Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Super Nintendo Entertainment System is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 C-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: 13:25, July 24, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Electronics (Rated B-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
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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. (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

As far as I concerned, the IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the release date to August 19, 1991 according to Nintendo Life's feature on "20 Years of the Super NES". Thoughts? -- Hounder4 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Change it back. Primary sources are more reliable in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Changed back to August 19 as @Axem Titanium: suggested. Satisfied? -- Hounder4 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I think you misunderstood. I removed August 19th completely including the Nintendo Life source. They have no primary source to back it up so it sounds like they just made the date up. Since the NES, Nintendo of America has only released home consoles on a Sunday or a Friday. August 13, 1991 is a Tuesday and August 19 is a Monday. It is my opinion that the true release date was August 23 and the other dates are clerical errors repeated by lazy reporters. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium: I understand. You're right about that; I bet we should stick to the August 23 date then. Sorry for the trouble, but I'm not in a mood at a moment. -- Hounder4 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all, it was probably a misunderstanding because you saw my first reply after I had already done the edit myself. Was my bad. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't be brainwashed by his lies Wikipedia says nintendo life is reliable. The 23rd date is completely texted based with no clickable source it's wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As what Axem said, Nintendo Life just made the August 19 date up and has no source to back up. We should stick to the release date, which is August 23, 1991. -- Hounder4 01:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should use Nintendo itself here since they would be the strongest source rargaring the release date for one of their own systems. I also don't see accusations of brainwashing as being helpful not any reason why someone would want to do so to change a release date by four days.-- (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I can't find where that is written I'm not sure if that even appears in that issue. Why does nintendos facebook page have the date as August 19, 1991? Do you reliaze what that guy told you about nintendo life being unreliable was a lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the old "if I'm not right, no one can be right". Classic. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me that the 9th also fell on a Friday. Moreover, did Nintendo Life get the release date from Nintendo of America's Facebook page? If so, this primary source could be useful... but we still don't know where they in turn got this information from: archives, or was it still just made up? ~Mable (chat) 05:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


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

All noted deadlinks from the FAR have been resolved. There are about 9-10 citation needed tags, two of which just got resolved, as well as four unreliable source tags, all of which are for the same site which is being used to source some hardware specification. I'll see if I can find a suitable replacement sources for the unreliables, and check if the CNs aren't covered by existing sources. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
All CN tags addressed, though some aren't flawless. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Although I could have just stood up by placing a simple template tag instead of writing a review against the article's status, I do like how it is cleaned up a lot. I am (at least now) not convinced that a review would be a good alternative when I can just raise issues in the WikiProject Video Game's talk page and place tags on such articles with problems, for that would work in either way. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I caution against relying too heavily on simply tagging articles. In my personal opinion, every major "top of the article" tag you make should be coupled with a talk page section explaining why you tagged and the particulars that caused you to tag. That's my personal view of it, to be clear, not any sort of policy. I myself often remove tags if the tagger did not explain their purpose and a quick scan of the article doesn't convince me the tag is necessary. But even better in my view is to simply fix the problems you see. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the remaing tag can someone plese mention why sources they believe are unreliable?-- (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The unreliable source tags are attached to sources using, where Anomie wrote up some deep technical details. While I believe those sources to be accurate, I'm not sure they would pass WP:RS so I did not remove the tags. -- ferret (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The sources can be reviewed somewhere on wikipedia. I used to know where, it just needs to be taken there so it can get sorted out. That was the source used when this article became an FA. But that's all I can really say.--SexyKick 04:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have requested input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Super Nintendo Entertainment System. DrKay (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not a wp:RS compliant source, and neither is "somewhere on Wikipedia".DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The documents uploaded to by the article author (probably) fall under WP:SELFPUBLISHED —they were uploaded by the author of the article— so they're probably unreliable. Haven't checked it yet, though, just assuming. --TL22 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

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

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

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

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

All dead links repaired or removed. -- ferret (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
All CN tags repaired. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Brazil PAL trivia[edit]

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

Lack of technical specifications in the article[edit]

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

Go back to 2015 and you get a comprehensive technical specification. Somebody deleted it for whatever reason.Anss123 (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It was unreliably sourced and full of jargon, as brought up by a Featured Article Review. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)