we were to include it, it would have to be PCs, not just the EVO, unless you also want also include various Dells, iMacs, etc. We don't include the EVO for the same reason we don't include Gameboys or other handhelds - they are on different timelines. Koweja 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis[edit]

The main article for this console is Sega Mega Drive. Sega Genesis is just a redirect. Wikipedia writers have chosen Mega Drive as the name of the article and decided that according to wikipedia policy, Genesis is a subservient name. Therefore it seems obvious to me that the console should be billed in this template as either Mega Drive or Mega Drive/Genesis (which was the name of the console article for a while, but /s aren't good in wikipedia article titles for technical reasons). However users such as keep chaning it to just Genesis, so what do others think about this? — ThomasHarte 09:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put on the 3RR page so hopefully something will come of that. - Diceman 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The rule-follower who looked at it wouldn't do anything because the fourth revert was 7 hours outside the 24 hour time period. - Diceman 06:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice both and who was doing much the same thing just before turned up are registered to Frontier Communications, Rochester, NY. Those two are probably the same person... — ThomasHarte 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I say the odds are in our favour of winning a battle of wills if we team up to revert. Either that or we wait a while until's infantile mind has moved onto something else. - Diceman 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Assuming all the users from Frontier Communications are the same user, it seems this person can be traced back to the edit of on 25th September (though whoever it is was explaining themselves then, albeit inaccurately). So that's almost a month already. Unfortunately 3RR doesn't strictly seem to cover this situation and I can't find a specific limb of the vandalism policy to peg it on. So what do we do about this person? — ThomasHarte 22:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Further to this, I've made a new report to 3RR, based on the intention of the rule rather than it's specific name. Hopefully an admin will do something soon. — ThomasHarte 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you help out more with the reverting? Otherwise I think I'll take it off my watchlist as I got sick of fixing vandalism a while back. - Diceman 05:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I revert every time I catch it, but so far you seem to be quicker. was me as well, but from work where I didn't realise I wasn't logged in. I'll try and make an effort to help out more. — ThomasHarte 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nishkid64 was nice enough to agree with my request for semi-protection. Don't know why it took me so long to think of it. - Diceman 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hyper Scan[edit]

The HyperScan does NOT belong on this template especially in the 7th gen category. Toadthetoad 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Darkening the header rows[edit]

Selected home game consoles
Fifth generation (compare)
Sixth generation (compare)
DreamcastPlayStation 2GameCubeXbox
Seventh generation (compare)
Xbox 360PlayStation 3Wii

Would anyone object to the title rows being a darker shade of grey? The colors are so close as it is that it can be a bit hard to distinguish between them. For example, this:

The header has been darkened, so it stands out OK. - FMasic 10:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding Compare to the other Generations[edit]

I think the other generation consoles need a compare page. Super Ranger 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea because then you can see why the console is in that generation. - FMasic 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Console Inclusion[edit]

