Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussion needed per WP:BRD

A user is proposing this edit, which basically adds the sentence "Many Genesis games featured graphic violence that eventually resulted in the creation of the Videogame Rating Council" into the middle of the section on Console wars. IMO, this sentence is not necessary here and is redundant to the later section Changes in policy, which discusses the matter in more detail and without overbroad generalities. The Videogame Rating Council itself is not relevant to the topic of this article and thus doesn't need mention, as it was a Sega-only creation that was eventually replaced by the industry-wide Entertainment Software Rating Board. Comments? Anomie⚔ 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a good sentence in a good place. Precisely as a Sega only creation dealing mainly with violent games that did not exist on SNES it deserves mention both to highlight the difference between sega/nintendo cultures of the time, and as a lead into the next section that deals with the industrywide regulation that followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly find it relevant either.

Edit; on a reread of the section, I find it strange that the paragraph mentions the other video game rating councils, but not the VRC (which was I do believe is the first.)--SexyKick 00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The VRC is not relevant to the SNES; it could certainly be usefully mentioned in the Mega Drive article. Anomie⚔ 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree, certainly what Pantergraph is trying to add is not needed either way.--SexyKick 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another wording dispute

In The Ultimate History of Video Games on page 480, Kent writes about the SNES version of Mortal Kombat II "This time, it sold better than the Genesis version." Nice and straightforward.

However, SexyKick found this source that lists sales of 1.51 million for the SNES version and 1.78 for the Genesis version since 1995. Last I checked, that site's numbers were considered reliable when they cite them to NPD but not necessarily otherwise (and that page doesn't). And at any rate that page is not particularly helpful, since by its own claim it is missing sales from at least September–December 1994, which could make enough of a difference: the SNES version was outselling the Genesis version 2 to 1 in October 1994^[1], and numerous sources report $50 million in combined sales for the first week, so it is quite likely at least 1 million were sold by October 1994, which would give the SNES version at least 0.33 million over the Genesis in 1994, which is more than the 0.27 million difference in the "since 1995" numbers from Magic Box. IMO that's more than enough reasonable doubt. But after some inconclusive back-and-forth on various talk pages, SexyKick declared victory and changed the article to the more noncommittal "the SNES version was the one to get." I decided enough was enough and left it alone.

Now numerous editors have come by insisting that that wording is POV. So what should we do here? What would satisfy all you people? Anomie⚔ 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"the SNES version was the one to get." would be ok if it was in quotes, and made clear it was the opinion of the source. Otherwise, it's simply not encyclopedic. It sounds like a magazine article.Asher196 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm happy with the way it is, I think it's nuetral to say that the SNES version was the one to get. Just look at reviews, or the source. It's a sourced statement after all.--SexyKick 22:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if people even know what an encyclopedia is.Asher196 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." This? It seems to me often people misunderstand pointing out a derogatory fact as POV, like the statement "The Genesis initially competed against the aging NES, to which it had better graphics and sound" which is nuetral because it's completely true, came from a source, etc. It sounds like a diss to the NES, when in fact, it is not. This may sound like a diss to the Genesis version of the game, but it isn't. The Genesis version was actually a very very gimped version of the game, and the SNES version looked better, sounded better, and had nearly all the content missing from the Genesis version. The Super Nintendo version was the version to get, it's sourced, and it's a fact according to reviews.--SexyKick 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, I don't think there is anything wrong with it the way it is, as long as it is sourced and is likely to represent the consensus at the time (being uncensored certainly seems reason enough, so I have no doubt it was, but such a general "consensusey" statement like that needs a good source). My only gripe would be that it isn't written in formal language - sounding like a magazine does not make it non-neutral, it means it has an informal tone. Perhaps something like "the SNES version was generally considered to be superior/preferable/something like that" would be better. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 01:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea.--SexyKick 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's the usage of the phrase that defines whether it's encyclopedic or not. Used as a statement in the article "This time, the SNES version was the one to get" isn't neutral, but using it in the context of the source "According to <insert ref here> The SNES version was the one to get" and then the ref to back up the quote - or similar is OK (to me anyway). a_man_alone (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair, although there's still the tone issue with "the one to get" - if used in the article like that it should at least be put in scare quotes. I think what FullMetalFalcon has changed it to now is fine tone-wise… now to sort out the POV. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm learning all sorts today - scare quotes indeed. If it's a bona-fide quote then there's no problem with it being in the article, so long as it's recognised as being from a reliable source. a_man_alone (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure it it was an actual quote or a paraphrase (and it isn't quite a quote - the original is "This time, the SNES version was the one to buy", not "…the one to get"; fairly inconsequential but still). I'm not sure quoting that from the 1UP article is appropriate though, since there seems to be no reason to quote it - a paraphrase is more than sufficient (and preferable for copyright reasons I believe). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Digresssing here, but that's one of my pet hates - misquotes. If a quote is to be used, it must be exactly right, otherwise it's not a quote. a_man_alone (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here so I am (sorry if this is just jumping in but I'll summarize). I removed "and this time the SNES version was the one to get" because this is not how Wikipedia should word articles. It sounds biased and childish. It needs to be worded better if it is to be included in the article. A correct way to say this would be "Technically, the SNES version was superior this time around" or something like that. Doshindude (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

History section

I have some feedback for the History section that describes the lead up to the SNES. Normally I would just (try and) be bold, but a) I felt unable to explain my reasoning in the short space of the edit summary, b) I wanted to get consensus, especially given that this is an FA, and c) I wasn't sure about some of the intentions behind some of the original wording. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Both systems were built on 16-bit architectures and offered improved graphics and sound over the 8-bit NES.

This sounds like anything that is 16-bit will always have better graphics and sound than something that is 8-bit, which is not true by necessity. Please clarify it; my best guess is that it had better graphics and sound (for reasons that may or may not be related to the CPU register width) in addition to being 16-bit over 8-bit (which isn't an advantage per se, so it should be described what specific consequences it had---it doesn't need to be a technical essay but a little more precision would be nice). -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The better graphics are likely related to using 16 bits rather than 8 in the graphics chips. What wording would you suggest? Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is "likely" the reason because I don't know the details of the hardware. I can research the issue and then offer more precise wording, or perhaps someone more familiar with the situation can provide something more quickly. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo executives were initially reluctant to design a new system, but they reconsidered when the NES hardware began to show its age.

This sounds as if executives normally design new systems, which they don't. Please rephrase. "Began to show its age" is very vague; how did it show the age, given that it had been dominating despite the technical inferiority? It should be possible to pin down slightly more precisely why after the dominance suddenly the age was a problem. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem vague at all to me. Executives decide what the resources of the company are to be used for; if they decide that a new system is to be designed, the designers get to work. If they decide a new system should not be designed, the designers do not (officially, anyway) do so. The very next sentence pins it down more precisely. What wording would you suggest? Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues: 1) "executives were reluctant to design". They don't design, so they can't be reluctant to design. 2) "began to show its age" doesn't follow from the previous exposition (it said that despite the technical inferiority, NES was dominant). If the next sentence shows what is meant, the sentences should be linked, for example by using a semicolon or other means. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing its dominance in the market slipping, Nintendo was compelled to create a new console to compete with its 16-bit rivals.

First, I don't think a company can be compelled. Secondly, that they were compelled is not a fact, but it was possibly the opinion of some people at Nintendo at the time. So perhaps "..felt compelled" would be better. Or perhaps leaving out any notion of anyone being compelled and simply stating a fact such as "...started to design a new console..." or words to that effect would be preferable. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The company, as represented by the decision-making executives, was faced with the choice between designing a new system or allowing other, better systems to take their product's market share. For any company that wants to remain competitive in the market place, there's not really any choice there: they must either design the new system in an attempt to remain competitive or figure out viable a third option. What wording would you suggest? Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I already suggested an alternative wording which removes the "compelled" bit. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

All in all, it seems to me that these complaints are nitpicking wording that is already reasonably clear but that could be perversely misinterpreted. If you have actual suggestions for improvement, please give them. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling my feedback "nitpicking" is unnecessarily judgemental. I am not obliged to provide better wording, and neither are you if you don't see anything wrong with it. Either me or somebody else could also come up with something, or it could be left as it is. Please don't dismiss my feedback just because I did not immediately offer better alternatives. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I kind of feel it's all nitpicking too. Like, I thought the stuff was pretty clear, and reflected what most publications have written about the early history of the SNES. "Was compelled" to "felt compelled." Whatever...no one's going to care if you change that IMHO. If you do have more specific wording changes like the given example, then please feel welcome to suggest them.--SexyKick 18:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The stuff is also perfectly clear to me, but I am not the main audience of Wikipedia when it comes to video games or much of the other computing stuff. I try to keep in mind a reader with no technical background, that's why I try to improve sections that may be misinterpreted (not perversely, but) by lay readers. To someone who has already understood the content and doesn't necessarily subscribe to the goal I just mentioned, this may seem excessive. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

simultaneous colours

Please discuss the issue of simultaneous colours here, instead of starting an edit war. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple. While the color palette in the system has 256 entries, there is a mode for the first background layer of video modes 3 and 4 that allows for direct specification of up to 2048 colors at once; the other background layer(s) and the sprites can then use the palette entries to bring the color total to 2304 in mode 3 and 2208 in mode 4. The same mode allows the background layer in normal video mode 7 to directly specify up to 256 colors at once, which when combined with the sprites as before allows for up to 384 colors. In addition, the SNES can use color addition, color subtraction, or color averaging between background layers and/or sprites, and can change palette entries during the horizontal blanking period between successive scanlines. Using all of these, it may well be possible to construct a test pattern that displays all 32768 colors on screen at once. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not simple, and I actually understand what you're saying :-) This section was meant mainly for the IP that keeps reverting. If the user feels it is an issue with e.g. sources then he should tag it properly and/or bring it up here. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

