Jump to content

Talk:Intellivision Amico/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Untitled

--Daltonsatom (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Internal consistency issue: last sentence of intro says 40 games at launch, while near the end of "Games" paragraph it says "about 30" games at launch. Ref. 5 and 29 is used for both and reference 5 and 29 are the same. Ref 5/29 says 40 games, so I'll change it to that for now. The June 21, 2019 date of reference 5/29 should be added to the citation [done]. I don't want to try to attempt to merge the citations, myself, as I might mess it up.

--Daltonsatom (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Please indicate what changes you have made to the article when you make an edit, rather than just leaving it blank.

Most of these game titles are not official. I have spoken with Mr. Tallarico and he has said that any of these games could be cancelled or shelved indefinitely if they do not meet their quality requirements. Also, many of the titles from trailers are just guessed at since the title was never shown or announced.

https://atariage.com/forums/topic/288558-intellivision-amico-tommy-tallarico-introduction-qa/?do=findComment&comment=4441489 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The games you deleted have citations from the ceo of the company. None of the games in the list have been released and all have varying degrees of uncertainty. For example the announced packin Snafoo is being delayed and may not be ready at launch. It doesn't mean it's cancelled. It's not uncommon that games during development have unofficial names. Earthworm Jim 4 is an unofficial name that hasn't even been used by Intellivision Entertainnent. That doesn't mean these games shouldn't be listed. All but one of the games from the trailer will be released before the end of the year; subject to change of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

--Daltonsatom (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)I didn't delete any games in the list. I just stated as a qualification that many titles were mentioned in passing as possibilities in interviews, and not good citations. Many were pictures without names and and release of any title is not certain, although most are likely. --Daltonsatom (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Without going into detail, Mr. Tallarico has also said he doesn't like these lists because many of the ones he names are on his to do list but depend on if a developer wants to do it and if he feels the developer is a good fit.

They've said the new Earthworm Jim will not be a 2D platformer. https://atariage.com/forums/topic/288558-intellivision-amico-tommy-tallarico-introduction-qa/?do=findComment&comment=4306193 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Tommy told me himself that it would be mostly a 2D platformer. It will just have non-platform elements in it. Daltonsatom (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)daltonsatom

The atari creep price/value breakdown is speculative and not a proper source. The Tron license has not been announced as of this writing (October 2020). There are no usb ports in the cradle. The Dean Takahashi article says 40 games total not 46 (6+30 is about 40). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.43.219 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

SD card media

The source about SD card media is old Since then they've said the physical media is patent pending and are unable to discuss until summer 2020. https://atariage.com/forums/topic/288558-intellivision-amico-tommy-tallarico-introduction-qa/page/38/?tab=comments#comment-4303941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been recently confirmed that there will be no SD card media for game distribution. They will sell collectables with rfid that contain the game license that will trigger the console to automatically authorise and download the game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0MWxP5SRYI

--Daltonsatom (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Tommy Tallarico also said in that video that the collectables with RFID was just one idea of many and none of it may ever happen.

The Intellivision is not the predecessor of the Amico and Amico is not the successor to the intellivision. Intellivision did not precede Amico, there's thirty years between them. Intellivision did not succeed Amico, Intellivision was replace by countless other game systems in the last 38 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bluetooth controllers

Based on these forum posts from the "official" Q&A thread, Mr. Tallarico has confirmed that third-party Bluetooth controllers will be compatible with his console. However, he has warned that many games will not support third-party controllers, due to the lack of a touchscreen:

https://atariage.com/forums/topic/288558-intellivision-amico-tommy-tallarico-introduction-qa/?do=findComment&comment=4440860 https://atariage.com/forums/topic/288558-intellivision-amico-tommy-tallarico-introduction-qa/?do=findComment&comment=4450903

This website is not a journalistic outlet, though, so I won't be adding that information to the article. Is there any news source that has reported on this?

Megalomaniaman (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The console specifications on the official website lists bluetooth support. Wikipedia doesn't require a journalist for a source, a statement from the CEO of the manufacturer should be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.46.177 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the ceo has said amico prototypes support standard bluetooth game controllers, that does not mean the final product will have that feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.117.86 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Links to unhelpful subsections of game pages

Pretend you're a reader looking at the game list. You see Cosmic Ark and think, "I never heard of that, let me see what it is." You click on the link and it's to a section on that game's page reading "An updated version of the game has been announced for release exclusively for the Intellivision Amico." That's not helpful at all. What you really want is a link to the top of the article to see what the game is about.

I fixed this, but an anonymous user reverted it, and I don't want to get into an edit war. Dgpop (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


A link to a page about a game from the 1980s is misleading. Amico won't have that game it will have a modern remake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.117.86 (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Daltonsatom

As noted by several removals of controversial subject material, the sole contribution of user Daltonsatom, as viewed here [1], are major changes and favorable additions to this page.

It is possible this user is connected to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.235.139 (talk • contribs)

My response to 50.88.235.139: :This is a lie by someone seeking to turn the introduction into a biased negative commentary on Intellivision and the Amico focused soley on highlighting price changes over several years and delays in the console and add only c charged negatively biased controversial statements not directly related to the console or telling only part of the story. If you look at the contributions of 50.88.235.139, starting less than a month ago, [2] they begin with using charged negatively biased language. I left these alone and I and another contributor added material for a more balanced, dispassionate article, but 50.88.235.139 came in and removed them, so, I began removing what I thought irrelevant that he added and he came back and undid it. I am not affiliated with Intellivision or the Amico. However, a video referenced by 50.88.235.139 as a citation (by Ninja Kitty) shows him to be associated with internet trolls. Daltonsatom (talk)

My response to Daltonsatom : I added in relevant development information around the Intellivision Amico and changed the introduction to the article to match other unreleased/vaporware consoles that have had their release dates changed over and over again. I used similar wording to the Phantom Games Console article. You continuously work around my edits to remove my contributions. I added a link to the direct scripted investment pitch and removed known internet troll "Ninjakitty" video. I simply used that to cite Tommy Tallarico's words. Please leave my contributions to the page and let user Fyrael decide what is relevant to the Amico console development. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My response to 50.88.235.139:Work around your edits to remove your contribution? What does that even mean? Giving a more balanced perspective rather than a one-sided biased perspective is removing your contribution? That goes against the philosophy of Wikipedia. You seemed to have no problem deciding what you thought was relevant in removing additions to the introduction and controversy section. The Amico has been shown and played in public and appeared complete in its performance and is held back due to a parts shortage, so I don't see why you would refer to it as a typical unreleased/vaporware console like the Phantom Games console. You seem biased against the factual reality. Daltonsatom (talk)