Can we please stop adding market failures to this list? Only consoles of decent success can go here, otherwise it'd be too crowded. The consoles we have listed now are fine. - Joshua368 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While what is a failure can be a bit arbitrary, I agree. The list will just become to large if we add all of them since there were so many in the early generations. I've requested page protection until we can work this out. Koweja 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it needs full protection, just partial protection from unregistered and new users. - Joshua368 21:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Three consoles were deleted without any consultation. All three of these systems have been part of the list for considerable periods of time. These systems are notable for several reasons and each of them sold in considerable quantities. Just because they were not well known in a particular specific country, namely USA, is no reason for them not to be listed. These systems outsold several others that are on the list on a worldwide basis. This US bias is very noticeable here. Coleco Telstar? Atari 5200/7800? Dreamcast? Sega Saturn? These are all generally considered as failures. There is no consistency in what is included and what is not, other than that systems that Americans are less familiar with are excluded. If you really want me to go into massive detail about why they should be here I can do so if it will prevent further vandalism of the list. Just briefly, CD32 was the world's first 32-bit CD-based console, and the first console AFAIK which was expandable to a complete computer. Interton VC 4000 was the first multi-manufacturer console standard, not only does this give it historic value, it must have been reasonably popular for a dozen or more manufacturers to clone it. (Also was the first console version of a full computer, namely the TV Games Computer.) Same applies for Arcadia 2001. I don't know about Americans, but certainly here the games for these were much more widely available than for obscure systems such as Colecovision. The list is linked to by the articles about those machines, obviously I am not the only one who considers them appropriate entries. I wasn't even the one who originally added these machines to the list, it's annoying to have to redo the same edits half a dozen times just because some American thinks that the list would be too long by having 3 entries which were already there in the first place. Artipol 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not removing them because I'm an American. To be honest, pretty much every non-Nintendo system before the fifth generation is vague to me. Anyway, the difference between the Europe-friendly failures you want to keep and your other examples is that (with the exception of the Telstar) is that they are simply part of a great lineage, with very popular ancesters. There are simply too many consoles out there to list them all on a convenient template, so it makes sense to use the ones that were popular or came from highly regonized lineages (or at least widely advertised).
The template isn't putting down Europe (which simply isn't as big a market as America or Japan); many of these consoles were popular there too. The CD32 was simply a solo market failure, and actually the 3DO was the first 32-bit CD-based console. Arcadia sold very few copies and had a very limited number of games, hardly noteworthy really. - Joshua368 03:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed most of my comments. Your comments on the Arcadia reflect an American-centric view, the "Emerson Arcadia 2001" in the list represents an entire console family which goes by various names, not just the version Emerson produced in the USA. Considering only the American version and ignoring the other variants would be like considering only Genesis and ignoring Megadrive. Same goes with "Interton VC 4000" which I see you have also removed; the world's first multi-vendor standard console. Listing a machine because its ancestors were popular, and part of a "great lineage" (a subjective term if ever I saw one!) does not make sense. By such reasoning you would have to include the Commodore 64GS console. And you would in fact have to also include the Amiga CD32, part of the great Amiga lineage. I will have to check on the timing of the release of the 3DO compared to the CD32, I suspect the CD32 may have been released first in Europe and the 3DO first in America or Japan. Regardless, I seem to recall that it shifted more CD-ROM games during 1994 than any other system (including IBM-PC, Macintosh, 3DO, etc.) Artipol 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop turning this into some sort of stupid "boastful Americans think they're more important that Europeans" rant. From what I can tell by reading the Amiga articles and there sources, it was a console with some success in Europe, little success anywhere else, and unable to stop the company from quickly falling into bankrupty. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any sales numbers, those would be useful in figuring out how much of an impact it actually made. (I'm also not sure the 3DO belongs on this list... I didn't seem to get too popular either.) Also, I didn't remove the Interton, someone else did. You seem to be trying to act very "patriotic" and defend any Europe-based console regardless of its actual success or impact, but we need to judge each console on a global scale, of which Europe is only a part.
"Great lineage" isn't the most appropiate term, I agree. But when a certain console does an outstanding job in dominating the market (such as the Atari 2600, SNES, Sega Genesis or PlayStation), people will be curious about what happened to that brand, and it's good to keep them listed. But from what I can tell, the Amiga is a stand alone console from a company famous for its personal computers, not gaming consoles.
And the list isn't entirely American-centric as you'd want us to believe. For example, the Magnavox Odyssey2 was a console that had great success in Europe, higher than everywhere else. And because it was able to do well there and in the worldwide market, it is noteworthy enough to be here.
Also, you seemed to remove the Coleco Telstar without a reason. What's up with that? - Joshua368 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commodore went bankrupt primarily because of its PC-compatibles division, not because of the Amiga nor CD32. Never heard of Coleco Telstar, maybe it was successful in USA but not anywhere else. You seem to be very concerned about the list having too many entries, I'm not sure why, it is a very small list which takes up very little screen space. Everyone knows about the SNES/Megadrive/etc., no one is going to learn anything if only such consoles are listed. I'm not even a European, so patriotism has nothing to do with it. I hardly see how anything I have said would qualify as "ranting". Re. "great lineages", you seem to be redefining the definition as you go along. The title of the box as it appears is "Selected home game consoles", not "Consoles that were popular in America or were made by companies that made other consoles previously that were popular in America". Artipol 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you keep bringing it back to America. I'm not sure which on these consoles are stirctly "American", but if a console's success is limited to there it probably shouldn't belong here either. The video game console industry is pretty much seperated into the markets of Japan, NTSC and PAL. Generally, you'd think a console to have had success in at least two of these markets to be noteworthy enough for this list. I've never heard of the Coleco Telstar either, and it's article is pretty vague on its popularity... I don't particularally care about it's inclusion on this list, but nothing should just be added or removed without a reason given. Really, as I said, I know very little about the older consoles and have to get most of my information from their articles and the pages those articles link to. - Joshua368 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that arbitration is probably needed in this situation, as it seems neither one of us is likely to convince the other. The criteria for inclusion/exclusion also need to be formalized, "Selected" is very vague: selected by whom, and according to what criteria? What do you think about this proposal? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Japan, NTSC and PAL". There are two main television standards: NTSC (North America, Japan), PAL (most of Europe, Australia). Japan uses the NTSC standard. Artipol 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As for inclusion standards, I would say that most if not all non-handheld consoles which are important enough to warrant a non-stub Wikipedia article, and which are not merely clones or variants of another system, should be included. I think such criteria are clear and fair. The list as it stands is incomplete, I think it is useful for people to see where various systems fit in relation to one another. Artipol 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, yeah, that was my bad. I meant Japan, North America (this includes Canada as well), and PAL. Anyway, I'm not sure that we should be judging the consoles by their article. That just seems kind of irrelevant to the console's worth. I mean, yeah, popular consoles are probably more likely to have a well-written article than unpopular ones, but we can't be sure this is always the case. Plus articles themselves change. So we'd a different standard to decide whether a console is important or not, such as consoles sold, games produced, or any signifigant breakthrough for the video game industry. I'm not sure that "clones" is a good critera, because most clones would be insignifigant anyway, and if one was popular, it'd probably belong here. - Joshua368 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to vandalize this page before the arbitration has been finalized? You have lied about not removing the VC 4000, a look at the edit history shows that you have indeed removed it. You have also not had the courtesy to remove the template from the pages that include it, leaving to inconsistencies. Artipol 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing anything, that was you who was senselessly reverting. Anyway, we still haven't decided on any criteria, and I have the feeling that even if do we still won't agree on what exactly fits in it. - Joshua368 14:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts: What are Interstuff VC Thingy, Emerson Whatsit, Amiga CD Something, and Evo? Why are we including obscure crap in selected? And how can we justify these but not other obscure systems? Why are these on here but Virtual Boy isn't? I have some suggestions for criteria. Feel free to shoot them down. Include a system...

  • if 2 mainstream, non-game or tech news sources can be cited as mentioning the console, or
  • if Evidence can be provided of 2 mainstream multiplatform gaming magazines including a dedicated, multi-page monthly section exclusively about the system, or
  • if the console is manufactured by a prominent, well-known company (define well-known as recognizable to the average gamer), or
  • if the console was one of its generation's top three sellers, or
  • subject to a vote.

