Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

SNES & S.N.E.S

Prehaps mention could be made of the fact that SNES can either be pronounced as a word (Rhyming with Pez) or as the letters S.N.E.S. I may be mistaken, but everyone I've spoken to in the UK uses the word, whereas everyone in America I've spoken to uses the letters. 81.137.159.61 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

as there's been no objections, added a small note about this 81.106.203.120 04:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd need a source for that, frankly. I'm an American, but my friends and I always referred to it as "s-ness." In any case, this really doesn't seem all that encyclopedic, as it's pretty much standard for a lot of unofficial acronyms. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some mention would be useful: this can be a confusing point when someone uses a pronunciation of the word SNES (Which I've now discovered can be pronounced one of several ways)

hardly the best source, I know, but a few interesting discussion on the subject: http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25234640&union_id=177 - interestingly, the say Gamespot UK Uses the word.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/39309975/m/115007122831

http://digg.com/hardware/Overclocking_an_SNES

It is a point of contention, and as such, I think it's worth a mention. I Propose putting back the comment about using it either as a word or acronym, but leaving the phonetics out81.149.182.210 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PAL slowdown

This article, along with others on Wikipedia, says that PAL games are 17.5% slower than NTSC ones. Is this number actually correct? It would seem to me that it should be 16.67% slower (or, to put it another way, NTSC is 20% faster). I know that a lot of magazines have quoted 17.5% for years, and it's become an "accepted" value, but I've never seen any actual justification for the figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsutherland (talk • contribs) 12:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

I think it's just 50Hz divided by 60Hz... this gives a figure of 83.33%, i.e. 50Hz is 17.67% slower than 60Hz. But 60Hz is indeed 20% faster than 50Hz - they're just reciprocals.

Another point I wanted to add is that I'm not entirely convinced by the text that says the PAL version Super Mario Kart was speeded up to match the NTSC 60Hz versions. Simply because it was impossible to compete with the fastest times being publishes in Japanese and American magazines if you were running a PAL copy of the game. Is there a source/reference backup up the viewpoint that the PAL version *was* speeded up?

100-83.33 is 16.67, not 17.67, which is why I think the 17.5% figure is just wrong. I'm not sure about Mario Kart, either. I knew a couple of people who played the game a lot, one with the NTSC version and the other with the PAL one, and neither of them could play the other version because, they claimed, the timings were different. That doesn't mean the PAL game wasn't sped up, but it would at least suggest that they're not identical. Jsutherland 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue Collar Americanism....

Isn't the Sega Genesis also a Japanese system? Why then would Americans be anti-Nintendo? Nintendo held a cult like status in the USA. I remember the console wars well but I had more friends with SNES systems than Genesis systems. I know that "my friends" are not a valid source, but the entire paragraph speaking of an anti Japanese backlash on behalf of the Blue Collar American people does not cite it's sources either. It makes no sense to me because the Sega Genesis was also Japanese. That and also because the median age for video game players during the era of Genesis and SNES was so young, that I have a hard time seeing me and my elementary school friends bickering about class warfare and USA vs Japanese consumer products when we'd have arguments over which of the two consoles we thought was better. It was usually more of a Sonic vs Mario type argument.

Of course this is all assumption based on memory. As I recall, it was children who where their main demographic. Why would children care what country their video game system came from? And if someone did, why would they buy any 16 bit console, since it looks to me like all of them where in fact made in Japan by Japanese companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.252.86 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I did not write that section, but can attest that there was an anti-Japanese sentiment in the PARENTS. After all, it is the parents that would purchase the systems for their kids. If you go and look at old GamePro magazines, there are letters about this, but it is difficult to pull any quotes. One letter to the editor asked if the Atari Jaguar was Japanese like the Nintendo and the Genesis. GamePro answered with a response that Atari was an American company. Whicker 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sega started out as an American company called Service Games, designed to provide game entertainment to US miltary abroad. However, they've been wholly Japanese-owned since, I believe, about 1983 or so. The Genesis, which obviously was released after that time-frame, would have been considered (and correctly so) a Japanese console manufactured by a Japanese corporation. That entire paragraph, in fact, doesn't attribute a single source to any of its claims. I'm going to fact-tag it and wait a week or so- if a valid source doesn't pop up, it should go. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The "backwards compatibility" claims you tagged were relatively easy to find a source for. It would have been extremely easy if the Sega Mega Drive article cited a source. I couldn't readily find a source for the TV incompatibility claims regarding the SNES, but I did find an official reference regarding the fact of Sega Genesis incompatibility with certain TV models. Considering some of the "interesting" things the SNES seems to do with the NTSC output, I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar incompatibilities. I didn't bother to try to find anything on the "economic warfare" angle. Anomie 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected several errors about the name of the system.

1. Deleted Katakana and Romaji versions of "Super Nintendo Entertainment System", they weren't necessary, it's not known as that in Japan and they made the first paragraph difficult to read. (1st Paragraph)

2. Corrected "Super Family Computer". While one might think so because the Original NES was officially the Family Computer, the SNES was officially the "Super Famicom" not "Super Family Computer". (1st Paragraph)

3. Corrected "Famicom" to "Family Computer" and added katakana for it. (2nd paragraph)

ExpatJApan 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SNES versus Mega Drive in Europe

A claim similar to this keeps getting added and removed, over and over again.

Meanwhile in Europe, the Sega Mega Drive was winning the 16-bit war, due to a big head-start of the console, a larger and better software range, and a better advertising campaign.

Can anyone come up with an actual source for this claim? At any rate, the claim that the SNES beat the Mega Drive worldwide in total sales seems well supported. I'm going to revert to the simple worldwide sales statement and provide a citation, and invite the people who keep adding and removing the statement to bring the discussion here. Anomie 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not specifically "for" or "against" anything persay, I just think that a:) The assertion of sales dominance needs to be factually supported, and b:) "a larger and better software range" "a better advertising campaign" are inherently POV statements. The unsourced sales stuff has sat out for a long enough time that SOMEONE could have added reference links to it, for pete's sake. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just letting the folks visiting this page know- instead of choosing to discuss this issue, or attempting to provide a source, the anonymous user merely decided to continue re-adding the unsourced paragraph. Like I said earlier, all I've asked for is a source, and to make the paragraph NPOV. I am absolutely all for discussing this, but, unfortunately, the anon has chosen the route of the simple undiscussed revert. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Europe, but here in the UK the Mega Drive was always far ahead with hardware sales, I worked at the Virgin Game Shop in London, and there we sold 3 Mega Drives against 1 SNES. Same with the MD software, approx. 3 - 1, we even sold Amiga 500 software 5 times more than SNES software. Sega was always on the telly with advertising, Nintendo very rarely. Also, it was (is) a well known fact that Nintendo never cared about the UK. Sorry to tell you this, but besides the Game Boy, Nintendo did very badly with the NES (The SMS did very well here, even better than in the USA) and the SNES. We didn't even get the Virtual Boy. N64 did a bit better, due to Rare being British (Golden Eye). And Game Cube, shops like Currys had to give away the system for free when 4 games were purchased. SNES software prices were higher too, so logically, the country, which grew up with cheap games on the Spectrum computer, would choose the system were games are cheaper, which was the Mega Drive. That is the British way. To prove which system did better in Europe, you need to ask people from UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and that is a difficult task. I guess in your article you'd better stick to 'SNES did best in USA and Japan', until you are sure and can prove that SNES did better in Europe. In the UK it did not. PC Man.

You should log in to perform your edits, that way we can know who you are instead of just "the anon using t-dialin.net IP addresses". Also, please do not add your statements to the article again until we reach a consensus here.

Your personal experiences are original research. Do you have actual sales figures from a reputable source to back up your claim that the Mega Drive was "always far ahead" in any notable region? Note this would probably be Europe, not just UK. We have provided figures showing that the SNES finished well ahead worldwide, and figures are similarly available for North America.

Sales of other Nintendo systems or other systems in general are irrelevant to this discussion. There is no need to stick to "SNES did best in USA and Japan": 49 million worldwide beats 29 million worldwide, and that is the major claim the article makes. Unless YOU can provide hard sales figures, I suggest you figure out a NPOV way to work a short statement about Europe into the existing paragraph (and tag it {{fact}} to save us the trouble). Anomie 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But then I read this from the Wikipedia Mega Drive page, so are you sure you are right?:

By 1992, Sega was enjoying a strong hold on the market, holding a 55% market share in North America. Faced with a slight recession in sales and a brief loss of market share to the SNES, Sega again looked to Sonic to rejuvenate sales. The release of the highly anticipated Sonic the Hedgehog 2, coinciding with an aggressive ad campaign that took shots at Nintendo, fueled Mega Drive sales a while longer and boosted Sega's market share percentage back up, to an astounding 65%.

