Talk:Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 2

Possible relationship between Famicom, NES and Commodore 64

I was thinking: since the Commodore 64 was designed to be a home computer for the entire family, and was launched in 1982, 1 year before the NES, could it be that the Family Computer was named Nintendo Entertainment System in USA, Latin America and Europe, because the name "Family Computer" could cause the NES to be mistaken for the Commodore 64? If someone knows something, let us know. Da nuke 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The name was chosen to make it sound more "technological". Nintendo tried very hard to distance the NES from previous game systems, since after the video game crash the prevailing opinion was video games were an old fad. I've never heard anything about the name relating to the Commodore. --Ntg 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

NES Clones

Would it be a good idea to include photos of NES clones? I just purchased one and could submit a photo. just a thought Michael Ray 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...there are far too many clones, and a specific article (with some photos) for that purpose. Usually, 1 photo per clone type (e.g. portable, classic look, wannabe xbox-look) should be enough. I've personally owned 4 NES clones so far, with appearances ranging from a japanese Super Famicom, to a Sega Mega Drive 2, to a "World Cup 2004 edition" looking like a PSOne with a big plastic football attached etc. EpiVictor 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PAL NES CPU speed

@Damian Yerrick:

For the second time now, i have corrected the PAL NES CPU speed from 1.68 Mhz to 1.77 Mhz. Like the NTSC consoles, the CPU speed is determined by dividing the Pixel clock by 3, which is 5.32Mhz / 3 = 1.77Mhz. The 5.32 Mhz pixel clock is generated by dividing the 26.58Mhz PAL master clock by 5. The 26.58Mhz PAL master clock is 4 times the 4.43Mhz PAL color carrier frequency. Is this enough proof now? FEB 7TH 2006(VIG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.247.108 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the PAL NES CPU speed is not 1.77 MHz - numerous tests have been performed on the real hardware and the RP2A07 divides the PAL NES's 26.601712 MHz master clock by 16, not 15 as you expected. The proper PAL NES CPU speed is, in reality, 1.662607 MHz. --Quietust 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PC10 / VS Systems video output

Since I happen to own an original PC10 arcade PCB, i can confirm that the video output are inverted RGB signals. That means, voltage levels @ 1V are dark and voltage levels at 0V are bright pixels. They probably did it to make service replacements with standard components harder. FEB 7TH 2006(VIG)

• It should be noted that the inversion happens outside of the video chip - the PPU itself outputs non-inverted RGB signals. --Quietust 13:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NES Sports Set?

Hi. I'm just a wee bit late for this, nonetheless I thought it was crazy that it wasnt mentioned. The NES Sports Set--shouldn't this have information about that? Or the first of its kind controller AKA Nintendo Blaster? Power Glove? These are some big things that no one had ever done before and I think they should be added in this lengthy article. Bourgeoisdude 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NES Parallax scrolling? No!

I changed the line: "Games like Gradius made heavy use of the NES's parallax scrolling capabilities." to: "Games like Gradius made heavy use of the NES's scrolling capabilities." because, although you can achieve parallax scrolling on the NES by changing the gfx content of tiles while scrolling (like Bucky O Hare), the hardware has no native support for it. You can only have 1 tile based scrolling layer. Besides, Gradius on the NES has no parallax scrolling (as the original arcade version) Feb 11th 2006 (VIG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.237.211 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Game Console Bundling and Price in US

I was only about 1 yr old when the console was released here in the US, so I don't exactly remember how the NES was sold. Can anyone add here or to the article about how the system was sold - i.e. Did the system come in "flavors;" A plain package with just the console and adapters, A game bundle with MB and the console, or a ROB bundle w/ the Robot and Gyromite, etc...? Also, I think this article could benefit from someone adding a pricetag at release to the system, or system bundles if that is how it was released. I believe the console alone was $200.00, but I do not know this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.11.247 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That information was here, in the history section, but the section was getting pretty big. The information was moved to History of the Nintendo Entertainment System (second section, fifth paragraph). The abbreviated summary of the history section that remains here doesn't mention it, I guess because it was considered too trivial for the context (though perfect for the more specialized History of... article). FWIW, the system was released in two flavors: a $250 version that included R.O.B. , the Zapper, Gyromite, and Duck Hunt (though not Super Mario Bros., interestingly), and a $200 version that dropped R.O.B. and Gyromite and added SMB. – Seancdaug 23:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Entertainment System vs. Nintendo Article

