Talk:Super Famicom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think that the specifications should be listed in both the "Super Nintendo" and "Super Famicom" articles. Does anyone agree/disagree with this?
- Whisper
One article should redirect to the other. Super Nintendo is by far the more common name, according to Google. Evercat 02:25, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for the suden change. I just dont think it's a good idea to have duplicate information. If one is updated the other might not be and they'll become out of sync. There is history to be written about the super famicom. But for now, a good idea might be to put the super famicom under a "model" subsection of sorts. Does this sound good? Since there's the super famicom, the european model, the NA model, and the revised NA model. Any objections to this? Just my 2 cents. --Gamera2 05:39, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The discussion concerning a merge is taking place here:
The Internal Specifications are fixed and there is no way they will ever go out of date. Instead of releasing a hyper Super Famicom/SNES, they decided to go with the Nintendo 64. This page cannot be considered a stub anymore, and I added back the internal specifications
- Whisper
I appriciate your efforts for completeness, but because they are fixed is a better reason NOT to have them on more than one page. They will not changed, but they may be revised, moved, or corrected at some point. Lets say (just for the sake of example) you have the hoover dam under the nevada and arizona page. Now the page nevada is corrected because the dam is actually not touching the state of Arizona (just for the sake of possiblility). The arizona page isn't and stays incorrect for about 3 months. I also greatly appricate your efforts to de-stubify articles. But this page could be de-stubified with information other than specifications. Perhaps console shape, or an image, and more information on the accessories only avialable in japan, such as the BS sattilite, or specifications on the unreleased cd drive. (If they can emulate the game boy advance before it's release, someone problably has information on it somewhere.) A number of other people feel the article should be merged all together. Your work is greatly appriciated here, but please take the time to consider these things. (Btw, this just happened with some sound data. --Gamera2 18:50, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC))
-Gamera2 17:08, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hmm, before you removed the Specs, I noticed that they were the same as the specs on the SNES page, BUT without the list format. I didn't see any recent changes on the SNES side relating to the specs, unless it was my own. When I did it, I changed both of them at the same time.
In addition, the "drink" thing is mentioned in this article: http://consoledatabase.retrofaction.com/consoleinfo/snes
I got quite a bit of information from Console Database...
- Whisper
- Okay, I was able to verify the drink re-design. Having 2 repair jobs now, it's not uncommon to see re-designs to prevent stupidity. However, it's still not a good idea to have the specs on both pages. (In case the aricle is ever edited by somone else, or ammended, or corrected et cetra.) Very good research work whisper. Keep up the good work and don't forget to Cite Your Sources! --Gamera2 07:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