Who says that they are not right? PC Man

Further, world wide sales mean nothing. Look how amazing the NES did in Japan and USA, and how bad that system sold in Europe. Look at the Amiga 500 (as a games machine), how successful it was in Europe, and how very poorly it did in USA and even worse in Japan.PC Man

Notwithstanding the fact that Wikipedia itself is not a valid reference source according to Wikipedia's original research policy, the blurb you keep inserting is only half of the paragraph, where it talks about Sega's market share dropping below 45% by the end of the aforementioned Console War. In other words, between 1992 and 1994 Sega lost that 65% market share, a direct contradiction to what you've been trying to assert here. I've already said beforehand- I have no aversion to any FACTS in the article. But if something is going to be asserted, it needs a proper source. Furthermore, by discussing the NES and the Amiga, you're muddling the issue, which is the insertion of unsourced material into the article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quoting a Wikipedia article that lacks sources doesn't do anything to advance your case. Especially when you consider the sources we provided that state 20 million SNES sales in the US[1] versus 14 million Genesis/Mega Drive sales in North America[2].

Please note, you are close to violating the three revert rule. Since you do not appear to use your Wikipedia account, this is your warning. Anomie 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not violating anything and you are in no position to give me a warning. C&VG magazine states that the Mega Drive was released in the UK in Sept 1990, whilst the SNES was released in the UK in Easter 1992. The Mega Drive had a two-Christmas head start, no way the SNES could overtake the MD. I'm not muddling any issue by also mentioning NES and Amiga, those are just other examples of 'world wide sales'. PC Man

Release dates don't matter. A "two-Christmas head start" doesn't matter. Sales figures matter. Do you have any? Anomie 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said as an earlier example: NES sold 60 million worldwide (Wikipedia NES page info). NES sales in Europe: 3.5 million by 1992 (NOE info from Game Over the Book). Nevertheless, the NES was the best selling 8-bit console in the world, just not in Europe, here it failed miserably. But I realise you only talk about the SNES success worldwide as well, so yes, the SNES is the best selling 16-bit console in the World, it just came second in Europe, that's all. Be happy with that. PC Man

If you can provide a reference, it would still be appreciated. In the 'History' section there is a mention of the Europe situation that needs it. Anomie 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh just one last word: Read in Game Over how Nintendo was fiddling their 'sales figures' to their advantage (page 363) (Sega too, so they are both as bad, page 364) and that in the end, the SNES failed to blow Sega away (page 371). In the USA they rely more on statistics and lies, here in Europe, we are more hands-on, gut feelings. Work in a game shop, like I did, you soon get to know the better selling system. But nevermind, in the end both companies were lying about their sales figures, so no, sales figures don't matter at all. PC Man

Is it online anywhere? My local library doesn't seem to have a copy. OTOH, I'm not inclined to believe a book with the subtitle "How Nintendo Zapped an American Industry, Captured Your Dollars, and Enslaved Your Children" is an NPOV source. I also wouldn't trust generalization from one game store. If you have a better objective measure than sales figures, I would be happy to take a look at it. Anomie 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The book had three American editions: 1993 - Game Over: How Nintendo Zapped an American Industry, Captured Your Dollars, and Enslaved Your Children

1994 - Game Over: How Nintendo Conquered The World

1999 - Game Over: Press Start To Continue - with Andy Eddy

I guess you'd believe the book if it only had the second (1994) subtitle, perhaps? Actually, sources for the book include people from NCL (Hiroshi Yamauchi, Sigeru Miyamoto, Masayuki Uemura, Genyo Takeda, Gunpei Yokoi, Reiko Wakimoto, and more), NOA (Minoru Arakawa, Howard Lincoln, Peter Main, Al Stone, Phil Rodgers, Gail Taiden, Don James and more). So you can pretty much trust this book quite a bit more than any wikipedia fanboy stuff.PC Man

You should probably check out WP:NPA, some of your statements are coming pretty close. Whoever the sources for the book, the material could still have been assembled in a POV manner. At any rate, I cannot speak to the POV or NPOVness of the book beyond the clear bias suggested by the subtitle and a few reviews I've read, as I have no access to said book. I reiterate: if you have a better objective measure than sales figures, I would be happy to take a look. Otherwise, I don't see that continuing this will be productive. Anomie 22:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical Specifications

I've rewritten this section, and I wanted to provide a few comments:

• I've commented out my references, because they are questionable under WP:OR#Citing_oneself (in particular, there are no publicly-available sources that qualify as a "reliable publication"; reliability depends on reputation rather than publication venue). If someone else decides the references are reliable enough, feel free to uncomment them, and maybe add {{onesource|section}} at the top.
• Per the Manual of Style for embedded lists, I've written the section in prose.
• I've completely left out the Power adapter section on purpose: the wall power specifications vary by country, and I could find no good reference on any but the US console's power specifications.
• I've left out the reference to SO and ToP using bank switching, since Googling gives some people saying the games do and some saying they don't (and no one reliable, of course).
• I've omitted a few other factoids that didn't seem to fit.

Comments are welcome. -- Anomie 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Old vs New

I changed it to the previous version because the technical specs are easier to read in list form. It also provides more vital information about the Super Nintendo that the revised edition deleted. --User:71.193.186.245

The new Specifications may not be perfect, but it's certainly better than a crude list. From WP:Trivia we have Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. And while tech specs are not quite trivia, it's close. Lists are good for a quick overview, and we can always do both.

The old list could be put in a table like this:

(This table is based on the Sega Mega Drive article's.)
--Anss123 10:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

CPU Quick Reference
Processor	Ricoh 5A22, based on a 16-bit CMD/GTE 65c816 core
Clock Rates (NTSC)	Input: 21.47727 MHz Bus: 3.58 MHz, 2.68 MHz, or 1.79 MHz
Clock Rates (PAL)	Input: 21.28137 MHz Bus: 3.55 MHz, 2.66 MHz, or 1.77 MHz
Buses	24-bit and 8-bit address buses, 8-bit data bus
Additional Features	DMA/HDMA timed IRQ parallel I/O processing hardware multiplication and division

I agree, quick reference tables might improve the section dramatically. But IMO, for a quick-reference table we don't really need every little detail. Instead, just the most important facts for each section should be tableized with the main details in the text. Something like this for the CPU section, for example. If the consensus is that this looks good, I will go ahead and add such tables.

Also, part of my motivation for rewriting that list was to get rid of some of the inaccurate information in there. For example, whoever added the "PSG sound with included 2A03 core" line must have had the NES and SNES confused. I've provided references (does anyone else agree or disagree that they are acceptable under the reliable sources for popular culture guideline?) for the majority of the information currently in the article, and I hope we can maintain sourcing for any added information.

If anyone feels any vital information has been left out, or anything could be improved, don't hesitate to join this discussion.

Anomie 14:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice little table, it might be an idea to turn it into a template so that it can be used by the other console articles. It would be absolutely spiffing if we could have some sort of consistency between the console articles.

If I had my way I would have rounded away the PAL clock rates, but I know from experience that people want clock speed details accurate to at least the third decimal. BTW, what is the input clock rate? Is it the crystal?

Thinking about it, it might also be worthwhile to also include the detailed table. This since there seems to be more than a few users who appreciate the nifty gritty. (The information within would have to be fact checked, of course. I've actually seen several places that claim the SNES CPU have the NES audio thingy for a jib you mentioned, but no game utilize it - with the possible exception of Mario Paint)

Finding good reliable sources for the technical aspects of the SNES is at best tricky. Worse, the sources that pass Wikipedia's criteria might actually be flat out wrong. Sites such as romhacking.net (which I believe you dug up) is probably more accurate than most, judging solely by the name.

--Anss123 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think the detail should be in the text instead of a table. Having both is redundant. If you want to post the references that claim the SNES includes NES audio, I'll give my opinion. I wonder how many will have used the old version of this article as their source, though. A quick bit of original research seems to prove if it is there it's not at the same memory location as in the NES, which would make it rather pointless to have it. Reference to a primary source (bsnes's source code) similarly turns up no sign of it, which indicates that no existing games try to use it. Of course, if a cart wanted to include such hardware it could do so as an enhancement chip.

