Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured article star Super Nintendo Entertainment System is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 2, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikibooks
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Featured Article nomination

Here it goes. Anomie 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job!! It passed! Now, go add that well deserved star :) Xihix 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to you as well, KieferSkunk! Anomie 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was unexpected. Everyone add this article to your watchlist for August 2! Anomie 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for going from GA Candidate to Today's Featured Article within only two weeks. Epbr123 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to everyone, this brings back memories lol67.167.209.99 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Congrats too all people who helped work on this artile! EvilHom3r 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mortal Kombat and Exclusive Licensing sections

I've been working on some massive copyediting and reorganizing in support of the Featured Article nomination, and Anomie has been very helpful in making suggestions to help the article flow better. So far, I've just tackled the lead and History sections, but I wanted to open up discussion on a couple sections: "Mortal Kombat" and "The end of exclusive licensing".

I think that both of these sections have much more to do with Nintendo's history as a company rather than the SNES's history as a console. Mortal Kombat wasn't anything groundbreaking with respect to the SNES hardware - it was just a source of controversy since the game was very bloody and, at the time, Nintendo wouldn't allow the blood and gore on their console. It could just as easily have been the N64 or the GameBoy or any other console that this happened on - it just happened to be the SNES. I think that this information really should be mentioned both on the Mortal Kombat page and in the history section for Nintendo itself, but not here. It was a very significant event in video game history - it just doesn't really have to do with the SNES itself.

The same goes for "The end of exclusive licensing" - this has to do with Nintendo's policy decisions, and this particular event also occurred during the SNES timeframe. But it wasn't really a result of the SNES - again, this could just as easily have happened with any other console. It would make more sense to put this in Nintendo's history, so that this article can stay focused on the SNES. Otherwise, I'd suggest that we refocus the paragraph so that it discusses the impacts that this had on Nintendo's marketing and sales of the SNES.

Discussion? :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not as big a deal now - the current layout works better than I'd expected. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing problems

