Talk:Sharp Nintendo Television

Suggested renaming

I believe this article should be renamed to Sharp Nintendo Television. This is the official English translation for the system and it covers both the 14 inch and the 19 inch versions. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to move it to C1 NES TV. This is the least region-specific name and it broadens the article to encompass the 14 inch versions as well. I see little point in having an article on one particular model of this system when the whole group of these systems is equally notable. -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

New renaming

I'm opposed to the new renaming of this article to "C1 (television)" as I don't find any reliable sources that refer to it by this term. According to policy we must use the "common name" for the product. In performing a quick Google-test, I've found the following common usage statistics:

• "C1 NES TV" -wikipedia - 109k hits
• "Sharp Nintendo Television" -wikipedia - 39,900 hits
• "C1 TV" -wikipedia - 46,900 hits (Mostly about the Mongolian C1 Television)
• "C1 Television" -wikipedia - 41,700 hits (Mostly about the Mongolian C1 Television)
• "Sharp C1" -wikipedia - 2,210 hits
• "C1 Famicom TV" -wikipedia - 3 hits
• "My Computer C1 TV" -wikipedia - Zero hits

Furthermore, I notice that reliable sources including kotaku, gamesradar, and technologytell all use the previous term, "C1 NES TV," to describe this product. I think the current title ("C1 (television)") is very similar to C1 Television and is altogether too vague to describe the product. I've asked the editor who performed the page move to provide reliable sources that describe the product simply as "C1". At this point I think the evidence is clear that it should be moved back to its original title ("C1 NES TV"). -Thibbs (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

C1 (television) is quite ambiguous with C1 Television. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I just moved that channel page to (channel) to help a bit, but a better disambiguator than "(television)" would be great, yes. "(television set)" was the only other thing I could think of, but it sounds wrong for some reason.

As for the validity... I have mentioned how important the product and material itself is many times, and have brought Sharp's own practices with similar products (including the C1's successor and the X1 computer) to light. Obviously, the Google results are less than helpful; these English sources decided on a term and there is no force on the planet that can change them. (Of course, Famicom World is a far more reliable source than Kotaku.) Meanwhile, Japanese Google (which is a bit more important here) will use "ファミコンテレビC1" all day, even though it's clear from the long of it that "ファミコンテレビ" is as much of a descriptor as "スーパーファミコンテレビ" and "パソコンテレビ" (never mind that these are ignoring the correct "マイコンピュータテレビ" and "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ"); just look at the material for this stuff.

This should not be moved back to "C1 NES TV"; there are only two names for this product, and one of those is easily the dominant. Facts over "accessibility", at any rate. Despatche (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahem. You just made a very strong argument in favor of naming the article C1 NES TV: these English sources decided on a term and there is no force on the planet that can change them; we do not decide, analyze or discuss what something is called, we use the name that is commonly used in English sources. Thus, thanks for your comment, and I agree with you it should be called C1 NES TV. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty good argument against "C1 NES TV"; there's no basic factchecking done for a simple title. This is extremely prevalent for old tech, where official sources are not so easy to get a hold of. Of course, the same thing happened with Dariusburst ("Darius Burst"), and that was a shiny new product that wasn't the slightest bit vague about its title.

We most certainly do decide, analyze, and discuss a name used in "reliable sources" when official sources (quite a bit more reliable when it comes to naming their own products) tell us that it's completely invalid. No one can make up "official names" for things when they already have valid official names.

...Do I detect some snark? And people said I needed the wikibreak... Despatche (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're making the mistake here of thinking that one's personal interpretations of the typographic presentation on the box art can lead to a satisfactory determination regarding the product's "official" name. If you want to make a claim regarding the official name of a product then you'll have to find a source that states "The official name of this TV is XYZ" or something similar. Pictorial evidence from the aesthetic layout of the words on the box and set itself may perhaps give clues but they aren't determinative of the issue. Reliable sources are. You can find a list of reliable sources (including Kotaku, Gamesradar, and TechnologyTell) here. If you want to try to get Famicom World added to that list then you should make a proposal here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is not concerned with "official names". We are here to reflect what subjects are called in the English-speaking world, and you've demonstrated quite eloquently this subject is overwhelmingly called C1 NES TV in English-speaking sources. Japanese-speaking sources only matter insofar as the titling of the article on the Japanese Wikipedia. "C1 NES TV" is unambiguous and meets all of our titling guidelines. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is. Being able to determine an official name is the whole point of having a guideline for article names at all. You're trying to create some kind of divide between "official names" and "what subjects are called in the English-speaking world", and quite honestly that's just sickening. Aside from this, "C1 NES TV" is incorrect and that is what matters first.

You want punches? Both of you don't understand the nature of bandwagoning, and how "reliable sources" do what they do; both of you don't understand how Wikipedia as a whole does or is supposed to function.

