Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/RfC on video game console grouping/Archive 1

When a group of new video game consoles shows up, it is universally accepted to refer to them as "next generation", and to the current or previous group as "last gen". There are terms like "8-bit era" can be clearly defined by hardware. The problem is, as more time passes, the groupings become less distinct; release dates stagger, the hardware differences more abstract and sources may have different or unclear criteria for what constitutes the "next generation". There is no "industry standard" term for each generation of hardware.

As of now, Wikipedia's video game history articles are broken-up by numbered "generations" (such as History of video game consoles (seventh generation)). Some editors believe that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as these terms are not consistent from source-to-source, if they are used at all. Should we keep numbered generations? Should we switch to years (perhaps decades) as dividing points? Or back to hardware (like 8-bit era)? Is there some more reliable scheme? ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I have moved the previous conversations to this page ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: There is a directly-related conversation at No original research/Noticeboard. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  08:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The amount of mistakes in this "neutral" opening is staggering. Try this.

When a group of new video games consoles shows up, it is universally accepted to refer to them as "next generation", and to the current or previous group as "last gen". The groupings have become more consolidated and uniform over time, with more conforming release dates. The sources almost universally agree as to whether or not most consoles are in one generation or another. There is a very clear accepted standard for this in reliable sources, but not a standard quantified by techno-jargon. As of now, Wikipedia's video game history articles are broken-up by numbered "generations" (such as History of video game consoles (seventh generation)). Some editors believe that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because there are only a couple of reliable sources which attempt to define every single generation in one central location. However, RfCs have indicated that 100% of disinterested editors believe that there are RSs for the term. Should we keep the numbered generations and the thousands of RSs which buttress them, or switch to a more confusing or less citable method?LedRush (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A More NPOV and Factual Intro to Discussion
When a group of new video games consoles shows up, it is universally accepted to refer to them as "next generation", and to the current or previous group as "last gen". The groupings have become more consolidated and uniform over time, with more conforming release dates. The sources almost universally agree as to whether or not most consoles are in one generation or another. There is a very clear accepted standard for this in reliable sources, but not a standard quantified by techno-jargon. As of now, Wikipedia's video game history articles are broken-up by numbered "generations" (such as History of video game consoles (seventh generation)). Some editors believe that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because there are only a couple of reliable sources which attempt to define every single generation in one central location. However, RfCs have indicated that 100% of disinterested editors believe that there are RSs for the term. Should we keep the numbered generations and the thousands of RSs which buttress them, or switch to a more confusing or less citable method?LedRush (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that anyone would believe this summary is WP:NPOV, but I'm gonna WP:AGF here. I'll put this up here so it doesn't impede the discussion at the bottom. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is clearly more factually accurate (and NPOV) than your intro. For example, you state that the generation groupings have become less distinct with more staggered release dates over time.  This is simply not true.  In early generations, release dates could stagger by a few years, but by the fourth generation, a two year window was more likely.  In the most recent generation, it was a one year window.  Furthermore, there is some confusion as to a few of the consoles in the early generations (1 and 2), but currently there is almost no disagreement.  The sixth and seventh generations are etched in stone and I've never seen a source which contradicts another source on them.  Now, admittedly, my intro becomes more POV when I claim that the year groupings are more confusing, even though it is true that they don't have any citations.LedRush (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo 3DS - Eight Generation
This section was origianally located at Talk:Nintendo 3DS. Moved here for reference during the RfC, and for archival purposes once a decision is reached.▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC) I see a short paragraph of this on the page for the original Nintendo DS. It classes this as a successor. Does this mean the start of the eighth generation of gaming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.138.129 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, it is definitely a successor to the DS, not just a revision like the DSi. However, these terms like "7th generation" and "8th generation" are derived by fans and are rather unofficial, and thus, unless said directly by Nintendo, is probably a label to be avoided. (for the wikipedia article.) Sergecross73 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the "next generation" for the handheld, but the so called eighth generation should be designated for the console. Handhelds just get lumped in with whatever console they are sold alongside. The handheld didn't start until the second generation; it then skipped the third generation and didn't really take off until the fourth generation. So really if anyone is counting the 3DS should be starting the sixth generation for handhelds. The handheld got a late start, and now they are coming out more quickly than consoles are, so it is hard to say now where it belongs. We are not at the eighth generation for consoles yet, however it remains to be seen whether the 3DS will be sold more alongside the Wii or the Wii's successor. Aether7 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probabally best to wait for what reliable sources say. If sites such as IGN, GameSpot, 1UP etc start calling this an eighth generation system then it would be a good time for use to use the term. I don't necessarly believe that a console has to start a generation though since it could be possible that sources may call this the first 8th generation system. It's too soon to tell though--76.69.169.96 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's going to be entirely dependent on what Nintendo and the media refer to it as. I don't recall the DS ever being classed as a sixth gen system, back at launch. And now it is widely considered the first of the seventh gen systems, so it's not entirely unprecedented. I know previous generations are largely user-defined, but the last two were classified for the most part by both video game companies and related media. So it's a "wait and see" case here. -- .: Alex  :.  15:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dispute that. Has any of the major console manufacturers ever used this terminology? And I would challenge you to find suitable references to "sixth generation" consoles that weren't written well after the fact. Dancter (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EB Games used it when the PS3 released and they said "Welcome to the 7th generation" and it had pictures of the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360. We just have to wait until E3 to decide. ★ Ffgamera ★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EB Games does not produce consoles, or even software. It is not a particularly reliable source. The PS3 was released well after Wikipedia became popular. I would put money down that this will not be settled at E3. Dancter (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot truly completely know what the eight generation is gonna be like until maybe another year or so. Although, since Sony is about to make something similar, and microsoft has some plans of the future, it may just be by next year that we can add the subject of 'the eight generation'. On a personal note, I hope it doesn't copy the Wii too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. High school student (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * copy the Wii U? in what way? The Wii U's controller is essentially a copy of the way in which the PSP could be used as a PS3 controller. The Wii's Wiimote is essentially a copy of Sony and Sega's respective long standing motion controller designs (dating back to 1999 and 1998 respectively, with the first commercial movement based products being released in 2003 and 2000 respectively). Maybe you're talking about the CPU? nope. 45 nanometer, same as the 360 S and PS3 slim. Do you mean the 1080p part? Yeah, it's nice and all, but the 360 and PS3 could also scale to 1080p, so unless it is natively producing the content at 1080p that isn't really anything new. I mean, even the game discs aren't larger. PS3 already has 50 GB discs (blu-ray) and 360 has a 30 GB HD DVD add-on (although they never made games for it and instead just stuck with regular DVDs). So, what are you worried that Sony will "copy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.21.149 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and just want to point out some oddities regarding the "standalone-ness" of the 3DS. In Template:Dedicated video game handheld consoles, the 3DS is put aside and the DS family is grouped together, which I think is appropriate. In Template:Nintendo hardware, it's separated, but the DS and DSi are separated. The 3DS also appears in Template:Nintendo DS, which is included in this article, and I don't think that's a good idea. Perhaps the former isn't very related to the 3DS, but at least the latter is; I think this ambiguity between templates should be cleaned up. ~FireyFly tc 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's been settled. No new Sony system= 7th generation, right? No competition. ★ Ffgamera ★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 11:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Until Sony announces a surprise product.
 * I think it's less about if there's competition, and more about the fact that 8th generation is a rather unofficial term, and really hasn't been used by Nintendo or reliable sources, so it doesn't need to be in the article.  Sergecross73   msg me   15:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The DS was sold before Wii, but it is more compatible with Wii than GameCube. The 3DS may be sold before the Wii's successor, but it might not be like the DS launch, the 3DS maybe will have backwards compability mode with the DS (and Wii) wireless multiplayer system. I'd bet that 3DS and DS maybe even share the wireless multiplayer system. Interesting. NeoDoubleGames 16:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is not a eight generation, it is 7th generation? `a5b (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read around some. As it's already been said numerous times on this page, "generations" is an unofficial term made by fans/wikipedians. It's best to stay away from the term, especially with handhelds it seems. Sergecross73   msg me   12:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well regardless what generation it is, somebody has already readded it and I am not going to deal with this matter.-- iGeMiNix / What's up? / My Stuff  00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the press has clearly labeled the 3DS as a "next generation of handheld" or a "next generation console" after the current consoles or after the nintendo DS/DSi. http://bigthink.com/ideas/26582   http://30ninjas.com/blog/the-nintendo-3ds-the-next-generation-of-handhelds    http://www.torontosun.com/blogs/techblog/2011/01/21/16972486.html. Many sites (mostly non-RSs like Nintendo portal, iGog, VGChartz, etc, refer to the 3DS as 8th generation.  I would think that the first set of sources is enough to include the eighth generation language that is present (in earlier generation) on almost every video game console article.  One could argue that it is a case of WP:Synth, but I think it is merely WP:Calc.LedRush (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no real dispute of it being "next-gen", the dispute is whether to refer to it as "8th gen.", as it's an unofficial term. Considering that the "8th gen" wikipedia page has been deleted countless times and currently does not exist is proof enough to show that the term isn't currently warranted at least. Thanks for bringing this back from the archive though, it's probably good to have this visible... Sergecross73  msg me   21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot to keep this convo. Sorry. Anyway, if it's next-gen, and the next generation will probably be numbered 8... couldn't this be the first system of the eighth generation? Or is there a certain definition of "generation" that I'm missing here?  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it most likely will be the first of this "8th generation".