I think that includes all the important systems while weeding out the crapNuon. Again, feel free to shoot this down or add to it or whatnot. Just trying to help, as the template is really illogical to me right now. Also, in the mean time, I'm going to fix the template so it doesn't list "Wii Evo" as a console. --llamapalooza87 03:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Obviously Evo doesn't belong because it's not a console. But the other three that you incorrectly cited obviously do belong. Your personal opinion of what is "crap" or not is irrelevant. Personally I deem the Nintendo Excrement System to be utter crap, but I'm not agitating for its removal. Virtual Boy is a handheld, that is why it is not on the list. Artipol 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02: I'm in the middle here. The Amiga CD32 and Interton do not fit within the confines of this template. They seem to be included as "tokens" to ward off claims of the list being American-centric. The Interton article in particular is barely more than a stub, which I think pretty much attests to the relative global obscurity of this console. Considering that the template in the VC 4000 article is longer than the article itself, I think it's pretty much delusional to consider it a "major" system. I do agree, on the other hand, that the Arcadia deserves inclusion. But what this all boils down to is that any "majority approved" definition of "selected" or "major" is going to be prone to catfights and ridiculously arbitrary definitions and technicalities. Basing "importance" on sheer sales figures is truly missing the boat - I'm willing to bet that the Dendy (Russian clone of the NES) sold more units than the Virtua Boy and TG-16 combined, but would not consider it "important". With all that in mind, I think it'd be best to include all consoles (excluding clones), and bold the consoles that are agreed upon as major - off-hand, this'd be the 2600, the Intellivision, the NES and SMS, the SNES and Genesis, the Saturn, the PSX, and the N64, and the Dreamcast/PS2/PS3/X-BOX/X-BOX Circle/GameCube/Wii. I could also personally go either way with the Colecovision, TG-16, and 3DO crowds, leaning towards bolding for the Colecovision, and neutral about the other two. Including all consoles would give the weirder, off-the-wall consoles a moment of recognition, while keeping the "famous players" clear. --Action Jackson IV 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The VC 4000 entry is a bit bare, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1292_Advanced_Programmable_Video_System (one of the innumerable licensed clones) is much more detailed. The system deserves recognition for such factors as: world's first system to be licensed to other manufacturers (ie. first "world standard" system, a la Arcadia/MSX/3DO), first/only system designed wholly in Europe, first system to be designed with compatibility with a particular computer system in mind, controller innovations, ancestor of the Arcadia family, etc. Whether or not it is listed in boldface or not isn't something that worries me. Artipol 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for calling the systems "crap," I really meant to use it in the generic, meaningless, "stuff" sense of the word, but I should have been more clear. I have never played the systems in question and do not claim to be able to judge their quality. More importantly, this debate isn't even about the quality or significance of systems, it's about their notoriety. It doesn't matter why a system "deserves recognition" because this template is for the systems that people are most likely searching for on their own, not directing them to things they've never heard of. The template will be more helpful if it's more simple. Again, I think an excellent solution would be to create a second template for each generation, so one can find obscure systems within each generation easily- I'm not opposed to giving these articles exposure, I just think that this template is NOT the right place AT ALL. The fact of the matter is, the majority of users on the pages in question won't be looking for Arcadia or Emerson or Interton. They're looking for Super Nintendo or Xbox. Again, I think we just need a fair, limited set of criteria to keep this template limited to the systems that will be most helpful. -llamapalooza87 21:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning here. If people are looking for Xbox, why would they need a template at all, they can just type "Xbox". Following your reasoning seems to indicate that no one wants to learn anything on Wikipedia, which is obviously wrong. The template's main purpose, it seems to me, is to contextualize the machines listed, ie. to show where various machines "fit" in the various generations. Having only a few machines on the list makes it less, not more, useful. To make assumptions about what people will be interested in, and to assume that they won't be interested in learning anything, seems odd. Artipol 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates are not to teach people. That's why we have articles. They are to provide convenient access to the most sought-after articles. Some people are interested in the obscure machines in question, but that's only a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who will see it. The thing that bugs me is that you're only pushing for a few consoles, and if we were to include the ones for which you're fighting right now, we would have to include literally everything on List of video game consoles to maintain any level of consistency. At that point there are so many systems that it becomes cluttered and unusable. I understand your argument, and feel that a reasonable compromise would be the following: We would keep this template limited and simple-- by having specific criteria we can keep it shortened, and I fail to see any criteria which separate your consoles from the rest of the list. As the other part of the compromise, we would create a specific template for each generation to provide easy access for anyone interested in systems like the Arcadia, including all systems but also providing easy access to the articles that most users will be looking for. I find this solution to be the best possible and it seems to me that this solution neither excludes obscure systems nor shoves them down people's throats. Does such a compromise seem reasonable to you? -llamapalooza87 06:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for any systems to be "added". The systems in question were originally listed, so I'm not attempting to "add" anything, it's merely restoring what was already there. WRT to the List of video game consoles, a close examination of it will reveal that most of those that are not on this template seem to be handhelds (eg. Lynx, Mega Duck), or computers (eg. MSX, APF Imagination Machine, MAX), or never commercially released (eg. Tennis for Two), or only released in one country (eg. Casio Loopy), or rather generic Pong clones (eg. APF TV Fun). When these are excluded there are actually not that many remaining. Nearly all the remaining machines are already on this template. And eg. the Arcadia etc. do have some interesting "firsts" which would warrant their inclusion anyway. Artipol 01:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Interton was only released in Germany, and the AmigaCD was essentially unavailable outside Britain. I still fail to see why the systems in question are any different from the rest of the unincluded systems on the list or why it would be unacceptable to create generational templates. --llamapalooza87 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Various members of the Interton VC 4000 family were produced by other manufacturers and were available in various countries. The CD32 was released in most if not all major markets of the world, certainly not just the UK. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but it's inaccurate. Artipol 11:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I got my info from the articles here. Maybe you should edit them to make them more clear. The Interton article lists Germany exclusively. The Amiga CD32 article states that there was almost no supply outside of Britain, hence my remark about essentially. But, more importantly and more relevant to this discussion, why do you pose opposition to generational templates? --llamapalooza87 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would edit these, but I don't relish having to justify reversions of deletions at a ratio of over 1:1000 words. It seems the effort of a subject matter expert making improvements to Wikipedia is not worth the resulting anguish caused by other perhaps well-intentioned people who have only a cursory understanding of the machines in question and have not carried out the necessary research to ascertain answers to questions which we have spent considerable effort to obtain answers to and freely shared the resultant knowledge. If you want to obtain correct and comprehensive knowledge about these machines, it is available, eg. at Emerson Arcadia 2001 Central, but not currently at Wikipedia. CD32 was certainly easily available in Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, etc. Interton VC 4000 is the West German member of its console family. Other countries had other versions which were all more or less compatible but made by other manufacturers. The convention seems to be to refer to them all (2636-based consoles) as "Interton VC 4000" family, as the convention seems to be to refer to the 2637-based consoles as "Emerson Arcadia 2001" family. But the 2636-based machines were not restricted to West Germany, nor were the 2637-based machines restricted to USA. Nor were these machines necessarily first manufacturered or originally designed by Interton or Emerson; it seems more likely that Signetics (a subsidiary of Philips) were the designers and licensors. In fact perhaps I would have chosen other machines as the "generic" representatives of these. However the usage seems well-established and there isn't much point changing it at this late date, as long as people understand the relationship between these machines. There are various sub-families, generally these will run the same code but are region-locked to prevent interchange of cartridges. I don't recall opposing generational templates; all I have opposed is the omission of certain machines which were already originally part of the template. 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that my knowledge about the consoles in question is cursory at best, but it remains that even after the information you gave me I still feel that these consoles did not have widespread distribution in the major markets-- not a wide enough audience to justify inclusion, in my opinion. Anyway, I simply assumed that you opposed the generational templates because you didn't mention it until now. I'll gladly try and work on a gen-template but I should warn that my wikiformatting knowledge is limited at best. Anyway, I think, assuming that we end up with Generational templates, we need a set of criteria for this template. It could be as simple as just "the top three most well-known per generation" or as complex as the list I outlined above. In response to the general tone of your comment, I would just like to apologize if my remarks came off as rude. I am not trying to diminish the importance of the consoles on which you are clearly an expert, I simply feel that the general public would not consider them necessary for inclusion on this template. I know just about nothing about these consoles, I'm just trying to give a usabiliy perspective. I'll try and get a basic idea for templates up on my talkpage. I have a test template ready on my talkpage, but I don't have all the category nonsense set up yet. Opinions? --llamapalooza87 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems you're proposing not only to create some extra templates but to delete entries from the main template. I don't agree with that at all, I can't see any problem with the main template as it is now. It's not like it's particularly big as templates go. Artipol 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I feel I should aplogize. I've been a bit unreasonable. As long as nothing else is added to the template, I guess it's OK as it is. If it starts to get more complicated with even more obscure systems, however, don't be surprised if systems like Interton, Emerson, and CD32 get removed with the other obscure ones in the process. --llamapalooza87 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We could make a seperate template list for less popular consoles if you don't want the place to get cluttered. But there aren't that many on there right now anyway - FMasic 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Apple Pippin in the template now.. I wouldn't have thought it would be notable enough to be included considering, well.. there was only about 40,000 of them worldwide. Everything else on the list is far more notable to a console that wasn't even really a console. - Boochan 10:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just because a console may have failed, does not mean that it does not exist. The list should have all consoles that exist, not just the successful ones.