I'm surprised the level of sourcing in this article passed WP:FAC. The references are incomplete (see WP:CITE/ES); I started to complete them in advance of the mainpage date, but I'm finding that most of the sources used don't seem to rise to the level required of WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have specifics, I will entertain them. Random generalities are not helpful. Regarding the edits you made:
  • For references to a corporate website, you changed the corporation from "author" to "publisher". There is nothing on WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES that gives guidance on how to cite a work of corporate authorship.
  • For the "personal" website, you set the publisher to point to the website. Isn't that a bit redundant? I see nothing on WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES that states this should be done either.
  • Regarding the personal website, did you do more than look at the URL? The website lists numerous references to WP:RS sources:[1]
    • The Sega sales figures are referenced there to the following:
      1. Microprocessor Report, May 30, 1995, Volume 9, Number 7.
      2. Game Over, by David Sheff, 1993. p. 352
      3. New York Times, April 26, 1990. p. C1
      4. Popular Mechanics, February 1990, Volume 167, Number 2. p. 86
      5. 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide p. 64
    • The SNES release date is referenced to the following:
      1. Microprocessor Report, May 30, 1995, Volume 9, Number 7.
      2. New York Times, September 18, 1991. p. D1
      3. Nintendo Power, November 2001, Volume 150. p. 40
      4. 1999 Video Game Buyer's Guide pp. 56,62
      5. Nintendo Power, August 2006, Volume 206. p. 94
      6. Game Over, by David Sheff, 1993. p. 362
      7. GamePro, May 2005, Issue 200. p. 37
      8. PSM, July 2006, Volume 10, Number 7, Issue 112. p. 76
I'm finding it difficult to assume you really want to help improve this article instead of just complain about it based on your comments here and on your user talk page.
Also, Epbr123, if you thought so badly of it why didn't you say more on the FAC? If you (or OhanaUnited) saw problems with the GA, why didn't either of you give any details? Anomie 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I just meant that it passed too quickly for enough people to review. Epbr123 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just over two weeks was too quickly for people to review it? Especially since I posted it to both WikiProject Video Games and WikiProject Nintendo on the third day to solicit reviews from editors likely to be interested? Anomie 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does not seem to rely on reliable sources; it received a scanty review at WP:FAC, and it appears that no reviewer bothered to check the sourcing. I don't have time to work on this many references before the mainpage date; perhaps if you all dig in, you can make it. There's a list of reliable sources just above this, which gives a good starting place in a library, so you can avoid using personal websites and webforums. I'll check back in after three months to see if the referencing has improved, or if a featured article review is warranted at that time. Good luck on the main page, 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I ran through 11 upcoming mainpage articles tonight to check for MOS and referencing issues, and this was the only one that gave me pause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Good for you, although I see you performed many more edits on some of them. Anomie 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have a reference to question, then QUESTION it already. I've had discussion with others on the references that I considered questionable, and after discussion I've determined that all the references are being used appropriately for their reliability. Here is a list of all the unique sources, which ones do you question and why?
  1. Nintendo's website. How is this not reliable?
  2. Game Over, a book published by Random House.
  3. The Ultimate History of Video Games, a book published by Prima Publishing.
  4. eurogamer.net. Looks like a gaming news website, and it's used as a source on at least three other FAs.
  5. 1up.com. Looks like a news website, and it's used as a source on at least three other FAs.
  6. Discount Store News. Looks like an industry news source for video game sellers. Sounds reliable to me when talking about trends in console sales.
  7. PC World. A well known magazine. Sounds reliable.
  8. GameSpot. A well known gaming magazine. Sounds reliable.
  9. Old-computers.com. Perhaps not so well-known, but it's linked to from many of Wikipedia's articles on old computers.[2] 122 mainspace links, and at least one FA, not counting this article. The fact it's being used to support is not particularly controversial, and the fact itself seems to be something that hardly anyone cared enough about to publish at the time.
  10. Nintendo Land. Ok, this one is probably not the most reliable of sources for hard facts. However, it's being used to cite the facts that "Some consider the SNES to embody the 'Golden Age of video games'" and "Others question this romanticism" by citing two editorials on the site. Seems appropriate for the use.
  11. IGN. Again, a well-known gaming news source.
  12. Sam Pettus's work. Mr. Pettus (also known as The Scribe) appears to have been a well-known and well-respected writer in the field of console emulation up until his disappearance in 2000.
  13. Snes9x's documentation. Written by the developers of Snes9x, which is one of the two most well-known emulators for the console. To develop such a product, they must have some clue of what they write, and this I believe establishes them as experts.
  14. ZSNES's documentation. Written by the developers of ZSNES, which is one of the two most well-known emulators for the console. To develop such a product, they must have some clue of what they write, and this I believe establishes them as experts.
  15. Snes9x's development forum. Forums are normally not allowed as secondary sources. However, the forum at the time was moderated by expert and active moderators and contained discussion among many of the experts in the field at the time, which is listed as one of the possible exceptions to the "no forums" policy at WP:RS/EX. Also, FWIW, it's being used as a primary source.
  16. The bsnes development thread. As above.
  17. Romhacking.net. A site with information created by and intended for experts in the field. Two other editors on the talk page agreed with this assessment, one of whom I know to have good judgment of reliable sources.
  18. Various minor SNES emulators. As these are being used as primary sources to support the fact that an emulator for their platform exists, I think they are reliable enough for their purpose. Or do you really think they are all hoax sites?
  19. The Super NES FAQ on Gamers Graveyard. Used to support three minor facts that are hardly controversial, and the information in the document correlates well with other sources.
  20. Mark Knibbs's modding docs. The information these are being used to cite is again rather uncontroversial. Given the level of technical detail in those docs and how it correlates with other SNES information available, Mr. Knibbs seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to the mods he describes.
  21. Advanced Media Network. Looks to be another gaming news source.
  22. Only a Game. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
  23. John Honniball. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