Anyone else notice that there is a "Nintendo" article that is different from this one (see here)? It'd be a nightmare to combine the two, but unfortunately I believe it needs to be done. They are one in the same, are they not? Bourgeoisdude 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Er... no, they're not. Nintendo is the name of the company; Nintendo Entertainment System is the name of (one of) their products. The articles deal with two different subjects. – Seancdaug 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops...my bad. Thanks for--letting me know. Bourgeoisdude 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

topload

i was under the impression that thier was a third variant (i belive it was the US one) that loaded through the top but was different from the famicom can anyone confirm/deny?

There were two NES models released in America. The second (the toploader) is referenced several times in the article, and covered in greater detail at NES 2. – Seancdaug 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Price

I can't help but notice there's nothing in this article about the price of the system and games at launch. Does anyone actually remember what it was?Bdve 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess for USA: Super Mario Bros, Duck Hunt and Gyromite at minimum, for they were all pack-ins (right?). Given that a lot of Japanese titles required very little translation, such as Baseball, Kung Fu, and Kid Icarus, I'd bet that there were a lot of launch games in the USA. --Locarno 17:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. I was wondering the price as well, and I think it was around $299. 71.250.35.123 20:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's over at History of the Nintendo Entertainment System: the Japanese launch was at ¥14,800, and the US launch came in two flavors. The deluxe version was $249, and the scaled-back version was $199. Dunno about Europe, though. I'll move the info into this article. – Seancdaug 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Famicom(NES) predecessor ??

Wouldn't the predecessor for the Famicom be the Color TV game??? Just wondering... (Bobabobabo 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't know if it can be considered the predecessor but if you are wondering why it didn't show up in the article after you edited it, it's because you typed in "Predecessor" instead of "predecessor" (I noticed that when I clicked the preview button). Another thing I noticed in the preview is that since you put "game" instead of "Game", it wouldn't have linked to the article. SNS 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Square Famicom Buttons

Do we have a citation for this claim? It seems dubious. -- Daniel Davis 01:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

you dont need a citation, just go search for it and you will instantly see it is true. you can buy them from time to time on ebay or yahoo auctions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.253.122 (talk • contribs).

That is not really a reliable source. -- ReyBrujo 12:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, try this for a citation http://cgi.ebay.com/1983-Square-Button-Famicom-CIB-Nintendo-Japan-nes_W0QQitemZ280099677014QQcategoryZ4315QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.253.122 (talk • contribs).

The fact that you are using an eBay publication created by some John Generic Bob should indicate you that there are no reliable sources. This is not different from you creating a Geocities page and writing the information yourself, and then using it as reference. Sorry, but no. -- ReyBrujo 04:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes. It is commonly well known that the first editions of the Family Computer had square buttons on its controller...maybe even the second edition. Here's a link to an article on my site for proof. And no, it isn't a geocities site, either. So there's even no need to give a snarky response: http://www.famicomworld.com/Articles/Square_Button_Famicom.htm

Oh and by the way, featherpluckin is NOT a John Generic Bob. He's well known as one of the current biggest Famicom eBay sellers around, and definitely one of the most famous.FamicomJL 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me be blunt: I don't care about "truth". Wikipedia does not care about truth. Check the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Attribution: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. I repeat, we don't care if what you say is truth, only if it can be verified.