50.88.235.139

50.88.235.139 appears to be seeking to turn the introduction into a biased negative commentary on Intellivision and the Amico and add only negatively biased parts of controversial statements. If you look at the contributions of 50.88.235.139, starting less than a month ago,[3] they begin with using charged negatively biased language. I left these alone and I and another contributor added material for a more balanced, dispassionate article, but 50.88.235.139 came in and removed them, so, I began removing what I thought irrelevant that he added and he came back and undid it. Here is an example: To his addition of material being removed from the developers portal, I added that the pages had been stamped with "Confidential" and Ars Technica cropped that off before posting them. 50.88.235.139 removed that addition with the claim "journalist don't care if something is confidential". Maybe they don't, but his reason is ridiculous because it is very relevant that they would hide that they were confidential. Another example is removing a reference to the impact of COVID on delays by saying they were "advertising". See my response to his statement above for more detail. A video that was referenced by 50.88.235.139 as a citation (by Ninja Kitty) shows him to be associated with internet trolls. Daltonsatom (talk)

First off, the two of you need to read WP:CIVIL and stop attempting to target the character of other editors. Just focus on the content in question, and attempt to come to some type of consensus here in Talk before you revert any more. To offer my opinion on at least one aspect that's been fought over here, I don't see why the Allard content would go on the Intellivision company article instead of here. It seems to be very much centered on the development of this console and not other projects of Intellivision. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that as long as the reverting/deleting/redefining of counterpoints to these negatively biased additions stop (that make additions such as these more one-sided) and also that more reputable sources were used. I don't think statements about the matter should have, as a factual source for it, an anonymous, unseen Youtube video blogger with few subscribers who does numerous parodies on the topic. Also, I don't think you would see details of an SEC inquiry about an executive for Nintendo or Microsoft in an article about the Switch or XBox One unless it directly addressed some topic of the console like analog stick drift or ring/screen of death. That's just my opinion. Daltonsatom (talk)
I would definitely agree that the paragraph supported by the Youtube video should be taken out. Also, the Republic links don't seem to have any relevance here, so we would need a different source for Allard appearing on the crowdfunding offering. I would normally say to remove that sentence, but then readers would be wholly confused about what the SEC was asking questions about. @50.88.235.139: do you have a source for that statement? -- Fyrael (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fyrael, a source for which particular statement? I made an Intellivision Entertainment page to put company controversies, but it was deleted. I think the J Allard topic is relevant to the development of the Amico console and should stay as it was written. The Youtube link by Ninjakitty was the only link to the investor video I could find where Tommy Tallarico says that Allard made "huge huge contributions" so I used it to cite Tommy, not the user Ninja Kitty.50.88.235.139 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Fyrael, I updated the J Allard discussion and added sources directly to the scripted investor pitch on Youtube where Tommy references J Allard and says he made "Huge, huge contributions," which is contrary to what was told to the SEC. Please let me know if I need to update any of the other sources. Again, I believe this is relevant to the development of the Amico console, and there is no Intellivision Entertainment corporate page.50.88.235.139 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@50.88.235.139: I was asking for a source for the statement that Allard appears on the crowdfunding offering. All you included before were links to generic Republic pages that didn't support the statement. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I see you've included a link to that crowdfunding page that works, even though it's a primary source, so I'm fine with that now. I'm not sure how these new links to Angel are related though. They don't seem to have anything to do with this topic. So, I would still advocate for removing the "huge, huge contributions" paragraph until there's a reliable source. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fyrael: I suggest any final form should include perspectives from more than one side, such as the following, before 50.88.235.139 decided what pre-existed and was added for balance were irrevelant (along with good references, which are relative in the following):

Introduction

The Intellivision Amico is an upcoming video game console produced by Intellivision Entertainment. The system was first revealed in October 2018 with basic hardware specifications and a price range estimated to be "$149 - $179".[4][5] Pre-orders for Founder's Editions bundles, which include a special edition console, $50 gift card and collectibles[6], began in January 2020 for the price of $299.99 with a refundable $100 deposit, followed by preorders for other versions of the console ranging in price from $249 to $299. [7][8] An initial release date of October 10, 2020 was set, but on August 5 Intellivision Entertainemt changed it to April 15, 2021. in February 2021, in the midst of unprecedented pandemic related restrictions, an announcement pushed the release date to October 10, 2021, exactly one year after its originally intended launch.[9] On Aug 7, 2021 Intellivision Entertainment announced they have to postpone the release due to "international component supply and logistics challenges". No new date was specified.[10] The system will launch with six pack-in titles and over 20 further games.[11]

Controversy

J Allard was touted as having joined the Intellivision Entertainment team in 2020 to help launch the Amico.[61] He was brought on board as Global Managing Director in May 2020. According to J. Allard, he left the company later that summer.[62] However, in 2021, the Intellivision Amico revenue share investment offering on Republic.co still listed J. Allard being on the team at Intellivision Entertainment, and when brought to the attention of the company's CEO, Tommy Tallarico, he said that J. Allard was a part-time advisor.

The SEC reached out to Republic, who were advised by Intellivision Entertainment of the following" (i) J Allard served as the Company’s Global Managing Director from before the filing of the first Amico Form 1-A until after the qualification of that Form 1-A on October 21, 2020; (ii) during that time, Mr. Allard served as a full-time advisor to Intellivision, helping Intellivision in the final stages of Amico hardware development; (iii) after this work of his was completed, Mr. Allard ceased serving as a full-time advisor, but has remained available to give advice when contacted by Intellivision; and (iv) considering his contributions overall, Mr. Allard has not played a material role in Amico product development."[63]

Tallarico was asked for a Nintendo Life article to clarify the status of J. Allard. He said "To be clear, J was never an employee of Intellivision." He went on to say J Allard was brought on as a consultant as they were finalising the hardware and operating system. "After J’s time was over we spoke about a potentially bigger role but he didn’t feel there was a right spot or fit for him moving forward but he welcomed any kind of e-mails from our team and simple consulting if needed.[64] Daltonsatom (talk)


Yeah, I'm mostly good with this version, which is basically what the IP just recently tried to add, but leaves off that last paragraph that I've mentioned above doesn't have a reliable source. We should make sure to include the archived Republic link to the offering that the IP provided. It still leaves this one small part unsourced: "and when brought to the attention of the company's CEO, Tommy Tallarico, he said that J. Allard was a part-time advisor." Do we know where that statement came from?
To clarify further why I think the last paragraph shouldn't be included for the time being, it's an important policy on Wikipedia that we not conduct our own investigations or put together bits from different sources to draw our own conclusion (WP:NOR). Until we have a secondary source making the point that Tallarico has contradicted himself, we should not be saying so, even if it seems apparent to us as editors. Readers can draw their own conclusions. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I would propose the following for the introduction and Controversy page. Please let me know what edits need to be made. The introduction does not need references to the pandemic or to included features of the Founder's edition. I also believe saying the system will launch with 6 pack in games should not be in the introduction, as the amount of games other consoles launch with isn't in their introduction. Again, this is advertising language. That reads like an advertisement of what's included with your order.50.88.235.139 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

The Intellivision Amico is an upcoming video game console produced by Intellivision Entertainment. The system was first revealed in October 2018 with basic hardware specifications and a price range estimated to be "$149 - $179".[4][5] Pre-orders for Founder's Editions bundles began in January 2020 for the price of $299.99 with a refundable $100 deposit. [7][8] An initial release date of October 10, 2020 was set, but on August 5, 2020, Intellivision Entertainment delayed the release to April 15, 2021. In February 2021, an announcement pushed the release date again to October 10, 2021, exactly one year after its originally intended launch.[9] On Aug 7, 2021 Intellivision Entertainment announced that they would postpone the release again due to component supply shortages. No new launch date was provided.[10]

Controversy

J Allard was touted as having joined the Intellivision Entertainment team in 2020 to help launch the Amico.[61] He was brought on board as Global Managing Director in May 2020. According to J. Allard, he left the company later that summer.[62] However, in 2021, the Intellivision Amico crowdfunding and revenue share investment offering on Republic.co still listed J Allard being on the team at Intellivision Entertainment, and when brought to the attention of the company's CEO, Tommy Tallarico, he said that J Allard was a part-time advisor.

Additionally, in March of 2021, in a scripted investment pitch to Angel Investors, Tommy Tallarico also stated in reference to J Allard that "He loves our idea and concept so much, that he joined the team, and has been making huge, huge contributions" [1]

The SEC reached out to Republic about the state of J Allard's employment with the company, and to ask what his contributions were to the Amico game console's development, who were advised by Intellivision Entertainment of the following" (i) J Allard served as the Company’s Global Managing Director from before the filing of the first Amico Form 1-A until after the qualification of that Form 1-A on October 21, 2020; (ii) during that time, Mr. Allard served as a full-time advisor to Intellivision, helping Intellivision in the final stages of Amico hardware development; (iii) after this work of his was completed, Mr. Allard ceased serving as a full-time advisor, but has remained available to give advice when contacted by Intellivision; and (iv) considering his contributions overall, Mr. Allard has not played a material role in Amico product development."[63]

Tallarico was again asked for a Nintendo Life article to clarify the status of J Allard. He said "To be clear, J was never an employee of Intellivision." He went on to say J Allard was brought on as a consultant as they were finalizing the hardware and operating system. "After J’s time was over we spoke about a potentially bigger role but he didn’t feel there was a right spot or fit for him moving forward but he welcomed any kind of e-mails from our team and simple consulting if needed.[64]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Ozk3ncCr0&t=1468s
I believe these edits include all relevant information to Tommy Tallarico's statements on J Allard's involvement, including conflicting statements, without drawing any conclusions. The reader can draw those on their own, and they have the sources now. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll propose what I think to be the best evaluation of the Introduction and Controversy section, then. A guessed at price from three years ago, two year before the first predicted release date is not important for the introduction and should be removed while current prices are relevant. Likewise, the price of the Founder's edition is not relevant as it has not been able to be purchased in over 18 month, since it sold out in five hours. However, current prices and contents of the bundles are relevant to the public. I disagree with most of the suggested changes of 50.88.235.139 which remove equally valid attempts at a more balanced perspective. Pandemic is not advertising. Also, the Analogue Pocket has been delayed twice and it's October release is not assured, but previous target launch dates were not mentioned, so we should remove them here as well. Finally, the youtube video 50.88.235.139 added as a replacement source for the Ninja Kitty video is another anonymous unseen video blogger who sub-titles the video "pseudo interview format with lots of misinformation, intended to lure gullible investors." Is this any better of a source than the previous one? They don't give the source of the video, although one known internet troll in the comments posts "it was a private link on neil patel`s scam site"; Neil Patel is an Angel investor. Daltonsatom (talk)

Introduction

The Intellivision Amico is an upcoming video game console produced by Intellivision Entertainment. The system was first revealed in October 2018 with basic hardware specifications.[4][5] Pre-orders for Founder's Editions bundles, which include a special edition console, $50 gift card and collectibles[6], began in January 2020, followed by preorders for other versions of the console still available ranging in price from $249 to $299, all with a refundable $100 deposit. [7][8] The October 10, 2021 targeted launch date was postponed due to "international component supply and logistics challenges". No new date was specified, although Intellivision will attempt to ship all pre-orders by the end of the year.[A][10] The system will launch with six pack-in titles and over 20 further games.[11]

Controversy

J Allard was touted as having joined the Intellivision Entertainment team in 2020 to help launch the Amico.[61] He was brought on board as Global Managing Director in May 2020. According to J. Allard, he left the company later that summer.[62] However, in 2021, the Intellivision Amico revenue share investment offering on Republic.co still listed J. Allard being on the team at Intellivision Entertainment, and when brought to the attention of the company's CEO, Tommy Tallarico, he said that J. Allard was a part-time advisor.

The SEC reached out to Republic, who were advised by Intellivision Entertainment of the following" (i) J Allard served as the Company’s Global Managing Director from before the filing of the first Amico Form 1-A until after the qualification of that Form 1-A on October 21, 2020; (ii) during that time, Mr. Allard served as a full-time advisor to Intellivision, helping Intellivision in the final stages of Amico hardware development; (iii) after this work of his was completed, Mr. Allard ceased serving as a full-time advisor, but has remained available to give advice when contacted by Intellivision; and (iv) considering his contributions overall, Mr. Allard has not played a material role in Amico product development."[63]

Tallarico was asked for a Nintendo Life article to clarify the status of J. Allard. He said "To be clear, J was never an employee of Intellivision." He went on to say J Allard was brought on as a consultant as they were finalising the hardware and operating system. "After J’s time was over we spoke about a potentially bigger role but he didn’t feel there was a right spot or fit for him moving forward but he welcomed any kind of e-mails from our team and simple consulting if needed.[64]

[A] https://atariage.com/forums/topic/288558-tommy-tallarico-fun-amico-conversations/?do=findComment&comment=4881496

Daltonsatom (talk)

