Talk:Handheld game console/Archive 1

Archive 1

iPhone/iPod touch

Shouldn't the iPhone and iPod touch be included in this list as they can also be used as portable gaming consoles? 74.57.123.244 (talk)

I agree, so I decided to "be bold" and add it with a physical description of the gaming-specific aspects of the device and the market share and game availability. I didn't add technical specs about OpenGL 2.0 or GPU, but those are probably available in the main article. --Sam (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree, and have Wiki's own definition of what constitutes a "game console" to back me up: The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a machine designed for consumers to buy and use solely for playing video games from a personal computer, which has many other functions, or arcade machines, which are designed for businesses that buy them and then charge others to play. iPhone and iPod touch are NOT primarily designed for playing games but, like personal computers, designed for a variety of end user tasks of which video game playing is but one. There is no such thing as a "de facto" game console; what a select group of end users do with the device does not define the device as a whole. You may use your PC solely for playing games, for instance, but that does not mean that the PC as a platform is a game console as it is not primarily designed for games but a wider variety of software. iPod touch, iPhone, ZuneHD, and all such mobile platforms are in effect mobile personal computers - games may be a part of why some consumers buy them, but not all, and this is in opposition to game consoles for which game software is the primary (and in effect sole) motivating factor in the purchase decision. Therealspiffyone (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see... then we should remove the PSP as well, shouldn't we? Under that definition, it's no more a game console than the iPod Touch is, since it was widely marketed as a way to watch portable movies, listen to music, or connect to the internet, just like the iPod Touch. --Sam (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Casio Super Picky Talk

Please link to the Casio Super Picky Talk article and include information! I started the stub, but don't know enough about the console to give detailed info. I just found out about it today while looking for information on the Casio Loopy which I have started an article on, and would really like to learn more. Thanks! Alcy 22:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Portable handheld console

I believe that Portable handheld console should be merged with this entry. Not only is the title of that article redundant, but it also has a lot less information and focuses almost solely on recent (or future) and Nintendo handhelds. In the spirit of that entry, though, this one could use a lot more detail and history. I'll work on getting some of that together, and unless anyone has a problem with the merge, I'll do it later this week. - Plutor 17:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Thanks for suggesting this. I've done some wiki-merges myself, and while it's not exactly the most inspiring work I do, a good merge improves the knowledge base (structure) a great deal, of course. --Wernher 20:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done. It ended up still being extremely Nintendo-centric, but then again, so is the market. Although I'm partial to Nintendo, I tried to keep it NPOV. Obviously, feel free to change it. - Plutor 13:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I oppose this merge! (too late). As similar as they may seem, handheld game consoles that are also cell phones need a seperate article. Err nm misread. I lost track of what got merged where. Anyway, we need an article specifically for phones designed for gaming. Mathiastck 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

I think a better title for this would be Video game handheld. First, I don't particularily like the word "console" being in the title since "consoles" usually refer to video game consoles -- It's too confusing. Second, I feel it goes better with it's "brother-article", "video game console". Anybody have a opinion on this one way or another? K1Bond007 19:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. Jacoplane 09:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand, renaming would be a good idea, but on the other hand, "Video game handheld" would not necessarily exclude non-interchangable handhelds like Game & Watch and old Tiger Electronics games. Is it the intent to include them? The word "console" is a good (but admittedly non-standard and non-ideal) way to refer to handhelds that only take game cartridges or discs. -- Plutor 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia they are "Handheld electronic games", not really a "handheld game console". If we exclude them, it would be best to mention the difference between them in their intros. The problem with "console" is that it's not used (almost at all) to refer to handhelds. When someone refers to a console they usually mean an actual video game console such as GameCube, Dreamcast etc. I'm not really sure how the word "console" somehow excludes Game & Watch anyway - it's definition doesn't IMO. ?? K1Bond007 20:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a few months late, but what about "handheld game system" as an alternative? It doesn't give the impression of a home system quite as much as "console". --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I second the move to Handheld game system. It's much better wording, as console tends to imply a set-top box. --24.114.252.183 14:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there is really no mention of Tiger Electronics handhelds in either location, so, perhaps it could be discussed here, and that is likely the furthest thing from a console. 134.250.72.176 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Move supported. Handhelds have never been considered consoles in any sense. The S 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic was from two years ago, but since you reopened it - actually, yes they have. Its the single game non-cpu micro controller hand helds from the late 70's and early 80's and their later cheap single game LCD handhelds counterparts from the late 80's through now that are not considered "consoles". However, the entire GameBoy series, Atari Lynx, Turbo Express (which played the full console's games), Game Gear, Nomad (which played the Genesis' cartridges), PSP, GPX, GP2X, etc. have always been considered hand held consoles. --Marty Goldberg 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gameking, unlincensed and "low budget" consoles

OK, so the Gameking and the likes are an entirely different thing from all other "mainstream" handheld consoles, but nevertheless they still qualify as a handheld console, especialy the Gameking: it has a dot-matrix screen and is programmable via cartrdidges, so it definitively isn't a "dedicated handheld" nor a Game & Watch type device.

Maybe we should make a new section about such "special" consoles, including but not limited to:

• Gameking-like low-budget asian consoles (if there are others like it, can we make a list?)
• Unlicensed portable consoles, such as the Portable NES or similar artifacts, in case they exist.

EpiVictor 09:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say they'd merit a separate header, talking about the concurrent but mostly separate evolution of such handhelds. That's just me, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Game Gear error

The section about the Game Gear has an error. Supervision was the firsthandheld to have a TV tuner. The Quickshot version was released in 1989. Sahmeditor 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tapwave Zodiac

The Tapwave Zodiac should be added to the other handhelds section. It had licenced software developed for it and was sold at retail. It was a mainstream system, and more of a contender than the Gizmondo or GP32. JMacGill 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)JMacGill

Pokemon Mini and upcoming XGP

Anyone feel like added these? --Thaddius 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) No! Remove those disgusting Pokemon mini devices immediately. If you raise the bar that high for the Pokemon Mini's, all other electronics that can play video games will burst their way through. Lower the bar so that those other electronics can't flud the lists, and exclude those Pokemon Mini's.

Phones

We need an article specifically discussing the families of phones that are well suited for gaming. Mathiastck 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The only cell phone that's also a true portable gaming console is the Nokia N-Gage, and Nokia N-Gage QD. If you want, you can list every single cell phone that plays video games. While you're at it, you can list every single electronic that plays video games, such as computers, laptops, DVD players, digital cameras, handhelds with built-in games, and plug-and-play devices. Or, we forget about all of them, and just list the true video game consoles, and portables.

Review the iPod Touch, iPhone, and mobile games articles? Also check out this section. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the line is blurring between portable game systems and communications devices. We have to now think of platforms (Windows Mobile, iPhone/iTouch, Java Mobile, etc.) rather than specific devices, since the same applications can run on multiple devices now thanks to common and standardized platforms. It's no longer clear-cut as to which devices qualify as gaming consoles anymore. Therefore, I say that instead of focusing on lists of devices that qualify as both cell phones and gaming devices, we should start looking at the software they're running and group them by operating system, since that usually defines what they're capable of doing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why single out phones in particular? The iPod Touch and the iPhone differ little except that one's a phone and one's not, and the phone aspect doesn't add or remove much from the gaming experience on that platform. If you put Skype on a PSP would you have to move it to the other article? I think more indicative of whether it's a "gaming" platform is if top-tier game developers are releasing big-name titles for the device regardless of the OS or the manufacturer's intent. --Sam (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Game consoles are defined as devices primarily or solely designed for game playing, according to Wiki's own game console page. PCs do not fall under this category, and neither do mobile platforms like iOS (iPhone, iPod touch), Windows Mobile 7, Android OS, etc. These platforms, and the devices that are part of their ecosystem, are NOT primarily or solely designed for game playing. They are legitimate platforms for game playing, but they are not game consoles as they do not fit that definition because, like PCs, they are designed to be "do all" sorts of platforms, capable of running all sorts of software. Also, like PCs, the primary motivating factor in purchasing for ALL consumers of these devices is NOT the game playing aspect as it would be with a game console (whether home console or portable game console). What a particular group of end users do with the devices does not define said devices for the whole of the consumer base, nor define what the devices are and are not as a whole. As such, removed from this article as they do not fit the definition for the whole. Therealspiffyone (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Epoch Game Pocket -- failed in market?

The article says, "In 1984, Japanese company Epoch released their Game Pocket Computer. Despite decent reviews, the system failed."

How did it fail? Poor market performance, bad system electronics (i.e. it literally failed often) -- what made it fail? --Guroadrunner 16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

This article contains a large number of grammatical errors, such as inconsistent tenses, run-on sentences, and a whole lot of fancy words that just don't work. In fact, there are quite a few sentences in this article that seem out of place and unnecessary. --Hobofuzz 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Grandstand systems

The Game Player styled like a gameboy and the Light Games Colour Projection system both used carts with inbuilt game and watch style screens. It seems difficult finding anything about the machine let alone the company on the internet but I think they deserve mention in the article.Atirage 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sega Nomad

Since we have an article at Sega Nomad, I think this handheld should be mentioned.

-- trlkly 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename

To "Portable game console". Portable game console has further widespread use than the current naming of the page. Please discuss. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First cartridge use?

I see the Microvision listed as the first handheld console to use cartridges, but the Speak & Spell came out 17 months earlier and it was a handheld console that used cartridges (although it called them "modules"). I'm not sure if Speak & Spell was the first, but at any rate the facts seem to be wrong as currently stated here. Am I missing something? -Thibbs (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Speak & Spell was never, and has never, been presented as anything other than an educational electronic toy - not a handheld game console, not even a handheld electronic game. It has specifically always been presented as as unique learning tool, an educational toy focused on its voice synthesis capabilities for helping to teach kids how to read. If you were going to ask what was the first portable electronic device to use removable programs, then you may have something. But including the Speak and Spell as a game console would be like claiming the Little Professor to be one as well. Both are electronic toys that may include some games in them, but are a far cry from a handheld game console, let alone a handheld electronic game (a handheld, electronic display driven device for the express purpose of playing a game - i.e. Mattel Football, Soccer, etc.) Because something is "fun" or a toy, does not automatically make it a handheld console or handheld electronic game. People often get confused by that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my apparent confusion, but is there actually a definition of "handheld console" or "handheld electronic game?" From wikipedia it looks like:

• A handheld game console "is a lightweight, portable electronic machine for playing video games."
• Handheld electronic games "are very small, portable devices for playing interactive electronic games, often miniaturized versions of video games."