However, please be careful that the assertion of 32768 colours is not OR (as your use of the phrase "it may well be possible" may suggest). -- Nczempin (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

32768 is the maximum number of colors the console can output, as it uses 15-bit RGB color. The article doesn't currently make any statement as to exactly how many of those can appear on the screen at once. Were it necessary to include a statement that all 32768 colors can be displayed at once, it should be easy enough to produce a primary source (i.e. a public-domain ROM image) that demonstrates the full gamut. It could display a screen much like this. Using BG mode 3 with color addition, display the rrr00ggg00bb000 bits of each pixel using the direct color layer and the 000rr000gg00bbb bits using the other BG layer; for simplicity, the palette entries (used by the 'other' BG layer) can be easily encoded in the palette index as 0bbbrrgg. Anomie⚔ 21:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The first part of the argument is perfectly convincing. Suggesting a primary source may not be a good idea though. In any case I don't think it is necessary to make any statement as to how many can appear on the screen concurrently. The IP doesn't seem to have come back anyway. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, there is no need to make any statement as to how many can appear on the screen concurrently. It's simply not relevant to any real-world application. But there's nothing wrong with citing a primary source, as long as you use it for exactly what it contains (i.e. number of different pixel values output) and don't try to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate the material. And note that you can't analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material from a secondary or tertiary source either, so there is truly no real difference. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply not relevant to any real-world application?! The number of simultaneously displayable colors in the form of moving sprites, backgrounds etc. is indicative of how colorful games on the game console will look. The Super Nintendo always did look more colorful than the Sega Mega Drive for this very reason. Displaying 32,768 colors simultaneously in the form of a test pattern is hardly a real-world application on a games console. -- 121.45.141.231 (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly why the maximum number of colors that can be displayed at once is not really relevant to this article: a real game will probably display many fewer at a time. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a game not to use even 256 distinct colors on any one screen for various reasons. And then there is the fact that the picture is typically displayed using the "Never Twice the Same Color" video format. Anomie⚔ 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

... The entire Video section appears to be OR. The section's source (solely [61]) is a document on a hacking site written by Anomie. Most of the Technical specifications for that matter appear to be OR - refer sources [60] through [64] by same author. "Simultaneous 256 colors" (8 bpp) is a 'keep it simple' approach for the average reader, sourced from mass-printed Nintendo marketing literature (sales brochures etc. collected back in the day). Being based upon information provided by Nintendo themselves, it is a commonly quoted figure elsewhere online. -- 118.210.163.50 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not this again. The closest thing to an "expert in the field" you're going to find in this subject area is either an emulator authorY, a programmer from that era who worked for one of the game developers, or a homebrew programmer. And the closest thing you're going to find to "reliable third-party publications" is publication on homebrew programming sitesY and recommendation by emulator authorsY and homebrew codersY. So we can either gut the article or apply a little IAR. So far consensus among the few who have discussed this has come down on the IAR side. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that section meant to be a guide for emulator or homebrew developers? -- Nczempin (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is supposed to be a comprehensive coverage of the topic. Don't forget that system capabilities (perceived and actual) were an important part of the SNES/Genesis console war, which in turn was an important part of the console's history. Anomie⚔ 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:118.210.163.50, may I strongly suggest that you register for a username? And if you feel that the given sources are not reliable, you may post them at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for the opinions of people more familiar with the subject than me. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Throw another one up there for IAR (me).--SexyKick 22:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "nitpicking"

Given that the article has FA status, it is in general highly likely that any changes made to it are not as significant improvements as the ones that were made to bring it to this status. The better the article gets, the smaller the improvement suggestions will be. In addition, it is to be expected that editors who have been involved with the article for a long time will have fewer issues with it than those who come to it with an outside perspective. Calling feedback of those editors "nitpicking" is unfriendly and counter-productive, and just because the article is already pretty good doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it even better -- Nczempin (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but nitpicking is nitpicking is nitpicking you know? I don't think it's unfriendly. People know much more unfriendly things have happened here in the past. lol--SexyKick 18:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have no way of knowing ahead of time what you would consider nitpicking and what you would consider improving the article. Unlike you are making it seem, "nitpicking" does not have an absolute definition. We can be fairly sure that telling someone that he is doing it is not the pinnacle of friendly conversation. There may be people who think that requiring reliable sources for Wikipedia articles would be nitpicking. At least one person does not think that my feedback is nitpicking. What is your motivation behind telling me that I am nitpicking? I can tell you what effect it has on me; it seems that my contributions are not welcome here, so I go elsewhere. There are enough articles where regular contributors don't mind even such small changes. Perhaps I should simply have made the changes I propose? I have explained in the very first section why I chose to start a discussion instead. But if all we talk about is whether I am nitpicking or not, instead of whether the changes would be an improvement or not, we are wasting our time. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, I didn't start this, someone else called you a nitpicker first. I just tried to explain to you there's nothing unfriendly about it. Showing people specific changes you propose is easier than being ambiguous about what needs to happen.--SexyKick 22:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate friendly/civil/AGF: Hey, I hadn't noticed those issues, and I can't think of ways to improve them myself right now; perhaps you have some concrete suggestions? -- Nczempin (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Europe release date: April 11, 1992

This date is not for Europe as Europe has seen a progressive launch, for example in France the console, after reading a lot of sources (I'm still investigating and reading French magazines), was released between April 1st (official declaration from Nintendo France, then postponed April 3rd) and April 14th (video game store ticket as proof)... I've read the release was progressive in France, starting with Paris (April 1st/3rd?) and the whole France in mid-April (April 11th/14th?)... The Nintendo Tour promoting the SNES started April 10th in France... Some other European countries like Germany have seen the console on June or August, etc. My conclusion is : We should not say "April 11, 1992" for Europe, which is too vague, but show each country individually.

Console database

Regarding this edit - is console database a reliable source? It contains at least one glaring error (and that's only on a skim-read) regarding the shape of PAL SNES' - all European SNES' looked like the Famicom, not some. I'd also hardly call it a "curved surface" - more like angled. a_man_alone (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After a quick glance at it, I would say it probably isn't. It states that it is owned by "BaseMedia", and a quick look at their site shows that "Console Database" is their only site. It appears as if "BaseMedia" is some kind of web design company or similar, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence that the author(s) can be considered experts/particularly knowledgeable in the field, so that puts the page at the level of a fansite or similar. For some things (usually along the lines of "this was done", as long as such assertions are properly backed up) this is OK, but for things like "this was done because… " (which is the case here) they really shouldn't be relied upon. Basically, I'd say it was a low-level situational source (i.e. only usable in certain situations and should be replaced if possible with a better one even when it can be used), similar to these: WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I found a better source.AerobicFox (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure I'm 100% sold on that one either (yet - I'd need to properly investigate who the author & publisher are etc. since I'm familiar with them; being published doesn't necessarily make someone reliable), but it seems a lot better than the existing one. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article from nintendolife.com, written by their Downloads Editor Corbie Dillar, a former games reviewer for the Mobile Tech Review.AerobicFox (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Being a former game reviewer for Mobile Tech Review doesn't really have any relevance to whether they are a reliable source for SNES hardware design choices. Being a games reviewer gives you credibility when talking about games, not the systems themselves, especially when the games reviewed are on modern mobile phones rather than the SNES. The only truly reliable source for such info would be those who worked on the design at Nintendo, so a quote from one of the designers (in a reliable publication - see next sentence) would be ideal. Rumours (especially about plausible, innocuous, trivia-type things like this) have a habit of spreading, being mis-attributed and later being stated as fact by those who think they are in the know.

That said, I'd say it's probably good enough to use (as was the book link - as I said, I personally wasn't 100% sold, but that was due to my unfamiliarity with the author/publisher more than anything). Wikipedia is based on verifiability rather than fact after all.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 23:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the pic of the Super Famicom is almost certainly not "one of the many pics that hooked [him]", since it was lifted from Wikimedia Commons (without a posting of the licence I might add). I know this to be the case because it features edited shadows that were done by me last year (based on the original, unedited version by Pippi from 2008). This is a similar one of those "plausible, innocuous, trivia-type things" that rarely get questioned. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I found an article that is based off of scans of two Nintendo Power magazines:

"An interesting article about how the Super NES design came to be is in the June 1991 issue of Nintendo Power. Lance Barr is responsible for the design for the US version of the SNES ... He explains that the cart loading slot was rounded and the ventilation bay so that people could not place drinks on it."