I disagree with your changes. I also see you frequent AtariAge, which is where the people who invested in this project reside. You are obviously interested in the positive reception of this console and talk to the CEO of the company. I don't think anyone who talks to the CEO should continue to be involved in the editing of this article. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I follow vaporware console articles and took a look at this today. 50.88.235.139 is right. The console is unreleased vaporware with no release date and the article should reflect this. Three delays is enough. The article needs to change now instead of pretending this is still normal. Additionally, readers need to know what the CEO Tommy Tallarico has said about J Allard in the investor video versus what he told to the SEC. People also need to know the console's price has changed and release date have changed over... and over. What they don't need to know is the "50 dollar gift card and free games!" that come with the console. I also agree that Daltonsatom looks like he is friends with the CEO and has interests in making the Wikipedia article look squeaky clean.4.34.184.87 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I had actually failed to read the Introduction suggestions earlier, but we should take out all the information about prices, gift cards, collectibles, and deposits. We do not usually talk about prices and deals on Wikipedia unless there is a specific controversy about them, and then it still wouldn't be in the lead. I would agree that currently the introduction sounds quite like an advertisement.
And this Angel Investors thing still should not be added without a source that is reliable by WP:RS standards (please actually read that so you don't look for more youtube links). I'll see if I can find any mention anywhere of this pitch in news sources. To both of the IP editors, while we should definitely try to avoid having promotions in our articles, it is also very much not our job or goal to warn readers about scams or shady characters or anything like that. This is not the place for PSA-type campaigns. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and this forum post is not a good source either, so we shouldn't include that bit about pre-orders by end of year. I understand that it's Tallarico saying it, just like it's Tallarico in the youtube videos, but in both cases we need to rely on what secondary sources think is notable. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again with the negative accusations of me based on wild speculation of me, rather than facts. I am not invested in Intellivision or the Amico or convinced in buying one. I am not friends with the CEO. I have just asked him questions and gotten answers like a normal person, rather than getting my information from anonymous video blogger trolls and am interested in video games. Being on Atariage doesnt make me some co-conspirator with Intellivision any more than the other nearly 60,000 members. This new 4.34.184.87 sounds very negatively biased wanting to remove balance as well (2-3 day old account, some coincidence) despite it being similar to the Analogue Pocket, which no one is calling vaporware. From what I understand, no one in the public has played the Analogue Pocket, while dozens of people have played and commented favorably about the Amico. I'm not trying to make the article squeaky clean, you can ask Fyreael, this just shows 4.34.184.87's unreliability through exaggeration as does how 50.88.235.139 seems to always consider these troll video blogger as his source of information. Notice ho he is trying to eliminate me as an editor based on ridiculously speculative evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs)
I'm trying to eliminate advertising and pricing language in the introductory paragraph, while also including the development history of the console. Fyrael agrees with me that the introduction comes off like advertising language, which is why I removed references to current pricing, gift cards, included games etc. which you put back in. I'm fine with the J Allard paragraph as Fyrael @Fyrael: described, I would like to include the Scripted Investor Pitch but it's been scrubbed from the internet and only exists as a Youtube upload now. If the Youtube upload isn't good enough that's fine. But please, let's take the advertisement out of the opening paragraph and make sure the readers know what happened with J Allard and the SEC investigation. That's very relevant to the console's development and is a major controversy surrounding it's release. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Fyrael is also concerned you are making it sound like a PSA against the Amico. We should then remove all pricing in the introduction as Fyrael has suggested and previous targeted launch dates to keep it from sounding like a PSA against the Amico, since the Analogue Pocket article does not include them. It goes both ways.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs)
Fyrael said this isn't a PSA type campaign to warn readers about potential scams. Which I agree with. I don't think Fyrael said I am making it sound like a PSA against the Amico. You may have interpreted their words that way, though, and that's fine. I don't really care anymore. My interest currently is in the following: detailing to the reader that this is on it's third and now indefinite delay, with no scheduled launch date, and in detailing to the reader that J Allard has been a large source of controversy around the console's development. Analogue Pocket has nothing to do with this and I don't know why you bring it up. I will defer to Fyrael and let them make the final edits. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
something made Fyrael concerned about it coming across as a PSA against the Amico. In light of the Pocket having at least a one year delay based on the same reasons as the Amico, I don't see why you are trying to force it into the introduction unless you are trying to turn the introduction into a negative PSA in addition to what looks like a negative comparison of the guessed at price three years ago vs the price of a special edition. As far as it being a large controversy, I think that is an exaggeration. Find me a major news outlet reporting on it. Stick drift on the Switch and the RROD on the XBox 360 were large controversies. Maybe they are large to the community of a few dozen people involved in the anonymous video blogging community looking for conspiracy theories against the console and company. Daltonsatom (talk)
Dalton what are you on about mate. I've been reading this back and forth and am scratching my head. You keep bringing up Analogue Pocket, but you are the one who made an edit on August 22nd to Analogue Pocket copy pasting 50.88.235.139 wording verbatim, then removed it yourself later. What was that about? What are you up to on this wikipedia thing? Now you're on about conspiracy theories? Video bloggers? Analogue pocket edits? Any unreleased console should have all of it's delays documented, including Analogue Pocket. J Allard should be documented under legal issues, like the Switch article. Change it from Controversy to Legal issues. This console has no release date and the console's development is being investigated by the SEC. Drop the video blogger theory stuff and let the edits stand. I think you are too clos to this subject. A third party needs to handle this from now on. Drop it. 4.34.184.87 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Says the three day old account and two week old account who seem way too close to the topic and more unwilling to compromise and should drop it. Have you both read about civil discussion requirements, yet you are the ones starting and predominating in personal accusations and insults trying to get me removed though bizarre ad hominem attacks. That should warrant removal in itself. As far as the Analogue Pocket self-reversion, I was seeing how it fit in and thought it didn't seem relevant enough for the introduction. But seems like you want to create paranoia over it. Daltonsatom (talk)

@Fyrael:here is your secondary reputable source for trying to ship by the end of the year: https://venturebeat.com/2021/08/09/intellivision-delays-its-amico-retro-console-launch-yet-again/ Daltonsatom (talk)

@Fyrael: By the way, the listing of launch delays is also found in the development sub-section of the Hardware section, so it was added redundantly. Daltonsatom (talk)

Ars Technica article

I have replaced material sourced from this article by Ars Technica, an accepted reliable source. The article stands, unretracted, and the fact that the information was "leaked" does not make it unreliable or unusable here. You may not remove reliably-sourced information merely because you don't like the way the information was obtained. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: NorthBySouthBaranof just removed material you edited as acceptable, derailing this negotiation. "The original documents were labelled "Not For Public Dissemination", but this was cropped off on the images posted in the Ars Technica article. Faced with accusations of violating copyright law". This is a controversial thing to do. He also made some other questionable changes. The removed material is in a major news source, unlike the Allard material, and not obtained by nefarious means like Ars Technica's technical specs he added. You may notice how agitated these new commenters are (see below as well). I will let you decide if someone is calling in friends for assistance. Daltonsatom (talk)