Now that that is settled, let's see this. Knowledge can be divided into Common knowledge and any other kind of knowledge. Common knowledge is, basically, things everyone knows, and I mean everyone (the water is liquid, the rain goes from the sky to the earth, the sun is hot, the moon is not made of cheese, etc). Anything else, including facts that are known by a niche group, is not common knowledge and, if disputed, must be verified. So, it may be common knowledge for you or featherpluckin that the first editions of the Family Computer had square buttons, but not for the vastest majority of the world. NES sold, say, 60m units. Make it 4 people for family, that makes 240m. Let's average one friend for every of those NES, that makes 300m people. And let's suppose all of them have NES with square buttons. That makes, say, 5% of the world population. Compare that with, say, how many people know how salt tastes, that ice is cold, or that you can die by not breathing. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible by everyone, not only fans of the topic in the article. Always write articles thinking that it is going to be read by someone who has no idea what the topic is about.

When someone disputes a claim, like Doom127 did almost a year ago, a reply like "just go search" is not enough. Back to Wikipedia:Attribution, second paragraph: The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. In other words, the one who added the information is responsible for finding a reference to back it up. We can remove the claim on sight if it is not sourced, but you can't insert it without one if it has been disputed.

Now, we need a reliable source. This featherpluckin can be the biggest Nintendo fan, as I can be the biggest Dragonlance fan. But my word is not enough. I don't have any of the traits needed to be considered someone trustworthy. Nor he. Again, he can be a savior by NES fans, but for Wikipedia, he is a Generic Bob, like you, like me. If we weren't, we would have articles on Wikipedia. So, in order to add that information, we need something better than just "look his auction".

Finally, you back the claim with an article at your site. It makes me itch everytime someone does that (just like the owner of the Chrono Compendium did while working with Chrono Trigger). I suggest you to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and tell them that you want to back the claim with an article published in your site, and to see if people there agree or not. There may be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, or your site could be considered not reliable. Or I may be wrong and your site is accepted as a reliable source. However, at least you would know what people think about this situation.

I hope I have covered everything I had to. -- ReyBrujo 05:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you really wish to cite a source, by all means, cite www.famicomworld.com, it is linked to in this article, and is a reputible site for information on the famicom. Or, you could check japanese wikipedia. Now, since you are so dead set on following the rules, im going to site JL's site since it's fact and repubtable, and linked to in other portions of this article, if you have a problem, let me know, but since the site is repubtable I do not see any issue. Also, I find your attitude to featherplucknfilms rediculous, because without him, half the information available to westerners about famicom wouldn't exist. Give the guy more credit.

The reputation of a site is given by a combination of several factors: history, staff, backing corporation, amount of traffic it generates, media quoting, amount of users, etc. Personally, I like saying that a source is reliable if other sources rely on it for information. The New York Times is reliable not only because of all those factors I stated, but also because other reliable sources consider it reliable. However, whenever a reliable source must quote The Inquirer, they grimace.

I thought I made it clear that, from our (Wikipedia) point of view, neither you, me nor featherplucknfilms is notable according to our notability guideline for people. I thought I made that clear. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Kris, aka featherplucknfilms and owner of the Feather Pluckn' Famicom Shop in Japan. I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is, the fact that they exist or that there isn't a webpage made by Nintendo that says they exist. I understand you want to follow rules and have citations for all information, but based on your strict guidelines it seems the only legitimate source would be an article directly from Nintendo, on their webpage, and in English. This probably won't happen. I don't see why pictures aren't proof of their existence. I have pictures of the system, box, and motherboard with serial numbers and copyright dates. I can take them from any angle or including any items to prove they are not manipulated. Many of those pictures are available on http://www.famicomworld.com or from myself. I realize I may be nobody, but I am knowledgable on the subject and have pictures to prove this early edition of the Famicom. Following are several webpages (including some auctions with pictures and Wikipedia Japan) that document this. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%83%9F%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%94%E3%83%A5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF (This is the excrept that is important) 十字ボタン、A/Bボタン、START、SELECTボタンを備え、その後のゲーム機のコントローラとして標準的な形となったコントローラを2つ持つ。初期に製造されたコントローラーはABボタンが四角いゴム製だったため、連打がきかず、故障もしやすかったため、後に丸いプラスチック製のものへと改良がなされた。また、この四角ボタンの最初期の出荷分（発売日頃）に関してはコントローラーのケーブルとRFスイッチのケーブルが灰色になっている。コントローラを初めとして、赤と白を基調とした本体のカラー配置の基準は、当時最も安価な部材の色が赤と白だったことに由来する。[Basically means the square button controllers were on the first models, and that they were rubber and of poor quality compared to the circular buttons]) http://page7.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/g54800671 http://page4.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/d70684728 http://www.otakaraou.com/product/1405 http://page7.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/g49408218 http://news.ameba.jp/2007/03/3837.php Featherpluckn 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I am overzealous when adding references to articles because it is what we must do: focus on quoting reliable sources. In the strict sense of the word, Nintendo itself would be a primary source and should not be quoted. So, we are left with finding an article at IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, Gamasutra or another reliable gaming site having that information. We can't quote the Japanese Wikipedia (Wikipedia in itself is not a reliable source, so we can't cite ourselves), and again, auctions are not reliable sources.