• Nintendo Power, Super NES Preview (details how the SNES design came to be, and some of the techincal aspects), Publication date: June 1991, Volume: 25, Pages: 44-47

I have been unable to locate the article online or the patent for the SNES, but the information seems legitimate. It was fun btw perusing some of Nintendo's patents. Here is a search for Miyamoto.AerobicFox (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you'll get much more legitimate than that. Not that you really had to mind, I was really just making a point about source validity (about having to be cautious etc). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya, no worries. I understand how rumors can be passed off as fact and you were right to be cautious. Incidentally people still have not learned as spilled drinks account for 24% of console insurance claims which is second only to software malfunctions. My dog chewed my N64 remote control cables once, Nintendo doesn't consider my demographic large enough though to release a fix.AerobicFox (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can verify the Nintendo Power citation, although the cite template is all wrong; most notably, the title of the article is either "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" (on the article) or "Introducing the Super NES" (in the TOC). The specific quote is on page 46: "There was a second consideration for making the curved loading bay—people don't place glasses of soda or bowls of cereal on curved surfaces. Spills are one of the chief service problems for the NES. For the same reason, Lance [Barr, designer of the North American Super NES casing] put the ventilator grill on the back of the Super NES rather than on top." The first reason, in case anyone is curious, was because a curved surface invites touching. Incidentally, this from the same article as File:Super NES designs.png. Anomie⚔ 00:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you =) AerobicFox (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What is Soundware?

According to http://wiki.superfamicom.org/snes/show/Controllers "Soundware" is "a device to control a CD player for external audio" - is that correct?
From what I've found out, the following four japanese SNES games from Koei have been (optionally) shipped with "Soundware":

• http://superfamicom.org/info/super-sangokushi-2
• http://superfamicom.org/info/emit-vol-1-toki-no-maigo
• http://superfamicom.org/info/emit-vol-2-inochigake-no-tabi/
• http://superfamicom.org/info/emit-vol-3-watashi-ni-sayonara-wo/

There are also a bunch of cover-scans and mp3-recordings from koei-soundware Audio CDs in the internet (plus a soundware Audio Tape, though that one might date back to older 8bit computers).
So far, the idea seems to have been to listen specially composed music alongside with the game - the part that is unclear to me is if there has been really a hardware-add-on to control the CD player? And if it does exist, how does it work, with which CD players?--2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm unclear how this pertains to the article. What are you proposing being changed or added to the article?--Asher196 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You are unclear how a peripheral for the SNES pertains to the SNES article? He is trying to determine exactly what the soundware was so further information could be found for it to be added to the article.AerobicFox (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Found it - the correct name is Voice-Kun (not Soundware), and it's an IR-transmitter/receiver.--2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong here...

According to the source SexyKick is pushing, the SNES sold 10.53 or 14.23 million in the US from launch to sometime in 2001. According to the Nintendo sales figures, the SNES sold 23.35 million (minus up to 0.07 million) in "the Americas" over the same time period. One of these is obviously wrong, or else half of the SNES's sales in "the Americas" came from outside the US. Similarly, we have 811 (US) vs 230,000 (Americas) for 2000. And considering "US" vs "non-Japan", we have 14,652 vs 1,390,000 in 1999 and 199,801 vs 1,850,000 in 1998. Anomie⚔ 01:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many reasons that the NPD sales numbers do not specifically reflect Nintendo's exact official numbers. The biggest reason being that Nintendo's numbers account for consoles shipped to NA+SA (and Europe in some cases). Another big reason is NPD only tracks consoles sold, not just consoles shipped. And from the book Game Over, we know Nintendo reports consoles shipped. Moreover, NPD data is all estimated and is subject to margin of error.

Onto our other numbers, we know that Nintendo shipped 23.35 million to N&S America, while Sega has sold 24.3-26.8 million in N&S America, 24.3 counting the minimum Genesis 3 sales (the reliable source of 1-2 million), Nomad, and TecToy sales. Now maybe the TecToy source isn't the most reliable ever, but it also ambiguously states 2 million video games sold (after translation) at TecToy's website in their console timeline, but that's irrelevant since we have NPD data.--SexyKick 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, these aren't NPD numbers; those listed on "page 13" (actually page 12 by the numbers at the bottom of the page) come from "Bayus and Shankar" (1994),^[a] with alternatives from "Brandenburger" (1995).^[b] If we could find the two studies and verify what they actually say, I'd be more inclined to accept them. The 1994→ sales percentages (I'm not seeing any actual numbers) are probably OK; I'm pretty sure I've seen the same table elsewhere from the NPD.

Quite apart from that though, I'm not even sure this is a reliable source. This is a working paper, so it likely hasn't been peer reviewed (i.e. it hasn't been checked).

^a cited as Bayus, B.L., and V. Shankar (2003): "Network Effects and Competition: An Empirical Analysis of the Home Video Game Industry", Strategic Management Journal, 24, 375-384.

^b cited as Brandenburger, A. (1995a): "Power Play (A): Nintendo in 8-bit Video Games", Harvard Business School Case 9-795-102.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

On page 11/12 (4.1 Data) They get their numbers in Table 1 from the NPD. The numbers they got on on page 12/13 come from "Bayus and Shankar" and "Brandenburger" but the figures in Table 1 page 24/25 are NPD. More on the NET Institute - "During the last eight years we have funded almost two hundred projects, giving preference to those by relatively young researchers. The resulting papers and other papers on network industries are in the 'working papers' series of the NET Institute." This means "Sometimes the term working paper is used synonymously as technical report. Working papers are typically hosted on websites, belonging either to the author or the author's affiliated institution. The United Nations uses the term "working paper" in approximately this sense for the draft of a resolution."

I do not see this is a source for specific sales numbers since there are too many other factors for specific sales numbers, but this is more more market share percentage. We know that at the end of 1993 Nintendo's market share was down to 37%, and in 1994 the Sega Genesis accounted for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales. We can see from the NPD numbers that their market share percentages are near even throughout their entire market life duration.--SexyKick 04:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But if the sales numbers are off, how can we be sure the market share percentages are accurate? GIGO. Anomie⚔ 10:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If NPD doesn't work, what does? Using the Nintendo shipping numbers to N&S America aren't going to create an accurate estimate for a comparison numbers sold. NPD numbers are estimates, and they don't exactly match the magazine numbers for years on the Genesis either, but they come relatively close, and even go over a couple times. The NPD doesn't track every retailer (doesn't track Walmart), but it's unlikely those untracked places would make up a difference. What Stephen Kent most likely did is note that in 1997 the Super Nintendo actually managed to outsell the Genesis...and declared victory at that point. He did the same thing for MK2, I did some digging, and it turns out in September 1994; MK2 for the SNES did in fact outsell the Genesis version, however that is the only month it outsold Sega's version according to 1994 data (which is all unreliable as far as Wikipedia sourcing goes).--SexyKick 11:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't exactly NPD numbers, though. They're heavily processed numbers that originally came from NPD numbers. And they seem wildly off for SNES, for whatever reason. Anomie⚔ 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they are exactly NPD numbers. Reading section 4.1 it says they have all the monthly NPD numbers, it notes the discrepancies in using NPD sales numbers, also stating they're US only. But if we are saying that NPD sales numbers aren't an acceptable presentation of data, then what is? These numbers are close to reported numbers from magazines and stuff we've been using as sources. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20216710.html Video Business December 1997 says Nintendo will have sold 700,000 Super NES consoles in 1997. These NPD numbers say over 600,000 were sold. That's a fair difference considering NPD numbers are estimates and don't (never did, never will) account for all retailers, such as Blockbuster, Walmart, etc.--SexyKick 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given that explanation of the NET institute, I'd almost assume that they weren't peer reviewed. Regardless, the source doesn't back up your claim in the article (at least not how it's worded).

"According to Stephen Kent in 2001, the Super NES had eventually prevailed over the Sega Genesis in the American 16-bit console market. However, a 2004 study of NPD sales data presents new sales figures that dispute this claim."

