Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/RfC on video game console grouping/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A suggestion: replace generations with years

I think when I read through this discussion, it's clear that the industry does consider the progression of hardware as "generations" but any counting of generations appears to come down from inference from Wikipedia, and thus are circular references.

Given that we really shouldn't be counting the generations ourselves, we should take another approach to make the history of vg consoles still accessible. To that end I propose that we simply replace "nth generation) with a date range, with any consoles introduced within that year range to be considered part of it (eg our 6th gen article would be actually be "1999-2004", our 7th gene "2005-current", etc.) - we wouldn't worry when the console was actually phased out in this scheme, so, like, for example, the 6th gen article currently claims from 1999-2011, but clearly if you consider release year, that's much shorter.

This would also allow us to "fix" the idea that we're basing these divisions on the "home console" generation. That is, our current history article is "2005-present", and that the next history one isn't established until the next major console arrives, despite the 3DS and PSP2/NGP being released this year. (Alternatively, there's always the ability to separate out the portable market from the fixed console market).

Effectively, this means we only have to retitle these articles and scrub out "nth generation" in the text. We don't have to source our year breakout as that's now only a easy means to organize a large amount of content instead of trying to justify the use of the "nth generation" name. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The circular argument is untrue and has been defeated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:V#WP:CIRCULAR_and_when_things_enter_the_part_of_the_cultural_language . I want to think about your proposal a bit, as it does seem to have advantages and drawbacks.LedRush (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for this scheme. It would make the standard for inclusion much easier and in my opinion, treat it more historically in regard to home and portable consoles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

I fully support some sort of organization by years. I think it may lead to endless arguments over organizing it within years, but if it can be eventually hashed out, I think it would be better. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This would make so much more sense, and save a lot arguing in the long-term. Personally, I'm less concerned with any possibility of WP:CIRCULAR violations, and more worried about where we draw the lines for each "generation". That being said, the only real problems in that respect is for the earliest and most recent consoles. If we can resolve those satisfactorily, then this may not be necessary at all. Otherwise, I'd say this is a better option. --Dorsal Axe 18:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Years are much more concrete and far less subjective than the issues that have begun cropping up in this discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Sergecross's comment above and others, while I can agree that there could be editwars on the year division, this can be a case were we can look at an overall grouping of the reliable sources and see how they discuss and compare units. For example, the 360 is universally compared to the PS3 and the Wii, even though at its release, the PS2 and the GC were the other available consoles. Or the Dreamcast vs PS1, etc. We go for the groupings that make the most sense from sources, and just make sure that there's really no overlap in years across the "history" articles. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"and just make sure that there's really no overlap in years across the 'history' articles" is the doubtful part. Look at what we have now in the navbox: First overlaps Second by 2 years (1976 and 1977), Second overlaps Third by 2 years, Third overlaps Fourth by 6 years, Fourth overlaps Fifth by 4 years, Fifth overlaps Sixth by 5 years, and Sixth overlaps Seventh by 7 years. If an "Eighth"-generation console is released in 2011, Sixth would overlap Eighth by 1 year. Anomie⚔ 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't really see how this changes anything from the current method. We are still keeping all of the generations grouped in the same way as before, just with a different name. But why should that be if there are no generations? We would still have the same issue of whether the Atari 2600 should be in the same "year grouping" as the Odyssey. I don't see this as adding any more clarity, and actually could feel less precise and more confusing to a lot of people. Questions like: why was X console get grouped in with y date range and not with z date range?" That type of question is answered in the title of the current grouping. Furthermore, I see this as more of an OP issue than the current groupings. We at least have sources that name certain consoles as belonging to a certain generation, and these sources are almost completely consistent except for in the first two generations. But we will have highly conflicting sources on how to group by years. Do we weight each different year grouping? Or do we create our own year groupings based on research into what RSs say about generations? If that's the case, we are moving away from the principles of WP in an effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist.LedRush (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In almost all other cases of "history" or timeline sections in other articles on WP (including some of our genre ones), the history is segmented by year markers. Some of these are predetermined in sources (eg palaeontology eras) others are best described based on best to group things. Our way of classifying by "generations" (which, as I've commented, overlap) is very very awkward, and again, it itself is possibly original research that has since possibly been validated by adaption in the culture. At least with a year boundary, consoles are or are not part of a specific article - classification is relatively easy. I am aware that the bounds we set for each article could be arbitrary and arguable (someone desperately wanting to classify a powerful console in with lesser consoles releases a few years earlier) but again, if sources generally compared X and Y and Z consoles in the same breath, and never compared X and Q, then our year splits should be based on grouping X, Y, and Z, and keeping Q in a different article. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What Masem said. The plus side to year boundaries is that it creates clear boundaries. Any content about previous generations that occurs after the boundary has a defined place to go. So even though overlap will occur, I believe it will make more sense. Take the numerous Sega Genesis releases or the Atari Flash Backs for example. Though these are most relevant to one generation (which has not been nailed down as far as time frame and what consoles it encompasses), it will have a clear place in a purely chronological time frame. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

It's just like what "Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs" said too: "Generations" are subjective and open for interpretation, years are very concrete. You can argue about what to name the generation the Dreamcast is in. You can't argue whether or not Dreamcast was out in 2000. That kind of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It sidesteps the big issue of naming. There will always be issues regarding what goes where, even with generation model. I do think we need to point out somewhere that video games are classified by generations, although there are disputes, for some, about what goes in what generation. It can probably go at the top of the page in a its own section.陣内_Jinnai 20:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a manufactured issue, we really ought to stop with the hand wringing Wikipedia navel gazing. It's just a lot of work to reorganise articles for very little benefit. The generational structure used in Wikipedia has already been adopted in academic and industry sources - this is an indication of how successful the structure is. The way consoles are grouped into generations, is how we intuitively compare systems, it allows for overlaps between the years, while still keeping competing consoles together. It doesn't matter how original the generational numbering is, but that it has been confirmed by significant numbers of reliable sources. And it's no more an NPOV violation than the spelling of aluminium. - hahnchen 20:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And the minor disputes over what constitutes a generation can be included in the current articles right now. "The second generation... ...considered the first by some sources..." - hahnchen 20:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to do that for everyone one and I seriously doubt the claim that the majority of sources think the Wikipedia 1st gen is indeed the first gen.陣内_Jinnai 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a majority, in the same way aluminium doesn't need a majority. What matters is that we are internally consistent. The only real debate is in the very early generations, try comparing a search for "Playstation 3" "seventh generation" and "Playstation 3" "sixth generation", it's fairly obvious, even without spending 2 days going over each source individually. Do you really think we would drop the generational marking even if we moved the articles to years? - hahnchen 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahnchen is absolutely right. I't much easier to add a little section on differing views of generations for the consoles about which there are multiple opinions than this proposal which is confusing and moves us away from core WP principles.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then would we have to find the real first generation? it's not like it's numbered. just numbered in order of chronology. but i really don't mind it being called 19XX-19XX generation.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the years is that they will basically just be a rename of the current articles, except they will be confusing (as the years overlap) and harder to source. If they aren't the same, they are even harder to source and make sense of. We are creating a lot of problems in order to solve nothing.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if we base it on original release date and end it (except for the last one) based on the last initial release date. With few exceptions for older systems, that info isn't hard to find.陣内_Jinnai 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so I understand, the idea is merely to rename the generations to year ranges with no change to the groupings at all?LedRush (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

At this time. That isn't to say in the future there won't be, but I think Masem's version of analysis would be best. However, that's no different that someone arguing because X Y and Z sources say this that the Dreamcast should be listed in another generation.陣内_Jinnai 20:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're only renaming, I don't see the benefit. Are we going to justify the groupings through the generational model of naming or through new sources? Do we have sources that talk about these groupings? The benefit of the other model is that we could get different sources that named x console as part of y generation, and then we could make an article on y generation. Now, without new sources to talk about the year groupings, this will change something that conforms to WP policy to one that doesn't because of OR and SYNTH issues.LedRush (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Because saying that the Dreamcast was in the sixth generation and so were x y and z is a declaration of content, and per the above we have problems finding good sources saying explicitly that it is in gen "6". Saying that it was released in 1998 is an easy fact to prove- and clumping it with other systems released near the same time is an organizational decision, not a content one, and therefore fits in our purview as "editors". It also cleans up the overlap- the 6th generation won't end until the PS2 stops being sold, probably well into the 8th gen, but the 1998-2001 clump includes the same systems based on when they were released and so has an easy stopping point without needed sources to say that they were in the same "generation". --PresN 21:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But you are missing the point. We currently have RSs saying that a certain console is in a certain generation, and then we just group all those together. In the new suggestion, we would have many sources to say which year a console was released, but we'd have a harder time actually grouping those years together (as currently proposed). So this proposal doesn't solve any problems and creates new ones.LedRush (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem that we have that is persistent is this: for every game console, do we have a source that says "It is a nth generation unit"? Based on the reason for this entire discussion, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Even if you allow for some "simple" assumptions that a console released between two other consoles each that have been IDd to a specific generation implies that the first console is also of that generation, there's too many edge cases (see, for example, the 3DS/NGP issues) to be a useful factor. On the other hand, a year of release is an absolute, and the only points to be begged are what bounds we used at the ends of each history article to be appropriately complete, though right now, how the history articles are currently broken up provide an excellent roadmap.

Note that I don't propose scrubbing any mention of the term "generation" from articles. If sources have said "consoles released in YYYY to YYYY are nth generation", we can include statements to that effect. But by using a hard verified point in time (console release) to segment the history, we avoid the situation we are in now. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that with the 3DS in particular, we've seen articles where they state that it is not an eighth generation console due to its lack of power and functions. But what happens if another source calls it a part of the eighth generation? Which reference do we use? What if IGN and GameSpot had editors of equal standing that disagreed on the matter - which would we choose? Both? Neither? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we do have a reference for each system, including a quite comprehensive one at gamefaqs which conforms nicely to our current structure. The second problem is that the years-division plan doesn't solve any problems. For example, Hippie asked what happens if source say that the 3DS isn't 8th gen. Well, the same issue would arise with our grouping (i.e,, does the 3DS go in the 2005-2011 article or the 2011-20?? article? We wouldn't have any reliable sources for one grouping or the other until we start looking at what generation most articles name it. Once that happens, it will have a source as to what generation it is in. So the yearly grouping as now proposed is still dependent on the generation-naming, but it just changes the name. As stated above, this is more confusing than it needs to be, and it makes our groupings farther removed from actual sources.LedRush (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In placing the 3DS in an article, we NEVER have to make a judgment or assumption. In using generations, it is impossible for any situation that would include two conflicting sources on what generation a system exists in without us doing our own original research of which source should be taken with more credibility. The way we would determine these articles is to either make a guideline of where consoles should be placed - ie, if they should be played in the article that covers the majority of years that it is most active, or if it should be in the article that covers its year of origin, or if the year articles would not have all information on a console, but rather, merely covering the notable events of that span of time. I do not see why the set up has to be that a console's information must be exclusive to one of these articles. This is operating under the assumption that the current set-up is what we should stick with.

And I must question how sources do not support grouping by year. We are making no declarations with the article titling - we are merely covering a span of time in the video game industry. Doing the articles based on a five year span generally covers most consoles in their life time. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is not OR to weigh sources You address differing views within the article. Secondly, if you put the 3DS into a year grouping, you MUST make a judgment or assumption...otherwise you wouldn't know which year grouping it goes in to. However, if you put it into generation grouping, you just wait and see what the sources say. And doing 5 year cycles would be even worse than the current suggestion as it would be entirely OR which doesn't mesh with the currently, popularly accepted divisions. I don't see how moving to a model with no RSs and with no support for the different groupings other than the current generation model is better than just using the current generation model. It defies all logic.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember, the other part of my suggestion is to split off portable gaming from fixed console gaming. A lot of the issues we're having is because those two hardware systems work on different cycles. And since very few people compare feature of a specific portable unit to a fixed console unit, that's not a problem to break apart. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That, IMO, is a much better idea than this "keep generations but name them after release years instead to increase the likelihood of confusing readers" plan it has been bundled with. Anomie⚔ 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That can, and probably should, be done in addition to the renaming. They aren't mutually exclusive. In addition, outside data pages GameFAQs is not a RS so that listing you use from gamefaqs is not valid RS.陣内_Jinnai 00:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason GameFAQs isn't fully reliable is because it's user-contributed. But the console list had no input from GameFAQs users at all. If we trust the staff's ability to research and verify the data contributions, I don't see why we can't trust something that was created by the staff without any user input. Reach Out to the Truth 16:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

@Bread Ninja: the first "history" article can be given as "(-19xx)", implying anything before a certain year, so that would capture any of the early primative video game consoles like all the various Pong units, etc. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I support it as long as the years don't overlap. IE the third generation would be 1983-1987, fourth generation would be 1987-1994, fifth generation would be 1994-1998, sixth 1998-2005 etc. Keep in mind I have no idea why Jaguar and 3D0 are not listed as fourth generation consoles, as I believed them to be just that.--SexyKick 23:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely no over lap, even your examples have a bit: eg it should be 1983-1987; 1988-1994; 1995-1998, etc. Hard edges, no fuzziness. --16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ledrush, again and again you talk about all these reliable sources that use the numbered generations, without actually giving any. The only site you mention is gamefaqs, which is not a reliable source for wikipedia. Can you provide some reliable sources that number the generations like wikipedia does?

Beyond that, it seems like things are leaning towards re-doing things with years. I don't think arguments like "the payoff isn't worth it" are valid. It's one thing to be against the principle, but if it's just "too much work" , you don't have to participate in it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, no one has addressed the major problem with years: If we rename History of video game consoles (fourth generation) to "History of video game consoles (1987–1992)", how do we communicate to readers (and newbie editors) that it really covers 1987–1998 or so and that information on consoles released during 1987–1992 should be there rather than split across that article, 1993–1997, and 1998−2004? Anomie⚔ 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The year range is specifically aimed at the year of hardware release, and that should be identified in the lead. for example, the current 4th gen lead reads: In the history of computer and video games, the fourth generation (more commonly referred to as the 16 bit era) began on October 30, 1987 with the Japanese release of Nippon Electric Company's (NEC) PC Engine (known as the TurboGrafx-16 in North America).. That can be changed to read The years 1987 through 1992 in the history of computer and video games is often called the 16 bit era; gaming consoles released during this period are considered the fourth generation of consoles. It was heralded by the Japanese release of NEC's PC Engine on October 30, 1987. (or something like that). --MASEM (t) 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought gamefaqs data pages were considered reliable information. Aren't their lists of consoles grouped by generations considered data pages?? Should we take that specific issue to another talk page?--BeastSystem (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Masem's suggestion is that there is no RS for grouping the years 1987-1992 together. However, we do have sources that say the Genesis, TG-16 and SNES were in the fourth generation. Why even make the change to years if we're not going to change the substance of the article? Especially when the change makes the article harder to source and justify.LedRush (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Splitting by years, while arbitrary, avoids any issues of trying to assign a specific console to a specific generation when no sources give that information. Now if we have sources that identify common groupings, we can use that to decide the right year splits, and then still call that the fourth generation or whatever. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But is the 16-bit era really 1987 through 1992? Or is it more like 1987 through 1995 or so, since the early 32-bit consoles didn't meet with much success? Or even 1997 or 2000, as Nintendo continued releasing first-party SNES games in the US and Japan until those years? Anomie⚔ 18:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My text was just an example of how to alert users what content goes in that article. It's not a perfect statement by far. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: change our mistaken thinking

It seems that no one disagrees that we can and should group the consoles the way we have them grouped; it's just that some people have taken a dislike to the specific "nth generation" naming because some sources number the generations differently.

But where do our specific generation numbers come from? History of video games. Consoles are treated in that article in groups, termed "generations" which seems to be quite standard, and these generations are numbered in chronological order. That's it. The various "History of video game consoles (nth generation)" articles are basically WP:SUMMARY splits from that article, so they inherit their naming from that article. When you look at it like that, arguing over whether the specific number can be sourced is as silly as the arguments not too long ago over whether we can have an article titled "List of X" without reliable sources to source the specific name "List of X" (which IIRC ended with the major troublemaker banned).

So, my proposal:

• Recognize that the numbering of generations is just a trivial editorial decision required by the act of compiling and organizing the facts into a coherent article History of video games (see WP:NOTOR#Compiling facts and information).
• Recognize that naming the articles "History of video game consoles (nth generation)" plainly follows from the previous point and WP:SUMMARY, although perhaps a trivial rename (e.g. to "nth generation of video game consoles") would be wanted per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Subsidiary articles.
• There is an issue that the generations of handhelds don't really match up with the generations of consoles. Easy fix: Cover them in "nth generation of handheld game consoles" rather than trying to shoehorn them in where they don't belong, or merge them back into History of video games if there isn't enough to split out.

Anomie⚔ 18:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Just Ignore all rules and keep it as it is because it makes sense. That is what happens when one guideline collides with another. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I wholely disagree with this. It's not some "trivial editorial decision" as it tries to make one think in a particular mindset, ie This IS the nth generation.陣内_Jinnai 19:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • well aslong as it officially exist.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Do you also oppose all the various parenthesized disambiguators used all over the place per WP:DAB? It's basically the same thing. Anomie⚔ 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The problem with "generations" has been brewing for a long time, and we need to address it. It is leading to editing difficulties. If the idea of generations were better established literature (even if it is a fact that they borrowed our designations for it), this wouldn't be an issue, but it is a problem without a lot of reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    Well, the problem is trivial at best. And the "solution" to the problem articulated above is to actually make a system with even fewer RSs (thereby doing nothing to address the problem). It doesn't make sense to me.LedRush (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

    I must have missed it, what are these editing difficulties besides people whinging about not having a source for the specific numbers and WP:CRYSTAL when the next round of consoles is just starting to be released? For the former, I suggest telling them to stop, and the latter I suggest putting the content in History of video games until there is enough to split. Anomie⚔ 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with labelling specific generations. People (such as myself) who actually work in the games industry never, ever talk about "4th generation consoles" (or whatever value of 'n' you decide to pick). We do, however talk about "NEXT generation consoles" and "LAST generation consoles". Throughout the period when Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 had not yet been released, we would routinely talk about our "Next gen project" or "the way things will change in next-gen consoles"...and compare "Next-gen" capabilities to "Last-gen" features. But nobody ever attached a number to them. Right now, the Wii, Xbox-360 and PS-3 are "Last generation" - and nobody really talks about "Next-Gen" since there are as yet no strong indications that there actually will BE a next-gen. I've been working in games and simulation for decades and I have absolutely no clue what you might mean by a "sixth generation" console...and neither do any of the handful of co-workers who happened to be in earshot when I exclaimed my horror. We might, maybe, talk about "the 8 bit era" and "the 32 bit revolution" - but only in the most vague terms. I don't think any of us would attempt to pin a particular console to a particular "generation" nomenclature like that. It's arbitrary and quite misleading. This belongs firmly in the WP:NOR category. IMHO, if the articles are getting too long, we should split things up by decade - 1970's, 1980's and so on. Anything else is a bizarre and unnatural distinction that can only cause grief as people argue whether a particular box belongs to a particular generation or not. SteveBaker (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If this sort of labeling was the best to use, you'd see it plastered all over Gamespot, IGN, and any other reliable video game websites, industry-related people would refer to it constantly, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think anyone would disagree on a per name basis, however...8-bit era, 16-bit era, but then where do we go from there? 32-bit era included a 64 bit system, and the 128-bit era included a 32-bit system (Xbox,) and what bit is the current generation anyway?--BeastSystem (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the PlayStation and Xbox were first considered "128-bit" when both consoles were in development in the early 90s, but that terminology was quickly dropped when hardware and software focused more on graphical techniques and methods than the number of bits a certain command can have.

Moreover, where does the Atari Jaguar fit in? Many contend that that wasn't even 64-bit (many say it was only a pair of 32-bit processors IIRC). –MuZemike 21:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources use the generations far more than they use year-groupings.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But none, or next-to-none, use terms like "6th gen". Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Google disagrees with you http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22sixth+generation%22+console&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v3g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=6bedc48458f579e8

Actually, seeing as someone against the generations naming convention has already provided several examples of people using the term on this very thread, your assertion borders on the absurd.LedRush (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See, that's my point. "Generations" are quite commonly defined, but we need to have some sort of disambiguation when writing an encyclopedia because we're concerned with more than just "last" and "next". Chronological numbering works. Arbitrary year groupings have more issues. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with the points being raised, I have to say the Steve Baker's example is not entirely accurate. The industry has used terminology like (for example) "third generation" in the past. NEC presented it's console as a third generation console ("At the show, NEC will introduce what it terms a third-generation video game system, featuring a 16-bit graphics processor, compared to Nintendo's eight-bit....."). Coleco also presented their ColecoVision system as a "third generation" console as well. The press also used the term "third generation" to describe NEC's and Sega's consoles on their release ("Sega and NEC are hauling out a third generation of games and accessories" The 5200 was presented as Second Generation at one time. The idea of the usage of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. "generations" to describe a console is not something that originated here as some are claiming, and is not something the industry or the press has never used. It predates Wikipedia in both the industry and the press as shown. Like I said though, I don't disagree with the fact an overhaul of how Wikipedia categorizes console generations/dates/bitness/(insert your measurement here)/etc. are presented. The problem is there's inherent faults in all of them. Dates alone don't accurately convey who a console is meant to compete against (i.e. the generation). Likewise generation alone doesn't accurately convey things like actual technology under the hood. Bitness is an inaccurate marketing term to start organizing around as well, because it's about what's under the hood in it's entirety. As examples, the Intellivision uses a 16-bit cpu, but clearly not in the same class as the Genesis and SNES, and the Jaguar is a multi-processor 16, 32, and 64 bit system. This isn't a quandry that's existed in a bubble or solely at Wikipedia either. We've debated an official method for academia, museums, etc. to use at the IGDA's IGDA Game Preservation SIG (which is comprised of people in the industry, museums, academics, etc.) I just don't see a one size fits all solution here other than some sort of minorly synthesized solution based on consensus of the project, that clearly explains how the consensus was reached, which is actually allowed in some cases and has been done here before. A similar process was done for the MoS section on using kB vs. KiB, where some wanted to enforce across the board here the more recent adoption by some professional organizations of IEC over SI because they were of course reliable third party sources. Others produced other sources to show it wasn't accepted across the industry or in standard use, and after a lengthy process (much longer than this one) the current synthesized guideline was reached via consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most recognize that we are trying to figure out how to break the topic "History of gaming consoles", into manageable chunks per WP:SIZE, but because of a lack of consistency within the sources, we have reliable and obvious way to segment that. (Compared, again, to palaeontology eras, where experts have come to agreed what date range is equivalent to what era, etc.) If the "generation" idea was well founded, including sources that identified multiple generations, at the same time (eg explaining how its split) then it would be a better solution. But its not, and we're being challenged on that call. Any other split will be arbitrary but as long as we have a clear rule for the split (eg year of release, a reliably source bit of info for each console), we're not engaging in the OR that the "generations" approach does. It only remains to find the best method of grouping that makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not simply break it into release years equivalent to the current "generations". 19XX-19XX, ending it just before the release of the next major player? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Because we have a lot of RSs for generations and not for year groupings.LedRush (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need RS for breaking a large article into reasonable segments. Years aren't a label, they are just organization. The years themselves aren't OR, and you needn't claim anything special about those years, just tell what happened. "nth generation" is a label. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so don't need a reliable source to group items by the certain year spreads but you do to have the same exact grouping under a different name? I don't think that is correct Wikipedia policy (but I could be mistaken). A year itself wouldn't be a label, but a decade or five year grouping probably would be. And year breaks by type of console (what we and RSs call a generation) definitely are a label. How is saying 1987-1993 better than Fourth Generation? The latter is backed up by a RS and the former isn't? LedRush (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My initial suggest was to split on years by generation such that the only major editing that has to be done is page name changes and some stuff in the lead. It removes "generations" without any additional work, which is a benefit all around. We can still mention generations and claim that these years are referred to as such. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which solves only the problem of people whinging about specific generation numbers, and causes new problems. "We need to do something! This is something! Let's do this!" about sums it up, IMO. Anomie⚔ 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem : There is no established single or even agglomerate authority on the division of consoles into "generations"; there are hints and traces of it, and I would suspect that if some enterprising expect came along and wrote a book to fix what the generations are, it would be widely adapted, and we could use that nomenclature without a problem. Right now there isn't and picking out what the wider agreement is is likely follow a half-eaten trail of bread crumbs, and essential screams OR (even granting that WP may have influenced the wider journalism sources to adapt the same structure thus validating the model). Using the term "generation" begs for arguments when the maker of console X introduces console X+1 claiming it to be "next gen" when technically X+1 is the same tech in X rebundled in a different package, because "next gen" is a pea(Word automatically removed) word for the industry. Right now we are using a pea(Word automatically removed) work as fact, possibly correct, but very much against all of WP's general principles. The simple switch to year ranges doesn't change any other approach but neutralizes our use of a POV/OR term that yet cannot be justified. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also in many cases the consoles in the old generation didn't instantly disappear the moment the first "next generation" console was released. Anomie⚔ 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why establishing the inclusion point as "year of release" ignores any long tails (PS2 anyone?) into other generations that a console may have. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that choosing which years to put in each grouping is exactly as original, so nothing is being gained. But meanwhile we give a misleading indication of what each article contains. Anomie⚔ 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Generations have been an intuitive way of splitting the history and has been employed by the industry before as Marty mentions. I was at a talk given by David Braben on the cusp of the current generation, describing them as 4th generation consoles. But things have moved on, and I think its partly to do with Wikipedia. I've shown with the searches above, with "playstation 3" "seventh generation" and "playstation 3" "sixth generation" that the world has moved towards the Wikipedia model. I think what we have, is the best way forward. - hahnchen 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's my point (Masem and Hahnchen), that since there's no universally authoritative way of approaching this matter because there's been many methods employed across the board over the years, that at some point (just like with the IEC/SI issue) Wikipedia and the video game project have to go with what's right for itself. If this is simply about breaking it down in to smaller chunks, as a few have mentioned, then that has more to do with a guideline/article organization issue than a content issue. In the latter you're talking about to base content about references and such, in the first you're talking about more of an internal organizational issue which, like guidelines, are done via consensus. I don't think Wikipedia should be the grounds for trying to solve this categorization issue and give credence to one method (dates, generations, bits, whatever) over another. Rather a method that satisfy's the needs of the project needs to be formed via consensus - a method that most likely takes all these in to consideration. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is what you are saying "None of the solutions work, so just make a consensus to pick one"? I agree. Just stick with the Generation numbering, because while sources do conflict, they do exist, and it makes sense. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I clearly stated that none of the methods appear to be a verifiable (through references) standard. That none have any more weight than the other, because all have been used at some point. That the project needs to treat this as an organizational/guideline issue instead of a content one in light of this. I did not say "just pick one", and in fact don't feel a certain method should be given weight over another - that's not Wikipedia's job. Rather this being more of an article organizational issue (which is Guideline territory) the project needs to look at what method or *combination of methods* best suits the project's needs on the matter. As in it should be coming from that perspective instead of arguing about which method is or is not more standard as the bulk of this page has shown. As I clearly stated, I don't feel one distinct method fits all and it's certainly something that's been discussed at more professional levels as well and still not solved. We shouldn't be trying to solve it here either, just coming up with what best meets this project's needs. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anomie and Blake. This is getting ridiculous. We should separate the handhelds, and stick with what we have.--SexyKick 01:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So you want to basically violate the 5 pillars because this discussion is getting ridiculus? Why should video game history be treated SO special that it can igore the 3 of the 5 pillars: NPOV, V & NOR?陣内_Jinnai 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you want to violate the pillars on OR and V, while using generations is easily V, doesn't require OR, and of course, none of these issues are NPOV issues. So you hate the term "generations" so much you would trade that imperfect term for the same articles but with few/no RSs to give it V, and only OR to support it.LedRush (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are few reliable sources that give enough support to use generations. Years, yes. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no sources listed on this topic for groupings of years. Perhaps they exist, but there currently are none listed. In my own search, I've found some references, but they all conflict (sometimes because they count the grouping from when the first console started to when the last ended, so there is overlap and different definitions). However, there are many sources for the generations (see the many above) and there is wide agreement about which console fits into which generation. The fact that when sources actually do cite year ranges that they use the generation model to do so contradicts the supposed need to move from the generation model (sourced) to a years grouping model (unsourced).LedRush (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no OR in deciding how best to group consoles by years; we only need to find the right splits that best sorts the sources to the most comprehensive package. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If the sources for "generation numbers" conflict - then they aren't really "reliable sources"...certainly you can't pick one and call it authoritative. It often happens in this kind of situation where the generation numbers start off fairly clear for the first one or two generations - then as the manufacturers catch wind that nobody will want a "second generation" console when everyone is claiming that theirs are "third generation" - they'll have no moral compunction whatever in just saying that theirs is "fourth generation". It just advertising hype. Hence generation numbers higher than about 3 don't mean a (Word automatically removed)ed thing. You certainly can't say "The Xbox is a 6th gen console and the Xbox 360 is 7th gen" - there is no reasonable way to back that up. A similar thing happened with the "bit width" thing. It was originally true that older consoles used 8 bit processors (the 6502, Z80, etc) - and that when 16 bit processors came along, everything suddenly got a lot better. But the line between 16 and 32 got blurry because we couldn't be sure whether they were talking about CPU register widths or bus widths. Something like the 68000 CPU could be purchased with either an 8 or a 16 bit external bus and was 32 bit inside! WTF? Now, we're all over the map with 64 bit, 128 bit and christ-knows-what numbers of bits. It's become meaningless. Getting solid, unambiguous ENCYCLOPEADIC descriptions of what constitutes each generation or each bit-width is impossible. You may find one source that claims to have a coherent story - but you can absolutely guarantee you'll find a couple of others that look to be just as reliable saying exactly the opposite. Just as Wikiproject Automobiles had to swear off using the term "Supercar" because there is no One True Definition - but a dozen or more contradictory ones - we should merely allude to those names in articles - but do our formal divisions by something where there is essentially no disagreement. First year of mainstream sales is a really unambiguous thing. It's exceptionally well documented for even the most obscure hardware - and we can get unimpeachable references that actually agree with each other.

In the end, all we need to tell this story adequately is an ordering criterion and a way to split the article in to manageable bites. Years - or perhaps decades - do that perfectly. Both generations and bit-widths muddy the waters, confuse the readership and result in us telling the story of video game consoles out of sequence and in a confusing muddle. It's also a sure-fire way to get the fanboys of one or other machine at each other's throats arguing that one machine or other does or doesn't belong in some category or other. Using dates fixes that once and forever.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, the sources don't conflict that much. And of course, any grouping of years violates the WP policy, while using RSs doesn't, so, it's got that going for it.LedRush (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources for which year each console started selling. But are there any more sources for grouping 1987–1993 together than there are for calling the grouping of consoles released about that time as a generation? Anomie⚔ 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And there's been no effort made to show that "sources don't conflict"; however, there has been evidence to the contrary. There have only been a few selected cases where console has been listed as X generation and most of them are listed in another generation by other RS.陣内_Jinnai 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the sources largely agree. When you tried to prove otherwise, you used sources that explicitly support the current listings, as well as some that has only insignificant differences in the first and second generations. By trying to prove that the current system doesn't work, you proved the opposite. Thank you. The appropriate thing to do here, in line with WP policy, would be to cite the differences in categorization within the article itself.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting some weird grouping like 1987 to 1993 - that would be to attempt to bracket a "generation" and therefore just as bad as defining generational numbers. I advocate splitting this overly large article by decades. 1970's, 1980's and so on. There are plenty of precedents for doing that within Wikipedia. Consider, for example Timeline of computing - which is split by decades for precisely the same reason this article should - because the "generational" nomenclature for computers fell apart at the third generation, just as it did for video game consoles. You can see this phenomenon of "generation" numbers working well for a couple of generations and then falling apart all over the place - it seems to be endemic in human nature. The article on the Mini car, for example, shows that enthusiasts talk about the Mk I, Mk II and Mk III Mini with full agreement - and then Mk IV through maybe Mk VI or VIII (depending on who you talk to) are less and less well agreed upon. SteveBaker (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Splitting consoles by decades would solve the lack of verifiability and RSs for other types of year groupings, but it would be horribly confusing and unhelpful to our readers. You couldn't have many of the intra-generational comparisons that make an article like this useful. It would unnaturally break up the telling of the story of gaming. You're going to split up the SNES and the Genesis (perhaps the most important console competition). You're going to split up the DreamCast from the rest of the generation. On the plus side, you can compare the Genesis and Intellivision, or the DreamCast and the SNES...oh wait, that makes no sense at all.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me summarize the big problem:

• "History of video game consoles" is too large for one article. We need to split it.
• There is no industry-wide established method of how console history is envisioned.
• Thus, we are free (per necessity of being a summary source) to figure out a method to divide it up into sizable and comprehensive chunks.
• Of the methods we have:
  • "Generations" is the closest to the most established term but it is not a reliable means particularly given the meaning of "generation" as a point of sale, and the fact that there's no single reliable expert source that breaks apart generations in a useful manner - we have to piece-part it together. (And again, I stress, it may be WP's current approach for why generation is becoming useful, but it is certainly not there now)
  • Using years, split into fixed periods (like decades, every 5 years, etc.) removes any potential bias, but also can lead to difficulty in summarizing (eg if the press constantly compared two consoles but our year split puts one in one article, and the second in another, that's bad)
  • Using years, split into non-fixed periods to group related consoles can introduce potential bias, but its also the best way to group consoles that are discussed together in the existing literature. It also mimicks the developing idea of "generations" from the literature.
• There are probably other ways of splitting, but of these three, the one that is appropriate within WP's policy and does not introduce original research is the division by variable year periods to match the concept of generations. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no difference between dividing consoles into groups and calling these groups "generations" and dividing consoles into the exact same groups and calling the groups after the years of release, except that former doesn't pretend to be anything other than a grouping for convenience of encyclopedia writing (and could easily be footnoted to make that blindingly obvious) while the latter gives a false sense of some strict rule behind the division that will only confuse newbies and could easily enough cause trouble for us in the future. But it's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind here, and you're repeating the same tired arguments, so I'll just leave it at that. Good day. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, there is another difference. We have a lot of RSs for the "generations" grouping and none that I know of for the "years grouping by generation". But your point is correct.LedRush (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with Masem's summary. First, the history of video games is already divided into 7 articles about each generation...if we need to shorten the main article, we can. It's no problem because we have the generation articles. Second, the standard most used by people to discuss the groupings of game consoles is generations. We have tons of sources for this, even if we only have several that compile a comprehensive list of all generations. Third, renaming the generations as years per your summary is unsupported by RSs, and therefore, is less acceptable than the current and well sourced system of generations. Furthermore, it is more confusing.LedRush (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No one has shown a single expert reliable source that lists out each generation and the features of them. All this stuff with generations is an amalgamation of several sources. In time, that may be true, and future works on video games will address how generations are delineated, maybe even based on our groupings here. But that is not the case today. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not even remotely necessary that we have one source that lays out all of the generations and the consoles within them. We have numerous RSs which state which console belongs in which generation. Some of them, like one or two that Jinnai found, are quite extensive. Others are extensive concerning only a specific generation. But it doesn't matter. If we have a source that says the NES was third generation, we put the NES in the third generation. If we have a source which talks about the fourth generation competition between the Genesis and the SNES, we put it in the fourth generation. We are clearly following WP rules, and this isn't exactly rocket science. Of course, no one has shown any sources about year groupings that match the generations, nonetheless any source which has ALL of the year groupings. It's strange that people would attack the generation-grouping for lacking RSs (despite the fact that we have tons of them) yet support a year-grouping that doesn't have nearly as many RSs (or perhaps any).LedRush (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, we need a single source to outline the generations. Say we have RS 1 by author 1 that puts the NES in 3rd gen, and RS 2 by author 2 putting the SNES in 4th gen. There is no indication or assurance that author 1 and 2 are talking the same set of generations, because there is no single expert source to set those out. That's the problem here, we have no trail or basis for what generations are set out to be that has been universally adapted and discussed. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We are allowed to use common sense on Wikipedia. If everyone buts the 8-bit consoles and calls them third generations, even if they do it separately, we know that they are talking about. Your contention that " we have no trail or basis for what generations are set out to be" is flat out wrong. We do have an indication. When all the sources put the NES and SMS in the third generation, and separate ones put the Genesis and SNES in the fourth, we know exactly what they are talking about. .And if you think they are talking about different definitions of generations, that would be original research. You merely take the RSs at face value. And every single critique you make regarding a generation is true of the year groupings. Except of course, THERE ARE NO RSs YET DISCUSSED FOR THE YEAR GROUPINGS. Perhaps they exist, but no one has given any evidence of them.LedRush (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If it was common sense, this discussion wouldn't be happening; instead, people are questioning how the generations are defined (again, some right now arguing that 3DS and NGP/PSP2 are 8th gen which would not follow the present scheme). That means we need to find sources to justify that, and there are no comprehensive sources that do this, yet. We can't pick and choose selected sources to build that because that may mean we're ignoring contrary but equally valid sources that may set out different generations.

And the fact that sources don't the year ranges actually isn't a problem. The way these articles are set up, they are presenting stating "Console X is part of the Nth console generation", which is a statement that several are questioning for various consoles because of the poor definition of "generation". On the other hand, if we break out by year ranges, these articles are now saying "Console X was released between Y1 and Y2", which is a pure statement of fact and cannot be denied. So we can easily pick whatever year ranges we think best, and it so happens that our current splits are actually fair for this. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not a poor definition of generation. Merely saying it doesn't make it so. And WE aren't picking and choosing sources. If we have several sources that say that the Odyssey2 is second generations, but only a couple that say it's first, we put it in the second generation and note that some sources like "x" and "y" believe it fits better into the first generation. That's how every article on WP works. Why we need to reinvent the wheel here is astounding to me. Furthermore, there are no RSs for the year groupings. You don't need a RS to state when a console came out, but you would if you are going to create a new article revolving around a category of games which were released in some year range that was chosen specifically to group consoles together in a certain way. If our current categories work for this, and we currently have sources that defend them, why are we having this conversation? The only issue I see is around the 3DS and NGS. For me, simple CALC would allow you to make an eighth generation claim on them. However, as I stated before, this is a problem that will disappear very shortly when RSs start to specifically name the eighth generation. I've said it before and I'll say it again, merely changing the names of current articles from generation-groupings to the exact same year-groupings does nothing except cause confusion and create vastly fewer (or perhaps remove altogether) any RSs which defend the categories.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem combining multiple sources like this: we have no idea if all journalists are using the same "scale" to measure generations. Unless a source calls out what it considers the previous generations to be, a source that only says "X is a 3rd gen console" gives us no idea what that compares to (as "generation" is a comparative term). We have no single expert source like there is for how paleontologists categorize all of prehistorical eras, or even more recently how historians catalog human eras like the Dark Ages or the Industrial Age. Instead we have a hodgepodge that WP may be influencing towards convergence towards an accepted ordering, but it's not present now. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem of discussing important competitive "stories" between rival consoles that cross a decade boundary can be handled. We don't have to be absolutely rigorous in what we discuss in each 'decade-article'. Let's take the abstract case where console "A" released in 1989 and was in intense competition with console "B" that released in 1990. We can briefly mention in the "Consoles of the 1980's" article that console A was released and later went into intense competition with console B - and link to the "Consoles of the 1990's" article. In the 1990's article, we say that console "B" released and tell the complete story of the intense competition with console "A". After all, we know when the competition started - it must have been in the 1990's because console B didn't exist in the 1980's. We don't have to have a knife-edge cut-off if the story demands that we don't. We simply have to make a choice as to which article to drop the full story into - and which to place a summary and a link. We can do this - Wikipedians do it all the time. It's not even controversial because everyone is happy so long as the story is told. Even if you disagree with me about the efficacy of this approach, the "generational" model of article-splitting suffers from the exact same problem because the most advanced "Second generation console" was competing against the first of the "Third generation console"s. If we can't agree where to put the story about consoles either side of a decade boundary - then we stand no chance of agreeing on where to put the story of a rivalry that crossed generational boundaries...or "bit-width" boundaries either. SteveBaker (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that that's possible, I'd only stipulate that decade segmentation still is too broad and would go with 5 year segments at largest. But that creates the problem that all the articles that we have have to be sorted and adjusted to fix that scheme. Certainly possible, but the most effort of all the choices. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that we're creating a buttload of problems and solving none.LedRush (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be the most effort, but it would also be the most neutral. Computer games are already sorted by this and there is FAR more evidence to support dividing them by CPU generation as software has been a well established field of study for years and yet we don't and no one seems to think its difficult to follow. Therefore the only real argument against doing this I see is the amount of effort it would take, which doesn't hold much weight.陣内_Jinnai 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'm using "decade" as an arbitary guess at where the split would come. If a particular "decade" article were to be too long - then splitting it into 5 year or even 1 year chunks would be fine by me.) SteveBaker (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this discussion has certainly become lengthy. My opinion on the subject concurs with SteveBaker. Despite repeated claims to the contrary, it has been shown reasonably well that there's no wide real-world consensus for generational boundaries. I too have worked in the industry previously and agree with previous comments that the term 'next generation' is used just as frequently as a sales or marketing buzzword than as a quantifiable thing. We wouldn't take a sales pitch about a car 'revolutionising the industry' and declare a real revolution had occured. In any contentious issue where multiple sources reflect differing views it's obvious that there's going to be a set of sources that could be seen to reflect a 'majority', but if Wikipedia explicitly rejects straw polls and vote counts and prefers to focus on consensus then I don't see why the same can't be applied to sourcing as well - that is, if there is disagreement of what constitutes a generational boundary (which there clearly is) then it should not ever be reported as fact, which an article title tends to imply.

