Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Controversial sources for "Emulation and controversies"

Since the peer review request isn't getting much attention, I've been working on sourcing various statements that seem likely to be challenged. I've just added two sources to Emulation and controversies that are likely to draw complaints from some quarters.

To support some of the statements regarding the development of SNES emulators, it is necessary to cite self-published works of the developers of these emulators and of other researchers. The two sources cited are thick with "well-known, professional researchers (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field" mentioned as an exception to WP:V#SELF, and these researchers acted as "identifiable, expert and credible moderators" as mentioned at WP:RSEX#Use of electronic or online sources.

It's no secret that I have a conflict of interest in regard to the Emulation and controversies section of this article. In the past, I have followed the recommendation to propose the changes here and allow others to implement them, but each attempt has garnered little response and the responses have been favorable. So I'm going to be bold and add these sources in the belief that consensus here will support them. Anomie 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who wonder why Megabit is used in 2007

Guys, this is not some ISP giving you "8 Megabits" of bandwidth. This is talking about "ROM space" so please do divide by 8 and convert in Megabit to Megabyte. We're in the Gigabyte era of hard drive space. I don't need to see Megabit. Everybody here would agree that "Megabyte is the standard if people controlling this article weren't corrupted and would revert everything in MB back to Megabit. WTF guys. Renegadeviking November 03, 2007 14:15 CST —Preceding comment was added at 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should be saying "WTF" of wikipedia, save the foul language for youtube.com.-WikiChicken81112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChicken81112 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article uses terms that were in common usage at the time the SNES and its games were in production. The terms are relevant, mainly for historical purposes, as the term "Megabit" was used partly for advertising. (At the time, "16 Megabits" sounded a lot more impressive to the uninformed game player than "2 Megabytes".) So it makes sense to keep the terms. However, for encyclopedic accuracy, adding a note to the first major mention of a Megabit value that converts it to Megabyte ("16 Megabits (2 MB)") would be helpful, if not already done.

Also, please do not assume that we're asserting ownership over this article. As with all featured articles on Wikipedia, the article's content is shaped by community consensus and verifiable sources. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is dealing with a console from the cartridge era. They used the megabit terminology then and it should be still used here. We're not talking about the PS3 or XBox 360. It doesn't make any sense to convert to megabytes. The Sega Genesis is a prime example, the boxes for a lot of the games prominently said "16 megabit cartridge" or some other number. Also I believe the splash screen on the Neo Geo bragged about "384 megabit power" or something like that. Megabit is pretty much the standard for cartridge based games from that time. I do think it may be helpful to put in a very brief description of the difference between megabit and megabyte. Elhector 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be simple enough: First mention would read "16 Megabits (2 MB)" or something similar. Most readers should be able to figure it out. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, even that is unnecessary. If someone doesn't know what a megabit is, they can easily enough click the link to read all about it in the appropriate place. Repeating it here is simply unnecessary detail. FWIW, bits are only mentioned in one section anyway. Anomie 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It kind of confuses me that RAM is measured in kilobytes, and ROM is measured in megabits. Why can't RAM be measured in bits too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.83 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Different ways of thinking, I guess? Generally speaking, the size of the game ROM was perceived as much more important than the working memory in the machine, at least from an advertising standpoint. The bigger the game ROM, the more complex or graphically rich it was, and using big numbers was just one more way to attract people. As I mentioned above, "16 Megabits" sounds a lot more impressive to the layman than "2 Megabytes", but it probably doesn't mean as much when applied to system memory, since that's temporary storage space anyway and doesn't inherently say too much about what the game itself can do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I remember hearing a lot at the time about how certain "breakthrough games" would achieve greater and greater sizes and break previously "unbreakable" size barriers, either due to technological limitations or sheer cost. That was a pretty big deal back then. In general, I remember being much more easily impressed (and really, the whole market was more easily impressed) by these sorts of breakthroughs - by today's standards, they're a drop in the bucket, but back then, going from 16 to 24 megabits was pretty extraordinary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think because the console had 128K of RAM, but ROMs could be up to 8MB. Also for advertising purposes "mega" sounds cooler. 75.152.220.162 (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is probably because cartridge based game consoles don't have any concept of word length, or what is commonly known as bytes. When we think of bytes, we think of PC's, which use 8-bit words. Using megabits will show exactly how many bits are on the cartridge no matter what. If they did use megabytes, then people would have to "assume" that it meant 8-bit words, although it isn't technically correct. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

off topic, but I can't think of any console that used different sized words. --Anss123 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's two acronyms in the PC world (at least, I learned this in college...) MB for Mega Byte, and Mb for Mega bit. KB for Kilo Byte, and Kb for Kilo bit. That's why there's MBps, Mbps, KBps, and Kbps. People in the know will understand if you abbreviate things like that. MB, Mb, KB, Kb.--70.110.137.200 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To add something onto this already (ancient) discussion, it's worth noting that from what I've seen, it appears that semiconductor memory CHIPS are measured in "bits" rather than "bytes;" because they are made/packaged as simply memory modules independent of any host computer architecture, they have no directly specified word size, hence they are measured in bits. This could logically carry over to cartridges, which have an array of one or more ROM chips; the individual chips would've been measured in bits, so it would be simple to keep it as such to measure the capacity of the entire array. In contrast, the RAM quantities are given as a total supply, within the context of an existing system. Additionally, little actual data was given to the media about the internal RAM quantities, while the size of ROM images stored on cartridges was often made prominent in advertising. (as numerous editors above have pointed out) Nottheking (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of computer science, which this part of the article is discussing, both bit and byte are proper. Also, in discussing the mega for ROM and kilo for RAM in the SNES era, that was because there was very little RAM in the SNES era systems. You wouldn't say that there were .128 MB, it would be better to use the smaller form of measurement and say 128 KB. You wouldn't use kilometers to measure your height, would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.4.83 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Last North American release?

Someone (rightly, I suppose) put a {{fact}} tag on the sentence "The last SNES title to be released in North America was a version of Frogger in 1998." I can't find any reliable mention of this fact, unless palminfocenter.com is reliable. Nintendo's official game list doesn't list Frogger at all (OTOH, it also lists Zoop in 2000 even though Zoop was released in 1995), but various other game lists (including mobygames and our own List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games) report it as being the only game released in 1998. Further complicating the issue, there was apparently a release of a game called "Frog Feast" in 2006, along the same lines as the Genesis's recent Beggar Prince release; I found one mention of the game on 1up.com, and the site of the developer does claim to have SNES carts of the game for sale. I would also not be particularly surprised if actual new games eventually get released for the Wii Virtual Console.

