Talk:Intellivision Amico/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

{{Disputed}}

“Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor”

The current consensus regarding the intro, and that it is an “upcoming” game console has been disputed. I recommend editors provide citations to the rest of the editing community so the rest of us can discuss the facts.

Some have the belief that the intro the way it is reflects the current consensus. Others disagree. Please feel free to discuss both sides of the argument, and use of language, here. Please do not revert edits without providing guidance as to why you feel this reflects the consensus, and why you feel the previous editor it is wrong. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC) 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to start by providing reliable secondary sources supporting that a change is needed. -- ferret (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We encourage you to do the same. Please provide reliable sources supporting the upcoming status of this console. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Who's we? You have failed to provide any sourcing in your last two talk sections, or past edits. WP:BURDEN lies with the one trying to enact a change. Provide a reliable source that the product has been official cancelled or is otherwise confirmed defunct. -- ferret (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We is the majority of editors that disagree that the console is indeed upcoming. You have also failed to provide any reliable sources that justify the reversions.

“The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material”. Please note the “or restores” part.

2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's been listed as still active as recently as July 2022 by reliable sources like IGN. It is not up to editors to declare projects active or inactive. Until you have a reliable source verifying its inactive, we go by the most recent accounts, which are the July 2022 accounts. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Please cite your evidence as fact then in the introduction to avoid confusion in the future, and lead to a better overall article. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I copy-pasted it from the discussion directly above, that someone posted days weeks ago. Do a better job reading past disputes before jumping head-first into new ones. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Please cite it in the article, and please avoid being so curt with your responses. As I said, I have acted within the guidelines as stated regarding disputes. The formatting and request for discussion is correct.

If you disagree, take the actions you feel appropriate. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article. People are irritated because we've discussed and resolved this already. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not resolved. People keep changing the article. It has been disputed. It was reverted without discussion. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Arguments are weighted by their validity on Wikipedia. It is not enough to just object. You need a policy based reason for your objection, or it gets ignored. Additionally, please read WP:BURDEN and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Even in times of active dispute, you default to the version prior to the change, and only end up making the change if there is consensus to do so. In this case, the disputed change is going from "upcoming" to something more passive or past tense. We default to "upcoming" until there's us a policy based consensus for change. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The majority of editors besides yourself disagree. 2003:E6:EF05:2743:29BE:64A5:F8DF:F9AE (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense to this situation. There is no greater community consensus against the small consensus present here. Quite the opposite. There's no precedent of removing "upcoming" from a commercial product just because some people personally don't think it'll come out. That violates WP:V and WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 but there is a greater community consensus here. Just look at the edit history and reversions. It's two editors against everyone else. 2003:E6:EF05:2743:29BE:64A5:F8DF:F9AE (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is decided by talk page discussions and strength of policy-based arguments, not the reverts of an indeterminate number anonymous editors. It's not just a vote or popularity contest. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See the section above. There's clear consensus and precedent for listing it as upcoming, along with sources that verify it. No one has written a policy-based counterpoint.Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus has been disputed, and the method in which editors revert changes has also been challenged with not being in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

The dispute has also been reverted, without discussion before doing so, despite being within Wikipedia guidelines. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

How? The discussion above was a very concrete 3 against one. And the dissenting "1" gave no policy-based argument. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is only 3 against one now. The discussion is barely an hour old. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Read the section directly above. It was discussed and resolved weeks ago. You're extremely late to the party. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote, and I will write it again. The guidelines have been followed. The issue is not resolved because people continue to make edits disputing what you keep reverting.

If people wish to disagree with you, they may do so here. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss with anyone who can present a Wikipedia policy-based reason to discuss. The discussion has been extremely one-sided when it comes to policy based rationales thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool. As I wrote… The dispute was tagged, and a discussion was started. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Feel free to start describing your policy based argument. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Drive by people who don't understand our sourcing guidelines do not a "dispute" make. You also understand we are technically fluent enough to tell when an IP editor is the same one from another day/week/month, right? -- ferret (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ferret I do. Nor do I care. If you feel you need to take actions to reveal my identity or block me, do it. I disagree with you, plain and simple. If you want your version of this to be the only version - lock the page. 2003:E6:EF05:2743:29BE:64A5:F8DF:F9AE (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need to do either, I'm just making sure you understand that "we" know how many of these supposed disputed edits and talk sections are simply one person. I've already locked the page under our protection policy. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I do understand that “we” know. As for seeing the need. That is speculative at best, and quite scary at worst that you would have such powers at Wikipedia. 2A01:598:A134:6660:DC74:854C:8F47:6FBD (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to give a policy based argument, or are you just here to gripe and complain? Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