Stuff like this is exactly why those guidelines are simply guidelines, and why we even have an IAR policy. Not that I would dare try to invoke that anywhere, because no one would honor it. Despatche (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Try again. WP:UCN is official Wikipolicy™. The whole point of the policy is to help readers find articles, not to correct the record from the reliable sources with our original research regarding the official title as gleaned from packaging art. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How is a box (a reliable, published source) supposed to be original research? How are appropriate consistency checks somehow original research? I am not speaking of some magical immaterial fact that only I have the proof of, because that proof is all over Google, and it's the only way I could have found any of this in the first place! Despatche (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly having difficulties with WP:RS. Personal interpretations of pictures of boxes found on Google are absolutely nowhere close to reliable. How can you tell what part of the box is the logo, what part is the descriptor, and what part is the official title? It's just your own personal interpretation of the box. I appreciate that you're 100% certain that you're right, but the reliable sources all seem to disagree with you. Personally I'd be inclined to call C1 (or SF1) product codes.

And what part of Wikipedia demands that articles must only use official titles? We're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a tool to correct journalists. Journalists have their own teams of fact-checkers and sources are determined reliable or unreliable based on their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What you're trying to do here is to provide True information that can be used to educate readers beyond the established reliable sources rather than simply helping them to locate the article. That's contrary to policy. We as editors are not supposed to play the role of researchers, interpreters, or RS-correctors. We're supposed to behave like drones and follow the common consensus and the reliable sources. I know it might sound daft but that's how things work around here. We're supposed to reflect the common understanding via trustworthy reliable sources, not come up with our own refreshing version of reality. The reason is because the editorship is only as reliable in its researching as its weakest member. We have children editing here. Elevating Truth above Verifiability is simply unworkable. -Thibbs (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Options

So let's look at what we have so far in terms of possibilities for the title for this article.

1. C1 (television) - A term that User:Despatche alleges to be the official name of the product based on his interpretation of the product's box art. He has offered no concrete evidence of this despite repeated requests to do so.
2. C1 NES TV - The most commonly used term among the Reliable Sources and generally based on a recent Google Test.
3. My Computer C1 TV - A transliteration of the term "マイコンピュータテレビC1" alleged by ja.wiki to be the official name and seemingly used in SPS material like adverts.
4. Sharp Nintendo Television - The English-Language name of the North American release

Of these I favor #2 the most and #4 in the alternative since this product was released in English-speaking countries and should use the English term if anything. Anybody else have any opinions? I'm also thinking of throwing this out to WT:VG for outside view. Would this be a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist? Please, someone help, help. Despatche (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved by User:WikiLeon. Consensus achieved here and subsequent to a 7-day RM request that received no objections. Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

---

C1 (television set) → Sharp Nintendo Television – After weeks of discussion eventually resulting in an RfC, a compromise consensus was reached here (in the collapsed section) to use the term "Sharp Nintendo Television" for this article. It should be noted in the interest of full disclosure that "Sharp Nintendo Television" is not the term most commonly used by the third party English-language reliable sources. The common name of the subject is the original name of this article: "C1 NES TV". However the current compromise is based on the fact that the term "Sharp Nintendo Television" is at least used by a single third party English-language RS whereas the term representing our current article title "C1" (alone) is used by no such source. As both sides of the discussion are in agreement on a new title now ("Sharp Nintendo Television"), we just need an admin to perform the page move. The RfC should remain open until we have come to an agreement regarding whether or not to use the common name in the lede. Thank you. Thibbs (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh also I should note that we had previously agreed to use the Japanese term "Mai Konpyuta Terebi C1" which is used in self-published corporate box art, but that a new consensus had formed around "Sharp Nintendo Television" due to our understanding of WP:UE (and the WP:ENGLISH guideline). Since this product did receive an English-language release, the article's title should reflect the English-language term. -Thibbs (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

19SC111 typo removal

Just a quick note, a user recently reverted one of my edits (which was reverted again by another user) due to the link being broken. The correct link is of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRcIIS45ySo?t=535 A simple google would have solved this but whatever. Here is the correct link for prosperity.

Side note, it's super frustrating when a youtuber boasts about their work proving wikipedia wrong, but doesn't take a few moments to actually correct the page. 81.108.229.77 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Facepalm Let the record show that the actual correct link is (of course) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRcIIS45ySo&t=535s , not the one listed in the edit summary nor in the one listed in the comment above. Just for posterity, of course. YouTube videos like the one discussed here have not yet been determined to be reliable on WP. No question Nintendrew is an entertaining vlogger, but peer review must be applied to his videos regarding reliability just the same as with all other sources. So far there has been no discussion regarding his reliability. See WP:RS, WP:RSN, and WP:VG/RS if you're curious about how to properly source claims on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)