From these two definitions it is clear that the only difference is in regard to the capacity to display video (i.e. HGCs must display video and HEGs merely may display video). I know Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best when it comes to strict definitions, so I've turned to wikt for help. They have no definition for either of these terms as a whole so I've split the term at the point I believe is least in contention, namely that this is a handheld object. Anyway, according to wikt:

• Handheld means "small and light enough to be operated while you hold it in your hands."
• electronic game means "A game played on an electronic device." (although it is noted that "The term electronic game is the hypernym of the terms computer game, video game and mobile game. The term video game is historically restricted to games played on game consoles")

and

• video game console means "A dedicated electronic device that is designed to play video games, especially in accompaniment with a television."

From this I gather that the wikipedia definitions are essentially correct. It seems that "handheld game consoles" are a subset of "handheld electronic games" that employ video as the primary means of output. Since even wikt isn't necessarily authoritative I've also checked out Websters which has this to say:

• handheld (adj) - "held in the hand; especially: designed to be operated while being held in the hand <handheld computers>" [Merriam-Webster, Inc., Online Edition. Copyright © 2008]

• Since this isn't as on-point as the noun definition, I went to Random House to find: hand-held (–noun) - "something small enough to be used or operated while held in the hand or hands: She traded in her bulky old movie camera for a hand-held." [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.]

• game console (n) - "an electronic device for playing video games, usu. requiring connection to a television; also written games console" [Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7) Copyright © 2003-2008]

Let's look at matters in sum, then. To be considered a "handheld game console" Speak & Spell would have to be lightweight, portable, (very) small, and operated while you hold it in your hands (i.e. "handheld"); and it would have to be a (dedicated) electronic machine/device (designed) for playing video games (i.e. a "game console"). I suppose, then, the issue boils down to what a "video game" is. Running this through the same scheme we find that:

• Wikipedia defines video game as "an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device. The word video in video game traditionally referred to a raster display device. However, with the popular use of the term "video game", it now implies any type of display device. The electronic systems used to play video games are known as platforms; examples of these are personal computers and video game consoles. These platforms are broad in range, from large computers to small handheld devices."
• Wiktionary defines video game as "a style of game existing as and controlled by software, usually run by a video game console or a computer, and played on a video terminal or television screen. Controlled by a controller, paddle, joystick, mouse, cursor keys or a combination of any of these input devices."

and

• Websters defines video game as "an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action" [Merriam-Webster, Inc., Online Edition. Copyright © 2008]

By the wikipedia definition Speak & Spell games are video games. Wiktionary and Websters both require a adjective definition of video. Unfortunately both Websters and Wikt are lacking such a definition, however:

• video (adj., n., pref.) - "1935, as visual equivalent of audio, from L. video 'I see,' first person singular present indicative of videre 'to see' (see vision)." [Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper]
• video (Computer Science) "Of or relating to the production of images on video displays." [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.]

• video display (n.) - "A device that accepts video signals from a computer and provides information in a visual form." [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.]

Both definitions certainly seem to indicate that the VFD used on the Speak & Spell is a video display. Now of course all of this may seem overly pedantic especially in light of the fact that the normal usage of "game console" would apparently preclude most handhelds, however the consensus on this article has been that a strict definition of "game console" (i.e. one that allows handhelds) would be used. It seems to me that it would be inconsistent to cut the definition short by disallowing VFD-display consoles used for educational electronic games. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK I've gone ahead and made the appropriate change. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take my lack of time to respond as consensus, reverting back. Speak and Spell is not a game system, and it is not a game console - its an electronic educational toy and has always been marketed as such. I wrote the main definition for video game here, and am well aware to what it implies - and this and a slew of others are not covered under it by any stretch of the imagination. If Speak and Spell was going to be added anywhere, it would have to be Handheld electronic game (where all the other limited display microcontroller based handheld games are that also include LED or VFD displays), this article is purely for actual handheld game consoles. And even then, that's a a big if. Secondly, its not Wikipedia's place to create definitions and do the WP:OR you're trying to piece together to create your own interpretation, but rather to reflect the actually used and presented norm. One has only to look at the (original) entry for Speak & Spell (toy) where its definition as "electronic educational toy", and Texas Instrument's own page on the product to see your viewpoint is not even supported by the designer of the toy. Nowhere is the product referred to by TI as anything other than a "toy" or "learning aid". Not game system, not game console, etc. And nowhere does it state it was intended as anything other than a speech synthesis product "that might demonstrate the capabilities of bubble memory (a TI research project)." Not for games, or playing of "electronic games". Even the very site you used for multiple references (Datamath.org) refers to it only as an "educational toy" or "toy". It is in fact, nothing more than a glorified calculator to trigger their (at the time) unique speech technology, and its origins and even patent (US 3934233 ) also show this fact. Many unique hybrid electronic toys came out during that time period with educational games available, both in a traditional calculator format (such as the Little Professor and TI's Dataman and Math Magic) and more evolving toy formats like this. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make them "game consoles". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please calm down. I didn't realize that you hadn't had time to respond as you never wrote to me to inform me of this here or at my talk. My decision to treat your silence as consent was policy- and not fact-based. To address your specific concerns, I find your argument to be inconsistent. You have explained that you wrote the definition of video game here yet you claim its not Wikipedia's place to create definitions. As you may have noticed a great many of the definitions upon which I based my decision were Websters dictionary and other similar reliable sources. As such I stand by my claims. Could you please share the definition of "handheld game console" that you are using and its source? Let's find some common ground. I agree with you that Speak & Spell (S&S) is a handheld electronic game. The definition fits perfectly. Now as far as my characterization of it as a video game console, I again direct your attention to the slew of definitions I have provided above. The S&S has a video display, and it is used to play games. It is an electronic device and it employs removable ROM cartridges. The fact that it was not characterized as a "handheld game console" by its creators is insignificant in comparison to the clear definitional accuracy of the "handheld game console" characterization. Perhaps an example would be best to explain what I mean. The first video game is generally understood to be a device called the Cathode-Ray Tube Amusement Device. It was characterized by its creators as an "amusement device" and a "diversion," but not as a "video game," a "electronic game," or even a "toy." In fact, it's patent (US 2455992 ) also shows this fact. The characterization of this amusing device as a video game, however, relates to the objective definition of "video game," and not to any individual editor's personal definitions of video games. I understand that the S&S was not considered a "handheld game console" at the time, but by using common sense I have deduced that it is one. You have characterized this deduction as Original Research, however I invite you to examine Footnote 2 to WP:OR where it is clearly explained that deductive logic is not excludible from Wikipedia as Original Research. Considering the strength of the clear objective definitional accuracy of my characterization I believe you have made an error here, and I request that you either self-revert or explain how the definition of the term "handheld game console" in any way excludes the Speak & Spell. Thanks in advance, -Thibbs (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Wgungfu, I notice that you are making post hoc edits (see this edit) to the discussion we are having. This is unconstructive. How can I be expected to craft an appropriate response to your posts when you change their content subsequent to my response? In order to enhance transparency for future review of this discussion please consider posting new arguments after the current thread of conversation so it doesn't look like either side is producing straw man arguments. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now reviewed your post hoc edits and I can address your new concerns. You have forcefully expressed the opinion that the Speak & Spell is a toy. Again this is a point upon which we can agree. The definitions I have seen regarding the terms "toy," "game," "video game," "handheld video game," etc. are nested definitions. As such one item may have all terms applied to it and not present any definitional conflict. As I have neglected to dig up the definitions of toy above, I will present them here:

• Wikipedia definition: "A toy is an object used in play."
• Wiktionary definition: "toy - Something to play with, esp. as intended for use by a child."
• Websters: "toy - Something for a child to play with"
• Random House: "toy - Something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious practical use."

Clearly the Speak & Spell is a toy. I suggest that all video game consoles are toys. Note that this does not mean that I am suggesting that all toys are video games. As a nested definition, the nesting does not run both ways. As such the Little Professor and Dataman may not be handheld game consoles. To be honest I have not examined them in detail and I do not wish to come down on either side fo that question just yet. Nevertheless, I find your argument that the Speak & Spell cannot be a handheld game console because it is called a toy to be extremely unconvincing. Please tell me what definition you are using for "handheld game console" or I will be forced to assume that it's a personal definition (which would of course violate WP:NOR and implicate WP:OWN). -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to file an RFC for this, as it appears when you start discounting the designer and manufacturers own description of their own product and call it "irrelevant", there's not much room for common ground. Secondly, by stating I wrote the definition does not imply it was not done through consensus (discussion with others on the video games project, and deferring to notable and reliable sources). It means I was involved in the process and know the implications behind it. The entry about other displays was added to appease the fact that many modern systems no longer use video displays, and as such much of the modern media refers a wide range of things as "video games". It was not added to retroactively define text based VFD/LED devices as "video games". Second, the CRTAD is not "generally understood to be the first video game", it is the earliest known electronic interactive game. It suffers from the same reason Tennis for Two and Spacewar were not accepted by the courts - they're direct vector manipulations of a beam, there's no "video", i.e. "video signal", so your attempt at drawing a logical comparison to TI's example falls short there. I'm a professional video game and game industry historian, and I don't take these kinds of matters lightly. Likewise, a device having a VFD display does not make it a "game console", once again I refer you to the host of educational calculators from the time period that also have said displays that punch a hole through that reasoning. Wiktionary is not a reliable source, its a community project just like Wikipedia, and the correlations you're trying to draw with most of the other entries per the definition of "video" you're trying to extrapolate. I'll let the other members of the project weigh in, as I don't have the time to go through yet another lengthy round robin with someone who I believe has good intentions, but yet a lack of experience in the subject. I'm not going to have you start intentionally blurring the line between electronic toys and video games here because of your attempts to rationalize your opinion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

