Talk:Atari 5200/Archive 1

Untitled

On the existing Atari 5200 page, much of the 2nd paragraph is misleading and inaccurate. Here is the original paragraph:

"All Atari did was to re-engineer the Atari 2600 and slap on a release date. But because Atari never has been on to leave well enough alone, a non-centering joystick was added, which was a grave mistake; it made the 5200 completely incompatible with the computer architecture is is based on and the Atari 2600. But because of excellent third-party joysticks and a fairly big game library, it actually at one point outsold the Colecovision. If it was not for the video game crash, Atari might have been sucessful at winning that generations console wars."

Aside from using a similair (NOT identical) CPU, the 5200 is completely different from the architecture of the 2600. The design of the 5200 is in fact derived from Atari's 8-bit computer line. Aside from changes to the memory map and a completely new controller design (the infamous CX-52), the 5200 is essentially an Atari 400 computer without a keyboard.

Regarding the CX-52 controller: a great many people criticize the joystick design for being a non-centering analog design. Early models also had reliability problems with the rubber buttons (loss of conductivity over time made them unresponsive). However the CX-52 was the first controller to incoporate start, pause, and reset buttons on the controller rather than on the game console, an innovation still found on modern game systems.

As for the 5200's game library, it is in fact smaller than nearly all other game systems on the market at that time, even its closest rival, the ColecoVision, had many more game titles available. What makes the 5200 library stand out is the high quality of most of its games, thanks in part to how easy it was to port hit games from the Atari 400 computer.

Now as for sales figures, I simply do not know a reliable source that says the 5200 outsold the ColecoVision towards the end. I personally believe this to be true, but the facts of the day seem to discourage this view. Atari had a new console, the 7800, ready to launch when the crash of '84 hit Atari full force. This new machine corrected many of the public's complaints about the 5200 - old fashioned digital joystick, compatible with the Atari 2600, and less expensive. It also featured a much more powerful video chip ("MARIE"). Would they be test marketing the 7800 if the 5200 was leapforgging the competition in sales?

Oh, and the specs are wrong to. The CPU was not from Motorola, it was from MOS Technologies. And it was actually clocked at 1.79Mhz. And you forgot to mention the system palette was 256 colors.

OK, you've seen my complaints and corrections. Here's how I would re-write that paragraph:

The Atari 5200 was, in essence, an Atari 400 computer without a keyboard. This made for a powerful, proven design which Atari could quickly bring to market. The system featured a revolutionary new controller with an analog joystick and system function keys (start, pause, reset). (Other innovations for the 5200 included an automatic switchbox and 4 controller ports.) Unfortunately, the joystick design proved to be ungainly and unreliable, alienating many consumers. While the 5200 did garner a strong cult following with its library of high quality games, it faced an uphill battle competing with the ColecoVision's head start and a stuttering economy. But the question of which system was superior became moot when the game market crashed in 1983/84, killing off both systems in their prime.

Well go on then. Be bold in updating pages. -- Tim Starling 01:02, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

*grumble* I have to do everything myself. -- Tim Starling 04:00, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph about the 5200 being superior to any system at the time, adding "in some ways" because there are those at the time (and even today) who swear that colecovision was technologically superior although even these people concede the 5200 was better in some aspects. user:jcam

Actually, the 5200 was a last-minute replacement for the unpopular 3200 system (codenamed Sylvia). --Pelladon 15:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to believe anyone would think Colecovision superior to the 5200. The former used TI graphics chips that were obsolete when the system was released. They could handle only two sprites, which flickered when on the same line. The 5200 could handle four (I think) without interference. The 5200 had beautiful graphics -- there's no way Colecovision could have duplicated Tempest, which was spectacular when played with the trackball. Coleco's accessories were mediocre, the track ball (in particular) having rough bearings. When I sold my huge game collection several years ago, the 5200 and Vectrex were the only two systems I really wanted to keep. But they had to go. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cost of system

Can anyone add the retail price of this unit at launch? Were games more or less expensive than Atari 2600 games? Also, some comparison between 5200 and 2600 game carts would be helpful. --Navstar 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected requests are for specific edits. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}First...good that the page was protected (though it seems for a LONG time. Please edit the TRIVIA section regarding the Atari 5200 being available at ToysRus in Ontario...that is completely useless info. Thanks KsprayDad 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Discussion on Edit Dispute?

Hi All! Is the full-up protect necessary on this page? It makes it appear like there's a dispute happening, when indeed no dispute appears to be taking place. After reviewing the history of the page, I have come to the understanding that a user has been violating the Manual of Style by attempting to get the original references to KB changed to KiB. He was eventually banned for edit wars, sock puppetry, and general disruption of Wikipedia operations.

Since then, anonymous IP addresses (many of which appear to be proxies) have been attempting to carry on the edit war. Thus the need to protect the page against further edits.

However, since the user account has been banned from Wikipedia, couldn't we do a partial protect of this page to prevent anonymous vandalism? I know that this is regularly done for the more prominent pages like Wii and PS3. It seems to me that the same protections could prevent issues here as well.

The only reason I can see to leave this fully protected is if there is an actual dispute. In which case, here is my reasoning for the page remaining with KB vs. KiB:

• Kibibyte is the "new" International standard for 1024 bytes. KB is reassigned to 1000 bytes. While this is the recommendation of the IEC, it has not been embraced by the computer industry.
• The Manual of Style currently recommends that the values be left as the original editor of the article wrote them. Changing from one standard to another should be an agreed-upon action.
• In historical contexts, the values were referred to as "Kilobytes" rather than "Kibibytes". Therefore, the "Kilobyte" usage seems appropriate.

Thank you all for your attention. I hope to see some of you at the MGC. ;-) --Jbanes 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How many were sold?

Wanted to look up, how many the Atari 5200 were sold and it's not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam link?

This article links to AtariAge, which is a for profit site, they sell 3rd part products in addition to their own merchandise. They also have a database of information on Atari 5200 games. uvlist is a not-for-profit site that sells no products, not even their own merchandise. It is nothing but a database of games and contains additional Atari 5200 game information not covered by the for-profit site. Please, forgive my ignorance and explain exactly why the uvlist link was deemed a spam link and deleted while the AtariAge link remains? --Zerothis (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. AtariAge has a separate store as one of many sections on the site, and is the largest Atari community and database out there, and is used for multiple references across wikipedia, establishing itself for notability criteria long ago. It is not a "for profit site", and does not promote itself as such, it does not "primarily exist to sell products or services" or have "objectionable amounts of advertising" (a link that says "Store" and a picture of one cartridge are all that currently exist on the front page). The guidelines for advertising are clearly set for sites that are simply advertisements masquerading as a web site, which AtariAge is far from. Your link did not add anything significant to the article that wasn't already covered by the AtariAge link or the references used in the article, it failed criteria for WP:EL and was simply a page with a list of games on it. This also violates external link guidelines policy because it was a "Link to the results pages of search engines, Search aggregators, or RSS feeds", which is not allowed. Likewise, it was referred to as spam because you spammed links to that site across two other pages on the same day as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a new picture

The Atari 5200 console pictured at the top of the article still has the protective plastic skin on the chrome panel, giving that portion of the console a bright reddish hue. A picture with this plastic removed would be more representative of what the system looked like. Sir Smedley (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

slight overeagerness on the citation needed button?