This suggests, to me at least, that the SNES outsold the Genesis, but that the cited study disagrees with this. This is not a valid claim to make however, as we do not know if it outsold it in terms of total numbers, we only know (from this) that it outsold the SNES consistently at the start of the 32-bit era. To suggest otherwise requires accurate numbers from the time leading up to then, which we cannot be sure we have. Really though, that seems to be more of a wording issue than anything. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I made that edit to update the text to "dispute this claim", from "[The Genesis] was the true customers [sic] choice". All this says is that the claim of a clear winner is in dispute, but it doesn't say who actually won the battle. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I didn't realise that wasn't what SexyKick had written (which is kinda stupid on my part given that I saw your edit when you made it). As I said, it was probably nothing more than a wording issue. As it is at the moment though it does seem a little open to interpretation (although it is certainly better than what it was changed from). Cheers for clearing that up. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with this edit resolution too, and I think it's the angle I should have used to begin with. I'm not 100% sure the wording is perfect with the undo weight. Stephen Kent is a journalist with opinions, this is a study into NPD numbers, and on top of that we have a minimum of over 24.3 Americas vs. 23.35 Americas.--SexyKick 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Genesis Mortal Kombat relevance

Noticed the start of a potential edit war regarding references to the Genesis and Mortal Kombat - it appears an IP editor took those references out and said in the edit summary that those topics detract from the SNES article - they're more relevant to their own articles. Figured I'd make a section to discuss it, but IMO it's a pretty clear-cut case:

The reason Mortal Kombat and its Genesis incarnation are mentioned in the article is because this game, specifically, marked a significant milestone in the console war between Nintendo and Sega. The SNES was somewhat maligned (Nintendo as a company more so) by Nintendo's decision to censor the game, and this directly affected sales of both consoles. It also had some direct impacts on Nintendo's future decisions on game censorship, but that by itself isn't really tied to this console. But I say MK has the same general relevance to the SNES's history as Night Trap has to the Genesis (Sega CD specifically), because it represents a significant industry event that affected the console directly as well as affecting the course of the industry as a whole. Perhaps it needs better wording, tho. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Mortal Kombat was a very popular game back then and Nintendo's decision to censor it was a significant one which is often cited as contributing to Nintendo's "kiddy" image vs. Sega's "mature" image, and which is also considered the reason why Nintendo's much superior(graphically/audio) port sold less than Sega's uncensored, but otherwise much inferior port. It's an important point in the software cycle on the SNES, although it could be written better to reflect that.AerobicFox (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the gameplay was also a huge reason, but no source ever really gets in depth with that. The SNES MK1 couldn't support two fireballs on screen at the same time, so whoever threw one first automatically had a huge advantage - IE Spear beat Freeze if Spear came out first. Not to mention the physics were completely off in the SNES MK1, while the Sega Genesis version actually supports all the combos from arcade version 3.0 (which was a little bit broken since you could string AA high punch, jump kick, shadow kick (or Spear Uppercut) mid screen for over half your opponents health. You couldn't do things like that in the SNES version.--SexyKick 11:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@AerobicFox: I realize we're not currently stating superiority of either version in this article or in Genesis, but I've never actually seen anyone claim that the SNES version was graphically superior to the Genesis version. Is there a reliable source that makes this claim, and more to the point, is that claim particularly relevant? I'm genuinely curious, because it may be worth mentioning the disparity between the technical merits of the SNES version and its poor sales due to the controversy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel as though I've heard this from several sources, but all I can remember right now are these two:

• The Top 7... Best ports on inferior systems, Gamesradar:"...Even its audio prowess was severely lacking. So how can the graphically and audibly superior SNES Mortal Kombat be worse than its Genesis competitor? The lack of blood. Oh and a neutered combo system, but that wasn’t a big deal ... It may have still looked like ass (from the life bars to the characters, everything screams “barf”), but at least pixelated sweat wasn’t flying off Liu Kang when he was uppercut. "
• Top 20 Genesis Games, Screwattack on GT, starting at 5:56 they show side-by-side footage of the games and discuss how it looked worse but was better because it had blood.AerobicFox (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I can see a case for bringing that element into this article. I still believe the overall subject is relevant to the SNES's history, since consoles are mostly judged on the merits of their games, but the central focus in this controversy was on the SNES port's lack of blood, and it's chiefly relevant only because that specific issue had a direct influence on the console war. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be brought into the article and is best as it stands right now. Bringing up a graphics vs. gameplay issue that doesn't even talk about the Genesis' better gameplay and only its blood is like only telling half the story. I don't like how it only says "Oh and a neutered combo system, but that wasn’t a big deal..." and doesn't go into how it was neutered (the projectiles come to mind) and even implies it wasn't a big deal because who cares about gameplay when it all comes down to being "graphically and audibly superior" or having blood.--SexyKick 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. As an aside though anybody who cares about game play would be playing Street fighter II, MK's fighting engine was never that impressive.AerobicFox (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that Street Fighter 2 (and Super SF2) is better than MK1/2/3 etc. that's really up to opinion (and MK9 is way better than SSF4). The classic MK games are very deep and very enjoyable by experienced players. MK and SF2 were easily the best fighting games of their time. That's why I think it's pathetic the reviews nearly never mention the gigantic game play difference between the Genesis/Arcade 3.0 revision and the SNES port. It's inexcusable really. When I buy a 16-bit port of SF2/MK I expect the arcade combos to be in the game. SF2/SSF2 never messed this up on Genesis or SNES, which are both faithful reincarnations of the arcade versions. But SNES MK1 seriously dropped the ball. Not only could it not reproduce revision 3.0 combos, but projectile wars were impossible. If Kano throws his knife, then Sonya throws her Sonic Rings, only Kano's knife would hit, and Sonya's Sonic Rings would just disappear out of the air. The SNES version also came with its own glitches that the Genesis version didn't have. Such as the ability to disable the camera, or fatalities that didn't actually kill the opponent (Sub Zero's freeze did damage, and if you did a fatality to a frozen opponent, it just knocks them out of the freeze).

I agree with your assessment, but would have to add that the gameplay differences are never mentioned because they just didn't affect sales very much to casual players. Comments by reviewers concerning Brawl only ever scrape the surface of its faults with a quick aside to the effect of "Hardcore players find it less competitive since it is slower", without actually mentioning any of the gameplay mechanics that didn't make it over from Melee(notably L-canceling and wavedashing).AerobicFox (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it on topic, guys. These are all points that are better suited for the individual games' articles, if they're relevant at all. And Merry Christmas. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Handheld SuperNintendo

Announced earlier at E3, Hyperkin has released a handheld SNES console in the shape of a SNES controller with the screen in the middle. It plays SNES cartridges, and you can plug it into the TV and plug two SNES controllers into it to play it on the TV as well. I may or may not get around to adding this info, so I thought I would put it here if someone else wanted to.AerobicFox (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that it's licensed by Nintendo? That thing looks really cool.--SexyKick 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though it is unlicensed, but I cannot confirm that. Apparently it plays Super Famicom games as well as games that require the FX chip like Starfox and Donkey Kong.[2]AerobicFox (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Country Sales

I've been reading a lot of Kent's book lately for various reasons. It says DKC sold 9 million copies (and so does vgchartz, though I am aware that's not a reliable site). I wanted to know what people thought about this before I updated the number in the article and cite his book.--SexyKick 11:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the sales numbers for Donkey Kong Country.--SexyKick 01:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Component Video Out

Not sure if http://mikejmoffitt.com/wp/?p=74 is a reputable source, but seems like it works. Can I add information based on this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroedout (talk • contribs) 22:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Largest SNES game

The largest games released (Tales of Phantasia and Star Ocean) contain 48 Mbit of ROM data

But there is this[3] homebrew port of Road Blaster, weighing 6320 Mbit (790 MB). Worth mention? --Stormwatch (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick with commercial games.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if there's a policy on this matter but I agree with what 174 says. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 11:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Images

In the image box, there is a NTSC USA SNES and a NTSC-J Japanese Super Famicom, if you hover over the Famicom image it says "The PAL version of SNES" when it isn't a SNES and it isn't PAL it's an NTSC-J Super Famicom, can someone fix this.94.172.127.37 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it94.172.127.37 (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Released on a Sunday

The Nintendo 64 was released on September 29, 1996, which was a Sunday. The Nintendo GameCube was released November 18, 2001, which was a Sunday. The Wii was released November 19, 2006, which was a SUNDAY.

I'm not complaining about the release date, but isn't it plausible to think that the Super Nintendo was also released on a Sunday? August 23, 1991, would not have fell on a Sunday, but September 1, 1991 would have.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The cited release date has several sources, as given in the article. Unless you can supply overwhelming evidence of the date you mention, this is unlikely to change. Also, note that the systems you mentioned were all released after the Super Nintendo. Assuming Nintendo do now deliberately release their home consoles exclusively on Sundays (and this is not to say they have; the chances of any 3 isolated events falling on the same weekday is 1/49, or over 2%), this doesn't mean that this was policy when the Super Nintendo was released. Aawood (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to start a debate, I just thought it was instresting fact. I know the date had been debated in the past and even the Auguest 23, 1991, might not be 100% correct. Another thing if you read the section above about the release date, it says it was suppose to be released on September 1, 1991, so i think it's standard for Nintendo to release their consoles on a Sunday, in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies; as you started a new section, I didn't think to cross-reference against the two year old conversation above. The thread appears to state the "September 1st" date was last used on the page itself almost 10 years ago, and this was an intended released date rather than the actual release date. In any case, the two points still stands; firstly, while your theory may be interesting, you would need to provide sources to confirm this of great overall quality than the sources already used, and secondly, while it does appear (based on your original comment) that Nintendo releases their home consoles on Sunday now, this doesn't necessarily follow that this was always their policy and so isn't itself evidence. If you have sources for your theory, please do bring them here, I for one would be happy to discuss them. Aawood (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. like i said before the whole point of this thread is to point out that Nintendo usually releases their consoles on a Sunday. I could care less about the relase date. The fact still stands Nintendo has never confirmed the release date of The Nintendo or The Super Nintendo. (Both are listed as 10/85 and 08/91) Nintendo does, however, have the Offical release date of the Nintedo 64, Gamecube, and Wii as listed above. I think this is something instresting to point out just in case an argument is brought up some time in the furture about the release date.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So just to get this straight, and please do let me know if I'm wrong about any of the following; you've noticed something about release dates for later Nintendo consoles, so you're mentioning this on the discussion page for an earlier Nintendo console (that you yourself acknowledge does not have an officially confirmed release date), and you have no evidence to show that it actually applies here, but it doesn't matter because you aren't suggesting the article is changed at all at this point, just that we keep your theory on the discussion page in case, at some theoretical future point, there's a debate on the release date and someone really wants an additional, unsourced suggestion to investigate? Aawood (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

CaseyPenk's recent edits...

