Talk:Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1/Archive 1

New renaming
I'm opposed to the new renaming of this article to "SF1 (television)" as I don't believe this is either the common nor the official name of the product. Unlike the C1 NES TV that was also recently moved to "C1 (television)", the SF-1 SNES TV never had a North American release so I can understand that the term "SF-1 SNES TV" (which is used by reliable sources including kotaku, gamesradar, and technologytell) conflicts with the "official" name. In examining reliable Japanese-language sources such as Famitsu Magazine (Issues #1153 and #1205), the most commonly used Japanese name appears to be 『スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1』 or "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1" ("Super Famicom Built-In TV SF1"). Famitsu's use of this use of the term agrees with the TV cabinet art I have seen and thus would seem to be a good contender for the product's official name. In looking through reliable English-language sources covering the topic, the only alternative to "SF-1 SNES TV" that doesn't produce a conflict via the regional term "SNES" (rather than "SFC") is "Personal Game Television SF1" (a term used in the June 1992 edition of Popular Science Magazine).

Ultimately the controlling policy is WP:UCN. In performing a quick Google-test, I've found the following common usage statistics:
 * "Sharp SF-1" -wikipedia - 237k hits
 * "SF-1 SNES TV" -wikipedia - 91,200 hits
 * "SF1 TV" -wikipedia - 89,100 hits (Mostly about the Swiss SF 1 TV channel)
 * "Sharp Science Fiction-1" -wikipedia - 85,100 hits
 * "Sharp SF1" -wikipedia - 4,790 hits
 * "SF1 Television" -wikipedia - 406 hits (Mostly about the Swiss SF 1 TV channel)
 * "SF1 SNES TV" -wikipedia - 96 hits
 * "Personal Game Television" -wikipedia - 3 hits

I think the current title ("SF1 (television)") is confusingly similar to SF 1 and is altogether too vague to describe this product. I've asked the editor who performed the page move to provide reliable sources that describe the product simply as "SF1". At this point I think there could be an argument to rename the article to "Sharp SF-1" in keeping with the most popularly used term, or back to "SF1 SNES TV" as used by the reliable sources, but "SF1 (television)" strikes me as a poor choice for title. -Thibbs (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ" is being treated as a "descriptor"; note how the actual unit just uses "SF1". As far as usage goes, beware that Japanese-language Google searches tend to favor "スーパーファミコンテレビSF1" (there are a grand total of 75 hits with 内蔵). Also, we can't use "Sharp SF1" (not SF-1) for the same reason we can't use "Nintendo Wii"; the company's name is not part of the product's.


 * Sharp's X1 is just like these TVs, and we may have to make the appropriate changes. The X1 even has a cute little descriptor of its own: パソコンテレビ. If that doesn't throw these descriptors out the window, I don't know what does.


 * For the record, UCN states quite clearly: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". While "C1" could be considered as "ambiguous", I'm pretty sure the spirit of this usage is trying to avoid generic words everywhere.


 * The whole point of adding "(television)" was to separate from something like SF 1, never mind that channel is known as SRF 1 now. There's not a whole lot else you can do anyway; if someone can still be reasonably confused from this scenario, that's just plain ignorance on their part.


 * I just can't see how one could really argue for another title after all this. Despatche (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You've accurately quoted UCN but you've failed to appreciate the important part of which I'll highlight for you here: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." You have yet to produce a single reliable source that claims "SF1 SNES TV" to be an ambiguous or inaccurate name for the article subject. You have made reference to box art that you have seen (potentially somewhat reliable as an SPS) but you haven't even provided evidence of that. Contrary to your idea that "'スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ' is being treated as a 'descriptor'" and that "the actual unit just uses 'SF1'", here is an image of the top of the TV set where "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" is clearly visible on the name placard. This title matches the term used by Famitsu magazine in articles like this and this. Note the consistency with which the term used by the reliable Japanese-language sources matches the name as displayed on the TV set. If indeed "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ" is being treated as a "descriptor" as you have suggested then you'll have to provide evidence of this in the form of reliable sources that state that. Simply asserting that it is the case based on your personal examination of the TV set and box art isn't sufficient evidence for Wikipedia's purposes.
 * Furthermore, as I keep saying, WP:UCN demands that the common name be used preferentially over the official name unless reliable sources can be located to demonstrate that the common name is erroneous. So Sharp SF-1 would certainly be a possible option which as you nicely pointed out would be consistent with the way we have handled the Sharp X1.
 * Finally, I'd like to ask you to stop making edits like this while we're in the middle of discussing this issue. Changing every instance of what you consider to be the wrong title won't do any of us any good if it turns out that your theories are wrong. There will be time to make all such edits after we've come to a consensus. Trying to force the issue by editing the articles to match your disputed version gets us nowhere. -Thibbs (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've heard of "thinking outside the box", but this is going too far. :V


 * Reliable source located: the box, or the boxes at this point. Those Famitsu scans? They're showing the logo--they're showing the descriptor in action--never mind that Famitsu can do whatever it wants because it's not an official source itself. I've already explained pretty clearly why the boxes are valid, many many times. You've targeted one of the very few images of the thing that just so happen to use that card (most of them don't have it; it's probably something you can attach to it (ALERT: TOTAL GUESS)). You've completely ignored how I've been arguing that "Sharp X1" might be invalid (good luck arguing out of that one, no one uses its descriptor), and you're still using "SF-1" for some reason (small, but it says something). You're even trying to get this pushed into SPS territory, even though it's a PRODUCT BOX, never mind that I'm finding these images the same way you're finding these "common names"; the good old Google test. Now you're accusing me of crap while I was just fixing a disambig to match what we currently have, because it was broken!


 * I feel like I'm being trolled over here. Despatche (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's abundantly clear that the box art is an SPS on this issue if it's anything. And you're using its physical appearance as the equivalent of a claim which is not at all the same thing. We can ask the folks at WP:RS/N if it's OK in this situation if you wish. You can claim that Famtisu is unreliable all you want, but it's listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS and until you argue your point at the talk page there, it will continue to be regarded as more authoritative than User:Despatche. Please don't make edits to match what we currently have because what we currently have is disputed. And you're obviously aware of that. As I've told you repeatedly, there will always be time to make this change after we've achieved a consensus. There is no rush to immediately change everything to match your favorite version. -Thibbs (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How in the hell are many many many images of the product material and the product itself (none of which have been uploaded by me, I don't own a C1!) somehow SPS?! Just about the only thing you could possibly fight against is "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", and unless honestly believe that even one of these images were doctored for some agenda, I think we can throw that out the window (can't wait for some kind of snarky joke in relation to this). You're seriously accusing me of saying Famitsu is "unreliable" as some kind of general rule; all I'm saying is that any non-official source cannot act as one, and cannot make up names of products. You still keep saying this is just nonsense I'm spewing, even though it's clear that you've seen all of these links and scans and images yourself; you're still accusing me of "favorite version"-ing this and that, when I was fixing a link that I happened to notice was broken.