re the analogue joystick "it alienated many users [who?]" ... ok, so where are we going to get that information from, except non-wiki-usable personal anecdotes? :D I didn't write that part, but it does seem reasonably self-evident that a standard-issue analogue joystick that doesn't properly recentre itself is going to turn off people who test-drive the system in the shop or their friends' house. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I DISAGREE IT IS "REASONABLY SELF EVIDENT." Personally, I owned one of the 5200 systems as a kid and always loved the joystick especially for its versatility and analog control. The game 'Pole Position' for example really benefited from the precise control. It never occurred to me that a non centering control was out of the ordinary because it was the only analog joystick most people had ever used at the time it was released. It would be years until another system was released with analogue control (the Nintendo 64?) So I think stating the controller is the reason for the system's downfall is just subjective speculation unless citation is provided to show otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.203.154 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I owned a 5200 when I was a kid too. Got it in 1982 to replace my 2600 which had been destroyed. The reason that the system was not as successful was the high price, not the controllers. The 5200 was very expensive for its day, about twice the original cost of the 2600. By 1982, the 2600 was selling for a fraction of its original price, and cost less than the price of a game for the 5200. The other drawback was there were never as many games for the 5200, hence the introduction of the 2600 adapter. That adapter was great, I had dozens of games for my old 2600 and could play them again. The 5200 had superior graphics and the games were better, but there just wasn't nearly as many available. I had the original four port system and did NOT need modifications to make the adapter work. It fit in the cartridge slot just like a game. I don't see what you'd need to modify, since the games worked for the 2 and 4 port 5200 systems with no need for modification. The joysticks were great, nobody who played with mine complained. (I didn't know any kids who had this system but me.) The joysticks were smooth and comfy compared to the 2600 controllers which could be stiff and harder to maneuver. I liked them both, but the 5200 joystick never gave me a cramp in my hand like the 2600 joystick. I think the article is off base. Gotmywaderson (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) , member of Pitfall Harry's Explorer Club.

I purchased a 5200 when it came out. It was $180 at Toys R Us, which was not twice the original price of the 2600. The article needs to mention that the pushbuttons on the controller gradually lost their elasticity (and apparently their conductivity) so you had to really "jam" them. Otherwise, the controllers were a pleasure to use. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess this really is a matter of opinion and/or luck, then. I had a 5200 as a kid as well, and I remember the controller being truly horrid - it was difficult to play most games, one of the controllers broke fairly early in its life, and the buttons were nearly impossible to use. Like with many things, it's easy to believe that some specific controllers were better than others in the same product line.

Regardless, for the information to be in this article, we need to have real citations from reliable sources. I know reviews exist both from that time period and in present-day that consistently refer to the 5200's controllers as cheap, difficult to use, easy to break and poorly designed, and the lack of centering is a frequent point. Don't have time right now to do the research, but them's the rules. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Same processer as 7800

If I'm not wrong both the 5200 and 7800 have the same 1.79 meg processer, I belive that should be included in both articles, any one agree? mcjakeqcool 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs)

Yes, they both use the 6502C cpu, though I'm not sure what the importance or weight you're trying to bring to that is? The have completely separate graphics systems. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be a good way to point out that the Atari 5200 was superior to market upon releace and the 7800 inferior upon releace, as these factors could be a important factor to the later demise of Atari with the Panther and Jaguar consoles, however if this was going to be included with in a wikipedia article, it would need to be included in both the Atari 5200 and Atari 7800 articles, making this project a project for both the Atari 5200 and Atari 7800, don't worry, I'll do most of the reserch and editing required, all you may need to do is check my infomation is adquete and not orignal research. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Except not really, because we are talking minor variations on the same thing. The Apple II, Vic-20, C64, 2600, 5200, 7800 and NES all used some variation of the 6502 processor. Sure, there were performance differences such as the 2600's use of the more limited 6507 variant, the C64's 6510 derivative, and gradual upgrades to the chip, but the major difference between these systems was the amount of RAM they contained and what graphics processing technology they implemented, not the primary chip used. Indrian (talk)

19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright then the case is that the 6502 processor is not a important part of this or the 7800 article. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic RF switches causing fires?

I recently watched a short review on the Atari 5200 (in a "Worst Consoles of All Time" series on YouTube) that claimed that the automatic RF switches had a tendency to overheat and catch fire. Is there any reliable record of this happening? If so, I'd consider this to be a particularly notable thing to add to the article, but we'd definitely need sources for it.

I figure it's just as likely that this was made up by the people who did the series. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of that before, couldn't find a source for it either. Even did a search through the 5200 section of the AtariAge discussion forums to see if the problem was ever broached over the past 8 years, couldn't find it once. My thought is they either made it up or are confusing it with one of the other issues with the 4 port model. The 4 port has a single special combined cable running from it that handles the power and rf signal in one, and plugs in to a special r/f box that also has a connector for plugging in the power supply. It's a similar setup to the RCA Studio II console and the only other time I've seen this type of setup used, which is bascially to cut down on the ammount of cables running from the console (i.e. the power and tv connector are then hidden behind the tv). The issue I was talking about then, is if you have the power supply hooked in to the box but don't have the 5200 hooked up in to it yet, you can cause sparks when attaching it. Which is why you always want to have the 5200 hooked up to the box first, and then the power supply. The 2 port model went to a more standard seperate power supply and seperate rf cable/autoswitching box model. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense, then. Even though they tended to inject a lot of humorous jabs at the systems they didn't like into their reviews, they did seem to be pretty well-informed on most real issues with the various systems, and they had a post-review video where they explained both that they did a fair amount of research and had grown up with most of the systems they reviewed. So I can believe that they weren't purely making up that bit about the switchbox causing fires. Exaggerated, probably. Misinformed, probably. Having sparks flying out of a connector is always a bad thing - if there are corroborated reports of any known fire danger from hooking up the RF adapter and system in the wrong order, then that's probably where these guys got that idea from.

So then, my question is: Was there any significant coverage of potential fire danger from that sparking issue? It would probably be WP:OR to mention a potential fire danger in the article unless it was either covered in third-party pubs or acknowledged publicly by Atari. On the other hand, it would be well worth mentioning if this risk turned out to be one of the reasons why they went back to the separate power supply in the 2-port model. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can try digging around, there has to be somewhere if even in an Atari Service bulletin. If worse comes to worse, I can always get out my 4-port model and shoot a video showing the sparks that can occur. As far as those guys, there were to many errors for me to call them well informed. I posted a few corrections in the text, but couldn't take watching the whole thing to get all the others - 1) 5200 came out at the same time as the Colecovision. There was no pressure from a console not released yet. The 5200 was designed specifically as an answer to the Intellivision. 2) Atari Corporation was the later Tramiel company. The 5200 was released under Atari Inc. 3) The 5200 was around longer than 2 years, it was still sold through the early Tramiel years and new games were still put out. 4) They don't know what a trakball is? 5) The controller boots did not wear out immediately out of the box, and it was not done for "more money". The boots only wore down over time (and not all of them), and when used initially worked as a simple self-centering system. They were working on a newer version of the stick with a mechanical self-centering system when Atari Inc. was bought. 6) The keypads were the for the same reason as the keyboard on the Odyssey2, and the keypads on the APF MP1000 and Intellivision - additionaly buttons for gameplay. Most of the early games brought to the 5200 didn't need the keypads, later games would have. 5) There were keypads and buttons on both sides of the trakball component to provide for right and left handed players - Atari did a lot of focus groups during the early 80's (which is also what lead to the 7800 design). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Market failure ?

The section named Market Failure casually mentions sales exceeded more than one million. That doesn't sound like a failure to me and makes me believe the perceived failure is more a personal opinion from a contributor than a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.201.3 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you the same person as the other IP addresses that have been edit warring about that part of the article? And it was a failure compared to other systems dominating the market, and how short its lifespan was. Also most of the money comes from the games, not the system, so it was market failure. Dream Focus 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. The current IP is coming out of Hialeah, Florida. The one above is from the Netherlands. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Just noticed the date of the comment. The last three IP addresses to edit the article were certainly the same person though. Dream Focus 11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% the term "market failure" is subjective and needs be removed post haste. The word was edited to "market performance" at one point and that was reverted for some reason. It needs be changed. Using that word allused to "fanboyism" and should not be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.20 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• I added a link to market failure which explains things if you read through it. Dream Focus 18:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

"Definition of edit warring" says reverting vandalism, such as destroying an entire section, doesn't count against the 3 revert rule. So I used a rollback on it. That user has had that particular IP address of theirs blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully they won't just log in with a different one and try again. Please follow consensus of the three editors who have reverted you, and stop trying to remove a section because you don't like the word failure. Use the talk page. Dream Focus 12:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of the name?