  24. Phil at Shamoozal Nerdlog. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
  25. NGEB. Being used to support the statement "Many believe that several later consoles derive their controller design from the SNES". As this is an example of someone supporting the statement, it serves the purpose.
  26. Gamers Graveyard's list of peripherals. Used to support the existence of various peripherals, most with photographic evidence.
  27. Gamers Graveyard's Super Game Boy page. This is used to support an uncontroversial statement of the capabilities of the unit, and it correlates well with other sources on the subject.
  28. RED #9's list of backup units. Used to support the existence of various units, most with photographic evidence.
  29. N-Sider.com. A news source for information on Nintendo.
  30. Overload. An expert in the field of SNES emulation, particularly the enhancement chips.
  31. Nach. An expert in the field of SNES emulation.
  32. Ken Polsson. As above, he cites his own list of over 1000 reliable sources. My library doesn't have any of the ones mentioned above which makes it a little hard for me to go use them directly, but I don't see anything in the policy that disallows use of tertiary sources.
  33. GamePro.com. Another fairly well-known gaming news source.
  34. Two forums discussing the pronunciation of "SNES". As this is a potentially contentious use of sources, I asked about it at WP:RS/N#"How do you pronounce SNES?". Once others understood exactly what was being done here, there was no objection.
Again, I question whether you actually want to improve this article or if you are just trying to prove some sort of point. You seem to be digging for an excuse to take this to FAR. Why? I've asked you once already to provide specific criticisms, but instead again you just whine about "bad sources" and don't do a single thing to help fix anything. I, on the other hand, have addressed every one of the specific issues you raised, including adding publishers to every reference where a "publisher" makes sense. Anomie 15:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking back in to see if there's been any progress; Anomie, your combative responses don't inspire me to help on this article. The other articles had issues that were easily fixed prior to their main page dates (one required more work, but its main author left Wiki, so someone had to do the work). I can't replace your sources with reliable sources easily; that would require a trip to the library to research the article. If you want me to help with further review of your sources, I'll do so if there is a cooperative environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You have stated that you see problems with the sourcing in the article, but you will not even specify which sources you have a problem with, besides the Ken Polsson site which is clearly a reliable tertiary source—show me the policy that says reliable tertiary sources are not allowed. I can't "fix" anything if you won't even tell me what in your opinion is broken. I would welcome it if you would engage in a discussion as to which specific sources you believe are not reliable enough for their use for which specific reasons. But if you want to simply continue complaining without offering any bit of information that could be useful towards addressing your concerns, then we aren't going to make any progress here and you may as well go list it at FAR now. Anomie 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently promoted articles are not listed at FAR; three months is the typical waiting period, so you have plenty of time to address the concerns. If you want to address them prior to mainpage date, and want to lower the heat here, I'll be glad to help; I'm not following why you're being so aggressive, but perhaps it's related to the GAC and other complaints. I'll be glad to help you prepare for mainpage if you're interested in a collaborative tone. For starters, a personal website is not a reliable source, and should not be used to cite any text. If the personal website cites other reliable sources, then you can locate those sources, verify that the personal website reports them correctly, and use the original (reliable) sources as your citations, once you've verified them. (Also doublecheck that the pesonal website is not violating copyright by including copyrighted material, in which case we can't link to it period, per WP:EL.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal webpages fall under the general category of "self-published sources". Self-published sources are acceptable as primary sources in many circumstances (the hard part is finding cases where this is relevant to the topic, which has been done here), and as secondary or tertiary sources in limited circumstances. Those limited circumstances include the case where the self-publisher is an expert in the field and the material is uncontroversial, which seems to apply to all of the uses of self-published secondary sources here. Also note that you will have to consider the intent rather than the letter of the policies, as in some of the fields we consider here (particularly emulation and modding) are meritocracies: the method of "peer review" is to self-publish somewhere and announce it to the respected peers for endorsement; and the method of becoming a "respected peer" is to provide information that is endorsed.
If you'll recall, we did have one "secondary sources only!" person in the FAC, and after discussion that person realized that the sources here that might be questionable were being used in a manner acceptable to their scope. I think you may be in the same position, "No personal webpages evar!" without looking at the actual circumstances of the case.
As for the Ken Polsson site, you have yet to point out any policy that says a source that itself cites many reliable sources is unacceptable as a tertiary source. Keep in mind that much of WP:V and WP:RS consider only secondary sources, and not primary or tertiary sources. Yes, it would be nice to follow the references and use one of the secondary sources directly, but unless someone who has access to these sources decides to help us out we will have to make due with the tertiary source.
Further, I suspect you still haven't actually looked at the site, based on this bogus mention of "including copyrighted material"; if you actually saw any copyrighted material you would say so, and if you didn't you wouldn't be suggesting a double-check. I would like to address any actual issues, but I'm quickly reaching the conclusion that your purpose here is just to promote some sort of point instead of to actually improve this article. Anomie 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If the text in the lead is Japanese, {{Contains Japanese text}} should be added below the infobox in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Should it? I don't see any mention of that template in any of the guidelines or policies. I don't even see any usage information on the template or its talk page. Anomie 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Allright, are you interested in collaborative help or not? Is the text or is it not Japanese? I can add the template myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why one bit of text calls for a large template, when there is no style guideline even suggesting such a template. It seems like it's something that's your personal preference, and I don't see why your personal preference should outweigh anyone else's. Anomie 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mortal Kombat and SNES vs. Genesis sales