I can't really keep up. The article is largely restructured now. As this is a featured article, I don't know if such drastic changes without discussion first is warranted. How do others feel??--SexyKick 18:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to me reverting this back a few months to when the article was structured more like the version which became an FA? I feel like right now it's just a matter of time before someone hits the FA re-review and there's no one around with the energy to tone it back to the way it was.--SexyKick 02:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 DoneTwo weeks with no one opposed, so I reverted it. I manually put in a couple intermittent edits that applied. I'll look through the history at some point and see if I can't integrate a few more.--SexyKick 20:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Best selling packed-in/individual games criteria

It's widely known that Super Mario World was the primary pack-in, while Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario Kart were limited time pack-ins that was most likely geared towards consumers that were buying the SNES specifically for those games, but I'm a little unclear on Street Fighter II, I don't know about World Warrior but I know for sure the Turbo version had a pack-in SKU with the same marketing strategy as DKC and SMK. Since WW was also discontinued after Turbo's release, that's a also a debate in itself as to whether it should be considered the same game or not.

It's all subjective since they all have valid points behind being listed as the best selling game, I guess for now the best we can do is list Street Fighter II: World Warrior directly as stand-alone? 2.216.231.19 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't listed as a pack in...but for clarity I don't think it hurts to note that SF2 was a stand alone game.--SexyKick 09:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

There have been changes and reverts, but it's content-related, not vandalism. Can anybody explain here why changes are attempted that would affect the article's status as Featured Article? --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why anyone would attempt to make such drastic changes, that it could affect the article's status as Featured Article.--SexyKick 15:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Current title too precise?

55 news articles and 4,000 books use the current title. Is is too precise, unfortunately? The term "Super Nintendo" is commonly used by news articles, like Telegraph and Forbes. Not to mention books. "Super NES" is also used by news articles and books. SNES is also commonly used. If the current title is less common, why are common names not used? Neither name is ambiguous or inaccurate. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: I don't think anybody can completely type the whole title. I initially want to request a move, but I realize that I haven't completely researched the title usage yet. I pointed out that three alternative names are more commonly used than the current title. And I'm sure that these titles are not ambiguous or inaccurate, unless they are proven to be per WP:COMMONNAMES. But I just want a discussion first before I can request just one title. --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting this title again, is this title too precise, or is neither SNES nor Super Nintendo precise enough? George Ho (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Super Nintendo isn't precise enough. If the title for some reason needs a change...(I can't see why, honestly) then Super NES would likely be the only one likely to get through a name change discussion.--SexyKick 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So people's ability to type the whole current name is not enough reason to change the title? Not even name references by sources? George Ho (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be a problem? If I type either SNES, or Super NES, or even Super Nintendo, they all take me to this article already.--SexyKick 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We got GameCube scrapping out the brand name. Recent move request was withdrawn due to support on that current title. We got Wii.(too irrelevant) Then again, we got Nintendo 64. NES is currently a redirect. The current title has big numbers, but super nes, super Nintendo, and snes can say otherwise? George Ho (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

US Region Redesign

I'd really like to know why Nintendo America changed the design of the Super Famicom so radically. With the NES/Famicom, it's clear - they wanted to make the system look less like a traditional game console because of the video game crash. With the SNES… not so much. But they had to have a good reason for it, since they did away with the color-coded buttons. Can't find an online source about this though. 95.33.14.16 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can point us towards a book mentioning it we'll do the rest. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 11:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

only info I could find was from magazine scans before the north american debut speculating that NOA would change pin spacing on the cartridges (they didn't) and other things to thwart the still young import scene.

final hardware changed the shell probably to kill two birds with one stone: design ref to the toaster nes and prevent casual importing of games (latter which would make sense considering how anal nintendo was and still is when it comes to controlling aspects of the console and software). Reset by peer (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the incompatibility be achieved with a less radical redesign? And is it just me or is the American version really ugly compared to the Japanese original? --Mudd1 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad, and the Bogus

I interlibrary loaned this (apparently scarce) book, The good, the bad, and the bogus: Nathan Lockard's complete guide to video games. It covers SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD reviews, if you'd like a lookup for an obscure title on your to-do list. The linked Google Books page lets you do a search for the book's contents. I'll have it for the next week or so, so let me know if you can use a ref or two.  czar ♔ 22:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source fixing.

There were multiple links used as references that were either fake and did not lead to the right reference, or the links were possibly broken, along with commentary that had no citing to back it up. These have been removed, so let's try to find reliable sources to built up the page.

Originally I was going to say this page did not have a reception section, but since the whole bottom of the page relates to reception I added it easily. So i guess references are all I see that need a' fixin' here. John Mayor ERS (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Which sources? Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of these changes are just not right. Removing information cited to Kent's book, removing information cited to archived sites (Likely because you couldn't get the site to load on your end I suppose? Try Internet Explorer when that happens, Chrome doesn't seem to work right with that.) and other weird issues. I'm just going to revert this whole hack and slash of the article. There was at least one legitimately dead source. But if there's specific problems with online sources you'd like to bring up, please talk about them here.--SexyKick 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The first bit of [4] seems good to me, and he flagged the unsourced Frogger crap that crept back in, but that's about all that's good. This one is understandable (some JS on the archived page is broken, but if you disable JS the info is there) but the edit summary shows bad faith and a lack of knowledge (and he missed this issue in the next sentence). But edits like this are just "WTF?", and the number of weird copy-paste errors is disturbing. Anomie⚔ 13:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor is suspected of being an editor who has been making a lot of terrible choices in editing articles in regards to rewriting articles making some really bad choices in wording, sourcing, etc. Even if it's not him, he's made some similar bad calls, so don't hesitate to switch his changes back if it's looking crappy... Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reception?

I believe all articles need a reception section correct? SunrodHercules (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Which game saved the Super NES and gave it the victory over Sega?

I am wondering, which game helped the Super NES defeat Sega? Super Metroid or Donkey Kong Country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.69.127 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Super Metroid, while critically acclaimed and a fan favorite came near the end of the SNES's lifecycle and remained sort of underground during that generation, becoming more and more popular as time went on. Donkey Kong Country also came relatively near the end of the SNES's life but was a huge commercial success and helped boost SNES sales forward a bit. Mostly though I would say Super Mario World was the most important game for selling consoles. Sega had arcade ports, licensed sports games, less censored games, and Sonic, but Nintendo still had the strength of its first party titles particularly Mario and Zelda as well as a slew of third party support giving it an incredible array of RPGs, many classics like Mega X, Super Castlevania, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, etcAerobicFox (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I find your partisan rhetoric rather silly. Both consoles did really well didn't they? It's not a pissing contest. Vranak (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had to say just one game to help balance the odds, I think it should be Street Fighter II The History Writter Guy (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that. Street Fighter 2. But this goes under that forum rule, does it not?--SexyKick 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Killjoy... Juuust kidding :P MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 11:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No game "saved" the SNES, as it was never in trouble. Further, if there was any sort of "victory" over Sega, it only happened as a result of Nintendo keeping the SNES on the market after Sega had already abandoned the Genesis in favor of the Saturn. But both were highly successful for their time and it's really just enough to leave it at that.68.51.193.141 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Prototypes (photos)

Man claims to have found an intact Nintendo PlayStation prototype71.47.124.243 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All these WikiProjects

Why is this article assigned to so many WikiProjects? Most other articles on game consoles are listed under WikiProject Video Games, maybe WikiProject Japan as well. --Serpinium (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FAR?