What should we do? Anomie⚔ 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a PDF list of old Nintendo games on their official website, but unfortunately Nintendo (in their infinite wisdom) decided to rid all of the old content on their site to focus only on the Wii and DS. Anyway, I managed to find one of their game lists on Wayback which happens to have all of their Super NES games. The list doesn't have Frogger in it and the most recent game is Kirby's Dream Land 3 (November 1997 release).[1] Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Frogger certainly was released, and certainly was released in 1998. That list also lists Zoop as being released in 2000. Anomie⚔ 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Homebrew ROMs

Could anyone give any examples of homebrew games for the SNES? I have looked around without finding anything, except for Frog Feast which was a multi-platform project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.13.176.158 (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBdlUGbdPIU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.26.50 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed by user. 75.152.220.162 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we include game backup devices/copiers?

Can we include game backup devices/copiers? Kamuixtv (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SNES MINI or SNES2

I have the Super Nintendo Mini (sometimes called the SNES2), and there's no information about it on this page. Could someone add some info on it?

Here's an image of the SNES Mini:

http://atariace.com/images/atariace.com/nintendo-snes/systems/240x/snes-mini-starter.png

It looks alot like the Super Famicon Jr.

And here's some information on it: http://www.vidgame.net/NINTENDO/SNES2.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is: Search the page for "SNES 2". Anomie⚔ 02:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I guess I must've searched for "SNES2" instead of "SNES 2". 71.72.82.183 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

NA Release Date Incorrect

Would just like to state that Aug 13, 1991 was not the date of the NA release. I was a video game reviewer at the time, and have a signed letter from Nintendo's PR firm (Hill & Knowlton) dated Aug 13, 1991 stating they were sending me a review system to try before it was released to the public. I remember having about a 1 month lead time to use the system before it went on sale. Therefore I do believe that the date of Sept 9th referenced in Mr. Kent's book (footnote #18) is the correct launch date. A scan of the letter is here:

http://brentgustafson.com/files/snes_letter.jpg

My address and other sensitive info are blacked out You can see the date of the letter as well as the fact that I was to receive it "prior to its launch". Thus it was most certainly released after Aug 13.Vitaflo (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While that's an interesting looking letter, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires us to use published sources; many of the the published sources for some reason repeat the August 13 date. Maybe some retailers broke the date and started selling in August; maybe some reporter who got the same letter got confused when it came time to report the release date; maybe it was just made up by someone and accepted as fact by everyone else; maybe a combination of all three; maybe something completely different. But unless a published source shows up specifically addressing why August 13 is wrong and what the right date is, we're basically stuck with the current situation. I've edited the article to make the uncertainty a little more clear. Anomie⚔ 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Given every source referenced except for Mr. Kent's book (which was published first) is a website, the odds that someone had an incorrect date and it was just accepted as fact by very other website has a high probability. That said, I understand Wikipedia's policy given how this site works, however unfortunate it may be in this case. Thank you for changing the entry. Vitaflo (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The release dates for Super Mario World, Pilotwings and F-Zero are listed as Aug 13, 1991 on Wikipedia as well. Giantbomb lists Aug 19, 1991 has date for the SNES and Super Mario World (in the article, not in the box on the right). Nintendo.com lists them as "August 1991" without a specific day. Further research required. -- Grumbel (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I say to just list it as August 1991 until it can be found. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A Question

Does anyone know what game this is?It might not be the right system though.You played as this girl, and I can't remember much other than that.I remember if you lost the game, you'd be given the otion to quit or continue, and if you quit, this old man would shout "Help me Maria!".It might have been for the N64, though.63.166.254.137 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't really help you there. You'd have to give a better description than that, and you'd probably get better info on a forum anyway. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mischief Makers for N64? 75.152.220.162 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Casing section

How about mentioning the fact some consoles were made with a bad quality plastic / process and turned yellow after some time.

http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/189 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikenovic (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How about those two in one, NES & SNES, retro systems? If you type in "SNES" in eBay, it just shows three different casings for a special NES + SNES system. Maybe this could be pictured in the "casing" section. 67.5.157.242 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Such an image should definitely not go in the casing section, as that section is about the official Nintendo product and not unauthorized clones. Unless you can provide sufficient reliable third-party sources that a good-sized section could be written about such clone systems and why they're at all relevant to this topic, then an image would be appropriate to illustrate that section. But if all you can find are unreliable sources and sources that say nothing useful besides "it exists", I don't see any good way to fit it into the article. Anomie⚔ 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you people stop feeding fanboys and incouraging fanboysm?!

Can you stop talking about how slow the cpu is, please? I don't care if it is fact, your incouraging little kids who never even heard about the Super Nintendo and never saw one in their life, to believe that the system sucks because every game was too slow to play. Can you stop doing it, please?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.202.85 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? There is not a thing in the article that says any game was "too slow to play". Also, BTW, the paragraph you tried to insert in this edit was basically complete nonsense; you should do some research on the subject. Anomie⚔ 02:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You should do research yourself. All you do is copy and paste things you find on other websites with little or no understanding of what it means. Mhz is not the only factor of cpu speed. Different cpus contain different instructions and different instructions take different amounts of cycles to perform, but most importantly, the speed of the cpu is determined by how well the programmer could optimize his/her assembly. If you program it and it runs slowly, maybe you should learn how to optimize your code. If you are determining cpu speed from observing games, make sure the game itself had well optimized code, such as using games like Space Megaforce and Wild Gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.169.49 (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have done research. Byuu probably has me beat, and maybe a few others, but not many. Regarding your paragraph, these statements are incorrect:

• "The cpu freezes when it accesses the ppu when not during v-blank" The access will probably not do what is intended (e.g. VRAM writes are ignored, while OAM writes will affect a "random" address depending on various unknown factors), but it has no effect on the operation of the CPU. The only things that "freeze" the CPU are DMA, HDMA, and the 40 cycle per scanline delay commonly attributed to WRAM Refresh.
• "which was harder to prevent in the Snes compared to other systems because it only had 16kB of the 64kb of v-ram was used to store sprite patterns (only 512 8x8 sprites patterns) and the DMA only ran 2.68 bytes per second, which was slower than it's compedetors." It would have been extremely unlikely for any game of the time to have a need for rewriting the entire character table during V-blank. OAM and BG tilemaps could easily be updated within the time available during V-blank. When character tables did need to be reloaded (which would normally be between scenes), the game would activate force-blank to display a black screen to the player and update the entire VRAM in under 1/30 second.
• "it only had 16kB of the 64kb of v-ram was used to store sprite patterns (only 512 8x8 sprites patterns)" That's 16 Kib at a time. The "low" character table could start at byte offsets 0x0000, 0x4000, 0x8000, or 0xc000 into VRAM, with the "high" table starting 0x0000, 0x2000, 0x4000, or 0x6000 bytes after the end of the low table (wrapping if necessary within the 64KiB available). This could be changed each V-Blank, if desired. It's possible it could even be changed for each scanline, but I've never tested that.
• "and the DMA only ran 2.68 bytes per second" That number is megabytes per second, not bytes per second.
• "Most later games used compromises over what frames and tiles to leave in vram through the game and what sprites to reload so the v-ram sprite load became smaller and prevented slowdown from happening." ROM and VRAM space to store the character data would more often have been a concern than the time needed to transfer it. Also, see the next point.
• "Some games even used special algorithms to find what sprites needed to be updated and which sprites don't that stopped games from being overloaded." Sprites were normally updated by adjusting OAM, which could be entirely overwritten using less than 1/10 of the time available during V-Blank. The new OAM would normally be constructed in RAM during the frame; this is where the "special algorithms" would come into play.

About the only thing you had correct is that the blame for slowdowns is often laid on the CPU. Regarding your rant I am replying to now, you seem to be using the phrase "CPU speed" to refer to execution speed; normally, "CPU speed" refers to the clock rate or to instructions per second. You are correct that code optimization may make a great difference in execution speed, but I have no idea if the two games you cite are actually "well optimized" or not. It also has little to do with the errors in your paragraph, or your apparently inaccurate claim that this article says any game is "too slow to play". Anomie⚔ 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the SNES [CPU] really slower?

Hmm, one thing you (75.57.169.49) said got me thinking: the whole claim that the SNES processor is "slower" is certainly true when we consider raw clock rates, but if the 68000 on average uses twice as many clocks per instruction as the 65816 then they're effectively the same speed in instructions per second. And after a few hours of googling, it looks like that may just be the case. I found reference to an interview with Bill Mensch from a 1986 article (or maybe it was a special edition?) of COMPUTE! where he (supposedly) stated "The Apple [Macintosh] computer has about 7 megahertz with the 68000. The equivalent speed on the 65816 would be in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 megahertz. In other words, a 2- to 3-megahertz Apple [II-series] has the same kind of performance as an 8-megahertz Macintosh.",[2] and a 1984 Byte interview with Steve Wozniak where he (supposedly) stated "An 8-MHz 65816 is about equivalent to a 16-MHz 68000 in speed".[3] Based on that, I think it might be reasonable to remove the "SNES's CPU is slower" statements from this article. It would be nice if anyone could verify these old magazines. Anomie⚔ 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The SNES's CPU is indeed "slower" than the Genesis CPU. The general measure on the public market for a CPU's "speed" is its clock rate, and it's just simple technical fact that the SNES has a processor that runs at a lower clock rate than that of the Genesis. But, as is mentioned in several places in this article, the CPU in the SNES does less work than the Genesis CPU does, because it has a fairly wide array of coprocessors at its disposal. It farms more work out to the graphics and sound units so it can focus on memory management and game logic, which take up comparably small amounts of the raw work. That remaining work is also processed in a different way due to the CPU's different architecture.

This is why it's somewhat fallacious to rate a system solely on the speed of its processor. The SNES proved that you can make a more powerful system out of a set of parts that, individually, are fairly low-power. When put together intelligently, and when programmed efficiently, these lower-power parts can do wonders. If you were to run a CPU-only benchmark that measured linear instruction or memory access speeds, I think you'd find that the Genesis would win hands down mainly due to its faster processor and memory structure. But in the few cases where the same game was written for both systems and each version took advantage of the system's hardware as best as possible, the SNES usually achieved more - its games performed better or looked better, or sometimes both. And the SNES had the advantage of built-in expandability (SuperFX chip especially) - a game like StarFox would have been next to impossible on the Genesis alone.

With respect to the article: I think it's perfectly accurate and reasonable to state that the SNES's CPU had a lower clock rate than that of its competition, but the IP makes a good point that both due to its instruction set and memory bandwidth, as well as the supporting hardware, raw clock rate is not a measure of overall system performance and capability. The Genesis and the SNES have so little in common architecturally that it's really hard to prove performance comparisons - at that point, you really need to just compare the experiences you had. And measures of THAT are borne out by sales statistics and general reviews, both of which are verifiable. (This is also an interesting tie-in with the marketing campaigns of both Nintendo and Sega during this time - Sega accurately claimed they had the faster system, but Nintendo ended up winning that war.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were to run a CPU-only benchmark that measured linear instruction or memory access speeds, I think you'd find that the Genesis would win hands down mainly due to its faster processor and memory structure. That's what I'm not so sure of anymore. For example, the SNES's CPU may run at 3.58 MHz while the MD's may run at 7.67 MHz, but if it takes the Motorola 68000 7 clock cycles to do what the WDC 65816 does in 3 then the benchmark would be approximately a tie. Or if we are just comparing clock speed, we could use the SNES's 21.477 MHz master clock rather than the 3.58/2.68 MHz cycle clock and claim the SNES is 3 times faster, never mind that it may take an average of 21 clock cycles per instruction instead of 3. ;)

Of course, co-processors and such also contribute to complete system performance, but that isn't the question here. I am changing the section title accordingly, sorry for the confusion. FWIW, I've found the citation info for the Woz quote I mentioned above: Byte Vol 10 Issue 1 (Jan 1985), page 155. Anomie⚔ 16:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple, though. Just because one CPU can do the same amount of work in 3 cycles what the other takes 7 cycles to do doesn't mean you can say that the first CPU is twice as efficient. The instruction sets of the two CPUs are very different, such that it's hard to form a direct comparison between the two. The SNES CPU can get more work done on certain kinds of tasks (mostly basic number crunching tasks) because it's designed with that sort of task in mind. The Genesis uses a more general-purpose CPU that was also used in a number of computers for many non-gaming tasks, and there was a fair amount of stuff the 68000-class CPU was capable of doing that it never actually did in that console because of the console's limited purpose. But if you were to find a set of instructions that the two CPUs have in common and benchmark against those, the Genesis CPU would far outperform the SNES CPU on those instructions simply because it could process more of them faster.

I just purport that such a CPU benchmark would be pretty much meaningless in this context. Raw CPU performance has almost nothing to do with overall game performance on any system unless the programmers relied SOLELY on the CPU to do everything in the game. (I've seen software-only engines on game consoles, and they SUUUUUCK!) But any decent programmer will have done at least some hardware optimization for the platform, and then you're talking comparing apples and oranges, really.

BTW, if you want a good example of a really poorly-designed game on the SNES (where performance really was an issue), the best one I can think of is Faceball 2000. That game was unplayably slow, and it wasn't really trying to do anything really difficult. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Last game made

Says that kirby 3 was the last game produced that nintendo themselves made, but what about the last game ever made for it, in North America The snare (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See #Last North American release? above. We haven't been able to find a reliable source for this, so it ended up getting removed from the article. Anomie⚔ 05:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Finding that would be impossable because of all the pirated games for it, just like the original Nintendo Entertainment System. -WikiChicken81112

Anomie's change

It looks like Anomie is trying to use the number system kibibyte which is not used by the sources published by Nintendo on this subject. I thought the rules were that Wikipedia only used what comes from sources? Can someone point me towards the rules that cover this? WorkingBeaver (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's your change; the article has used kibibytes since March 2007. Also, kibibyte/mebibyte is only used in this article as disambiguation to indicate the exact measure; subsequent uses in each section use the ambiguous KB.