When an editor vehemently disagrees with the good-faith efforts of a newcomer claiming "I wrote the main definition for video game here" there is a strong appearance of WP:OWN-violation. If it was a consensus opinion then I am content with it as it is written. I have faith that the consensus resulted in an accurate definition and it is under this definition that I have sought to demonstrate the Speak & Spell's includibility.
Secondly, the point of my discussion of the Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device is that its creators' characterizations of it as an "amusement device" do not preclude later historians from deducing that it was something in addition to being a device used to amuse. The term "electronic interactive game" was not known or in common use at the time the CRTAD was created thus they did not use that term to describe it. As we both know, the characterization of it as an "electronic interactive game" may be accomplished irrespective of the creator's characterizations (which thus become "irrelevant"). I am impressed with your expert achievements, however they do not interest me. If you are unable to rationally defend your arguments then I'm afraid I have some doubts as to the degree of peer review you've received in your expert opinions. If we're allowed to claim expertise willy nilly then I may as well say I'm an expert as well. For now, however, let's not engage in accomplishment-flaunting.
Third, you point out that Wiktionary is not a reliable source. If you go back to my first definition post you will notice that I made the same observation myself. I have cited both wikipedia and wiktionary definitions to demonstrate consensus definitions for wikipedia. I have also tempered these potentially unreliable definitions with objective third-party definitions from dictionary bigwigs, Websters, Random House, etc. Selectively focusing on the unreliability of wiktionary as a source of definitions does your argument no credit.
Finally, I'm afraid I'll have to agree that a third party review might be in order. I am having a difficult time dealing with such things as post hoc goal-post shifting, vengeful reversions, and tacit refusals to de-escalate the conflict. I'm sorry we couldn't work through this in a civil manner, but I believe I made every effort. -Thibbs (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbs, I suggest you stop misrepresenting me. Nothing was done uncivil or in a vengeful like manner, and stating "I wrote the video games summation entry" was not not being presented to you in the context you're taking it as. I clearly stated "It means I was involved in the process and know the implications behind it. The entry about other displays was added to appease the fact that many modern systems no longer use video displays, and as such much of the modern media refers a wide range of things as 'video games'. It was not added to retroactively define text based VFD/LED devices as 'video games'." Likewise, nowhere have I stated your edits were not done in good faith. I strongly suggest letting the RFC take its course now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the depth of your knowledge of the implications behind the definition. Wikipedia is not a moot court and as such legislative intent has no place here. I'm unclear what you're getting at when you say that you brought up the Little professor, etc "to appease [sic] the fact" that many modern systems do not use video displays. My argument from the beginning has been that if a "handheld game console" is a "video game" system then it requires a "video" component. I then have demonstrated that the VFD (as with the LCD) is considered a "video" component. Perhaps you need to explain yourself more clearly. -Thibbs (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you're stating more things in a context I did not say, and nobody was presenting a "legislative intent", and I never said used Little Professor to appease anything for that, you're combining two different statements, which has been par for the course in this "discussion". Again, I strongly suggest you let the RFC take its course, and stop making more and more misrepresentative statements about me. Its coming off as highly uncivil, and extremely argumentative for argument sake. People responding to the RFC are perfectly capable of reading my comments and interpreting themselves without you. And the constant bickering and arguing will not help the issue. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting you in any way. Everything that I've quoted you as saying you have said. I have provided links to demonstrate my claims when they have been the kind of claims that might seem to be unprovoked attacks. It takes two to bicker, and I don't believe you've engaged with the substance of my arguments in any meaningful way. I have asked you to explain what you meant by your "appeasement" statement so that I could understand it. If what I wrote is garbled between two interpretations then that is an extremely good reason for you to clarify what you meant. -Thibbs (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC Filed. I won't be adding again to the discussion until at least tomorrow or until other people have weighed in (and Thibbs, feel free to do the same). People coming here from the RFC, please put your responses below, and thanks for your participation in gaining a consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to add it as the first handheld game console, then we should find reliable third-party sources that say that. Otherwise it's just original research and an interesting but fringe theory. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Randomran, are you talking about the Microvision or the Speak & Spell? As it stands the Microvision is claimed to be the first, but my edit adding the Speak & Spell made no claims at all about which was first. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Either way, whatever we add we should reference. I know that the article right now isn't very well referenced as is. But when someone throws out something contentious like this, the best thing to do is go with what the reliable secondary sources have said. It's not enough to find a resource that says the console was released on a certain date, but to find something that shows it actually falls within the scope of this article. Randomran (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Randomran brings up a good solution. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." We can argue back and forth about definitions, but first and foremost we have to verify content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

I would argue that the version I put up was properly sourced for what it was claiming (i.e. that the Speak & Spell was an early handheld console game). It is certainly earlier than the Microvision which is currently listed as "the earliest handheld console game..." Here is a link to the version I put up. Does it look better? -Thibbs (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because the argument is to whether its a "handheld console game" in the first place, as you are stating in that edit. Which got us to where we are, because nowhere, including in the press release you used as a reference, is it referred to as a "handheld console game". As Randomran and Guyinblack are stating, an adequate reference would be a reliable source that specifically states that and refers to it in those terms. If you can find reliable sources on that, I'm all behind you on it then as I'm sure others will be. Just like now we need to find one for Microvision stating it as a handheld console game, and the first one to use removable media. Ultimate History of Video games has that in it, I'm looking for several other sources. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case there are the copious dictionary references I have provided. They clearly demonstrate that it is a handheld game console. -Thibbs (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Marty: there's nothing in that source that suggests that the speak and spell is even related to this topic, let alone that it qualifies as a "handheld game console". If you can find a reliable secondary source that says that, then maybe we could do something with it. But right now, it's just off topic. Trying to use the dictionary definition to say "this falls within this topic" is arguably original research in the form of synthesis. It's an analytic/evaluative claim to say that the speak and spell fits within that definition, so we need a secondary source for that. See WP:SECONDARY. Randomran (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Randomran pretty said what I was going to. I don't mean this in an accusatory manner, but the version you posted looks like a case of synthesis. Also, I question the reliability of the website as it looks to be a personal website owned and operated by Joerg Woerner. Unless he is an expert in his field, I don't believe datamath.org satisfies WP:RELIABLE. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

And just to add, no, the copious dictionary sources do not state anywhere about the Microvision. They discuss only the subject of what the entry is on "video", "video game", etc. Using what's stated in those to interpret the speak and spell as a video game console is the synthesis Guyinblack was talking about and the WP:OR Randomran is. If by chance Websters had an entry on Speak & Spell labeling it as a handheld console game, then you would certainly be on to something. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure if you caught this from the long thread above, but Footnote 2 to WP:OR speak directly to this issue. To sum what it says: Deductive logic is not excludible from Wikipedia as a form of Original Research. -Thibbs (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

While you are right that deductive logic is sometimes permissible, this only applies to non-controversial logic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Yes, and this is clearly controversial, or we wouldn't be here having this discussion. I am glad it happened though, because its forcing us to find sources across the board. Its the same type of situation that actually lead to the creation of the First video game article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Echoing what Guyinblack25 says, we're allowed to make pretty plain observations. We draw the line wherever there is controversy -- anything that's being contested. If something is going to be challenged, it either needs to be sourced, rephrased in a way that fits the research, or removed entirely. Randomran (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's what "controversy" means. It seems to me that that portion of the phrase was in relation to actual controversies (e.g. blood libels, slanderous characterizations, etc.) otherwise the term "not disputed" would almost certainly have been used. To extend your definition of "controversy" ad absurdum, a truant editor could cause mayhem by claiming "controversy" with everything he disagreed with. -Thibbs (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise subsection

Compromise: How's this. The section of the article as it stands is entitled "Origins." As such, I believe it entirley relevant to make a very brief (1-3 line) discussion of "console-like" devices and "proto-consoles" such as the Little Professor, Dataman, and Speak and Spell. I agree this article needs sourcing badly, but I think it could also do with a tweak to the lede. If a better definition of the term "handheld game console" is not developed this issue is bound to come up again. It shoul dbe made clear that devices made by Texas Instruments (or whatever the excluding factor is) are not considered to be "handheld game consoles" and this should be sourced. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm okay with that so long as there are reliable secondary sources that talk about Little Professor, Dataman, and Speak and Spell as "proto-consoles" or the like... or as something that inspired the first handheld game consoles. Otherwise it's original research at best, or just plain off topic. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dang it's impossible to get a word in this discussion :-p

Agreed, some sources are needed to back up that they are connected. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Arrg, same edit conflict problem. I'm all for compromising, but the problem again is you'd need to find a source backing up what you suggest above. Specifically putting forth the Speak and Spell, Little Professor, etc. as consoles or related to them. Otherwise, calling them "console-like" and "proto-consoles" again becomes WP:OR and synthesis. I also don't think we need to go as far as stating "all devices made by TI" are not consoles. Its much easier on an individual basis, where we can look up catalogs and press releases for a device to discount it as being intended/designed as a game console or not. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My words have been taken too literally. I should have explained that by placing the terms "console-like" and "proto-consoles" in quotes I had intended to mean that any similarly vague term that would not require sourcing could be used. I'm searching here for a word that nobody would take as an "official" term but rather as a descriptor. Finding sources to indicate that handheld electronic games predate "handheld game consoles" is a trivial matter. -Thibbs (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying, and it's borderline; some people may agree and others may not.

Prior to handheld consoles, early handheld devices were handheld electronic games; such as X device and Y device. The first handheld console was the X system.