 * In some other galaxy: you, by your own admission, are in favor of some romaji form of the descriptor+title, which is a far cry from "C1 NES TV"... I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Despatche (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Try actually reading WP:SPS. And then try reading WP:UCN where you may be surprised to discover that "official" names are not wanted at Wikipedia if they are not in common use by the reliable sources and the general readership. Please stop fixing what you consider to be broken when in fact you may be breaking it even further. Think how much more work there will be for someone cleaning up after you if it turns out that your preferred title is less appropriate than the former title. I'm sure you can restrain yourself just for the duration of our conversation.
 * As for snarky jokes and the rest, please note that I don't think you're spewing nonsense at all. I do think you don't have a great grasp of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy regarding appropriate sources yet and I think you are overly concerned with WP:TRUTH. For what it's worth though, I understand where you're coming from. These are counter-intuitive areas of Wikipedia and I know I had problems with them myself when I was newer here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More of this accusing and ignoring what I say. You think you're a real angel, don't you?


 * I have read SPS from bottom to top. There is a reason I selected that one sentence specifically; it's the only one that can possibly apply here. And you do realize that UCN is a gigantic series of if-then checks, right? Do you have any idea how malleable that list is?


 * Here is what you're doing: ignoring the existence of a box, while also using that box as a source. I'm being serious. Despatche (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, the box is next to useless as an actual source for the "official" name. I only provided the scan of the TV set top to illustrate to you that there are many possible ways to interpret the "official" name and that I disagree with changing the article's title to match your personal preferred version based on your personal interpretation of the packaging art. My personal interpretation leads me to believe that the official name (if there is one) is "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1". I also make that guess based in part on the packaging art. The packaging art, incidentally, was printed by Nintendo and Sharp and that is why it is an SPS (self-published source). A self-published source is one that is published by the same organization about which the claim is made. New York Times is a self-published source when it reports on itself. Nintendo is an SPS when its press releases are printed. Box art created by these companies is self-published materials because it's their product and they're the ones that printed the "source". The whole issue is moot anyway since you can't treat physical appearance of words on a TV as the equivalent of a claim regarding their official status as "official" names. And as for which part of UCN is the only one that can possibly apply here, what about "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (emphasis added)? I'd say that's highly relevant here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The box is the only thing that can possibly provide an official name. There are only two ways to interpret what the box shows: one way with the descriptor, and one without. The rest is so far removed from anything at all that I just can't stop crying. You're not reading a single word I say, and you know it. Despatche (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we clarify here, when you are talking about "the box" are you referring to the TV set itself or to the box that it was sold in? I can't find any examples of the box although the TV set seems to be easily findable. Either way, I'm glad you admit that there are at least two ways to interpret what the official name from the box. I'm still not really certain how you can differentiate between descriptor, logo, product code, and official name without descending into OR territory but if you'll notice below I actually !voted for one of the two possible "official" names below as my second favorite choice because it is the one most commonly used in the Japanese RSes and the product is after all Japanese. Basing article titles on terms used by reliable sources is not "far removed from anything at all" and yes, I am reading every word you say. As I suggested below, we can throw the question out to the broader community if you wish. I'd prefer that actually. I'm very ready to accept a community decision that is contrary to my favorite choice of title if that's what the consensus is. -Thibbs (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Options
So let's look at what we have so far in terms of possibilities for the title for this article.


 * 1) SF1 (television) - A term that User:Despatche alleges to be the official name of the product based on his interpretation of the product's box art. He has offered no concrete evidence of this despite repeated requests to do so.
 * 2) Sharp SF-1 - The most commonly used term based on a recent Google Test.
 * 3) SF1 SNES TV - The most commonly used term among the Reliable Sources (second highest number of Google Test hits)
 * 4) Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1 - A transliteration of the term "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" used by the majority of reliable Japanese-language sources. (Note: The product was never released outside of Japan.)

I tend to favor terms used by reliable sources so of these I favor #3 the most and #4 in the alternative since this was a Japan-only release. Option #2 is also potentially workable as it follows from WP:UCN. Anybody else have any opinions? I'm also thinking of throwing this out to WT:VG for outside view. Would this be a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't even respond anymore. You are completely devoted to ruining what little standards Wikipedia might actually have. Despatche (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal regarding the system name
It seems like there is an argument over the name of the system. Per wikipedia consensus guidelines there are a few different reliable sources that differ on the appropriate name for the Japanese market SF-1 system. As laid out in the consensus policy as there is more than one referenced position the appropriate way to cover this is to note in the article that the Japanese market SF-1 system was referred to as the "Personal Game Television SF1", and that Kotaku refers to the system as the "SF-1 SNES"TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, TeeTylerToe. This issue has gotten to the point where we need the input of neutral third parties like you. I've started an RfC below if you'd like to post your thoughts there. Thanks again, -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: C1 and SF1 console-TV combo units
I'm writing a single summary to cover two recent and closely-related page moves. Please provide opinions on both articles if possible, but let's centralize all discussion of this issue at this single RfC. The first article is C1 (television) (previously titled "C1 NES TV"), and the second article is SF1 (television) (previously titled "SF1 SNES TV"). The central issues are interpretations of WP:UCN (as it relates to the title) and WP:RS (as it relates to the lede paragraph). -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Background summary
User:Despatch originally BOLDly moved the articles to their current names ("C1 (television)" and "SF1 (television)") on the theory that these are their official names. I objected because I could find no evidence that these were in fact the official names and I asked User:Despatch to provide some. Simultaneously I objected on the grounds that WP:UCN demands that "official" names take a lesser position compared to commonly used terms. We've been arguing both points at the same time and I think that has led to some amount of confusion. I've also raised the point that "C1 (television)" is confusingly similar to C1 Television which Despatche recently moved to "C1 Television (channel)" to make way for his preferred version and that SF1 (television) is confusingly similar to the Swiss TV station SF 1 (today called SRF 1).

Regarding the official name:
 * Despatche thinks they are "C1" and "SF1" respectively. I think those are most likely product codes because it strikes me as unlikely that a commercial product would be called something so unmemorable. It may also serve as a shorthand like e.g. "360" for the "Xbox 360".
 * I think the official names are "My Computer TV C1" (Japanese release version), "Sharp Nintendo Television" (North America release version), and "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1" (Japan-only release). Despatche thinks that everything before C1 and SF1 are descriptors.