Your request for "sources published by Nintendo" is disingenuous, as the binary prefixes weren't introduced by the IEC until 1999, the same year as Nintendo's discontinuation of the console in the US. Before that the standard was to use ambiguous abbreviations. Anomie⚔ 13:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoever added kibibyte erroneously added them in March 2007 then. I went to their talk page to comment but they are banned, do you know why? Don't accuse me of being disingenuous. The question I asked is perfectly valid, does Wikipedia use what comes from sources or not? I think it does. So can you show sources from Nintendo that show use of kibibyte? No you cannot. You did not answer my question where are the rules that cover this? WorkingBeaver (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Anomie do not alter the text I wrote and that includes the section title, this section title is "Anomie's change" and should not be changed because I wrote it like that to begin with. You would not like it if I edited your text so do not edit my text. The problem here is your edit to try to keep using the erroneous kibibyte and that is the edit being discussed. After some research from the link you supplied I can see why Sarenne was blocked due to adding too many kibibytes and other IEC related material and people disagreeing with those changes here and here and Sarenne refusing to stop editing like that. After looking further on Sarenne's talk pages I just linked according to Aluvus 24 April 2007 it appears as though there are rules that cover this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is very interesting reading because the rules here seems to specifically cover this topic. It says the IEC standard prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers, so are not to be used except under the following circumstances, where those following circumstances are not met for this topic. The archive is also interesting reading because I saw this comment from you and then checking further I found this comment. Both edits demontrate you are at least aware of these rules that says not to use IEC which includes kibibyte. You used the word disengenuous earlier at me, with that word in mind I have one question to put to you: Why did you edit to add kibibyte when you certainly know of the rules that specifically states not to use kibibyte? WorkingBeaver (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say to you, you're obviously a SPA on a crusade against binary prefixes. I'll just let you have your tantrum and wait for others with more sense who have commented on this page in the past to weigh in with their opinions. Anomie⚔ 12:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're not going to answer the question because you know you made a mistake and you try to hide that mistake by making another personal attack. Obviously I am not the one who is having a tantrum and you need to look at your own behaviour. WorkingBeaver (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

MOS is not "rules" but guidelines. With the light use of Kibi- in this article it's not really worth debating over, I say keep it as it is.--Anss123 (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if this was resolved already or not, but here's the main question: What is the exact memory size in each place where the ambiguous "kB" term is used? For 64 kB, is it 65,536 bytes? Or is it 64,000 bytes? I'm pretty sure you'll find it to be 65,536 (2^16), which by current numbering standards would be 64 "kibibytes". I don't like the term either, but the fact remains that if there is a standards committee that has made this the official technical term for a multiple of a power of 2, rather than of a power of 10, then we should use the correct technical term here, even if that term was not used (or even in existence) at the time the specs were written by the manufacturer. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It petered out once I stopped responding to the SPA, with the "compromise" that we now have footnotes next to each use indicating which meaning of kilo/mega is intended. As for using kibi and such, the MOS-warriors over at WT:MOSNUM have effectively forbidden them. Anomie⚔ 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh, okay. Then we're basically right back where we started, it seems. :/ I wanted to change the links in "kB" to go directly to either Kilobyte or Kibibyte, but it appears that if I do that, we'll be violating some part of MoS. Ugh. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1024 bytes is "kibibyte" being correct is irrelevant to my point. I will counter by saying that kilobyte meaning 1024 is also correct because looking at the rules the organisation JEDEC defines kilo equal to 1024. So you end up with trying to argue what one person thinks is more correct based on personal preference. That is a circular argument so it needs something more concrete. My point is actually that Wikipedia uses what comes from sources and that using kibibyte here does not represent what is being used by the sources. Reading the rules/guidelines it appears that kibibyte is not familiar so cannot be used. It looks like that Wikipedia has chosen that familiarity is more desirable than what some people think is correct. I can see why because kibibyte is not very common and because kilobyte can be made clear by writing something like "A 64 MB (67,108,864 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100,000,000,000 bytes) hard drive". Using something like that means the article text is unambiguous, accurate and familiar which can then be easily understood. It strikes me that using kibibyte makes the article harder to understand simply because kibibyte is not familiar. WorkingBeaver (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did notice something odd in the references list. " ^ a b c anomie. "Anomie's SNES Memory Mapping Doc" (text). Romhacking.net. Retrieved on 2007-04-21. ^ a b c d e f g h i j anomie. "Anomie's Register Doc" (text). Romhacking.net. Retrieved on 2007-04-21. ^ a b c anomie. "Anomie's S-DSP Doc" (text). Romhacking.net. Retrieved on 2007-04-21. ^ anomie. "Anomie's SPC700 Doc" (text). Romhacking.net. Retrieved on 2007-04-21. ^ a b c d anomie. "Anomie's SNES Port Doc" (text). Romhacking.net. Retrieved on 2007-07-13."

Is that Anomie mentioned in the links the same Anomie that is posting above here? WorkingBeaver (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did notice [4] this edit that puts back the references and Anomie is saying Anomie and User:Anomie are the same person. Isn't that against WP:COI and WP:NOR? Where is the link to this claimed "Talk page consensus is that these sources are acceptable"? I looked in the archives and couldn't find anything like a consensus. I did find this [5] which shows Anomie making another edit against the rules that Pixel8 is showing. WorkingBeaver (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do recall Anomie asking about the COI issue, but no one cared at the time. Search for "COI" through the archives, or “romhacking”.

Anss123 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is at Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 2#Technical Specifications, with a bit of follow-up in the middle of Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 2#Peripherals dispute. Anomie⚔ 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I so not see any "Talk page consensus" in those links only as Anss123 commented that no one seemed to care at the time. WorkingBeaver (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Beaver, I'll restate my position on the sources issue: The sources we have from Nintendo will not use the term "kibibyte" whether that term has become the officially sanctioned term for that measure or not, because the change in terminology occurred after the sources were written. But that does not mean that the term "kibibyte" would not be valid for use in this article. The ambiguity comes from the question of whether the term actually is official and sanctioned - apparently it isn't, so we're back where we started on the whole issue. But, for comparison, in an article on old computers and radio equipment, nobody would dispute the use of the modern term "MHz" (megahertz) even though a reliable source from the 1940s might have used the term "MC" (megacycles), which means the exact same thing.

That said, I agree with others that you appear to be spending most of your time trying to find fault with Anomie more than anything else. If you keep that up, you're going to get labeled as an attack account and blocked pretty quickly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the rules kibibyte is not valid for use in this article though because as already stated kibibyte is not used by the sources and it is not familiar. The example you give about MHz is not relevant to this one because MHz is far more widely used now compared to MC than kibibyte is used compared to kilobyte. Since kibibyte is not "offically sanctioned", in other words it is not widely used by the industry, then it is not valid to use it in this article. Would you like to throw this open to the rules discussion page WT:MOSNUM instead?