What source says they were so labeled?
The paragraph already includes a discussion of the accusation which was made, and it does not need to be repeated.
Your opinion about how the documents were obtained is irrelevant - Ars Technica is a reliable source and there is no legal prohibition against publishing information obtained through leaks, or through a corporation's own carelessness. Nobody cares that you think it was "nefarious" for a journalist to access a publicly-accessible website and download information from that site.
Whatever "negotiation" you are involved in does not preclude other editors, including myself, from editing the article. Neither you nor anyone else owns this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: So, what spurred your sudden interest in this article you've never edited before? Daltonsatom (talk)

I was brought to this article by a posting on a talk page that I watch. Daltonsatom, given that you are a clear single-purpose account whose contributions are virtually entirely limited to this article, I suggest that you are not in a position to discuss other editors at this time. It is apparent that you have a single-minded focus on this product, and specifically are here to make edits which defend this product from any criticism or negative material. This sort of editing behavior is inherently problematic, and may lead to sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have restored the better version of the Developer Portal section. The label you're asking about is mentioned in both the screenrant and nintendolife sources. Did you even attempt to find it? -- Fyrael (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not mentioned in either article's editorial voice or reporting - only in Tallarico's embedded tweets and "answer" in a Q&A, which is not a reliable source for factual claims about third parties. Tallarico's statement cannot be cited as a claim of fact in Wikivoice - hence my question, was there a source for stating it as fact? The answer is no, so it must be stated as his allegation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible to get the J Allard section I wrote restored as well without it being deleted again by another user?50.88.235.139 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm unclear the relevance of going into such deep discussion about a former employee/consultant's role in this product; additionally, the sourcing is not particularly compelling. We can't use primary source public records, such as SEC filings, except as support for reliable secondary sources exploring the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the concise explanation. It would seem to me that losing the Global Marketing Manager and person responsible for the Xbox game console yet still claiming he worked for the company, which caused an SEC investigation, should be relevant under a new section called "Legal Issues" then, rather than controversy. 50.88.235.139 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Fyrael: I strongly and formally disagree with this following quoted assessment from NorthBySouthBaranof as an exaggeration. I initailly left 50's comments while adding my own and it was him who began removing my comments and I have made numerous trivial and non-trivial edits that are not out to give only a positive impression. "It is apparent that you have a single-minded focus on this product, and specifically are here to make edits which defend this product from any criticism or negative material." More ad hominem accusations, just like the newcomers. I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again, on why this accusation is false. What talk page did you see this negotiation mentioned on? Daltonsatom (talk)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Fyrael: FYI, that Ars Technica article being cited is riddled with at least a dozen factual errors about the console. I can work on a list if you wish. I don't see how it can be seen as a reliable source for anything else. This is not favoritism, it is striving for balance in perspective and legitimacy, which is what Wikipedia wants.

Sorry, but your personal opinion of the article is irrelevant. That's textbook original research, which is explicitly prohibited by policy. You would need reliable sources which discuss these purported factual errors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Fyrael: I didn't expect you to do anything about it. Just thought you should know the truth, even if it's irrelevant to you.Daltonsatom (talk)
If you can verify with other sources that there are numerous factual errors, then it would definitely call into question whether we should use the Ars Technica article. NorthBySouthBaranof is entirely incorrect that that would be original research, which refers to putting our own conclusions in articles as content, not deciding the validity of sources. It is very much our job as editors to scrutinize sources, and it is not unheard of for even a generally reliable publisher to put out an article that ends up being untrustworthy. As they said though, you would need to show it had quite a bit of issues through reliable secondary sources. Primary sources would not work at all for that, and the bar is going to be pretty high.
Also, I acknowledge that I misread the confidential label bit as the source stating it rather than the source stating that Tallarico claimed it. Agree with the current wording, though I added two words for context.
And Daltonsatom, you are correct that you don't need to defend your motivations here. The repeated accusations by other editors are violating WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and are not at all constructive to the conversation. My guess is that you're just a fan of the console who is also new to Wikipedia and doesn't know what generally gets included or the maze of policies and guidelines around it. Let's all stick to just discussing the content. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Christ on a stick. If there are reliable secondary sources which say the Ars Technica article has factual errors, then of course it wouldn't be original research. But merely stating "this article has factual errors" isn't going to cut it. If there is a clear factual error, it should be pointed out and verified against reliable sources. But those sources don't include a corporate press release - just because Ars' reporting says something different than Intellivision does not make Ars wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: I appreciate your reply. I don't want to beleaguer moving forward. I will say "fan" is a stretch. I'm maybe 25% likely to buy it and haven't pre-ordered it. I was interested in its uniqueness and maybe 75% likely to get it 18 months ago and a lot of people said they were having trouble finding information about the console, so, I became interested in trying to provide that at Wikipedia. I put a ton of hours into navigating the labyrinth necessary to post pictures so people who visit could actually see the console and controller. I do realize Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, though. That's why universities generally don't allow it as a source in research papers. I do have a question/uncertainty of understanding about what you and North said about the Ars article policy. Regarding the Ars Technica paper, I'm not going to fight over getting it removed, but I am surprised people are basically saying they have no choice and must add material to Wikipedia from a source they know may be poorly researched. I would think the person who is going to post material from it will fact check it before using it as a reliable source or remove it after fact checking it if it is found to lack rigorousness of research. Yet, apparently, because a careless person posted something from it months ago, we're now bound to find another secondary source disproving it's reliability, despite a dozen objective, quantitative errors in it. I'm not going to bother as what was posted from it is trivial and a news source reporting on errors in another online magazines article is probably a unicorn. Just surprised there is not some fact checking factor in place on Wikipedia. Having trouble wrapping my head around that. There is that secondary source rule, but like I said reliability is poorly peer reviewed. Off my soap box. No hard feelings.Daltonsatom (talk)

I think it's a good decision to not spend time trying to find evidence to discount this one source article because realistically the chances of finding sufficient evidence are quite small. That said, I wanted to clarify just a little bit about why we would be keeping it so that you don't come away thinking Wikipedia doesn't fact check. It has nothing to do really with the fact that someone at some point referenced it in this article. The reason is that in most cases we determine reliability at the publisher level, rather than the individual article level. In this case, Ars Technica has been discussed and found to be a reliable source for some time (it's in fact in a list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). So it would be surprising to find that it is publishing a bad piece, based on what we've seen of their editorial discretion and quality in the past. I hope that makes sense. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


The COO of Intellivision Entertainment said in an interview that the images posted were labelled "confidential, not for public distribution" and followed by saying distributing that information is illegal. He goes on to say that after having a conversation with Ars Technica the images were removed. It may not be Ars Technica that modified the images. It could have been removed by others without Ars Technica knowing, and therefore Ars Technica did not know they posted it illegally. But the images are not what makes the Ars Technica article a poor article, and it's not illegal to write a poor article with mistakes and statements out of context. The comments by the COO of Intellivision Entertainment can be heard in this interview at the 1h:20m mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tcBWw4tO00

Reliable sourcing guidelines

Much of this article is incredibly poorly sourced to things like webforums, random YouTube videos, and corporate press releases. Contributors to this article should be aware of Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sourcing rules - anything in the encyclopedia must be supported by a citation to a reliable source, and preferably a reliable secondary source. Someone posting something on Reddit is the definition of an unreliable source, and corporate press releases are apt to be self-serving. Just because you can find something on a forum that says something, doesn't mean it can go in Wikipedia. Right now, there is no announced release date for the console, and so to propose that games will be released on any particular date is, at best, dubious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you've done to fix the advertising state of this page. I would suggest protecting this article from further vandalization by those who are connected to the project with single-purpose accounts.50.88.235.139 (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The newest Kotaku article mentions the J Allard and SEC issues, NorthBySouthBaranof, do you think it is appropriate to post the J Allard controversy at this point, since it has been referenced in a journalistic source? 50.88.235.139 (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


There are no absolutes for Wikipedia sources. A statement by the CEO or COO is a valid primary source regardless of where it's made. Some company statements might be self serving but they can also be facts. And yes primary sources can be valid sources and often the best source because they are the only source. Secondary sources typically repeat the primary source, sometimes getting it wrong. Similarly, a web site considered to be a valid source doesn't mean everything they write is automatically a credible source.

Games target release dates

I don't understand the opposition to having the manufacturer's target release dates for games. It's helpful for people to know what games are expected at launch and what is expected after. Primary sources like official manufacturer's websites, are valid Wikipedia sources and often the best source of information. These are target dates and of course subject to change. Someone said, nobody know when they are coming out. How do you know what the manufacturer knows? It's the target date that they have on their official web site. This Wikipedia article looks worse without them as people have no idea which games are in development and which announced titles are not.

You'll have to pardon if people are slightly doubtful of the manufacturer speaking the truth if they've missed three release targets and counting. Especially when said manufacturer has blatantly lied about the status of their employees, completion status, and more. Also, sign your posts. 2601:540:8200:92A:BEB4:D82A:EC1C:EEE0 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What difference does it make if they get delayed. Game release dates are relative to the console release. Collecting those estimated release dates here gives people a good idea of what is expected at launch and what's expected later, what's in development and what's not. The wikipedia article was made worse by the removal of that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.75.54 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to include "release dates" which keep changing every time the wind blows; it creates management issues for the article because every time they miss a release date on the console, it requires updating literally dozens of other dates that are supposedly based on the console release date. Once the console is actually released, possibly the release dates for games will become more stable and known. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't create a problem at all. A missed date is a missed date. Wikipedia just shows that they missed their date, which is also relevant information. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of File:Intellivision Amico Controller.gif

Seeing as this image has been added and removed from the article several times, it seems that we need to have a discussion on it. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the gif adds nothing to the section while making it look incredibly promotional. The animation does not add anything that is not already covered in the image directly above it and in the accompanied prose. Why do we need an animation to see that it is wireless, has a color touchscreen, and a "proportional circle" (again, what?)? How does the animation of the controller being slightly rotated to show it has a gyroscope and accelerometer? Similar arguments for the "force feedback" and RFID. Pinging related parties: Daltonsatom Purplewowies. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there just a screenshot of the controller out there? That would be sufficient, and wouldn't look like it was supplied by Intellivision for promotion or something. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I could fairly easily to extract one from the aforementioned gif and place it on a transparent background. The image directly above it includes a controller already, however. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a good compromise. I think we should do that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
All set. File:Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png. – Pbrks (t • c) 00:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The still image we have would seem to be sufficient. While it's wonderful that permission for these was attained and they are on Commons, the gif being literal marketing material I think crosses a link. It'll still be on Commons, in the Intellivision Amico category, for those who want to see more images from the external links templates. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your very low res extraction looks like crap. Isn't there some policy for minimum resolution of static image? But go ahead and make the page look crappy if you want.Daltonsatom (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. And a lot less like a promotional piece. It's a net positive. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It's low res because the gif is low res. If resolution is a concern, the gif is bad too. -- ferret (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Making things worse already. I'd rather you just removed it like ferret suggested than turn what I got into crap. It's all fuzzy. And gifs are animated, so they can have lower graphics because the animation smooths them out. Daltonsatom (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
If your negativity doesn't improve, I will improve it for you. -- ferret (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There's zero rationale or support for just removing everything entirely. Please stop. Your comments are increasingly unconstructive, and more about being mad about not doing things strictly your way. The gif can be, and probably is, somewhere on the Amico promotional website. But it's very seldom you see something like that on Wikipedia. So don't be so surprised it's not being used here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
ja voll. Ugh. Good riddance. Keep your GRAY controller image. I don't remember gray being a choice color. Oh, well.Daltonsatom (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
You're right, the grab was rather grey. For some reason, the controller on the left was darker; I've updated the image. Looks much whiter now. – Pbrks (t • c) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILESIZEDaltonsatom (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't aid your argument in any way. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, when I removed the gif in my own revert, I did so because it read as promotional both on first glance and alongside the content on closer inspection (and I really don't appreciate that that good faith revert was met with a revert that included a wholly WP:uncivil edit summary toward me).
More to this section's actual point, anyway, since I was pinged: Just because the license was verified and filed with OTRS (or whatever it's called now, it's been awhile--probably a decade--since I've filed an OTRS ticket and I know its name has changed) doesn't automatically make it appropriate for use in an encyclopedia article (the image use policy also mentions animations should be used sparingly even when they're appropriate and it's often better to use a static image that links to the animation if an animation is appropriate). I agree that the static image is better and I think its resolution is completely adequate here for what it's being used for--in fact, the default thumbnail resolution (listed at WP:IMAGESIZE, which is different from FILESIZE to make clear) is pretty close to this images width. (That doesn't mean it couldn't be bigger but we can't just, like, magically make the gif higher resolution to have a higher resolution still cropped from it.) - Purplewowies (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, since I've seen Daltonsatom misquote me repeatedly on this. I agree with removal of the Gif. The still image is fine. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Same. Bizarre I need to clarify this, as I was the one who first suggested getting a still image of the controller to replace the promotional gif at the top of this very section. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of reliably-sourced content

