Talk:PlayStation (console)/Archive 3

Date format and type of English
Since the other PlayStation-related articles on Wikipedia use month day year dates and American English, it makes no sense to use day month year dates and British English since Sony is a Japanese company. Should we change the date format and type of English in this article to make it equal with the other PlayStation articles? DBZFan30 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason to change it, especially when conventions are in place. Please see MOS:RETAIN. JAG  UAR   00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've discussed this issue with Ferret and Dissident93 on another talk page. Dissident agreed with me saying "I agree that it's a dumb system, and Wikipedia should perhaps reconsider its policy on this". DBZFan30 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, ENGVAR is among Wikipedia's most flawed guidelines and should definitely be changed, but I strongly doubt that will happen. MOS:RETAIN is the port in the storm, so as a rule of thumb articles with neutral ties should retain their original spelling/date variants. JAG  UAR   21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles have to be discussed on case by case basis. That said, I just don't see a big reason to change it. MOS:RETAIN applies for now and there's no strong argument to change it such as national tie. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

JoshuaRuiz1776 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC) JoshuaRuiz1776 (3/15/17) Hello fellow Wikipedians, I agree with the fact that since other PlayStation-related articles on Wikipedia use a format of M/D/YR, and standard American English, there should be no use for M/YR/D and other versions of English (British English), since Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) is an overseas company formed in Japan. JoshuaRuiz1776 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Japan doesn't use British English and most Japan-related articles (including every article about the Dragon Ball franchise) use mdy dates and American English. That's why we should change the date format and type of English in this article. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It got changed on Breath of the Wild because nobody liked it, and this seems to be the case here. There's no reason to change it just because nobody likes it. JAG  UAR   08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows that Sony and Nintendo are not British companies. There is always a valid reason to change the date format and type of English. Like I said before, Sony is NOT a British company, which is why I want the date format on this article to be changed. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not American companies either. So there is no reason to change it to a date format that only America uses. There is nothing wrong with the current date format, so stop worrying about something so trivial. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, time to drop the stick on this one. Zelda had a valid argument that the first prose date format was MDY. In this case, no such argument exists. While articles should be open to discussion if there is a rationale for changing it, these sections seem to mostly hinge on "I like it" and sometimes "Other related articles are X". MOS:RETAIN is against these types of arguments and is meant to prevent wasting time. DMY is not "British dates" but essentially "International non-US dates", and is the default. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * and Can we at least change the type of English to American English since Japan doesn't use British English? DBZFan30 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. Japan doesn't use American English either... There is no valid reason to change it. --06:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why people have to disagree with my suggestions all the time. From now on, I will no longer take "no" for an answer. The correct answer is "yes, I agree that the date format and type of English should be changed". Please agree with me for once. DBZFan30 (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Direct statements that you plan to edit against consensus and the MOS can lead to a block if you do so. Please desist in making such statements and claims. You haven't even provided a rationale or argument this time. The answer remains "no". -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - D-Pad Reference
Since I'm new to Wikipedia, didn't want to do this myself...

The article mentions the PS1 did not use a D-Pad, however the Playstation blog itself specifically says they did:

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/09/16/the-evolution-of-the-playstation-controller/

"PlayStation hit shelves and, along with the D-pad, came four shapes – triangle, circle, X and square – that, together, would visually represent a new global culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.219.193 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The original Playstation controller definitely used a D-pad, you push on one part, the rest move, I know what the article meant though, it's the 1st(only?) D-pad to have it come up through the plastic in 4 different places, rather than be completely uncovered like most D-pads. Lmcgregoruk (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a D-Pad in that the internals work like you would expect. In fact I would say that a regular D-Pad actually uses four "buttons" internally. What makes them a D-Pad is the pivoting actuator, or, said another way, the fact that you can not push down and up/left and right at the same time. The Playstation controllers are no different in that regard. Irrogalp (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Date of discontinuation
I'm a bit confused here; the article has two sources with two different dates of when console is no longer in production. First is 23 March 2006 from one source from GameSpot. Another is 31 March 2005 from Sony's Cumulative Production Shipments of Hardware where the production shipments stops at 102.49 million from that date onwards. Thoughts? –  Hounder4  00:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Gamespot source seems oddly suspect here. I find it strange that it seems to also claim Sony announced 100 million units surpassed, in Sept 2005, but the corporate data says they hit that mark in May 2004. Perhaps software was discontinued later, but the corporate data seems pretty clear that hardware stopped in 2005. -- ferret (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed the date to 2006 according to the source. Dpm12 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on PlayStation (console). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataeu_e.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://asia.playstation.com/eng_hk/index.php?q=node%2F1517
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/051130e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104035709/http://www.1up.com/features/15-years-cd-i?pager.offset=1 to http://www.1up.com/features/15-years-cd-i?pager.offset=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/020701be.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070919215408/http://www.scee.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=98&NewsAreaID=22 to http://www.scee.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=98&NewsAreaID=22
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february04/ps2timeline/index2.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_51/b3712200.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Copy protection wobble
Hi guys,

The claim that authentic discs featured a wobble is contradicted in the current version of the "Copy protection" section:

"The installation of an unofficial modchip allowed the PlayStation to play games recorded on a regular CD-R. Since it worked by injecting the correct region data into the stream it also allowed the console to play games from any region."