What "others" are you talking about? I see nobody else writing what you claim. I do see Anomie you trying to bully me which isn't nice at all. Do not forget Anomie used personal attacks against me and Anomie sparked my curiosity by linking the history of changes for this article as well as allowing me to find the relevant rules covering this topic. When searching through the history for kibibyte related changes the changes to the references also appear at the same time. When someone links the history wouldn't you agree it is correct to research that history and to try to read as much as possible of the various relevant topics related to something before commenting on it? I think it is a matter of politeness to read a topic well before responding.WorkingBeaver (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to bully you. I won't speak for Anomie here, but all I'm trying to say is that I think you're being unreasonably strict in your interpretation of "the rules". As was pointed out above, WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM are guidelines, not policy. Individual WikiProjects are allowed to adopt their own rules in terms of presentation style, what to include and not include, etc., so long as they are in keeping with the spirit of the main Wikipedia guidelines, and I personally trust group consensus to exercise common sense when doing so. I think that by driving this point as hard as you have, you're coming across as much more callous and attacking than you need to be - the very title of this section where we're having this conversation can be perceived as a personal attack against Anomie rather than as an attempt to discuss the content issue. (As for "others" - I thought that Anss123 had commented on your attitude, but on further review that was one of Anomie's comments, so I apologize.)

I am not saying I necessarily condone or support Anomie's responses to you (Anomie, I do think you could have been less defensive above). And I am also willing to admit that I made a mistake in thinking that "kibibyte" had been adopted for general use, since I had seen numerous discussions about that issue in the past spanning NUMEROUS articles both in and out of this WikiProject. I was not aware that MOSNUM had discouraged the use of those terms, so I appreciate having that pointed out.

I was, in all of this, trying to make a more general point that if a new term comes into general use that is more specific and less ambiguous than a term used by a reliable source, it stands to reason that that term should be used in the article's context, and if necessary, it should be linked and/or explained so that people who aren't familiar with it will understand what it is. If a direct quote is given from the source, it should be quoted verbatim and not modified, but the term in question should be disambiguated outside of the quote or via a link. That's what I was getting at, and that's the practice I thought had been adopted in this situation. My mistake, apparently.

The reason I am critical of the way you're handling this discussion, Beaver, is because of the way you're addressing Anomie (and now myself). Remember, attack the content, not the editors - your statements above came across strongly as you assuming that Anomie was making his edits in bad faith, which I firmly believe is not true. You focused so much on how Anomie had done this, and Anomie was doing that, that it came across as more accusatory and confrontational than it probably needed to be. Anomie's initial response (which I think is understandable) was to assume that you were here to attack him and his editing practices, rather than to open a dialogue. Frankly, I felt a bit of that directed at me when I stepped in as well, though I do understand your frustration with my mistakes in the matter. I think that if you can curb the confrontations a bit and make it clear that you're interested in informing us of what the MOSNUM decision was, you'll get a lot less resistance and a lot less time spent on character analysis.

Hope that helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, appology accepted. I didn't mean to write you were bullying me, only Anomie was. I agree with you that if a new term comes into general use it can be used here but as you point out the kibibyte new term has not come into general use yet. Regarding this title, well the edit was done by Anomie so I thought that was a good title for the talk page, perhaps a title of "Adding kibibytes" would have been better but you'll notice that Anomie did try to change this heading to "WorkingBeaver's change" and proceeded to call me disengenuous and SPA and did not. Anomie could have explained what you did and changed the title to something Anomie felt was neutral for example. As far as I'm aware all my comments have been directed at content and trying to find out the rules covering this content and I am only interested in content and improving Wikipedia articles. But this discussion really is starting to go into character analysis and not content so I think this thread should die here. WorkingBeaver (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Famicom, Japan, Discounied?

It says that the Super Famicom (not to be mixed up with the Super Nes.) was discounied in Japan in September 2003, that can't be right! Cos the Famicom (not to be mixed up with the super famicom.) was discounied in Japan in October 2003, being that Nintendo discounied the 'line' then both would have been discounied in either September 2003 or October 2003, I'll google that one to get some sources, hope this has been helpful contributing to this article. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a link on this page to the top ten worst selling consoles of all time, now forgive me if im wrong but the SNES is not one of the worst selling consoles of all time, that should be taken of this article, just tryin to be helpful. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In May 2003 Nintendo announced that production would stop in September 2003; whether they later pushed that back to October, I don't know. But I do note the claim of October 2003 in the NES article is unsourced. Regarding the "top ten worst selling consoles of all time", note what that reference is used for: TurboGrafx-16 sales figures in the "Market share" section. Anomie⚔ 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will edit the section which says the NES was discontunied in October 2003 in the NES article ASAP. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo handed their market to Sony

The following clip neglects to mention that once Nintendo canceled its CD system, developers everywhere freaked because they had been working on games for a year for the system (FF 7 for example). This is why the Playstation had by far the biggest game library upon launch than any other system in history. Square actually moved from Redmond to the LA area and basically told Nintendo to go to Hell for years after, and only now are starting to make games for Nintendo systems again. Square had originally set up in Redmond to be close to Nintendo after the success of FF 1, which made the move even more dramatic. In the grand scheme of things, the N64 and the Game Cube (the latter in particular) suffered greatly from Nintendo's basically handing the game market to Sony, and they are only now reclaiming territory with the Wii. Kovu401 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Original games

Can it play the games for the original Nintendo Entertainment System? 71.168.231.55 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it can't. I've heard the feature was planned, but it would have added too much to the price of the console. BTW, questions like this should be made at the Reference desk. Anomie⚔ 15:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Golden Age of video games"

Third paragraph..."Some consider the SNES to embody the 'Golden Age of video games', citing its many groundbreaking games and the perceived focus on gameplay over graphics and technical gimmicks."

"Some consider"? Give me a break. That is obviously opinion and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.168.184 (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a statement of the fact that some people hold an opinion. And the opposing opinion (which I'm guessing is your point of view) directly follows. There is no attempt to claim one is more "right" than the other, and no quantitative or semi-quantitative statement. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CD Add on cancelled?

If I am not wrong, the CD based add on for the SNES the Super Nintendo CD a.k.a SNES CD was cancelled. Am I wrong? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See reference #73 for details. Anomie⚔ 18:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, that refrence was very helpful. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Enhancement chips - easy?

An IP-hopping unregistered user has taken issue with the statement that it is easy to add enhancement chips inside the cart. The SNES provides all the read, write, and clock signals a chip might need on the cart connector for communication using memory-mapped I/O; no complicated protocols, special instructions, or anything required by the console.

