Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sharp Nintendo Television: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:32, 2 June 2013 editThibbs (talk | contribs)28,090 edits contact WT:VG? →Options← Previous edit Revision as of 06:34, 3 June 2013 edit undoDespatche (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,062 editsm →OptionsNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:


Of these I favor #2 the most and #4 in the alternative since this product was released in English-speaking countries and should use the English term if anything. 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? -] (]) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Of these I favor #2 the most and #4 in the alternative since this product was released in English-speaking countries and should use the English term if anything. 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? -] (]) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
:He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist? Please, someone help, ''help''. ] (]) 06:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:34, 3 June 2013

This redirect contains a translation of ファミコンテレビC1 from ja.wikipedia.
WikiProject iconVideo games: Nintendo Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by the Nintendo task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...

Suggested renaming

I believe this article should be renamed to Sharp Nintendo Television. This is the official English translation for the system and it covers both the 14 inch and the 19 inch versions. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to move it to C1 NES TV. This is the least region-specific name and it broadens the article to encompass the 14 inch versions as well. I see little point in having an article on one particular model of this system when the whole group of these systems is equally notable. -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

New renaming

I'm opposed to the new renaming of this article to "C1 (television)" as I don't find any reliable sources that refer to it by this term. According to policy we must use the "common name" for the product. In performing a quick Google-test, I've found the following common usage statistics:

Furthermore, I notice that reliable sources including kotaku, gamesradar, and technologytell all use the previous term, "C1 NES TV," to describe this product. I think the current title ("C1 (television)") is very similar to C1 Television and is altogether too vague to describe the product. I've asked the editor who performed the page move to provide reliable sources that describe the product simply as "C1". At this point I think the evidence is clear that it should be moved back to its original title ("C1 NES TV"). -Thibbs (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

C1 (television) is quite ambiguous with C1 Television. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I just moved that channel page to (channel) to help a bit, but a better disambiguator than "(television)" would be great, yes. "(television set)" was the only other thing I could think of, but it sounds wrong for some reason.
As for the validity... I have mentioned how important the product and material itself is many times, and have brought Sharp's own practices with similar products (including the C1's successor and the X1 computer) to light. Obviously, the Google results are less than helpful; these English sources decided on a term and there is no force on the planet that can change them. (Of course, Famicom World is a far more reliable source than Kotaku.) Meanwhile, Japanese Google (which is a bit more important here) will use "ファミコンテレビC1" all day, even though it's clear from the long of it that "ファミコンテレビ" is as much of a descriptor as "スーパーファミコンテレビ" and "パソコンテレビ" (never mind that these are ignoring the correct "マイコンピュータテレビ" and "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ"); just look at the material for this stuff.
This should not be moved back to "C1 NES TV"; there are only two names for this product, and one of those is easily the dominant. Facts over "accessibility", at any rate. Despatche (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahem. You just made a very strong argument in favor of naming the article C1 NES TV: these English sources decided on a term and there is no force on the planet that can change them; we do not decide, analyze or discuss what something is called, we use the name that is commonly used in English sources. Thus, thanks for your comment, and I agree with you it should be called C1 NES TV. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty good argument against "C1 NES TV"; there's no basic factchecking done for a simple title. This is extremely prevalent for old tech, where official sources are not so easy to get a hold of. Of course, the same thing happened with Dariusburst ("Darius Burst"), and that was a shiny new product that wasn't the slightest bit vague about its title.
We most certainly do decide, analyze, and discuss a name used in "reliable sources" when official sources (quite a bit more reliable when it comes to naming their own products) tell us that it's completely invalid. No one can make up "official names" for things when they already have valid official names.
...Do I detect some snark? And people said I needed the wikibreak... Despatche (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You're making the mistake here of thinking that one's personal interpretations of the typographic presentation on the box art can lead to a satisfactory determination regarding the product's "official" name. If you want to make a claim regarding the official name of a product then you'll have to find a source that states "The official name of this TV is XYZ" or something similar. Pictorial evidence from the aesthetic layout of the words on the box and set itself may perhaps give clues but they aren't determinative of the issue. Reliable sources are. You can find a list of reliable sources (including Kotaku, Gamesradar, and TechnologyTell) here. If you want to try to get Famicom World added to that list then you should make a proposal here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The English Misplaced Pages is not concerned with "official names". We are here to reflect what subjects are called in the English-speaking world, and you've demonstrated quite eloquently this subject is overwhelmingly called C1 NES TV in English-speaking sources. Japanese-speaking sources only matter insofar as the titling of the article on the Japanese Misplaced Pages. "C1 NES TV" is unambiguous and meets all of our titling guidelines. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It most certainly is. Being able to determine an official name is the whole point of having a guideline for article names at all. You're trying to create some kind of divide between "official names" and "what subjects are called in the English-speaking world", and quite honestly that's just sickening. Aside from this, "C1 NES TV" is incorrect and that is what matters first.
You want punches? Both of you don't understand the nature of bandwagoning, and how "reliable sources" do what they do; both of you don't understand how Misplaced Pages as a whole does or is supposed to function.
Stuff like this is exactly why those guidelines are simply guidelines, and why we even have an IAR policy. Not that I would dare try to invoke that anywhere, because no one would honor it. Despatche (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Try again. WP:UCN is official Wikipolicy™. The whole point of the policy is to help readers find articles, not to correct the record from the reliable sources with our original research regarding the official title as gleaned from packaging art. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
How is a box (a reliable, published source) supposed to be original research? How are appropriate consistency checks somehow original research? I am not speaking of some magical immaterial fact that only I have the proof of, because that proof is all over Google, and it's the only way I could have found any of this in the first place! Despatche (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You are clearly having difficulties with WP:RS. Personal interpretations of pictures of boxes found on Google are absolutely nowhere close to reliable. How can you tell what part of the box is the logo, what part is the descriptor, and what part is the official title? It's just your own personal interpretation of the box. I appreciate that you're 100% certain that you're right, but the reliable sources all seem to disagree with you. Personally I'd be inclined to call C1 (or SF1) product codes.
And what part of Misplaced Pages demands that articles must only use official titles? We're not supposed to use Misplaced Pages as a tool to correct journalists. Journalists have their own teams of fact-checkers and sources are determined reliable or unreliable based on their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What you're trying to do here is to provide True information that can be used to educate readers beyond the established reliable sources rather than simply helping them to locate the article. That's contrary to policy. We as editors are not supposed to play the role of researchers, interpreters, or RS-correctors. We're supposed to behave like drones and follow the common consensus and the reliable sources. I know it might sound daft but that's how things work around here. We're supposed to reflect the common understanding via trustworthy reliable sources, not come up with our own refreshing version of reality. The reason is because the editorship is only as reliable in its researching as its weakest member. We have children editing here. Elevating Truth above Verifiability is simply unworkable. -Thibbs (talk) 18:39, 2 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. C1 (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. C1 NES TV - The most commonly used term among the Reliable Sources and generally based on a recent Google Test.
  3. My Computer C1 TV - A transliteration of the term "マイコンピュータテレビC1" alleged by ja.wiki to be the official name and seemingly used in SPS material like adverts.
  4. Sharp Nintendo Television - The English-Language name of the North American release

Of these I favor #2 the most and #4 in the alternative since this product was released in English-speaking countries and should use the English term if anything. 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) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist? Please, someone help, help. Despatche (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Categories: