T
TrainTrash
Guest
Proposal: Reply
[td]::::I can accept that the solution to this ''might ''not be "organize console history by dates," though that seems to be what the rest of Wikipedia largely uses, as well the rest of the video game history template, but it cannot be, "well, it's not original research anymore if we have an example of the press saying "seventh generation console," never mind the concept is still defined and propagated here. [[User:TrainTrash|TrainTrash]] ([[User talk:TrainTrash|talk]]) 03:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]:::::Which is why we should have a history that actually looks at events from a chronological view, and the generations which are basically discussing how consoles have been grouped by reliable sources, generally which cover consoles released over a given year range, but with the generations we won't get hung up on the overlap, as they would not be articles about the history of consoles. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 03:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::Which is why we should have a history that actually looks at events from a chronological view, and the generations which are basically discussing how consoles have been grouped by reliable sources, generally which cover consoles released over a given year range, but with the generations we won't get hung up on the overlap, as they would not be articles about the history of consoles. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 03:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::::::"generations which are basically discussing how consoles have been grouped by reliable sources"[/td] [td]::::::"Basically" is doing so much work here: this is just not true. Can you cite the reliable sources that define what a "second generation" console is and aren't citogenesis? If a YouTuber sneezes and "9th generation console" comes out, it doesn't make it not original research. The ''names'' of each generation come from Wikipedia![/td] [td]::::::"but with the generations we won't get hung up on the overlap"[/td] [td]::::::This is such a slight reason to prefer such a poor (and policy violating) framework, especially when each article already does that summary of prior history and future impact already. I don't think this position is arguable, frankly. You don't get to decide what the sources say or what to get hung up on or not: you follow the sources. Even if you think games media has validated part of the concept (and indeed you can cite that when it happens), there's no source that's goign to validate the specific definitions you have on each page and assign them a numbered generation. Like I could remove them right now, it's all unsourced. Then what does the article even describe? [[User:TrainTrash|TrainTrash]] ([[User talk:TrainTrash|talk]]) 04:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]'''Comment''': I reading most people trying to obligate this as a vote. In the current form, I haven't seen any strong arguments in my opinion that when established, it was a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] and despite other sources adapting what was organized here, it has been to been "[https://www.timeextension.com/featu...y-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations an invention of wikipedia creators] and other sources conflict on what could belong in specific "generations" such as this [https://news.google.com/newspapers?...3515660&dq=third+generation+video+games&hl=en newspaper article calling ColecoVision]] as third-generation technology. (which would throw the current naming convention into a tizzy). If going forward with splitting into time periods would be to not concern that much about overlap. When I was writing the [[History of horror films]] article, I expanded material into decades, but obviously, there will be overlap when certain event arise (i.e: The Ring's release in the late 90s bleeds influence into the next decade). I solved this by stating an event began in the said decade, and its influenced or lifespan or whatever traced on beyond the period. Yes this gets re-iterated a sliver in the next decade article, but that's a very small price to pay. That being said, if no agreement can be said on how to organize the articles, it may be worth it to [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over|blow it up and start over]]. While I'd love to weed out what's wrong, the problem is rooted in how it was organized in the first place. This is a good example of creating articles based on assumed beliefs instead of writing it on material available. Just leads to messes like this. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 02:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]'''Comment''': I reading most people trying to obligate this as a vote. In the current form, I haven't seen any strong arguments in my opinion that when established, it was a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] and despite other sources adapting what was organized here, it has been to been "[https://www.timeextension.com/featu...y-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations an invention of wikipedia creators] and other sources conflict on what could belong in specific "generations" such as this [https://news.google.com/newspapers?...3515660&dq=third+generation+video+games&hl=en newspaper article calling ColecoVision]] as third-generation technology. (which would throw the current naming convention into a tizzy). If going forward with splitting into time periods would be to not concern that much about overlap. When I was writing the [[History of horror films]] article, I expanded material into decades, but obviously, there will be overlap when certain event arise (i.e: The Ring's release in the late 90s bleeds influence into the next decade). I solved this by stating an event began in the said decade, and its influenced or lifespan or whatever traced on beyond the period. Yes this gets re-iterated a sliver in the next decade article, but that's a very small price to pay. That being said, if no agreement can be said on how to organize the articles, it may be worth it to [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over|blow it up and start over]]. While I'd love to weed out what's wrong, the problem is rooted in how it was organized in the first place. This is a good example of creating articles based on assumed beliefs instead of writing it on material available. Just leads to messes like this. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 02:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 592: | Line 592: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]::::I can accept that the solution to this ''might ''not be "organize console history by dates," though that seems to be what the rest of Wikipedia largely uses, as well the rest of the video game history template, but it cannot be, "well, it's not original research anymore if we have an example of the press saying "seventh generation console," never mind the concept is still defined and propagated here. [[User:TrainTrash|TrainTrash]] ([[User talk:TrainTrash|talk]]) 03:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]Revision as of 04:28, 3 September 2025