I trust the references I used because I know the research that was done to create them. While romhacking.net does have some good docs, it also has some that are not so good. The best way to find the "best" docs might be to go to various SNES-programming-related forums and ask for evaluations of the candidates, and then use the responses as a primary source justifying the use of the winners. Anomie 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my "reference" is stored on something ancient called paper. Sadly, paper does not support linking :( But I believe you when you say that this particular "fact" is "fiction".

The problem with putting the detail in the text is not that it isn't a good idea, but that IMO the text should not be too technical. On that note, the 'detailed' specifications do not need to be hosted on Wikipedia. A convenient link (the reference section is not exactly convenient) to a site that delves into the topic should satisfy those that want that info. None of the current links we got seems to fit the bill (unless I missed one :).

Of course, Wikipedia can't carter to everyone. If there is more like User:71.193.186.245 (that feels the old specs are preferable) I think we give them a week or so to chime in before deciding.

As it stands, I personally prefer the current article.

--Anss123 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A preview. Also, feel free to comment on the proposed changes to the Enhancement chips section (basically: details should be on the linked pages). Anomie 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that this Quick Reference thing is an excellent idea. I was actually the one who did the revert before I made my account. It was my first Wikipedia edit. Savie Kumara 00:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you inspired us to create those quick reference tables, they did turn out well. Anomie 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Is there anything in the The Super Nintendo in popular culture section that is actually notable? Or is it all just someone mentions "Super Nintendo", or a SNES is used as background decoration, or the writers wanted someone to be playing a game and the props department randomly pulled out a SNES? Unless the Simpsons references are a popular meme, nothing on the current list appears to be anything but absolutely trivial.

Unless the consensus is definitely to keep it, I'm just going to remove the whole section in a few days. And if we want to keep it, we'll have to do better than just "A Super Nintendo was once [mentioned/played/visible in the background] in X" for various values of X. Anomie 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to delete it a few days ago, but the internet went down and I took it as a sign from God that... okay I'm lazy, Anyway, other articles regularly remove similar sections on the grounds that the pop culture references are better kept to their respective articles.

In any case, the guideline tells that lists of facts should be avoided. They're acceptable as skeleton sections but in this case I doubt anyone will write about how the SNES influenced popular culture, and even if someone is I can't see this particular list being of much use to them.

I've removed the section.

--Anss123 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'd like to include a comparison of the different cartridge shapes in the article, but I don't have a PAL/Japan cart to photograph. If someone can take a picture of such a cart (resembling the NA cart image to the right) and upload it to Commons, I would appreciate it. Or if you have both types of carts, photograph them both next to each other and save me the trouble of combining photos.

My plan is to put the comparison image into the Regional lockout section, something like I've done at User:Anomie/SNES.

Also, BTW, the History section could probably use an image or two. I'm not sure what would go well in there though. Anomie 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Peripherals dispute

Ok, let's discuss this here. Do you dispute this source?

Since the SNES's release, every developer has imitated the console's popular button layout (dubbed the "diamond layout"), except for Nintendo themselves. Sure, the design was inventive, as it first allowed for that perfect ammount of buttons right at your thumbprint. However Nintendo is the only company so far to seriously strive toward innovating upon innovation, realizing that more can be done with these same four buttons to make gaming even smoother. Regardless, the Super NES controller has since its conception been the standard by which all non-Nintendo controllers are designed - the most basic of basics, if you will.

The image is used to reference the specific examples in the disputed statement. (While I have no source for this parenthetical, probably Sony copied the SNES controller layout when they changed their SNES-CD to the PlayStation and then Microsoft copied the PlayStation controller for their Xbox.)

This source talks about the shoulder buttons:

It [the SNES] also introduces the idea of shoulder buttons

FWIW, I looked up your Colecovision controller example. The Colecovision controller seems designed to be held in one hand, with the joystick or number buttons intended to be operated with the free hand. This differs from todays designs, intended to be held in both hands with controls primarily operated by the thumbs. So I'm not convinced that the side buttons on one design correspond to shoulder buttons on the other. I've used an old Atari controller with a similar design (sans number pad), and to me the side buttons don't seem to correspond to the SNES shoulder buttons at all.

Also, BTW, why revert instead of fixing the one word ("adopted") you had an issue with? I would have just let it go if you had changed "adopted" to "used". Anomie 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I dispute it. First of all, the reference itself comes from a site that doesn't fit Wikipedia's standard of reliability- it's a tiny homemade site called "NGEB". The problem with sites like this is that they oftentimes make claims out of the sheer lack of knowledge. Case in point would be the plethora of people who still refuse to believe that the first platformer, analog stick and dpad were Nintendo's creations. Furthermore, one can't just use a picture to create a reference source- the reference must actually textually back up the claim. As I said in my edit summary, that diamond layout existed in various forms before the SNES controller- but if you can provide a GOOD source that gives some direct evidence that the SNES controller was the influence in every controller you mentioned, it can stay. Wikipedia's guidelines are verifiabilty. And the "shoulder" button thing is just nitpicking- it's the positioning of the buttons (on the left and right "shoulder" sides of the controller), not the finger positioning of them that defines what the button is. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Too bad most of the sources we can possibly find on this sort of thing are at that level of reliability, huh? Maybe you should go through the rest of the sources in the article and get rid of half of them. Don't forget to check the <!--commented-out--> sources too. I'm actually at least halfway serious about this, BTW, and not just trying for WP:POINT. A picture can be a reference, if the thing referenced is something that can be effectively imaged. After all, "a picture is worth 1000 words". I could just as well say you're nitpicking in your definition of "shoulder" buttons by arguing button placement over hand position; I contend a similar thing for a Colecovision-style controller might be a button on the joystick knob. But whatever, I don't care enough (getting wikibonked?) to argue, so i'll just give in. Anomie 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A short wikibreak seems to have helped me. I hate that we have to rely on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular culture and fiction to justify most of the sources for this article, as that paragraph doesn't give much guidance as to what exactly is acceptable and what still isn't. Not that the rest of the policies are so clear either. How can you tell the difference between an article on a professional-looking personal website, a blog entry in news-article style, and a niche-market news website with a "reader comments" feature? How can you determine if someone is an "expert" on some facet of popular culture? If 500 people on a forum variously give their support to 7 different opinions on X, does that count as a (primary) source supporting a statement "Popular opinions on X differ, including #1, #2, ..."? These are mainly rhetorical questions; if they couldn't reach any sort of consensus on WT:ATT (besides that WP:IAR could be used), we're unlikely to usefully decide anything here unless we decide to follow their lead and use WP:IAR.

I've still been unable to find anything I'm sure you'd like as a secondary source, Ex-Nintendo Employee, although I have found a number of articles making the same sort of statement (particularly regarding the original PlayStation controller).123456 Would you accept a statement along the lines of "This controller is cited as the ancestor that influenced the design of many modern console gamepads, including ..." and supported by a few of these sources? Anomie 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to use a few of these links, along with a statement about how it is widely believed that many modern controllers derive their design from the Super NES pad. Just make sure to keep out the unreliable pages. The Axess page is completely wrong about a LOT of items in many spots (it's written by one singular individual who made much of it up as he went along- check out his blurb on the NES Max). I've never heard of Shamoozal, so I can't comment on them. But 1up and Advanced Media Network appear to be reliable, quoteable sources, so that should work out quite well. Thanks for realizing I'm not completely unreasonable- just trying to make sure we keep our sources reliable so they stick. :) Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew you were at least mostly reasonable from some of the other discussions we've had here. (: I still would appreciate a review of the rest of the sources, especially the commented-out sources.

These I felt I couldn't add to the Technical Specifications section due to COI in my including them. I asked previously for a review of their acceptability, but no one responded. On the plus side, if there is anything factually wrong in these sources I can easily have the author issue a correction ;)

• anomie. "Anomie's SNES Port Doc" (text). Retrieved 2007-04-21.
• anomie. "Anomie's SNES Memory Mapping Doc" (text). Retrieved 2007-04-21.
• anomie. "Anomie's Register Doc" (text). Retrieved 2007-04-21.
• anomie. "Anomie's S-DSP Doc" (text). Retrieved 2007-04-21.
• anomie. "Anomie's SPC700 Doc" (text). Retrieved 2007-04-21.

These support the pronunciation footnote, but depend on considering each post as a self-published statement of that poster's own opinion and considering the aggregate as a primary source supporting the footnote. As this is a non-standard interpretation, I don't want to include them without at least one second opinion.

• "Do you say NES or N-E-S?". Nintendo NSider Forums. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
• "Pronouncing NES & SNES". Gamespot forums. Retrieved 2007-05-16.