dreamcast in sixth generation?[edit]

oh really? i thought dreamcast suppose to be with playstation 1, thats in fifth generation. -- 07:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that would have been the Sega Saturn. DC was released a little before the PS2, that's true, but the DC and PS2 were on-par with one another. Cheers, Lankybuggerspeaksee ○ 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Dreamcast is in the same era as PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube, please stop changing. Kenimaru 05:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we break this template into seven templates by generation?[edit]

Perhaps keeping the full template for the Generation articles, but for individual system pages we instead just have the generation? Cheers, Lankybuggerspeaksee ○ 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we could put as many consoles as we can find onto each specific template, to prevent clutter from this one. Only what would the categories be? - FMasic 10:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

TurboGrafx 16 generation[edit]

It belongs to the 4th generation, not the 3rd. The "it's really 8-bit" argument has been a slander against it from fans of other systems since the beginning; including it in a template is amateurish, ignorant, and simply wrong. -- 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course it's 8-bit. Pretending it is 16-bit is amateurish, ignorant and simply wrong. From the PC Engine article: "CPU: 8-bit HuC6280A, a modified 65C02 running at 1.79 or 7.16 MHz (switchable by software)." From the HuC6280 article: "The HuC6280 8-bit microprocessor is Japanese company Hudson Soft's improved version of the WDC 65C02 CPU." If you think for some bizarre reason the 6502 is 16-bit, then that would make eg. the VIC-20 a 16-bit machine. What rubbish. It's only 4th generation in terms of release date, not in any architectural/performance sense. Get your facts straight next time. Artipol 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive list[edit]

To avoid some of the controversy surrounding more obscure consoles, perhaps there should be something like "See also comprehensive list of videogame consoles" or something similar at the top of the template. -- 22:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't think PONG qualifies as a console, more like just a video game (booth?). The rest all use removable media. - FMasic 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a home version of PONG that played only, well, PONG. It was one of the first game systems that the average person had a chance of hearing of. --llamapalooza87 02:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, PONG was very popular back in the day and it spawned other consoles that are now considered clones. So I think Atari's PONG should be considered a game console but others like it should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

messing up references[edit]

this template is currently used in the articles at the references section which gets hardly readable because of this right-floating infobox.

someone should have a look and fix it (I couldn't). Torzsmokus 03:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

organizing template[edit]

Would anyone object to me rearranging the consoles in alphabetical order for each generation? i believe that the template would look more professional if there was some rhyme or reason behind the order consoles are listed.___J.delanoy 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

i guess, not many people come here. i'll just leave the template alone.J.delanoy 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The consoles are listed in order of release. - Joshua368 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Release order where, America? Release versions vary by location, I believe they should be done alphabetically. --NDState 05:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First to market in any location would make sense. Otherwise, alphabetical is fine. Personally, I'd perfer alpha simply because it makes it easier for users, who aren't necessarily familiar with the release order, to find a specific console. - Koweja 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, the order is neither alphabetical, nor by release date, as the seventh generation order appears as PS3, Wii, X360. Alphabetical would be PS3, X360, Wii, while release date would be X360, PS3, Wii. Is there any consensus? --iTocapa iChat 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually PS3, Wii, X360 is alphabetical order, as "w" comes before "x". There's some consistency problems in the template:
  1. not sure what order the first generation is using
  2. second appears to be in original release date order
  3. third appears to be in original release date order
  4. fourth would be in original release date order if CD-i was moved to the end
  5. fifth is in original release date order
  6. sixth is in North American release date order
  7. seventh is in alphabetical order
WP:VG/GL#Style mentions platform order, but it's about the {{Infobox VG}} media section. --Silver Edge (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Dammit... How the hell did I forget that? I guess it just looked weird when I saw it. I'm an idiot. You're right. --iTocapa iChat 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Boy[edit]

Virtual Boy is a portable, it doesn't belong on the template. Artipol 08:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I think the template should be made horizontal, so it can be placed at the very bottom of an article, after the "External links" section. --Silver Edge 04:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Be bold, I've gone ahead and changed the template from vertical to horizontal, so it can be placed at the very end of an article with other templates. I've also adjusted the placement of the template in all the articles it is used in. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Anomie 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

V.Smile and HyperScan does NOT belong on this template[edit]

V.Smile and HyperScan are not TRUE video game systems just like does handheld games you somethimes get out of the happy meal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Color TV Game[edit]