What's the benefit of knowing what generation it is anyway?70.44.153.248 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Ethan
 * Absolutely nothing. Although, it's a term/obsession of many of wikipedia contributors with video game articles for some reason... Sergecross73   msg me   15:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What are considered to be the first consoles by reliable sources were succeeded by more powerful/efficient hardware. If we have sources that agree from the beginning that "A consoles were succeeded by B consoles," or "pong"-style consoles were replaced by microprocessor-based consoles then, for the sake of disambiguation on wiki, to call this leap a "generation." Assuming sources agree on this initial leap, the only thing left to do is to find sources that agree B consoles were succeeded by C consoles—they do not have to say "third generation" explicitly. I'm guessing that's how the "generation" naming convention started here and if that's true then this is the eighth generation. Hoping for a future source explicitly claiming "eighth generation" seems like false optimism and if one is found, is simply the result of the "Wikipedia --> source --> Wikipedia" effect.  « ₣M₣ »  05:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're probably right. The reason the "8th gen video game systems" article keeps on being deleted is because of WP:CRYSTAL issues; it doesn't exist yet because none of the systems have been released yet. If that article continues to not exist, it doesn't seem right to use it in this article. I assume once 3DS is released, the 8th gen article will be okay to exist, and this article will be tagged as such. Sergecross73   msg me   15:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the "optimism" situation you speak of, FMF, is the exact reason why I'm against the term: No one outside of wikipedia uses it. Sergecross73   msg me   16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not adding to the debate, but in my opinion the console "generation" game and the handheld generations should be separate from each other. 3DS should be an indicator to a new generation due to its substantial upgrade in graphical ability, but the new generation should not be confirmed until a competitor releases a competing format.Weeman com (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Knowing what generation system it is doesn't make it a better purchase- does it?70.44.153.248 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Ethan
 * It's not about if it makes it a better purchase. We're debating about what defines a generation, and if the 3DS can be included in the questionably-existent "8th generation".  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 02:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not a matter of "better", it has to do more with timeframe. "7th gen" is Wii/PS3/360 systems, "6th gen" would be Gamecube/PS2/Xbox systems, and so on... Sergecross73   msg me   04:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter?70.44.153.248 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Ethan
 * Why does it matter to accurately describe things in an encyclopedia?LedRush (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It matters because people need them to learn in school. It doesn't matter to "accurately describe" the generation of the 3DS.
 * Here you misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose (and for that matter, the purpose of an encyclopedia). With your logic, this article should be deleted, because you won't learn about 3DSs in school. Many of the current events articles would have to be deleted because you won't learn them in school. The anime/manga articles would all have to deleted. There are many things that you don't learn in school. Wikipedia's goal is to provide info, not to be an aid for students only.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is the simple fact that the 6th generation consoles (PS2/Xbox) both used similar hardware to the Wii. PS2/Xbox/Wii/PS3/360 CPU 8core .299Ghz/1 core .733 Ghz/1 core .729 Ghz/8 core 3.2 Ghz cell/3 core 3.2 Ghz. I could do this for everything, but I think you get the point. 174.95.21.149 (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any way, let's get this back on track. I want to know:
 * 1. What defines a generation?
 * 2. If the 3DS is considered "next-gen", why is next-gen not the 8th generation?
 * 3. Judging by this debate, there has much controversy on Wikipedia over generations. How did the articles already existing stay? Was it just because there were reliable sources?
 * 4. Should we keep this debate confined to this talk page or should we bring the attention of other editors to this conversation?  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: A similar discussion recently started here: WT:VG  « ₣M₣ »  18:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To me
 * 1. A major revamp of system hardware and capabilities that also includes a new media format. DS,DSi and DSiXL all shared the same media format.  They didnt have a major revamp they had minor hardware revisions and refinements.
 * 2.It is next gen as the DS was next gen to the Gameboy, as the wii was next gen to the gamecube. Next gen merely represents an anacronym for next generation, and by definition it suceeds the hardware standard of the current gen.
 * 3.All i can imagine how they stayed is that soemone somewhere found an article that referenced a certain generation and by wikipedia rules, reliable sources = law, unfortunately.
 * 4. I think bring this to the attention of editors and see if they deem it for a wikicommons debate or whatever the procedure is. Like how wikipedia has decided to reference the county of derry (in my viewpoint) as londonderry in northern ireland when talking about the county, but when talking about the city within the county it is referenced to as derry..Weeman com (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on the generations: I've worked extensively with the Nintendo 3DS article, and through that I've learned that virtually no reliable sources refer to it as "8th gen". The generations are certainly real, "next gen" and "current gen" are used all the time, but virtually no one numbers them that this outside of wikipedia. I think we certainly should keep the articles highlighting the generations, but I think the numbering them is wrong and should be changed. They need to be named something that is more accurrate with what the rest of the world calls them, in my opinion.