A contributor has suggested that this article may need to undergo a Featured Article review. Here are their stated concerns: "This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again." Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All noted deadlinks from the FAR have been resolved. There are about 9-10 citation needed tags, two of which just got resolved, as well as four unreliable source tags, all of which are for the same site which is being used to source some hardware specification. I'll see if I can find a suitable replacement sources for the unreliables, and check if the CNs aren't covered by existing sources. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

All CN tags addressed, though some aren't flawless. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I could have just stood up by placing a simple template tag instead of writing a review against the article's status, I do like how it is cleaned up a lot. I am (at least now) not convinced that a review would be a good alternative when I can just raise issues in the WikiProject Video Game's talk page and place tags on such articles with problems, for that would work in either way. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I caution against relying too heavily on simply tagging articles. In my personal opinion, every major "top of the article" tag you make should be coupled with a talk page section explaining why you tagged and the particulars that caused you to tag. That's my personal view of it, to be clear, not any sort of policy. I myself often remove tags if the tagger did not explain their purpose and a quick scan of the article doesn't convince me the tag is necessary. But even better in my view is to simply fix the problems you see. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the remaing tag can someone plese mention why sources they believe are unreliable?--67.68.31.74 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The unreliable source tags are attached to sources using romhacking.com, where Anomie wrote up some deep technical details. While I believe those sources to be accurate, I'm not sure they would pass WP:RS so I did not remove the tags. -- ferret (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources can be reviewed somewhere on wikipedia. I used to know where, it just needs to be taken there so it can get sorted out. That was the source used when this article became an FA. But that's all I can really say.--SexyKick 04:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have requested input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Super Nintendo Entertainment System. DrKay (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a wp:RS compliant source, and neither is "somewhere on Wikipedia".DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The documents uploaded to romhacking.net by the article author (probably) fall under WP:SELFPUBLISHED —they were uploaded by the author of the article— so they're probably unreliable. Haven't checked it yet, though, just assuming. --TL22 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

There are still unreliable sourced and unreferenced tags all over the article. Anarchyte 07:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There's only 4. They all pertain to the same site. I'd say just remove the deep technical spec sections they source entirely. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Technical details (Which are at Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyways) removed along with unreliable sources. I'm now taking a look at the newer Citation Needed tags from where Czar removed N-Sider. -- ferret (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The new dead link tags I'll address later today, I believe all but 2 should be available in archive. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All dead links repaired or removed. -- ferret (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

All CN tags repaired. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Brazil PAL trivia

Just a note that could be interesting(or not), the Snes in Brazil was PAL-M and differs from the Europe PAL-N, and it works normally on NTSC TVs, it's also runs at 60Hz and not 50Hz like PAL, so the old Brazilian PAL-M it's more toward to the NTSC than proper PAL.189.101.197.234 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

North American release date: August 23, 1991

We have three basic dates supported by sources:

• August 13, 1991 Supported by various online sources dated 2006 and later, 15 years after the actual release.
• August 23, 1991 Supported by newspaper and magazine articles dated late 1991, a few months after the actual release.
• September 9, 1991 (originally September 1, 1991) Supported by Kent and some other online sources; this is stated as the "official" release date, which could plausibly differ from the actual street date.

All of these dates were used in the article at some point: "September 1" from August 2003 to April 2004; "September 9" from April 2004 to September 2004; "August" from September 2004 to October 2005; "August 13" (after a short edit war between that date and "August 14") from October 2005 to July 2008; "August or September" from July 2008 to March 2010; "August" again from March 2010 to June 2010; and now "August 23".

The problem with the August 13 date is that it is certainly plausible that the date was mis-stated by one online source and copied by others. It could be that someone mistyped "23" as "13", it could be that someone somewhere misinterpreted the date the system was given to certain reviewers in advance of the actual release as an "available to the public" date, and it's even possible that it was copied from this very article. All the sources for this date are well removed from the actual event. August 23, on the other hand, is supported by newspaper and magazine articles written within weeks or months of the release; while it is certainly possible for them to be mistaken, given the editorial control and the proximity to the actual date this seems far less likely. Therefore, in the body of the article we use the best-supported date, and we include in a footnote the fact that other (less reliable) sources disagree.

If you intend to change this, particularly to the August 13 date, please bring very reliable sources to the table to address the issues discussed above. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that there was no defined "release date" for the SNES, the way that consoles come out now. The SNES was rolled out gradually in different centers in August and September 1991. I've drudged through a ton of old newspaper articles on Google News from that time period, and got conflicting stories. I think it would be preferable to state "August 1991" as the release date, rather than a specific date that may or may not be accurate. 122.148.127.22 (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. The official release date was September 9 (pushed back from September 1). The street date varied by location, but the earliest reliably reported date is August 23. All this is stated in the footnote. Anomie⚔ 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean its North American launch games need to find a source that lists August 23? « ₣M₣ » 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think if they have sources for being a launch title, they could just cite that and use a footnote like we have here. Anomie⚔ 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the North American launch titles, a few had the 23rd as their release date and others the 13th. Based on this I changed the release date to the 23rd for those that had the 13th listed. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I concerned, the IP 166.177.186.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the release date to August 19, 1991 according to Nintendo Life's feature on "20 Years of the Super NES". Thoughts? -- Hounder4 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Change it back. Primary sources are more reliable in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Changed back to August 19 as @Axem Titanium: suggested. Satisfied? -- Hounder4 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the comments thus far, it seems to make the most sense to list the 9th in the infobox, while using the footnote the way it is now. This way, we give the interested reader all the information we got. Where did the 19th suddenly come from, though? ~Mable (chat) 18:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I removed August 19th completely including the Nintendo Life source. They have no primary source to back it up so it sounds like they just made the date up. Since the NES, Nintendo of America has only released home consoles on a Sunday or a Friday. August 13, 1991 is a Tuesday and August 19 is a Monday. It is my opinion that the true release date was August 23 and the other dates are clerical errors repeated by lazy reporters. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: I understand. You're right about that; I bet we should stick to the August 23 date then. Sorry for the trouble, but I'm not in a mood at a moment. -- Hounder4 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all, it was probably a misunderstanding because you saw my first reply after I had already done the edit myself. Was my bad. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be brainwashed by his lies Wikipedia says nintendo life is reliable.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources The 23rd date is completely texted based with no clickable source it's wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.59.75 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As what Axem said, Nintendo Life just made the August 19 date up and has no source to back up. We should stick to the release date, which is August 23, 1991. -- Hounder4 01:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should use Nintendo itself here since they would be the strongest source rargaring the release date for one of their own systems. I also don't see accusations of brainwashing as being helpful not any reason why someone would want to do so to change a release date by four days.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@67.68.29.107: AFAIK, the "23 August 1991" date was verified by newspapers and magazines. One of them is Electronic Gaming Monthly's November 1991 (28th) issue—page 162 (already in the article!) which reads: The first few pieces of this fantastic unit hit the store shelves on August 23rd, 1991. -- Hounder4 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find where that is written I'm not sure if that even appears in that issue. Why does nintendos facebook page have the date as August 19, 1991? Do you reliaze what that guy told you about nintendo life being unreliable was a lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.59.75 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the old "if I'm not right, no one can be right". Classic. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that the 9th also fell on a Friday. Moreover, did Nintendo Life get the release date from Nintendo of America's Facebook page? If so, this primary source could be useful... but we still don't know where they in turn got this information from: archives, or was it still just made up? ~Mable (chat) 05:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source confirming September 9th as the nationwide release date, versus the limited regional releases elsewhere: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/10/business/company-news-super-nintendo-now-nationwide.html

Additionally, the Orange County article sourced on the Wiki page also confirms this to be the nationwide date and that a few regions got units early ("Super Nintendo began showing up in Southern California stores Wednesday, nearly three weeks before the official Sept. 9 release date.)"

I personally think the nationwide "official" release date should be the official date listed on the Wiki page, but since there's already so much debate about it, I propose a compromise: plenty of Wiki pages for movies list both the limited and wide release dates, so why not do the same here? It would clear up so much confusion. Xscapist (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please let other editors comment on this, as you're changing an established consensus. We're already aware of the Sept 9th date, and have other sources backing it. This is not new news, as it were. -- ferret (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is being changed, only added. Movie Wiki pages often include both limited and wide release dates because they realize that one is the first release and one is the main release, and both dates are equally important. That is the same exact case here. No movie lists the premiere as the only visible date and hides the wide release in a footnote. There was no reason to revert other than a desire to keep that date hidden. Xscapist (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct. The main goal is to keep the infobox uncluttered and correct "at a glance". For all intents and purposes, the console was out on August 23. The footnote is there to note, for the reader who wants more information, the confusion around the exact dates. -- ferret (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So why is it also hidden from the main body of the article? An official nationwide release date is a notable bit of information, and it's highly unusual for an article to go out of its way to hide it. If the goal is to keep the infobox uncluttered and correct "at a glance," why not list release as simply November 21, 1990 and hide all the others? Xscapist (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you feel it should be in the article body, go for it. Somewhere in the history section I would expect something. I'm only responding to adding it to the infobox. No one is "trying" to hide or suppress the information, its simply not been included in the body right now. -- ferret (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. In terms of the infobox, though, if the intent is to keep it clean and uncluttered, why are EU, UK, and IRL all listed separately, rather than having UK and IRL mentioned in a footnote after EU? Xscapist (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but while looking at the full text of the Orange County Register article referenced in the footnote, I came across this line: "Super Nintendo began showing up in Southern California stores Wednesday, nearly three weeks before the official Sept. 9 release date." The Wednesday previous to publication date would be August 21, not August 23. I'll let you guys sort it out -- I think I've gotten attempting to Wikiedit out of my system again for another few years. Xscapist (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Article title

This article has to be changed to "Super Nintendo" because this is the most commonly recognizable name. I am bassing on Wikipedia policy for article titles. --Sedn (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zvYkOJqB?url=http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=legacy&message.id=309753&view=by_date_ascending&page=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=legacy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=legacy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25234640&union_id=177
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65RQm77oI?url=http://www.1up.com/features/launch-wii to http://www.1up.com/features/launch-wii
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id%2C128295/printable.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e0912.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/top-25-consoles/4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

US Release Date: August 21, Not August 23

There's an article from the Orange County Register cited several times to back up the Friday, August 23 date, but if you read the full text of said article it clearly says units began arriving Wednesday, August 21:

Super Nintendo began showing up in Southern California stores Wednesday, nearly three weeks before the official Sept. 9 release date.