• Hardware-wise, all that is needed is to wire the chip up to the address and data lines, and any of the several clock lines provided at the cart connector. This is about as easy as wiring up a ROM or RAM chip.
• Software-wise, you access the chip in the same way you access RAM. Any protocol or complication is imposed by the design of the chip, not the design of the SNES.
• The cartridge connector also has an analog stereo input, in case the cart contains its own sound hardware.

There was also a comment that "only a few percent of the library used those enhancement chips", with the implication that this shows some sort of difficulty in doing so. The difficulty is more likely financial than technical: a cart with an enhancement chip would cost more to produce, so either the cart price must increase or the profit margin must decrease.

In truth, it wouldn't be particularly hard to add memory-mapped enhancement chips of some sort on any "normal" cartridge-based console, as long as the console provides sufficient power and the necessary read/write, reset and clock signals. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this part has some original research, the same guy who writes here is also sourced on romhacking.net (Anomie). So source #66 (http://www.romhacking.net/docs/195/) should be removed, it can't be seen as reliable. It doesn't even have any real name, Anomie sounds like a typical internet nick name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.1.65 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets the irony (and hypocracy) at making an attack on a user's nickname for being "typical" when one is not even using a registered account, and only an IP address. This, of course, ignores the fact that you're outright attacking another user, and violating Wikipedia's etiquette, and making what can amount to an ad hominem attack. (that is, arguing that because of their NAME, their data is not reliable)

As for the source itself, if you had simply phrased it as a concern such as "I have concerns to the reliability of Romhacking.net, and have concerns that the poster of the content being cited is the same as a major editor of the article, making it possible borderline original research," THEN it might've been taken seriously. However, that doesn't seem to be your aim here.

To address it, I will say I've looked through the document myself, and while I PERSONALLY don't have a lot of experience programming for the SNES, I have plenty enough knowledge programming in general, as well as plenty of experience testing and examining SNES programming, and would say that I see nothing to indicate that anything in the document is incorrect. And proper knowledge of the internals of the SNES HAVE to be known properly to emulate and program for it correctly. Hence, the rules here recommend that we assume good faith here, and at the very least, give Anomie the benefit of the doubt in regards to the knowledge they assert to have. If you can find a good, valid source that would dispute those claims, (by which it actually provides ALTERNATIVES, not just says "it's wrong") then by all means, present them. But to do anything else really doesn't amount to more than a personal attack, and should be avoided, please. Nottheking (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Controller modding

Is it worth mentioning that people have modded the original control pad to improve their ability to play games? Its quite common for top players to open their control pad, file down the dpad/or change the height of the buttons to improve their performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasgx1 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. If there had been some sort of professional game-playing league where this was an issue, then maybe, but as it is I see absolutely no reason to mention it. Anomie⚔ 12:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Top-selling game

Donkey Kong Country was a pack-in game too, during the SNES' later years. I know this because I got the DKC bundle for Christmas. Phediuk (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true, I also got mine as a pack in game. My SNES box was covered with banana art.--70.110.139.20 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant, or if anyone cares. But here you go. This was the box my Super Nintendo came in (not this box in the picture though) and I was very disappointed I didn't get Super Mario World as a pack in instead.--SexyKick 03:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat

In order to avoid an edit war, I'm bringing this to the talk page. On one side, we have Kent in The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World making the following statements:

• On page 466 of the version cited in the article, the Genesis version of Mortal Kombat outsold the SNES version "nearly three to one".
• On page 480, regarding Mortal Kombat II on the SNES, "This time, it sold better than the Genesis version."

On the other side, we have:

• A passing statement "4 to 1" in a video of unknown reliability.
• A statement "4 to 1" on some other website of unknown reliability.
• A reference to a site with sales numbers that has no indication as to whether the numbers came from comparable (or even reliable) sources. Or, in fact, whether or not it even includes sales prior to 1995.
• A reference to List of best-selling Super Nintendo Entertainment System video games.

I suspect Kent did more research than the random websites mentioned, particularly as Kent's book is specifically focused on the history of video gaming (and the chapter in question on Mortal Kombat and the resulting Congressional hearings specifically). Opinions? Anomie⚔ 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kent's book seems like a better source to me. I say use the book as a reference.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be tempted to go with Kent's book as it seems to be a more reliable source. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also recommend going with Kent's book. Those numbers are probably accurate from what I recall. The SNES versions didn't have blood in them (instead it was green slime!) so there was lots of ridicule heaped on Nintendo over it and Sega played it up big to drive sales. BcRIPster (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes but, we have the sales data proving the statement "this time, it sold better than the Genesis version" is false, which one is the shortcut, which one provides reliable data??? I can also find more 4 to 1 references, and these same websites that list the 4:1 ratio are sourced for other information in other articles on Wikipedia. There are also more sites used as citations here that list the 4:1 ratio, I thought two sites would be enough, there is at least four. Moreover Wikipedia lists the same citations for the Genesis MK2 sales data. I've read reviews of Kent's book, and people say that while his Atari information is detailed and accurate, his post 80's knowledge was off, not detailed, and lacking.--70.110.139.20 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care about the 3:1 or 4:1 ratio...but the extremely misleading/just plain wrong MK2 sales quote is annoying at best, and completely lying at worst. Especially when we can look the numbers up on Wikipedia and find that the statement is false.--70.110.139.20 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to pull the old sales trends data sheets from my archive but can't find them currently. Short of that, I'm sure the info is in either an issue of EGM or Diehard from the time period... I see what I can dig up, but don't anyone hold their breath, I'm usually pretty swamped. BcRIPster (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So can we correct this line for the meantime or not? I had changed it tell the actual sales numbers that Wikipedia states, Wikipedia says (and of course it's all sourced) Genesis MK2: 1.78 million, SNES MK2: 1.51 million.--70.110.137.200 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since everyone else says to go with Kent over random numbers on a website, I'd say it's already correct as-is. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They aren't just random numbers, since those "random numbers" are good enough for Wikipedia's other articles. What kind of place has two different pages of information with directly conflicting information? I'm sorry you don't understand, and it leads me to think you're bias. The way I understand it, if this SNES article is right, then all the numbers from the "top selling games" lists need to be removed, or noted that they're wrong. Why don't you check up on Kent's sources for those sales numbers?--70.20.246.58 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In my attempts to find numbers proving you right...I found www.vgchartz.com and just take a look at their Mortal Kombat sales comparison http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=Mortal+Kombat&console=&publisher=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total This is a reliable website, that verifies it's own information. The numbers it gives for US MK2 are only .01 and .03 off, and they also include "Other" regions sales for it as well. However, only JP MK2 sales are included (.03) separately, near the bottom of the list.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

