Talk:Atari, Inc./Archives/2021

Bushnell, Dabney, and NPOV

Atari is a complicated subject, and not one where an editor can pull from two articles to form anything approaching a coherent picture of the company. In particular, one cannot take a story with two sides and only tell the one. Dabney says he was slowly marginalized and gave up, but Dabney’s own interviews and the recollections of other early employees indicate he was not trying hard to be a central figure. Bushnell says he forced Dabney out because Dabney was running manufacturing, and it was a disaster. Alcorn, who has no reason to lie, backs this up. On the other hand, Goldberg and Vendel also bring up in their book the excellent point that Bushnell had some good financial incentives to force Dabney out. Point is, all the participants have their recollections and no documentary evidence exists to break the tie. Therefore, both sides need to be represented in the article. Indrian (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Atari, Inc. → Atari
• Atari → Atari (brand)

– This is the original Atari company and the Atari that is the most well known the page currently known as Atari should be renamed "Atari (brand" as the page is a summary of the brand's history including Atari Inc. Lyanbox782 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Atari titles a page with significant content and so is ineligible as a new page title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Firstly, the company was called "Atari, Inc.", and in a situation in which we have multiple entities using the same brand, there is no better way to disambiguate between them than using the companies' actual names as article titles. So a better idea would be to leave the article under its current name and make Atari redirect here. (This would require moving the current contents of Atari to e.g. "Atari (brand)".) But, secondly, in case of Europe at least, the most well-known Atari company seems to be Atari Corporation, because that iteration of Atari was the most commercially active one in this market. So the assumption that the first Atari, Inc. is the most well known iteration of Atari, is not universal. --Krótki (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The original company Atari Inc. is clearly the primary topic. All these new brands are simply reusing the established brand name. JIP | Talk 11:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose While the original company is likely the one most associated with the "Atari" name, it is not that far dominant compared to the other companies that held its name to make it the primary topic compared to the current Atari topic which documents the overall history of the brand. I also agree on Krotki's argument that the Atari Corporation period is not something insignifiant, as that's when it was putting out the Atari Jaguar and other consoles - they may have been minor in the overall picture but they are still major consoles, and those were not under Atari, Inc. --Masem (t) 13:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Krotki and Masem. Pageviews do not indicate primary topic either. 162 etc. (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the excellent arguments already made. Indrian (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support All of the other Ataris (except for Atari Corp) are just milking off of the Success of the original by taking their brand name. The Atari 2600 is engraved in pop culture, the XEGS isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatoshiPhoto (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.