I recently learned (from Wikipedia) that the Atari 2600 was named after the part number (CX2600). If so, what were the 5200 and 7800 named after? Or am I totally wrong guessing that the answer is as simple as "5200 = 2600 x 2" and "7800 = 2600 x 3"? --TheHande (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. That's the processing power. Dream Focus 10:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

I agree with the users who have edited this to eliminate the opinionated statement of the Colecovision being a "more powerful" system than the 5200. Besides that it clearly does not belong in the discussion there are numerous articles stating the complete opposite (backed with facts unlike the opinionated disruptive editing of wungfu. atarihq.com for example has proof to the contrary citing multiple examples and not just an opinionated, blanket statement. wungfu has been trolling this page for a long time and clearly does not like the 5200 and his edits and misinformation are clearly of a derogatory nature to the system. please restore the page removing the biased statement. http://www.atarihq.com/5200/cv52/ You can read or just skim to the end, but the CV was clearly NOT the more powerful system. Now, rather than edit to include this article, wouldn't it be better to just eliminate that which is wholly incorrect? If the edit war was bad trying to remove one sentence with incorrect fact, imagine what it would be were someone to edit in a contrary article proving the article that wungfu is insistent on leaving in is 100% wrong? 167.138.234.18 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a fact, then provide a reliable source. If there's anyone involved in sockpuppetry here it's you, the "5200 lovers". - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 15:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The reliable source is linked above. And sorry to disappoint, this is my first jump into this (particular) discussion. check my IP. And it's not a matter of "love". Wikipedia is supposed to be fact, not opinion. The IGN article states the CV is more powerful with absolutely NO source info, or reasoning. the Atarihq article discusses the internal differences, and literally proves the hardware superiority of the 5200. Why can't you understand the difference between fact and opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.18 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't evaluate information presented by reliable sources. If Atari HQ is an RS, what you're left with is two contradictory RSes and one cannot be said to be more right than the other. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't be coy. Don't make vague references to supposed sock puppets. Commit to the accusation and call us out by name. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

AtariHQ *IS* a reliable source. And, had you read my post above, someone posting a contradictory reliable source would create even more problems than the disruptive editors such as wungfu and yourself, butonmethitis. so, the compromise is to remove the ign reference (which in it's vagueness of simply STATING the CV superiority without ANY ACTUAL REASONING it borders on pure opinion). The other poster(s) made reference to that yet you are trolling the discussion to revert his correction. So what do we do? Edit the article to add a second reliable source which contradicts the first (and clearly discredits it), OR remove the IGN source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.18 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We do what is normally done on Wikipedia, which is what myself, Butonmethis, and a man alone have already stated several times over and that you chose to ignore. Both RS's are presented, it's not our place to give undue weight to one or the other in the case of reviews. As for my site AtariHQ (ironic that you called me a CV fanboy and a sockpuppet with bias), yes it's on the RS list of the video game project - however, that article (written back in the 90's, way before I took over the site) is of course a bit slanted towards the 5200 because it's an Atari site. Hence you can not give it undue weight over IGN (which of course would approach it's opinion from a much more neutral angle). The best that can be done is add it as a secondary source stating in a neutral manner as already stated. Lastly claims of sockpuppets and bias from a person in your position is not going to win support, neither are false claims of some sort of well known bias of mine in the "atari community". I'm a very well known and active member of AtariAge as well as a moderator at Atari's own forums. If anything I could be accused of having to much of a bias *for* Atari. And before you continue down this route of personal attacks, realize that Wikipedia does have policies against it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the editprotected request: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie⚔ 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So, a website with a blanket statement with no facts backing it gets supremacy over one that is several pages long, cites many, MANY factors as to WHY the 5200 is superior citing processor speed, graphic resolution, etc...all because it is written on an ATARI website? And yes absolutely fanboy applies here. I'm also a member at Atari Age. I've seen your posts degrading the 5200 many times in favor of the 7800. So it stands to reason seeing you here allowing unproven degradation of the 5200 to go on. (Yes looking back I've seen you in edit wars over weasel words, such as "failure", among other clearly hatefully biased (disruptive)edits. peaking of irony, atari age is known throughout the community as having moderators who allow their "power" (as it were) to corrupt them, so to speak, into thinking their opinions are the ONLY ones viable. One in fact was recently BANNED for such behavior. At any rate, I also have not made any "personal attacks". I have made accusations of bias (proven) disruptive editing (also proven), fanboyism (also proven) and sockpuppetry (I will grant on that one I do not have proof as I am not one to spend my entire day at wikipedia policing others' corrections, so in that light I retract that accusation). At any rate...what is our solution? You insist atariHQ is not neutral, yet the article provides detailed proof, NOT opinion. If they simply said "the 5200 is more powerful" (as does IGN in the opposite), then there would be a point of bias. But if you read the article, you will see there is not bias, only fact. So, do we keep the OPINION of IGN despite it's inaccuracy, completely ignoring atarihq because it happens to be an "ATARI" site? Or do we take not only the high road, but the appropriate one (according to Wikipedia's rules) and either include both or eliminate both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.18 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Please do not re-enable the {{edit protected}} until there is consensus for a particular change. Anomie⚔ 19:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that suggest the question has been answered? It has not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.18 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow a lot of discussion but apparently no consensus. How are we even debating the elimination of a biased opinion? The comment that was removed and then forced back on was opinion. I dont know much about wiki rules but I kknow thats against them. The linked article no less than three times states the 5200 is the more powerful system and backs up that claim with reasoning. The fact that these other users continue to defend that shows a clear bias. Is there some rule to lock out people from editing when they are constantly breaking that rule? The article was locked from editing because of disruptiveness...I suggest the same be done for mr Wgungfu and Butonmethis. All theyve done is committed the very behavior they supposedly are preventing. They need be banned from this topic for their most disruptive behavior. AND the article needs to be corrected. cmonflippie —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Editprotected request disabled as there is no evident consensus at this time for the proposed change. Please do not re-enable the request unless that happens; doing so will be treated as disruption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So if there is no consensus then what? On November 30th, myself, and the other people, two of which I have bee in contact with will again edit the page to remove the incorrect information, and the disruptive editors who have been undoing the correction will revert it back and so on...There has been no discussion for days save for myself and others who want the proven incorrect information removed. Why, because they simply have more experience with Wikipedia and reporting disruption (when they themselves are the root cause) be allowed to force misinformation to stay? cmonflippie —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