What I realistically think will happen: Once the 8th generation article exists, it'll probably be endless added to the article, and if that article has the right to exist, I suppose it wouldn't be wrong to have on the article. As of right now, I think the only thing really keeping the "8th gen" article from existing is the fact that no consoles for it have been releaseds, so it fails WP:CRYSTAL, (and I think possibly some other stuff too.) Sergecross73   msg me   15:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Now Sony ánd Nintendo, 2 of the 3 major video game electronics manufacturers have released their plans for a new handheld gaming device, and they're both naming it the "next generation" of gaming, have we now entered the eighth generation? Because everyone agrees both handheld devices are the new generation in video games. -- ⒹylanⓈpronck 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanspronck (talk • contribs)
 * I know there's a lot going on in this section, but if you took the time to read it, it'd answer the different viewpoints to the questions you just posed... Sergecross73  msg me   15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the 7 generations fiction? If not, where are the sources?
I've been asked to bring this up here. History of video games says there are 7 generations of video games, but provides no cites for this. There are separate articles for the supposed "7 generations", up to History of video game consoles (seventh generation), and *none* of them provide citations either (at least when I looked a couple of weeks ago). Someone wrote in the history of History of video game consoles (seventh generation), when removing the "citation needed", that "There wont be a direct source for this Indirectly, the first recognized consoles had successors and showing this succession is represented as "x generation"". Sorry, that's not good enough, numbering generations by counting is WP:OR. If the 7 generations were widely recognised, finding sources would not be a problem. Therefore, I contend that it is reasonable to leave a "citation needed" next to any numbering of video game generations, until the article provides a cite. Adpete (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

well i don't know how to describe it, but the generations are based more on each installment. But i suppose you're right. But i think it's also something easy to source. iv'e seen being called 7-8 generation for a while.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorting the history by generation is just a Wikipedia editorial decision, it's just for organisational purposes. Video games have had no formal demarcation of ages, and I guess early Wikipedians chose to use a slightly more original generation marking than relying strictly on years.  It doesn't matter now though, because these generational markings are now suitably mirrored in the real world. - hahnch e n 13:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: A similar discussion of whether the Nintendo 3DS should be labeled as "Eighth Generation" began here: Talk:Nintendo_3DS.  « ₣M₣ »  18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's never been a formal classification, or even a real term for it. The "Generation" articles and the classification of consoles within each one are all the creations of Wikipedia, and simply because we can't have one huge-(Word automatically removed) long article on the history of video games (for various obvious reasons). Although for as long as I can remember, publications have made mention of "generations" and "cycles" of systems. Of course, we run into problems with things such as the Nintendo 3DS. What do we classify it as? Absolutely nothing refers to it as an "eighth generation" machine, but at the same time the 3DS and the speculated PSP successor are considered the next "cycle" of handheld consoles. I don't think there's any problem with "generation" being synonymous with "cycle", as the sources exist. I do think more sources are needed, and that the articles need to be rewritten so that they do not emphasise "# generation". The real issue is where we draw the lines for each one, as this is where we start to really get into WP:OR territory. -- Dorsal  Axe  22:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always been of the attitude we should just go by decade divisions as we run into more issues for many of the Sega consoles. They aren't really part of the "generation" cycles that Wikipedia or others use and yet they are forced into one generation or another even though their is no RS that can place them there. Also, as video game systems begin to mimic PC systems more and more it becomes increasily hard to say that they are new "generations" when you can upgrade internal components that would normally be upgraded in PCs, like harddrives. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think "generations" were invented by Wikipedia. I think it has its roots as industry jargon, which Wikipedia is often quick to adopt. Statements like "this game will be available on seventh-generation consoles" are often made in interviews or press releases, which I think is where Wikipedians got exposed to it. It's also a natural result of the phrase "next-generation" when talking about new systems -- obviously, if there is a next generation, then there must be a present generation, and from there you do the math. It may be difficult to find formal sources (though hahnchen's link turns up some) because it's not a formal construction of video game historians, but a practical view of the industry, created by the industry. Similarly, with PCs there is generational numbering of CPUs which is used by Intel, but possibly more difficult to determine which other CPUs (e.g. AMD) are part of the same generation. In parlance, we use the word to mean groupings of products that directly compete with each other. I think this is more of a case of WP:JARGON than WP:OR. It is just technical shorthand, not an invention of fact. We could just call it the "Xbox 360/PlayStation 3/Wii generation" rather than seventh-generation, but good luck getting people to agree on the order of the consoles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing I think could help is if we, with sources available (assuming they exist), took the handheld aspects of our generations articles and split them up, since handhelds and consoles are not necessarily "in sync". Is Game Boy a part of the NES generation, or the Super NES generation, for example? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. It really seems like we're forcing handhelds into the existing generational articles, when it's quite clear that there is absolutely no correlation between console and handheld releases. It's confusing at best. -- Dorsal  Axe  08:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've worked extensively with the Nintendo 3DS article, and through that I've learned that virtually no reliable sources refer to it as "8th gen". The generations are certainly real, "next gen" and "current gen" are used all the time, but virtually no one numbers them that this outside of wikipedia. I think we certainly should keep the articles highlighting the generations, but I think the numbering them is wrong and should be changed. They need to be named something that is more accurrate with what the rest of the world calls them, in my opinion. Sergecross73  msg me   15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GameFAQs use generations by numbers but all current consoles are just classed "Currently Active". Salavat (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well "current gen", "next gen" and "last-gen" are terms that are used throughout the industry not only to describe video games (and PC hardware), but everything. They are catch all phrases for stuff that is suppose to in the near-term future, present-day or something previous to the present day. While there is some support for earlier generational divisions, I think that support for straight-jacketing every system into a generational one is WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH and unlike the Sega sales deal, CALC doesn't apply here because its not clear to the average reader where these generational divides are (FE:PS2 being still listed in some places as a "current gen" console). Furthermore it is also an WP:NPOV issue since we are seperating video console games and handheld games by generation, but not PCs even though, as mentioned, there are markers than can, and have by the industry, been used in similar manners for describing games for PCs. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be original research when RSs directly state the generations? The only potential for OR would be in describing the eighth generation.  However, when reliable resources agree on what the seventh generation is, and they agree that the 3DS is next generation, I think WP:Calc would allow us to call the 3DS Eighth generation.  However, I am in no hurry to include the info, and I assume that this issue will work itself out in the long run.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Calc cannot work here and it is OR because not all the sources agree X is generation Y for everything. I game several such examples. Furthermore, as I said, there are Reliabe sources that list PS2 along with the PS3 in the same gernation. When you ignore those that is WP:NPOV violation. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also you can't easily seperate video game consoles from handheld timeline. chronology of consoles till 2005 - includes handhelds. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [EC] I'm sure I've just missed it, but could you point out where there is a disagreement about which consoles are in the seventh generation?LedRush (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what is the Time link supposed to be telling us?LedRush (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Next Generation Portable
Sony calls its next portable console this way: "Next Generation Portable". If console generations are an illusion, the newest console made by Sony is "next" to what? The current generation (Xbox 360, PS3, DS, PSP) or the previous generation (DC, PS2, GC, Xbox)? Or it is next to an unexistent generation? Also, if Nintendo 3DS and Sony's Next Generation Portable are the seventh generation, why Sony calls his portable "PSP successor" and Nintendo do the same for his hardware? I'm puzzled, i demand clarification to the wikipedians that erased the article about the "eight generation consoles". --87.8.242.31 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, portable consoles are not the ones that "spawn" the generation, it's the fixed home consoles that do that. --M ASEM  (t) 16:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that the Game Boy belongs to the third generation (and not to the fourth as listed by Wikipedia) and the Nintendo DS and PlayStation Portable should be listed in the sixth generation (and not in the seventh as listed by Wikipedia)? If you are thinking that, let's put the Nintendo 3DS and the Sony's "Next Generation Portable" in the seventh generation page! --87.8.242.31 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources that dispute current listings

 * That handhelds and consoles are considered by more mainstream sources, those outside the industry, as one in the same for linkage.
 * As for the 7th, generation one, I have found some sources, but they are all unreliable or questionable. I know there are some out there, but a RS search doesn't allow for listing chrologically.
 * However, I have found sources that do question the labeling:
 * Video game seminar presentation for teachers for U. of Maryland
 * Journal of economics - it requires payment, but the google scholar excert lists "... 32-bit and 64-bit systems 3DO, Atari Jaguar, Atari Jaguar CD, Nintendo 64, Sony PlayStation, and Sega Saturn are included in Generation 4. Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo GameCube, Sega Dreamcast, and Sony PlayStation 2 are Generation 5 systems that use 128-bit processors. ..."
 * That's just what i could find with a bit of searching. Yes, more sources do support the generations as they exist, but its clear that not everyone agress with how they are defnined. When you get outside the industry and have more scholarly/acedemic sources, they do not agree with the industries generational labeling, and in general those sources would be considered "higher quality" sources than the others so they can't just be ignored. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something, or does the seminar PPT identify the generations (6th and 7th) exactly the same way Wikipedia does?LedRush (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. It does not list the Dreamcast. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ - for the moment
 * academic paper U. Minnesota - lists 2nd gen as first (Oddessy).