The people that really wanted to get it right away knew it was out," Adams said. "People have been calling for months on this thing."

The Toys R Us store in Cerritos got 80 on Wednesday and was down to a handful Monday afternoon, a store spokeswoman said.

The full article can be accessed here (behind a paywall). Xscapist (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Getting units in stock = launch date? They could have accidentally broken the street date, so you'll need a secondary source that states this before changing them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Everyone selling it before Sept. 9 was breaking the street date, the quoted portion even says that. This entry cites the quote "got 32 of the $199.95 systems Friday" from this exact same article to say the first consoles were sold on that Friday. Why is "got ... Wednesday" from the same cited primary source less reliable than "got ... Friday"? Xscapist (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Lack of technical specifications in the article

Contrary to the other video game consoles like the Megadrive and the NES, there are absolutely no technical details about the SNES in the "Technical Specifications" chapter. No information whatsoever about the resolution, screen modes, number of sprites, number of sound channels, etc. It could also provide the physical dimensions of the console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.200.18 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Go back to 2015 and you get a comprehensive technical specification. Somebody deleted it for whatever reason.Anss123 (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It was unreliably sourced and full of jargon, as brought up by a Featured Article Review. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.175 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the FA demotion linked above in the article milestones. -- ferret (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if it were fully sourced, I'm not sure if having tons of technical jargon would benefit the casual reader. An overview of the system and its main components, sure, but the exact amount of gigahertz for the sound processor is a better fit for a dedicated SNES Wikia. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you even read what you type? Technical Specifications ARE for technical "jargon". It is a place specifically meant to be technical and NOT for the casual reader. What are you even talking about? Do you just want to be right or something? You should be removed from editing anything, as you are clearly in a mindset that is part of the worlds problem right now. We don't need political thinking or you pushing an agenda on a technical specifications area. It is meant to be an in depth technical breakdown of the machine. Please leave.TheCyndicate (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheCyndicate: What? This does not need to be taken to a personal level. What Dissident93 is trying to convey is as per guidelines in WP:VG/GL, we should not use jargon and all text should be understandable for all capable readers - this is an encyclopaedia. The fact that you, a user that doesn't even have their account fully set up yet; a new user, would personally attack one of the most senior editors in the WikiProject Video games space, completely unprovoked, and without proper reference, shows that you really should take a good read of WP:GF. If you're unable to participate in a discussion civilly, please just don't. No hard feelings. ~ Manfred (talk page) 21:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

First off, I didn't make anything personal. If anyone took it personally, that's on them. When important information is deleted for PERSONAL reasons, I find that extremely offensive. You aren't following the guidelines, because the guidelines can be twisted and contorted in anyway to fit whatever agenda you may have. That's why the world laughs at wikipedia right now, it's in the same boat as snoopes. It's pretty simple, the technical section of a complex electronics platform, is going to be full of technical jargon. I mean,.. why would you even think the way that you do? Why would you even think it is ok to act on those thoughts? That is NOT ok. The foundation for how you form "logic" is flawed and flawed to an extreme level. I do believe that the section might need more sources, but you don't delete information over that, you ask for more sources. Something VERY serious and sinister is going on with "group think" these days. I hate seeing it. Either way, it's very clear that you don't grasp certain important aspects when it comes to preserving and presenting information in an unbiased way. Hopefully you can take this information in and improve yourself. TheCyndicate (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, me following Wikipedia guidelines is what's wrong with the world right now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think section blanking was the solution. Reducing the tech jargon and excessive information. (We mainly would need basic stats like maximum colors per a sprite, maximum sprite size in pixels and theoretical maximum simulatanious colors on screen. We should also have the display capabilities in the 4 most common display modes, which are multi-layer scrolling (usually used for parallax effect), single layer scrolling, single painted image (i.e. raw framebuffer) and the perspective-mapped floor (mode 7). Additional modes should be listed in a table towards the "technical" sub-portion. Chip names should be named and linked to if articles are available, but the that is the limit of the permissible jargon. Basically if it cannot be expressed without technical Jargon that is too much for a casual reader to skip over, it shouldn't belong in the main header, and goes in a special subsegment. Due to the size of the article we may want to make a separate "technical" article, this may be an ideal option on all systems eventually to make the articles more readable to the casual reader. As of how to do things now. The TI 99/4A is a good example of a proper structure for a home computer or video game system article. The TI 99/4A has a LOT of technical details not mentioned in the top form, and only mentioned in the full article portion. Things like it's 8bit/16bit hybrid setup, it's bytecode language, and it's cascading index ROM based system. These things are important because they lay the groundwork for TI's contributions to modern computing, but they are hardly able to be understood by the casual reader, and thus they don't go anywhere near the top of the article. We should take the same phillosophy here. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Technical jargon aside, the biggest issue with the previous content (Both when in this article and when split out for PAGESIZE) was the lack of reliable sourcing. The entire thing was essentially sourced to a single unreliable source. If you can find some solid reliable sources for the information, we can work on hashing out an understandable presentation for the readers. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Better SNES logo?

Hello all! I have recreated the Super Nintendo Entertainment System logo SVG in better visual quality than the one currently on Commons, available on request. Is it allowed to be uploaded to replace the existing SNES logo? If not, may we replace it with one cropped from the one on Nintendo's Super NES Classic Edition site? I've also been checking the rules on Commons regarding uploading it to a WMF site in the first place, but most indications seem to point to a logo recreation (especially one of significantly better quality than the existing one) being "fair use," which is explicitly denied on Commons, but not necessarily Wikipedia. Thoughts? Apollolux (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• The whole image use policy on Wikipedia is convoluted and a bit overzealous, so I honestly can't answer this. Somebody more familiar with them should be able to help, however. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have been accepted! It's here and I'd like to officially request we change the logo in the info box to it. Apollolux (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Groovy! Apollolux (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That opening line is laughable by saying calling it " Super Nintendo " was incorrect . Lol

Absolutely should NOT be in that sentence . I am simply stating a fact and am NOT attacking anyone or insulting anyone . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.52.166 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Unverifiable Content

The following content, located under the "Console Wars" section, is attributed to a source that is unverifiable (WP:V)- "The Genesis only represented an estimated 60% of the American 16-bit console market in June 1992,[34]." In addition, the source cited itself is incomplete (WP:HOWCITE). I've attempted to contact the source named via e-mail and will provide an update if I receive a response. PonceDeLePwn (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Syntax & Formatting of References/Bibliography

Several of the references cited make use of the "Short citations" syntax (WP:CITESHORT). However, as specified by Wikipedia, short citations should be in the appropriate Notes footer section, and they should link to the full citation in "References". Currently the short citations are being used in the References section and are attributed to an entry below them in "Bibliography", which is not a section that is required. PonceDeLePwn (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102222834/http://www.1up.com/features/15-years-snes?pager.offset=3 to http://www.1up.com/features/15-years-snes?pager.offset=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523085605/http://www.1up.com/features/ps1-turns-10 to http://www.1up.com/features/ps1-turns-10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929215736/http://www.1up.com/features/controller-history?pager.offset=3 to http://www.1up.com/features/controller-history?pager.offset=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504180144/http://wiki.superfamicom.org/snes/show/Schematics,+Ports,+and+Pinouts to http://wiki.superfamicom.org/snes/show/Schematics,+Ports,+and+Pinouts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Megadrive -> Genesis

User:P*h3i three things:

• Can you point out where "This discussion's been had plenty of times"? I've checked talk page archives, and article history, and can find no discussion, never mind one that's been had "plenty of times"
• I am hugely amused by your assumption that I intended to start a flame war by my changes, rather than my cynicism that people would rapidly and volubly object - exactly as you did, which amused me even more.
• However, that was nothing compared to the typo in your edit summary that states "In the context of this article, "Genesis" is fine" when you meant the complete opposite.

Obviously the latter two are just humorous observations - but really: Where has this been discussed? What is the objection - bear in mind that your edit summary doesn't actually include an objection and at the moment is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My rationale is plain and simple - there is no need to pipe when there is a perfectly good link, and the target article makes it plain the the preferred term is "Genesis". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I've made a grave mistake. I actually agree with you, I just read the edit difference wrong (I thought you changed it to Genesis/Mega Drive). I feel very dumb. ~ P*h3i (📨) 08:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Also, please stay WP:CIVIL. No one cares how amused you are, you could've just left it as "can you point out where". ~ P*h3i (📨) 08:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Chaheel, your edit was correct and P*h3i made a mistake - but no need to smirk about it. Popcornduff (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, given the original circumstances it was amusing - I predicted a vitriolic response, and got one - but the response made the exact point that I was trying to make - we should use Genesis not Megadrive. My comments were made before any errors were apparent. Still - good faith and all that - I've struck them. If anybody wants to remove them - or wants me to remove them, just go ahead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why using Mega Drive to describe what it was called at the original release in Japan is even disputed, it's a fact and is stated in the Genesis article. That the referring article is titled for the North American market does not change that. Sandprism (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We use Genesis because:

1. This is the title of the article referenced
2. It is confusing and unnecessary to refer to the same device with two different names in the same article.