Something like that? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Exactly. Except then also sourcing the statement and coming up with a better definition for the term "handheld video game" in the lede. In what way is your statement borderline? -Thibbs (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd possibly add something about the fact that replaceable cartridges existed for electronic devices/toys prior to these game consoles. -Thibbs (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I still think it's borderline, but can work if done right. Unfortunately, I don't know what the right way would be for this article. To be honest, this is most I've even looked at it outside accessing it to make sure I have the proper link. This issue seems to stem from the larger problem of lack of academic research on video games that could answer some ambiguous and generalized definitions about video games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it could be done, but the borderline thing still bothers me via verifiablity. You'd still need a source indentifing the Speak and Spell and related electronic devices as a handheld electronic game. I think the passage could work with "prior to handheld consoles, early handheld devices were electronic games, toys, and..." (with the word "electronic" being implied to all). That way you can include popular electronic game devices like Simon and Atari's Touch Me, that were certainly elecrontic games but not an educational toy and not electronic games in the same visual display veign as Mattel and Coleco's sports games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but in what way is it borderline? Here, I've found some sources. What's wrong with this:
Prior to the development of handheld game consoles, early handheld electronic devices such as the Little Professor[1] and the DataMan[2] had visual displays that employed VFD or LCD technology. The VFD-based Speak & Spell toy even utilized interchangeable game[*] cartridges known as "expansion modules,"[3] however it was not identified as a video game console by its manufacturers.[4] The first handheld console was the Microvision system.{{citation needed}}
*"Module Information". Speak & Spell Manual. Texas Instruments. 1980. p.6.
-Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to shape up more, though I still have this feeling of it being borderline in the back of my head. I guess it's the wording can leave some room for synthesis.

Prior to the development of handheld game consoles, early handheld electronic devices used technology in similar functions. The Little Professor, DataMan, and Speak & Spell toy had visual displays that employed VFD or LCD technology, and the Speak & Spell utilized interchangeable game cartridges known as "expansion modules". The first to use such technology as a handheld console was the Microvision system.

I don't know if this is better or not, but maybe it'll get the gears turning. Also, handheldmuseum.com looks like a personal website similar to Joerg Woerner's. It's a shame such sites don't satisy reliable sources, because they do offer some good info. The other two, si.edu and ti.com look to be fine though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the input. I guess as long as your feeling that it is borderline is nothing more substantial than a feeling we can probably give it a test run. Perhaps it will look better to you in context. I agree with most of what you have there so I'll put it in and discuss possible tweaks later. I've just finished scouring Google Scholar for a reliable definition for "handheld game console," and I am now able to say that my (new) definition is as reliable as I believe anyone could find. I will make the appropriate changes after re-inserting what we've come up with here. Thanks again, and I'm glad this went so smoothly. I was beginning to seriously question the neutrality of the article earlier yesterday. -Thibbs (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really thinking, as long as its in origins, that there needs to be a paragraph as well on the previously mentioned on the handheld electronic games mentioned in the opening section (i.e. the games by Mattel, Coleco, Entex, etc., etc.). Possibly even attached to the above paragraph. I.E., "Simultaniously, handheld electronic games appeared on the market...".

That way, it basically gives the reader that "this is all what was on the market before" and lets them draw their own correlations that they all influenced the development of handheld game consoles without coming out and saying it.

Guyinblack - handhemuseum is Rik Morgan, a recognized expert. He, along with Clint Dyer (another expert), was the go to guy for just about all that material and the written authority for it in the Digital Press group and several other locations. (Much like how David Winter is the Pong guy, Larry Green and Sylvain De Chantal are the APF guys, Sylvain is also known for his Arcadia 2001 and related consoles knowledge). The handheld faq (which was founded by Dyer) was then passed on to Rik Morgan, who currently runs it. There's a lot of good material there that can be used, including interviews with industry people such as this. Its also been referenced by publications such as the Journal of Antiques and Collectibles. Another main site is handhelden.com, run by noted expert Jaro Gielens. He's regularly on tour at museums across Europe for this material, and is a published author on the subject as well.

As far as the first handheld electronic game, its considered Mattel's Auto Race. It's noted in the interview already given, as well as this well known published source. A reference for the first handheld game system with cartridges, MB's Microvision, is given in that one as well. Note that the chapter is discussing early handheld games and not attempting to make a distinction between handheld electronic games and handheld consoles (which comes later in the book). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... As far as Mattel's Auto Race being the first handheld electronic game I recognize that the two concepts are similar, and perhaps it deserves a mention under the Origins subsection, but it's not really a "handheld game console" until we can find reliable third-party sources that show that it is one... In general, though, I think that if there is a reasonable conflict between two sources of equal reliability that we should go with the older one as the "earliest" under the theory that the source that lists the more recent system as "earliest" may have overlooked the one described by the conflicting source. Good work on digging up sources, by the way. We're set to make some real progress I feel. -Thibbs (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, Auto Race was not being mentioned as a handheld game console. Its being mentioned as the first handheld electronic game. Microvision is given as the first handheld game system/console, and the Time Magazine article I post below also backs that up. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto Race is mentioned as being from 1977, but I have one, and the box says 1976, the manual says 1976 and the game itself says 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.24.41 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Finding sources

I've been going through Google Scholar searching through what little scholarly material there is on the subject of handheld game consoles, and while I think this article has a long way to go, I also think we can do it. I've just gone through the lede here and tagged items that were not sourced. If any editors can help me improve the lede them we can move on to the body of the article. I would suggest a block-by-block approach as I have had experience sourcing the hell out of long articles and it is a)not fun and b)extremely ugly in the interim until cites are found. I have left the "Microvision = first handheld console with exchangeable cartridges" statement as [citation needed] because I know User:Wgungfu claimed he had found one. If we want to save time and space, however, I believe the Frederick Li paper would be a good source for this item as it unambiguously says exactly that. I'll leave it up to you, Wgungfu, whether you want to use the Li article or the source you found or both. Anyway, I think this article is beginning to make strides in the right direction. I'm glad to be working with a group of sensible editors. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See above for the source, apparently you added this while I was typing all that up. I don't have much more time today on this, so I should be on later tonight or tomorrow unless I'm able to pop in. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also be careful with the Frederick Li source. Who is he, and what makes him an expert in video game history? All I see him as an expert in here is as an expert in the Computer Science fields he has a degree in, which is what the bulk of that paper refers to (i.e. computer graphics). He glosses over actual handheld history as a simple precursory to the meat of the article, and he's also making the mistake of calling some of these handheld games "consoles", when all that's doing is further blurring the line between consoles (as discussed in the main article here) and handheld electronic games discussed in the other article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you know of a better authority than Li (a Ph.D. in Computer Science and lecturing university professor) that gives an unambiguous definition of a "handheld game console" then please share it. Without sources for backup, the statement "he's also making the mistake of calling some of these handheld games 'consoles', when all that's doing is further blurring the line between consoles ... and handheld electronic games" is just Original Research... -Thibbs (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Li needs to be established as an authority on said subject first for it to be established as a notable source. That's the very reason for Guyinblack's comments on some of the websites possibly not being credible. I've seen nothing given to establish that with Li, and not even his own bio (which I previously gave a link to, or the link you previously gave) states it. Stating he has a PHD in "Computer Science" and lectures (on Computer Graphics, Virtual Reality, Surface Modeling, or Distributed Virtual Environment and Multimedia Systems), therefore he must be a historian and source of verifiable knowledge on the electronics, toy, and video game industry, is a big stretch. If the material we're rewriting in this article were on and of the subjects he specializes in - Computer Graphics, Virtual Reality, Surface Modeling, or Distributed Virtual Environment and Multimedia Systems - I'd wholeheartedly agree. But there's nothing in his given research interests, nothing in his given list of published papers, etc. etc. in the link you gave to denote any sort of connection to what we're talking about here. Only supporting Computer Graphics, Virtual Reality, Surface Modeling, or Distributed Virtual Environment and Multimedia Systems, that he specializes in and certainly seems a well versed authority on. I see nothing that paints the internal paper you cited as anything other than what I stated, he specializes in modern computer graphics techniques, said paper is on computer graphics, and he gives a cursory section on previous game history to summarize and lead in to the main part of the paper. And certainly nothing to start labeling electronic game handhelds "consoles" which will only further confuse the issue of the purpose of this article vs. the electronic handheld article. Likewise as far as additional sources to what I mentioned regarding Li, Ultimate History of Video Games: "handheld electronic games", High Score: Handheld games vs. later Handheld consoles and systems, New York times June 21, 1979, Thursday Section: Business & Finance, Page D1: "electronic games", Time Magazine Dec. 10th 1979: "Electronic games", "handheld games" - in fact, Milton Bradley's Microvision is the only one in the article referred to as a console, and specifically "midget console" in an effort to contextually compare it to full size consoles on the market. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So to go back to the issue of the [citation needed] tags on Microvision, what's your call then? Should we use both the apparently highly regarded "High Score!" and the Li source or or just Li (to save space)? Or just "High Score!" (as it seems you trust this source more)? I think either one or both would be fine so whichever way you decide, please make the appropriate edit. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not about me, its that its an actual published and verifiable source that (along with a number of other well used books and resources) are noted reliable sources by the members of the video games project. Peer review, etc. And we routinely cross reference etc. from multiple sources. These books are routinely used across the project's articles as references. I don't have a problem using Li if he can be found to be an authority and notable/verifiable source on the subject matter we're discussing. In the meantime though, I don't see anything listing his internal paper as a credible source on this subject and I'd be hesitant to use it over the already verifiable sources given. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbs may or may not see this before he goes on vacation. But what Marty is saying is that Li may not qualify as a video game industry expert. A PhD in CompSci certainly makes him a computer expert, but unless he's given lectures related to video games or had some prolonged relationship with the video game industry, then his expertise in the video game field is minimal. If that is the case, then any content published by Li may not satisfy WP:SPS. Without looking at the sources I can't say for sure. Is there a link to it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

Guy, this will all be here for Thibbs when he gets back regardless, and I'm sure he'll read up then. As far as the paper in question - [5]. It reads as a personal piece on comupter games in general, with a small section on his view of handheld games. I don't see any citations, etc. that would be in a normal research or published paper, and lend credibility to that section as anything more than a personal summary. So its either a work in progress or for internal use (i.e. a handout for one of his classes or lectures). The References section he does include is presented more as an "additional reading" section, and even then all relate to other gaming topics - none in regards to handhelds games. Regardless, he and it suffers from the same problems mentioned earlier.