Further, the term 'generation' is unclear and arguably misapplied here. Modern consoles even within the same supposed generation are vastly different from each other technologically, and really one need look no further than a hardware comparison of the Wii and the PS3 to prove that. Hardware releases are becoming more and more staggered to the point that some sources are even resorting to referring to some releases in half-generations (eg. 6.5th generation). Aside from the competitive intentions of the manufacturer, there's very little qualifying what a generation is supposed to be, and when you consider that almost every commercial product operates in some sort of competitive arrangement with other products, and yet no other article I could find on Wikipedia makes reference to generations (4th generation TV? 6th generation car? 25th generation toaster?). As a result, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that, particularly considering the contentious nature of the generational concept in this context, there's no reason to support it at all. Despite some editors' comments, I do believe there is a problem here with using generations authoritatively as we do, and I do believe it needs fixing.

Which leads to the question of how to resolve the issue. Before giving my answer I'll qualify that as far as I'm concerned, the amount of work required to fix the problem is completely irrelevant to whether or not a solution is appropriate or not. We're here to write a quality encyclopaedia, not to find the quickest, easiest, laziest way to get half-right information out to the masses. In light of this, I think the best solution is to break the generations down to appropriate divisions of even year blocks. For the 1970's perhaps it's appropriate to use a full decade, whereas for modern consoles it's probably more appropriate to use 5 year blocks. Any apparent loss of 'competitive comparison' can very easily be made up in the summaries (e.g. 'ConsoleX was released in 2000 and was intended to compete with the ConsoleY and ConsoleZ') and in the main articles themselves. Stating competitive intent directly resolves all of the 'sales pitch' problems inherent with using generations for such comparisons and makes it very clear to the reader what actually happened. It seems odd to classify the PS3 and the Xbox 360 together in the same generation when they were released 18 12 months apart - for anyone familiar with technology, 12 months is an eternity and yet the two consoles existing in the same generation implies that they're on comparable levels when they're really on competitive levels instead.

There's no reason not to mention generations in the various articles, but their contentious nature should be explicitly mentioned as well, and as such shouldn't have their authority elevated by being in the article title. On a similar note, I think it should be obvious that traditional consoles and handheld consoles should be separated - they have completely different hardware, completely different release cycles and very little in common with each other aside from occasional cross-released software. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please show me where there is "no real-world consensus for generational boundaries" please? Jinnai made an attempt to prove this, but his examples actually fit in very well with the current generational boundaries. Examples have proven that the vast majority of all citations call the NES a third generation machine, the SNES a fourth generation one, and the N64 a fifth generation. I mean, if showing you search results with hundreds and thousands of examples doesn't convince you, perhaps you need to check your motives. If we find enough citations that dispute the generation model (a significant minority), appropriate policy would be to include that significant minority viewpoint in the article (without giving it undue weight). Unfortunately, we haven't come close to that yet.

And this isn't an issue as to how much work it will take to have an appropriate system. It's about having verifiable information that is understandable and useful to a reader. You may think that the 360 and PS3 are so vastly different they shouldn't be in the same generation, but that opinion is not shared by any reliable sources (to my knowledge) and the entire world compares the two consoles as contemporary competitors. It baffles me as to why people want to make wikipedia harder to understand, more difficult to search, and less helpful to the reader, while at the same time removing the verifiability pillar which is supposed to underpin all of our efforts here.LedRush (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, there is no one expert reliable source that outlines, in one single work, the majority of the definitions for what each generation is. Until such a source is shown or comes into existence, any combination of multiple sources to create the distinction between generations is very much synthesis and original research of multiple disparate articles and will always beg to be questioned. We can be absolute when we use years of release to divvy the history up, and use common sense in the grouping to keep what are known as competitive consoles together in the same article. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well put, TechnoSymbiosis. I agree on all accounts. (I think...there was quite a bit there!) Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's very hard to prove a negative. Finding a reliable source that says that X is not Y is very hard. However, when I do a Google search on terms like "Nth generation console" (substitute your own value of 'N') - the overwhelming majority of search results are Wikipedia and it's mirrors and blog posts that refer to Wikipedia and it's mirrors.

Objectively though - the results are a mess. I don't want to descend into "fanboyism" (and I'm a game developer - trust me, there is no fanboyism in our community!) - but let's pick a recent example of generational misclassification: The Wii:

We have placed the Wii into the "7th generation" - but it's technologically a much weaker system than the original Xbox - which is placed in the "6th generation". The Wii's CPU is 729MHz, Xbox is 733Mhz, Wii's GPU is 243MHz, Xbox is 233Mhz. The Wii has no DVD or hard drive, the Xbox has both. The Wii can't generate HD video - Xbox can. Just about the only specification where the Wii exceeds the Xbox is memory capacity...which it needs precisely because it has no hard drive and a slow CD drive, which makes streaming content from disk without pausing the gameplay somewhat impractical. The most telling difference for a developer (like me!) is that the Wii's GPU is archaic - it doesn't even support shaders for chrissakes!! So, on what possible grounds could an objective observer place the Wii into the 7th generation? If it's because of those innovative controllers then shouldn't it be in the 8th generation, ahead of Xbox 360 and PS3 (neither of which had that feature at launch). The ONLY reason for putting what is (essentially) a speeded-up GameCube into the "7th generation" is because it was launched in the same timeframe as the Xbox-360 and PS-3. Technologically, it's on a par with Xbox and PS-2.

Don't get me wrong...the Wii has been a market leader over both Xbox-360 and PS-3 because it's cheap, it's tiny, and the creation of the "casual gaming" market made it "approachable" by a vastly wider demographic. It's a miraculous thing...and (IMHO) it will be remembered as a turning point in the history of computer games long after the Xbox-360 and PS3 are forgotten relics. But technologically, it's firmly back with the Xbox and PS-2. The vast majority of cross-platform "7th generation" games run on PC, Xbox-360 and PS-3 - but are never ported to the Wii because it just can't do the job.

So - what makes the Wii "7th generation" ? Objectively...nothing...it's placed into the 7th generation solely because of the date on which it was launched...no other reasons are plausible. If you have some more valid definition of what makes a console "7th generation" that's distinct from date of launch/manufacture/sales then I'd love to hear it!

When I worked at Midway games - around the time that the Xbox-360 and PS-3 were releasing machines to developers, we talked about those as "Next-gen" consoles. We didn't talk about the Wii as "Next-gen" - and we didn't consider writing "next-gen" games to run on it. When you can't come up with a solid definition of what makes a particular generation distinct from the previous one, the "generational" model is broken.

From our perspective, we should be telling a story - and that is essentially a chronological process. No discussion of the release of the 360 and PS3 would be complete without talking about the Wii - but that's purely a matter of the date on which each system was announced and subsequently released.

We shouldn't use generational nomenclature - it's not encyclopaedic. The argument that a lot of other sites use the term doesn't hold water...a lot of car sites talk about "super-cars" - but we don't use that term here for the exact same reason - there is no objective definition of it. We hear about movie "stars" and "super-stars" - we don't use those terms either. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve, your experience here can be helpful, but it doesn't really matter whether or not you called the Wii a "nex-gen" console or not, because all reliable sources called it one. When Jinnai tried to show discrepencies in the generation terms, the academic papers called the Wii seventh generation. Books call it seventh generation. Yes, many of the google results are from Wikipedia, so look at googleboooks or googlescholar. I'm not even asking you to do the searches yourself, simply click on the hyper-links in this very thread. It is extremely disingenuous to claim that we can't figure out what generation the Wii is when people have already linked some sources which do this in this thread. Ultimately, you may not like that everyone else claims that the Wii is seventh generation. You can think it's wrong. You can think it's stupid. But it doesn't matter. The reliable sources says it's seventh generation, so on Wikipedia that's what we write. If you want to cite other RSs which state why it doesn't belong, first find them. Then, add them to the current article.

