Talk:Sega Genesis

Article improvements?

Now that the naming situation is hopefully put to rest, what can be done to improve the article's ratings? It's categorized as a C-class article quality-wise, while it was delisted as a Good Article in July of 2010. What can be done to improve the article, possibly increasing the rating and maybe even renominate it as a Good Article? Wolftengu (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to create a list of areas that need improvement. Marketing is a biggie in my opinion. In Europe, Sega effectively broke the mould when it came to advertising; with the whole CyberRazor Cut/Pirate TV advertising concept. It was a foundation that Sony built upon when they launched PlayStation, and targeted it at 18- 29 year olds as a cool device rather than a console for kids. Obviously I've seen some of the North American marketing, but seeing it twenty years later via a grainy YouTube clip doesn't help get across the context - vice versa for NA users seeing EU footage, and they may not understand my zeal for it. I'll try and get all the info together, and hopefully write something up if I can squeeze it in in-between work/Uni. - X201 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how to move the article forward either...but I can say that seeing the Sega Pirate Sega CD commercial was actually very invigorating...I can really see why that would be an advertisement that broke the mold. Not to mention Peter Wingfield is probably my favorite British actor...and finding out about him being in Mega Drive commercials was very moving. I never saw these growing up, as I'm in North America...I saw Gotta Get Genesis, and Genesis Does of course, but for me, seeing Peter Wingfield and the Sega Pirate was nearly just as good as when I saw Genesis Does as a kid. IMHO it didn't get across the fact that "you can't do this on Nintendo" but some kind of context still came over for me. Getting a peer review or GA review is a probably a good next step.--SexyKick 23:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Some areas I see:

• 32-bit era - a number of small paragraphs intersperced with larger ones. That breaks the flow compared to the other sections.
• Emulation - a number of small paragraphs that could be condensed.
• Technical specificiations - a number of 1- or 2-paragraph sections that could be combined. Master system compatability also suffers from the same issues as 32-bit era.
• The table in variations imo would be better going up-and-down rather than left-to-right as it takes up 80% of the screen on my monitor.
• Legacy and revivial - those subsections should be combined and the short statements merged into 1-2 pragraphs.
• There are a number of items missing citation including stuff that looks like original research. This is mostly in the 32-bit era.
• The lead mentions that games continue to be produced, but nothing about later consoles. I'd go through and make certain every major section has at least something mentioned in the lead.∞陣内Jinnai 03:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll work on the citations. Can you write whatever needs to be written for the lead? Perhaps X201 could figure the best way to combine the emulation/32-bit sentences, and Tech Spec sections.--SexyKick 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've done what I can do for today. I can't find sources for the PBC stuff. So that should just leave the emulation sentence grouping, citations for the PBC section, and possibly grouping some of the tech spec sections??--SexyKick 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources need to be checked. I noticed a link to romhacking.net as a source in the lead and some of the sources noting 3rd-party console remakes are a bit dated.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually checked them first. Blaze Mega Drive is still on sale, Firecore/Gencore/Retrogen/Gen-mobile are still on sale...Mitashi is still selling its knock off, and of course TecToy still makes the Mega Drive 4/Guitar Idol. In fact, I think I should change the wording. So that's good. Don't know what romhacking.net is either, what tells us that it's not reliable?--SexyKick 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back in the article history it seems Anomie was okay with the reliability of that source (he's a stickler for that stuff) and edited it here.--SexyKick 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not reliablity in their case. It is what they link to it may be cause for copyright violations because they distribute ips patches. While we could link to an archived page of such presumably legally (such as through wayback machine), we shouldn't link to a fresh page.∞陣内Jinnai 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll change it to a wayback link.--SexyKick 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Some more on sources (since that's one of the most important aspects for GA)