There is a reason we have sources. Both Kent's The Ultimate History of Video Games and the 1UP.com article directly attribute the success of the Genesis version of Mortal Kombat to two factors:

  1. The SNES version had grey "sweat", while the Genesis version had red blood when a widely-known code was entered at the title screen.
  2. The SNES version removed some of the more gruesome fatalities, while the Genesis version retained them. I am unsure whether it always retained them, or only with the above mentioned code.

Anyone can verify the information in the 1UP.com source. Kent may be at your local library; if I get time I may stop by my local library and post an excerpt here.

Unsourced speculation like this is original research and should be reverted on sight. Anomie 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Now back to my wikibreak...

[edit] Sources needing verification as WP:RS

A preliminary (first pass) look at sources used in this article that don't appear to meet WP:RS:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SNES Zelda 3 pack-in

Am I the only one who ever got the Super Nintendo with The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past as the pack-in game, instead of Super Mario World? There's no mention of it in this article, and Internet searches provide few details. I can't recall when the package was released, but I know I got it for Christmas one year, and I got the official player's guide from Nintendo Power at the same time. Anyone else remember anything about it? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember something about that. If it DID exist, I'm postive it was advertised in Nintendo Power around that time, so if anyone has issues from then they are willing to look through... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it was released with ALttP as a pack-in at some point. There were also pack-ins with a number of other games over the console's lifetime. It's not mentioned in the article because it's not particularly relevant to list every game the console was ever packed with. Anomie 11:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Zelda game came with SNES consoles that were sold with one controller (but I need to do more research to look it up). I remember this because my brother got his machine when it was still the first design (and got a copy of Zelda) and I got mine with the new design towards the end of it's NA run and it was imprinted on the box (which I still have) that it came with the machine if you purchased the version with a single controller. If it is the case that this was a common practice, then maybe it should be included in the article (mentioned as part of a sentence which describes that the machine came with Super Mario World), but I'll have to do some research in my down time to verify if it is noteworthy. talk toSailorAlphaCentauri 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds logical. I do seem to recall only having one controller. I think I still have the box for my system around somewhere... or, at least, I did for a long while after I got it. I'd have to look for it. And good luck with your research. When I did some online a while back, the best I could find was an auction on eBay. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the redesign came with Yoshi's Island, the single controller w/ ZLttP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.233.83 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verb tense