You will discuss it here like adults wishing to present the most accurate portrayal of the subject as described by reliable independent sources, rather than edit war over it like fans wishing to put right some great misjustice. Right now, there is one source which is definitely both reliable and independent (IGN) which uses the phrase "the Atari 5200 was crushed beneath the technological weight of the ColecoVision" to back up the "more powerful" claim, and one source of dubious independence (an Atari fan site) which, while it does indeed attempt to directly rebut the "more powerful" claim, does it in a way which makes it sound like personal opinion. So the onus is on the pro-5200 editors to find further rebuttals in reliable secondary sources, or alternatively to come up with a compromise wording which puts across both sides of the story with due weight assigned to each. When the page is unprotected, editors who go back to warring over the content in question without first achieving consensus on the talk page will simply be blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. IGN gives no basis for it's claim. It's pure opinion. No comparison of processor speed, crash detection or ANY tangible reasoning beyond "because we said so". Have any of you actually read the article on Atarihq? There is little if any opinion only facts. AND the fan site in question is owned and maintained (admittedly) by a person who o several occasions has made comments on other forums belittling the 5200 in favor of his true console love, the 7800. And this used is the very person who is being the disruptive editor. The ignorance here is truly unprecedented. One site conclusive proof, another pure opinion. And you're going to let stand the comment from the site basking in opinion. All that we are asking is that in light of the dispute, to remove the opinionated comments. We're not even asking to replace them with the factual statements. this page has a history of users like wgungfu, dreammentor, etc...posting and allowing weasel words, opinions, and outright hate for the 5200 console to stand as fact. And here I was hoping the chatter about mods at Wikipedia having a god complex were unfounded. Sad to see I was wrong. You say we should discuss it as adults, yet the one who want the opinions to stand have not commented or made any attempts at a compromise in several days. Yet oh boy they were quick on the trigger to act in disruptive editing. Undoing the corrections sometimes within minutes. What kind of adult discussion is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmonflippie (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the phrase "more powerful" should be removed from the "Market Performance" section, when comparing the ColecoVision and 5200. The two machines are in the same overall generation of hardware, they are comparable to one another much like the Sega Genesis and SNES are (each one has technical advantages over the other), and to my knowledge, there's no definitive proof that one machine is physically more powerful than the other in all respects (something that's much easier to assert when crossing generation boundaries). Claims about power advantages boil down mostly to marketing ploys, which are relevant to the console's history, but should be accurately reflected as such. The 5200's poor performance compared to the ColecoVision has much more to do with its limited game library and its terrible controller than it does the physical power of the machine - the CV may or may not be "more powerful", but one cannot argue that it had a much larger library of games, many of which were favorably comparable to their arcade counterparts at the time. (Some of these facts are already stated in the article.)

Basically, one has to ask what value is provided by asserting that one machine is "more powerful" than another. I argue that it's a moot point in most cases - it's either self-evident (the 5200 is more powerful than the 2600), or it falls into a grey area that leads to contention. Again, I'll cite the SNES vs. Genesis - both of those consoles are in the same generation, they were direct competitors, they each had market-share leads, and they each claimed to be the superior console for a number of reasons. But when you analyze the hardware, each console could do something the other could not, and in order to define one as more powerful than the other, you end up having to base that assertion on just one or two statistics (the Genesis had a faster processor, but the SNES had a larger color palette and could do Mode-7 natively).

To be perfectly honest, I don't see a significant difference between that and the 5200 vs. ColecoVision debate. We'll get much more value out of simply stating what people liked and didn't like about each console and explaining, in purely observable terms, why the ColecoVision did better. Any discussion about which console is "more powerful" should be limited to, and cited as, reviews from either trusted or potentially biased sources, rather than made as a statement of fact. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The very fact that the AtariHQ source actually argues the claim that the Atari 5200 is more powerful than the Colecovision, rather than simply stating it, implies that this claim is contentious at best. Additionally, IGN is considered a notable, reliable source, and wouldn't offhandedly state that one system is more powerful than another if there were significant debate around the topic. Wikipedia policy doesn't prescribe giving undue weight to standpoints which aren't held by a significant number of people, and from what I've seen, the theory that the Colecovision isn't more powerful than the 5200 is just such a fringe standpoint. If we can support for the theory that doesn't come from such an obviously biased source as an Atari fansite, that's a different story, but right now there's no justification for making the change.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with not discussing the issue of power at all is that it's been asserted by a reliable source that the 5200 failed in the market because it was technically inadequate. I do find that to be relevant to a discussion of market performance. Is there a compelling reason to exclude "power" from that discussion? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from AtariHQ, I haven't seen any source that is both "reliable" for Wikipedia's purposes, AND that makes a "more powerful" claim either way in this case. Every retrospective I've personally read about the 5200, as well as having spoken to people who were involved in various aspects of its development and marketing, stated that its main causes of failure were its controller and its lack of games, for various reasons. Technical capability has rarely entered into the equation.

Furthermore, the way the paragraph is written currently, we're merely "speculating" that the size of the game library had anything at all to do with the market performance, but we're stating as fact that the Coleco was more powerful, and further that the Coleco's superior power made the 5200's advantages more or less irrelevant. Regardless of the factual accuracy of these statements, they are currently worded in such a way that they appear to be opinions made into facts.

If a reliable source has the opinion that the ColecoVision was the superior machine in technical aspects (or the other way around), we should be citing the source as having made that statement, not translating the source's review as discrete fact, and provide their reasons for stating so. If there are other reliable sources that dispute this claim (which I'm sure there must be), it would be appropriate to mention that as well. But my point is that, in my experience, technical superiority took a distant back seat to Atari's poor marketing and its inability to produce compelling games. (The fact that, during the 5200's entire lifetime, they were still putting more funding into the 2600 division, speaks volumes there.)

I'll also point out that the 5200 was an extremely powerful machine, IF you knew how to program it well. Take a look at Rescue on Fractalus and Ballblazer - these games likely would not have been possible on the ColecoVision at all. BUT: It took some extremely talented programmers (my father being one of them) to make those games happen, and they were very much notable exceptions to the rule on that system. If Atari had done more to get licensing deals and third-party developers on board for that system, we may very well have seen more games like the ones I just mentioned, and I think the story might look very different today. But they didn't, and Coleco just plain outsold them as a result. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To better illustrate my point, see my reply to Cmonflippie below. In it, I assert that Coleco's marketing may very well have convinced the general public that its console was technically superior, and Atari failed to convince them otherwise. This creates a perception that the ColecoVision was superior, regardless of the reality. We don't actually have to care which one had the better tech specs - people clearly bought the Coleco in higher numbers because they thought it was the better console and it had the better (or a better selection of) games. It was generally reviewed as having a better controller as well, but none of these things have to do with the actual processing or graphics capabilities of either machine. I say it's a case in which marketing won, and this article should reflect that. Consider it "bridging the gap", if you will. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

None of what you've said is a compelling reason to ignore a claim made by a reliable source about the power of the 5200 relative to the Colecovision and its relation to market performance. The claim should be attributed, but beyond that, I don't know what else we can do other than wait for more RSes to cover the subject. I suppose someone could add unsourced discussion, maybe talk about marketing, but any contentious material can and probably would be removed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been suggesting we ignore the source's claim. I'm suggesting that the claim is just that: A claim. Not necessarily a demonstrable fact. To make a statement that either system is actually "more powerful" than the other, we have to be able to verify that, and while it's true that we do report what sources say about a subject, if we can't independently verify that one system really is more powerful than the other, we need to make sure the assertion is from the source's point of view, not the general world's.

I tried a different rewrite in the article that I think will satisfy everyone. What has been much more commonly stated in history is that the ColecoVision delivered a more authentic arcade experience than the 5200, and this was due mainly to both the quality of the games themselves and the rather lucrative licensing deals Coleco was able to make with arcade manufacturers at the time. The quality of the games could be argued in terms of system power, but this way we don't have to make tenuous assertions that are only backed up by one source, yet we still convey the message in a way that makes sense. Follow? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim is just a claim, but it's a claim from a reliable source. Attributing it to that source is reasonable. Replacing the claim with original research, which is exactly what you've done, is decidedly less reasonable. The claim may be contentious, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with your personal understanding, but it's allowed to be all of those things because it comes from a reliable source.