In examining the reliable sources on the topic we find the following:
 * English-language RSes for the C1 unanimously call it the "C1 NES TV" (see e.g.: 1, 2, and 3)
 * An English-language Kotaku article (see 4) also describes the North American release as the "Sharp Nintendo Television"
 * Despatche claims that self-published Japanese sources (i.e. the box and TV set) use the term C1 alone as the official name.
 * Self-published Japanese promotional fliers use the term "マイコンピュータテレビC1" (My Computer TV C1) (see e.g.: 5, 6). Ja.wiki (Note: a non-RS) also claims in its lede that this term is the official name.
 * English-language RSes for the SF1 mostly call it the "SF-1 SNES TV" (see e.g.: A, B, and C)
 * An English-language Popular Science article describes it as "Personal Game Television SF1" (see D)
 * Japanese-language RSes for the SF1 unanimously call it "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" ("Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1") (see e.g.: E, F, G)
 * Self-published Japanese sources (i.e. the box and TV set) use the term "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" ("Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1"), (see e.g.: H) although Despatche interprets the artwork differently and insists that everything before SF1 is a descriptor.

Finally, common usage based on a Google test showed that "C1 NES TV" and "Sharp SF-1" are the most prevalent common terms.

Questions

 * Question 1 - Should we be using the official name of the TV set or the common name of the TV set?
 * Question 1A - If we should use the official name, what is the official name?
 * Options for the 8-bit product include "C1" (believed to be official by Despatche based on the box art and promotional fliers), "マイコンピュータテレビC1"/"My Computer TV C1" (purported to be official at ja.wiki and believed to be the official Japanese term by Thibbs based on the fliers and the TV set), and "Sharp Nintendo Television" (listed by reliable sources as the name of the North American release)
 * Options for the 16-bit product include "SF1" (believed to be official by Despatche based on the box art and the TV Set), "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1"/"Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1" (believed to be the official term by Thibbs based on the TV set and reliable sources). This product never saw an English-language release so there is no official translation.
 * Question 1B - If we should use the common name, to what extent should we be influenced by what the RSes use most commonly?
 * Should we go with the most common popular name based on a Google Test? Should we use the most commonly used term by the RSes?


 * Question 2 - Are box art, promotional ads and fliers, and writing on the TV set self-published sources or third-party sources?
 * This is really a tangential issue since SPSes can already be used in articles like these where the claim's publisher is the same as the manufacturer of the product about which the claim is made. For some reason this trivial definitional issue has created a great deal of tension in this conversation, though. Specifically, Despatch is scandalized that I use the term SPS to describe the corporate-produced materials he bases his analysis on.


 * Question 3 - Do the words on the box and the TV set represent a claim regarding the official title of the product or are they simply clues related to this issue?

Discussion
Please provide discussion regarding the above questions here. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's good to talk about the articles again. I totally do not see an issue with "My Computer TV C1" and "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1", and I never really have. All I ask is that you do the same with articles such as Sharp X1 (something like Persocom TV X1 or Pasokon TV X1) and any other article for a product that uses such clear descriptors. I made the move to "C1" and "SF1" because I was under the impression we do not usually deal in such descriptors; it's all a matter of consistency.


 * And as such, I think "Sharp Nintendo Television" is probably the best name to use, as we are generally about using whatever official English name we can get. I moved it to "C1" instead because I felt that there wasn't nearly enough exposure of the product under that name to justify putting it "higher" than the original 6 or so years of history. It's similar to the minor European releases of the PC Engine under that title, though that's a reverse case. Sure, the US release wasn't so strong either, but it was something substantial enough. My stance on "original names" doesn't apply much to this Wikipedia, no matter how much I want it to.


 * Moving on, the problem with using names like "C1 NES TV" and "SF1 SNES TV", "Personal Game Computer SF1", etc, is that they don't really have anything to do with the official names, which are not particularly vague here and can be sourced with the subject of the article itself. When you have official names, using unofficial names from this or that source is a serious error. I don't agree with the idea that said subject of the article and the various material created to "explain" it (box, manual, website, etc) can be considered a "self-published source" (the first meaning of WP:SPS, at least); most of this material is simply part of a "set" that also includes the product, and surely the company itself knows the name of their product better than anyone else? This is important because if such material is determined to be an SPS, it can be seen as somehow lesser than this other material. If it has to do with bias, I can understand a PC company or car dealer lying about the product's specs, but I cannot understand why they would lie about a basic fact such as the thing's name; there's no bias to be had there. If you're specifically referring to the second meaning of "sources on themselves", then there shouldn't be an issue as that section states; what's questionable about the official material, when there's no disconnect between it and the product (8 Eye's is a good example of such a disconnect)?


 * I don't think they are either "self-published sources" (again, WP:SPS) or "third-party sources" (surely those should be Kotaku and Famitsu and the like?), but "official sources" that should be treated with only slightly lower status than the product itself, and certainly a much higher status than third party sources, at least when it comes to figuring out the actual name of the product. We really need better images of the material, no question there. Despatche (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bit of a tangent, but there is no hyphen in SF1! I'm not sure where it's coming from. :P Despatche (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are differentiating between descriptor and official name. Is this just based on your own intuition? If you examine reliable sources such as example G above, you'll notice that all parts of the name (both what you call the descriptor and what you call the official name) are enclosed in quotation marks indicating to me that they are a single name. The fact of the matter is that what you call the descriptor and what you call the official name nearly always appear together. So I'm not sure what your basis is for declaring one half of the expression to be just a descriptor and the other half to be the official name. Could you clarify that?

As for the hyphen in "SF-1", that's coming from both the English and Japanese reliable sources as linked above. You've made it clear that you don't think these sources carry the same weight as "official" corporate-produced material like box art and the lettering on the TV set, but the name that the reliable sources use may be of interest to those who find force behind the WP:UCN policy which states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." It should be noted as well, that the name/title for these products is rather different than for named people/places or titled media like books, films, and games. Determining a single "official" name for a title-less product like a TV may be much less clear-cut. In general the reliable sources are the best place to look for such a name as they are most likely to be interested in communicating with their readers unambiguously about a single product and least likely to be interested in aesthetic layout and promotional flourishes that corporate-produced material will naturally be filled with. -Thibbs (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to compare the C1, SF1, and X1 all to each other, as they're all similar Sharp products made around the same time frame, and also going by the understanding of '80s tech styling, though I'm not entirely sure what to call such a perception (trying to reason out something from a bunch of examples). Note that the Popular Science article is using a "Personal Game Computer 14G-SF1"; the production code is obvious, but where's the rest coming from?


 * This TV does have a title; it's "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" as you say, and it's as easy to understand as any other product, I would think. If it's not, that's because it's so hard to find official sources, and it's somewhat niche. The problem is that this aesthetic layout or promotional flourish is simply far more valid and reliable than any unofficial name any given source wants to give to it; again, the company is going to know more about the name of their own product than anyone else. I'd also like to point out that such things are usually how we get these hyphens, not the other way around. Most of these sources do use "SF1" though, except for that one magazine page (was that the Famitsu one?) and the English sources that use "SF-1 SNES TV".