I must insist that 76.70.75.54 stop removing reliably-sourced information merely because they don't like what it says - this is not a fan page for the proposed console, and information which is critical of the product is just as valid as any other information. Attempting to whitewash this article suggests that you may have a conflict of interest in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is not reliable and the kotaku article rebuts itself saying things like "It seems very unlikely that these games will feature any new content or modes". It doesn't even know what it's saying. Every Amico game has exclusive content according to this article ( http://gametyrant.com/news/intellivision-amico-presentation-lets-meet-our-new-friend ). Another is stating games are ported from Flash and that they can be played right now. Well modern browsers don't support Flash so they can't possibly be Flash games. Again rebutting itself. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims, Kotaku is an established reliable source for video game content, and your nitpicks of what you think "rebuts itself" is merely your opinion. That a game may have "exclusive content" does not mean it's not a port, and when reliable sources are in conflict, generally the solution is to present both claims and allow readers to decide. We include Intellivision's press release statements about "exclusive content," and we include Kotaku's reporting that many of the games are ported. Readers can decide who they believe. You want us to only present Intellivision's press releases and marketing materials, and that's simply not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying there are no ports, this wikipedia article already has points elsewhere about ported games and exclusive content elsewhere. Right now this Wikipedia article has wrong information regarding Flash games, and links to an article that has more wrong information. Facts are not opinion and wikipedia shouldn't present an author's opinion as fact, especially when they are wrong. Further there is nothing relevant in the paragraph added. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What reliable source says it is wrong, and why should we take that source as gospel truth to the exclusion of all other sources? As I said, when presented with conflicting sources, generally we present both statements and allow readers to decide which they believe, unless there is an unambiguous consensus of reliable sources as to the truth of the matter. I strongly disagree that there is nothing relevant about discussing the truth of the company's claims and marketing. That you don't like a source which challenges Intellivision's corporate PR suggests you have a conflict of interest here. As I said, we aren't here to simply regurgitate corporate marketing statements about a product - we include a variety of viewpoints, including opposing and negative ones. If you can't deal with that, then Wikipedia isn't the site for you. We're not here to be a fansite for any product. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make a point about the CEO's behaviour, it should go in the controversy section because that has nothing to do with the development history of the products. Otherwise what's relevant with saying a writer is critical regarding "transparency about its ongoing issues with delivering the product," when all the source says on the matter (besides the pandemic) is "it seems apparent that other factors are at work here too." What factors? Is it because they say "A “new” trailer released in 2021 seemed to be mostly the same trailer that was released in 2019, with only a few minor edits." The fact is most of the gameplay segments are different than the 2019 video. Anyone can look at the two videos and see for themselves. Is it because it is only as powerful, as the 2016 Android phone mentioned in an ArsTechnica article. The fact is the ARSTehnica article actually identified a second chip, correctly specified here in Wikipedia, that's newer and has double the graphics power. Is it because it says developers are getting a bad revenue share and the CEO did not deny it in a NintendoLife article. The fact is, they fail to mention that the NintendoLife article says they pay the developers to make most of the games. Royalties are a nice bonus when development is paid for. I love the source it's a good laugh and people who like he said she said gossip should like it too, but it should go in the controversy section. If you want to leave the part about the one Flash game fine, it's only one Amico game out of dozens. And yes they did say that new exclusive content has been created for it, just as they demonstrated exclusive content for the few other games that have been ported from other systems. 76.70.75.54 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The current state of the Kotaku article information reads as if it's being posted with the intention of having someone go and read the article rather than adding information to the wiki. I removed the original entry because of this and it feels like its been posted in the same way again. Does this feel like a legitimate addition that adds development info to the wiki? Thanks! Jrose724 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to that, the paragraph says there are games ported from the Flash platform, where the source referenced says those games (the Sesame Street games) are not using the Flash platform. It says they were Flash at some point. This is correct because years ago they were rewritten using Html5. The Amico Sesame Street games are ports of Html5 games not Flash games. The paragraph also says the writer of the source reference is a journalist but he doesn't call himself a journalist nor does anyone else. A76707554 (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so while the semantics of a game that was in Flash later recoded into HTML5 are argued pointlessly, are the road apples that fall from the mouth of Tommy Tallarico himself considered a reliable source? He's said a lot of things, that lies or otherwise, are statements from the self-purported CEO of Intellivision Entertainment. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The "road apples" document, is, of course, filled with out-of-context hyperbole, sensationalism and exaggeration, so it is road apples itself.Daltonsatom (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what the CEO says. A 2018 company press release says the version of a game on Amico is to be exclusive. Meaning other versions of the same game can exist. As Jrose724 said, the kotaku paragraph says nothing relevant and even has incorrect facts. It is merely a link to an external article A76707554 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A76707554 (talk), let's read the section header again. To wit: Removal of reliably-sourced content. In pushing aside a lame edit war over games that once were Flash and are now HTML5, the question was asked if Tommy's own words were considered a reliable source, irrelevant of the natter. Especially since the CEO has been proven as self-contradictory, flippantly changing words as the winds blow. Here's an article from 2018 citing that there were going to be no ports, dating back to the original press release, from Comicbooks.com If even the veracity of this press release is to be doubted, has a single true word been said about the Amico? 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Another example of why you just can't blindly reference web articles. These aren't journalists, these aren't journalistic news sites. Besides the company is more than the CEO. There are four founding partners and the company has used consultans including a marketing firm from the beginning. A76707554 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The web article contains a link which leads to their press release (via ResetEra), including a PDF directly from the company and videos directly from Intellivision itself. Which also contains lies such as the employment status of several founding members, including J. Allard. Who was namedropped numerous times in spite of having never worked for or with Amico. Just how far does one have to go to make a point about how nothing Intellivision has said as a company can be considered true without second guessing it? We're not in school, one is allowed to do a little research for themselves. And that research shows them talking out both ends of their mouths. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If the kotaku writer read the press release they would know that exclusivity refers to the game version. The writer would also know from the ten commandments image that specifically mentions ports on Amico with exclusive content. Amico games have exclusive content, it's not a lie. How can you say Allard never worked on Amico. Perhaps you're referring to this quote from Fig's lawyer to SEC, " considering his contributions overall, Mr. Allard has not played a material role in Amico product development." Well it obviously says he made contributions to Amico. "during that time, Mr. Allard served as a full-time advisor to Intellivision, helping Intellivision in the final stages of Amico hardware development." You're out of line saying Allard didn't work on Amico. A76707554 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

NorthbysouthBaranof stated above that original research is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia, so this "research for themselves" that 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE keeps slipping in is, in fact, prohibited here. His additions also include misinformation, such as saying the Playdate has launched as of Dec. 29, 2021, when it has not, that COVID-19 has hardly affected other businesses and that J Allard never worked for or with Intellivision and, ironically, repeatedly stating that missing a target date or changing business direction was the CEO lying. This editor appears so misinformed or prone to adding misinformation that his additions to Wikipedia seem untrustworthy. Daltonsatom (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

All the following are not trustworthy resources, is this what this omnishambles of a talk page wishes to imply?

