This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
“Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor”
The current consensus regarding the intro, and that it is an “upcoming” game console has been disputed. I recommend editors provide citations to the rest of the editing community so the rest of us can discuss the facts.
Some have the belief that the intro the way it is reflects the current consensus. Others disagree. Please feel free to discuss both sides of the argument, and use of language, here. Please do not revert edits without providing guidance as to why you feel this reflects the consensus, and why you feel the previous editor it is wrong.
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 20:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 20:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Feel free to start by providing reliable secondary sources supporting that a change is needed. --
ferret (
talk) 20:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
We encourage you to do the same. Please provide reliable sources supporting the upcoming status of this console.
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 20:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Who's we? You have failed to provide any sourcing in your last two talk sections, or past edits.
WP:BURDEN lies with the one trying to enact a change. Provide a reliable source that the product has been official cancelled or is otherwise confirmed defunct. --
ferret (
talk) 20:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
We is the majority of editors that disagree that the console is indeed upcoming. You have also failed to provide any reliable sources that justify the reversions.
“The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material”. Please note the “or restores” part.
What are you talking about? It's been listed as still active as recently as July 2022 by
reliable sources like IGN. It is not up to editors to declare projects active or inactive. Until you have a reliable source verifying its inactive, we go by the most recent accounts, which are the July 2022 accounts.
Sergecross73msg me 20:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Please cite your evidence as fact then in the introduction to avoid confusion in the future, and lead to a better overall article.
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I copy-pasted it from the discussion directly above, that someone posted days weeks ago. Do a better job reading past disputes before jumping head-first into new ones.
Sergecross73msg me 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Please cite it in the article, and please avoid being so curt with your responses. As I said, I have acted within the guidelines as stated regarding disputes. The formatting and request for discussion is correct.
It's already in the article. People are irritated because we've discussed and resolved this already.
Sergecross73msg me 21:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
It is not resolved. People keep changing the article. It has been disputed. It was reverted without discussion.
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 21:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Arguments are weighted by their validity on Wikipedia. It is not enough to just object. You need a policy based reason for your objection, or it gets ignored. Additionally, please read
WP:BURDEN and
WP:NOCONSENSUS. Even in times of active dispute, you default to the version prior to the change, and only end up making the change if there is consensus to do so. In this case, the disputed change is going from "upcoming" to something more passive or past tense. We default to "upcoming" until there's us a policy based consensus for change.
Sergecross73msg me 21:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@Sergecross73 "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The majority of editors besides yourself disagree.
2003:E6:EF05:2743:29BE:64A5:F8DF:F9AE (
talk) 21:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
That doesn't make any sense to this situation. There is no greater community consensus against the small consensus present here. Quite the opposite. There's no precedent of removing "upcoming" from a commercial product just because some people personally don't think it'll come out. That violates
WP:V and
WP:OR.
Sergecross73msg me 21:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Consensus is decided by talk page discussions and strength of policy-based arguments, not the reverts of an indeterminate number anonymous editors. It's not just a vote or popularity contest.
Sergecross73msg me 21:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
See the section above. There's clear consensus and precedent for listing it as upcoming, along with sources that verify it. No one has written a policy-based counterpoint.
Sergecross73msg me 20:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The consensus has been disputed, and the method in which editors revert changes has also been challenged with not being in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
The dispute has also been reverted, without discussion before doing so, despite being within Wikipedia guidelines.
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
How? The discussion above was a very concrete 3 against one. And the dissenting "1" gave no policy-based argument.
Sergecross73msg me 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Read the section directly above. It was discussed and resolved weeks ago. You're extremely late to the party.
Sergecross73msg me 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
As I wrote, and I will write it again. The guidelines have been followed. The issue is not resolved because people continue to make edits disputing what you keep reverting.
I'll be happy to discuss with anyone who can present a Wikipedia policy-based reason to discuss. The discussion has been extremely one-sided when it comes to policy based rationales thus far.
Sergecross73msg me 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Cool. Feel free to start describing your policy based argument.
Sergecross73msg me 21:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Drive by people who don't understand our sourcing guidelines do not a "dispute" make. You also understand we are technically fluent enough to tell when an IP editor is the same one from another day/week/month, right? --
ferret (
talk) 21:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
@Ferret I do. Nor do I care. If you feel you need to take actions to reveal my identity or block me, do it. I disagree with you, plain and simple. If you want your version of this to be the only version - lock the page.