And suppose we do remove it. Is there anything we can do or say to prevent someone from adding it later? So far as I'm aware, there are no policies or guidelines which could prevent that. And if that's the case, we'd just be spinning our wheels. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, original research? I left the citation in there, which backs up exactly what I wrote. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, sorry, the IGN source doesn't back this up. However, I do know this was mentioned in Kent's book - I'll find the specific citation tonight or tomorrow when I have time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, in response to "The claim may be contentious, uncorroborated, ... but it's allowed to be all those things because it comes from a reliable source." - I hate to say it, but a source we've marked as reliable could turn around and say the sky is green. Would we allow that to become a factual statement on Wikipedia just because someone published the statement on a site that we've used for reliable-source material on other subjects? You're effectively arguing that "IGN said it, so it must be true," which goes against common sense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One last note: Now that I've read the cited source in more detail, I'll further dispute its relevance. IGN says the 5200 was "crushed" by the technical superiority of the ColecoVision, but it gives no justification beyond what appears to be the editor's opinion on this matter. When compared with actual specifics (sales figures, data from Kent's book, etc.), the "technical superiority" bit easily breaks down into the perception arguments I made above. Again, I'll try to get the relevant source material when I have time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the citations I was looking for, and reworked in the IGN statement so that it clearly reads as a review and not a fact. For reference, the passages I'm taking from "Ultimate History of Video Games" are:

“ (p206-207) ... These added features [frame buffers and memory mapping] gave the ColecoVision smoother animation and more arcade-like graphics than the Intellivision and the [2600]. // [The chip set] was so advanced, it could even handle video images. ... Even with its technological superiority [over the 2600 and Intellivision]... ”

“ (p209) Coleco created an excellent version of Donkey Kong that came closer to matching arcade gameplay and graphics than any earlier game cartridge ... ”

To be fair, this book doesn't directly discuss the competition between ColecoVision and 5200 - its discussion is more about Coleco competing with the 2600 and Intellivision, where there really was a clear technological advance. But just the same, I believe it does back up the current version of the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just had these citations reverted by the IP on the grounds that they're still speculating about the CV being more powerful. Please note a significant difference between the version I put up and what we had before: The old version said the CV was more powerful. The new version clearly states that this is a reviewer's opinion. The existence of the reviewer's statement is itself a fact, even if the claim he's making is not, and the citations directly support this. I'm going to ask everyone to please slow down and make sure you understand what's being said here before you just go and revert it. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I am late to this conversation, though I have been following it as it developed over the last few days. To me, it seems this dispute hinges on some overreaching regarding the IGN source. Near as I can tell, the source only states that the ColecoVision had a processor with a higher clock speed and really does not make a broader claim to "technological superiority." In describing the so-called "technological weight" of the ColecoVision, the only attribute the author mentions is the "jaw-dropping," 3.58 MHz processor, which seems to be the entirety of his observation on the superior technological attributes of the ColecoVision. Now I am not bringing this up to get into a technical debate on clock speed and bit processing and whether a 1MHz 6502 equals a 3MHz Z80, but instead to point out that the IGN writer may not be claiming as much superiority for the system as our article currently implies. I neither know nor particularly care which system is technically superior, but this IGN article appears to boil down to one writer over twenty years after the fact making the blindingly obvious statement that 3.58 is a bigger number than 1.79. This is a far different proposition than saying that system specs have led "some reviewers to criticize the 5200 as technologically inferior to its competition." Indrian (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Indrian. This is in line with another couple of observations I probably should have made earlier on but neglected to:

1. IGN is a reliable source, yes. But generally, it's reliable for hard data, like game ratings numbers, sales statistics, reviews, etc. These are definitely important pieces of info. But IGN, being a review-and-interest site, also does editorial columns, and I believe we'd established long ago that editorials, especially things like "Top-10/Top-25" articles and lists, should be taken with a grain of salt regardless of the source -- unless the article is obviously reciting hard facts (like "Top 10 best-selling arcade games of all time", where the data can be verified).
2. The article being cited in this case is exactly such an editorial article. I did mention earlier that the power claim was the reviewer's opinion, but I apparently didn't drive the point home hard enough. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the source's reliability, you should take it up at WT:VG/S. So far as I'm aware, IGN is considered reliable for all purposes so long as published content falls under editorial control. WP:VG/S does not single out editorial or top-n articles. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The author clearly attributed, to some extent or another, the market failure of the 5200 to the technological superiority of the Colecovision. If I understand you correctly, you're looking at the author's brevity and concluding that his analysis is superficial or otherwise faulty. I'm reasonably certain that judgment falls outside of our editorial scope. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: I am noting that the author makes reference to the faster clockspeed of the ColecoVision processor but does not compare any other features of the two systems from a technological standpoint, meaning that extrapolating a broader argument for technological inferiority from the author's brevity is original research that falls outside our editorial scope. Indrian (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confused. The author's statement is explicit: "the Atari 5200 was crushed...". There's some poetic flourish, but it's unambiguous. This statement is by itself all we need and it applies to the system in general, not any specific part of it. He went on to compare processor speeds, but that doesn't serve to limit the preceding statement. I don't see anything that would lead you to think otherwise. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if National Geographic posted a blog article in which a single editor asserted that the sky was green, would we (a) take it seriously just because it came from NatGeo, and (b) would we use that blog article as the sole justification for making the same claim in the form of fact on a Wikipedia article about the planet? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about the color of the sky. We're talking about a subject that not a lot has been written about. If you have a bunch of reliable sources that show the offending claim to be some kind of fringe position, please share them. As to things that conflict with your personal understanding, this article comes to mind. Once in a while, someone tries to correct facts and figures from reliable sources because what they see on the video is so obviously different (it's never obvious, but that's beside the point). The changes are reverted every time. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is nonetheless the same. It boils down to "IGN wrote it, therefore it must be true." And you're arguing about it to the point of excluding any possibility that there may be another source that contradicts it. Our IP editor contributed an edit (which I reverted for being too detailed, not factually inaccurate) that showed there to be very little overall difference between the two consoles. IMO, a simple analysis of already-published facts (tech specs of both consoles) is no different than my stepping outside and verifying the color of the sky.

My problem with your assertion is twofold: One, the original text that was at issue turned an editorial opinion into a statement of fact. I proposed that, if we must use the IGN article at all in this context, we be clear that this was an editorial statement. And two, I've already provided several citations from another reliable source that back up other claims you earlier called "original research".

So, what's the problem, then? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Did this get fixed yet? I haven't been able to unravel all of the dispute (too many reverts) but it seems to me that the easiest way is just to attribute the claim of technical superiority directly to IGN, with a direct quote if necessary. The reader can then decide what to believe. I think this is sufficiently in the realms of subjectivity that we can do that if everyone is amenable. I notice that ButOnMethItIs suggested this on the WP:VG page and IMO this is the best solution. I think trying to weave this into the claims regarding public perception -if I read it right- is too tenuous and probably breaks WP:SYNTH. As an aside, the-sky-is-blue reductio ad absurdum always irks me. Nat Geo will never publish such a blog post. Our sky article manages to cite several sources stating that the sky is blue (because really it's not quite that simple). I think most probably Indrian has correctly deduced why IGN wrote that, but the fact remains is no other reliable source dispute it, then it should go in (preferably qualified as opinion). I'm not sure what the Atari HQ connection is but if it disputes this claim then so much the better. I think the site is just about the right side of borderline if nothing better is available; and on the off chance the content was written by Marty Goldberg we can bybass the site's reliability and cite him under WP:SPS. bridies (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I asked that the every sub-discussion that was going on be put on hold until the reliability of Atari HQ was determined. Most of the other discussions would be moot points if that was not decided. Once the discussion at the RS Noticeboard closes, then the other discussions can continue, preferably one at a time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC))
    • I'm not actually sure what AtariHQ's status as a reliable source has to do with this particular issue. At issue is a claim being made by IGN, not by AtariHQ. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • As I understood it, part of the counter argument against the IGN source was the information in the Atari HQ article. Virtually all content disputes I've seen can be definitively settled through research and sources. Once that is gathered, it's easy to identify what are disagreements and what are disruptions.
        Also, since the article's reliability was questioned, the began to discussion split. Establishing the site's reliability will be good for the project to do, and keep the discussion focused on one part at time. Once that is done (which should hopefully be soon), then we can focus on the wording based on the available sources.
        It's the long way, but things became too fractured and heated to be productive. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Proposed rewrite