Anomie 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I am aware of, ROMHacking.net is an extremely knowledgeable, reputable site- I would trust it implicitly, and I do believe it meets Wikipedia's standards for verification. The forums would be the opposite; since anyone can post anything to a forum, they don't meet those same guidelines and can't be used as a source. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're considering the use of forums as a secondary source, in which case they would certainly be unreliable except in limited circumstances. The use here however is as a primary source: Each individual post is a reliable statement about that poster's opinion of the pronunciation of "SNES", and we could clearly use them in articles about each poster per WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. The "stretch" is using the post to support a statement about the opinion expressed rather than the person expressing it. Each individual opinion of course carries little weight, but the aggregate of differing opinions supports the statement "English speakers pronounce SNES in different ways". In general, this sort of thing could support a statement of existence like "Some people believe Y about X" or "People believe different things about X, including but not limited to Y1 and Y2". It cannot be used to support statements like "Everyone/No one believes Y about X", or any quantitative statement about belief of Y, or "few/many/most" semi-quantitative statements, or any indication as to whether Y is actually true or false. Anomie 15:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

An inaccuracy about Super Mario World

"Nine months later, in August of 1991,c[›] the Super Famicom was released in North America with a newly redesigned case as the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Initially sold for a price of US$199, the North American package included the game Super Mario World. With the exception of the Sega Saturn which launched in the US in 1995, this was the last major console to include a game in its packaging at launch until the Wii featured Wii Sports as a pack-in in 2006." ----- This statement is inaccurate. The original Playstation came with Ridge Racer in the box. I know on Wiki, you need sources to prove everything, but original PSX owners can all attest to Ridger Racer coming with the system. Perhaps there was also a PSX package with no games included, but Wii with Wii sports definitely was not the next game system to include a game with the system (Sega Saturn excluded) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.68.203.56 (talk • contribs) 15:19, June 4, 2007 (UTC).

A quick search turns up a number of pages that claim the version of Ridge Racer included in the Playstation box was just a demo. I'm looking for a source for the full claim now. Anomie 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not much luck so far... A good reference for the PS1 having no pack-in at launch,[3] and a lot of sites stating the SNES was the last Nintendo console with a pack-in until the Wii, and even a few claiming Wii Sports is first launch pack-in since SNES (ignoring the Saturn).[4][5] Anomie 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gamepro issue which reviewed the original Playstation mentioned that Ridge Racer is included in the box. Unfortunately, this article is not available online on Gamepro's website. 72.80.43.123 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've found some proof from within Wikipedia that the original Playstation included Ridge Racer. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridge_Racer_%28arcade_game%29 ...look at the picture of the Ridge Racer game box. It clearly says "Not for Sale" on it. Why would any video game be not for sale? That's because it is INCLUDED with the Playstation, in the box. So it is not true that Wii and Dreamcast are the only systems after Super NES to come with a game. By the way, my Ridge Racer game box says the same thing, and it is a full version of the game, not a demo copy. 72.80.43.123 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have failed to make your case. I'm not inclined to take your word for it on the Gamepro article, particularly in light of the sources I have found, nor am I inclined to believe your insistence that you possess such an item.

There are many reasons a game might not be for sale. Maybe it was a store demo copy? Maybe it was an empty display box? Maybe it's the box for the demo disk mentioned? Maybe it was a pack-in with a magazine, a special controller, or some such? Or even if it is from a pack-in with the actual console, was that package offered at launch (which is what the quote discusses) or was it introduced later in the life of the system? Anomie 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anomie is right, Ridge Racer was not a pack in game. It is possible that some retailers bundled it with the system, but for a game to be a pack in it has to be inside the game box. The PSX did have a Ridge Rager demo packed in, which all things considering is almost the whole game - just with a 60 second time limit.

--Anss123 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing GA-Nomination

Anomie (and others) have done an incredible job with this article. I believe it will now stand up to a Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates nomination. Anyone (dis)agree? Doing a quick comparison with the featured Nintendo_Entertainment_System article, the SNES article is not far behind. --Anss123 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to get it to GA or even FA level, I'm glad someone has noticed! I've been planning on submitting it for another peer review "soon", and then going for the GA/FA. But before we do any sort of nomination, we need to resolve the one {{fact}} tag left in the article (feel free to help, see above), and we should also consider if anything else needs to be sourced that isn't already. Particular areas of concern that could use some fresh eyes are History, Peripherals, and Emulation and controversies.

IMO, NES would probably fail a featured article review unless the review itself prompted interested editors to fix the problems (in particular, too many fair-use screenshots (I'd like to add an SMW screenshot to our History section, but it would just be decoration so a fair use image is not allowed), a lack of rationales, and an {{Unreferencedsection}}). Wii might be a better comparison, although they have the advantage of writing about a contemporary system and thus have many more sources to choose from. Anomie 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should have mentioned it here when I changed the header at the top of the talk page: I've submitted the article for peer review. No one has responded yet. Anomie 19:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it as a good sign. There are no obvious faults, ergo nothing for the reviewers to point out. With that in mind, go for GA.--Anss123 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

The peer review has closed with minimal comments, but the article has greatly improved anyway. If anyone has comments relevant to the featured article nomination I plan to make when the GAC passes, feel free to mention them now to save time later. Anomie 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I passed the article. It seems good enough for you to nominate it for FA status. FunPika 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It will now undergo a complete formal GAC review OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to review it, go ahead. Be sure to drop a link here so I know about it. But I see no validity to your demoting the article with the only justification being "I don't like the original reviewer." Anomie 11:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was demoted? I don't see any evidence of that. It was and still is a Good Article, according to this Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited didn't even actually demote it properly, they just reverted the whole GA on this page. I put it back, with the note that if they want a GA review they can follow the procedure for requesting one. Of course, I'm hoping the FAC will pass and we won't have to deal with any of that. Anomie 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Okay. I was under the impression that it had already gone through a formal GAC review and had been passed some time ago, so it would seem inappropriate to demote it and re-review it the way it had been done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination

Here it goes. Anomie 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job!! It passed! Now, go add that well deserved star :) Xihix 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to you as well, KieferSkunk! Anomie 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was unexpected. Everyone add this article to your watchlist for August 2! Anomie 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for going from GA Candidate to Today's Featured Article within only two weeks. Epbr123 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone, this brings back memories lol67.167.209.99 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats too all people who helped work on this artile! EvilHom3r 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat and Exclusive Licensing sections

I've been working on some massive copyediting and reorganizing in support of the Featured Article nomination, and Anomie has been very helpful in making suggestions to help the article flow better. So far, I've just tackled the lead and History sections, but I wanted to open up discussion on a couple sections: "Mortal Kombat" and "The end of exclusive licensing".

I think that both of these sections have much more to do with Nintendo's history as a company rather than the SNES's history as a console. Mortal Kombat wasn't anything groundbreaking with respect to the SNES hardware - it was just a source of controversy since the game was very bloody and, at the time, Nintendo wouldn't allow the blood and gore on their console. It could just as easily have been the N64 or the GameBoy or any other console that this happened on - it just happened to be the SNES. I think that this information really should be mentioned both on the Mortal Kombat page and in the history section for Nintendo itself, but not here. It was a very significant event in video game history - it just doesn't really have to do with the SNES itself.

The same goes for "The end of exclusive licensing" - this has to do with Nintendo's policy decisions, and this particular event also occurred during the SNES timeframe. But it wasn't really a result of the SNES - again, this could just as easily have happened with any other console. It would make more sense to put this in Nintendo's history, so that this article can stay focused on the SNES. Otherwise, I'd suggest that we refocus the paragraph so that it discusses the impacts that this had on Nintendo's marketing and sales of the SNES.