[/td][td]::::I can accept that the solution to this ''might ''not be "organize console history by dates," though that seems to be what the rest of Wikipedia largely uses, as well the rest of the video game history template, but it cannot be, "well, it's not original research anymore if we have an example of the press saying "seventh generation console," never mind the concept is still defined and propagated here. [[User:TrainTrash|TrainTrash]] ([[User talk:TrainTrash|talk]]) 03:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]:::::Which is why we should have a history that actually looks at events from a chronological view, and the generations which are basically discussing how consoles have been grouped by reliable sources, generally which cover consoles released over a given year range, but with the generations we won't get hung up on the overlap, as they would not be articles about the history of consoles. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 03:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::Which is why we should have a history that actually looks at events from a chronological view, and the generations which are basically discussing how consoles have been grouped by reliable sources, generally which cover consoles released over a given year range, but with the generations we won't get hung up on the overlap, as they would not be articles about the history of consoles. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 03:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::::::"generations which are basically discussing how consoles have been grouped by reliable sources"[/td] [td]::::::"Basically" is doing so much work here: this is just not true. Can you cite the reliable sources that define what a "second generation" console is and aren't citogenesis? If a YouTuber sneezes and "9th generation console" comes out, it doesn't make it not original research. The ''names'' of each generation come from Wikipedia![/td] [td]::::::"but with the generations we won't get hung up on the overlap"[/td] [td]::::::This is such a slight reason to prefer such a poor (and policy violating) framework, especially when each article already does that summary of prior history and future impact already. I don't think this position is arguable, frankly. You don't get to decide what the sources say or what to get hung up on or not: you follow the sources. Even if you think games media has validated part of the concept (and indeed you can cite that when it happens), there's no source that's goign to validate the specific definitions you have on each page and assign them a numbered generation. Like I could remove them right now, it's all unsourced. Then what does the article even describe? [[User:TrainTrash|TrainTrash]] ([[User talk:TrainTrash|talk]]) 04:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]'''Comment''': I reading most people trying to obligate this as a vote. In the current form, I haven't seen any strong arguments in my opinion that when established, it was a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] and despite other sources adapting what was organized here, it has been to been "[https://www.timeextension.com/featu...y-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations an invention of wikipedia creators] and other sources conflict on what could belong in specific "generations" such as this [https://news.google.com/newspapers?...3515660&dq=third+generation+video+games&hl=en newspaper article calling ColecoVision]] as third-generation technology. (which would throw the current naming convention into a tizzy). If going forward with splitting into time periods would be to not concern that much about overlap. When I was writing the [[History of horror films]] article, I expanded material into decades, but obviously, there will be overlap when certain event arise (i.e: The Ring's release in the late 90s bleeds influence into the next decade). I solved this by stating an event began in the said decade, and its influenced or lifespan or whatever traced on beyond the period. Yes this gets re-iterated a sliver in the next decade article, but that's a very small price to pay. That being said, if no agreement can be said on how to organize the articles, it may be worth it to [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over|blow it up and start over]]. While I'd love to weed out what's wrong, the problem is rooted in how it was organized in the first place. This is a good example of creating articles based on assumed beliefs instead of writing it on material available. Just leads to messes like this. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 02:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]'''Comment''': I reading most people trying to obligate this as a vote. In the current form, I haven't seen any strong arguments in my opinion that when established, it was a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] and despite other sources adapting what was organized here, it has been to been "[https://www.timeextension.com/featu...y-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations an invention of wikipedia creators] and other sources conflict on what could belong in specific "generations" such as this [https://news.google.com/newspapers?...3515660&dq=third+generation+video+games&hl=en newspaper article calling ColecoVision]] as third-generation technology. (which would throw the current naming convention into a tizzy). If going forward with splitting into time periods would be to not concern that much about overlap. When I was writing the [[History of horror films]] article, I expanded material into decades, but obviously, there will be overlap when certain event arise (i.e: The Ring's release in the late 90s bleeds influence into the next decade). I solved this by stating an event began in the said decade, and its influenced or lifespan or whatever traced on beyond the period. Yes this gets re-iterated a sliver in the next decade article, but that's a very small price to pay. That being said, if no agreement can be said on how to organize the articles, it may be worth it to [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over|blow it up and start over]]. While I'd love to weed out what's wrong, the problem is rooted in how it was organized in the first place. This is a good example of creating articles based on assumed beliefs instead of writing it on material available. Just leads to messes like this. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 02:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td]
Continue reading...