The sources he's being used for by Thibbs are a)the 1972 tic tac toe game, and b) To call some of the handheld electronic games as "consoles". Regarding a) The already notable High Score! source includes the Tic Tac Toe game and can replace the Li reference. Regarding b) It becomes the credibility issue above, including when faced with the other references I gave at the end of the last section (High Score, Ultimate, NY Times, and Time Magazine). I just don't see being able to use him to support calling the Tic Tac Toe game and Atari Touch Me a "console" instead of an electronic game or handheld electronic game. And my opinion is it confuses the issue when this section is supposed to be about the pre handheld game console industry, vs. the rest of the article which is about actual game consoles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

He looks borderline in my opinion; the argument for him being a video game expert is weak and minimal, but still there.

• He's participated in video game related events (co-chair for computer animation and virtual reality software symposiums and workshops, and session Chair for Game-Based Learning session) [6]
• He's helped write some other papers about game-related topics (A Collision Detection Framework for Deformable Objects, GameOD: An Internet Based Game-On-Demand Framework, and SMIL-based eLearning Wrapper for Incorportating Computer Games on Personalized Multimedia Course Materials) [7]
• The courses he teaches can be related to video games.

If I had to chose, I'd go with the video game book because it's much easier to establish it as a video game source. Though it might be beneficial to explore Li's reliability further as academic papers on video games are hard to come by. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

I'll take Li's stuff out for now then and replace it with the other references then until he can be verified further. Regarding your above bullets, yes, those are very weak connections. They're all related to his specialty of computer graphics and constructs which are then used in modern video game programming. I don't see any of the ones you mentioned directly related to the actual video game industry. None of those are industry game developer events, (the field of Computer Science is full of such events for specialties) they're overly generalized academic events on (in this case) the science of computer graphics and interaction in general, where different academics come to present their research in the advancement of their field (computer graphics, AI, interaction etc.) All elements that make up video games, certainly. I still don't see where that qualifies him as anything but at best as a weak passing interest in game industry history, and certainly gives no credibility to any sort of prolonged relationship with the past industry and its terminology, etc. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. His expertise is in specific areas that relate to video game concepts, but not to video games in general. His papers are something to keep in mind for other articles though. It'd probably be a good idea to post a question at WP:RS/N for a second opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

As far as the Li source is concerned, you can be sure that if I had found a better source that defined the term "handheld game console" that I would have used that definition, but unfortunately Dr. Li's definition is currently the best we have available. What this means is that either the term "handheld game console" is a term that has broad understandability (meaning that Li would have appropriate expertise, as an authority in a closely-related field, in defining it) or that the term itself is OR (i.e. the personal term of unpublished editors who contribute here). So as to avoid having to rename (move) the article I have opted to follow the first line of understanding - that "handheld game console" is a concept that a Ph.D. in Computer Science (which all in the industry would accept as a video-game-related concept) would be capable of properly defining as well or better than an expert in the field of games. I have asked countless times here for any editor to provide us with a sourced definition for the term "handheld game console" (initially, it will be recalled, I asked for one because my common sense understanding that would allow the Speak & Spell to be defined as a console was deemed to be incorrect). Because no sourced definition has been supplied despite my numerous requests for one I took the initiative of searching through all reliable sources that could be found at Google Scholar and the only workable definition came from Dr. Li's paper. If even this is deemed insufficient then what am I left to think except that the definition of "handheld game console" is something that only exists on a case-by-case basis according to the personal definitions (see WP:OR) of editor-contributors to this article? Is that the way Wikipedia is supposed to operate? -Thibbs (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC) (positively my last edit before 2009 as I send this from the train and my battery is dipping low. I haven't read everything here yet but will get to it as soon as I return.)

I'm really beginning to resent your implications here. It seems ever since we pointed out the correlations you were trying to draw earlier were WP:OR its been your favorite buzzword to try and throw back at us. Now you're stating things "Well, its either how I see them and how valid I see this reference, or everyone else is going by their own personal definitions". Its especially insulting when we've gone out of our way to provide other verifiable and notable references and definitions and usages that *do not* refer to this earlier systems as "consoles", including references from the time period of the actual devices in question. And then you further implicate "Well because I'm not adequately satisfied on the defintion, and it doesn't relate to how I see it, it must be broadly defined." The people involved in this discussion are also very experienced in the policies and practices of what makes a good Wikipedia article, and have attempted to remain neutral and to the letter. In contrast, it seems you are continually going out of your way to push everything to fit how you see things, and how they should be based on your understanding as a fan. Articles are not based on the viewpoints and whims of a single editor, with little demonstrated related experience and familiarity in the subject, and that's exactly what this process is turning in to. You have a multitude of editors here with experience in the field and experience on Wikipedia, all trying to contribute and shape this article. Everyone is constantly having to defend and take time debating every aspect with you, when it should be the other way around. And quite frankly I am *not* an unpublished editor and I resent that claim as well, I am a professional (expert) in the field of video game history, and actually work in the industry as well as a writer and programmer. I also know full well how to properly contribute and temper my contributions within the confines of Wikipedia so as not to promote WP:OR. And I do say wholeheartedly, as someone that is a WP:Expert editors in the field, that "handheld consoles" have always been used in the field and business to denote modern cpu based consoles of the type described in this article. Handheld electronic games, and dedicated handhelds have been used to describe the small dedicated handheld and tabletop games of the 70's and early 80's. I have also provided 4 current and period based examples of such so you don't have to take "my word" for it and accuse me of WP:OR. Likewise, items like Speak & Spell were always created, promoted, and received (by press, media, etc.) as Educational Toys or EduToys. Here is a commercial on it from the time. Here is a sears catalog from the time. Not as game consoles, not as electronic game systems, etc. etc. Trying to define it as such is going against the already well established norm, and that's why you've met resistance on it from all of us. Furthermore, the fact that Li is a PH.D. in Computer Science and what that does and does not provide him as an authority over has been adequately discussed here above, I'm not going to repeat it again for space sake. Secondly, he *does not* provide a definition for "handheld game console", he defines a "handheld game" (as in game program itself) and gives a generic personal opinion description for "machines with small machine size" - "Generally, such machines can be referred to dedicated handheld game consoles, personal digital assistants (PDAs) or mobile phones." The words "Generally" and "can be" denote a loose personal opinion, and not a standard definition. Or he would have given a reference to said definition as someone with a PH.D. in CS writing a research paper would know. And all that is really besides the point given the problem again on what he does and does not represent an authority on. There's a sizable amount of CS PH.D.'s in the world (I work with several myself), and a large amount that do academic research in areas related to video games (which are also not the only fields these areas relate to). Being a PH.D. in CS does not make them an expert in all related practices, industries, histories, etc., anymore then you being an English major makes you an expert in video game history and definitions (which could also be seen as related). What sets him apart from the rest of the world wide contingent of CS PH.D's and arbitrary definitions they may throw out? Or makes him an expert in the specific topic over people actually in those industries and disciplines (and I'm not speaking of my self). There has to be a demonstrated and verifiable focus and background within the related topic to provide notability in said topic, as you have been described by all of us above. Regardless, I will be filing for a 2nd opinion then again to please you as Guyinblack suggested. So far, the consensus is that he does not meet the requirements. But I'm very disappointed at your turn of conduct. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, Guyinblack, will you file the WP:RS/N? I don't want to take the chance of coming off as filing something non-neutral, and I think you do a wonderful job in summation of main points. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Frederick Li as a video game expert. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

Well I must say I never expected that my last post in this talk page would be the catalyst of such a meltdown in good faith. It seems that my attempts at generality have been misinterpreted as specific attacks and for this I can only apologize and assure all parties that I intended no such personal commentary. When I spoke of the "personal definition of unpublished editors," for example, I meant that the definition presented here was crafted according to the personal definitions of multiple average editors without reference to reliable sources. I here assume, of course, that there exist other contributors to this article apart from the self-identified expert User:Wgungfu (NB: In keeping with AGF and absent any indication to the contrary I continue to assume that User:Wgungfu is an expert as he has claimed).

On a more substantive note, User:Wgungfu, you seem to be an editor who is impressed by credentials and authority. I see you have identified one of my credentials as a degree in English. I had certainly never intended to use this trivial detail as authority to support my edits and I view such credential-flaunting as immature insecurity. However, as you were the one who brought it up, perhaps I can appeal to your seeming regard for expertise when I assure you, as I have attempted to explain over and over again, that when it comes to definitions, there are only two options. Either:

1. The definition (for the class of objects that is the subject of the article) is a common sense literal definition that fits all objects that are described by it from a objective perspective, or...
2. The definition is some sort of industry definition and the meaning of the term is different (more specific or counterintuitive or something) than the literal definition would lead readers to believe.

• In the case of definitions of the first kind, anybody could apply the definition to a device provided that all constituent parts of the definition fit the device (i.e. if the device were handheld and employed video components, and was used for games, and was a console system then it would be a handheld video game console).
• In the case of definitions of the second kind, anybody could apply the definition to a device provided that the device matched the industry definition. This second kind of definition, of course, requires that a clear and specific industry definition be provided through citation(s) to reliable sources. Failure or inability to provide such citations would mean that only expert editors would be able to apply proper characterizations through specialized knowledge and this, I believe, runs in direct opposition to the eidolon of free and equal collaboration that I have always respected within the wiki-community.

Again, please review the two numbered options I have identified above and I am confident that you'll see that no other viable options present themselves. With respect, -Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thibbs, it was already done with and settled long ago, other reliable and notable references given, and the two sections in question rewritten via consensus and nortable/reliable references. We are now moving on to the rest of the article (Gameboy onwards), which sorely needs references and rewriting. Go to the RFC section below. Li was kept via the WP:RS/N ("he'll do until a better one comes along", i.e. actual video/industry experts) for a reference on a general description of a handheld game console, for which his words were used in the intro. I left this as a compromise, as the sentence does describe actual handheld game consoles in good generic terms. Also per the WP:RS/N, other sources were provided for actual usage of terms, and definitions of handheld electronic games, of which Li's did not measure up. And I spent 6+ hours tracking all these notable/reliable references down. As per the conversation below - everyone agreed the rewrite and references cleared things up, guyinblack did some tweaking, and now we're discussing about the rest of the article and how things will change in the intro once the rest is rewritten. Please join us in the process, there's a lot of ground to cover. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to. As you can see I'm covering the ground in chronological order hence my late response to your earlier accusations of bad faith. You'll recall I was away on vacation for much of your discussions. I know it's a minor detail compared to the main work ahead of us, but I believe it to be important for progress to nail down a good definition. I thank you for compromising by using the Li definition, and I agree that if we can find another better source that defines a "handheld game console" in those terms then we can modify the definition. I believe we can be settled then that we are using an industry definition (Type #2 above). Correct? -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC - what qualifies as a handheld game console?