This is to initiate a discussion on which generation Nintendo's Color TV Game (1977) belongs in. It currently is in 1st generation, which is currently defined as the Pong era consoles from 1972-1977. User Badger Drink wants to change it to move it to 2nd generation because he considers the release year as the qualification for generation, which when taken in to consideration also does not merit the change since 1st generation is defined as through '77 here. My own thoughts is as a Pong console it has no business in the 2nd generation listing and should remain in the 1st generation listing where its been. Generations on Wikipedia and the generation pages are defined via a mixture of dates and technology, not one or the other. First (1972-1977) and 2nd generation (1976-1984) definitions here overlap for instance because of this tech vs. year if you look. Likewise, Pong consoles were released well in to the 80's world wide, and it would be irresponsible to put them in the same generation as a console like the Colecovision or even the NES/Famicom, just as it would be irresponsible to put the 16-bit Intellivision in the same generation as the 16-bit Genesis. I'm also leaning towards questioning its notability for even including it in the template, which is a listing of notable systems of a generation. There's nothing the differentiates it from the 100+ pong systems released world wide, or the more notable releases already listed. I've also filed an RFC at the video games project for more input. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I've tagged it as dubious - hopefully to attract some more attention than just the two of us. Here's what I've got:
  • The connotations of "generation", especially vis-a-vis computing and video-gaming, are largely biased in favor of chronology. i.e., "what is this console going up against?". This is why, for instance, the Colecovision is considered part of the second generation, even though in terms of hardware it was closer to the Nintendo Entertainment System. The NCTVG was going up against the first wave of programmable game consoles - the Fairchild, the RCA, and the Atari, notably - and this can even be seen as a reason why it's been doomed to obscurity.
  • "If = 'Pong' then 1st generation" doesn't hold water. The original Odyssey wasn't really a Pong machine (as in, not all of its games involved two paddles batting around some random dot). It's certainly first generation. I don't believe a Pong console released today would be (or should be) considered "first generation" - yet, under the definition provided by Marty, it would be.
  • I even have my doubts as to whether or not the NCTVG should be mentioned at all but this is a whole kettle of worms I'm not sure I'm prepared to cook =)
  • Extrapolating Marty's methodology for categorization, it seems that consoles like the "premium market" Neo-Geo and (especially!) the CD-i have no business being in the same generation as entry/mid-level price range, 16ish-bit, cartridge-input hardware such as the SNES, Genesis/Megadrive, and the TurboGrafx - nor should the largely cartridge-based Atari Jaguar and the rather early 3DO be placed alongside the "second wave" of CD-dedicated consoles such as the Sega Saturn (coming post-Sega CD) and the PlayStation (originally planned as a SNES upgrade and evolved from such). The Jaguar and 3DO were competing with the Sega CD and others of the fourth generation in the marketplace - the coming of the fifth generation is what drove the final nail in the Jaguar and 3DO's respective coffins.
I've typed far too much at this point, so let's just take that as my "introductory statement", for lack of a better term. Badger Drink (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a few quick comments before I hit the sack, and I also wanted to say I'm glad we're able to discuss this here - hopefully the RFC will get other people involved to gain consensus. And if you look at my statement above, we're in agreement on the doubts of the NCTVG even being in the template - I don't think it belongs, and I think a few others should go as well. Now then, firstly, the NCTVG was certainly *not* going up against the first wave of programmable consoles, those consoles weren't even released yet in Japan, which is the sole limited market the NCTVG series was sold in. The RCA was never sold there (it first debuted in the US in '77), the Channel F was never released there (it didn't even hit the UK until '78), the 2600 was not released in Japan until '83 (the 2800), the Intellivision didn't arrive until '82 (via Bandai), etc. The Color TV series was in fact competing against other Japanese pong consoles, including the Epoch Electrotennis (the first Japanese game console, released in '76)), and Bandai's TV jack 1000 also released in '77. In fact, the first programmable console in Japan was the Bandai Super Vision 8000 in '79. Foreign consoles always had later releases in Japan - even the Magnavox Odyssey didn't reach Japan until '75, and that was through Nintendo. So I don't know if you're trying to apply hindsight with that claim, or what. Quick correction regarding the Odyssey - that's incorrect about the Odyssey - its a dedicated system whose graphics consist purely of a dot and paddles, manipulated differently about the screen depending on what the jumper setting is. Likewise for most of the other "Pong" consoles, who had multiple games on board as well, selected by switches vs. jumper "carts". And please stop stating "under the definition by Marty", I did not create the generation pages here, nor did I create the concepts of these generations used by myself and other professional historians across the industry. As far as the bias on chronology, that's not quite right - again, its measured by a combination of chronology and technology. As far as the later consoles you mentioned, I don't agree. A) Generations are never decided by price range, I have yet to see a notable source that does that. B) The Jaguar was initially released to compete against the SNES and Geneis, but wound up competing directly against the Playstation/Saturn/etc. (just as the 5200 was designed to compete against the Intellivision but wound up competing against the Colecovision), as is more than documented in magazines and brochures of the time (including Sam Tramiels now legendary out of touch interview with Next Gen). Nowhere is there mention of definining competition via "cd attachments" or cd attachments defining its generation. That smacks of Wikipedia:OR, unless you can find a notable reference that does that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but from what I've read it sounds like the Color TV game fits into the first generation category as a late comer. I base this on what it was intended for and its similar design to other first generation consoles. I'm aware that later generations did not have similar designs, but the video game industry during the 70s involved very few innovators creating something new and numerous competitors copying it; that's why I think the designs had similarities.
However, if no one believes it should be on the template, then most other points seem irrelevant to me. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for your input. Yah, I think if we all think it doesn't belong here then that part of the debate is solved. But I think this discussion has involved in more of defining what generations are and are not, which I think is something that's needed here at Wikipedia. So if you have any input on that as well, given your experience, it would certainly be appreciated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for my delayed response. Short, terse version: "Marty's version" was just to provide context and establish which version I was referring to, didn't mean anything personal by it. Good point in re: NCTVG being marketed in Japan and hence not competing with Channel F, et al. The Odyssey aimed to go beyond merely "Pong", with several games not involving a wall at all, so I do think there's something setting it apart from, say, the Telstar. Defining generations by CD attachments / method of data storage seems about as screwy as defining them by whether or not they were hard-wired Pong clones or not, hence my using that as an example. Agree that, all things considered, the NCTVG should probably be eliminated from the template. I remember previous discussion about getting rid of the Interton VC 4000, but "of course" that was disgusting Amero-centrism and eventually several others were added. Affirmative Action is alive and well here on Template:Dedicated video game consoles. Anyway, I'd be mildly overjoyed to see the NCTVG be removed entirely (along with a couple others mostly from the second and fifth generations - not going to name names or anything silly like that). I can see a good argument for it being considered "first generation" in Japan, but I'm still hesitant to consider it "first generation" in the vast scheme of things. This is a good example of why trying to pigeonhole things in "generations" can be folly. Badger Drink (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll go a head and remove the NCTVG all together then. As far as the others, lets go and mention and discuss them now to gain consensus to remove them. I personally think the template should be limited to consoles that had/have a verifiable and defined market presence and not just a listing of every arbitrary console ever made or currently on the market. There's already this page for that. I'm also voting for removing the ones you mentioned - A'Can, Bandai Pippin, Casio Loopy, and Playdia. As far as the Interton I think it should be replced with the 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System, which had a much more significant impact on the European market (including a large OEM market) and actually ties with Fairchild's Channel F for being the first CPU/Programmable based system. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Would the Zeebo be considered to be on the list after release? Noneofyour (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, unless it becomes very notable as part of that generation (and you'd need plenty of references here pointing to that notability). As you see above, we're currently in the process of removing non-notable consoles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Zeebo to the list yesterday, only to have it removed. The source says "Please only add existing, non-handheld units to this list.". The Zeebo exists, it's not handheld, and it's 7th generation. So why not add it. The box is titled "Video game consoles by generation" not "Some video game consoles by generation" or "Popular video game consoles by generation" or even "Video game consoles by generation as per certain Wikipedians' choices". It's notable and therefore should be added. (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Signed in now. Edit was by me.