Discussion? :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not as big a deal now - the current layout works better than I'd expected. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

I'm surprised the level of sourcing in this article passed WP:FAC. The references are incomplete (see WP:CITE/ES); I started to complete them in advance of the mainpage date, but I'm finding that most of the sources used don't seem to rise to the level required of WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have specifics, I will entertain them. Random generalities are not helpful. Regarding the edits you made:

• For references to a corporate website, you changed the corporation from "author" to "publisher". There is nothing on WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES that gives guidance on how to cite a work of corporate authorship.
• For the "personal" website, you set the publisher to point to the website. Isn't that a bit redundant? I see nothing on WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES that states this should be done either.
• Regarding the personal website, did you do more than look at the URL? The website lists numerous references to WP:RS sources:[6]
  • The Sega sales figures are referenced there to the following:
    1. Microprocessor Report, May 30, 1995, Volume 9, Number 7.
    2. Game Over, by David Sheff, 1993. p. 352
    3. New York Times, April 26, 1990. p. C1
    4. Popular Mechanics, February 1990, Volume 167, Number 2. p. 86
    5. 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide p. 64
  • The SNES release date is referenced to the following:
    1. Microprocessor Report, May 30, 1995, Volume 9, Number 7.
    2. New York Times, September 18, 1991. p. D1
    3. Nintendo Power, November 2001, Volume 150. p. 40
    4. 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide pp. 56,62
    5. Nintendo Power, August 2006, Volume 206. p. 94
    6. Game Over, by David Sheff, 1993. p. 362
    7. GamePro, May 2005, Issue 200. p. 37
    8. PSM, July 2006, Volume 10, Number 7, Issue 112. p. 76

I'm finding it difficult to assume you really want to help improve this article instead of just complain about it based on your comments here and on your user talk page.

Also, Epbr123, if you thought so badly of it why didn't you say more on the FAC? If you (or OhanaUnited) saw problems with the GA, why didn't either of you give any details? Anomie 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just meant that it passed too quickly for enough people to review. Epbr123 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just over two weeks was too quickly for people to review it? Especially since I posted it to both WikiProject Video Games and WikiProject Nintendo on the third day to solicit reviews from editors likely to be interested? Anomie 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does not seem to rely on reliable sources; it received a scanty review at WP:FAC, and it appears that no reviewer bothered to check the sourcing. I don't have time to work on this many references before the mainpage date; perhaps if you all dig in, you can make it. There's a list of reliable sources just above this, which gives a good starting place in a library, so you can avoid using personal websites and webforums. I'll check back in after three months to see if the referencing has improved, or if a featured article review is warranted at that time. Good luck on the main page, 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I ran through 11 upcoming mainpage articles tonight to check for MOS and referencing issues, and this was the only one that gave me pause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, although I see you performed many more edits on some of them. Anomie 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference to question, then QUESTION it already. I've had discussion with others on the references that I considered questionable, and after discussion I've determined that all the references are being used appropriately for their reliability. Here is a list of all the unique sources, which ones do you question and why?

1. Nintendo's website. How is this not reliable?
2. Game Over, a book published by Random House.
3. The Ultimate History of Video Games, a book published by Prima Publishing.
4. eurogamer.net. Looks like a gaming news website, and it's used as a source on at least three other FAs.
5. 1up.com. Looks like a news website, and it's used as a source on at least three other FAs.
6. Discount Store News. Looks like an industry news source for video game sellers. Sounds reliable to me when talking about trends in console sales.
7. PC World. A well known magazine. Sounds reliable.
8. GameSpot. A well known gaming magazine. Sounds reliable.
9. Old-computers.com. Perhaps not so well-known, but it's linked to from many of Wikipedia's articles on old computers.[7] 122 mainspace links, and at least one FA, not counting this article. The fact it's being used to support is not particularly controversial, and the fact itself seems to be something that hardly anyone cared enough about to publish at the time.
10. Nintendo Land. Ok, this one is probably not the most reliable of sources for hard facts. However, it's being used to cite the facts that "Some consider the SNES to embody the 'Golden Age of video games'" and "Others question this romanticism" by citing two editorials on the site. Seems appropriate for the use.
11. IGN. Again, a well-known gaming news source.
12. Sam Pettus's work. Mr. Pettus (also known as The Scribe) appears to have been a well-known and well-respected writer in the field of console emulation up until his disappearance in 2000.
13. Snes9x's documentation. Written by the developers of Snes9x, which is one of the two most well-known emulators for the console. To develop such a product, they must have some clue of what they write, and this I believe establishes them as experts.
14. ZSNES's documentation. Written by the developers of ZSNES, which is one of the two most well-known emulators for the console. To develop such a product, they must have some clue of what they write, and this I believe establishes them as experts.
15. Snes9x's development forum. Forums are normally not allowed as secondary sources. However, the forum at the time was moderated by expert and active moderators and contained discussion among many of the experts in the field at the time, which is listed as one of the possible exceptions to the "no forums" policy at WP:RS/EX. Also, FWIW, it's being used as a primary source.
16. The bsnes development thread. As above.
17. Romhacking.net. A site with information created by and intended for experts in the field. Two other editors on the talk page agreed with this assessment, one of whom I know to have good judgment of reliable sources.
18. Various minor SNES emulators. As these are being used as primary sources to support the fact that an emulator for their platform exists, I think they are reliable enough for their purpose. Or do you really think they are all hoax sites?
19. The Super NES FAQ on Gamers Graveyard. Used to support three minor facts that are hardly controversial, and the information in the document correlates well with other sources.
20. Mark Knibbs's modding docs. The information these are being used to cite is again rather uncontroversial. Given the level of technical detail in those docs and how it correlates with other SNES information available, Mr. Knibbs seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to the mods he describes.
21. Advanced Media Network. Looks to be another gaming news source.
22. Only a Game. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
23. John Honniball. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
24. Phil at Shamoozal Nerdlog. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
25. NGEB. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
26. Gamers Graveyard's list of peripherals. Used to support the existence of various peripherals, most with photographic evidence.
27. Gamers Graveyard's Super Game Boy page. This is used to support an uncontroversial statement of the capabilities of the unit, and it correlates well with other sources on the subject.
28. RED #9's list of backup units. Used to support the existence of various units, most with photographic evidence.
29. N-Sider.com. A news source for information on Nintendo.
30. Overload. An expert in the field of SNES emulation, particularly the enhancement chips.
31. Nach. An expert in the field of SNES emulation.
32. Ken Polsson. As above, he cites his own list of over 1000 reliable sources. My library doesn't have any of the ones mentioned above which makes it a little hard for me to go use them directly, but I don't see anything in the policy that disallows use of tertiary sources.
33. GamePro.com. Another fairly well-known gaming news source.
34. Two forums discussing the pronunciation of "SNES". As this is a potentially contentious use of sources, I asked about it at WP:RS/N#"How do you pronounce SNES?". Once others understood exactly what was being done here, there was no objection.

Again, I question whether you actually want to improve this article or if you are just trying to prove some sort of point. You seem to be digging for an excuse to take this to FAR. Why? I've asked you once already to provide specific criticisms, but instead again you just whine about "bad sources" and don't do a single thing to help fix anything. I, on the other hand, have addressed every one of the specific issues you raised, including adding publishers to every reference where a "publisher" makes sense. Anomie 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking back in to see if there's been any progress; Anomie, your combative responses don't inspire me to help on this article. The other articles had issues that were easily fixed prior to their main page dates (one required more work, but its main author left Wiki, so someone had to do the work). I can't replace your sources with reliable sources easily; that would require a trip to the library to research the article. If you want me to help with further review of your sources, I'll do so if there is a cooperative environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have stated that you see problems with the sourcing in the article, but you will not even specify which sources you have a problem with, besides the Ken Polsson site which is clearly a reliable tertiary source—show me the policy that says reliable tertiary sources are not allowed. I can't "fix" anything if you won't even tell me what in your opinion is broken. I would welcome it if you would engage in a discussion as to which specific sources you believe are not reliable enough for their use for which specific reasons. But if you want to simply continue complaining without offering any bit of information that could be useful towards addressing your concerns, then we aren't going to make any progress here and you may as well go list it at FAR now. Anomie 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently promoted articles are not listed at FAR; three months is the typical waiting period, so you have plenty of time to address the concerns. If you want to address them prior to mainpage date, and want to lower the heat here, I'll be glad to help; I'm not following why you're being so aggressive, but perhaps it's related to the GAC and other complaints. I'll be glad to help you prepare for mainpage if you're interested in a collaborative tone. For starters, a personal website is not a reliable source, and should not be used to cite any text. If the personal website cites other reliable sources, then you can locate those sources, verify that the personal website reports them correctly, and use the original (reliable) sources as your citations, once you've verified them. (Also doublecheck that the pesonal website is not violating copyright by including copyrighted material, in which case we can't link to it period, per WP:EL.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal webpages fall under the general category of "self-published sources". Self-published sources are acceptable as primary sources in many circumstances (the hard part is finding cases where this is relevant to the topic, which has been done here), and as secondary or tertiary sources in limited circumstances. Those limited circumstances include the case where the self-publisher is an expert in the field and the material is uncontroversial, which seems to apply to all of the uses of self-published secondary sources here. Also note that you will have to consider the intent rather than the letter of the policies, as in some of the fields we consider here (particularly emulation and modding) are meritocracies: the method of "peer review" is to self-publish somewhere and announce it to the respected peers for endorsement; and the method of becoming a "respected peer" is to provide information that is endorsed.