I would suggest that the opening statement, "The Super Nintendo Entertainment System . . . is a 16-bit video game console" should be changed to "The Super Nintendo Entertainment System . . . was a 16-bit video game console produced from 1990-93". Now before anyone goes jumping up and down screaming, "But the Super NES still exists, I still love playing with mine!", let me point out some things. There are still people (like me) who also continue to take beautiful pictures with their AE-1s, and even some people (like my mother) having their Ramblers washed and waxed regularly. These products have been out of production for quite a while, however, and several generations of replacement models have come and gone. That is why, in those articles, the past tense is used (please check the links yourself). I was struck by the awkwardness of this article's opening when it came up on FA today, and feel that it simply reads more sensibly in the past tense, as we are now several generations past this system. If you disagree, please provide some thoughtful reasons, other than the fact that these are still being played with. I just don't think that that's reason enough. Unschool 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that just because something is a durable good does not mean that we cannot refer to it in the past tense. After it has ceased being "current", for lack of a better term, while we might refer to one's personal possession in the present, the model itself fades into past usage.Unschool 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now seen this verb tense change a couple of times in the last day or two, so I thought I'd add my two cents. While technically the SNES still is a 16-bit console, it's not still being produced from 1990-93, as mentioned in the opening statement. And it still is Nintendo's 2nd home console. However, due to the stoppage in manufacturing and the fact that we'll never know when all the SNES's in the world have ceased functioning (mine is still going), we should use the past tense of was. Useight 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The '90-93 part refers to the range of release dates in different regions. However, most articles that refer to things that still exist (whether they're being produced or not) use present-tense. For instance, The Red Green Show is a Canadian comedy show - even though it's no longer in production, the show is still around. But Gilbert and Sullivan were play writers - they no longer exist, and thus cannot be referred to in present tense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your well-considered comments, Kiefer. Allow me to respond (and this may not be smooth—I'm still thinking this out). Your assertion, Kiefer, that "most" articles referring to things that still exist use present-tense, would, I suspect, be a difficult thing to support factually—not because it's necessarily wrong, but because no one has time to pull up the plethora of articles that would need to be examined. Be that as it may, I would further assert that there is likely a difference in the way most editors treat physical commercial goods from the way they treat works of art. Works of art, be they paintings or sculptures or stage plays or books, are unique items. Automobiles and video games and cameras and washing machines are mass-produced. I'm not saying I know why we treat these two categories of items differently, it is just my observation that we do. When I read this article using the present tense, it simply struck me as wrong, or at least very odd. I'm still formulating in my mind why, but when I read it, I immediately looked up a few other items (as cited in my original talk page entry) and found that they also used the past tense, despite the clear continued existence of the items concerned. I think that the Super NES is closer to the AE-1 than it is to The Red Green Show. That is merely my opinion, of course. But it is the opinion of a great many editors that the past tense is more appropriate for many of these items which are no longer in production. Unschool 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Solution: SNES was a game system sold by Nintendo. SNES is is a game console formerly sold by Nintendo. Then again, if you look at old cars, you wouldn't say the Chevrolet Nova is a car formerly made by Chevrolet.--Loodog 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to Unschool: I think what you're saying is that we need to distinguish between the model (the design and manufacture of the SNES) vs. physical units. You're saying that because the SNES is no longer being made, it makes sense to refer to the SNES model in past tense, even though SNES units are still around and in use today. Comparing the SNES to the Chevy Nova (as Loodog did) makes for a good argument in that light. In my opinion, though, it makes just as much sense to refer to the Chevy Nova as a car that still exists, but is no longer being made - just like the SNES. It exists, people still use it, etc., but you'd still refer to its manufacture, advertising, etc. in past-tense since it's not in production anymore. Mixing tense can be tricky, but I think it makes more sense to refer to the SNES itself in present-tense and anything relating to its commercial period in past-tense. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I remain uncertain. As I indicated, most of the articles that I looked at made statements such as this one from the AMC Pacer: "Designed to appear futuristic, the shape was highly rounded with a huge glass area, and very unusual for its time. The Pacer was unusually wide for a small car". [Emphasis added by me, of course.] This style of writing appears ubiquitous to me, that is, when looking at mass produced items that are no longer made, writers use the past tense, despite the fact that there are clearly some Pacers (and Gremlins and Ramblers and Novas) still out there. The only time I would consider it natural to talk in the present tense about the AMC Pacer would be if I owned one today and was talking about my particular car. I'm not absolutely committed to this position, but it's what sounds right to me. I'd like to hear some more opinions, and see some more examples. Unschool 23:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with KieferSkunk, in that statements of fact about the SNES should use the present tense, while statements about events in the past should use past tense. This does seem to be the general case with console articles: for example, NES, Mega Drive, and Nintendo 64 all use "is" in the first sentence of the lead. Anomie 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That it is true of other consoles is not a fact to be ignored, but neither is it conclusive. A question: If we continue to use the present, for how long do we use it? Until the last console stops working? If, twenty-five years from now, it is confirmed that there are only 28 of these consoles, and only one is in operating condition, will we still use the present tense? What if none of them are working? What if they've all been thrown away? What is it that will define the "end" of the present tense—that the game is no longer being used, that copies of it no longer exist, or just that it's no longer remembered? Perhaps we should change the verb tense in this game's article to the present tense? It just seems to me that, since the game is no longer being produced, no longer being marketed by its manufacturer, no longer being retailed by first-run stores, no longer receiving technical support for its owners, that the time has come for the past tense. But hey, if you guys want this to be in the present tense until the last person who ever played the game has assumed room temperature, so be it.Unschool 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of seeing this argument being repeated over and over. Hopefully WikiProject Video games can reach a real consensus. Anomie 12:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sick of seeing this argument being repeated over and over? I thought that the above discussion was a model of civility and thoughtfulness. And I felt that there was a minimum of repetition. In my last post I posed many serious questions that need to be answered before making a decision. As there was no reply for over two months, it seemed that the discussion was successful in making some people reconsider their positions.
Sure, I'm in favor of bringing this issue to a forum where a universal decision can be reached. That's only logical, given the desire for the whole encyclopedia to follow similar rules of style. But I see no reason to trash the intelligent discussion that was carried on on this page. Unschool 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Unschool - I thought this discussion was going quite well. I think Anomie might be referring to recent edits where the tense is still changing despite this conversation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You got it, KieferSkunk, both here and at NES. I didn't mean to imply that this discussion was not reasonable, it just ended two months ago with no consensus and the edits still go back and forth with no end in sight. Anomie 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. As we all know, sometimes a person's tone is hard to detect or easy to misread. Let us all bow our heads and give thanks for WP:AGF. Unschool 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Anomie, thanks for bringing this discussion over to that project page. Unschool 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is a video game console. It doesn't make sense to imply that it is no longer a video game console, because it still is. The only past tense would be saying "the SNES is a video game console which was once in production." - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read and considered the arguments? There are far more automobiles, electronic goods, and other consumer items with Wikipedia articles that use the past tense, despite the fact that thousands of copies of these objects are still in existence and being used. There's no implication that the products no longer exist, it's simply normal convention amongst most English speakers to refer to such things in the past tense, unless of course they're referring to their own personal copy. Most people say that the Galaxiewas a Ford -produced car, even though there are hundreds—maybe thousands—still on the road. This is how typical people speak of computers, clothing, and other mass-produced consumer goods. I wouldn't say "Neckties produced in the 1970s are incredibly wide", even if I still harbor some in my closet. We speak of such things in the past, even though they still exist. Before you come to any final conclusion of how you feel about this, go to the link that User:Anomie has above. Read it, and put your 2¢ in. Unschool 02:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read them. I don't agree with them, and I don't agree with either using past tense for cars or using the fact that they use past tense to validate using past tense in this case. And in the case of the SNES, it should not be past tense in no case - SNES exists as a video game console, a current one, because of the Virtual Console. In all intents, SNES games are still being produced through the VC. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to this, I'd like to point out that just because most people use the past tense in the way Unschool described does not mean it's grammatically or linguistically correct to do so. You're referring to vernacular phrasing, which usually has no sway on how encyclopedic content is to be presented. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Your point, KieferSkunk, is of course correct and goes without saying. The question, then, is: Is the usage that I've been supporting merely a colloquialism, or is it proper? I honestly don't know. Accordingly, I have asked for some input on the matter. I will happily yield if I learn that I am mistaken—which indeed, may well be the case. Unschool 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am reverting—for the moment—an edit from User:Wgungfu pending the outcome of our discussion. Below is the explanation that I left on his talk page:
Wgungfu,
I appreciate your attempt to cut to the heart of the matter over on Super Nintendo Entertainment System, but I'm going to revert you for two reasons.
  1. First of all, there is an ongoing discussion on the subject of verb tense which is both civil and productive. There is a great liklihood that when the dust settles, we will in fact apply the change that you have made. But for now, you have inadvertently injected a bit of fuel in an area that was already a bit hot.
  2. Secondly, if you go back and re-read the intent of WP:OBVIOUS, I believe you will see that you have misinterpreted the intent of the policy. It is actually intended to push editors towards including factual material on a subject with which they are well-acquainted, but which the reader of the article may not be familiar. It has nothing to do with points of contention between editors. Indeed, given that there is currently an editing issue under discussion, some editors might interpret your use of the term "obvious" as bit of an insult, with the implication that others are too stupid to see what you alone recognize as "obvious".
Anyway, please feel free to engage in the discussion, both at this page and at the project page. While your mind probably won't be changed, you'll at least see that there are some valid reasons out there for the other point of view. Cheers. Unschool 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to leave word here. I've reverted to the present tense, per the well-considered consensus reached at WikiProject Video games. Unschool 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That was surprisingly fast