 * IEEE business journal - lists different gereration model than we currently use (search Table I).
 * Journal of Encomics see first table.
 * paper originally published by Gamespot - it doesn't list "generations" as others do, but it does talk about "groupings" which also different from Wikipedia's, including the first such grouping as 1977.
 * research paper submitted to DRUID Summer Conference 2007 - it too breaks down video games systems by their bits (16/32/64/etc). 陣 内 Jinnai 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Even beyond all this, even if there are clear generations, it doesn't seem right to refer to them numbered like this if they're never referred to as such outside of wikipedia. Lets look at other things like this. With TV's there's black and white, SD, HD, 3D, etc. But you don't see wikipedia refer to them "Third generation of TV's" for HD TVs. Or with cars. Even if company started a line of cars in 2005, the article would be "X Car 2011", not "X Car 6th generation". Just because it can be numbered/counted doesn't mean it should be called that. Sergecross73  msg me   21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jinnai. I am not wrong.  The PPT omits one of the consoles (one that died an early death).  It doesn't place it somewhere else and it doesn't claim to be a full listing.  You seem to have some evidence for your contention regarding the different categorization of the generations: you just need to be more careful with what you are using as your evidence.LedRush (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one of the sources you've listed appears to not have the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th generations in conformity with the way wikipedia has it, and that one seems to conflate generations 1 and 2 (meaning, the substance of 3-7 is the same, but the numbering is different.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what you're doing is WP:OR. You are "assuming" the sources dropped the Dreamcast. That is a clear violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. While you may be right that they did drop it for convience, we cannot asuume that. That is what verifiability means. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright I'm done for the moment looking up sources. I think I've showen that there is a lot of disagreement about what is the "first generation" of video games - even Gamespot doesn't agree with Wikipedia - and in addition academic sources base generations on the CPU's bitrate, not industry labels. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with you. You are assuming that the author left the DreamCast off of the list because it wasn't a part of either the 6th or 7th generations.  That assumption is original research. The source says nothing about the DreamCast, so we can assume no opinion whatsover and attribute it to that source.  I wouldn't use that source to say that the DreamCast is a 6th generation system, and I wouldn't use that source to verify any position on the DreamCast at all.  You however, seem to be using the source to indicate that because the other doesn't mention the DreamCast at all, it is proof that the DreamCast wasn't a part of the sixth generation.  Why don't you also assume that because the author didn't mention the 4th generation, that that author doesn't think the 4th generation existed (I know that the comparison is not 100% correct, but it's darn close).LedRush (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of why anyone assumes it was left off, the point, I think, is that it doesn't match up with wikipedia... Sergecross73  msg me   23:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the slide? It was a comparison of the Ninendo, Sony and Microsoft consoles of the 6th and 7th generations.  It matches with Wikipedia perfectly.  It doesn't state that it is listing all consoles of the 6th and/or 7th generations.  Therefore, reading anything into the "absense" of the DreamCast, (including that the slide is inconsistent with wikipedia) is original research.  The only thing that the slides can confirm (or be used to cite) is that the GameCube, PS2 and Xbox are 6th generation and that the Wii, PS3 and 360 are seventh.  Anything else is original research.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I don't assume that because it cannot verified that they left it off. Wikipedia is not about truth, but verification. I cannot assume they left it off for whatever reason. All I can say is - according to that source - there are 3 6 gen consoles - PS2, Xbox and GC; the dremacast - again according to that source - is not a 6th gen console from what I can verify. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can easily justify that the Dreamcast was a 6th generation console. There are plenty of sources available. You may want to link generation to History of video games so readers can see which definition we're using. People used to refer to the Early Middle Ages as the Dark Ages, when the really refer to the same thing. It doesn't really matter - it's only there for organisation. Wikipedia may have invented the system, but it has proliferated, and you can be sure that someone out there is going to reliably confirm that the 3DS/PSP2 signals a new generation in handhelds. We can wait for that. - hahnch e n 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jinnai: You (not me) are making an assumption about the list. The source does not state that they are listing all of the 6th generation consoles.  You cannot use it as a source to state that it has left anything off of anything (unless you are talking about the consoles it actually discusses).  You cannot say that according to that source there are 3 6th generation consoles because the source doesn't say that. (You might as well argue that the source says that there are no generations of consoles except 6th and 7th - the 4th generation isn't listed so the author must be saying that it doesn't exist!)  You can say that according to that source, the GameCube, Xbox and PS2 are 6th generation consoles.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The fact is, that information kills your argument as it directly confirms that Wikipedia has correctly categorized 6 consoles.  The fact that it remains silent on most other consoles means nothing.  You are doing your underlying argument a disservice by making this illogical claim about this source.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)It does not say it lists them all no, but nore does it say its a partial listing. When you put something down you have to prove it with reliable sources. If they don't say anything you cannot assume they mean its partial or not. You can only go with what they give you. Go read policy. If that was the only source that gave generations for 6th gen consoles, we couldn't assume there were more. That said, its only one source.