Whilst I agree that Megadrive was the original title, a quick glance at both talk and archives over at Talk:Sega Genesis will show that despite being a heated topic consensus has agreed that Genesis is the accepted term to be used as the WP:COMMONNAME. The referring article is not for the North American market just because it happens to use the North American name for the device. Just as Harry Potter is not for the British market, just because as per WP:ENGVAR it calls the original release "Philosopher" not "Sorcerer". In any case, a cursory read through the article will show an American bias to the article, suggesting that Genesis would be correct in that context as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That discussion is specifically for consolidating the title and contents of the article for WP:COMMONNAME, this reference is for the actual hardware released in Japan in 1998, which was factually the Mega Drive and explained in the following sentence to be the Genesis in North America, weird how you don't try to do the same for PC Engine and Turbografx-16. I understand the discussion regarding consolidation for the Mega Drive article but for specific references to the actual variations it makes no sense and is factually incorrect. Sandprism (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous rationale still holds true:

1. This is the title of the article referenced
2. It is confusing and unnecessary to refer to the same device with two different names in the same article.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional - if you're so insistent that we should use the original term "Megadrive" because of its orignal Japanese title - what's your opinion on the use of Super Nintendo Entertainment System in this article, when the original launch name was Super Famicom? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is the same and in the Genesis article it actually refers to it as the Super Famicom multiple times when talking about the Japanese market... so yeah not sure what your problem is with being accurate? Sandprism (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not confusing to refer to the same device with two different names in the same article because it explains that they were called two different things one after the other.

Mega Drive redirects to the Genesis page, there is no rule that that a link must be the same as the title it refers to, again you have no problem with the same thing for PC Engine and Turbografx-16.

Mega Drive is actually the correct name for the Japanese version, it is literally in the fist sentence of the Genesis article so I don't know why you're telling me it's not in the revert message.

Calling me Mr Pedantic, because I'm actually trying to provide facts, you know like you're supposed to?

Sandprism (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You want to call the Genesis the Megadrive because that's what the device was called at launch. This article is called Super Nintendo Entertainment system, yet at launch it was called the Super Famicom. Should you not therefore wish this article to be called Super Famicom - and all references to the Super Nintendo be changed to Super Famicom? It seems illogical that you are basing your argument for change on a premise that isn't even supported in the name and body of this article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I don't want to change the name of any article, I just want the information in this one sentence to accurately say that Sega released the system as the Mega Drive in Japan in 1988. It really isn't that hard to comprehend. Much like in this very article in the first paragraph it says "In Japan, the system is called the Super Famicom".

Sandprism (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're agreed that the correct term in the rest of the article is Genesis, then I'll concede the point in this instance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

SNES Technical Specifications

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_technical_specifications

The Technical Specifications section was formerly redirected here, deferring a large block of information that was formerly redundant across both the main SNES article and dedicated technical specifications one.

A complaint was made in 2014 regarding this redundancy, but as of 21 January 2016, it was no longer redundant as the associated technical information was severely truncated in the "Technical Specifications" section of the SNES article. (now devoid of the sort of information found in most console and computer articles while also lacking a dedicated technical page to defer to) There seems to be merit of either re-activating the dedicated technical article and including an appropriate link in the SNES article, or reverting the main SNES article to include a comprehensive technical specifications section as it had prior to January 2016.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System&oldid=700942814 (edit removing the Technical specifications details) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System&oldid=700815383 (last edit including those details)

If there were poorly cited or uncited components of the technical specifications section, those should have been dealt with specifically rather than omitting it in its entirety. (I'm also unsure what complaints regarding being oriented towards a general audience refers to, as the technical details are no less general audience than in various engineering, programming, computer science, and similar computing articles)

Lack of citation may also have been improper transition of the information from the main article to the technical article, thus citations made properly originally became lost in translation, leading to some of the later complaints and edits made.

That said, given the final edits made to the technical article, its deletion seems to have been made under a great majority of protest, for what that's worth. However, the complaint made regarding "no sources to justify split from main section" as well as following comments to edits implies that the entire article should have been merged with the main article, reverting that section to its status as of 20 January 2016.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_technical_specifications&action=history

Note, I've withheld from attempting to revert or merge that section myself, but felt the issue had significant merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kitty89 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I agree with you. I arrived on this talk page because I was searching info about the Nintendo_S-SMP chip. The problem is that the specific Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_technical_specifications page no longer exists and redirects to the main page. Thus all technical pages are also redirected to the main SNES article, which which nowadays provide no info. The technical info about SNES are no longer reachable!

I think I will put back the technical section as it was prior to the 21th January 2016. If there are some inaccuracies, the community will have to correct them. But a least the info will be made available once again.

XtoF (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The community corrected them by removing them. Wikipedia requires information to be sourced to reliable sources. The technical page had none. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The removed text was supported by eleven external sources, of which three where questioned as unreliable. The "community" did no decide to remove them: YOU decided to remove them. As you commented yourself, you did a "boldly cleanup".

Now, as the dedicated article was also deleted, there is no technical information available on English Wikipedia concerning the SNES. Note that other languages are better served on that matter. Even well known and documented fact such as the CPU model or the video modes where erased by your "boldly" action and are now inaccessible for the casual reader. The only sane course of action is to reintegrate the technical info that were not contested. XtoF (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This diff? There isn't a single reliable source in the removed content. Romhacking and Emudocs are not a reliable sources. Removing it was the correct action at the time. The fact that, months later, a completely different editor redirected the technical specification articles on the basis of it ALSO not having any reliable sources is a separate action. There was nothing reliably sourced at the time that could be merged. You're free to add content that can be reliably sourced, however. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

So I will add back some of the basic info and will ignore those which were contested. I was not a fan of those anyway: too much details. Concerning "Romhacking", some of their articles may be dubious indeed. But I hope you're not blinded by the mere name of the website, for they also host reliable info. This link for instance, is the official technical reference for programmers and comes from Nintendo. How more reliable can it be? XtoF (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read this guideline. There's a difference between what you and I consider "reliable information" (I believe Anomie's data on Romhacking to be "accurate"), and what Wikipedia considers a "reliable source" (Anomie is a Wikipedia editor, and using his personal research is essentially WP:OR). Web pages like romhacking where users can submit and edit information are inherently unreliable by Wikipedia standards. See WP:USERG for specifics. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know those guidelines. I was not referring to Anomie's work (who I do not know), but to an official technical documentation of the Super Nintendo edited by Nintendo. XtoF (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

So will reintegrate some technical info. The paragraph is now way shorter than before (it was too detailed and technical for the casual reader anyway) and based on two sources. One that was not previously contested and the official documentation from Nintendo, stored at archive.org. I hope it will be a good starting point for further enhancements by the community ;)

If people still think it is too technical, dedicated articles shall be created for each component ; as it is the case for the Sega Genesis. I could help. But until that, the technical info should be left on the main page. Otherwise it would be rendered inaccessible as it is today. XtoF (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Cucumber Quest

Has this been the inspiration for the webcomic, Cucumber Quest? 2601:197:C181:B70:F884:3077:4BB0:E55E (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

German Release Date

I could not find any legitimate reference that even suggested that the console released at a different date in Germany when compared to the rest of Europe. Can anyone find anything on this or even confirm the release dates are different. This is the only thing requesting a citation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

NA release date

I'm leaning towards discounting "The Ultimate History of Video Games" source since it seems to be the odd source out. I just checked "The Oversea’s Game & PC Guidebook" (ISBN 978-4-7755-2419-0), a 2015 Japanese book that gives the NA release date of Aug 23, 1991. It's another secondary book and it doesn't quite cite it's sources (it could just be using Wikipedia after all), but it seems to be another source leaning in that direction. These are secondary sources, is there any source from Nintendo themselves saying the release date? There's an official list by Nintendo of America that lists game releases, but not the system. Still, it lists the launch titles like F-Zero and Super Mario World as "August 1991". Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The page currently cites and quotes the following source:

Campbell, Ron (August 27, 1991). "Super Nintendo sells quickly at OC outlets". The Orange County Register. Super Nintendo began showing up in Southern California stores Wednesday, nearly three weeks before the official Sept. 9 release date. ... Until the official nationwide release Sept. 9, availability will be limited.

If you check a 1991 calendar, "Wednesday" falls on August 21, not August 23. I propose updating the release date in this entry to match the citation. Xscapist (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"Super NES"

Nobody calls it that ever. It's a SNES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:90B9:39FE:9D10:863C (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've called it that. Checkmate. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That's weird of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:90B9:39FE:9D10:863C (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Peripherals

FYI, the page at Super Advantage was redirected here at some point in the past. There wasn't much there, but there was a photo and a few details that may not have made it here.

See, e.g., this version of that article.

- Jim Grisham (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

CHL and BRZ

Shall we get rid of BRZ and Change CHL to SA since both Chile and Brazil are in South America? Hellonature (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Lifespan - 1990-2005. Discontinued in UK in 2005.

I don't think so. Whoever changed it to that, not sure where they got that from. Anamyd (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Super Fammy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Super Fammy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1 § Super Fammy until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Super Famicom Box" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Super Famicom Box has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 2 § Super Famicom Box until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"SNIN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SNIN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 2 § SNIN until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)