I was asked to come over and participate in an RFC on the definition of (and what qualifies as) a handheld game console. Since the most relevant discussion on this page so far seems to be in the above "Finding sources" section (which isn't very clear to people not already in the discussion), I'm starting a new section on this topic. Hope it helps.

So, what is a handheld game console? I'm not well-versed in official definitions provided by literary sources, but at least in my own opinion, the title "handheld game console" breaks down very simply: "[handheld] [game console]" - as in, a game console designed for portable use. Treated with a broad definition, a game console can be any electronic device that enables the user to play at least one game. Since we're not using the term "video game" in this article, it can apply to more specialized devices as well - not just video games, but games that can be just as easily presented in another format, like card and board games, word puzzles, etc. But I think when you go to decide if a specialized device is a game console or something else that happens to have a game-like function (or for which games are a subset of its functions), I think you need to look at what its primary purpose is in design and marketing.

I was asked to comment on the Speak & Spell. This would be an interesting case IMO. It's an educational toy, which teaches kids how to spell by means of both rote learning and simple games. Yes, it does play games, but was it designed specifically for pure entertainment? I think experts will agree that its primary purpose is education, and to make it appealing to kids, it's given a fun and entertaining interface. But does the fact that it plays simple games qualify it as a game console?

Comments? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To get the discussion rolling, I'm going to cast my vote that Speak & Spell is, in fact, a handheld game console. I do so on these grounds:

• It's an electronic device that plays games interactively.
• Not all games are strictly for entertainment purposes - many are specifically designed to be educational, but are nonetheless games by definition.
• Game consoles are not necessarily multi-purpose machines. I doubt anyone would argue that the Game & Watch games are not handheld game consoles, yet each one is only capable of playing one game and, aside from telling time, serve no other purpose. (There are also plenty of handheld games that don't even tell time.)
• While Speak & Spell's games may be very limited in scope and nature, they are nonetheless an interactive experience presenting a goal (spelling a word), a means to reach that goal (the user interface - namely a keyboard, display and speech synthesis), and positive and negative feedback. That in my opinion defines a simple game.
• In contrast, a toy, such as a Fisher-Price play set for infants, does not provide an intrinsic goal or conditioned feedback. It simply reacts to actions by the user. There is no particular goal in these items, so feedback given is always the same and it's not inherently an interactive experience.
• As an example of an interactive device that can play games but is not a game console, look at some of the Casio keyboards that provide simple games to educate the user on how to play songs. While there is the same idea of goal, interface and feedback there, the device's primary purpose is to make music, and a game is a small subset of what it's designed to do. I would not consider that a game console.

So basically, I say that if its primary purpose is to play an interactive game (whether for educational or entertainment purposes), it qualifies under a broad definition of "game console". If "game console" is actually a narrower category of devices, then we need more information on what the boundaries are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't say I don't follow the logic, from you or Thibbs. But something in the back of my head just tells me the Speak and Spell is not a handheld video game. I also think our own definitions should be backed up by definitions from reliable sources. Articles like this suffer for proper sourcing, and thus are generally rated start or C-class. I remember encountering similar disagreements at Talk:Video game over the platform section. In short, I think we could argue finer points back and forth for an indefinite period of time, but proper sourcing is the best way to reach a solution and push the article up the quality scale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

I made a distinction, though: I specifically avoided calling Speak & Spell a video game, and referred to it as just a game in general, of an electronic sort. It's simple, it has a primarily educational purpose, and it's not capable of doing anything but Speak & Spell stuff. But IMO, it's in the same class of device as one of those handheld poker games you can get in the grocery store. Are those not also handheld game machines? Do they qualify as game consoles? Or is a game console bound by a stricter definition? How would you categorize Simon and the many other electronic games like it?

I realize it's a tough argument for both, and I agree that we need reliable sources for this. My opinion doesn't really mean squat compared to that of a professional. But I think we need to really figure out what the definition of a "game console" is, and then strictly categorize things according to that definition. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself - I can see it both ways. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer - thanks for joining in and bringing another mind to bare on the subject, especially with your limited time. As far as my experience and expertise, and by some of the references I've already brought to bare -

• Games like Simon have been promoted as electronic toys or electronic games. Whether Simon, or (another old favorite of mine) Electronic Detective, they are designed to fill a certain traditional class of play, regardless of being electronic.
• Electronic devices (handhelds, toys, or whatnot) for educational purposes have been classified as Electronic Educational Toys or EduToys, which is also shown in the Sears Catalog link I gave for example. The distinction here is the intended purpose and design of the device. Speak and Spell for example, is an educational electronic toy that happens to play games - it was not designed for express purpose of playing games. The interview with its designer that I posted also shows that - it was never put out there as a handheld game machine, or designed as such - it grew off of a calculator design to show off their new voice synthesis technology. The reverse can be said for something like the handheld poker game or a Mattel Football, which brings us to handheld electronic games.
• Handheld electronic games are just that - an electronic game in handheld format (notice the singularity vs. plural). You have Mattel Football, a Space Invaders handheld, a Donkey Kong Jr. game and watch, or even the handheld poker game. Its limitation and construction is characteristic of its intent. It does that and only that (play a game), and it was designed from its very beginning with that purpose in mind and shows it from head to toe.
• Handheld game consoles are the plural format, they were designed with the express purpose to be like their full sized counterparts in a handheld format. A generic microprocessor based game system that is designed to play externally provided games. Early examples are like the previously mentioned Microvision and the tabletop Entex Adventure Vision, with a gap in development until the Nintendo GameBoy and Atari Lynx were released in 1989. I my experience, I have not seen any of the previous classes referred to as "consoles" - unless its a personal usage like Li's where someone was loosely trying to refer synonymously to "unit". Otherwise, the usage of "console" laid out here is supposed to be synonymous/interchangeable to "game system".

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so your argument is that a console is defined in a more limited scope, as a game system designed expressly for playing games and capable of playing more than one of them - or in other words, one that can be programmed. Thus, things like the GameBoy and DS qualify as handheld consoles, but games like the Game & Watch series do not. Does this mean that TV games like Pong and such are not consoles as well? I've often seen them referred to as such, but if their being a one-trick pony precludes them from being consoles, I'd like to make sure we have that firmly established. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Pong systems are a good question. On one side, there's no question its a video game related device (unlike, the handheld toys/etc. issue), and secondly, only the initial Pong's were of a single game, within that year they had moved on to multiple games within a single system. But on the other side most of the people using the term console on them are doing so in hindsight - none of those systems were refered to as consoles during their time period on the market. They were referred to (via the Sears catalog again) as electronic games, or (in media) as TV-games, or just video games. Here's a perfect example. The first video game "system" refered to as a console was in fact Fairchild's, which also happens to be the first programmable. Pong itself, was refered to in its manual as a Control Unit. Now, its usage in the manual is synonymous with the actual dictionary definition of a console - "the control unit of a mechanical, electrical, or electronic system". However, that would have to be extrapolated and could constitute WP:OR because as mentioned, its been in hindsight that some writers have classified them as consoles - usually adding the descriptive "dedicated" as in "dedicated video game consoles". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, just thinking about it further. To sidestep this console descriptive issue above, you could just as easily rename the article "handheld video game system" or "handheld game system". That way you have "handheld electronic game" and "handheld game system" respectively, with "system" more accurately portraying the context of "console" I was describing above. That's how High Score! terms it as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It will come as no surprise that I agree for the most part with KieferSkunk's analysis of the Speak & Spell. The only difference I would make would be that I believe it can be considered even a "video" game. The word "video" is a relatively recent one. Surprising to some the word has only been in common use since the 1930s when it was coined from the Latin videre (to see) on the pattern of the word audio. While this could indicate that even games such as baseball is a video game, all uses I have seen for the term as an industry term require that the game feature a display device. This stands in opposition to the definition for audio games which lack displays entirely. Thus, as I see it the world of electronic games can be divided into which of the senses is targeted for use in gameplay. A possible distinction between games that employ graphics (as video games) and those that employ only text (as non-video games) I believe to be an artificial one not in keeping with industry practice. This can be seen from the common practice of calling early interactive fiction titles video games despite the fact that they often only display text. Apart from my contention that the Speak & Spell is a video game console, however, I agree completely with what KieferSkunk has stated.

Guyinblack, I think it would be helpful here for you to attempt to articulate your vague disquietude into something tangible that can be discussed. I'm not sure what part of the logic you are having trouble with.

Wgungfu, I believe you are making a number of incorrect assumptions about the characterization of handheld game consoles.