If you'll recall, we did have one "secondary sources only!" person in the FAC, and after discussion that person realized that the sources here that might be questionable were being used in a manner acceptable to their scope. I think you may be in the same position, "No personal webpages evar!" without looking at the actual circumstances of the case.

As for the Ken Polsson site, you have yet to point out any policy that says a source that itself cites many reliable sources is unacceptable as a tertiary source. Keep in mind that much of WP:V and WP:RS consider only secondary sources, and not primary or tertiary sources. Yes, it would be nice to follow the references and use one of the secondary sources directly, but unless someone who has access to these sources decides to help us out we will have to make due with the tertiary source.

Further, I suspect you still haven't actually looked at the site, based on this bogus mention of "including copyrighted material"; if you actually saw any copyrighted material you would say so, and if you didn't you wouldn't be suggesting a double-check. I would like to address any actual issues, but I'm quickly reaching the conclusion that your purpose here is just to promote some sort of point instead of to actually improve this article. Anomie 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If the text in the lead is Japanese, {{Contains Japanese text}} should be added below the infobox in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Should it? I don't see any mention of that template in any of the guidelines or policies. I don't even see any usage information on the template or its talk page. Anomie 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright, are you interested in collaborative help or not? Is the text or is it not Japanese? I can add the template myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why one bit of text calls for a large template, when there is no style guideline even suggesting such a template. It seems like it's something that's your personal preference, and I don't see why your personal preference should outweigh anyone else's. Anomie 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat and SNES vs. Genesis sales

There is a reason we have sources. Both Kent's The Ultimate History of Video Games and the 1UP.com article directly attribute the success of the Genesis version of Mortal Kombat to two factors:

1. The SNES version had grey "sweat", while the Genesis version had red blood when a widely-known code was entered at the title screen.
2. The SNES version removed some of the more gruesome fatalities, while the Genesis version retained them. I am unsure whether it always retained them, or only with the above mentioned code.

Anyone can verify the information in the 1UP.com source. Kent may be at your local library; if I get time I may stop by my local library and post an excerpt here.

Unsourced speculation like this is original research and should be reverted on sight. Anomie 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Now back to my wikibreak...

Sources needing verification as WP:RS

A preliminary (first pass) look at sources used in this article that don't appear to meet WP:RS:

• http://www.romhacking.net/
• http://yoyofr92.free.fr/
• http://www.cs.utah.edu/~tew/
• http://www.gifford.co.uk/~coredump/
• http://www.shamoozal.com/nerdlog/
• http://www.emucamp.com/about.shtml
• http://users.tpg.com.au/advlink/dsp/
• http://nsrt.edgeemu.com/forum/portal.php
• http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

SNES Zelda 3 pack-in

Am I the only one who ever got the Super Nintendo with The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past as the pack-in game, instead of Super Mario World? There's no mention of it in this article, and Internet searches provide few details. I can't recall when the package was released, but I know I got it for Christmas one year, and I got the official player's guide from Nintendo Power at the same time. Anyone else remember anything about it? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember something about that. If it DID exist, I'm postive it was advertised in Nintendo Power around that time, so if anyone has issues from then they are willing to look through... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it was released with ALttP as a pack-in at some point. There were also pack-ins with a number of other games over the console's lifetime. It's not mentioned in the article because it's not particularly relevant to list every game the console was ever packed with. Anomie 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Zelda game came with SNES consoles that were sold with one controller (but I need to do more research to look it up). I remember this because my brother got his machine when it was still the first design (and got a copy of Zelda) and I got mine with the new design towards the end of it's NA run and it was imprinted on the box (which I still have) that it came with the machine if you purchased the version with a single controller. If it is the case that this was a common practice, then maybe it should be included in the article (mentioned as part of a sentence which describes that the machine came with Super Mario World), but I'll have to do some research in my down time to verify if it is noteworthy. ^{talk to}SailorAlphaCentauri 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds logical. I do seem to recall only having one controller. I think I still have the box for my system around somewhere... or, at least, I did for a long while after I got it. I'd have to look for it. And good luck with your research. When I did some online a while back, the best I could find was an auction on eBay. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the redesign came with Yoshi's Island, the single controller w/ ZLttP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.233.83 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Verb tense

I would suggest that the opening statement, "The Super Nintendo Entertainment System . . . is a 16-bit video game console" should be changed to "The Super Nintendo Entertainment System . . . was a 16-bit video game console produced from 1990-93". Now before anyone goes jumping up and down screaming, "But the Super NES still exists, I still love playing with mine!", let me point out some things. There are still people (like me) who also continue to take beautiful pictures with their AE-1s, and even some people (like my mother) having their Ramblers washed and waxed regularly. These products have been out of production for quite a while, however, and several generations of replacement models have come and gone. That is why, in those articles, the past tense is used (please check the links yourself). I was struck by the awkwardness of this article's opening when it came up on FA today, and feel that it simply reads more sensibly in the past tense, as we are now several generations past this system. If you disagree, please provide some thoughtful reasons, other than the fact that these are still being played with. I just don't think that that's reason enough. Unschool 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that just because something is a durable good does not mean that we cannot refer to it in the past tense. After it has ceased being "current", for lack of a better term, while we might refer to one's personal possession in the present, the model itself fades into past usage.Unschool 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now seen this verb tense change a couple of times in the last day or two, so I thought I'd add my two cents. While technically the SNES still is a 16-bit console, it's not still being produced from 1990-93, as mentioned in the opening statement. And it still is Nintendo's 2nd home console. However, due to the stoppage in manufacturing and the fact that we'll never know when all the SNES's in the world have ceased functioning (mine is still going), we should use the past tense of was. Useight 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The '90-93 part refers to the range of release dates in different regions. However, most articles that refer to things that still exist (whether they're being produced or not) use present-tense. For instance, The Red Green Show is a Canadian comedy show - even though it's no longer in production, the show is still around. But Gilbert and Sullivan were play writers - they no longer exist, and thus cannot be referred to in present tense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-considered comments, Kiefer. Allow me to respond (and this may not be smooth—I'm still thinking this out). Your assertion, Kiefer, that "most" articles referring to things that still exist use present-tense, would, I suspect, be a difficult thing to support factually—not because it's necessarily wrong, but because no one has time to pull up the plethora of articles that would need to be examined. Be that as it may, I would further assert that there is likely a difference in the way most editors treat physical commercial goods from the way they treat works of art. Works of art, be they paintings or sculptures or stage plays or books, are unique items. Automobiles and video games and cameras and washing machines are mass-produced. I'm not saying I know why we treat these two categories of items differently, it is just my observation that we do. When I read this article using the present tense, it simply struck me as wrong, or at least very odd. I'm still formulating in my mind why, but when I read it, I immediately looked up a few other items (as cited in my original talk page entry) and found that they also used the past tense, despite the clear continued existence of the items concerned. I think that the Super NES is closer to the AE-1 than it is to The Red Green Show. That is merely my opinion, of course. But it is the opinion of a great many editors that the past tense is more appropriate for many of these items which are no longer in production. Unschool 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Solution: SNES was a game system sold by Nintendo. SNES is is a game console formerly sold by Nintendo. Then again, if you look at old cars, you wouldn't say the Chevrolet Nova is a car formerly made by Chevrolet.--Loodog 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to Unschool: I think what you're saying is that we need to distinguish between the model (the design and manufacture of the SNES) vs. physical units. You're saying that because the SNES is no longer being made, it makes sense to refer to the SNES model in past tense, even though SNES units are still around and in use today. Comparing the SNES to the Chevy Nova (as Loodog did) makes for a good argument in that light. In my opinion, though, it makes just as much sense to refer to the Chevy Nova as a car that still exists, but is no longer being made - just like the SNES. It exists, people still use it, etc., but you'd still refer to its manufacture, advertising, etc. in past-tense since it's not in production anymore. Mixing tense can be tricky, but I think it makes more sense to refer to the SNES itself in present-tense and anything relating to its commercial period in past-tense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I remain uncertain. As I indicated, most of the articles that I looked at made statements such as this one from the AMC Pacer: "Designed to appear futuristic, the shape was highly rounded with a huge glass area, and very unusual for its time. The Pacer was unusually wide for a small car". [Emphasis added by me, of course.] This style of writing appears ubiquitous to me, that is, when looking at mass produced items that are no longer made, writers use the past tense, despite the fact that there are clearly some Pacers (and Gremlins and Ramblers and Novas) still out there. The only time I would consider it natural to talk in the present tense about the AMC Pacer would be if I owned one today and was talking about my particular car. I'm not absolutely committed to this position, but it's what sounds right to me. I'd like to hear some more opinions, and see some more examples. Unschool 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with KieferSkunk, in that statements of fact about the SNES should use the present tense, while statements about events in the past should use past tense. This does seem to be the general case with console articles: for example, NES, Mega Drive, and Nintendo 64 all use "is" in the first sentence of the lead. Anomie 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That it is true of other consoles is not a fact to be ignored, but neither is it conclusive. A question: If we continue to use the present, for how long do we use it? Until the last console stops working? If, twenty-five years from now, it is confirmed that there are only 28 of these consoles, and only one is in operating condition, will we still use the present tense? What if none of them are working? What if they've all been thrown away? What is it that will define the "end" of the present tense—that the game is no longer being used, that copies of it no longer exist, or just that it's no longer remembered? Perhaps we should change the verb tense in this game's article to the present tense? It just seems to me that, since the game is no longer being produced, no longer being marketed by its manufacturer, no longer being retailed by first-run stores, no longer receiving technical support for its owners, that the time has come for the past tense. But hey, if you guys want this to be in the present tense until the last person who ever played the game has assumed room temperature, so be it.Unschool 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of seeing this argument being repeated over and over. Hopefully WikiProject Video games can reach a real consensus. Anomie 12:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sick of seeing this argument being repeated over and over? I thought that the above discussion was a model of civility and thoughtfulness. And I felt that there was a minimum of repetition. In my last post I posed many serious questions that need to be answered before making a decision. As there was no reply for over two months, it seemed that the discussion was successful in making some people reconsider their positions.

