Talk:Game Boy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: TylerSukovski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

September '89 Release?

The article cites Electronic Gaming Monthly Issue 3 page 68 as its source for the July 31st release date, but the page makes no mention of the device's release date. Only its upcoming lineup. Nintendo Power Issue 7 page 84 has a teaser for the Game Boy and states it "should start appearing on store shelves in early September." The September issue of the magazine covers the handheld and its launch title, Tetris. This leads me to think the Game Boy's actual US release date is sometime in September of 1989. Are there any sources backing the July 31st, 1989 date currently in the article?

£69.99 UK introductory price dubious

The source claimed for that is "Argos catalogue 1990" but it's actually the Autumn/Winter 1991 Argos catalogue. It's entirely possible that nearly a year after the Game Boy's late 1990 release, there was a price reduction from a higher price (such as £99.99). Anamyd (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

So, @RickyCourtney, regarding your changes, that I would like you to substantiate your claims.

My version: 1221822443

Your version: 1221825191

Multiple issues:

• "lateral thinking with withered technology," has been sourced to the `Ryan, Jeff (2011). Super Mario: How Nintendo conquered America. Portfolio / Penguin. pp. 102–105. ISBN 9781591844051.` before, and IS present here, however in your version it's referenced with `McFerran, Damien (2016). "Game Boy". Videogames Hardware Handbook Vol 1. (2nd RE). pp. 157–163.`, which absolutely does not have this

• Gametrog is not a reliable source (or rather, not considered, because it's a random local game store, and is a very poor source) for the DMG-001 sentence, you should not add sources to stuff retrospectively, you need first to find a text and then to write using it.

• Colourful language, for example, "beloved", which is not referenced, and "Fate, however, intervened.", which is unacceptable in wikivoice.

In general, the prose has been generally worsened. So at this point, I'm reverting this again and invite for dispute resolution, which directly says to keep the article at a consensus version before the disputed changes: WP:DR.

For example, I would like to hear from you what, exactly, was "factually inaccurate", so we can address that. Thanks? Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I invite anyone else to weigh here for a third opinion, please. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• "lateral thinking with withered technology," has been sourced to the `Ryan, Jeff (2011). Super Mario: How Nintendo conquered America. Portfolio / Penguin. pp. 102–105. ISBN 9781591844051.` before, and IS present here, however in your version it's referenced with `McFerran, Damien (2016). "Game Boy". Videogames Hardware Handbook Vol 1. (2nd RE). pp. 157–163.`, which absolutely does not have this
  • Fair.
• Gametrog is not a reliable source (or rather, not considered, because it's a random local game store, and is a very poor source) for the DMG-001 sentence, you should not add sources to stuff retrospectively, you need first to find a text and then to write using it.
  • Go look at the version you reverted to. The DMG-001 sentence is still there as it long has been. I used that page because it has a succinct explanation. It can be replaced.
• Colourful language, for example, "beloved", which is not referenced, and "Fate, however, intervened.", which is unacceptable in wikivoice.
  • Also fair. My creative writing went too far.

As far as being factually inaccurate, I take issue with the first paragraph. It makes it sound like the idea for a "handheld system with interchangeable games" came from Yokoi. More recent reporting (Gorges 2019), which I cited, refutes that. It was Okada who advocated for the interchangeable games.

Additionally, the entire development section just needs heavy copyediting. In my opinion, we go into too much detail on unimportant points. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• The DMG-001 sentence is still there as it long has been.

OK, this is easier to deal with. This was sourced before to the article at lemonde.fr, which seems to be lacking in a lot of stuff. I agree, I've never looked into this one in-depth when rewriting the article.

• As far as being factually inaccurate, I take issue with the first paragraph. It makes it sound like the idea for a "handheld system with interchangeable games" came from Yokoi. More recent reporting (Gorges 2019), which I cited, refutes that. It was Okada who advocated for the interchangeable games.

You're right. This is easier to deal with. This was added in this anonymous edit. Seems though the original text with Yokoi _pitching_ the idea might be correct. But I agree now that this first paragraph needs a full rewrite. I think we need to lean both to Gorges 2019 or to earlier developer interviews at 4gamer.net.

I have now re-added your version of the first paragraph, though I put up a "better source needed" on the one reference.

• Additionally, the entire development section just needs heavy copyediting.

I'm not really sure about that, though. It seems to me that the article in its current form does not lend itself to excessive reduction. From what I've found, in terms of the development, this is essentially the maximum that can possibly be written, like squeezing blood from a stone. It's all with the possible goal of GAN, by the way.

At the same time, for example, I don't think mentioning "Computer Mah-johng Yakuman" and that the idea for the cable was taken from there is "too much detail". In my opinion, the overall style can be improved and the text can be shortened, but I also don't think it's worth throwing out the facts. I'll look at how I can trim that up. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would support finding ways to trim up the prose to make it flow in the most linear way possible, while also still being interesting to read.

I support getting this article up to GA status. I feel like the Game Boy Color article is mostly there, so, in good faith, I was simply trying to help on this article too.

As to referencing: "The initials DMG came to be featured on the final product's model number: "DMG-001."

It's not exactly hard to cite that, it's literally printed on the back of the device, see Commons:File:Nintendo Game Boy DMG-01-0247.jpg. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue might be in wording, this is hard to cite even with the back of the device. I'll look into this in a few days, b/c I have a flight upcoming next day. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. Clearly, this is correct. DMG-001 is literally printed on the device. The development guide (see the External links section) also extensively uses "DMG" to refer to the original Game Boy. That lemonde article provides the DMG=Dot Matrix Game (I've also seen this elsewhere). But I'm at a loss as to how we tie it all up in a nice bow. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)