1. The characterization of a system at the time of its development and release does not mean that the system is forever bound by these terms. References to the terms used by the system's creators at the time of release are interesting from a historical perspective, but they are unable to prevent later re-characterization from occurring. If you recall above we had the same discussion in relation to the Cathode-Ray Tube Amusement Device (no longer restricted to the term "amusement device"). This mistake is especially noticeable when discussing the origins of a type of system. Originally there is no industry definition because there exist too few systems to characterize under one term. The fact that the Speak & Spell was not referred to as a "handheld game console" at the time of its release is due most likely to the fact that nothing was called a "handheld game console" at the time.
2. The fact that a system is intended to perform educational services for children does not mean that it is incapable of performing ludological services as well. A highly analogous example is that of educational games which are characterizes as "games" and not simply "programs." The instruction manual for the Speak & Spell refers to the programs it runs as "games." The intent of the Speak & Spell upon release and afterward was clearly to provide children with a educational experience within a game context. One easy example of such a game is Speak & Spell's version of Hangman (game). A quick review of that article should assuage any fears on your part that the Speak & Spell was used solely for serious education. This mistake is especially noticeable when examining the Leapster, a highly similar modern system referred to as an educational handheld game console (see source: 1, 2, 3).
3. The third major error relates to the Speak & Spell specifically (rather than to handhelds as a whole). I have been relatively unsuccessful in finding a good definition of the word "console" (you can see my struggles in this regard above). I am delighted to see your view of what the term means corroborated by the Steinbock reference (The Mobile Revolution) that you provided. According to this definition in the negative (which I take it you agree with) systems that "play a single game ... cannot be regarded as consoles." It seems, thus, that within the industry (at least according to this author), the term console refers to a system's ability to play multiple games as by using removable and interchangeable cartridges. Now we run into the error that has been made. To characterize the Speak & Spell as a non-console based on the argument that it plays only "a single game" is patently incorrect. The Speak & Spell does feature interchangeable cartridges and a number of games such as the above-mentioned Hangman (there called Mystery Word), a classic word-spelling game (Say It), and a sandbox game called Secret Code among others.

Am I missing anything? -Thibbs (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New Lead

Ok, just spent hours upon hours getting together references and resources. I kept Li's general definition of "console" in the intro per the discussion opened by Guyinblack at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Frederick Li as a video game expert. Likewise per the discussion, the plethora of other references were worked in to the article - including one stating handheld electronic games are not consoles, and a technology (electronics) definition from the time period of these electronic games terming them as "nonvideo games". I also provided references for several tagged requests, and then rewrote sections per all the other references and citations. Let me know what you guys think, this took forever. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try do a thorough check today. After a quick glance some of the content in the lead looks like it would be better placed in the origins section. But with the rest of the article in not so good shape, the lead can't expected to be perfect. Other than that it looks pretty good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

I think the stuff in the lead you're refering to is already in the Origins section as well. Its just being summarized in the lead. Maybe that part of the material in the lead needs to be changed a bit to just summarize how electronic handheld games lead to the creation of handheld game consoles? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. This clears up the confusion about what constitutes a console vs. an electronic game/toy considerably. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Marty- I did some tweaking and the prose could use some more massaging, but it looks good to me too. After rereading things, I know what bugged me about the lead. Right now, it only really summarizes one section of the article instead of the whole thing, and it looked overly detailed to me by comparison. Completely understandable given the state of the rest of the article. I think once the article gets properly fleshed out and the lead expanded accordingly, it won't be an issue.

I know articles like this are difficult to write and research, but you've got a good start going. Getting this article to GA or even FA would be great. I'd be happy to do some copy editing to help out. Maybe use other articles as templates for ideas: Apple TV, Macintosh, PlayStation 3, Wii, etc. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

Saw the tweaking, thanks. Yah, the grammar I used for "page" is actually clipped and pasted directly from WP:CIT, you might want to change it over there as well if its wrong. As far as the lead, I see what you're saying and completely agree. I think the origins should be summarized in a sentence at most, and the rest of the sections need to be summarized yet in the intro as well. Regarding the prose, please do any massaging needed - you'll notice by the edit history I'm still massaging it. It was formed after the six+ hour stretch of research, at around 1-3am, so I'm sure it still needs some work. As far as GA or FA, I'm all for it. Truthfully, this is the most I've contributed to this article, hadn't really contributed at all before this whole event. But it can certainly use it. And yes, any copy editing is appreciated as well as any way else you and others can help out - would rather have it be a group effort than getting invovled in yet another debate like I usually find my self in. As far as temlpates, I'm thinking maybe a brand or "line of products" template like Macintosh would be the best fit. What do you guys think? Oh, and happy and healthy new year to you all. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as cutting down the origin summation in the intro, I'm thinking something along the lines of "The origins of Handheld game consoles lie in the handheld electronic game industry of the 1970s and early 1980s. After companies like Microvision and Palmtex introduced the first handheld game consoles in the late 70s and early 80s, the modern handheld game console industry was started by Nintendo's release of the GameBoy in 1989." What do you think? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Personally, I don't even worry about the lead until the rest of the article is close to done. It's just easier to summarize afterward. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

(outdent) Good job with the quality sourcing, Wgungfu. Your skills as an expert will be very helpful in this regard, and I want you to know that despite our definitional disagreement, I think you have demonstrated admirable devotion to the quality of the article by providing these sources. It will probably take me quite a bit of time to examine the full extent of the edit, but I will do my best to do all the necessary sourcing checks, etc. so that we can move on to sourcing the remainder of the article. I will note in passing that I agree with Guyinblack25 that the lede should not only discuss the origins of the topic but rather that it should contain a concise paragraph relating to the topic as a whole with probably little more than a sentence or two devoted to the origins of the term. I think we should leave it for now, but at a later stage (perhaps closer to the end of the whole process) we should think about merging much of it into the origins section in order to leave the lede as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. I'll do a quick once-over to clear up some of the most obvious grammar and

Looks like you forgot to add the conclusion of your paragraph there. ;) As far as the sources, they've been gone through by three other people here, but feel free to do it as well. And yes, I was actually just writing a response back to Guy's agreeing with him on the lead rewrite thing. As far as merging it in to the origins, it doesn't have to - the material is already in there. Care just has to be taken when doing anything with that section, as some in the origins section use reference tags defined up in the intro. Also, the "Late 80's through early 90's" section hasn't really been worked on yet, I just changed the title of that section and moved some material to it. So anything from there downward has been untouched. Also, just saw your workings on grammar, etc. Looks good. As mentioned above, that was all done after the 6+ hour marathon of reference finding, probably sometime around 1 to 3 in the morning - so its bound to not be my best writing ever. And this is where your expertise in English will certainly come in handy as well. Quick correction though on your citation reworkings - you don't have to put an external link tag around the titles like that. Just add a url= descriptive with the url's to google books you wanted added. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Cheers then. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just finished giving the sources a close examination and I've made a number of changes that are designed to retain as much of the content as possible but to fix minor typos and improperly synthetic statements. I was unable to access a number of sources due to the fact that googlebooks either had no preview or only had limited previews of the books. We might consider finding additional sources for claims bolstered by the Game Over and Phoenix sources in order to aid future readers. This should perhaps be dealt with after we are finished the whole makeover, though. Aside from this there remain, however, a number of issues. An explanation of my edits follows:

Rework explanation & responses

• *"The last line of the lede states that "[Nintendo] continues to dominate the handheld console market with successive Game Boy models."

  I agree with the statement of course, however the source only supports the fact that Nintendo is still a dominant force within the handheld console market. The article actually discusses the Nintendo DS - a console Nintendo holds out as a "third pillar," next to its two other console lines. See link. I have shifted the cite to the appropriate location and added a cn-tag in its place. I think a proper source backing up the original idea should be quite easy to find.

  • "and can be also be described as "nonvideo electronic games""

  This statement is misleading. As it stands now, the implication is that early LED-, FVD-, and LCD-based games can be described as "nonvideo games." As the High Score! source demonstrates, these games were considered video games and on closer examination of the Popular Electronics source used to support the claim that these games are called nonvideo games we find that the source actually speaks of "video and nonvideo electronic games" together. There is no suggestion that LED-, FVD-, and LCD-based games are being referred to as "nonvideo." I have reworded this sentence to clearly show that early handheld electronic games came in both "video" and "nonvideo" formats.

  I'm sorry, but they show neither. The High Score source refers to them only as handheld games and handheld electronic games. Secondly, the Popular Electronics source clearly makes the distinction between games hooked up to a TV (video games or TV games) vs. non-video games, which are clearly described as the handheld and table top electronic games discussed in the article and by the manufacturers mentioned in the article - even going so far as to say they sidestep FCC issues on interference of the time because of going the route (which was a big issue for manufacturers of the day). I don't know why you keep trying to press LED/VFD/Etc. games as "video displays" when even by engineering terms they are not considered as such. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  This was my mistake. I thought the citation was to the cover of the magazine only (where it speaks of "video and nonvideo electronic games"). The article indeed seems to discuss nonvideo games in opposition to TV games. I'll restore the line to something like the original and I'll improve the citation instead. As far as the suggestion that I'm trying to "press" anything in this article, I'd ask you for what feels like the hundredth time to please assume good faith. It's quite tiresome to constantly have to defend my actions. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "or non-consoles."

  Again, a misleading statement as the source does not call them non-consoles. The source does support the contention that "consoles" represent systems that play more than one game so I have moved the reference to the appropriate place and deleted this phrase.

  That's what it was being used for, exactly what you just described, i.e. the full sentence was describing several different descriptions used by the individual sources (for various reasons given in the citation). In this case of non-consoles, simply that electronic handheld games and the like are not considered consoles because they played a single game. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  The source was being used to bolster the claim that handheld electronic games were referred to as "non-consoles." What the source actually say is that "[hand-held video game devices that] play [but] a single same ... cannot be regarded as consoles." The difference is that in one case we're negatively saying "single-game devices are not called consoles" and in the other case we're affirmatively saying "single-game devices are called non-consoles." Do you see the difference? I had moved the citation to the portion of the sentence that says "[electronic handheld games] are capable of playing only a single game" because that much is supported by the citation. Is there actually any problem with the way it stands now? -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "electro-mechanical devices"

  As resident expert, I call on you here, Wgungfu. Is this term a common sense term or an industry term? I would naturally be inclined to treat it as a common sense term in which case the reference is sufficient (the reference describes Electronic Tic-Tac-Toe as a "light-based" game). If it's an industry definition, however, then we're going to need a better source than that which is provided since the source does not call it an "electro-mechanical device".

  Electro-mechanical (EM) is a common engineering, and industry term both in arcade and home. In laymens terms, it describes hybrid devices of electrical and mechanical parts (Pinball machines, and a plethora of other old arcade devices are EM for example). Here is a picture of the device in question, it has lightbulbs that light up and operates by working sliders. You can read more of a description on that game here by someone who actually owns one, and you'll also see why High Score called the racing game the first "true electronic handheld game". Here's another example of a well known handheld electro-mechanical game, Blip. You could literally hear the gears winding around inside as the game played, and they had a whole series of them (here is another page at the previous mentioned handheldmuseum site describing them as electromechanical as well in case you wanted to see someone else using the term).