2003:E6:EF05:2743:29BE:64A5:F8DF:F9AE (
talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see the need to do either, I'm just making sure you understand that "we" know how many of these supposed disputed edits and talk sections are simply one person. I've already locked the page under our protection policy. --
ferret (
talk) 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I do understand that “we” know. As for seeing the need. That is speculative at best, and quite scary at worst that you would have such powers at Wikipedia.
2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (
talk) 22:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Are you going to give a policy based argument, or are you just here to gripe and complain?
Sergecross73msg me 22:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
As much as it is the opinion of many (including myself) that the console won't come out, that's what it is - an opinion. Reliable sources say that it is upcoming, and thus the article should treat it as such.
LilianaUwU(
talk /
contribs) 22:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Precisely. My stance doesn't come from some sort of staunch personal belief that it's going to be released someday. This is merely about follow
WP:V and
WP:OR.
Sergecross73msg me 22:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I assure you, IP, that there are many more people that would have reverted the change if Sergecross hadn't, myself included. It should read "upcoming" until reliable sources have stated otherwise. –
Pbrks(
t •
c) 22:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
FWIW,
Salvidrim! posted a handful of articles on the Wikipedia Discord that may indicate that the Amico is all but officially cancelled. I'm copy-pasting them here:
12345LilianaUwU(
talk /
contribs) 22:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Right, guess I really should havec chimed in here, so let me repeat -- I think we should favor framing the console's status less as a "statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice", and more as "direct reporting of first-party messaging", to attributed the claims instead of taking them on as facts. For example, instead of saying the console is unambiguously "upcoming", say something like it is "announced" or something. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm all for adding sourced commentary on it - there's certainly plenty of industry pessimism on it. Plenty of ways to add that industry sentiment with the proper context. But if we're talking about opening sentence defining the subject itself? We've got to stick to upcoming as long as as that's the official status.
Sergecross73msg me 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I would prefer omitting the word "upcoming" entirely. I think the first two sentences of the lead would be sufficient and are crystal clear as to the current status of the project. "The Intellivision Amico is a home video game console that is being developed and marketed by Intellivision Entertainment. It was originally slated to be released in October 2020, but repeated delays followed, leaving the console without a release date." Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 23:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I would support that. You went through the effort of sharing sources and proposed revised wording to go along with it, which no one else did.
TarkusABtalk/
contrib 00:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The sources of Salvidrim! are problematic. I only see two that are reliable and the article about "trademark abandoned" was corrected a few days later as "live" and what was mentioned as "not long for this world" was almost a year ago with no indication its dire predictions have come true except that things are the same as they were a year ago. Releasing games on other systems is two-sided. It is a source of revenue, which it was claimed in one of the sources was not occurring, but also a sign that changes in policy were necessary to make that revenue. I don't believe that Salvidrim! has persuading contributions although it may be the sourced journalists' (sometimes sensationalized) speculation. I can look into the reliability of the two other sources besides VGC and Ars Technica, but it is too late in the night now.
97.127.50.85 (
talk) 06:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
A couple of the other sources were written by Damien McFerran who runs Nintendo Life and is generally considered reliable.
TarkusABtalk/
contrib 07:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
TimeExtension is already considered reliable (same site as NintendoLife). You're right that SixthAxis is generally not. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 15:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
To clarify: Source (1) is a red herring that was back-peddled by VGC and IGN a few days later stating the trademark was live. Source (2) is ten months old and mentions scenarios where the console is not released as "possible" not "probable." Yet, IGN and VGC report the Amico is still planning to release the console as of July 2022. Source (3) was addressed above. Source (4) mentions releasing two games on other platforms without really condemning it and is a source of revenue for them, while the rest of the article is a rehash of their previous article. Source (5) is not a reliable source. I'm not saying getting to manufacturing isn't a long shot. Things are not all rainbows. However, I don't believe these sources support breaking with convention with, as stated in previous discussion, delayed releases which are not rare instances and still stated as upcoming. That is my honest assessment. (Same editor, different computer)
156.98.51.15 (
talk) 15:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I still agree with this sentiment. I have no problem packing the article with reliably sourced pessimism on its release, but the most recent word - the IGN source - is that it's still coming, and I think that needs to be how the product is defined in its opening sentence.
Sergecross73msg me 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
There are no further readily-available sources for new announcements on the console. I would like someone to find some for this article, please.
45.72.206.128 (
talk) 19:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I dont believe there's anything to document since the July 7th developments already in the article.
Sergecross73msg me 20:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
We're going to need a better source. TheGamer is iffy, and their "source" is just a random Twitter fan on Discord or whatever.
Sergecross73msg me 19:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Come on, look at your own source. It says "The Gamer" in big print at the top. They're just hosting the same article, which is based on the same exact rumor from a random fan account.