Also, I've personally experimented with many models of PlayStation 1, and have consistently found that various non-wobble discs are fully readable and usable by these PlayStations.

InternetMeme (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the source we have. The fact that modchips inject the necessary information doesn't contradict the claim. Your own experiments are WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR applies only to article content, not talk page discussions. If you think there's a flaw in InternetMeme's experiments, just say so.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing sourced content from an article (and he did) on the basis of "I experimented" is OR, essentially saying he did his own original research. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. -- ferret (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I spent some time reading several other sources in an effort to get to the bottom of this "wobble" terminology. What I found was that the word "wobble" was describing a modification of the standard smooth spiral data track into a wavy spiral data track. There is never any type of wobble (as can be easily tested by spinning a disc at high speed in a standard CD-ROM drive). However, there is a wavy portion of a data track. If you can think of a better term, feel free to improve my edit. I don't know of any better way to describe a spiral with a sinusoidal component added to it.
 * Here is the most authoritative source:
 * http://www.google.com/patents/US6304971
 * InternetMeme (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is fine. In the end, you're just changing terminology. "Wobble" is an informal way of suggesting a wavy "wobbly" path. Not that the disk itself wobbles but that the path did. Changing the terminology is fine if its clearer. Removing it entirely was not. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not just changing terminology. Removing it was an improvement because it previously said the discs had a wobble, which is extremely misleading, and only indirectly related to terminology. However, instead of just removing it, it's better still to point out that the data track is wavy. It didn't have a wobble, as a wobble is a chronological fluctuation, whereas "wobbly"—or better still, "wavy"—can also describe a spatial fluctuation. Still, I'm happy to hear you're okay with the current wording.
 * Anyway, the takeaway is that words such as "wobbly", "wiggly", and "wavy" can all describe both spatial and chronological fluctuations, whereas the word "wobble" (being a verb) describes only a chronological fluctuation.
 * InternetMeme (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention of errors?
Is there a reason why errors such as Fearful Harmony, Personified Fear and Forbidden Image aren't mentioned here or are they just not notable? CyanoTex (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've personally no idea what you're even talking about, so my initial guess is not notable. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss them? -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, all three errors I mentioned by name are PlayStation errors. Fearful Harmony happens if a non-PSX game is inserted, Forbidden Image is if a PC Disc is inserted and Personified Fear happens when the BIOS is corrupted. Although, I don't think these errors got any notable news articles or mentions AFAIK. So, I suppose it isn't notable, but I thought it'd be interesting to bring them up. CyanoTex (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah none of this is notable. It's trivial information about oddities that happen when you do things the device isn't designed for. -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

New Nintendo + Philips info
Kotaku article. It's really weird, and possibly means that some events that were described in books, in fact, never happened. -Lone Guardian (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A possible hoax about Gates's statement
Hey guys. I have noticed a high probability of a hoax; I am translating this article to other language and verifying at the same time, and the Gates's statement, that was added by this commit, strucks me as pretty dubious. I cannot find anything on the Internet with that statement, that is dated before 2012, an year of this addition. I have also noticed that this editor also sourced some statements using that source in a Nintendo 64 article. Noting that the editor also left wiki that day, I have a serious question – does that article even exist? --Lone Guardian (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's a reasonable challenge worth looking into. I will say that stories have circulated in several publications suggesting that Microsoft attempted to woo Sony executives in the mid-to-late 90s before PS2's announcement (and likely while it was under development). Here's one such article: The making of the Xbox – VentureBeat. Though there isn't a lot of coverage (and I'm sure some of it is speculative rumor), it wouldn't be much of a surprise if Gates did say something along those lines. But as that article I linked to points out, DirectX was already a viable platform by that time and was critical to the company's continued success in the PC gaming market. Therefore, it would be odd for him to suggest that a Microsoft game designer "likes the Sony machine". What is the value in that statement? What exactly did they like? Did one of the game designers just like playing the PS1 at home in his spare time? It definitely needs more context even if verifiable. I think there are plenty of details from the VentureBeat article and others that we can add in its place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Can anyone do that? Also, as a followup, if no one will be able to verify that Gates statement, I'll remove it in 30 days. --Lone Guardian (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have finally came around to it. I wasn't able to find it, but that isn't a problem. I suspect that the statement holds no value in the launch section without additional context, so I have removed it and rewrote the launch section. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Personified Fear listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Personified Fear. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Why not Japanese name?
Hi wikipedians!