  I'm familiar with the common sense definition (i.e. devices that employ electro-mechanical operations to function), but my question was more in regard to whether the term "electro-mechanical devices" was a counter-intuitive or specialized industry definition as in the case of "handheld game console." If it is a common sense definition then the words are descriptive and we need no additional citation, however it it is an industry-only term then it is used prescriptively and we'll need citations or we run into the problem of a layperson disagreeing with the characterization from a common sense perspective. So again, is this a descriptive term or an industry-only term? -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think a term used like this would require a source because even if it an industry term, it's still a reasonable descriptive term. The link can also provide some extra information to a layman curious about it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

  If the industry (prescriptive) term agrees with the common sense (descriptive) definition then I suppose we could just argue that we're using the term descriptively. If we're maintaining that this is the industry term that we're applying to Waco's Electronic Tic-Tac-Toe and Cragstan's Periscope-Firing Range then we need to find a source which makes this characterization. As Wgungfu says, "electro-mechanical" is a descriptive engineering term so I agree we probably don't need a source provided that the usage here is not the prescriptive industry usage. Do the two definitions agree? And is it a descriptive term we use here, though? Those are the questions.

  Perhaps an example would be the easiest way to explain what I mean: In the source given, Demeria calls Electronic Tic-Tac-Toe a "light-based" game. As a layman I would understand this to be a descriptive term meaning a game that is based on the player's interaction with light. By the same logic, flashlight tag would also be a "light-based" game. If, on the other hand, an expert confirms that, "No. 'Light-based game' is a prescriptive industry term covering only electrically-powered games that use light to back-light a screen used as a display" then assuming I took his word for it I would need a source to show that flashlight tag was a "light-based" game. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Handheld electronic games ... find their origins in the synthesis of ... electro-mechanical devices ... and the emerging optoelectronic-display-driven calculator market of the early 1970's."

  I don't believe any of the sources make this claim. It seems reasonable/logical to me, but it's still unsourced. I've affixed cn-tags to both points that discuss this "synthesis".

  Katz's quotes should have been enough, but I'll see if I can dig up interviews with the actual engineers of the game. Please understand I'm busy conducting interviews with several industry luminaries right now for some other projects, and helping find sources on several other articles here as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, just dug it up quick and added a reference - interview with the designer of these games. He specifically states: "The early models were all programmed at Rockwell Microelectronics Division using modified MOS-FET (Field Effect Transistor) handheld calculator chips. Basically a calculator chip was modified to make it output the necessary signals to drive the game display appropriately. Part of the reason that the little blips on these games are dashes is becuase they are basically the little segments of the number 8 on a calculator display." --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  The Katz source speaks of Katz' interest in a "calculator-sized" electronic game. It does not state anything about a synthesis of electro-mechanical technology with optoelectronic technology as the basis or origin of handheld electronic games. This problem is shared by the new source (which is a good source, though). I'll move the new source to the area discussing the use of calculator technology and re-affix cn-tags for the claim that the synthesis of these two technologies resulted in handheld electronic games.

  PS - No worries about being busy with interviews and all that. I'm actually quite busy myself. We can take this fairly slowly I think. And thanks again for the time you've put in so far. The article is making great progress. -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Followed by Football later the same year"

  I can't find where in the source it discusses the year Football was released. I added a cn-tag.

  • "Coleco, Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, Entex, and Bandai"

  Just a minor comment/suggestion on this. As it stands currently there are three ref-tags used in this line. We could reduce it to two simply by shifting Milton Bradley (the only member referenced by the Popular Electronics source) to the start or end of the list. We could also, infact eliminate the Popular Electronics cite as well since the High Score! source (used for all others in this list) discusses Milton Bradley as well.

  OK Seeing no objections I'll go ahead and make this change. -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "The Microvision game Cosmic Hunter also introduced the concept of a directional pad on handheld gaming devices, and is operated by using the thumb to manipulate the on-screen character in any of four directions."

  The source does not back this up at all. Specifically a source are needed to show that the Microvision introduced the concept contrary to what the Levi Buchanan source claims concerning Yokoi's having introduced the D-pad. I've added a cn-tag.

  Actually the was given to show existence of said product, a picture, and the date (1981). Yokoi's D-pad didn't begin appearing on Game & Watches until late 1982 with the Donkey Kong Game & Watch.[8] So how could he have introduced the concept of a directional pad if this game with a directional pad (clearly shown in the reference) was released earlier (also clearly shown)? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  I agree it seems quite likely but, unfortunately, without sources to support the claim it's still WP:SYNTH... -Thibbs (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'm fighting a cold right now, so some of this stuff is making my head spin. I think Thibbs's points indicated that more sources are required. I think it's important to remember that sources are only required for certain statements. A statement like a specific device was the first to use something can be borderline. I'd say it doesn't need a source because it's not terribly difficult to verify with simple observations. However, stating that something introduced a concept implies that all other subsequent devices copied it for one reason or another. I'd say that would need a source. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

And that completes my tour of what has been done so far. A very promising beginning, I believe. Kudos to all. -Thibbs (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Next

Ok, as far as the rest of the article, next would be late 80's through early 90's (assuming we're going to rewrite section by section). My other immediate concern as well is the "Listing of notable handheld consoles", which has turned in to a listing of all handheld consoles, notable or not. My thoughts are that either a) It needs to be seriously pruned to consoles that have verifiable notability, or b) The entire section should just be chopped out, since anything of notability is already going to be discussed in the article - which also reflects that prose is always preferable over lists here. I'm leaning towards b.

As far as the late 80's through early 90's section (and really this is true through all the sections in the article), it should loose the whole menu of systems approach, and should discuss things in a manner similar to the Origins section. I.E. discuss the market, the major (notable) players on that market, how they competed/changed the market/etc. and related things of note, and that's it. There's no need for the current "intro and listing of systems from the era" format. People can click on the wikilink of the console's name to learn more about the console, and all that's really relevant here is how the console in question relates to the topic of this article (as in the things I mentioned above). That would also cut out the redundant "main article" tags for every single console as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree we tread a fine line between making this into a cumbersome list and keeping it workable as an article on a topic with many notable members. It seems by your leaning toward b, User:Wgungfu, you are worried that the article will become too cluttered if we include all consoles (imagine for instance if the article on cars included even a blurb on all models). I recognize this concern, but I have a different concern which would favor over-inclusion. My concern is that new editors (especially single-time editors) will continue adding entries that have been removed without examining the history of the article first. This would mean that we would spend the rest of our lives monitoring the page. I have dealt with a few topics that had similar issues and I have found that the best solution is something of a compromise where mid-sized blurbs are given for the 5-10 truly notable members of the series (e.g. the top seller, the first to implement X technology, etc.) and then single-line entries are reserved for all others under a "Other notable handheld game consoles" subsection. The base criterion for appearing under the "Other notable handheld game consoles," then, would be whether there is an article on the system on wikipedia. I know this self-referential exclusion criterion isn't particularly kosher, but I think it works pretty well in practice. If the console is notable then there's almost certain to be at least a stub on it before someone decides to add it to the general article on all consoles.

Anyway, I would favor keeping a mid-sized blurb on all (or at least 5-10) "very notable" consoles and including all other linkable handheld consoles in single-line form under an "And others"-type of subsection. As far as the "main article" tags are concerned, I would keep them for all "very notable" consoles.

Once this is done, we should begin to add the cn-tags for items we still need to source. I wonder, would you do the honors this time, User:Wgungfu? If you'd prefer not to, I certainly can. Whatever you'd prefer. -Thibbs (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - All other editors are invited to contribute to this makeover as well. I don't mean to imply that only User:Wgungfu and I should be making edits. Please don't hesitate to make so BOLD. -Thibbs (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gizmondo Error

There has been a error on this page, a fairly minor one but a error never the less, it says Tiger Telmetics downfall was in early 2005, it was indeed early 2006, when in febuary 2006 the gizmondo was discounied, it needs to be changed so I'm noting it before I edit it. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Apple Devices

I believe that if you're going to include Apple products as handheld game consoles, you need to add Palm's history as well as the Zune and Pocket PC. They all support games in much the same way as apple does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.149.175 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, those devices are Phones / Music players with Game Capabilities. The devices here are primarily Game Devices with other-capabilities. Its the intended market and main purpose of the unit that determines its best category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KermEd (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I've removed them from the article. I would however state that they are more than simply "phones/music players with gaming capabilities"; they are, in fact, mobile computing platforms (in effect, mobile personal computers). That however does not change the fact that they are not game consoles as they are not primarily or solely designed for game playing as game consoles (whether home or portable) are defined. Like PCs, mobile platforms of this sort have a variety of end uses and the consumer base for such devices/platforms are not solely or even primarily (or even at all) buying them with game playing in mind. Therealspiffyone (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dingoo Digital A-320

Shouldn't his be included in this page? Infact there is no mention of it on wikipedia at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76EWGXDT9OY

79.66.39.117 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots missing. Someone just needs to add them and to update this list. KermEd (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Handheld Games link

I removed the "External Links" section, as all it contained was one link and a notice to not add any further links. The one link, to "http://www.electronichandhelds.com", was an online store for purchasing old portables, which does not belong here at all (perhaps if the site had a timeline of handhelds, but it only has a link to ebay categories). Jcholewa (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

no refs for the lynx

doesn't seem to be any in the section for it. Could use one or two! Govvy (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Wii U?

It's got a console AND a gamepad.

Yeah, but the content on the GamePad comes from the console. Wii U itself is a home console, not a portable. DarkToonLink (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(2000's) Game King

The second model, the GameKing 2, is a more direct rip-off, this time of Sony's PSP. Does anyone else think that this sounds POV or am I just being too picky? MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 11:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this might be a good source to reword that part to say it's comparable or inspired by the PSP? Samwalton9 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's do it to it! MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)