Note that the original question was done virtually a year ago, and so far, we only have auctions, photographs and a site backing the information. Images by themselves cannot be used as sources (as neither videos in YouTube or songs in Napster), nor auctions (allowing an auction to be used as reference will allow any auction to be used as one, so in the article about the human soul, someone may be able to write "Although considered immaterial, a human soul has been prized at USD 5,000." adding a reference to an eBay auction where a dude sold his sold for that money; this is because we consider the outlet either reliable or not: either all the staff of IGN is reliable, or none is, either all the articles created by IGN are reliable, or none is). So, you should use your cite to reference the square button. HOWEVER, be very careful with that. As I said at Chrono Trigger's featured candidacy, I mistrust whenever a Wikipedia editor uses his own cite as a reference in a Wikipedia article, because that is bordeline to original research. In other words, go ahead, use your site as reference (although you should discuss at those Wikiprojects to see if someone objects it), but I advice very strongly against using your site as reference for other notes of the article. As we say in Wikipedia, if the event, location or item is notable, you should be able to find reliable sources. If reliable sources cannot be found, the event, location or item should not be here. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I really must say, you're taking this WAY too seriously. Comparing an auction of a videogame system to an auction of some guy selling his soul is laughable. So is calling the NEW YORK TIMES a good source. Do you live in New York?! Hell, I laughed even harder when you considered a bunch of review sites with forums that focus on current gamers as reliable sources. I mean, dude, this is why I started my site in the first place! Because there really is no end all source for Famicom information. Every NES page out there that is in English has small blurbs or sections, and they really only foucus on "Hey guys they made weird pirates come and see!!!" stuff, and never get into the gritty details. That's why I'm pretty much hoping that the site attracts enough visitors, so that enough people can be told about just how much fun the Famicom is. :)FamicomJL 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I am overzealous when adding references to articles because it is what we must do: focus on quoting reliable sources. In the strict sense of the word, Nintendo itself would be a primary source and should not be quoted. It seems to me you are finally admitting you are overzealous. If you can't quote nintendo themselves, then who are you going to quote? And hell, why on earth would you quote BIASED publications such as IGN, gamespot, etc. I also find it amazing how you don't deny the existence of a square button famicom, which is arguebly impossible after all the information we have given you, yet you argue the sources are "unnaceptable". How is a picture, multiple auctions, and a REPUTABLE website featured prominantly in the links section of this article not good enough?? I think you need to get outside a bit more my friend, and stop lurking on wikipedia all day long. In addition, I was the one who added famicomworld as a citation, and I have no affiliation to that site other than the fact that I am a member. I do not own it, or claim to own that site. In yet another addition, you claim there are only auction sites, japanese wikipedia, and famicomworld backing up this information, yet I noticed kris also linked you to news.ameba.jp, which is neither an auction site nor japanese wikipedia.