 * No, I don't really have anything to answer to WP:UCN with, but I've always felt this obsession with "common names" is in error. While it suggests that there might be exceptions, few would honor such, similar to how few would really honor WP:IAR. Not only that, but UCN has been allowing pretty much anyone to make up their own names for whatever they like, and they rarely notice or care what they're doing. But I wholeheartedly believe it is in the best interest of this encyclopedia to adhere to the given official name as much as possible; the reporting of an easily accessible and proven fact is a good deal more important than preserving the status quo at the risk of errors, and I think an argument for IAR could be invoked, or at least some kind of standard could be established for this kind of stuff. Related, I would also like to point out that it would be hard to compare this example to most of the ones listed for UCN; shortened country and people names are pretty much as official as their full counterparts, just like stage names. I think we should use real names for the latter simply for consistency, but that's another topic.


 * Bear in mind that Wikipedia is the place people tend to get their information from, not these reliable sources. The sooner you get clearly incorrect (according to reliable sources; i.e. the subject of the article itself says that Kotaku and co. are wrong) information off Wikipedia, the better. We cannot be "accessible" about this information if it's just going to lead to errors. I think redirects are extremely useful for this; not only does this combo assure that people get here from those terms, it also might get them to learn or acknowledge the correct term. Despatche (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Something I'd like to ask: why does the average person need to "understand" a name? A name is a name, and most of the time the meaning is only ever clear to the person who christened the object. Isn't the important thing having the name with which to call the thing, not necessarily understanding what it means? Despatche (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

IAR is a tricky thing to apply and I find it works best as a guiding force for initial editorial discretion in uncontested matters and also rarely to help form a compromise as by local consensus. Basically I think it can be used to explore the areas where Wikipedia's rules are not clear anyway. In this context, keeping UCN in mind, I can see IAR guiding the degree to which we follow the common use as determined by the common man (Google test) versus that determined by the reliable sources.

You say that you "wholeheartedly believe it is in the best interest of this encyclopedia to adhere to the given official name as much as possible." Usually the reliable sources are the best place to find the official name, but I agree that in this case it is unlikely that they are all providing official names. For the SF1, I think we've both come to agree that the term used by the Japanese-language RSes (i.e. "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1") is the official term. Because this product is a Japanese-only release and thus would not have an official English translation, I do see some sense in using the Hepburn version of this term ("Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1") as the official name. If that were used as the article, title, however, then we should definitely include the term "SF1 SNES TV" in bold in the lede because that's a common term that is used by most English-language RSes.

I disagree with your assertion that according to the corporate sources Kotaku and co. are wrong, though. The corporate sources are acting like normal SPSes in that they discuss only themselves (if they discuss anything at all). You can perhaps use a television box as a source for a claim like "The SF1 comes in 21-inch[ref 1] and 14-inch sizes.[ref 2]" Because a "14in." text on the box is pretty clearly making a claim about the size of the monitor. But I don't think you can use the box as a source for a claim like "The official name of this product is the 'C1'[ref 1] and 'My Computer TV' is only used as the descriptor.[ref 1]" The same is true about a claim like "Many common reliable sources like Kotaku use an incorrect name for this product.[ref 1]" Because the "My Computer TV C1" written on the box is silent on the issue of which part of it is the official name and obviously it would say nothing at all about Kotaku since SPSes tend to be completely self-referential. The text on the box provides clues, but they have to be interpreted by us the editors and in that sense - and due to the fact that personal interpretations may often conflict - that kind of source shouldn't provide the sole basis for determining the official name of the product in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The text on the box doesn't provide just "clues", it provides the name itself. You could totally say something like "Many common reliable sources like Kotaku use an incorrect name for this product[ref 1]", and it would be reasonable to add something like that if a particular error is heavily prevalent. It'd be better than "doubling up" an unofficial title, which will give it official importance anyway. (I've thrown the whole "descriptor" thing out the window at this point and wholeheartedly support a full title, with the obvious "C1/SF1 for short".)


 * I think you may be assigning a bit too much importance to the idea that the related material can be considered an SPS, which is exactly what I was worried about. Again, why are unofficial sources allowed to make up official names? Wouldn't it be fair for me to mention Kotaku's (I've really gotta figure out who wrote the original story) own "personal interpretation" of the title? What gives them enough importance to rechristen a pair of 30- and 20-year-old tech products, one of which even has an official English name already? For the record, I certainly wouldn't accept so and so source/s trying to rename some arm of Kotaku, either. Despatche (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Usually RSes are the place to go to find official names because they tend to try to use the clearest and least ambiguous term for a product in an effort to avoid confusion in communicating with their readers about a single product. SPSes can certainly be helpful in determining the official name of the product if there is reason to assume they are making the claim that "XYZ is the official name". An example of this might be a roster of products where each product name is listed under a "name" column or something similar. Another example could be when a company registers a name as a trademark. However box art and advertisement fliers are often riddled with superlative expressions and promotional flourishes. Whereas the reliable sources are hoping to communicate clearly about a product, the corporate sources are trying to make it seem appealing to the consumer and to sell it. There is of course an interest in presenting the product's name as well, but it's often not as easy to determine. The C1 and SF1 TVs are good examples of this as I think we both have held differing goodfaith opinions of what the official name of the products were based on the box art. You thought it was "C1" and "SF1" and I though it was "My Computer TV C1" and "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1". Both of us were speculating on this point because the source material made no actual claim on this point. This does seem to be a sticky point in our conversation so I've written a quick note to WP:RSN to see what they think. You can see that thread here.
 * Based on my personal analysis of the box and promotional materials I do think that this is a special case where the reliable third-party sources may be using a vernacular term to describe the products and so the reason to use "C1 NES TV" and "SF1 SNES TV" is not to present the "official" name of the product, but rather to present "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" as suggested by WP:UCN. Whereas there is clearly disagreement over which is the "official" name, I think we can agree that there is no disagreement concerning which are the terms most commonly used by the English-language reliable sources, right? -Thibbs (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's not right. I moved for "C1" and "SF1" for reasons separate from the actual subjects, and I always understood that "My Computer TV C1" and "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1" were valid; it's pretty clear we both agree on those at this point. And the source material does at least claim that "マイコンピュータテレビC1" and "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビSF1" are valid, as you've said so many times.


 * I also question just how much of a problem these "superlative expressions and promotional flourishes" really are, even though I was the one who brought the entire "descriptor" thing up in the first place. The real problem is, again, that we don't have every bit of possible material to pore over. But I think we can move based on what we have; it's still better than any unofficial title, period. Despatche (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Something I noticed just now because I'm a total moron. This is me complaining about the issue in the #wikipedia-en IRC channel as I do with any Wikipedia-related problem I happen to be having. This may seem a bit out of place but I'm not sure how to write it in a paragraph. I also probably shouldn't bother x-ing out my name but whateverrrrrrr.


