| Revision as of 18:27, 2 June 2013 editThibbs (talk | contribs)28,090 edits →New renaming← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:22, 26 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,018 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (117 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|bottom=yes}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Translated|ja|SF-1}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games|class=Stub|importance=Low|Nintendo=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Video games |class=Start |importance=Low |Nintendo=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Electronics }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Television }} |
|
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Translated|ja|SF1}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
|1='']''. No.1205. 19 January 2012. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Super Famicom Naizou TV SF1/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== I doubt that a minor, trivial console variant like this deserves its own article. == |
|
==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 , , and ) 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 '']''). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubt it passes ], better to merge it to the main ] article like the SNES Jr. article. ] (]) 04:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
Ultimately the controlling policy is ]. In performing a quick ], I've found the following common usage statistics: |
|
|
* - 237k hits |
|
|
* - 91,200 hits |
|
|
* - 89,100 hits (Mostly about the Swiss ] TV channel) |
|
|
* - 85,100 hits |
|
|
* - 4,790 hits |
|
|
* - 406 hits (Mostly about the Swiss ] TV channel) |
|
|
* - 96 hits |
|
|
* - 3 hits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm planning to nominate this for deletion soon, once I get the other two deletion requests through. ] (]) 05:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
I think the current title ("SF1 (television)") is confusingly similar to ] 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. -] (]) 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 ] 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: . 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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 ]) 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'", 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 and . 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. -] (]) 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 ''in''valid (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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. -] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Try actually reading ]. And then try reading ] where you may be surprised to discover that "official" names are not wanted at Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy regarding appropriate sources yet and I think you are overly concerned with ]. For what it's worth though, I understand where you're coming from. These are counter-intuitive areas of Misplaced Pages and I know I had problems with them myself when I was newer here. -] (]) 18:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