 ViperBlade Talk!! 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned in the discussion above and below, the consensus for this template is only for consoles notable for representing that generation, it is not a listing of all released consoles - that already exists under List_of_video_game_consoles. Wikipedia has policies on large lists, which this template would easily become with the amount of consoles demonstrated on that page. Likewise, while the zeebo may be notable enough to be on wikipedia, it is far from being any sort of major player in its generation, especially since it hasn't even been released yet. Likewise, if you click on the "Video game consoles by generation", it takes you to a listing of all consoles in every generation. Feel free to add it there. I also just clarified the source tag for any future editors, thanks for pointing that out. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't argue with that, so thanks for not being an a-hole (like some serial editors who seem to think certain pages belong to them). I do suggest the title be revised though. Possibly "Major video game consoles by generation". Thanks

 ViperBlade Talk!! 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yah, we were actually addressing the possibility of a name change towards the bottom thread. Feel free to weigh in with ideas like you mentioned above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Bally Astrocade?[edit]

Where is the Bally Astrocade, that used to be on the templete list but was bizzarely taken of, surely it counts as a game console if it used to be on here, was second generation competition to the 2600, and was never classifed as a PC nor a gaming PC. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Where Nintendo Color TV Game[edit]

Where this dediacted console in the template ? Junk Police (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Important Game Consoles[edit]

There are some consoles on this template that simply do not belong for whatever reason:

1. Philips Odyssey- If I'm not mistaken, this was simply a different version of the Magnavox Odyssey. Including this is like including the NES along with the Famicom.

2. Super A'Can- It simply cannot compete with other consoles in its generation. It belongs is a full list of consoles and not on a short template like this.

3. Apple Pippin- This has the same story as the A'Can. It just doesn't fit with the other consoles in its generation.

4. Casio Loopy- Is this even considered a game console? Wasn't it just a printer that plays a few games with each of their main purpose being to print stickers? I don't know. Even if it is a game console, it wasn't popular and should not be on this template.

5. FM Towns Marty- Again, its the same story as the A'Can and Pippin. I don't think it was popular enough. Also, this one was only released in Japan anyway.

6. Playdia- There are a variety of reasons to delete this. One, I'm pretty sure it was only released in Japan. Two, it wasn't popular enough to compete with others in its generation. Three, it only released educational and children-friendly games much like the HyperScan which isn't included on this list.

Well, I'm going to take these down. If anyone has any disagreements, you can put them back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got several grudges...

For one where the hell has the Coleco Telstar article gone?! But also, I would say you have valid reasons for removeing the Casio Loopy, Playdia and Philips Odyssey, but I don't think sales are A justifed reason to remove them from a wikipeida template, otherwise a console like the Amiga CD32 would be removed, dispite it being important (In the fact that it is the world's first 32 bit console) and the fact that it is important for a particular reason (It was Commodore's last console) plus people who search wikipedia would be more curios to learn about consoles they don't know about, rather then consoles they all ready know a lot about (like the PS), I am going to put them back up as they are competeing consoles, it is not sales that matters on wikipedia, it's wether or not they exzist that maters on wikipedia. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

By the previous consensus discussion, this template is not a listing of every console. People can click on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation tag and listings of all the consoles of those generations. This list represents consoles notable as representative of their respective generations. Obscure consoles, and consoles that are notable for other reasons (failures, collectibles, "firsts", etc.) are not under that definition. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You have a fair point in what you have said, altough I must re-add the Coleco Telstar and Amiga CD32, both were sucsesful at some stage or another and were importnant consoles at the time of releace. Also my I ask, why is the FM Towns Marty less important then the NEC PC-FX? Both consoles were releaced only in Japan and the FM Towns Marty stands as a important milestone as it was the world's first 32 bit game console. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Correct, the PC/FX should not be there. On the same grounds though, neither should the CD32 - it as a short success only in the UK. I'll leave the Coleco Telstar as a borderline ok, it was one of the "big three" of the Pong console era (Magnavox, Atari, Coleco). And I see you found what I was talking about, there is a listing of every single console already here--Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest 2 things, 1. Re-list the FM Towns Marty, CD32 and PC FX, and 2. Make that link more accesable to wikipedia users, as I personaly have had great trouble finding it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's right there in the template, in the title line: "Video game consoles by generation" (emphasis mine). I cannot think of how it can be made more prominent. Have you any suggestions? Dreaded Walrus t c 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I personaly found it had to acsess, I may of missed it, perhaps it should be bolder? Also I am going to relist the FM Towns Marty, CD32 and PC-FX, if you have any objections to that proposal in any way, please let me know on this tak page. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, the template is not meant for that purpose. Its not an index to easily access all video game console articles on Wikipedia. The page for that was already discussed above, and as Dreaded Walrus stated, the link to it is literally in the title bar of this template. I could maybe possibly see moving that link to a bottom row underneath the generations, and retitling as "List of all game consoles" or something similar. But only if a non-intrusive manner was agreed upon by consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The point being is that the FM Towns Marty, CD32 and PC-FX should be re-included in this templete. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The point being that once again, they don't belong per consensus. They're obscure consoles, the template is not for that, and Wikipedia does not run by mcjakeqcool's fondness for obscure consoles. The articles for them are still there, and still easily found via the large listing of all consoles which is also linked to via this template. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
But the fact of the matter is that the FM Towns Marty, CD32 and PC-FX are not obscure consoles like say the Epoch Cassette Vision, Cyclon and Playdia the Amiga CD32 secured 50% of the CD rom market in the uk during 1993 and 1994, and the PC-FX marked a important milestone as the sucsessor to the TurboGrafx-16 and the FM Towns Marty as the world's first 32 bit game console. For these reasons, I am going to reinclude them. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
And around we go again. That certainly establishes their notability for being on Wikipedia, however that is not what is being disputed here. Those consoles were limited local market consoles and sales (Japan for the PC and FM, UK for the CD32), not representative of any major overall market share world wide, and certainly not anywhere near generation defining. Once again, this listing is for consoles that are representative of their market and generation, the "major competitors" that defined their generation. Not what Mcjakeqcool thinks is important because of his personal likes and dislikes, or his inability to discern notability for being on Wikipedia vs. notability on market/generation representation for a specific list reflecting that. Once again, there is already listing of all consoles of every generation. Removed again. And if this continues, I'll be taking this to an admin level. Every single thread you get involved in on Wikipedia you do this, try and force info in to an article even when explained by multitudes of people it's either inaccurate or simply doesn't belong. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll stop then, but the reason I get involved is threads such as this is because I want to bring notable infomation to wikipedia. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is telling you not to be involved at Wikipedia and be a great contributor. However, there are many many contributors with the same aspirations, which is why we have policies and guidelines to help manage what content is added, and make the interaction of multiple contributors easier. And the notable information regarding the CD32, PC-FX, etc. is already on Wikipedia - they have their own articles. You may want to take some time to read through the policies and guidelines and reflect on what your vision of bringing notable information to Wikipedia is vs. the way Wikipedia actually works. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will read through some of those wikipolicys then. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Video Game Project RFC Discussion Area[edit]