I was under the impression that it took weeks and months from FA promotion status to being featured on the Main Page (the only other huge exception was George Washington (inventor)). hbdragon88 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So was I! And as far as I know, no one even nominated it. I suppose Raul just decided it would make a good front page article. Anomie 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Greatest console war in history"

Has the war of PS3/Wii/360 surpassed the SNES/Mega Drive war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.134.143 (talk) 17:30, August 4, 2007 (UTC)

You have the quote wrong, BTW. It's "the fiercest console war in video game history". If you can suggest a phrasing that makes it clearer that subsequent console wars may have been fiercer without sounding awkward or losing the impact of the statement, you're a better writer that I. Simply adding "to that date" IMO sounds awful. Anomie 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that the current generation of consoles is in as fierce a war, but IP has a point: "Fiercest war" is a rather POV statement, regardless of what sources might back it up. I think we should limit it to "The rivalry between Nintendo and Sega sparked a fierce advertising war...", such that we leave the door open for other "fierce" wars as well, and that we don't try to put undue weight on this particular one. It was significant, yes, but I'm not sure that the phrasing is solid. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

Can somebody explain how the apparently 8:7 aspect ratio resolution of the SNES is scaled to the standard 4:3 (640 x 480) format of a normal TV? Does the TV do this automatically or is there some sort of analog chip inside the SNES that handles it?--SkiDragon 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rendering resolution inside the game console is generally not tied to the display - the SNES converts its internal graphics into a video signal that, depending on the type of cable being used, can be displayed via composite, S-Video or RF standards. They all comply with NTSC or PAL. If the aspect ratios don't match exactly, then some stretching will go on in the signal conversion. Beyond that, I don't have any specific technical insight here.
BTW, NTSC and PAL don't explicitly deal with horizontal or vertical resolution, though you can find technical details on the number of vertical scanlines for each standard. NTSC uses 480 out of 525 vertical scanlines, but since it's an analog signal, there is no specified standard for horizontal resolution. PAL has a higher vertical resolution, but otherwise works much the same. Therefore, so long as the SNES's output conforms to the appropriate standard for its region, the aspect ratio is somewhat moot. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand exactly how an NTSC signal works, but I am assuming that each line is updated in a specific period of time, and however the signal varies during this time determines the color and brightness of the pixels on the line (640 across, right? or does it matter?). But the vertical resolution should still have to match up, right?--SkiDragon 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The TV has no concept of pixels. As the 3 electron beams move across the screen, their intensity can be changed at (almost) any time, so you can have 256 pixels in one line, or 255 or 254 or 253 and so on. You just need to change the signal at the right time. Of course there's a certain upper limit, determined on the one hand by the screen size and the used frequencies, and on the other hand by the signal-generating hardware. The SNES is only fast enough to change the signal 256 times per line, so that's what you see on the screen. And of course the "pixels" are not rectangular, i.e. they're also 4:3. 84.182.102.212 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NTSC has 448 scanlines in interlaced mode NTSC has 224 scanlines in noninterlaced mode horizontal resolutions don't really exist on analog tv sets. It just depends on how fast the device plugged into your tv changes the color(pixil) on one scanline. Your Snes changes pixels 256 times in one scanline, so that is it's resolution. Snes does have a 448x512 mode where it is interlaced and changes pixils 512 times in one scanline instead, but it was very rarely used because it limited background layers and colors and sprites appear very tiny. This mode was so very rarely used that even most of the hardcore snes fans never even seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.83 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellaview

Hi. I've tried several times to replace the "Satellaview with Super Famicom" with an image that doesn't have unnecessary blurring, but, everytime I upload and post a new image, Wikipedia keeps reverting it back. This is really aggravating. I've uploaded my own images, images from other websites, and other methods, all with citing when available.

Why can't I post a better image without unfounded copyright threats thrown at me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotAndrews (talk • contribs) 22:21, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the image, as I see it, is that the current image (Image:Satellaview with SuperFamicom.jpg) is improperly labeled as Free/Public Domain. Unless the person who uploaded the image is the copyright holder of the Satellaview peripheral (highly unlikely), the copyright tag is incorrect - Satellaview is VERY likely still copyrighted to Nintendo and/or the product's producing company, and thus any images of it are similarly copyrighted and not free, even if you took the photo of the product yourself. Thus, an appropriate non-free license template should be used, and a fair-use rationale for the image should be provided as well. (This also means the image can't be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, as that is only for free/public-domain images.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? If you can speak Japanese, you can go ask PiaCarrot, Hr, and Muband about the origins and copyright status of Image:Satellaview with SuperFamicom.jpg. But it's not "Free/Public Domain" at all, it's GFDL, and especially since all the logos have been removed or blurred out I have no idea where you're coming up with these weird copyright claims. Are you similarly doubting the status of the rest of the images in the article? And how did Wii pass FA with all those similar images? Anomie 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Japanese. But that aside, the Wii image is similarly misused and should probably be tagged for deletion with an incorrect copyright. The uploader of the image does not have the power to override Nintendo's copyright on the Wii or any of its promotional images, and the same is true of Satellaview. If you can find an official publication stating otherwise, I'll consider myself corrected. But a promotional image of the Wii, or of the Satellaview, or the SNES, or any other copyrighted object, is in the same class as a screenshot of a copyrighted game, and those do not qualify for free, GFDL, public-domain, etc. copyright tags. They are not free, and they shouldn't be labeled as such. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when you do that, so I can watch the discussion. Anomie 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the images you've uploaded is that you haven't specified the source or the copyright status of the images. To cover the source, you have to specifically state on the image page where the image came from. If you took the picture yourself, say so. If you scanned it from a magazine or something, specify the magazine down to the issue and page number. If you downloaded it from somewhere, be sure to include the link to the page you got it from. To cover the copyright status, you'll probably find a templates on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that describes it. Both of these are required by Wikipedia, and if you do not supply them your image will be deleted. If the copyright is "non-free", you will also have to provide a fair-use rationale for the use of the image in any article you want to use it in.
Also, note that Wikipedia's policy is that a "free" image is preferred over a "non-free" image, no matter if the non-free image is of better quality. Since we have a free image for the Satellaview (even if it is blurry), any image you supply will also have to be under a free license.
If you want to post the source information for your image Image:SatellaviewwithSuperFamicom.jpg, I will help you satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as much as possible. Anomie 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slogan

I don't see how just one of the console's marketing slogans[3] is relevant, especially in the lead section (as opposed to a section about the marketing, which we don't have as it is not particularly interesting (as opposed to Sega's attack campaign, which is relevant to the Mega Drive)). I'm bringing the question here for discussion per WP:1RR, as the anon who added it apparently doesn't subscribe to WP:BRD. Anomie 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellaview_with_SuperFamicom.jpg

Why is the "BS-X" in "Satellaview_with_SuperFamicom.jpg" blurred out? There are no legal issues related to the showing of the BS-X logo, and, if anything, it confuses readers.