 * people assign /way/ too much importance to COMMONNAME
 * the problem i see with common name is
 * a country or a living person is a little different than a product
 * never mind all that "selling yourself" nonsense :V
 * and you know, even with people, i'd still prefer to use their real name over a stage name simply for consistency with every other living person who isn't so famous. i don't see why there needs to be an exception.
 * you could even make a case that real names "look better" as article titles than something like "deadmau5" :P
 * and with that seven samurai example... i'd definitely use the japanese name
 * simply because it's the original
 * and i'd show that same kind of respect to anything
 * aside from all of this... redirects are king. you can put an article at the most official name possible and totally get away with it. and that would even be correct, simply because of its official status.


 * Note especially that last bit. I can't believe I'm even implying that I'm calling for a(n) (near) abolishment of UCN (right now I'm basically in IAR mode and will not dare to disrupt article after article over it), but there you have it. Despatche (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential compromise achieved - discussion of lede paragraph follows
I would be OK with moving the articles to "My Computer TV C1" and "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1" and leaving it at that. I wish we had some third-party Japanese RS material for the C1, but the only thing I could find in the past was a Famitsu article on the exclusive Donkey Kong Jr./Jr. Math combo cart and it never used the name of the TV set at all. Anyway there's no helping that now. We should also mention the other commonly RS-used names in the article's lede paragraphs, though, and I agree that redirects will have to be set up for any such terms that the RSes use. -Thibbs (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But why are these names so important? There's no need to bog the lede down with a series of true errors, or even one. A redirect is not just simply accessible, but reasonable and even correct; they would and will solve everyone's problems. Despatche (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of having a title that is a common name is two-fold: first it helps readers find the article in the first place (something that redirects could arguably solve), but second it reassures the reader that they have arrived at the correct destination. The same principle applies here. Since the title in this case of these article is something that none of the English language RSes use, I think it's important to include the common RS-used terms in the lede like this:
 * The My Computer TV C1 (マイコンピュータテレビC1) (often described as the C1 NES TV; localized for North American markets as Sharp Nintendo Television) is a TV-NES combo unit that...
 * The Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1 (スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビSF1) (often described as the SF1 SNES TV) is a TV-SNES combo unit that...
 * This way the reader's attention will quickly be drawn to the term he/she is familiar with and that the redirect brought him/her to and our goal of connecting reader to article will be achieved. This can be tweaked for example we could say "often described in English-language sources as..." or something like that, but the fact that the English sources all use a different name for the product than the Japanese sources is a notable thing in its own right. And the point of Wikipedia is not to correct the reliable sources and to try to hawk our own version of truth that differs from what the reliable sources say. If the sources conflict (as they seem to here) we need to use both terms. -Thibbs (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to be careful with this stuff. People aren't ever really "familiar" with terms and look to places like Wikipedia for guidance. People do not need to be "assured" that they're at the right place; at least in this case, seeing "Famicom"/"NES" and "television" already does a pretty good job of that.


 * To put it bluntly, Wikipedia endorsing "C1 NES TV" and "SF1 SNES TV" has contributed more to the problem (and it's obviously a problem) than those individual articles ever will. The only way to solve the problem is to go through Wikipedia and establish that official sources dictate  to be in error... or to go through the effort of establishing a bunch of reliable sources and trying to force the error out, which is essentially "gaming the system" (the Wikipedia policy on common name). This is when IAR, or at least the idea that the policy is being taken far too literally for its own good, comes in.


 * The sources conflict, but one can be reasonably determined to be "superior" to others; we do not need to use both names. If this was a case of two or more different names being passed around a number of sources reporting on something that isn't a product (such as an event), we definitely would.


 * (I also highly recommend that references to "SNES" on a page about a Japanese-only related product should be avoided; obviously, the opposite is also true.) Despatche (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an issue of Wikipedia's basic fundamental philosophy and a question of what Wikipedia's ultimate purpose is. From my experience here, I believe that Wikipedia indeed strives to endorse the terms used by the Reliable Sources and I think that hiding from readers the term that the majority of reliable English-language sources use is contrary to Wikipedia's basic principles. The idea here is not that a team of clever editors will determine the Truth through doing individual research to corroborate some of the Reliable Sources and to disprove others and then to provide the readers what in our estimation is the real Truth. Editors here are supposed to pay ultimate respect to the reliable sources and to report what they say. This basic system allows everyone to participate equally from mighty academics who really do know the Truth in some cases to confused school children who don't know much about anything. Since verification of Wikieditors' academic, journalistic, etc. credentials is something that Wikipedia has eschewed, this RS-based system is the only alternative. Wikipedia's authoritativeness is derived solely from the authoritativeness of its sources. Just as with any other Method (like e.g. the Scientific Method), the process must be respected or the whole thing breaks down. And yes this does mean that counter-intuitive results will arise at times, like when RSes report that there is a subtext in a novel that the author himself disputes. There have been cases here at Wikipedia where that exact situation arose. The solution to conflicting sources is to report both versions and to let the readers figure it out for themselves based on the degree of support within the article's references. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an issue with red tape only. I am not particularly "clever", and I'm not looking for any "real Truth" that isn't something that can be used as a reliable source. I'm not "guessing" anything, I'm looking at the box and putting down what is obvious; having to guess is an entirely different matter that this case is fortunately not an example of.


 * We're talking about the name of a product. "subtext" is perception, an "official name" generally is not. We can safely accept one reliable source over another if that reliable source can be shown as more so, and there is no question of such for an official source. You simply cannot argue with the company itself about what the name of that company's product is.