I never denied the existence of the square buttons. I was just requesting a reliable source. We have a set of guidelines and policies that must be fulfilled. I explained them. You don't agree with them? Well, you can close the browser and leave. If you want to add information here, you need to stick to those rules. If you question that our "reliable source" definition, go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and state you want to change Wikipedia from a site aiming at collecting verifiable facts to a site where everyone can write anything "because I know". Auction sites are not reliable. I question the reputability of your "reputable website", just as you question the worth of IGN, Gamespot, etc. I did not notice the news.ameba.jp link, so sorry for skipping it.

Let's review the whole conversation, sometimes it opens people's eyes:

1. This article had a claim.
2. Someone questioned the claim.
3. No proof was given for almost a year to justify the claim. After a year, someone comes and says the obvious answer "no".
4. Then comes someone and says "just go search for it, you can buy them at auction sites" which is not enough for us.
5. So, I tell people that a search and auction sites are not reliable sources.
6. And someone offers an auction site as source.
7. I then say that a generic auction site by someone who is not notable is not enough justification.

I never claimed the item did not exist. I claimed that reliable sites did not exist. You offer famicomworld.com, which has an Alexa rank of over 2m, while approximately 5 sites link to famicomworld.com according to Google, which like it or not, are some of the ways we measure notability. So, allow me to question the site's notability according to Wikipedia standards. If you want to continue discussing, please read Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability before doing so. If you want to discuss our system, please get to know it before doing so. -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, SORR-EE for only being around since August to get enough links via google...I mean DUH, of COURSE it's not going to be in good numbers. In fact, the number one ALL NES source that has been around since 1995, mind you, has a ranking of 751,243! When it comes to the nitty gritty details, using Alexa against the sites makes no sense, because 3/4 of the people who visit the gamespot like sites are all younger than 18 and have barely any recollection of gaming before even the SNES days. ALSO, why would IGN, gamespot, or anywhere else, suddenly drop everything and focus on older systems? Whenever they have, like for anniversaries and such, there's always tons of errors abound, which people on classic based sites like to pick apart (Which I disagree with, a simple correction e-mail would be better). You think depending on sites that have staff members that don't know anything about the NES besides the fact that it's an 8-bit system with Mario, is a great place for a "source"? Oh, please. Kris has a good idea with the picture thing, I hope he does it.FamicomJL 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have a problem with IGN, GameSpot, or any other gaming site does not matter. We (Wikipedia, WikiProject Video Games, etc) consider them reliable. If you don't, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and state your claim, that we should stop using IGN and GameSpot for articles about NES.