 * Okay, lets' just get past that source as it seems to be distracting from the borader picture - this isn't like the early middle ages/dark ages. There is evidence from other sources that the generational model used by Wikipedia violates WP:NPOV because it emphasizes the industry's rating (and even that is somewhat in dispute as to the first gen as the Gamespot article does not list anything as a solid group before 1977) vs. academic/scholarly review. That is more serious because if they are to be used we cannot use WP:CALC because the application does not "correctly reflect the sources." since there would be 2 different versions of generation in many cases. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that, if the terms really DID originate from WP, then, despite its propagation, it's against policy to use them, per WP:CIRCULAR. So the question is, is there any sources that use the generation number pre-WP's use of it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone will have to dig through and see when generation was first used. NM - doing it myself. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * first major change - original version was a standard timeline 1970s, 1980s.... this change here was the first major change.
 * change - naming by consoles.
 * terminology used today - "golden age"
 * Generation first used added by User:Tedius Zanarukando
 * of context - ip address removes the 256-bit part making it just "Seventh generation"
 * more technical name is changed to "sixth generation" - May 26, 2005 by User:K1Bond007 with the reason as a "fix"
 * I can go on, but appears that unless sources predate April 8, 2005 then the generation scheme on wikipedia (along with possibly some of "age" terminology are WP:CIRCULAR. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because Wikipedia employed a naming scheme before publication in RS does not mean that a subsequently published RS took the naming scheme from Wikipedia. You would have to demonstrate that the RS specifically took the naming scheme exclusively from Wikipedia and not from other original sources. Have we asked User:Tedius Zanarukando where he got the idea from? I guess I'll do that now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting him. I also contacted K1Bond007 to see if changes were based on any RSes. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that we to search at all, to me, shows that it's not the best term. If it was really the best term, it'd be all over Gamespot, IGN, or any other easily accessible video game websites. Or other mediums for that matter, I've come across all sorts of articles for 3DS like in USA Today or Forbes Magazine. None of their articles are titled "Let the 8th gen commence" or anything silly like that. Sergecross73   msg me   03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jinnai, I am not assuming anything at all from the source: I am merely using what it states and nothing more. You cannot make assumptions based on what it doesn't say.  The source directly supports the Wikipedia use of the terms regarding generations.  Anything that disputes this is logically inconsistent.
 * Regarding the circular argument: not one of the source I've seen cites Wikipedia, nor are any of them mirrors of the Wikipedia articles on the matter. It is an extreme misreading of policy to require a reliable source from before the first time that Wikipedia used the terms.  If a reliable source uses the term, it is therefore verifiable and we can cite it.  WP:Circular is intended for cites to Wikipedia directly or for sites that merely mirror what wikipedia says.  If a reliable source is silent on why it says than a particular console is from a particular generation of gaming, we cannot assume it came to that conclusion because of when the article was published: again that is original research (not to mention completely illogical and silly).LedRush (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Circular is also intended for sites that take their sources from the sources that cite Wikipedia. If it didn't we would allow RSes quoting a RS blog or post that cites wikipedia as one of its primary sources. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But that situation is not what is happening here. We have tons of RSs which just state what they believe the generations to be without reference to either wikipedia or to a source which cites wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought this up at WT:V. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is such a trivial issue, it really doesn't matter where Tedius_Zanarukando got the generations from. You may as well ask User:67.181.110.229 where he got this edit from.  All you're doing is organising how the history articles are split, there are significant amounts of reliable sources which now conform to this view, it is not contentious. Why are we making work for ourselves? - hahnch e n 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's confusing to outsiders, both people unfamiliar to wikipedia and video games. Generations are used all the time, but their numbering is not. Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible and readable to anyone (literate of course.) These titles don't go along with the outside world. Sergecross73   msg me   23:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They do go with the outside world as sources suggest. The Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition is a populist book aimed at casuals and gift buyers, it uses this nomenclature. - hahnch e n 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if CIRCULAR is fine (which it appears no one has any real issue about it at WP:V, there is still the WP:NPOV issue and WP:CALC issue. There's also, even among the industry, unclear definitions for the first few generations. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the current terminology could be confusing to anyone...could someone explain how accurate language is confusing when all it is is numbering something 1-7? Also, there are no NPOV issues or CALC issues to my knowledge.  