 * Even would-be reliable sources either go to you to first, or ignore everything and come up with their own standards. Correcting an error is no more censorship than correcting a typo; I could make a better case for getting names like "C1 NES TV" approved to be some kind of censorship against any mention of the Japanese side of things. Despatche (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only source for the claims of official title throughout this whole discussion, though, have been you and me. I keep telling you that the box art and promotional fliers (from which we've both agreed on the likely "official" title) do not make any claims about the true official title of the product nor about the unofficialness of other titles used by the reliable sources. They are making no claims whatsoever.
 * Perhaps this would be clearer if I used an example whose outcome would be more in line with your position. Consider the following sentence: "The majority of English-language sources use 'SF1 SNES TV' as the name of this product." Now I know this claim is accurate because I've done the research and the bulk of English-language RSes I find all use this term, but I still couldn't make that claim in the article because it would need a source other than me. Even though it's true, the truth of it is something which I have discovered by performing original research. To include that line in the article I'd have to find a source that specifically states it. I can't use the physical reality of the situation as a source for the claim any more than you can use the physical reality of the TV box art to make the claim that this is the official name as intended by the manufacturers. A claim takes the form of "X is Y", not just "X". You can see that this isn't just my own personal theory at the RSN thread (linked above) where other editors are starting to weigh in now. -Thibbs (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no debate as to whether what's printed here is the official title (unless you've just found some official source saying otherwise), and trying to claim that I've somehow conducted original research is plain ridiculous. How can it possibly be any more than "it's the official name intended by the product's creator because it's the given name in that product's material"? This is what I'm talking about when I say red tape; you've thrown common sense out the window in favor of cold policy to the letter, and that is exactly when everything starts to break down. Despatche (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The main point here is that the Box Art/TV/Adverts do not make any claim that the term used by RSes like Kotaku, GamesRadar, and TechnologyTell is ambiguous or inaccurate and in fact no reliable sources make that claim. I think it would be for the best (as at least a nod to the normal Wikipolicy which we are above proposing to throw out the window using IAR) to include in the lede the term that is in fact commonly used by the majority of reliable sources. -Thibbs (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "No, the box does not make the claim that Kotaku is wrong, because it can't, and it generally wouldn't unless the name is in danger of being genericized. Kotaku itself is saying that it's wrong by choosing a title that doesn't match the official one at all. This really is common sense." (quoted from the collapsed section below)
 * Kotaku is certainly not claiming that it is wrong. That's the opposite of common sense. It's complete nonsense. I think it makes sense to include "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" in the lede if we're going to violate WP:UCN for the title. There's no sense in censoring this notable term even if it seems wrong to you from some official corporate position. Our goal here is not to correct the RSes, but to cover the topic encyclopedically for the reader. That includes providing terms that are used by all reliable sources on the topic even if they are only the common term and not the term used in the box artwork or advertisement fliers. -Thibbs (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Kotaku (someone has got to figure out who started this story) is telling us that Kotaku itself is wrong and that it doesn't really care; there is a blatant disregard for basic fact-checking and, thus, professionalism, so they're potentially less reliable than they should be. Sorry, but that really is just common sense, or at least simple logic." (quoted from the collapsed section below)
 * Again, we clearly have polar opposite views on whether or not Kotaku is making any such a claim. I absolutely refute the idea that a common sense understanding of the Kotaku article leads a reader to conclude that Kotaku is announcing its own erroneousness, failure to fact-check, or lack of professionalism. I think those are things you are reading between the lines. Hopefully someone will drop by to settle that question. In the meanwhile, would you agree that if no reliable sources could be found that claim the term used by Kotaku, GamesRadar, TechnologyTell, etc. is ambiguous or inaccurate then it would be acceptable to include it as a way to follow the spirit of WP:UCN if not the letter? -Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you refuting with, and how can I be reading between the lines? Allow me to refute:


 * Creator makes product, gives product name.
 * External source uses different name for whatever reason.
 * Creator is right, external source is wrong.


 * There is either the external source accidentally introducing the error, or the external source making the claim that their name is more appropriate somehow. This is simple logic, and is not an opinion, guess, or claim; being so, it does not require any other source to "prove" or provide any sort of comment about it. Despatche (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's actually no evidence that there is an "official" name for this untitled product. As the people at the Reliable Source Noticeboard pointed out, your use of the box art is insufficient to make out a claim regarding the officialness of the words written on the box. The last few days have admirably demonstrated that there are several very plausible different "official" names for these items. Is the official name "C1"? Is it "My Computer TV C1"? Or perhaps "19C-C1F・W" or "14C-C1F・W・R" would be more official because those are the names of actual models to which we are merely assigning the umbrella term "C1". Neither of us have been able to find any trademark evidence, all we have is an alleged box that you have never produced an image of and the TV sets themselves. Where on this image of the C1 do you see the text "C1" appearing anywhere?
 * Your guesses as to the official name of this unit are just that: guesses. You seem to be convinced that your guesses are more reliable than what may well have been the guesses that the third-party RSes made as to the official name. But even more likely, you're misreading the third-party RSes as well here. Neither Kotaku, GamesRadar, TechnologyTell, nor any RS we have located has made a claim about the official name. In fact the only place this claim is made is at the ja.wiki article. If our RSes predominantly use a single term as a common name for an item then it behooves us to use this same term in the article as a way to connect the reader to the product they wish to know about. Censoring this term due to our vague OR-based suspicions that it is a false term that reliable journalists are pushing in an effort to make it the "official" term is unacceptable.
 * We've compromised that for these two articles we will be Ignoring All Rules and using what you now believe is the official name instead of the Common Name (as policy dictates for the rest of Wikipedia). All I'm saying is that The spirit of the policy we are stifling should be respected enough that "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" should at least be mentioned in the lede. This is the same view as held by those who participated in the RSN thread linked above. -Thibbs (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're starting to step out of line. Clear text, easily seen on a box, is not some "belief". The actual ink blot on a Rorschach test is not a "belief" any more than reality is; the belief is in what that ink blot is supposed to look like. There are no "supposed to"s here.


 * Yes, there is obvious proof that we have an official name. This product is not untitled; the name of the product being sold is "マイコンピュータテレビC1", and there are two different versions of this product, denoted by model numbers. There are no guesses, only text printed clearly on a box. All of the guessing and whatnot is coming from you now, and initially came from me based on my own personal observations of various situations on Wikipedia, which I have completely thrown out by now; why do you keep bringing up "C1" alone? Should I necessarily link a given image when all one needs to do is type "マイコンピュータテレビC1" (of course, many other terms could work) into Google and search for images? And what do trademarks have to do with this, being part of the legal system and having absolutely nothing to do with determining the official name?


 * Yes, these sources have made claims as to official names, by using something that isn't. As a reliable source, they are expected to fact-check and to be professional; making up names is a clear sign that something is amiss. It is completely reasonable to say that they're trying to push this term as the official title, or they have simply made an unintentional error that needs to be ignored. Yet I'm not trying to say that Kotaku is an unreliable source and needs to have some long discussion opened on it, I'm simply saying that an error slipped in somehow (intentional or no), and a more reliable source shows us this is so; it is clear there is an error and that something needs to be done about it. Using this error does not connect anyone to the product, because it's an error, and doesn't reflect the subject! How can I make this any simpler?


 * There were a grand total of three other people at RSN: one pointed out a possible case that does not apply here (there is no disconnect between the available official sources), one pointed out that it would be difficult to source the box if it's hard to find images (this is currently not so), and one simply pointed out that we should probably stick to UCN as much as possible. I have already made it clear enough why I think even the spirit of UCN may be hurting these kinds of issues; that's a belief, but one made with good intentions and no desire to disrupt. And yes, I'm probably going to end up opening a discussion on the page, even though I really didn't want to do.


