Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System

North American release date: August 23, 1991

We have three basic dates supported by sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Sure there is. The official release date was September 9 (pushed back from September 1). The street date varied by location, but the earliest reliably reported date is August 23. All this is stated in the footnote. Anomie⚔ 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean its North American launch games need to find a source that lists August 23? « ₣M₣ » 16:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think if they have sources for being a launch title, they could just cite that and use a footnote like we have here. Anomie⚔ 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion needed per WP:BRD

A user is proposing this edit, which basically adds the sentence "Many Genesis games featured graphic violence that eventually resulted in the creation of the Videogame Rating Council" into the middle of the section on Console wars. IMO, this sentence is not necessary here and is redundant to the later section Changes in policy, which discusses the matter in more detail and without overbroad generalities. The Videogame Rating Council itself is not relevant to the topic of this article and thus doesn't need mention, as it was a Sega-only creation that was eventually replaced by the industry-wide Entertainment Software Rating Board. Comments? Anomie⚔ 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a good sentence in a good place. Precisely as a Sega only creation dealing mainly with violent games that did not exist on SNES it deserves mention both to highlight the difference between sega/nintendo cultures of the time, and as a lead into the next section that deals with the industrywide regulation that followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly find it relevant either.

Edit; on a reread of the section, I find it strange that the paragraph mentions the other video game rating councils, but not the VRC (which was I do believe is the first.)--SexyKick 00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The VRC is not relevant to the SNES; it could certainly be usefully mentioned in the Mega Drive article. Anomie⚔ 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree, certainly what Pantergraph is trying to add is not needed either way.--SexyKick 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another wording dispute

In The Ultimate History of Video Games on page 480, Kent writes about the SNES version of Mortal Kombat II "This time, it sold better than the Genesis version." Nice and straightforward.

However, SexyKick found this source that lists sales of 1.51 million for the SNES version and 1.78 for the Genesis version since 1995. Last I checked, that site's numbers were considered reliable when they cite them to NPD but not necessarily otherwise (and that page doesn't). And at any rate that page is not particularly helpful, since by its own claim it is missing sales from at least September–December 1994, which could make enough of a difference: the SNES version was outselling the Genesis version 2 to 1 in October 1994^[1], and numerous sources report $50 million in combined sales for the first week, so it is quite likely at least 1 million were sold by October 1994, which would give the SNES version at least 0.33 million over the Genesis in 1994, which is more than the 0.27 million difference in the "since 1995" numbers from Magic Box. IMO that's more than enough reasonable doubt. But after some inconclusive back-and-forth on various talk pages, SexyKick declared victory and changed the article to the more noncommittal "the SNES version was the one to get." I decided enough was enough and left it alone.

Now numerous editors have come by insisting that that wording is POV. So what should we do here? What would satisfy all you people? Anomie⚔ 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"the SNES version was the one to get." would be ok if it was in quotes, and made clear it was the opinion of the source. Otherwise, it's simply not encyclopedic. It sounds like a magazine article.Asher196 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm happy with the way it is, I think it's nuetral to say that the SNES version was the one to get. Just look at reviews, or the source. It's a sourced statement after all.--SexyKick 22:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if people even know what an encyclopedia is.Asher196 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." This? It seems to me often people misunderstand pointing out a derogatory fact as POV, like the statement "The Genesis initially competed against the aging NES, to which it had better graphics and sound" which is nuetral because it's completely true, came from a source, etc. It sounds like a diss to the NES, when in fact, it is not. This may sound like a diss to the Genesis version of the game, but it isn't. The Genesis version was actually a very very gimped version of the game, and the SNES version looked better, sounded better, and had nearly all the content missing from the Genesis version. The Super Nintendo version was the version to get, it's sourced, and it's a fact according to reviews.--SexyKick 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, I don't think there is anything wrong with it the way it is, as long as it is sourced and is likely to represent the consensus at the time (being uncensored certainly seems reason enough, so I have no doubt it was, but such a general "consensusey" statement like that needs a good source). My only gripe would be that it isn't written in formal language - sounding like a magazine does not make it non-neutral, it means it has an informal tone. Perhaps something like "the SNES version was generally considered to be superior/preferable/something like that" would be better. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 01:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea.--SexyKick 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's the usage of the phrase that defines whether it's encyclopedic or not. Used as a statement in the article "This time, the SNES version was the one to get" isn't neutral, but using it in the context of the source "According to <insert ref here> The SNES version was the one to get" and then the ref to back up the quote - or similar is OK (to me anyway). a_man_alone (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair, although there's still the tone issue with "the one to get" - if used in the article like that it should at least be put in scare quotes. I think what FullMetalFalcon has changed it to now is fine tone-wise… now to sort out the POV. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 18:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm learning all sorts today - scare quotes indeed. If it's a bona-fide quote then there's no problem with it being in the article, so long as it's recognised as being from a reliable source. a_man_alone (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure it it was an actual quote or a paraphrase (and it isn't quite a quote - the original is "This time, the SNES version was the one to buy", not "…the one to get"; fairly inconsequential but still). I'm not sure quoting that from the 1UP article is appropriate though, since there seems to be no reason to quote it - a paraphrase is more than sufficient (and preferable for copyright reasons I believe). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Digresssing here, but that's one of my pet hates - misquotes. If a quote is to be used, it must be exactly right, otherwise it's not a quote. a_man_alone (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here so I am (sorry if this is just jumping in but I'll summarize). I removed "and this time the SNES version was the one to get" because this is not how Wikipedia should word articles. It sounds biased and childish. It needs to be worded better if it is to be included in the article. A correct way to say this would be "Technically, the SNES version was superior this time around" or something like that. Doshindude (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