To make it easier, this academic paper explains what is in a generation and why he's grouped them as such. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/nakamura/iar515p/gallagher_innovation.pdf

This academic presentation says the Wii is seventh generation. [1]

LedRush (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of generation

Ok, now LedRush has pointed out this paper [2] which does exactly what we needed, and unless I'm mistaken I've not seen this before. Google scholar pegs about 68 citings of it [3] so it's certainly not obscure.

This gives enough credence to continue to use the term "generation" as we are now (at least, IMO). I do note that the generations are based on the fixed console platforms and no mentions of portables. To that end, I will continue to suggest that the portable game system market be split out from the fixed console and, barring a similar breakdown like this paper, we can do those by 5-year decade increments as the number of systems are generally far fewer, and/or like recently becomes about mobile phone-based gaming in addition to dedicated game units. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We'd still need sources that list the 6th and 7th generation to mark any newer consoles because as mentioned several times here "next-gen" is a marketing term and we don't make policy on marketing terms else we'd be linking a lot more genres to our video games because marketers love to say there game is X genre when its not to boost sales. The same is true with next-gen.

This would also still require some reorganization. The first gen is not what we have listed as first gen.陣内_Jinnai 16:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The first link above has the sixth generation in it, and the second has the sixth and seventh. Regarding the Odyssey2, we should find out which generation most RSs put it in and keep it there. Then, we should note the minority viewpoint, assuming it is a significant one. LedRush (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your second link is some random source, so it's not really reliable compared to the peer-reviewed published paper that I'm starting from. That said, if we can find other peer-reviewed papers that cite the first paper but state the seventh generation, we're closer. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The second source is from the University of Maryland's Graphics and Visual Informatics Laboratory (GVIL). RSs need to be reliable in relation to the topic on hand. Surely an academic presentation published on the university website is verifiable and reliable enough for this proposition.LedRush (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This book preview shows a defition of the seventh generation (and I would guess that the book goes over all generations). The book also clearly talks about the PSP as a seventh generation and less clearly about the GBA and DS as sixth and seventh generation handhelds, respectively. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=epBIhmdsfxMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA184&dq=wii+seventh+generation&ots=9IbZE7z3EL&sig=AL7od0tw-uzu0EsBXc9cMqo3S_o#v=onepage&q=wii%20seventh%20generation&f=false LedRush (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)We have no idea if it has been peer-reviewed or not - that would be the equivalent of self-publishing.

Looking around more, I think we can establish from sources that the first 6 generations are based on the CPU word length (with the 6th gen being 128-bit), that's a definable metric from at least a couple papers. The problem with the seventh gen is that the CPU word length goes out the window with threaded processing, so what I'm trying to fin

(Note that once we figure this out, this needs to go into an article and referenced back in the generation articles. Also, I am still thinking this screams the breakout of the handhelds into their own series since none of these articles include mention of them.) --MASEM (t) 17:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article right above your post includes handhelds. And it defines the seventh generation.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That one can't be used because its 6th gen doesn't correspond to the 1st link in this subsection Masem posted. You can't just "assume" they took off the Dreamcast because it was an older system. Also there is the problem Masem pointed out that since the criteria for generations changed suddenly we would need to find a way that sources agree defines each new generation.陣内_Jinnai 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. I am not making any assumptions at all regarding why the DreamCast isn't on the list. We don't need every single source for a generation to be a 100% complete source for every generation and, quite honestly, any suggestion that we do is absurd. Regardless, it seems that Masem doesn't want to use that source, even though I believe it to clearly meet reliability standards, and so I've provided a different source for the seventh generation immediately above his post (you mistakenly thought I was referring to the powerpoint you found). For ease, this is the source http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=epBIhmdsfxMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA184&dq=wii+seventh+generation&ots=9IbZE7z3EL&sig=AL7od0tw-uzu0EsBXc9cMqo3S_o#v=onepage&q=wii%20seventh%20generation&f=false LedRush (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's absurd because there are no objective criteria for saying that some machine is or is not 6th generation. If there were then we'd be able to look at the specs for the Dreamcast and say "Yes, it's definitely gen 5" (or whatever it turns out to be). There are, no doubt, lots of references for "X is an Nth generation console" - but I don't see any that say "An Nth generation console is <list of specifications>". That's entirely analogous to the situation that WikiProject:Automobiles had with "supercar" and wound up with that term being expunged as a formal description of cars in Wikipedia. Everyone uses the term - a few people enumerate cars that clearly "are" supercars - and fanboys are left to argue endlessly about the others. We found a few places with half-hearted definitions - but they didn't work. In the end, it does us no good to have a pile of RS's a mile high that define the generations by "enumeration" - but that doesn't add one single fact about the machine in question. We wind up with "List of machines that people put in lists of machines" - which we can perfectly source - but has zero value. Knowing that an Xbox is 6th generation doesn't tell you a single thing about the console...nothing. What use is a classification system that doesn't classify?!

If you can find reliable sources that say what properties a console has to have to be considered "Nth generation" - then I'm right behind you...but you can't. For a while, we could reliably say that such-and-such was "8 bit" and such and such "16 bit" - and that was a pretty reasonable objective criteria...but from about "generation 3" onwards, there is no such clean distinction - and indeed, as I showed above, it's often totally nonsensical (classifying the Wii as one generation beyond Xbox, when in reality it is significantly LESS capable). Just as you can find sources to say that such-and-such was N'th generation - I can find reliable sources that say what year it was made in. The difference is that there is no debate about the year numbers - and there is considerable debate about the "generation" thing. SteveBaker (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What debate exists about the generation term (outside of Wikipedia)? Could you please show me the sources that talk about a debate? Another difference is that the years are either not citable (if they keep the generation structure) or not helpful (if they choose the random year structure).

Regardles, the cite I gave above talks about what makes a generation a generation (hint, it's not CPU size.)LedRush (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for being dense - but I don't see where it says that. The nearest thing I see is "The transition from the sixth to seventh generation era video game is characterized by the development and universal adaptation to the handheld unit." - which confuses FAR more than it helps! What makes a Wii seventh generation is that there are handheld games out there?!? That can't be what you mean. SteveBaker (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really matter whether or not you like the definition (in fact, we don't need a definition at all...the definition is clearly understood by what it defines), but the discussion of the meaning of the generations to which I referred was in the first citation I gave (and, in fact, Jinnai first displayed above). The discussion/definition is descriptive, not prescriptive. The paper makes several mentions of different technologies and standards for each generation, and mentions changing dominant designs and competitors in different generations. Furthermore, the source says (on the first full paragraph on the second column of page 70) that rivalry, manufacturers, introduction date, and graphics processing power (which he notes in the past has always had 100% increase) are also factors. Again, I don't believe we need a specific definition which we then impose on the world (seeing as that is original research which would be specifically disallowed by wikipedia policy), but academic papers have clearly tackled the issues of different generations, and other sources cite them. This is a non-issue and we need to move on to discussing how to improve the content of the articles, and not the names of them.LedRush (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that is a poor description. I don't understand what that really means since handhelds had been adopted long before the Wii. If that's the basis I'd question the validity of the research that went behind that source, reliable or not.陣内_Jinnai 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my lack of proper indentation made you miss my last post.LedRush (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw it. It does matter because you're promoting synthesis. Masems source + that source do not equal generation 1-7 because there are discrepencies. and lack of continuality with regard to bits. If they were all 256-bit systems that might be different.陣内_Jinnai 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's bogus anyway - there is no way a "7th gen" Wii has 100% more graphics power than a "6th gen" Xbox - and claiming that the transition point that separates GameCube/PS2/Xbox from Wii/PS3/Xbox360 is the arrival of handhelds...whaaay whaat? THIS is supposed to be our "reliable source"?!? It's pure, premium bull(Word automatically removed)! Just because something is written and published doesn't make it true...and this certainly isn't. This is just another example of fuzzy thinking and vague hand-wavey definitions of these "generations" of console. The real, true reason these consoles are grouped the way they are is that they were all announced at about the same time and released within a year or so of each other. It's a chronological grouping, pure and simple. SteveBaker (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Steve, the source has many descriptions of what demarcates the generations and never claims that all must be met. Also, are you mixing up the sources...where does the academic paper to which I last referred make that claim about handhelds? Also, as I stated above, you don't have to like the definition. You seem to mistaking the purpose of Wikipedia...we deal in verifiable claims from reliable sources, not truth (as you see it).

