Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Super Nintendo Entertainment System is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 2, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
WikiProject Japan (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:48, December 22, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electronics (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Engineering (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

North American release date: August 23, 1991[edit]

We have three basic dates supported by sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Sure there is. The official release date was September 9 (pushed back from September 1). The street date varied by location, but the earliest reliably reported date is August 23. All this is stated in the footnote. Anomie 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean its North American launch games need to find a source that lists August 23? « ₣M₣ » 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I would think if they have sources for being a launch title, they could just cite that and use a footnote like we have here. Anomie 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Handheld SuperNintendo[edit]

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

Is there a source that it's licensed by Nintendo? That thing looks really cool.--SexyKick 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks as though it is unlicensed, but I cannot confirm that. Apparently it plays Super Famicom games as well as games that require the FX chip like Starfox and Donkey Kong.[1]AerobicFox (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

US Region Redesign[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Donkey Kong Country Sales[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest SNES game[edit]

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

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

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

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

Component Video Out[edit]

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

Incorrect Images[edit]

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

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

CaseyPenk's recent edits...[edit]

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

Would anyone be opposed to me reverting this back a few months to when the article was structured more like the version which became an FA? I feel like right now it's just a matter of time before someone hits the FA re-review and there's no one around with the energy to tone it back to the way it was.--SexyKick 02:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneTwo weeks with no one opposed, so I reverted it. I manually put in a couple intermittent edits that applied. I'll look through the history at some point and see if I can't integrate a few more.--SexyKick 20:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Released on a Sunday[edit]

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

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

The cited release date has several sources, as given in the article. Unless you can supply overwhelming evidence of the date you mention, this is unlikely to change. Also, note that the systems you mentioned were all released after the Super Nintendo. Assuming Nintendo do now deliberately release their home consoles exclusively on Sundays (and this is not to say they have; the chances of any 3 isolated events falling on the same weekday is 1/49, or over 2%), this doesn't mean that this was policy when the Super Nintendo was released. Aawood (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to start a debate, I just thought it was instresting fact. I know the date had been debated in the past and even the Auguest 23, 1991, might not be 100% correct. Another thing if you read the section above about the release date, it says it was suppose to be released on September 1, 1991, so i think it's standard for Nintendo to release their consoles on a Sunday, in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
My apologies; as you started a new section, I didn't think to cross-reference against the two year old conversation above. The thread appears to state the "September 1st" date was last used on the page itself almost 10 years ago, and this was an intended released date rather than the actual release date. In any case, the two points still stands; firstly, while your theory may be interesting, you would need to provide sources to confirm this of great overall quality than the sources already used, and secondly, while it does appear (based on your original comment) that Nintendo releases their home consoles on Sunday now, this doesn't necessarily follow that this was always their policy and so isn't itself evidence. If you have sources for your theory, please do bring them here, I for one would be happy to discuss them. Aawood (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I know. like i said before the whole point of this thread is to point out that Nintendo usually releases their consoles on a Sunday. I could care less about the relase date. The fact still stands Nintendo has never confirmed the release date of The Nintendo or The Super Nintendo. (Both are listed as 10/85 and 08/91) Nintendo does, however, have the Offical release date of the Nintedo 64, Gamecube, and Wii as listed above. I think this is something instresting to point out just in case an argument is brought up some time in the furture about the release date.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
So just to get this straight, and please do let me know if I'm wrong about any of the following; you've noticed something about release dates for later Nintendo consoles, so you're mentioning this on the discussion page for an earlier Nintendo console (that you yourself acknowledge does not have an officially confirmed release date), and you have no evidence to show that it actually applies here, but it doesn't matter because you aren't suggesting the article is changed at all at this point, just that we keep your theory on the discussion page in case, at some theoretical future point, there's a debate on the release date and someone really wants an additional, unsourced suggestion to investigate? Aawood (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Current title too precise?[edit]

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

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: I don't think anybody can completely type the whole title. I initially want to request a move, but I realize that I haven't completely researched the title usage yet. I pointed out that three alternative names are more commonly used than the current title. And I'm sure that these titles are not ambiguous or inaccurate, unless they are proven to be per WP:COMMONNAMES. But I just want a discussion first before I can request just one title. --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Super Nintendo isn't precise enough. If the title for some reason needs a change...(I can't see why, honestly) then Super NES would likely be the only one likely to get through a name change discussion.--SexyKick 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
So people's ability to type the whole current name is not enough reason to change the title? Not even name references by sources? George Ho (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Why would that be a problem? If I type either SNES, or Super NES, or even Super Nintendo, they all take me to this article already.--SexyKick 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
We got GameCube scrapping out the brand name. Recent move request was withdrawn due to support on that current title. We got Wii.(too irrelevant) Then again, we got Nintendo 64. NES is currently a redirect. The current title has big numbers, but super nes, super Nintendo, and snes can say otherwise? George Ho (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Best selling packed-in/individual games criteria[edit]

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

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

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

Article issues[edit]

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

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

The Good, the Bad, and the Bogus[edit]

I interlibrary loaned this (apparently scarce) book, The good, the bad, and the bogus: Nathan Lockard's complete guide to video games. It covers SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD reviews, if you'd like a lookup for an obscure title on your to-do list. The linked Google Books page lets you do a search for the book's contents. I'll have it for the next week or so, so let me know if you can use a ref or two. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  22:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Source fixing.[edit]

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

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

Which sources? Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of these changes are just not right. Removing information cited to Kent's book, removing information cited to archived sites (Likely because you couldn't get the site to load on your end I suppose? Try Internet Explorer when that happens, Chrome doesn't seem to work right with that.) and other weird issues. I'm just going to revert this whole hack and slash of the article. There was at least one legitimately dead source. But if there's specific problems with online sources you'd like to bring up, please talk about them here.--SexyKick 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The first bit of [3] seems good to me, and he flagged the unsourced Frogger crap that crept back in, but that's about all that's good. This one is understandable (some JS on the archived page is broken, but if you disable JS the info is there) but the edit summary shows bad faith and a lack of knowledge (and he missed this issue in the next sentence). But edits like this are just "WTF?", and the number of weird copy-paste errors is disturbing. Anomie 13:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The editor is suspected of being an editor who has been making a lot of terrible choices in editing articles in regards to rewriting articles making some really bad choices in wording, sourcing, etc. Even if it's not him, he's made some similar bad calls, so don't hesitate to switch his changes back if it's looking crappy... Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reception?[edit]

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