I know you are a Nintendo hardcore fan, and therefore have done an exhaustive search and found a lot of interesting things. However, you are also an editor in this Wikipedia, and it becomes a conflict of interest when you promote your site over others that have been accepted as reliable, regardless of their current trends, for as long as there had been games articles here. You are against news corporations with young editors that get paid for doing what you do for free? No matter, we consider them reliable for a number of facts. Again, if you don't agree with them being reliable, go discuss at the WikiProject Video games, not here. -- ReyBrujo 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's NOT the point I'm getting at! I honestly don't care if they do errors, I'd just e-mail them. I said so myself! I added my site (and barely I might add, another wiki user added the sources.), because IT'S THE ONLY FAMICOM SOURCE OUT THERE. Like I said, GameFaqs and IGN are NEVER going to one day focus on Famicom related material, besides small blurbs for anniversaries, nothing down to the nitty gritty. They're all FANTASTIC for opinions, reviews, articles, and details on games of today, but NOT for details on japanese systems that are pretty much obscure in the United States. THAT'S what I'm saying. I'm not going on a crusade against the sites. Please re-read my original message again. I'm not putting any links on any articles for the simple purpose of plugging my site. I honestly don't care about if it gets more popular or not. My life is not a popularity contest, and you in your replies make it seem like I'M treating my site as a popularity contest. I honestly don't care about if it gets a high good ranking. The point of my site is to help people get smarter on the Famicom, and realize that there's more to the system than just "oh yah dey used smb2 from som game dere". The other sites with Famicom information, are fantastic, but they're really NES sites with a small blurb, side-section on the Famicom, with little details. Usually they're only focused on the weird and crazy pirates. You say other others that have been accepted as reliable...WHAT OTHERS?! What other sites have blurbs on the square button controllers? That argument is null and void in this. Once again, to reiterate: I added the links NOT because I wanted visitors to flock on in and give it a high "ranking", I added the links so that people can find information and PROOF on things, like the square button link someone else linked to. I'm not going to the wikiproject to argue anything, because there is nothing to argue. I find no problem with IGN, Gamespots, GameFaqs (Ok...maybe I do there, but that's due to the forums, not the facts. ;) ). I find no problem with using information from them. HOWEVER, when it comes to the Famicom and its square button controllers, the info they give out is slim to none, and it's probably incorrect (I'm learning new things in the Famicom everyday. I'm NOT an expert on the Famicom, and I'm not going to pretend to be. There are things that I'm learning that are new to me. Just because I'm not an "expert" like others are systems everyone knows about, doesn't mean everything is not factual, correct? By the way, please don't repond to this, respond to the paragraphs I put up before this sentence I'm typing right now...). Thank you for taking time out to read this, and I hope Kris puts that picture up. :) FamicomJL 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the system in my hand, is that a reliable source? IGN, Gamespot, etc. don't focus on this sort of information and probably never will have any article about this. Even if it did, I doubt it would be as informative about http://www.famicomworld.com because they don't care. So, according to you, this item should never be acknowledged because it has very little information about it in the Western world. Seems a shame to deprive people of solid information because it's source isn't Gamespot. And we never mentioned anything about using an auction to determine the cost, we used multiple auctions to provide additional proof of their existence and availablility. Featherpluckn 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have the system in your hand, how about taking a picture of it, uploading it to Wikipedia with a free license, and using it to demonstrate it? Images are considered nowadays reliable sources if they come from a reliable source or they are taken by the editor himself. I can say "My cell phone has two screens.". I cannot use my personal experience on that in the article to justify the double screens. I cannot use auction sites to confirm the phone has two screens. However, I can take a picture of the phone to confirm the cellular has two screens. I can get an image from a reliable site to demonstrate the phone has two screens. Or I can cite a reliable site where it states the phone has two screens. -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kris has already taken numerous pictures of it, infact, that auction I linked you, and famicomworld.com, are both Kris' square button unit. If you want it on the page, then by all means we can place the picture on the NES article page. Infact, I just did. Now, don't worry, I followed regulations. I think we can all agree, that this picture proves the existence of the square button to the person reading the article. Arguement over.

Flags

what need is ther for a UK flag when the EU one is there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.79.126 (talk • contribs) .

It can be discussed. Personally, I think the EU flag involves Europe as a whole, not just EU. Others may think that UK must be named as it is not a part of EU. -- ReyBrujo 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i belive the EU flag is used to represent Europe, weather or not that is correct i'm not sure. As for the UK, it is part of the EU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.66.54 (talk • contribs) .

That ReyBrujo guy is some crazy bloke eh? Must 'ave nowt of an education eh? UK not in EU??? Thats bloody barmy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.156.157 (talk • contribs).

UK is in Europe. UK is not a part of the European Union. -- ReyBrujo 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The UK is most certainly part of the EU (its not part of the eurozone though) Plugwash 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reybrujo, the united kingdom was admitted to the european union on the first of january 1973. Go back to school and stop spreading false information please.