Jinnai, there is no SYNTH going on. If a RS says that a console was in a specific generation, we write it down. If there is disagreement, we find out which is the majority view and which is the minority view and weigh them appropriately. This is quite simple. LedRush (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have asked whether these are synth/original research issues or not on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#History_of_video_game_consoles_.28seventh_generation.29 LedRush (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your academic paper source originally interested me as a possible solution to this issue, but on reading through it in detail I agree with SteveBaker that the claims and assertions made in it are very poorly defined. I was hoping we could use this as a high quality reliable source but I'm not so sure we can. Are there any other academic papers or industry-accepted documents on the subject that we can use to support your academic source? I do believe that if we can find a high quality reliable source here then we can reasonably move the boundary issues to a section note in the various articles, but as it is I'm somewhat inclined to regard the current one as a regular RS instead of a HQ one.

I think Steve's reference to the supercar issue above is valid. What we have are sources saying 'X is Nth generation' but nothing in reverse clearly stating 'Nth generation is defined as X/Y/Z'. We have one source that tries to define a few elements but admits that they're not even necessary for a console to be considered Nth generation. It's just too spurious in my opinion to appear prominently in the article title of an encyclopaedia. I still think dividing things into year groups isn't nearly as terrible as you suggest; it's very easy for us to make clear (and in few words) how the consoles relate to each other competitively without resorting to this ill-defined 'generation' concept, and fundamentally that's the only useful information that the generations give us. As I said above, it's clear that generations are an idea that has sources and should be mentioned in the articles, but they're not definitive enough to be used as a statement of fact in the article title. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, the fact that the generations are being argued about at this length is further proof that it's not the best way to organize things. Even if we ever do get to an agreement, it's going to be impossible to ever explain it to anyone else at this rate. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is OR/Synth to take the defitinion of a Generation from one source and apply it to another to say that x console can't be part of y generation because of that definition. And the current grouping is quite intuitive and easy to understand. Just because the arguments around the editors who don't like it is convuluted and difficult to grasp doesn't make the article itself difficult. And seeing this is how almost everyone naturally views the products, I don't see the problem here being ease of understanding.LedRush (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If we had a solid definition of what constituted an N'th generation console - then perhaps what you say might be true - but we don't, so your concern is irrelevant. If there were some solid definitions (like, hypothetically: "A console is considered to be 7th Generation if it has a GPU clock speed over 400MHz" or perhaps "A console is considered to be 7th gen if it can run GTA IV") then the reliable sources would be applying those definitions - so we'd have no problem finding and using such sources and no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH would be involved. There would be no debate about whether a particular console is in some particular generation or not.

(It doesn't matter here - but IMHO, you can push the "No Synth" argument to crazy extremes - like that we can't claim that John F. Kennedy was "a human being" because we can't find a reliable source that says exactly that...and deducing it from his parentage, appearance and general behavior would be WP:SYNTH. IMHO, applying a definition such as the one I hypothesised above by looking up the capabilities of each console in reliable sources and comparing them to those criteria - is about as far from WP:SYNTH as is my JFK example.)

The difficulty here is that we are trying to write an article about "7th Generation video game consoles" - and right there in the very first sentence of the lede, we need to be able to say "A 7th Generation Video Game Console is..." - and insert our definition. But we can't. We're writing an article about something we can't even find a simple definition of. We're left with "A 7th Generation video game console is a Wii, an Xbox-360 or a PS-3." ...which really makes the reader say "Eh? Why?"...and we don't have an answer because there isn't one. So we stick with this "generational" nomenclature, we'll end up with ledes that read like the lede of Supercar. Urgh!

Wikipedia has this situation all the time. I've been using the "Supercar" example - but there are plenty of others. We had to delete ALL of the articles that purported to list Megafauna (roughly: "Large animals") because there is no good definition of what the word means. Hence there were exactly these kinds of issues - should a Lion be added to List of African Megafauna or not? What about a rabbit? A mouse? Everyone "knows" a megafauna when they see one - but it simply isn't an encyclopeadic term - so it had to go. Same deal here.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do have a definition, and you have thrown it out because when you apply it to cases outside the source, you think that it would not match what everyone agrees is the seventh generation. That is OR.LedRush (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please give us that sourced definition that is agreed upon by many sources for the seventh generation, then - and not one defined by the consoles within it, but instead the properties of those consoles or some other metric. From what I've seen, this is an impossibility because while sources certainly agree to a point of what goes into a generation, they don't agree as to what defines it.

This is why if we simply replace the generation terms in the titles with the year range for console release, and then establish, in the opening lead, that "Consoles released between Y and Z are commonly considered the Xth generation" with various sources, we have removed every problem with potential OR and the like, we still keep the idea of generations (and thus can use redirects to these pages), and there's almost no work to correct everything else. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cent listing

This discussion has been listed on WP:CENT, though it is not clear that this is an appropriate topic for CENT. See WP:CENTNOT. The listing has been phrased that this is an OR question, yet it appears to be more a discussion by a WikiProject on how best to organise and title information within the WikiProject's topic. This is very content specific, and not something that those who have little knowledge or experience of the topic can accurately help with. You are all aware of the existing guidelines and policies, and have appropriately referenced them in your discussion. The decision you reach will not have significant impact on other topics, as it is very topic specific. It appears to me that you are aware of the problem, know that it needs sorting, and are taking appropriate steps to put the matter right.

If you would like independent views on the situation I suggest you put together some proposals for solution, and then request assistance to look over your proposals. It would help if you made your proposals quite clear and quite short. Most editors will not have the time or motivation to read through the 3,500 words on this page - to put that into perspective, it would take an average reader between 15 and 20 minutes to read through it all and would even then have only got 50% of the information, and that's without looking at the links or articles themselves.

My independent suggestion for a way forward would be to start with History of video games. The article is currently split into main sections titled by decade, and these main sections link to summary articles such as 1980s in video gaming. These decade articles appear under utilised, and little more than disambiguation pages directing readers to the nth generation articles. The decade articles could be developed further to give a more appropriate overview.

The structuring, titling and definition of the nth generation articles has been questioned, though this appears largely due to lack of appropriate citing. There are sources for the early generations, "second generation" and "fourth generation", etc, though by the time of the "sixth generation" it appears that sources are thin and not clear, and perhaps more care in definition is needed.

My suggestions:

• Clean up and source the main History of video games article
• Develop the decade articles.
• Source the use of terms such as "second generation" and "early 8 bit era" (the sources are there!).
• Rename the nth generation articles to such as Second generation video game consoles or Early 8 bit era video game consoles, where there are sources to clearly support such titles
• Adjust and source the article leads to indicate the way that manufacturers and reliable sources talk about the consoles. It may well be the case that some consoles may be called fourth generation by one source and sixth generation by another. That is something that the articles should be indicating, and as topic specialists you guys need to be working out the best way of handling that, and if it means that a bunch of consoles which were released in the 2000s are sometimes called fourth and sometimes sixth generation, then perhaps it would be better to deal with those consoles in an article called 2000s in video game consoles, and mention that sources and manufacturers call them different generations.

I hope that this helps. SilkTork *^YES! 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, to summarize the situation neutrally:

• The subject of the history of video game consoles cannot be easily summarized in a single article, and thus we're looking to how to break it up into appropriately digestible chunks.
• There are three possible solutions for this:
  1. Break up by this idea of console "generation" (the status quo). This is the larger problem that I'll comment on below.
  2. Break up by year ranges roughly equivalent to the ranges presently used for "generation", using the console's release date to denote membership in a given year range. Again, see below
  3. Break up by fixed year segments, again based on console release date.
• That's the simple problem and one that is really containd to the VG project. The larger problem where other WP policies come into play is this idea of "generations", where some believe sources define them well, others believe is it original research (one that possibly has lead to larger use of the term generation in outside sources due to WP's reputation). If one takes the point that "generation" is a loaded word, then one can see why the status quo is an issue, and why the second solution at least removes that with minimal work, but then some argue that our selection of year ranges could be seen as OR (hence the neutral third solution) If one doesn't see any problems with the "generations", then the status quo seems fine.
• We're trying to figure out to exactly what extent we can use the idea of "generations" with what the sources get. We're clear that we have to use a lot of sources to come up with a larger definition of the space, so a question of SYNTH comes into play as well. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Great summary, Masem. My only points would be that some editors believe that we already have a good definition of "generation" while some don't think so and that some editors don't believe we need a definition for the term, while others do.LedRush (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2