The Amico has a few problems. Which it is felt fair to report on them, with just a few in mind being:

  • The six pack in games are incomplete. The console was announced in 2018, as a gentle reminder.
  • The app store is still incomplete and beholds itself to no style guidelines.
  • RFID cards have yet to be demonstrated in function.
  • The NFT aspect of the console mysteriously vanished. This was harped on about as a feature for several months on Atari Age by the CEO (post #29519 for example); to the point of even claiming to have gotten a grant for the technology.
  • Account management in the cloud hasn't been mentioned.
  • How did a man whose job it is to oversee the well being of the entire company manage to overlook lifted assets?
  • FCC certification has yet to show. The console cannot ship internationally if this is missing.
  • None of the ten box games were completed; many containing copyediting errors and poor proofreading.
  • Moon Patrol's intro text was a placeholder lifted from Star Fox 64.
  • Earthworm Jim 4 is currently MIA.
  • No serious investor updates for 3+ months after monthly updates all year.
  • No real marketing campaign despite (allegedly) having a CMO.
  • Retail box design not completed.
  • Deleting reasonable questions on corporate social media and banning many.
  • "Anonymous" social media accounts used to praise the CEO's self-aggrandizing.
  • Finnegan Fox title screen showed "press A", when Amico has no button labels whatsoever.
  • CEO claims transparency regarding the console and functions, yet this talk page is in this state. Plans may change, but it is typically in the interest of an unproven company to be open about these.
  • The involvement of Angels & Entrepreneurs and Palm Beach Research Group leaves a concern shaped hole. Is Tommy complicit, or unaware of the problems these two groups have?
  • All of this. Especially anything relating to the phrase net loss.

Dissect the frog how it may be desired, but this is a choice of a swamp to decide to die on. 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

      • I must add I did not make any of the Jan4, 2022 comment but simply replaced it after undoing the deletion of the entirety of the discussion above the "Removal of reliably-sourced content" header that was deleted by 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE. So, we can add what seems like moderate vandalism to his list of infractions. Although, Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not fan pages, they are also not venues for soap-boxing or "public service announcements" against the subject of the article or those associated with it, especially those still living as spelled out in talk page guidelines Daltonsatom (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Strange and confusing edits coming from yet another guy 2601:540:8200:89f:c576:2539:3ea0:a09b trying to use the same hate soap-boxing reddit forum moderated by a user named "Tommy Poopypants" for citations as if it could be deemed in any way reliable. More of the same dubious intention possible.Daltonsatom (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No idea what this massive wall of text argument is all about, but you can check and see WP:VG/S to see that most of these sources are deemed reliable, though a few aren't. (Looper, Tech, CBR is extremely iffy I think.) That said, a ton of past content or proposals have had all sorts of tone and POV-pushing issues, so it takes more than the sources just being usable too, it has to do with how you use them, if there are WP:UNDUE issues, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Practically all his sources are either already already used for citations in the reference section (so illogically in his list) or unreliable and his list of comments is ambiguously cited as a format.Daltonsatom (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What user 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE said in that last comment are either wrong or irrelevant. For example, there's no evidence that the six packins aren't ready, what the original target release date is irrelevant to that. And in their physical games introduction video, their software director did say each physical game is an NFT on the blockchain. Doesn't matter as Wikipedia should stick to facts. And it doesn't matter if the source is the New York Times, if the cited article gets something wrong it shouldn't be in wikipedia. A76707554 (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a complete WP:TANTRUM, and at the completely wrong venue. Sergecross73 msg me 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've issued a retraction of the nomination for deletion. I don't know how long that will take. Also, If you think I am a sockpuppet I am not. I had no problem confronting you head on, even if it was five or six against one.Daltonsatom (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly referring to you. I thought you rage-quit days ago and weren't even around anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I haven't had six people appear and form a consensus against me on Wikipedia at once in my two years of minor editing. It can make you a bit mercurial, especially when similar activities have all been done by on a smaller scale only by the reddit trolls and only reddit trolls had accused me of a conflict of interest.Daltonsatom (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC).
I see. Well, sometimes this is also happens when an editor contacts an active WP:WIKIPROJECT and neurally notifies them of disputes and requests experienced editors to assist, which is what has been going on for the last few days. I've been editing Wikipedia for 12+ years and have maintained and reworked a bunch of video game console articles over the years. I have no particularly strong feelings for or against the Amico. I'm just active, knowledgeable editor in the content area. It's the same with Ferret, Nomader, Purple, Pbrks, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, two years since my first edit. Time flies.Daltonsatom (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and the first three times saying I wasn't a COI was just a reddit group guy posting the idea in the Amico talk page and me posting it wasn't true, this was the first time one was sent to my user page or by an admin. Probably the only thing sent there except the Teahouse invite.Daltonsatom (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Just wanted to make sure all participants are familiar with WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET. I'm getting the feeling there are some editors violating it - there's some tell-tale signs that are generally pretty obvious to experienced editors. Please stop before this needs to be escalated. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SergeCross73. I'd like to point out the contributor Guidoman. They are quite possibly an Intellivision staff member, who is playing defense for the Amico project. Isn't that a WP:Conflict, potentially? I realize it's not entirely the issue, but it feels like one worthy of being pointed out. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
To echo Serge, I also have the same sentiments. It looks like this article has multiple examples of WP:COI and WP:MEATPUPPET from what appear to be several agitated parties. The most consistent attempts at edits seem to be coming from a WP:Single-purpose account to argue against any inclusions they deem unsatisfactory. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for individual editor's opinions of an author's intent. It is simply to report what was stated by reliable sources. I also did want to note; Guidoman only appeared after this clear single-purpose account was challenged and had a WP:TANTRUM, wherein they claimed they wanted their account deleted and were done editing, but have clearly failed to stay away. If this continues, I believe this page will require arbitration and any single-purpose accounts should be barred from further discussion. I think we have all have seen that there is a very clear attempt to purge this page of potential negatives, and even the most minor nitpicks are hotly debated in an inappropriate manner. 72.188.152.89 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration is going a bit far. We've plenty of tools and options before that. You yourself would be barred if "single purpose" discussion was blocked here. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, correct. A number of experienced editors are monitoring and maintaining things now, and have things under control. Thank you for pointing the COI/SOCK issues. But to be clear, we need to maintain a neutral point of view on both sides of things. Wikipedia is not the place for a company and related parties to promote their product and whitewash negative sentiments. But this also isn't the place for fans/redditors to air their grievances or write hit pieces either. I've also seen that attempted, both here and at some Amico related pages. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intellivision_Amico/Archive_1&oldid=1114180915"