Notable Games

A new section called Notable Games has been added by an anonymous user. I don't follow this page, so I don't know if I should remove the section. But it seems to be very POV to claim which games are "notable" at the expense of all the others, especially when the critera for "notability" are not established by a reference. Certainly the section is not wiki-linked and is placed oddly in the article. But it doesn't seem necessary to have such a section at all. Other thoughts? -Phoenixrod 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I say that if a case can be made for a truly 'notable' game (if it did something noteworthy (technology-wise), that other games of that era didn't do), then it could (possibly) be included. Otherwise, it just becomes a list of someone's 'favorite' games, and that's definitely POV. 207.81.138.180 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Size

If the size of screenshot images was a bit larger, they would display in their original format (without scaling) and the page would look alot better. Is there a reason why they are scaled down? RossyMiles 09:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I tested the images at full resoultion and it seemed fine. The only problem was, if the page is viewed at a smaller screen size, the text is not eaisly readable. This could be fixed by moving the images further apart. -RossyMiles 10:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

83.171.147.125 has added a link to a list of emulators. I'd remove it myself, but I've already removed the one that they added to Amstrad CPC, and don't want to do anything that could be seen as harrassment. --StuartBrady (Talk) 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A reference link added by Seancdaug on January 5, 2005 to the Regional Differences section, "darkwatcher.psxfanatics.com/console/nes.htm" , has been blacklisted by someone. I've removed it so people can continue to modify the page.--Poshzombie 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Seancdaug, there was no reliability problem with the link as far as I know. Wikpedia was just not allowing anyone to modify the page because it had this "blacklisted" link on it so I took it out temporarily. Thanks for putting it back. Maybe it was a wiki glitch?--Poshzombie 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Game Size

Maybe the possible cartridge sizes(meaning game memory, not physical size) should be added like on the SNES page. I would do it, but I don't know how big the largest games were. TJ Spyke 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a Proposed Move

Dear Friends:

Recently, the article titled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis was renamed simply Sega Mega Drive with the reasoning that Sega Mega Drive is the correct name because it was the name that came 'first' and any other branding that came later should simply be a redirect to the initial name, regardless of which name is better known or more popular (Google Searches come up with more results for "Sega Genesis" than "Sega Mega Drive").

Therefore, I am making the proposal to move Nintendo Entertainment System to the name of origin, Famicom; the Super Nintendo Entertainment System to the name of origin, Super Famicom; and Resident Evil to the name of origin, Biohazard. Please comment on this below. Thank you. 71.244.180.131 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT and WP:DICK. HawkerTyphoon 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand my purpose here. Quite simply, it is my belief that all articles should work towards falling under similar guidelines. As such, if the policy is to host articles under their original name, then all applicable articles should be done that way, not just the ones that are convenient for you or I. 71.244.180.131 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Hawker. You've made your point, now cut it out. We have better things to do. Kafziel 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "making a point", dispite what you may say. I'm merely opening up the topic for discussion. If you wish to not discuss it, then, by all means, pass it on by. 71.244.180.131 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think which name came first is the best reason for renaming the article. That said, Sega Mega Drive seems appropriate enough per WP:NAME. Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis is just awkward, and not a very common use. Dancter 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Will post this on the Resident Evil article as well. The problem with your reasoning is that Wikipedia editors try to avoid redirects as they are startling to newcomers, also the titles of the artices should reflect what the most English speaking users know the subject as, see WP:NAME. By the same reasoning the article on Tom Cruise should be renamed to Thomas Mapother. Why not, that was his original name, shouldn't it be the title of the article? In addition, the main reasoning behind the renaming of the Sega Mega Drive is that it is only known as the Sega Genesis in one country, therefore the majority of people in the world know the subject of the article as the Sega Mega Drive. Whereas the Nintendo Entertainment System is only know as the Famicom in Japan (one country) the same goes for Resident Evil being known only as Biohazard in Japan. Therefore the majority of people the subjects of the articles as the Nintendo Entertainment System and Resident Evil. The Filmaker 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Mega Drive was moved because it's the more common name. It has nothign to do with which name came first. The Famicom name was only used in Japan. The system was called Nintendo Entertainment System in all English-speaking territories. This article is where it belongs. Ace of Sevens 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is though, that "Mega Drive" isn't the more common name. Do some searches using some of the various Internet search engines and get back to me with your results. 71.244.180.131 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually opposed for that reason, but still it had nothign to do with which came first. Ace of Sevens 01:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get in a quirll over the "Mega Drive" article. Per WP:NAME, Wikipedia's stance on titles for articles is what it is most commonly known as in English speaking countries. The Filmaker 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please go and cry about the Mega Drive move somewhere else. Why don't you have a look at the gasoline and cheer yourself up on how they've stamped out the mention of the word petrol. Mega Drive wasn't necessarily moved because it was the name of origin, Wikipedia uses the name that's most easily recognised. I cannot believe you would prefer gasoline/petrol over gasoline. - Hahnchen 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How angry you all seems to be! The man made the right thing proposing the move first. He didn't even followed the move procedure, opting first to see the impressions of the community. He has a point. He may be right to some extent. I don't understant why did many of you flamed him? We should always assume good faith and be courteous to other wikipedians. Remember these rules (... guidelines...) when responding. The fact that the Mega Drive got discussed here is collateral because he used the Mega Drive naming as an analogy to the NES. I oppose the move because the naming conventions state that the name should always try to be the most well known name (sometimes it's hard to figure out which one is). The Tom Cruise analogy was funny but pointless, his baptism name (was he baptized? are scientologists baptized? :-) has nothing to do with an article that aims to be a bio of the actor which is known as Tom Cruise. Using this analogy is the same as proposing to name an article about any software with his project name rather than it's final product name. But, in the end, I think this is all settled now: NES stands because it's more common in english speaking world. (by the way, if you search google and try to compare results for Famicon and NES, please ensure you sum up the results for 'NES' and 'Nintendo Entertainment System' not only the latter). Regards Loudenvier 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to "assume" anything—the evidence is clear. He announced that it was a mass nomination, copied and pasted on several talk pages, all to make a point about his unhappiness at the Sega verdict. That's not okay, and we don't have to pretend it is just because he's editing from an IP address. Kafziel 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NES and Famicom get separate pages?