 * And as far as Google Translate goes, I think you're going a bit far by saying it's directly based on a few articles about an old TV not many really care about, when GT has a certain system of rearranging other-character languages and already has a check to translate "ファミコン" and "スーパーファミコン" with "NES" and "SNES" (which itself is already a huge error; these are not translations in any sense of the term). Despatche (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) "all one needs to do is type "マイコンピュータテレビC1" (of course, many other terms could work) into Google and search for images" - So you're using Google as your source. I'm afraid I'm not convinced. (2) "what do trademarks have to do with this, being part of the legal system and having absolutely nothing to do with determining the official name?" - What does an "official name" mean to you if not the legal term for the product? Does it mean the name that it goes by in third party retail stores? Does it mean the name that it goes by when the manufacturers sell it in bulk to the retail stores (presumably just a model number in that case)? Unlike a titled work like a book or a film or a music album or a video game, a TV set's "official name" is not a clear-cut issue and the traditional way to determine such an "official name" is to use reliable sources, not serious box-art-based speculation. (3) "making up names" - Citation needed (4) "it is clear there is an error and that something needs to be done about it" - Not by us, though. When the RSes are the ones allegedly making the error then the only thing we can do about it is to find contrary evidence in the form of RSes that directly claim different facts. In other words, not our own analysis of hypothetical boxes that display a different term or terms rather than making any claims. (5) "Using this error does not connect anyone to the product, because it's an error" - As we both know, it's the most commonly used term. Thus the common man will be familiar with it and not the new term you're trying to educate him about in contrast to the Reliable Sources. (6) "I have already made it clear enough why I think even the spirit of UCN may be hurting these kinds of issues" - Taking it up with Wikipedia talk:Article titles or Village Pump is a much better idea than crusading to force the issue and to render it a fait accompli. I commend your decision to use discussion as a means to take down UCN.
 * At this point I think we may have simply reached an impasse. I think we need an uninvolved third party to help us determine whether or not to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources in the lede. -Thibbs (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not using Google as a source, I'm using pictures of the product material that are found via Google; likewise, you wouldn't be using Google as a source when trying to find things through Google Books. Once again, these names are as unambiguous as the name of a book or a film or a music album or so on; I don't know how you could say they aren't, especially after I've carefully explained how much guessing has actually been going on. I've also made it very clear why these names are "made up"; an official name exists, but these sources choose to override that official name. This is fact, as determined by the Kotaku article itself. Keep in mind that the other reliable sources you've listed are all written after the Kotaku article, and there's no other mention of "C1 NES TV" before that it, except for a bit at GoNintendo (a non-RS) that was published the day before Kotaku's; it's reasonable to assume that these later sources are based on that article (technologytell even uses "SF-1 SNES TV", just like Kotaku). You continue to deny that the box is a reliable source; it is official material produced by the creator of the product, and those are generally considered number-2 self-published sources, as I've explained. You also don't seem to understand that the common man goes to Google, where they will find and go to Wikipedia, and thus base their information off Wikipedia first, and maybe read the reliable sources later.


 * I'm sorry, but I see only denial, here. I don't know why you're so concerned with the policies to the point that you will allow errors (proven by reliable sources to be so, as I've shown many times) to freely enter and multiply. Despatche (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well this is just quibbling, but technically the picture wouldn't be a valid source, you'd be using the actual box as your source, but there'd have to be really good reason to question the authenticity of the picture to discredit it, and I'd be willing to consider in good faith any picture of the box that you offered. You have yet to produce one. I can find plenty of pictures of the TV - none of which bear the "C1" expression, but I don't readily find any of the box. Please post a picture of the box.
 * Your use of the Kotaku source itself to bolster your claim that Kotaku has made up a false term demonstrates a large gap in your understanding of how sourcing works at Wikipedia. I guess that also explains why you are still having trouble with the concept of a claim. As explained to you at the RSN thread, the TV box is making no claim regarding the official status of the aesthetic layout of the words on its front, and it is making no claim about Kotaku or any of the other RSes. A claim takes the form "X is Y", not just "X". By that I mean a TV box with the words "Contents: 14-inch monitor" is making the claim that a 14-inch monitor is contained in box. A TV set with the characters "C1" embossed on it (if such a thing even exists) is not making a claim that this is the official name of the TV nor that names used by Reliable Sources are false and misleading names. It can be used as corroborative evidence perhaps, but not as ultimate proof. And it certainly can't be used to bolster the OR claim that the English-language RSes are using a misleading term. Those sources never claimed it was the official term and are misleading no one. Evidence of a trademark registration would go a lot further in establishing your position than making vague claims about a box which as far as I know may not even exist.
 * Again, evidence of this product box would be nice to see, but I do think we're completely deadlocked on this issue. I see the common name as a useful term to include because it would help users find the page and it would provide coverage of the term used most commonly by all other RSes. You see the common name as a dangerous lie perpetuated by the RSes through their own negligence in fact-checking. You are clearly convinced of this and I don't think there's anything I can say that will change your mind. Even when I show you how Wikipedia's community-developed policy runs contrary to your notions, your argument is that the policy ought to be changed. Go ahead and try to change it, but as long as it's good policy I intend to follow it at least in spirit. I think this issue is unlikely to be solved by the two of us alone. We simply need third parties to weigh in. -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the material I've found on the subject upon looking for "マイコンピュータテレビC1" in Google Images ("ファミコンテレビC1" gives me similar results, with no new images; I keep getting other Sharp Famicom-related products for both); the first is a flyer, while the second is a manual. We have got to find more pictures and scans of this stuff, SF1 is a little easier to find. And yes, at this point, "ファミコンテレビC1" is very much like "C1 NES TV".