VG Chartz is not allowed on Wikipedia because that site makes up their sales numbers. TJ Spyke 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Still, that doesn't take away the sales data that you guys have sourced from other plays, on your Top Selling Games article. Which generally isn't editable by most people. That sales data should still stand, as it's much more reliable over an ambiguous quote with no information backing it up.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, maybe I should have just put this as the sole source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_selling_games--70.20.246.58 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion here I am adding the now known to be reliable source to the article for the MK1 sales number, and changing the quote regarding MK2 to the one from Purple Reign.--SexyKick 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Known to be reliable". Whatever. Anomie⚔ 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NA Release Date Incorrect, redux

Previous discussion at Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System#NA Release Date Incorrect

The more I consider this issue, the more I'm inclined to go with Kent's date (and the evidence of the letter Vitaflo links above, never mind that it's not usable as a cite in the article as a WP:RS) than the date quoted on various random websites. So I've decided to be bold and adjust the infobox to say "September", and the footnote to more clearly state that online sources state August 13 while Kent says September 9. And since I'm really getting tired of people not even bothering to read the footnote before drive-by changing the dates in the article, I've added a <!-- comment --> to both dates that people should look closer before changing them. Any comments? Anomie⚔ 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the right call. I think when in doubt you need to cite the source with the most authority and I believe Mr. Kent's book is it. We do not know where these websites got their dates from, they do not say. Mr. Kent was a journalist during the 16 bit era, he basically lived and reported on this stuff at the time. He also wrote a book that is close to, if not the most well regarded book on the history of video games to date. It was published before any of these websites or Wikipedia itself even existed. I'm not sure a bunch of web sites doing possible circular reporting of a date (with perhaps WP as their source) should trump this. I freely admit my own biases given my own history with the SNES as evidenced by the letter I linked earlier, but I still believe Mr. Kent's book is the best source there is for this date. FWIW, I just checked my records, and my article on the SNES launch was published on Sept 28, 1991. So I personally know it came out before that date for sure, because we always reported on games that were already available for purchase in stores. Vitaflo (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor changed it to "August or September" with a comment implying that August is stated somewhere on nintendo.com. I checked, but couldn't find anything more specific than just "1991"; there is note of certain SNES games being released in August 1991, but nothing about the console. But it did prompt me to do another pass through Google News. And perhaps my Google-fu has improved, or maybe I just picked some lucky search terms, but I found a number of newspaper articles from late 1991 that clearly state August, including one from August 27 that says "on Friday" (which would have been August 23) a store began selling the console and one from the same date in a different region of the country that quotes a Toys R Us assistant inventory control manager saying that they expected it "any day". I also came across mention that EGM's November 1991 issue states August 23 on page 162, but I have not been able to verify that. In light of all this, I've adjusted the article to say "August". If someone comes through with verification on the EGM reference, I might go ahead and change that to August 23. Anomie⚔ 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed comment. I see the content note summarizes everything perfectly.--SexyKick 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I finally managed to verify the EGM reference, and changed the article to use August 23. I also added a section above summarizing the reasons for using that date over August 13. Anomie⚔ 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discontinue year?

The Super NES was discontinued in the US in 1999, and in Japan in 2003.

Shouldn't we add that to the discontinued section in the info box?? The citations are already in the main article.--SexyKick 21:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have heard no objections to me adding this in.--SexyKick 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Factory sealed "secret of mana game"?

Hi,i have a rare snes game called the secret of mana,it has a tear strip although not the red normal one.It is not shrink wrapped but i am pretty sure it is factory sealed.Can anybody cast any light on this subject.Regards,Richard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.240.10 (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You would be better served by asking at the Reference Desk, or at a forum devoted to the buying and selling of old video games. Anomie⚔ 01:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are all the DCemu links dead?

I can't access any of them. Do we think it's temporary or do we need to find replacement sources?--SexyKick 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Their DNS seems to be down. Let's give it a few days (at least til Monday evening) to see if it gets fixed. Fortunately, they're all available at archive.org if necessary: [6][7][8][9][10] Anomie⚔ 13:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, sweet.--SexyKick 14:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel kind of stupid now, cause I waited five days to bring this up, and now dcemu is back up. lol--SexyKick 01:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Necessary to mention that Nintendo started designing the machine in the 80s?

An IP editor seems insistent on including a sentence along the lines of "The system actually has it's origins in the late '80s, however it did not launch until 1990." I can't see the point of mentioning this: it's not such a long time for development that it's noteworthy, and I can't think of any other reason for a reader to care. But I'm not about to edit war over it, so I'm brining it here for additional opinions. Anomie⚔ 20:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of its inclusion either. Though I agree it's not worth edit waring over.--SexyKick 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

3 Consoles in the info box??? Two versions of the Super Famicom logo???

User:BlueMario1016 has added a third image of the console, as well as a second version of the Super Famicom logo to the article. Do we really need these there?--SexyKick 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The Super Famicom and the PAL version of the SNES are almost identical, so there is no reason to have both in the infobox. As for the logo, last I checked the SFC just used File:Super Famicom logo.svg, no text. Anomie⚔ 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to think (since he's insistent on putting it back over and over) that the Super Famicom image is actually a little bit better than the PAL region image.--SexyKick 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I only used the PAL image (when I made them transparent) to maintain the status quo. The Super Famicom image is as far as I can tell taken by the same guy as the American one and is layed out the same [as the American one]. Give me a few minutes and I'll upload a "transparentised" S.Famicom version. Whichever version is used, it should probably be noted that the other one uses the same form factor, like "Japanese Super Famicom console. PAL SNES consoles also used this design" Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done File:Super Famicom.png Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is noted later in the article in the casing section.--SexyKick 15:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, this one is the same image but has a transparent background so is better for an infobox (like the other two I did currently in the infobox - same images but with the white background removed). Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait, you were talking about the fact that the cases were the same and the "disclaimer" thing. I dunno, I( think the reason he keeps adding all three is that he's wanting to show what all regions' consoles look like at a glance in the infobox, which the current captions don't make clear. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinions: the PAL image is of good quality, and we should prefer the PAL version as that was used in English-speaking regions while the Japanese version was not. We have all regions pictured in the Casing section, and as long as we don't also include the SNES 2 and the SFC Jr in the infobox a "completeness" argument just doesn't wash; I don't even think a note is necessary for the same reason, although a note pointing out that other variations are pictured in the Casing section might work. In fact, I'm going to be bold and try that now. (BTW, if someone can find a good SNES 2 image, that could be useful for the Casing section).