As much as it is the opinion of many (including myself) that the console won't come out, that's what it is - an opinion. Reliable sources say that it is upcoming, and thus the article should treat it as such. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. My stance doesn't come from some sort of staunch personal belief that it's going to be released someday. This is merely about follow WP:V and WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I assure you, IP, that there are many more people that would have reverted the change if Sergecross hadn't, myself included. It should read "upcoming" until reliable sources have stated otherwise. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Salvidrim! posted a handful of articles on the Wikipedia Discord that may indicate that the Amico is all but officially cancelled. I'm copy-pasting them here: 12345 LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, guess I really should havec chimed in here, so let me repeat -- I think we should favor framing the console's status less as a "statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice", and more as "direct reporting of first-party messaging", to attributed the claims instead of taking them on as facts. For example, instead of saying the console is unambiguously "upcoming", say something like it is "announced" or something. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for adding sourced commentary on it - there's certainly plenty of industry pessimism on it. Plenty of ways to add that industry sentiment with the proper context. But if we're talking about opening sentence defining the subject itself? We've got to stick to upcoming as long as as that's the official status. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer omitting the word "upcoming" entirely. I think the first two sentences of the lead would be sufficient and are crystal clear as to the current status of the project. "The Intellivision Amico is a home video game console that is being developed and marketed by Intellivision Entertainment. It was originally slated to be released in October 2020, but repeated delays followed, leaving the console without a release date." Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would support that. You went through the effort of sharing sources and proposed revised wording to go along with it, which no one else did. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources of Salvidrim! are problematic. I only see two that are reliable and the article about "trademark abandoned" was corrected a few days later as "live" and what was mentioned as "not long for this world" was almost a year ago with no indication its dire predictions have come true except that things are the same as they were a year ago. Releasing games on other systems is two-sided. It is a source of revenue, which it was claimed in one of the sources was not occurring, but also a sign that changes in policy were necessary to make that revenue. I don't believe that Salvidrim! has persuading contributions although it may be the sourced journalists' (sometimes sensationalized) speculation. I can look into the reliability of the two other sources besides VGC and Ars Technica, but it is too late in the night now.97.127.50.85 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A couple of the other sources were written by Damien McFerran who runs Nintendo Life and is generally considered reliable.TarkusAB^talk/contrib 07:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

TimeExtension is already considered reliable (same site as NintendoLife). You're right that SixthAxis is generally not. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify: Source (1) is a red herring that was back-peddled by VGC and IGN a few days later stating the trademark was live. Source (2) is ten months old and mentions scenarios where the console is not released as "possible" not "probable." Yet, IGN and VGC report the Amico is still planning to release the console as of July 2022. Source (3) was addressed above. Source (4) mentions releasing two games on other platforms without really condemning it and is a source of revenue for them, while the rest of the article is a rehash of their previous article. Source (5) is not a reliable source. I'm not saying getting to manufacturing isn't a long shot. Things are not all rainbows. However, I don't believe these sources support breaking with convention with, as stated in previous discussion, delayed releases which are not rare instances and still stated as upcoming. That is my honest assessment. (Same editor, different computer)156.98.51.15 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I still agree with this sentiment. I have no problem packing the article with reliably sourced pessimism on its release, but the most recent word - the IGN source - is that it's still coming, and I think that needs to be how the product is defined in its opening sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Chris Scullion: Intellivision Amico’s trademark changed to ‘abandoned’ in latest sign it may never release: THE TRADEMARK WAS “ABANDONED” AFTER INTELLIVISION FAILED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF USE, videogameschronicle com, July 4, 2022

Rob Thubron: Intellivision Amico feared dead as trademark changed to "Abandoned": The company made "significant" staff layoffs last month, techspot.com, July 5, 2022 --Herbol (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the article. Your sources are outdated - - July 7th - "Intellivision Amico Trademark Is Live Once Again Update: Console still apparently in development". Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Further announcements

There are no further readily-available sources for new announcements on the console. I would like someone to find some for this article, please. 45.72.206.128 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont believe there's anything to document since the July 7th developments already in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)