Sure, I'm in favor of bringing this issue to a forum where a universal decision can be reached. That's only logical, given the desire for the whole encyclopedia to follow similar rules of style. But I see no reason to trash the intelligent discussion that was carried on on this page. Unschool 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Unschool - I thought this discussion was going quite well. I think Anomie might be referring to recent edits where the tense is still changing despite this conversation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You got it, KieferSkunk, both here and at NES. I didn't mean to imply that this discussion was not reasonable, it just ended two months ago with no consensus and the edits still go back and forth with no end in sight. Anomie 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As we all know, sometimes a person's tone is hard to detect or easy to misread. Let us all bow our heads and give thanks for WP:AGF. Unschool 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Anomie, thanks for bringing this discussion over to that project page. Unschool 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is a video game console. It doesn't make sense to imply that it is no longer a video game console, because it still is. The only past tense would be saying "the SNES is a video game console which was once in production." - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read and considered the arguments? There are far more automobiles, electronic goods, and other consumer items with Wikipedia articles that use the past tense, despite the fact that thousands of copies of these objects are still in existence and being used. There's no implication that the products no longer exist, it's simply normal convention amongst most English speakers to refer to such things in the past tense, unless of course they're referring to their own personal copy. Most people say that the Galaxiewas a Ford -produced car, even though there are hundreds—maybe thousands—still on the road. This is how typical people speak of computers, clothing, and other mass-produced consumer goods. I wouldn't say "Neckties produced in the 1970s are incredibly wide", even if I still harbor some in my closet. We speak of such things in the past, even though they still exist. Before you come to any final conclusion of how you feel about this, go to the link that User:Anomie has above. Read it, and put your 2¢ in. Unschool 02:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read them. I don't agree with them, and I don't agree with either using past tense for cars or using the fact that they use past tense to validate using past tense in this case. And in the case of the SNES, it should not be past tense in no case - SNES exists as a video game console, a current one, because of the Virtual Console. In all intents, SNES games are still being produced through the VC. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I'd like to point out that just because most people use the past tense in the way Unschool described does not mean it's grammatically or linguistically correct to do so. You're referring to vernacular phrasing, which usually has no sway on how encyclopedic content is to be presented. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point, KieferSkunk, is of course correct and goes without saying. The question, then, is: Is the usage that I've been supporting merely a colloquialism, or is it proper? I honestly don't know. Accordingly, I have asked for some input on the matter. I will happily yield if I learn that I am mistaken—which indeed, may well be the case. Unschool 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting—for the moment—an edit from User:Wgungfu pending the outcome of our discussion. Below is the explanation that I left on his talk page:

Wgungfu,

I appreciate your attempt to cut to the heart of the matter over on Super Nintendo Entertainment System, but I'm going to revert you for two reasons.

1. First of all, there is an ongoing discussion on the subject of verb tense which is both civil and productive. There is a great liklihood that when the dust settles, we will in fact apply the change that you have made. But for now, you have inadvertently injected a bit of fuel in an area that was already a bit hot.
2. Secondly, if you go back and re-read the intent of WP:OBVIOUS, I believe you will see that you have misinterpreted the intent of the policy. It is actually intended to push editors towards including factual material on a subject with which they are well-acquainted, but which the reader of the article may not be familiar. It has nothing to do with points of contention between editors. Indeed, given that there is currently an editing issue under discussion, some editors might interpret your use of the term "obvious" as bit of an insult, with the implication that others are too stupid to see what you alone recognize as "obvious".

Anyway, please feel free to engage in the discussion, both at this page and at the project page. While your mind probably won't be changed, you'll at least see that there are some valid reasons out there for the other point of view. Cheers. Unschool 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to leave word here. I've reverted to the present tense, per the well-considered consensus reached at WikiProject Video games. Unschool 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That was surprisingly fast

I was under the impression that it took weeks and months from FA promotion status to being featured on the Main Page (the only other huge exception was George Washington (inventor)). hbdragon88 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So was I! And as far as I know, no one even nominated it. I suppose Raul just decided it would make a good front page article. Anomie 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest console war in history"

Has the war of PS3/Wii/360 surpassed the SNES/Mega Drive war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.134.143 (talk) 17:30, August 4, 2007 (UTC)

You have the quote wrong, BTW. It's "the fiercest console war in video game history". If you can suggest a phrasing that makes it clearer that subsequent console wars may have been fiercer without sounding awkward or losing the impact of the statement, you're a better writer that I. Simply adding "to that date" IMO sounds awful. Anomie 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the current generation of consoles is in as fierce a war, but IP has a point: "Fiercest war" is a rather POV statement, regardless of what sources might back it up. I think we should limit it to "The rivalry between Nintendo and Sega sparked a fierce advertising war...", such that we leave the door open for other "fierce" wars as well, and that we don't try to put undue weight on this particular one. It was significant, yes, but I'm not sure that the phrasing is solid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Can somebody explain how the apparently 8:7 aspect ratio resolution of the SNES is scaled to the standard 4:3 (640 x 480) format of a normal TV? Does the TV do this automatically or is there some sort of analog chip inside the SNES that handles it?--SkiDragon 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rendering resolution inside the game console is generally not tied to the display - the SNES converts its internal graphics into a video signal that, depending on the type of cable being used, can be displayed via composite, S-Video or RF standards. They all comply with NTSC or PAL. If the aspect ratios don't match exactly, then some stretching will go on in the signal conversion. Beyond that, I don't have any specific technical insight here.

BTW, NTSC and PAL don't explicitly deal with horizontal or vertical resolution, though you can find technical details on the number of vertical scanlines for each standard. NTSC uses 480 out of 525 vertical scanlines, but since it's an analog signal, there is no specified standard for horizontal resolution. PAL has a higher vertical resolution, but otherwise works much the same. Therefore, so long as the SNES's output conforms to the appropriate standard for its region, the aspect ratio is somewhat moot. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly how an NTSC signal works, but I am assuming that each line is updated in a specific period of time, and however the signal varies during this time determines the color and brightness of the pixels on the line (640 across, right? or does it matter?). But the vertical resolution should still have to match up, right?--SkiDragon 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The TV has no concept of pixels. As the 3 electron beams move across the screen, their intensity can be changed at (almost) any time, so you can have 256 pixels in one line, or 255 or 254 or 253 and so on. You just need to change the signal at the right time. Of course there's a certain upper limit, determined on the one hand by the screen size and the used frequencies, and on the other hand by the signal-generating hardware. The SNES is only fast enough to change the signal 256 times per line, so that's what you see on the screen. And of course the "pixels" are not rectangular, i.e. they're also 4:3. 84.182.102.212 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NTSC has 448 scanlines in interlaced mode NTSC has 224 scanlines in noninterlaced mode horizontal resolutions don't really exist on analog tv sets. It just depends on how fast the device plugged into your tv changes the color(pixil) on one scanline. Your Snes changes pixels 256 times in one scanline, so that is it's resolution. Snes does have a 448x512 mode where it is interlaced and changes pixils 512 times in one scanline instead, but it was very rarely used because it limited background layers and colors and sprites appear very tiny. This mode was so very rarely used that even most of the hardcore snes fans never even seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.83 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Satellaview

Hi. I've tried several times to replace the "Satellaview with Super Famicom" with an image that doesn't have unnecessary blurring, but, everytime I upload and post a new image, Wikipedia keeps reverting it back. This is really aggravating. I've uploaded my own images, images from other websites, and other methods, all with citing when available.