Sergecross73msg me 03:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I read "both" articles, and it seems the news here boils down to "nope lol". The possibility of them having started working on it before actually having the rights would probably be worrisome enough, if there was any actual proof that it happened besides one guy saying it might have maybe probably happened, and a news outlet saying it would be kind of uncool if it did.
Ironically, this is one of the few moments where Tommy's word might have some value, even if it's left up to wild interpretation.
Either way, the fact that they seem to have thrown around the concept of around four pieces of EwJ media, but don't seem to have elaborated on any of them (despite already having some dosh to work with) might be enough to keep this fiasco out of this wiki's scope for now.
cogsan (
talk) 11:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If they bought the brand, why are you certain they wouldn't use the brand name anymore?
Sergecross73msg me 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Because
that's exactly what the news reports said. Did you misunderstand what was announced? The company behind the Amico sold the Intellivision name and historic library to Atari, but not the Amico itself. They no longer own the Intellivision name. Atari will use the name for products based on the library (as they have with other historic properties they've acquired), but Atari has nothing to do with the Amico.
oknazevad (
talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how "The remaining Intellivision Entertainment LLC will therefore rebrand to a different name" can be any more clear. And the Atari press release not only states that the company soon-to-be-formerly known as Intellivision Entertainment will rebrand, but also calls it the "Amico brand console" with no "Intellivision" in its name. I'd say the announcement is explicit that the console no longer bears the Intellivision branding. The idea that they would license back the name for use in the console (if it ever actually gets released) is not supported and pure speculation.
oknazevad (
talk) 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My concerns that that we have no idea what it will be named though. They might called it the "Super Amico" or the "AmicoCube" or maybe they'll drop it entirely and call it a "Atari Retrobox" or something. (Honestly, the word "Amico" probably has more negative connotations than Intellivision on a whole, which at least has a more positive back history.) We just don't know. We shouldn't make a call until we know more.
Sergecross73msg me 20:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Why would they call it "Atari Retrobox". Again, I think you misunderstand that Atari has not acquired the Amico business. That remains with the existing owners. Atari acquired the Intellivision name, not the Amico.
oknazevad (
talk) 04:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you're missing the point, that we have no idea what it will be called, and no confirmation that just "Amico", is where it's headed. This proposal violates COMMONNAME and
WP:CRYSTAL, and there's simply to reason to be racing towards a rename like this.
Sergecross73msg me 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I can concede to TOOSOON, though I will note that many console articles don't include the manufacturer in the title in the first place even when the branding does.
oknazevad (
talk) 14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Each console has different intersections with
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NATDIS. Officially, the GameCube is "Nintendo GameCube", but we omit that per COMMONNAME and no need to disambiguate. On the flip side, officially,
Nintendo Switch is not official. It's simply "Switch". But that requires disambiguation, and Nintendo Switch is natural compared to Switch (console). This is another such case of natural disambiguation. --
ferret (
talk) 14:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My concern is that the natural disambiguation is no longer accurate. The company behind the Amico console is no longer called Intellivision as they sold off that trademark (but not the console) to Atari SA. Yes, this far it's been the name of the console and most references use it, but
WP:NAMECHANGES comes into play, as the Intellivision name is no longer correct to use with the console.
oknazevad (
talk) 14:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Obvious OPPOSED as essentially "too soon". WP:COMMONNAME hasn't even begun to shift, nor do we know what the final new name will be. Essentially all sourcing, outside of Atari press release, still refers to "Intellivision Amico". --
ferret (
talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - It is far too soon to know how the console will be named after the Atari adquisition of the Intellivision brand.
Roberth Martinez (
talk) 02:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support The consensus at this time is that this era of Intellivision is over. For Atari to allow such a direct association with the brand would further its depreciation.
217.227.234.80 (
talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
We make decisions based on Wikipedia policy, not what Atari's marketing team likes.
Sergecross73msg me 21:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Atari's marketing team is irrelevant. Again, Atari did not buy this console.
oknazevad (
talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is true. The issue with your argument is not that it isn’t based on reality - it has be based within Wikipedia’s universe. In order to achieve the change it has be based on consensus and additionally proven using Wikipedia’s policies. Your effort will not my succeed otherwise. Example: your move request was not swatted down instantly because Wikipedia forbids it.
217.227.234.80 (
talk) 16:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The entire article details this subject under its development by Intellivision. If no more development or news about occurred from here forth, the article would be aptly named, therefore it is currently aptly named.
WP:COMMONNAME,
WP:TOOSOON, and
WP:CRYSTAL are relevant. –
Pbrks(t·
c) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.