Talk:Game Boy

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)

Thanks, after some updates to wording, the current one does feel better to me now. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Any objection listing for GA? RickyCourtney (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No real objections, but I'm not sure if this will go through the review. Might actually need someone else who can go through too and work on references. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Game Boy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 23:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll try and get to this before Sunday next. If you don't see any comments here by then, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I spotted two biggies that stood out in the "Games" section.

• Is Rodrigo Copetti and Brendan's Website valid sources? I've never heard of them before now.
• None of the launch titles are cited.
• The Re-releases section in general looks off.
• Ref 56 uses two references in one citation, they need to be separated.

--ProtoDrake (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these notes. I’ll tackle items 2, 3, and 4 in a day or so.

As to Copetti, he’s a self-published author, which can be problematic. However, it’s clearly throughly researched, with sources cited and a change log provided. As self-published sources go, I feel it’s pretty close to perfect.

As to Brendan's Website, I would trust it. Here it appears to be a supplemental reference. Nothing there isn’t already supported by the other two refs. We can delete it. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake I added a new introductory paragraph for the games section and a paragraph on the best-selling Game Boy video games. As requested, I added citations for the launch titles section. I removed the re-releases section, as it really has nothing to do with the Game Boy, but rather the later consoles. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Full review

Lead (in progress)

• "Designed by the team behind the Game & Watch handhelds and NES games (Satoru Okada, Gunpei Yokoi, and R&D1), it was Nintendo's first portable console, combining features from both." - This sentence seems strange. Generic NES games as a whole? I'd rephrase that to focus on who created it.
  •  Done Did my best to reword the intro in light of this suggestion.
• General note here, but perhaps cut down on the amount of links to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE
  •  Done Let me know if even more needs to be done.

Development (in progress)

• There's a lot of in-text Japanese being used here that could be incorporated into footnotes.
  •  Done
• "...who was also known to encourage the competition between the teams." - This reads oddly. Perhaps "who encouraged competition between teams."? I'm failing to see how this is relevant to the article anyway.
  •  Done I agree and dropped the sentence from the article.
• "Satoru Okada developed the Game Boy as a more portable version of the Famicom, inspired by the concept of interchangeable game cartridges." - You haven't introduced the Famicom, and you should drop the "more".
  •  Done This was a duplicated sentence, so I did a rewrite to address.
• "Game Boy was unveiled as a prototype in 1987..." - "The Game Boy was unveiled..."
  •  Done With slightly different wording

Hardware

• In progress...

Games

• In progress...

Reception

• In progress...

References (in progress)

• Check through links to make sure there's consistency. 4Gamer.net and Ars Technica aren't linked, for instance.
• Also inconsistent linking of websites/publishers such as in Refs 4 and 6.
• Ref 15 is tagged as needing a better source. Agree.
• Also, general issue, but there's a list of sources I'd want you to double-check to ensure they were admissible for Wikipedia usage. Listing the ones that jumped out, with notes when possible. This Page may be of help.
  • Ref 10: AllGame (See VG sources page, not typically trusted outside reviews, and this just seems to be an overview without secondary sources)
  • Ref 14: Wiktionary (not sure about the precedent of Wikipedia linking a sister site)
  • Ref 24: gekkio.fi
  • Ref 26: Pan Docs
  • Ref 28: Fruttenboel Gameboy Section
  • Ref 29: 8bitCollective (seems to be a Wiki)
  • Ref 40: tasvideos.org
• Ref 35 is a WordPress blog, not usable.

@RickyCourtney: This is a start. I didn't realise just how much of this page might need a question raising or point of writing addressing. I'll do my best to get the rest of this finished sooner rather than later. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• • I'll keep working on your suggestions. I realize this GAN review is a bit of a heavy lift, but this topic deserves a good article. You keep making suggestions and we will keep grinding on the improvements. Cheers! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

    I've done my best to address your concerns about the references. The ones I kept are supplementary, only adding additional detail to information sourced by more established references. I'm hesitant to take them all out. Some are self-published but seem very credible and are referenced by other reputable sources. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: This is hard, but having looked over both the article and my own personal allowance of time and investment, I feel I must fail this GAN. Don't be too discouraged, you've done some good work here, but more is needed that can't easily be covered within a GAN. Pages for consoles need some of the hardest and most rigorous sourcing and checking. I recommend bringing this article up to Peer Review, so multiple users can chip in with suggestions, and maybe collaborate with you on expanding. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s disappointing. I really do feel like this article is close to GA status. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a unit error in the technical specifications?

At the time I write this, it says "Consumption: 70–80 mAh", which doesn't seem to make much sense. Is it supposed to read "Consumption: 70–80 mA"? That would match a roughly 30 hour battery life, with seriesed AA cells of roughly 2000 mAh apiece. 2600:1700:5F20:2E40:E1D3:992D:3B3:55CB (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)