The Famicom and the NES were not just different versions of Nintendo's home console in the 1980's. They were completely different systems with different games, features, and designs. They also have a different development and release histories, and were geared towards different audiences.

Anyone else's thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.208.26 (talk • contribs)

Not all game systems are released everywhere at the same time. Also, not all games are available to every market across the globe. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are regional differences, to be sure, but there are regional differences in the way that just about any console is developed and marketed. More to the point, there is a lot of information in overlap: a history of the NES, for example, is by necessity going to recap the history of the Famicom. A seperate Famicom article is going to either suffer from a lot of redundancy. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Last NES Game

• Actually, there was a game called "Yu Yu Hakusho Final" released in 1996 for the NES. --205.206.196.178 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are dozens, if not hundreds of "new games" released for the NES, primarily coming from Hong Kong. They are almost invariably of extremely poor quality (the game you mentioned is one of about a dozen games made by the same company and using the same basic game engine) and many are hacked versions of each other (pirated versions of games that were never licensed to begin with). "Last NES Game" should only consist of the last licensed title that was released (in this case, Wario's Woods). --Quietust 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

picking nits

In reality, the seal only meant that the developer had paid the license fee; it had nothing to do with the quality of the game.

The business side of this was that game developers were now forced to pay a license fee to Nintendo, to submit to Nintendo’s quality assurance process, to buy developer kits from Nintendo, and to utilize Nintendo as the manufacturer for all cartridges and packaging.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there seems to technically be a contradiction here. It says that the developer only had to pay a fee, then it goes on to say that they had to pay a fee, submit to qa and manufacture through Nintendo. While you can quibble whether or not that has anything to do with quality, I don't think you can say that the only thing the developer had to do was pay nintendo off.--144.131.67.249 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; technically, that *was* the only thing that a developer had to do in order to get the Seal. IIRC, Nintendo introduced the Seal of Quality purely for its own licensed developers, to slow down the flood of unlicensed, low-quality games that were published by outside companies that were just trading on the Nintendo brand's extreme popularity. 207.81.138.180 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)