This is the discussion area for the RFC filed at the Video Games Project regarding the purpose of this template as well as a possible renaming of the template. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think limiting it to the "important" consoles is good. Category:Video game consoles by generation can handle the rest; but if the consensus is that categories don't offer enough visibility, you can create {{First generation video game consoles}}, {{Second generation video game consoles}}, etc. But anyway, there needs to be some criteria for what constitutes an "important" console. You should also be wary that the consoles you recognize as important might not be the most recognizable in other parts of the world. Japan, Europe, and North America have different tastes, and consoles that were obscure in one market may have been a hit in another. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was the issue here as well. People wanting to add consoles that were important in specific areas of the world (CD32 for Europe, PC-FX for Japan), but were obscure everywhere else. That's why we the criteria had been limited to world wide success, to try and make it universal. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a tricky sort of template, because subjects like "Important" and "Notable" are somewhat subjective, even in terms of reliable sources. When I see "Dedicated video game consoles" as a template title, I think "Devices that can only play video games and not do anything else", which denotes such devices as the NES, GameBoy, GBA, etc., as opposed to devices that can also play DVDs (PS2 and most current-gen consoles), run non-game applications, be cell phones, etc.
I think that if you want to leave the template at its current name, the purpose of the template should be revisited. If we want to make it more like "Important/Representative video game consoles", then we should rename it appropriately. In both cases, though, you need an objective definition as to what purpose this template serves, such that it can't be argued with on the grounds of Wikipedia:ILIKEIT, etc. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally, notability is a good guideline to follow when deciding what to include. But Keifer's right, notability and importance don't factor well into this. A template is meant to be act as navigation device rather than a information device. To add more conflicting info to this, I've always view dedicated consoles as video game consoles which can only play select games, like the Odyssey and Home Pong. :-p Consoles like the Fairchild, NES, Xbox, and PS3 which feature interchangeable game media are just regular old consoles.
Twas's idea of separate templates for each generation might be more feasible, even if it's less practical and they can become bloated. Not sure what else to do really. To be honest though, I'm a bit stumped. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

I completely agree with all those points as well, which is why I raised this RFC. So it looks like we're in agreement on and should move forward with discussion on these two subjects:

  • The current template name does not accurately represent the content, and should most likely be renamed.
  • Some sort of reasonable notability standards specific to this template need to be created.

With regards to subject one, I would suggest something along the lines of "Console Highlights By Generation" based on Guyinblack's point - a template is meant to act as a navigation device rather than a information device. There's already a full page of every single console, which is already organized by generation. Unless anyone else has a better suggestion on an appropriate name? My vote is also for a generational link format currently in place vs. moving to separate templates for every generation. If we're keeping the listing short, it shouldn't be an issue, and the current setup allows you to easily navigate to a specific generation by clicking on the row tag.