Also, IMO, having a transparent background is not worth doubling and quadrupling the file size on a photographic image, but I won't fight you over it. Anomie⚔ 02:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image size

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Left: PAL region SNES Right: North American SNES (circa 1991) Other variations are pictured under Casing below
Manufacturer	Nintendo
Type	Video game console
Generation	Fourth generation (16-bit era)
Release date	JP: November 21, 1990 NA: August 23, 1991 EU: April 11, 1992 AU: July 3, 1992
Discontinued	JP: 2003 NA: 1999
Units sold	49.10 million
Media	ROM cartridge
CPU	16-bit 65c816 Ricoh 5A22 3.58 MHz
Online services	Satellaview (Japan only), XBAND
Best-selling game	Super Mario World (pack-in), 20 million (as of June 25, 2007) Donkey Kong Country, 8 million (as of June 11, 2003)
Predecessor	Nintendo Entertainment System
Successor	Nintendo 64

There has been some comment elsewhere that having two full-sized images in the infobox makes the box too large. One possibility would be to shrink the images and place them side-by-side, as shown to the right. I personally don't have a strong opinoion one way or another. Opinions? Anomie⚔ 23:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but they would have to be made the same scale first (look at the controllers to see the scale difference) and I would make it slightly wider if they are going to be side-by-side (maybe 270px or so).Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the scaling. Anomie⚔ 01:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that, no, the info box is not too large. If this were true, it would have certainly come up in the FA, or GA review...which it did not. Looking at other console based articles, especially the PS3 article, the info box's are all comparable sizes (except for the Mega Drive info box, which I believe to be too small...I dislike how small the logos and consoles are in that info box) IMHO we should keep it like it is.--SexyKick 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Left: Japanese Super Famicom (circa 1990) Right: North American SNES (circa 1991) For other variations, see casing
Manufacturer	Nintendo
Type	Video game console
Generation	Fourth generation (16-bit era)
Release date	JP: November 21, 1990 NA: August 23, 1991 EU: April 11, 1992 AU: July 3, 1992
Discontinued	JP: 2003 NA: 1999
Units sold	49.10 million
Media	ROM cartridge
CPU	16-bit 65c816 Ricoh 5A22 3.58 MHz
Online services	Satellaview (Japan only), XBAND
Best-selling game	Super Mario World (pack-in), 20 million (as of June 25, 2007) Donkey Kong Country, 8 million (as of June 11, 2003)
Predecessor	Nintendo Entertainment System
Successor	Nintendo 64

I don't know why, but somehow I don't really think it is too big either (unlike the Mega Drive article, which I do have a problem with in its old form... I don't know what's different), but SexyKick, you can't really compare the vertical size of the PS3 article's pic to the current one in this article; the size of the two is very different. I have made a version with the SFC since that is in the same orientation as the USA SNES, has no cartridge like the USA SNES and doesn't have cables trailing everywhere. Anomie, I know you favour the PAL one since this is the English Wikipedia but the only difference is the branding (which is really small anyway) and Wikipedia's rules do not give preference to English language based topics etc (in fact such a preference is discouraged, see WP:Systemic Bias). The SFC is more than adequate for visual recognition purposes for PAL region users. As such, here is my proposed version, should we go ahead with something like this. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, at 275px, the CPU and Online Services labels fit on one line. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about info box size, and not specifically the pics in the info box??? The PS3 info box is very very long. And the Mega Drive's wasn't that long, and neither is the SNES'

In fact I don't see any point to make the info box smaller than the table of contents, I don't hear about this on other articles.--SexyKick 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you think that? Quote: "There has been some comment elsewhere that having two full-sized images in the infobox makes the box too large". I read that as There has been some comment elsewhere that having two full-sized images in the infobox makes the box larger than it needs to be. The distinction is that the PS3 infobox is big because it contains a lot of info, while the SNES one (and the Mega Drive one) is big because one piece of content (i.e. the pics) is big. Being big adds nothing to the article other maybe looking nice, which is not the case in all set ups (on netbooks or smartphones for example, they are likely to cause a lot of clutter). As long as it is not too small to see clearly, there is no good reason for it not being smaller. Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we may have to use the JP version; I've just had a message on commons saying that the PAL one (jpg and png) has been speedy deletion nominated (copyright infringement). The evidence provided seems to be a "find alternative versions of this picture" engine. As far as I can tell, there's evidence of posting date of any of the pics (I can't find any) so my guess is that they are copies from commons rather than the other way around, but I might be wrong. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to appeal (for some reason you can't just put a "holdon" or whatever it is on commons) - it seems to involve changing the template to a standard deletion one and posting a deletion request (doesn't make much sense to me). Any help on this would be great. Alphathon™ (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. It seems someone has removed the templates (not sure if they should have done, so I'll let you know if they come back). Alphathon™ (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it was carelessness (didn't pay any attention to the image history), recklessness (figured someone else would catch it if he made an error), cluelessness (didn't realize that {{copyvio}} and Commons:Deletion requests are not the same thing), or malice (knew a deletion request would fail, but hoped someone would delete it without paying attention if he claimed it was an obvious copyvio). He was decidedly not interested when I attempted to talk to him about it, but he did acknowledge that it would never be deleted at Commons:Deletion requests because it's far more likely other sites copied from us than vice versa. I really expect better behavior from an admin, but I suspect it's the same as here: if you pass RfA, it takes an act of ArbCom to do anything.

Personally, from this and other issues, I'm about ready to reupload everything locally with {{NoCommons}} and be done with it. Anomie⚔ 18:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Super Famicom" and WP:BOLDTITLE

In this edit, someone unbolded the foreign-language names of the console per WP:BOLDTITLE, which states "Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English". While I agree with unbolding "Super Comboy", I'm not so sure about unbolding "Super Famicom" and "SFC"; it seems to me that that name actually is normally used in English when discussing Japan-only games or the Japanese version of the console in general. I do note that the redirect Super Famicom is somewhat well-used, despite it having few incoming wikilinks. But I may just be too close to the issue, so I am asking here for other opinions. Anomie⚔ 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm...I found the wording "not normally used in English" would apply here in that we do not normally refer to the console with these terms, but only when discussing it in a South Korean or Japanese context. Otherwise, all foreign product, character names, and work titles would be in boldface as they would always be referred to as such when discussing it in that context.

Though the guideline is not a very comprehensive explanation either, given that it was probably created for foreign terms and transcriptions that generally have a more commonly used English translation (see Federal Republic of Germany), as well as foreign words that have not found their way into common English use. Which is where the italics probably stem from – but I suspect this matter was just not thoroughly discussed at the MoS talk page. It's more of a special case, modern-day foreign product titles. I'll bring it up there. Prime Blue (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But with most other products, don't we still use the English name even when discussing it in a foreign context? For some reason, at least some people seem to think of the SFC as something different enough from the SNES to be called by its own name. Good point on the italics issue though. Anomie⚔ 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we consider it different enough from the Super Nintendo, then it wouldn't necessarily count as a synonym of the article's subject as described in MOS:BOLD anymore. But as I said, I guess such cases were never considered when these guidelines were created: I'll bring both issues up on the talk page in the hopes of getting some input (working on it already). Prime Blue (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Started the discussion here. Prime Blue (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the italicizations as I replaced the problematic sentence from the guideline. Also, I re-instated the boldface for Super Famicom for now until we get more input from other users. Still don't consider it in common English use, though. Prime Blue (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)