Since the editors feel the need to reset any and all changes, is there a way to add a better "Satellaview_with_SuperFamicom.jpg" that doesn't needlessly blur out portions of the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotAndrews (talk • contribs) 17:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

If you can speak Japanese, you can go ask PiaCarrot, Hr, and Muband why they blurred out the logo; I suspect there were concerns that the logo's copyright would make the image non-free. As for my reverting your additions of the image, I will repeat what I told you last time:

The problem with the images you've uploaded is that you haven't specified the source or the copyright status of the images. To cover the source, you have to specifically state on the image page where the image came from. If you took the picture yourself, say so. If you scanned it from a magazine or something, specify the magazine down to the issue and page number. If you downloaded it from somewhere, be sure to include the link to the page you got it from. To cover the copyright status, you'll probably find a template on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that describes it. Both of these are required by Wikipedia, and if you do not supply them your image will be deleted. If the copyright status is "non-free", you will also have to provide a fair-use rationale for the use of the image in any article you want to use it in.
Also, note that Wikipedia's policy is that a "free" image is preferred over a "non-free" image, no matter if the non-free image is of better quality. Since we have a free image for the Satellaview (even if it is blurry), any image you supply will also have to be under a free license.
If you want to post the source information for your image, I will help you satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as much as possible. Anomie 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I personally would prefer an image of the Satellaview "in action" rather than it sitting in a box. Anomie 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Code

Some SNES carts with large amounts of dialogue, such as the RPGS, had single bytes in the tables representing entire words or parts of words, as opposed to just a single letter. Chrono Trigger's table is composed entirely of this, it has no simple alphabet programmed (http://www.snakeyes.org/tbl/files/chronotbl.txt). From what I have seen in NES roms, this looks like a something new they used to save space. It's probably quite common now, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.194.1 (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple alphabet in there, see A0-D3. It's not particularly new or interesting, FF1 for example did the same sort of thing. Anomie 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Bus-B takes me where?

hey anomie, I'm a bit confused about the Bus-B stuff. If the V-ram is around 64k big than how can this DMA stuff work with an 8-bit bus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.83 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do note this page is for discussing improvement to the article itself, and not for general questions about the console. The Wikipedia:Reference desk exists for asking general questions. That said, VRAM isn't accessed by the program directly. Instead the starting address is set in the "VRAM Address" register and then the data is written byte-by-byte to the "VRAM Data Write" register. The 8-bit Bus-B is sufficient to address this "VRAM Data Write" register as well as several other registers. Anomie⚔ 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super NES vs. Super Famicom vs. Super Nintendo

Apart from the article using those terms interchangeably, there seems to be no mention of the marketing names used in Nintendo's marketing. I believe the SNES was known as the "Super Nintendo" in most of Europe, and Super NES in the North Americas (where the NES was already a household name). The US site mentions the SNES (or Super NES), the UK site the Super Nintendo. Anyone with more details? Bastien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.126.240 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Famicom was the name in Japan; the article should use that name when discussing the console in relation to Japan. Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Super NES were both used as official names of the console and may be used interchangeably, and should be used here when discussing the console world-wide or in relation to English-speaking countries. SNES is an acceptable abbreviation for use in tables and such, but should probably not be used in running text in the article. Nintendo required that they approve of all games to be released, and referring to the console as "Super Nintendo" is reliably said to have been one of the things that would lead to non-approval; I don't know why nintendo.co.uk would use that name, but I would avoid it in this article outside of the lead. The lead mentions all five of these names and the wording suggests the differentiation between "Super Nintendo Entertainment System"/"Super NES" and "Super Nintendo" (it's not important enough to state the difference explicitly, especially considering your nintendo.co.uk example); I don't know what marketing names you are referring to. Anomie⚔ 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Living in Europe when the SNES was released, I've never seen it being called "Super NES" except in specialist publications (ie. gaming magazines). So I'm lead to believe that Nintendo itself referred to it as "Super Nintendo" in Europe. Bastien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.126.240 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Many (most?) people called it "Super Nintendo", just as many people called the predecessor "Nintendo" rather than "Nintendo Entertainment System" or "NES". That doesn't make either "Super Nintendo" or "Nintendo" an official name for the machines, and both of these are mentioned prominently in the respective articles. If you have evidence of actual Nintendo advertisements (as opposed to stores' advertisements) using "Super Nintendo", I would be interested in seeing it. Anomie⚔ 13:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have anything official either, but I do remember seeing an ad for a SNES game way back when where the commercial concluded with "Only on Super Nintendo". It's been too long and I don't remember the game or the company that made it at this point, but I do recall that the term was used in the States at least once with respect to advertising. I may be able to dig up a little more info. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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).[4] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Can we include game backup devices/copiers?

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


[edit] 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)