History section

I have some feedback for the History section that describes the lead up to the SNES. Normally I would just (try and) be bold, but a) I felt unable to explain my reasoning in the short space of the edit summary, b) I wanted to get consensus, especially given that this is an FA, and c) I wasn't sure about some of the intentions behind some of the original wording. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Both systems were built on 16-bit architectures and offered improved graphics and sound over the 8-bit NES.

This sounds like anything that is 16-bit will always have better graphics and sound than something that is 8-bit, which is not true by necessity. Please clarify it; my best guess is that it had better graphics and sound (for reasons that may or may not be related to the CPU register width) in addition to being 16-bit over 8-bit (which isn't an advantage per se, so it should be described what specific consequences it had---it doesn't need to be a technical essay but a little more precision would be nice). -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The better graphics are likely related to using 16 bits rather than 8 in the graphics chips. What wording would you suggest? Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is "likely" the reason because I don't know the details of the hardware. I can research the issue and then offer more precise wording, or perhaps someone more familiar with the situation can provide something more quickly. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo executives were initially reluctant to design a new system, but they reconsidered when the NES hardware began to show its age.

This sounds as if executives normally design new systems, which they don't. Please rephrase. "Began to show its age" is very vague; how did it show the age, given that it had been dominating despite the technical inferiority? It should be possible to pin down slightly more precisely why after the dominance suddenly the age was a problem. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem vague at all to me. Executives decide what the resources of the company are to be used for; if they decide that a new system is to be designed, the designers get to work. If they decide a new system should not be designed, the designers do not (officially, anyway) do so. The very next sentence pins it down more precisely. What wording would you suggest? Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues: 1) "executives were reluctant to design". They don't design, so they can't be reluctant to design. 2) "began to show its age" doesn't follow from the previous exposition (it said that despite the technical inferiority, NES was dominant). If the next sentence shows what is meant, the sentences should be linked, for example by using a semicolon or other means. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing its dominance in the market slipping, Nintendo was compelled to create a new console to compete with its 16-bit rivals.

First, I don't think a company can be compelled. Secondly, that they were compelled is not a fact, but it was possibly the opinion of some people at Nintendo at the time. So perhaps "..felt compelled" would be better. Or perhaps leaving out any notion of anyone being compelled and simply stating a fact such as "...started to design a new console..." or words to that effect would be preferable. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The company, as represented by the decision-making executives, was faced with the choice between designing a new system or allowing other, better systems to take their product's market share. For any company that wants to remain competitive in the market place, there's not really any choice there: they must either design the new system in an attempt to remain competitive or figure out viable a third option. What wording would you suggest? Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I already suggested an alternative wording which removes the "compelled" bit. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

All in all, it seems to me that these complaints are nitpicking wording that is already reasonably clear but that could be perversely misinterpreted. If you have actual suggestions for improvement, please give them. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling my feedback "nitpicking" is unnecessarily judgemental. I am not obliged to provide better wording, and neither are you if you don't see anything wrong with it. Either me or somebody else could also come up with something, or it could be left as it is. Please don't dismiss my feedback just because I did not immediately offer better alternatives. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I kind of feel it's all nitpicking too. Like, I thought the stuff was pretty clear, and reflected what most publications have wrote about the early history of the SNES. "Was compelled" to "felt compelled." Whatever...no one's going to care if you change that IMHO.--SexyKick 18:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

simultaneous colours

Please discuss the issue of simultaneous colours here, instead of starting an edit war. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple. While the color palette in the system has 256 entries, there is a mode for the first background layer of video modes 3 and 4 that allows for direct specification of up to 2048 colors at once; the other background layer(s) and the sprites can then use the palette entries to bring the color total to 2304 in mode 3 and 2208 in mode 4. The same mode allows the background layer in normal video mode 7 to directly specify up to 256 colors at once, which when combined with the sprites as before allows for up to 384 colors. In addition, the SNES can use color addition, color subtraction, or color averaging between background layers and/or sprites, and can change palette entries during the horizontal blanking period between successive scanlines. Using all of these, it may well be possible to construct a test pattern that displays all 32768 colors on screen at once. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not simple, and I actually understand what you're saying :-) This section was meant mainly for the IP that keeps reverting. If the user feels it is an issue with e.g. sources then he should tag it properly and/or bring it up here. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

However, please be careful that the assertion of 32768 colours is not OR (as your use of the phrase "it may well be possible" may suggest). -- Nczempin (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "nitpicking"

Given that the article has FA status, it is in general highly likely that any changes made to it are not as significant improvements as the ones that were made to bring it to this status. The better the article gets, the smaller the improvement suggestions will be. In addition, it is to be expected that editors who have been involved with the article for a long time will have fewer issues with it than those who come to it with an outside perspective. Calling feedback of those editors "nitpicking" is unfriendly and counter-productive, and just because the article is already pretty good doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it even better -- Nczempin (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)