Talk:NES Classic Edition

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

Requested move 31 July 2016[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to NES Classic Edition  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


NES Classic Mini → ? – Sources call it a different name.
Possible options include:

When !voting, please specify which name you prefer, if possible. I prefer the more concise section option. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move justified?[edit]

Hi everyone,

Since the article has been moved, some new information has been added. Currently, it says that the console is "also known as NES Classic Mini (outside of North America)". So out of all regions it is released in, it is only called "NES Classic Edition" in North America. Isn't that a case of WP:Americentricity? Pinging @Anarchyte:, @Pianoman320: and mover @Amakuru: for input. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the references say NES Classic Edition, I think we should use that. If they say Mini, I'm fine with it being moved back. At the moment, I find Edition to be more frequently used. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did mention that in my 'comment above. My thinking was that we should go off what most of the sources call it, as opposed to what most of the countries call it. I'm open to either one though. Pianoman320 (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is advertizing[edit]

Such a huge article for a gadget that just came out today, whereas much older computer and videogame systems have barely two lines of text. It's obvious that the marketing department of Nintendo put work into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... we've had this article since July 29th. It's definitely not advertising. As for articles about older systems being so short: It's likely because of the lack of online sources. Offline sources are allowed, but they are a bit hard to come by these days, especially if the system was less-popular. — Gestrid (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the tags I added[edit]

First, the {{sections}} tag: The article's lead is getting way too long for an article of this length. The lead, in most cases, needs to be a shortened version of what's in the article itself, and the lead should not be the article.

Next, the {{update}} tag: This article needs to include information about the item's availability (or lack thereof) on release day. For example, it went live on Amazon at 5pm EST and sold out almost instantly.

— Gestrid (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much reception[edit]

There should be more sources to the "Reception" section. VarhOuh (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- I agree, but also that the unfounded speculation of intentionally holding back to supply to increase publicity, or whatever, should be moved to reception, AND should either be removed completely from the article, or at least edited to reflect the cultural significance of this perception, but making it clear that it isn't based on any real evidence at all, other than conspiracy-nut level speculating. Sam (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest, to expand upon the reception section, starting various reviews and commentary on the product from such specialized experts as Pat "the NES Punk", Retro Gamer UK(print), and/or others, etc. Sam (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Well, after waiting, I went and made the appropriate edits, giving more depth to the discussions, as if, you know, this was an unbiased representation of facts; but no; my edits were "unconstructive.

Just so ya know: they were Objectively constructive and KovShov or whatever his name is, is a control freak. Sam (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) ed; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KoshVorlon < this guy. Sam (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC) my god does this guy have a longass talk page, he'd never see my response to him directly with his head so far up his own taint. Sam (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NES_Classic_Edition&oldid=760740228 < here be my version of the launch and reception sections without this guy's power-mongering interference. I'll let you be the judge. However, I Was going back in there to change "due to limited supply" to "due to demand far exceeding supply" or something like that. It's just a fact, 200K units for a cheap plug-n-play is in no way, objectively, "limited" but whatever. Sam (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, f editing this website, it's obviously hostile to objectivity. Sam (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I mean to say; it's clear there's a bunch of nerds who have burrowed themselves in like ticks, and see fit to police and dominate the "noobs", from their unassailable pillars of epeenpoints, just like every other website on earth.... and I thought you were better than that.... maybe I Am too idealistic.... Sam (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out on the personal attacks. I think the revert was a mistake, as there's no indication of disruption. People misread or make a mistake sometimes, there's a ton of bad edits to shift through, it happens. I think it's fine to make the edit again, but the personal attacks definitely need to stop. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, and I do apologize for my decorum, however I stand by my indictment of this power dynamic, on a website who's technical accuracy is unparalleled, due ENTIRELY to the free and equal democratic process. If someone wields more power, by it's very nature, they will end up abusing those who do not. Sam (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the sourcing about the possibly intentional shorting by Nintendo, I just removed a small piece that was stylistically odd. This Kosh person was not in the right at all to remove those edits without even a comment or reason. ValarianB (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I wasn't set on that, I was gonna edit it again... meh. it's fine. Sam (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmate - actually, I wield no more power than you do, I'm an editor, just like you are, and yes my edit was a mistake. I would have reverted it myself, however I'm at work (Call center) and took a few calls in succession so I was not able to. My bad! Thank you Ferret for restoring that edit back in. It was definetly a mistake on my part! KoshVorlon} 21:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KoshVorlon: alright, dog, no hard feelings, all said and done, had I not made that clear. Just be more careful, "some" people can be touchy when dealing with their editors, lol. Nevertheless, I Do recommend paring down your page a bit... It's a bit much, no offense. Sam (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused. Sam (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkmate824: Any editor can revert another editor, it isn't a special power or position. Lots of editors are involved in patrolling for bad edits. In some cases, they may accidentally hit the revert button on an edit they didn't mean to do. Kosh is saying that this is such a case and they apologize. So back to constructive editing everyone! :) -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure not make that mistake. Sam (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, i forgot to mention, I guess, it's a moot point, but when I tried to revert the article, it said I needed to be an administrator, or something, and I had to do it manually, and considering it took me about an hour or two, to find the sources, listen to youtube videos to pull a good quote, trying to balance both perspectives, considering it IS noteworthy, this controversy has been mentioned in Game Informer's recap of 2016, etc, and basically, I thought all that work was deleted, and Even if I did start from scratch, Some guy could just revert it again, cuz he or she hold the power, blah blah. so... I don't know why the website told Me, specifically, I couldn't revert it back, but I tried it on my page, and here we go, the actual error message - "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." so... I still couldn't revert this page but... it said something else on the other error message, I wouldn't want to test on an actual page, but anyways, yeah.... having your writing deleted... it hurts. Even if this isn't an issue of Actual power, if you would take up the mantle of a gatekeeper, I would suggest caution in case someone just gives up, considering the hoops you have to jump thru, and the lengths you have to go to, seemingly, to prove yourself a legitimate contributor. Sam (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkmate824: Depending on which revisions you were trying to undo, the software can reply with this message because it can't figure out how to cleanly "undo". Usually this is because other edits in between. It's nothing to do with Wikipedia rights, just the software can't do it the way you tried. Every edit is always kept in the history so even if it's not immediately clear how to get it back, there's some ways. One way is to click on the version you want restored in the history, then click edit on it. You'll be editing the old version, and if you save it it will be the new current version. This should be done very carefully though because it will replace ALL edits since that version. -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: I'm just gonna keep a copy of whatever I write on my local device, just in case; I do it for everything else anyways, I just didn't think to do it, I was so proud I had something to contribute to wikipedia, I was too busy bragging to my wife. I'm a fan of archivism, so having that edit history is pretty awesome. Anyways, I'll be sure, if for whatever reason I would revert it, to make sure not to lose the new edits. Sam (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shōnen Jump Edition photo[edit]

Would be great to have a picture of this. DemonDays64 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NES_Classic_Edition&oldid=1199924392"