Why can't I post a better image without unfounded copyright threats thrown at me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotAndrews (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the image, as I see it, is that the current image (Image:Satellaview with SuperFamicom.jpg) is improperly labeled as Free/Public Domain. Unless the person who uploaded the image is the copyright holder of the Satellaview peripheral (highly unlikely), the copyright tag is incorrect - Satellaview is VERY likely still copyrighted to Nintendo and/or the product's producing company, and thus any images of it are similarly copyrighted and not free, even if you took the photo of the product yourself. Thus, an appropriate non-free license template should be used, and a fair-use rationale for the image should be provided as well. (This also means the image can't be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, as that is only for free/public-domain images.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If you can speak Japanese, you can go ask PiaCarrot, Hr, and Muband about the origins and copyright status of Image:Satellaview with SuperFamicom.jpg. But it's not "Free/Public Domain" at all, it's GFDL, and especially since all the logos have been removed or blurred out I have no idea where you're coming up with these weird copyright claims. Are you similarly doubting the status of the rest of the images in the article? And how did Wii pass FA with all those similar images? Anomie 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese. But that aside, the Wii image is similarly misused and should probably be tagged for deletion with an incorrect copyright. The uploader of the image does not have the power to override Nintendo's copyright on the Wii or any of its promotional images, and the same is true of Satellaview. If you can find an official publication stating otherwise, I'll consider myself corrected. But a promotional image of the Wii, or of the Satellaview, or the SNES, or any other copyrighted object, is in the same class as a screenshot of a copyrighted game, and those do not qualify for free, GFDL, public-domain, etc. copyright tags. They are not free, and they shouldn't be labeled as such. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you do that, so I can watch the discussion. Anomie 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the images you've uploaded is that you haven't specified the source or the copyright status of the images. To cover the source, you have to specifically state on the image page where the image came from. If you took the picture yourself, say so. If you scanned it from a magazine or something, specify the magazine down to the issue and page number. If you downloaded it from somewhere, be sure to include the link to the page you got it from. To cover the copyright status, you'll probably find a templates on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that describes it. Both of these are required by Wikipedia, and if you do not supply them your image will be deleted. If the copyright is "non-free", you will also have to provide a fair-use rationale for the use of the image in any article you want to use it in.

Also, note that Wikipedia's policy is that a "free" image is preferred over a "non-free" image, no matter if the non-free image is of better quality. Since we have a free image for the Satellaview (even if it is blurry), any image you supply will also have to be under a free license.

If you want to post the source information for your image Image:SatellaviewwithSuperFamicom.jpg, I will help you satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as much as possible. Anomie 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slogan

I don't see how just one of the console's marketing slogans[8] is relevant, especially in the lead section (as opposed to a section about the marketing, which we don't have as it is not particularly interesting (as opposed to Sega's attack campaign, which is relevant to the Mega Drive)). I'm bringing the question here for discussion per WP:1RR, as the anon who added it apparently doesn't subscribe to WP:BRD. Anomie 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Satellaview_with_SuperFamicom.jpg

Why is the "BS-X" in "Satellaview_with_SuperFamicom.jpg" blurred out? There are no legal issues related to the showing of the BS-X logo, and, if anything, it confuses readers.

Since the editors feel the need to reset any and all changes, is there a way to add a better "Satellaview_with_SuperFamicom.jpg" that doesn't needlessly blur out portions of the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotAndrews (talk • contribs) 17:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

If you can speak Japanese, you can go ask PiaCarrot, Hr, and Muband why they blurred out the logo; I suspect there were concerns that the logo's copyright would make the image non-free. As for my reverting your additions of the image, I will repeat what I told you last time:

The problem with the images you've uploaded is that you haven't specified the source or the copyright status of the images. To cover the source, you have to specifically state on the image page where the image came from. If you took the picture yourself, say so. If you scanned it from a magazine or something, specify the magazine down to the issue and page number. If you downloaded it from somewhere, be sure to include the link to the page you got it from. To cover the copyright status, you'll probably find a template on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that describes it. Both of these are required by Wikipedia, and if you do not supply them your image will be deleted. If the copyright status is "non-free", you will also have to provide a fair-use rationale for the use of the image in any article you want to use it in.
Also, note that Wikipedia's policy is that a "free" image is preferred over a "non-free" image, no matter if the non-free image is of better quality. Since we have a free image for the Satellaview (even if it is blurry), any image you supply will also have to be under a free license.
If you want to post the source information for your image, I will help you satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as much as possible. Anomie 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I personally would prefer an image of the Satellaview "in action" rather than it sitting in a box. Anomie 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Code

Some SNES carts with large amounts of dialogue, such as the RPGS, had single bytes in the tables representing entire words or parts of words, as opposed to just a single letter. Chrono Trigger's table is composed entirely of this, it has no simple alphabet programmed (http://www.snakeyes.org/tbl/files/chronotbl.txt). From what I have seen in NES roms, this looks like a something new they used to save space. It's probably quite common now, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.194.1 (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple alphabet in there, see A0-D3. It's not particularly new or interesting, FF1 for example did the same sort of thing. Anomie 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bus-B takes me where?

hey anomie, I'm a bit confused about the Bus-B stuff. If the V-ram is around 64k big than how can this DMA stuff work with an 8-bit bus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.83 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do note this page is for discussing improvement to the article itself, and not for general questions about the console. The Wikipedia:Reference desk exists for asking general questions. That said, VRAM isn't accessed by the program directly. Instead the starting address is set in the "VRAM Address" register and then the data is written byte-by-byte to the "VRAM Data Write" register. The 8-bit Bus-B is sufficient to address this "VRAM Data Write" register as well as several other registers. Anomie⚔ 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Super NES vs. Super Famicom vs. Super Nintendo

Apart from the article using those terms interchangeably, there seems to be no mention of the marketing names used in Nintendo's marketing. I believe the SNES was known as the "Super Nintendo" in most of Europe, and Super NES in the North Americas (where the NES was already a household name). The US site mentions the SNES (or Super NES), the UK site the Super Nintendo. Anyone with more details? Bastien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.126.240 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Famicom was the name in Japan; the article should use that name when discussing the console in relation to Japan. Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Super NES were both used as official names of the console and may be used interchangeably, and should be used here when discussing the console world-wide or in relation to English-speaking countries. SNES is an acceptable abbreviation for use in tables and such, but should probably not be used in running text in the article. Nintendo required that they approve of all games to be released, and referring to the console as "Super Nintendo" is reliably said to have been one of the things that would lead to non-approval; I don't know why nintendo.co.uk would use that name, but I would avoid it in this article outside of the lead. The lead mentions all five of these names and the wording suggests the differentiation between "Super Nintendo Entertainment System"/"Super NES" and "Super Nintendo" (it's not important enough to state the difference explicitly, especially considering your nintendo.co.uk example); I don't know what marketing names you are referring to. Anomie⚔ 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Living in Europe when the SNES was released, I've never seen it being called "Super NES" except in specialist publications (ie. gaming magazines). So I'm lead to believe that Nintendo itself referred to it as "Super Nintendo" in Europe. Bastien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.126.240 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Many (most?) people called it "Super Nintendo", just as many people called the predecessor "Nintendo" rather than "Nintendo Entertainment System" or "NES". That doesn't make either "Super Nintendo" or "Nintendo" an official name for the machines, and both of these are mentioned prominently in the respective articles. If you have evidence of actual Nintendo advertisements (as opposed to stores' advertisements) using "Super Nintendo", I would be interested in seeing it. Anomie⚔ 13:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything official either, but I do remember seeing an ad for a SNES game way back when where the commercial concluded with "Only on Super Nintendo". It's been too long and I don't remember the game or the company that made it at this point, but I do recall that the term was used in the States at least once with respect to advertising. I may be able to dig up a little more info. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)