Could someone explain why the current Wikipedia system has issues in these regards?LedRush (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because you refuse to acknowledge that I've shown sources that call into question how the generations are mesaured. Those sources dispute the listings used by Wikipedia. Futhermore, there is disagreement among industry sources as to what the first few generations are and therefore the current version violates WP:NPOV and WP:CALC. Note that it isn't just 1 source that disagrees with the scheme; its several. You basically want to favor the industry's labeling of generations over academic ones and also certain industry ones over others; that's POV. Also because its unclear where generations begin, CALC cannot be used as it requires clear understanding of how you get from point a to b by every editor (assuming good faith on their part). I'm saying its not clear and therefore CALC cannot be used as evidence does not support it. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no CALC violation because there is no calculation occurring. All we are doing is citing RSs.  That's it.  There is no NPOV issue because there is virtually no conflicting point of view.  The vast majority of sources confirm Wikipedia's numbering system, including the some of the ones you've listed above.  Even if you scrounge up a few dissenting articles, those would not undo the numerous other sources. If one source out of 10 says that the Odyssey II is first generation instead of second, we can add that in those articles (being sure not to give undue weight to the minority position).  If one source out of 10 conflates the first two generations into one, we can do the same.  But you are manufacturing problems where there are none, and you have no substantive arguments to back it up.LedRush (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to share some of these "vast majority of reliable sources". I think you're exagerating a little to prove a point. And I'm not talking about any old article that mentions the word "generation", I mean ones that specifically say things like "N64 is part of the 5th generation". Sergecross73   msg me   15:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've proven there are sources that contradict it. I've seen nothing but stonewalling the other way. A cursory glance at the article doesn't seem to support it either as a "majority of the sources" aren't being used to support the entire generation format. A lot of them there's latterly nothing that clearly indicates that this is "X generation" and definatly not a "majority" by any stretch of the imagination. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're getting stonewalled because you're making a mountain out of a non-issue. The other sources don't contradict it, because the generational listing is used for sakes of organisation.  They mean the same thing.  You cite an economics journal above as a contradiction, but it merely counts the PS2 as generation 5 instead of generation 6 (as per Wikipedia).  This doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how they count it, because regardless those generations are the same thing - dark ages/early middle ages.  We're using the Gregorian calendar, and they're using the Islamic calendar.  If you want to make it clear what generations Wikipedia refers to, then link the word generation to the suitable history article.  The whole academic vs industry NPOV is a non-argument, given that there are plenty of academic and popular sources confirming the Wikipedia standpoint. - hahnch e n 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That you believe its not as issue is your opinion. You're entireled to that. That doesn't mean you can tell me or others to think its not a big issue. It does organize things in a way that groups them as a POV; ie this is how everyone should look at the generational grouping of video games and anything to the contrary is wrong. Now, for some of the later generations, there might be enough support out there to justify that view; however that is not the case for all of it and we are not allowed to make editoral descisions when there is not a clear consensus.
 * Finally, its easy to throw search results up and "say" they support your claim, especially generic google results which contain lots of unrelaible sources, but its another to dig through them and prove it. A lot of those sources - includng the scholarly ones - you "claim" support the arguments don't'. I know because I spent the past 2 days going through every publicly avaliable scholarly source, article-by-article, i could find with multiple scholarly searches and when you get back far enough in video-game history those sources don't match up. Therefore its a big WP:NPOV and possibly
 * Just to give one example, I can tell you the biggest one there is a huge divide disagreement is the first generation. A lot of RSes - both scholarly and industry view the first generation as the 1977 one we list as "second generation". 陣 内 Jinnai 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While some articles conflate the first two generations into one, there is otherwise wide agreement on the generations. Your own examples proved this (which is another reason your arguments don't generate the responses you want).  You make outrageous claims about certain sources (ones that explicitly back the current generations' description you argue does the opposite) and you through irrelevant wikipedia policy arguments whenever you can (it's a circular...wait, everyone at the verifiability board disagrees....it's an unacceptable Calc...wait, we're not doing calc....it's POV!).  Gamefaqs lists a comprehensive generation sorting page which conforms to our.  If you search out the individual consoles, you'll see that they are listed the way we do.  We have verifiably information presented in a NPOV and there is almost no controversy here except for the one that you are manufacturing.  If you want to add some notes to the first and second generation articles about how some scholars believe that those two generations are really one (and add a one sentence note to each subsequent generation saying that some scholars see the third generation as the second, etc.), go ahead.  No one is stopping you.  Otherwise, this entire conversation is pointless.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd be more effective if you stopped with the huge "walls of text" and started giving some links to all of these "vast majority of reliable sources" you have refered to... Sergecross73  msg me   18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)