 * That's what redirects are for; helping users find the page. Yes, I think certain policies ought to be discussed, as I feel it impedes the improvement of Wikipedia, and a major part of the place is having those discussions. But policy is exactly why I see this as a "dangerous lie"; the whole point of reliable sources is that they do as much fact-checking as they can and that they're accurate, something that Kotaku and these sources are failing to do. Despatche (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK so there seems to be no box actually, but at least we're on the same page now. That flier and the claim on ja.wiki are what I'm basing my speculation on regarding the official name of the TV if there is one. I certainly agree that if you can find more sources covering this topic I'd be very interested in them. I've spent the last several years looking for sources and the C1 in particular is difficult to find much on. Certainly not enough for me to have any degree of confidence in correcting the often well-connected journalists at the published English-language RSes.
 * And also for what it's worth I agree that redirects would be good to have (in addition) for all of the terms we've discussed. Now we just need uninvolved members of the community to help us decide whether or not to include mention of the term used by the majority of English-language RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for referring to a "box", but I don't see a distinction between most of this printed material, and I just kept arriving at "box" for some reason. Clearly, we just need the box! :V Despatche (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal. The box and TV set are probably of similar quality as the fliers as a source for determining an official name. I'd much prefer a trademark registration, but I think we're out of luck for that. And the question of whether or not to include the term most commonly used by the English-language RSes is a separate issue since these sources don't claim that it's the official name anyway. If we both consider "C1 NES TV" and "SF1 SNES TV" to be the common terms, then our dispute is over whether or not we should include them as a way to bring WP:UCN into the article. I contend that we'd need countervailing reliable sources claiming that the term was ambiguous or misleading if we were to exclude the common terms, but I believe your position is that as editors we can interpret the fliers as making the claim that other terms are ambiguous and misleading. I think that's WP:OR. RSN has suggested that promotional material like this does not make claims, but nobody has yet ventured into this RfC. We're deadlocked. -Thibbs (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the external sources, not the official ones. I'm only saying that the external sources provide a name that does not match up with the stated official one; that itself is misleading. Despatche (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I dispute that we have more than a possible official name. Since (1) we're basing this off personal interpretations of commercial artwork rather than evidence of a registered trademark, etc., and since (2) there are several contenders for official name, I think it's safer to include both our guess as to the official and the term used by the majority of English-language RSes. Remember that with appropriate language in the lede, we don't have to make misleading comments such as to call the RS versions "official". Honestly the fact that we've agreed on a single possibility for title has more to do with an interest in compromising than any strong evidence concerning an actual official name. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Break point
Well seeing as we have yet to see a single third party participant here, and considering that the current name of these two articles is something that we both now agree is a deficient title, I'm going to go ahead and move the page to the title we compromised on for now and tweak the lead to reflect the common name as used by the majority of English language RSes. I know that this last point is something on which our opinions differ, but as yet the only outside person who has considered the issue (User:Andrew Dalby at the RSN thread) has also expressed his view that the common name "should at least be mentioned in the lede". (Note: I'd forgotten, but User:TeeTylerToe had also expressed support for mentioning the common English-language RS terms above). We can always remove it in the future if it's found to be ambiguous or misleading, but right now policy supports it and it's pretty clear that it's at least Reliable whereas the other "official" terms we've used are based mostly on Original Research. -Thibbs (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) (Note added -Thibbs (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Well we'll need help moving the C1 article since all of the more appropriate names are currently redirects that cannot be copied over. So I guess that'll have to wait for now. -Thibbs (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK the C1 article has now been moved to its final destination so we can carry on with the remainder of the RfC addressing the question of whether or not to include in the lede the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources . I've collapsed the segments of the RfC that relate to the now agreed-upon titles. -Thibbs (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility for the C1
OK so I've made my peace with the SF1's new compromise title now, but I am still slightly bothered by the fact that the proposed new title for the C1 has literally zero support among the third party sources. I was wondering if it might be a good idea to use the English term which is listed in 1 of the RSes: Kotaku. I think it's Wikipedia's policy to use English localized titles preferentially over other titles anyway. If you look at all the articles on named topics like "The Legend of Zelda" or "Super Mario Bros.", they use the English-language version of the name instead of "Zeruda no Densetsu" or "Supa Mario Brazazu". So what about using "Sharp Nintendo Television" for the C1 instead of "My Computer TV C1"? I'd still prefer "My Computer TV C1" to just "C1", but I think "Sharp Nintendo Television" might be even better since (1) this is the English-language localization, (2) it seems to be an official name, and (3) at least one third-party RS has used it. Any opinions about this idea? -Thibbs (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the box does not make the claim that Kotaku is wrong, because it can't, and it generally wouldn't unless the name is in danger of being genericized. Kotaku itself is saying that it's wrong by choosing a title that doesn't match the official one at all. This really is common sense.


 * Japan actually uses "The Legend of Zelda" and "Super Mario Bros."; "zeruda" and "burazazu" are just pronunciations, and part of the katakana form. I even think the Japanese Wikipedia article on Super Mario Bros. should use "SUPER MARIO BROS." as an article title; it's the default, after all, like with any other English phrase that's being turned into katakana later. I could explain the similar Zelda case here, if you want.


 * Did I try to leave out "Sharp Nintendo Television" anywhere? I apologize; I don't have a problem with that at all. Again, it's a similar argument as the descriptors; I simply felt using the original title would better reflect its history, provide consistency with SF1, and would be easier to write in the article. Despatche (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK So the way I see it now, we've agreed that:
 * "SF1 (television)" should be renamed to "Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1"
 * "C1 (television)" should be renamed to "Sharp Nintendo Television"
 * In addition, I think you'd be OK with including the Japanese term "My Computer TV C1" in the lede of the C1 article, right? Are we agreed on all of that? If so, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not to include the terms "C1 NES TV" and "SF1 SNES TV" that are used extensively by the reliable third party sources. So are we agreed on everything apart from the reliable third party source issue? -Thibbs (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes.


 * Kotaku (someone has got to figure out who started this story) is telling us that Kotaku itself is wrong and that it doesn't really care; there is a blatant disregard for basic fact-checking and, thus, professionalism, so they're potentially less reliable than they should be. Sorry, but that really is just common sense, or at least simple logic. Despatche (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK cool. Then unless anyone objects I think we've got the page move issue squared away. I'll collapse this segment so we can continue to discuss the lede paragraph in its original context above. -Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm quite confused by this edit. Didn't we agree the page was to be moved to "Sharp Nintendo Television" just a week ago (7 June 2013 @02:44UTC)? Why have we reverted back to My Computer TV C1? It's an improvement to be sure, but I really thought we'd agreed to something different in the collapsed discussion above... -Thibbs (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also at a loss as to why you made this edit yesterday (changing "C1 (television)" to "C1 (television set)"), Despatche. I thought it was agreed that C1 was neither the official name of the item nor its common name. If my memory serves me correctly, we originally agreed on using "My Computer TV C1" and then we switched to "Sharp Nintendo Television" per WP:UE and WP:ENGLISH. I prefer this latter term because it is actually used by a single third-party RS unlike the term "My Computer TV C1" (or "C1" alone). And I thought you said that you didn't have a problem with "Sharp Nintendo Television" at all. Have you changed your mind? I had planned to file an RM today to finally get the C1 article's title to "Sharp Nintendo Television" as used by RSes. Would it be OK for me to do that or has the compromise broken down? -Thibbs (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I'm not sure what's going on now, but unless there are specific objections, I do intend to file an RM shortly to change "C1 (television set)" to "Sharp Nintendo Television" as agreed upon above. Please let me know if this is something you disagree with, Despatche. -Thibbs (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK RM filed. -Thibbs (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whew. Now that that's taken care of, the only last issue is whether or not we should include in the lede the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Currently these terms do appear in their respective ledes due to agreement between the positions of User:Thibbs (in this thread), User:TeeTylerToe (here), and User:Andrew Dalby (here). As far as I know, User:Despatche still believes these terms to be dangerous. Please let us know if your opinion on this matter has changed, Despatche. Otherwise we'll continue to run out the RfC hoping that someone will pop his/her head in. In the meanwhile I'll collapse all of the subsections above that relate to the now-settled page-title question. I hope this is resolved speedily. -Thibbs (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)