I'd just do this myself if it weren't for the current dispute, but here's my proposed rewrite that I think will more faithfully capture what we're trying to convey. The most significant change is bolded, and I haven't bothered to include links or cites for this draft - if approved, they'll be in the article version:

“ In comparison to its predecessor, the Atari 2600, the 5200 was not commercially successful. While it touted superior graphics to the 2600 and Mattel's Intellivision, it had a limited library of games and initially could not play any games from the 2600's expansive library. Some market analysts have speculated that this incompatibility, along with the presence of a 2600 cartridge adapter for the Intellivision, contributed to the console's poor sales. (A cartridge adapter was released in 1983 that allowed gamers to play all 2600 games.) The ColecoVision, released in (year), quickly gained the lead in the market due mainly to its larger library of games, many of which were very faithful ports of popular arcade games at the time (most notably its pack-in game, Donkey Kong), and its more durable controller design. By comparison, the 5200's pack-in game, Super Breakout, was criticized for not doing enough to demonstrate the console's graphics and sound capabilities. ”

What do you think? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

KieferSkunks rewrite is perfect. We're not asking that the article state the 5200 is more powerful, just that the opinionated "less powerful" statement be taken out. Regardless though this whole "atari fansite" argument is beyond poorly justified. When facts are given, it does not matter the source. If there were an article discussing say, the temperature of the ocean in a certain area, you cannot discount the proof presented by testing, and the use of a thermometer simply because the person who wrote the article prefers living on a boat to land. Lets keep the article informative, and the fanboy opinions out. IGN is citing an opinion with no reasoning. That alone should disqualify the statement. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmonflippie (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Cmonflippie, that one of Wikipedia's five pillars is Verifiability, Not Truth. I realize that specific wording is under debate right now, but as it currently stands, this phrase means that Wikipedia's job is not to establish truth, but to ensure that statements made in articles are verifiable. Thus, a console is technically superior in every possible way to its competitor, and this could be found through arduous technical analysis and testing. But if a Wikipedia editor is the only person to ever prove this and 99.99% of the world believes the opposite, Wikipedia's job is to report what the 99% says. If, somewhere down the line, the report of technical superiority becomes widely published and successfully changes people's minds, Wikipedia will eventually reflect that as part of the console's history, but would still be within its right to say "At the time, the world thought the competitor was better and thus the competitor won."

In a way, I've just outlined the point behind my own argument: The ColecoVision was certainly MARKETED as being more powerful than the 5200, and IMO they did a pretty convincing job of that. All that matters, though, in terms of market performance, is that you be able to sell your console as the better one, and Coleco clearly won that battle. It doesn't actually matter whether or not their console was technically superior - it could have had the processing power of a Magnavox Odyssey for all we know. But they managed to convince the public that their console was better, and Atari failed to convince the public otherwise. So Wikipedia would be best served by reflecting the perception of superiority as being the driving force behind the 5200's failure, rather than making a factual assertion about one console actually being technically superior to the other. As I said, the tech specs don't matter if the marketing succeeds. (Also keep in mind that at the time these consoles were active, the vast majority of their target customers were much less discerning than they tend to be today.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

99.99% ??? I seriously doubt that. This is not about which console sold better. The system that sells better is not necessarily the more "powerful" one. That's extremely illogical. That's like saying Brittany Spears is a more talented musician than Jimi Hendrix simply because she sold more records. The Intellivision outsold the 5200, does that make it a more powerful game system? I can't say it enough nor stress it enough. The two systems were tested and compared based on tangible aspects of the system. Irregardless of who happened to write the article, it is cited on a site which is a reliable source, no more or less than IGN. Let's keep the information unbiased, and remove the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.204.28 (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you totally missed my point. I'm not trying to say whether the 5200 is or is not more powerful than the ColecoVision. I'm saying that Coleco managed to convince its target audience that they had the better console. I'm saying that it does not matter which console is technically more powerful - the Market Performance section is about just that, and as I said, I've only ever seen one site make a definitive statement about overall power having anything to do with market performance with these two consoles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer is right. It is not Wikipedia's goal to push a specific point of view. What that means is that we present the information that reliable sources have concluded/recorded in an unbiased manner. However, if the information is naturally biased to begin with, then it is not our job to "fix" that. By fix, I mean skew the presentation of the information beyond its original form (verifiability, not truth). Some topics are naturally biased, but if there is proper sourcing to back that up and present non-fringe counter arguments, then we've done our duties as neutral editors.

A discussion like this should encompass numerous reliable sources, not just one reliable and one fan site that has not been vetted as a reliable source. If you believe that the bulk of the information out there points to the statement that "the 5200 is more powerful than the ColecoVision", then please supply the sources that back up that idea. If no such sources are out there, then I suggest that we determine the fan site's reliability. We can take further steps from there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Just to note, the "fansite" (my site, Atari Gaming Headquarters) was vetted and is in the video game project's list of reliable sources. Links to the vetting talks at RS and VG/RS are provided there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite is a fine consensus. The opinionated (and, proven to be incorrect) "more powerful" line has been removed, which is all that was being asked. Hopefully, there will be no further vandalism or disruptive editing reverting it back in. TYVM Kieferskunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmonflippie (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. The rewrite is a fine consensus among those of us who (in accordance with wikipedia's rules) wanted the biased opinionated statement removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmonflippie (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Under the rules AtariHQ is NOT a reliable source. Other things mentioned that are reliable sources clearly state something, then it should be in the article. Dream Focus 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. As already stated, AtariHQ was previously vetted and is in the video game project's list of reliable sources. Links to the vetting talks at RS and VG/RS are provided there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but that page only lists AtariHQ as having been "considered", but not actually listed as reliable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No "considered" as in is reliable, not considered as in the process of being decided or "being considered". You're missreading. Per the section head - "Sources with green checkmarks (✓) are currently considered to meet reliability requirements; sources with red Xs (✗) are currently considered unreliable; sources with orange exclamation marks (!!!) are currently "situational" and may not be used in every circumstance." It went through RS and VG/RS discussions to reach the reliability decision (none of which I was a part of for obvious conflict of interest). In either case, if Thibbs put it in the wrong section after the reliability decision was reached, then that of course needs to be corrected (I had asked him to please put the info in the page after he informed me of the reliability decision). I also complied with the suggestion at RS and updated the about page to include the editorial standards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Okay, nevermind. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, having two people participate in a discussion and agreeing it looks reliable, doesn't absolutely make it so. I opened the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Atari_HQ yesterday. Dream Focus 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Dream, but the rules don't state that, it was announced and given time for participation. If only two people were involved in it, that can't be helped - a decision was still made. If you're going to re-open that, please at least get the facts correct in your statement - stating we have no editorial oversite is false. As stated above, our editorial oversite is clearly stated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Atari_HQ. Please continue the discussion there. Dream Focus 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Reset

Since the dispute has become fractured and apparently there's now some basic confusion on what we're even arguing about, I figured I'd take a little time to sort of "reset" the discussion back to a point where everything is clearly stated.

The original issue was that in the Market Performance section, we had a statement saying, directly (as a statement of fact) that the ColecoVision was a more powerful system than the 5200. Someone took issue with this and asserted that the statement was biased, contentious and uncorroborated. The cited source for that particular statement is an editorial article at IGN listing its "Top 25 Retro Consoles", where the Atari 5200 ranked #23. That article states that the 5200 was "crushed" under the "technological weight" of the ColecoVision, then goes on to compare the clock speed of each console's CPU but no other technical details.

Now, near as I can tell, we have User:ButOnMethItIs stating that IGN is a reliable source and therefore we have no reason to not state what it says as part of the article. Several other users, myself included, have argued that the statement is mostly irrelevant, there are other sources (most notably "Ultimate History of Video Games") that state the 5200's market failure had more to do with Atari's lack of funding and interest in the console, and that being an editorial, the IGN article is stating an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. I made the argument that Coleco did a good job of convincing people (including the person who wrote the editorial, apparently) that the ColecoVision was more powerful, but this is a statement of perception. An IP editor added a rather detailed technical analysis of multiple points of each system that concluded that the two were roughly equivalent in power.