Yesterday, a I put Japanese name on all PlayStation articles, but all my edits was reverted, nobody explain why, in es.wikipedia (Spanish wikipedia) in all articles appear the name in Japanese, so, I added on PlayStation 5 (Spanish wikipedia) and nothing happened, so, I had the idea to add the Japanese names in all PlayStation articles in English wikipedia and this happened, I need an explain of why my edits get reverted, but that doesn't means that all is to be as I want, if I wrong, so sorry

David/デビッド| Let's go! 14:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They’re all really global products at this point. And it’s called “PlayStation 4” everywhere. We don’t need a Japanese translation. It doesn’t benefit anyone. Why would an English reader need to know that PlayStation 4 translates out to Playstation 4 in Japanese? Who does this help? Sergecross73   msg me  18:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Harvard style citations
Ferret has brought to my attention that per WP:CITEVAR changing an article's citation style is discouraged without seeking consensus. My intention is to get this article to GA after botching it six years ago. I was in the process of adding and converting Harvard-style citations with the desire of standardising most of these refs to harv. I hadn't realised they were discouraged from video game articles, or any topic for that matter, though one can notice the lack of Harvard-style citations in most articles. I think this is a shame as especially for in-depth articles harv refs bring convenience to both the reader and writer in citing specific pages of books and magazines, which this article will soon rely quite heavily on. There is also the added boon of having a bibliography which offers easy access. A good example of this is the recently-revamped Donkey Kong Country. Happy to discuss this - trying to get used to Wikipedia again so my recollection of how things work have been dulled somewhat. Would just like to hear what others think before I continue the rewrite. JAG UAR   22:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to harvard style citations. I feel while they may be helpful to the experienced writer, they aren't as helpful to the reader, as it breaks being able to read the citation in a mouse-over of reference tags, doubles the clicks to resolve a reference (First to the citation list, then to the bibliography), takes up twice as much space (two ref lists essentially, especially problematic for mobile readers), and cause the usage of sfn which many readers and less-frequent editors are unfamiliar with and BOUND to constantly replace with standard ref tags, especially editing with VE. I don't at all like how DKC is done, and wish I'd had it watchlisted so I could put my two cents in there, but that's in the past. I'm perfectly ok however with moving references out of prose and to the reflist though, if the general goal is to better organize them and clean up the wikitext. The rp template, soon to be integrated into the ref tag itself, provides for page numbers. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * sfn is used on 2.5x as many articles as rp, so the latter is the non-standard implementation, not the former. It also is much more elegant to use sfnm when citing two books at once than to use inline. re: not helpful to the reader, they're the standard at FA and if used like they are in Sega Saturn, are not obtrusive by any means. I have not seen a reader complaint that two-click link navigation with sfn is confusing or unusable, whereas the rp talk page is filled with such complaints. On the basis of readability alone, this is why sfn is preferred when citing multiple page ranges from publications.  czar  23:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only suggesting an alternative to specifying page, one that will soon be native to the ref tag itself. The rest of my expressed complaints have nothing to do with page specification. I'll also reiterate that my complaint here began due to conversion of basic web citations from an established reference style to Harv. These aren't books or journals, and are not new references. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would the citation style used in Sega Saturn work for you? It keeps the web refs the same and uses short footnotes only for the publications with multiple pages. czar  02:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. If all he'd been doing was adding a few new bibliographies, my attention wouldn't have been drawn. It was the deliberate conversion of multiple web sites from existing style to Harv that drew my attention. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Playstation is the SECOND console to sell 100 million
https://twitter.com/SeroujGhazarian/status/1412861196567515140?s=19 Serouj2000 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Total number of games released for PlayStation
This page states: " A total of 7,918 games were released for the console over its lifespan" with no source stated. The page titled 'List of PlayStation games (A–L)' states: "There are currently 4105[a] games across both this page (A to L) and the remainder of the list from M to Z."

They can't both be right, and the huge discrepancy is strange. I am surprised that the 7,918 has been allowed to stay up for so long with absolutely no reference and almost every other source giving far lower totals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.118.172 (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither is trustworthy. The list's counter simply counts the rows in it's table, and the list may not be 100% complete, or may have odd duplicates or other omissions. -- ferret (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a reference. It is in the body of the article which is where references are meant to be placed, first sentence of the Game library section. redsparta  talk 23:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't even check, assumed the IP had and just commented on how the list isn't trustworthy. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The source link seems to count every region's release of a game as separate, leading to a confusing number. Thus, over on the library page with each game listed out and consolidated without such a split, the number discrepancy is revealed. Not sure why Sony decided the US, Japanese, and EU releases are separate in the total.2600:1702:1690:15F0:B0B4:AF0A:9E29:507A (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)