With regards to subject two, I would propose that we should be able to come up with guidelines for this template similar to how we did for the in pop culture guidelines. For example, a console simply existing on the market or being the "first" at something should not be enough for inclusion. While it's certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia itself, in relation to the proposed purpose of this template it should meet some sort of criteria we can all agree on. Point being, criteria that is not as subjective as something like Wikipedia:ILIKEIT or arguable popularity. For example, if we were to look at the three "main" consoles right now (Wii, PS3, XBox360) even though there are a bunch of other consoles of this generation, what is it that we can concretely point at for these being the three main consoles? Sales? Press coverage? Their respective company's place in the industry? All of the above? There's no arguing that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are the major console players of the current generation. That also reflects back on the reason for their current place - the consoles they have on the market, which also ties in to sales, which ties in to etc. Just as say you had Nintendo (NES), Sega (Master System), and Atari (7800) as the major third generation players and can point those out for same reasons. So I'm fairly sure between us we can come up with some sort of objective guideline based on these linked relationships. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I keep trying to wrap my head around it, but the more I think about it the more I think trying to draw a definite line borders on POV. I see, however, that the alternative of listing every console ever released in a single template is impractical.
I think separate templates, though not perfect, are the best solution. There would be no need to have multiple generations on a single page and the related lines of consoles, like Nintendo and Sega, have their own templates that can link them other generations. Separate templates, however, doesn't give a solution to dealing with this template. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC))
So I understand what you're saying then by separate templates, do you mean separate generational templates that list all the consoles in that generation? Or specific consoles of that generation? As far as this template then if we go that route, do think we should just turn this in to an actual listing of all literal dedicated (non-cartridge, built in games only) consoles then? I.E. all pongs and plug and plays as the current name implies? If we go the multiple generational templates, I'd also suggest still having a link somewhere inside to navigate to the big page of all generations. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My gut tells me that listing all in each generation would be more non-neutral. Plus I don't think having a link to the Nintendo 64 on the Intellivision page offers much. The Bally Astrocade would offer more because it was a more similar system released around the same time. That's what I think anyway. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
You're confusing me more. Listing all the consoles of a particular generation in that generation's template would be more neutral, not non-neutral. Were you misreading what I was asking? I was asking if you meant the single generation templates should list all the consoles of that generation or leave off some of the less notable ones of that generation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was preoccupied when I replied. Yes, I meant "neutral" and think that all consoles should be listed in their respective generation templates. Listing all should help give a better overview of that generation, rather than just the highlights of every generation. What do you think?(Guyinblack25 talk 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
Sounds good. So in summation we're deciding on a template for each generation listing all the consoles for each generation, and turning this one in to what the title actually says - a listing of self contained game consoles (pongs, modern plug and plays) only? All we need to decide then is how to do the listings on each template, chronologically or alphabetically? I'm thinking on this template as well we should have two separate categories - one for the pongs and one for the plug and plays. That way they'll both be on the same listing but have separation for navigation. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think alphabetically will make more sense to someone unfamiliar with consoles. It will also remove the need to hunt down and verify release dates. But I certainly see the point to a chronological order.
Different categories for dedicated consoles sounds good; it'll help reduce clutter. Should they be like "Ball and paddle" and "Others"? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
Maybe "Ball and paddle" and "Plug and Play"? Or "Pongs" and "Plug and play"? I'm including a scratch template below to start working on. Feel free to make changes to it and try and keep it at the bottom of this discussion (i.e. add any more responses above it but below this text). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The other issue now as well I was just thinking is after the new version of this template is worked in, all the pages that referenced it will have to be changed over to their respective generational template. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if Template:Dedicated video game handheld consoles doesn't need the same reworking as well, or possibly just a renaming. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
←(un-indent) They look great Marty. Not near as cluttered as I imagined they might. I guess I figured there were more consoles out there. They look cleaner and more focused. I'll help switch the new templates in, and we can post at WT:VG to find a few more volunteers.
Not sure what to do about the handheld one. Most generations had very few handhelds, so splitting it up maybe dividing things too much. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
Thanks, yah some of the generations had very few consoles. As far as the dedicated template, there are a ton more than that out there, there just aren't articles on Wikipedia for them yet or are mentioned in their respective topics (i.e. Ms. Pac-Man plug and play) and have to be found yet.
As far as the handheld one, I agree. I'm thinking that's why a name change is in order? Its really a listing of all handhelds and tabletops, both dedicated and non. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries about the ones without articles. Navigation templates don't need to direct to non-existent pages. Renaming the handhelds sounds like a good option.
I'll start swapping out templates tomorrow. If you start at the top, I can start at the bottom and work our way to the middle. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
Ok, first I have to create the actual template pages for the generational templates. Those are just boxes existing on this discussion page.
Regarding starting the swap, is there an easy way to tell all the pages that reference this template? Some sort of big category listing? Or do we just have to go assuming its just on all the console pages? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Category:Video game consoles by generation should list everything. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dedicated video game consoles should list all the consoles with the current template transcluded. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
Ok, created Template:First_generation_game_consoles through Seventh. Started changing over first and second generation articles, and changed over this template. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Updated the consoles listed on the 3rd-7th gen templates, except for the Atari XE Games System. It redirected to the Atari 8-bit family article. Not sure what to do with that one.
There's still some articles listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dedicated video game consoles that need switching though. I assume add-ons like the Mega-CD and 32X should have 4th gen template on them? What about articles like NES 2 and SNES 2 though? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
I would think addons and revisions of a specific console should still have the main console's era as the template. The 2600 went through a lot of revisions over the years from the first (heavy sixer) to the last (2600 Jr.) and had the Jr. actively sold during the third generation as well. But it would still get a 2nd generation template.
I'll be out tonight through late tomorrow night. Be back online then. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Argh! This was the best template on Wikipedia before the change! You could quickly scan left to right to see progression of consoles within each generation (the new single-generation templates aren't even in chronological order) and scan top to bottom to see the evolution of each company's systems through the generations (Atari, Nintendo, Sega, etc). What a shame to lose such a great template. :( DOSGuy (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

While I can certainly agree it had it's pluses, they were mainly for gamers rather than general readers. Besides, templates are for navigation instead of informing. Hopefully we can get the articles in good shape so they can be the proper place to check for that info. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC))
DosGuy - And as you can see from the many discussions above, it had way to many minuses as well. Likewise, Atari, Nintendo, Sega already have templates for their evolutions (i.e. the Atari Hardware template). Finally, the templates clearly state in the code alphabetical order, which is what was decided on. Actual release dates, etc. are for the articles themselves and as Guyinblack states, templates are for navigation not information purposes. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

templates rework[edit]

Several missing consoles[edit]

Since this list does'ent only include notable consoles, but infact includes every single console every made, may I point out that among others, this list is missing the Nintendo TV game 6, the Bally Astrodcade, The Epoch Cassete System, the Super Epoch Cassete System, the Cyclon games console, the Action Max, the Amiga CDTV, the Virtual Boy, the NUON and the Pansonic Q, as I said among MANY others. When this was a list of notable consoles, I excepted that for the benfit of this article that I would only list notable consoles, however it seems since this article contains ALL consoles, non notable ones INCLUDED, I feel that it should be 100% completed, unless wikipedia sugests otherwise. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This template is now for only dedicated (pong era) and plug and plays. Did you read above at all? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to add the missing consoles to their respective template. Though I must mention that the nav boxes above were not transcluded templates, and some systems have been added since. (I've transcluded them now.) If there's an article for it, then I see little reason to omit it. The only one I'd say should be omitted is the Virtual Boy, which is a handheld console. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC))
Ok then, when I get the time, I will edit this article. But I am currently very busy in my personal life. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This list doesn't need editing to include all the consoles you mentioned above, they go on the other generational templates now. Likewise Nintendo TV game 6 is already on this list, under the more inclusive Color TV Game which includes the series as a whole. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will exlude the Color TV game 6 and the Virtual Boy. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to other console template[edit]

I think it'd be a good idea to add link into the template to link from this template to another page showing all 1st-7th generation game console and portable game console, isn't it?C933103 (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the word "video game console" already links to the article with all video game consoles listed. We generally don't link to another template when the goals of templates are to direct you towards articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)