I've made a few attempts to rewrite the contentious statement in a format that makes it clear the "more powerful" statement is an editorial, to try to avoid having the article seem overly biased against the 5200 and/or putting undue weight on the ColecoVision. I'm not satisfied with the current version, but I think it's close to where it needs to be such that we still get the point across in a neutral way. I also don't believe that the current debate on the reliability of the Atari HQ site has anything to do with this particular dispute, since the contentious claim was made by IGN and we're not currently trying to use an Atari HQ page to rebut it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well here's the problem, the IGN writer is stating an opinion, but which console is more powerful is a factual issue. Either one console is better in every way than the other and thus more powerful, or each console has a few attributes the other lacks and neither console is more powerful, though one could still be better suited for the popular games of the day than the other. Generally speaking, consoles released as part of the same generation of systems are going to be relatively equal in performance, so a blanket statement of power will not be appropriate. The Atari 5200 and ColecoVision are, objectively speaking, close to equal in performance, so the opinion that one was crushed under the "technological weight" of the other is ludicrous and indefensible. The author tries to defend the statement nonetheless by pointing to a disparity in clock speed, but he proves his own ignorance as to the relative capability of a 6502 and a Z80, which means this statement of "fact" is flat out wrong. When an author makes an indefensible statement backed up by erroneous facts, that is when you have an unreliable source.

I don't have a problem with your second point that Coleco may have created a market perception of technological superiority or that consumers assumed the console was superior due to its faithful arcade translations, but the IGN source is not making that argument, and since it is a retrospective from over twenty years later it cannot be used to gauge reactions to the two systems when they were competing on the market since it sites to no sources from that time. If this IGN article was used as a source for the wrong release year or wrong retail price or wrong pack-in game we would not even be having this discussion because no one would use the source to support such an incorrect fact. Because most of us (myself included) are not technical people, however, there seems to be a small group who have not done their homework on the actual technical capabilities of the two systems and seem to have no problem with including incorrect info in wikipedia just because a writer for IGN decided to write about it. To put it simply, a 3.58 Z80 is not really more capable than a 1.79 6502 so the author's thesis is based on faulty information. Indrian (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, but maybe you didn't understand. It doesn't matter that you think the IGN article is factually incorrect. IGN is considered a generally reliable source. It is not your job to evaluate claims presented by IGN or any other source. If you wish to dispute IGN's reliability, do so here. The bottom line is that so long as IGN is considered reliable by the community, there's no basis for excluding this content. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And I will repeat my earlier counter-argument that whether we are in a position to second-guess the accuracy of IGN's claim, it is inappropriate for us to treat an editorial opinion as a statement of fact. Though I agree that IGN's overall reliability should be called into question, as this is not the first time they've made statements like this that have proven to be baseless. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be presented as a fact. Forget about presentation for a minute and consider the more basic issue of inclusion/exclusion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is bonkers; there is really no other way to put it. IGN is not an all or nothing proposition; its writers make mistakes like everyone else. Just because it has been listed as a reliable source does not mean that all information on the site magically becomes accurate and correct; it is just an acknowledgement that the site is professionally run and subject to editorial control and therefore sourcing to IGN is appropriate because the writers on the site are theoretically unbiased and attempting to prevent mistakes from creeping into their work. Your view that because IGN is considered reliable then individual articles no longer need to contain factually accurate information is incredible. Seriously, I could write a history of videogames using nothing but reliable sources that would contain virtually no accurate information in it at all because there are so few sources and scholarship in the field is just beginning to develop so there are errors, caused by either sloppy research or incomplete sources of information, in every last secondary source and many articles from reliable primary sources. The verifiability not truth policy of wikipedia and the process of vetting a source to allow citing it on wikipedia is not a license to to be factually incorrect. If that were so, it would turn wikipedia into a mockery with zero credibility as a source of information (which I think many would argue it already is). Indrian (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's almost like WP is fundamentally imperfect or something. Anyway, I don't think the claim can be excluded without IGN being re-evaluated as situationally reliable by the community. Maybe you can cite a policy that suggests otherwise. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Indrian: I was gonna say, Wikipedia doesn't already have that reputation? :) Kidding aside, though, I brought up the exact topic that Meth mentioned above, though that conversation is going a similar direction: Apply common sense to sources whether they're considered reliable or not. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How does this strike people?

“ In its list of the top 25 game consoles of all time, IGN claimed that the main reason for the 5200's market failure was the technological superiority of its competitor, (cite "top-25") though a detailed technical comparison of the two consoles has not been published. (cite needed) ”

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just the first statement, IMO. bridies (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• One long established website says one thing, while a website run by three people state something else. I went looking for other opinions on the matter. ColecoVision came out months before Atari 5200, had a vastly superior controller than the crappy one Atari had, that listed as a key reason in various places. As for the tech comparison, so far I found a book, "Classic home video games, 1972-1984: a complete reference guide By Brett Weiss", which compares the games released on both systems. Of Congo Bongo it says "The isometric perspective (as seen in the original arcade game) is hard to duplicate on a home system, but the ColecoVision version does it much better than the 5200 game." Later in the book, at page 174, they say, "While far from perfect, Congo Bongo for the ColecoVision is colorful and cute, it does a fairly good job of emulating the isometric perspective found in the coin-op classic, and it's far superior to the Atari 5200 version of the game." If anyone can think of something to enter in to a search for Google News Archive or Google news book search, please do so. There should be information about this somewhere. Dream Focus 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It also mentions other games such as page 180 where it talks about Gorf stating that "The ColecoVision rendition has superior graphics as well." when comparing it to Atari 5200 version. I still can't find anywhere actually comparing the tech of both though. Dream Focus 06:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that source is reliable, I have no problem with including that kind of info; I think its fair to say that superior arcade game translations played a role in the ColecoVision's success so long as sources bear that out. Certainly, the controller issues are fair game too. Good luck on finding stuff about the technology too, because I certainly do not know enough about how both systems work to say definitively that one was not better suited to the games of the day than the other, which is a different proposition from one actually having more "power" or "technological superiority." None of that changes the fact that the "long-established website" bases its entire argument on the faulty premises that clock speed alone determines the capability of a CPU and that the capability of a CPU determines the capability of a video game console. Its not so much IGN versus Atari HQ, because one does not need to bring AtariHQ into the argument to prove that the IGN writer has no idea what he is talking about in this case. Indrian (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The IGN articles for the two systems [1] and [2] talk about the superior quality in games also. The Atari loving owner of the Atari5200 fansite shows two games for comparison, one of which has two different areas of the game so its not really a good comparison, and claims that while everyone else says COLECOVISION had superior graphics for their games, in fact Atari 5200 did simply because they said so. Since the writer for Atari5200 is here arguing his case, perhaps someone could contact someone from IGN to come and express their opinions. I don't see anywhere listing who wrote the reviews though. Some games might have not been ported as best they could, there no major difference I see in the two things shown, but the reviews do state in detail that many hit games looked vastly superior on the Colecovision. Dream Focus 14:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, I don't think the AtariHQ article was actually delving so much into the concept of which games actually looked better on which systems as opposed to describing the various graphic modes each system could draw upon and the technical characteristics each. The conclusions drawn by the article, as far as I can see, are not based on which system actually had better games, which is going to be a combination of system capability, programming skill, and the suitability of certain game mechanics to certain types of hardware. Again, I have no problem with the concept that ColecoVision games were superior arcade translations to their Atari 5200 counterparts, and if the sources bare this out, then it is a valid point to include in the article. I have yet to see evidence that this superiority can be attributed to technological reasons alone, however. One need only look at the quality difference between an Activision Atari 2600 game and just about anything released by some of the companies that sprang up in 1982 and 1983 to take advantage of the video game boom, for instance, to see that game quality can vary wildly even when a systems technological capabilities are exactly the same. Indrian (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already wrote IGN and pointed out the issue with their "cause of demise" on the 5200 in their article. Who knows if they'll ever write me back or do anything with it, but just the same, I tried.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: The two systems are very different from one another in terms of architecture and have very different capabilities. But even more important, they had different sets of programmers and apparently different priorities. I'm very familiar with the tech of both consoles and understand part of why the ColecoVision had a practical technical edge (its hardware supported sprites and tiling, whereas the 5200's graphics architecture was more rigid and needed more complex coding to produce the same kinds of graphics with less efficiency). There are certainly elements of the ColecoVision's hardware that could be considered superior to those of the 5200. But when compared ability for ability, each system could do something the other could not, and I maintain that if Atari had properly funded the 5200 and more aggressively pursued licensing contracts like Coleco did, they would have attracted much more programming talent that could have truly taken advantage of the 5200's architecture.

Once again, I'll point out Rescue on Fractalus! and BallBlazer as examples of games on the 5200 that really took advantage of its hardware. These games are extremely unlikely to have been possible to do at all on the ColecoVision because of the type of hardware it had - BallBlazer was only barely possible as a crummy port on the NES, which is widely considered to be more powerful than the CV and 5200 together. On the other hand, it certainly would have been possible to develop games of Coleco's quality on the 5200, but Atari simply didn't have the licenses or the talent to develop those games. Coleco snapped 'em all up, and Atari utterly failed to compete. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd

The Angry Video Game Nerd hated the controller with a passion, summing it up as "This controller is a piece of ****", is he worth mentioning? 50.138.213.207 (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• The AVGN is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia, so no, it should not be mentioned. Indrian (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

5200 same hardware generation as 2600?

Could someone explain why the 5200 is lumped into the same hardware generation as the 2600, when the 5200 was clearly Atari's next generation console? It's like saying the NES and SNES are part of the same hardware generation. It makes no sense. 108.53.8.71 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• While you are 100% correct, this comes down to what has actually been reported in reliable sources. Technically, the 5200 and ColecoVision should represent a new generation that follows the 2600, Intellivision, and Odyssey 2, but because the crash wiped the industry out so soon after the release of these systems -- and because Atari quickly abandoned the 5200 in favor of the 7800 -- those who have written about video game history have taken the approach of lumping every single console released between 1976 and 1982 into a single generation despite the great disparity in performance between a Fairchild Channel F and a ColecoVision. Since wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, we cannot come up with our own system of classification here. Hopefully as scholarship in the field continues to improve, more sources will recognize the silliness lumping all these consoles together, after which we can change it here. Indrian (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Those who have written about video game history in recent years lump the 5200 and ColecoVision in with the 2600 and Intellivision because they read it on Wikipedia. See the problem here? 108.53.8.71 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think its fair to say that the whole "console generation" thing was practically invented on wikipedia in an earlier time when the sourcing standards were not so high as they are today, so yeah, I do see the problem, and it is a silly one. That fight has already been lost, however, as consensus has been established that even though Wikipedia itself may have played a large role in modern console generation classifications, the fact that reliable sources picked up the same generational groupings means this is not a case of Wikipedia being a reference for itself. While logically reasoned, I do not completely agree with that decision myself, but there is really no point in dragging up that old argument again. As I said though, I think scholarship in the field of video game history is still in its infancy and that this problem will go away eventually. It just may take awhile. Indrian (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia do I see sources for the use of console generations that pre-date the creation of the Wikipedia console generation classification system. If there are some sources, I'd love to see them. ZadocPaet (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. You're right, the fight has already been lost. It's frustrating, both in terms of video game history and common sense. Thanks for your clarification though, I appreciate it. 108.53.8.71 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

citation needed

in february 2014 someone added "citation needed" all over the place, some of those in the most ludicrous places, like wanting a citation for the controller layout, nevermind the picture below that proved it correct. i removed that one but didnt feel comfortable removing all of them. should we? should we not? i mean doesn't this count as a kind of vandalism? --92.193.36.103 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed them from the Hardware section and added a Template:Refimprove because i found it too distracting. Some other sections could be tidied up similarly if someone feels the need. Mikethegreen (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Intentional incompatibility?

It's claimed via reference to the Creative Computing article that the "the incompatibility [with the 400/800 series] was intentional." (This has already been edited down from claiming that this was "because of rivalry between Atari's computer and video game divisions" as the article didn't actually say that itself).

There isn't a specific citation quote, unfortunately, but I'm assuming the claim rests upon the article's sentence "...all compatibility and expandability had been designed out". I'm not sure this actually proves or backs up the claim that Atari *intentionally* made it incompatible; it's a single, brief sentence that appears to reflect the reviewer's own outsider's (non Atari employee) view of the 5200's bad design and I'm not sure it was ever intended to back up the assertion that the incompatibility was an intentional design goal of Atari themselves (as opposed to stupidity).

Ubcule (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The author of the cited article is John J. Anderson, among the most influential journalists of the first decade of the home-computer era.

Given the context the meaning of his "designed out" is clear. The two previous paragraphs discuss the computer and game divisions' great rivalry, with the latter seeing the former as a "threat". Making the 5200 compatible with the computers its hardware was based on ("very nearly an Atari 800") would cede leadership of the company's direction to the computer division, "a fate worse than death". Anderson's next two paragraphs describes the decision as "hubris", one that "allowed a sizable technological lead, as well as a burgeoning [home computer] market, to slip away." Again, the wording indicates that the decision in question was intentional, as opposed to mere stupidity. Ylee (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair point- I've reread the article, and it does support what you said, so I've withdrawn the dispute tag. Now that you've explained that, I can see it's actually quite a strong reference.

I think it would have been better with a specific reference to the supporting text though, so I've added a quote; please edit it if you feel it wasn't what was intended. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just got the message about this convo. The only issue I have with the reference is the generic mentioning of a "games division." Coin games and consumer games were in completely different divisions (Coin and Consumer respectively). There wasn't a "games division" there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I should also add, not one person we interviewed from the System X team or the home computer group for the book was able to verify Anderson's claim of intentional incompatibility. That goes for people who were management at the time as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also a few more issues with this source. 1) It never actually states the 5200 was purposely designed incompatible, just that it was incompatible. 2) It never specifically states the 5200 design was in relation to the claim of the feud in the previous paragraph of the source. He just alludes to it. 3) He doesn't give any sources for anything and gets the structure of the company at the time of the development of the 5200 wrong. At most, all that can be stated in the article is "John J. Anderson from Creative Computing alluded to the incompatibility being intentional." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

First "Hardware" paragraph: 5200 or 2600 margins?

The first "Hardware" paragraph says:

Much of the technology in the Atari 8-bit family of home computer systems was originally developed as a second-generation games console intended to replace the 2600. However, as the system was reaching completion, the personal computer revolution was starting with the release of machines like the Commodore PET, TRS-80 and Apple II. These machines had less advanced hardware than the 5200, but sold for much higher prices with associated higher profit margins. Atari's management decided to enter this market, and the technology was repackaged into the Atari 400and 800. The chipset used in these machines was created with the mindset that the 2600 would likely be obsolete by the 1980 time frame.

I think that "5200" here should be replaced with "2600" since:

1. 2600 was alreasy superior to Apple2&co due to its TIA engine
2. The para clearly says about reasons of Atari decision to release 400/800. It cannot be made based on prices/margins of future 5200 product, and even based on prices/margins of yet-to-be-released 400/800. I think it should be clear that they have compared 2600 vs first personal computers and realized that they had less margins with existing 2600 and nothing else

I've tried to make an edit, thinking that it is obvious typo, but it was reversed, so I just leave this note here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulat Ziganshin (talk • contribs) 10:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)