• Linking to publishers: (we don't link to pubslihers directly. If it doesn't have an article it shouldn't be linked, especially when the previous link also links o the site.)
• Publishers need to be moved from work to publisher. This is standard practice across wikipedia that for some reason only this project doesn't seem to follow.
• Unlink the direct (non-archived) link to romhacking.net. Just use the archieved link for copyvio reasons.
  • Ditto for Zophar's Domain and any other source that could hold fan translations or other ips patches. If they just hold emulators, then that's fine.
• For now, I'll assume the book publishers are experts and the books not published by a vanity press without already being an expert.
  • There are a ton of sources here that will raise red flags based on being blog-like. I would try to find better sources in general or remove them if they aren't essential (ie another source says the same thing for that statement).
• Specific ones I'm wondering about reliability:
  • 55 - also doesn't appear to be by "Discount Store News"
  • 80 - specifically "the first" needs a secondary source as that's a controversial claim.
    • Other ones where the emulation site itself is the source claiming something like that should also use secondary sources. I didn't do a thorough check, but that one just stood out.
• Try to a better source for:
  • 43 - The youtube one will be a red flag so if we can find a better source...
  • 110 - ditto
• Other
  • 103 - remove the part about staff. Staff is assumed if no one is specifically listed. It is also inconsistent with other sources, such as 104 which don't not that it was the manual's staff.
  • Gaming Target listed twice.∞陣内Jinnai 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source 55 should be fine since I got it from the SNES article, it seems to be by Discount Store News when I go to the article. Not sure when I'll get to do this stuff since it's going to be a few hours of work. I hope I can find alternate sources than YouTube videos...there's more than those two videos used as sources too. Like GameTap and Controversy...--SexyKick 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

People seeing youtube will automatically raise alarm bells. That's why I say if you can find an alternative, it would be better. If not, then that's fine.∞陣内Jinnai 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to make the article GA would simply be to revert it back to its state in 2010, thereby removing all of the damage that's been done to it since then. Quite frankly the article in its present state is a mess, its so bad that I really don't see how anyone could even begin to fix it, and honestly I don't see anyone caring enough to try anymore. I ask you, are people expected to care about arguing the same case over and over for eternity here? There is never any conclusion on this talk page, its all meaningless, for instance the article name of "Mega Drive" has already been concluded multiple times, and yet every year it comes back up again and we're back to square one, nobody is going to keep arguing the same case over and over with no true conclusion, most (myself included) lost interest in repeating themselves a long time ago.

The article is bloated, confused, full of undue weight, and completely lacking in focus, revert it back to the last time it was GA, update the sales information in as clear, concise, and non commital a manner as possible, and then call it a day IMO Jesus.arnold (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more

• File:JP MegaDrive Logo.gif - rationale needs improvement.
• File:MD Sonic the Hedgehog.png - rationale needs to be improved for this article. "Typical gameplay" is pretty weak, especially since its not typical of the console as a whole (just Sonic games).
  • Related to that, the caption should give a better reason for being there that relates somehow to the text (preferably by it, but at least somewhere).
• File:SegaMegaDrive AudioComparision.ogg - will need to be updated and probably use a template (even if its not required, it seems its wanted now to make things clear).
• File:VirtuaRacing.PNG - is in bad shape.
  • Caption is just as bad.
• Finally, if I were reviewing this, I'd say all but the logo could be easily replacable with CC-created imagry/sound. Why? Homebrew. The article mentions how hacks were made to the game that allowed not only translations and hacks, but homebrew games as well.
• Reminds me, that section could possibly use some checking for any new info.∞陣内Jinnai 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to be archived yet.--SexyKick 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize I should have been putting a "Done" check mark thing under things I finished. I can't remember what I did and didn't do now! Wow.--SexyKick 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask what had/hand't been done. Part of the reason I sped up the archive was to clear out that huge discussion so there'd be less distraction to this particular one.∞陣内Jinnai 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

About the name

I know little of what happened in the past 3 or so months, but quick glances give me zero real arguments and even more ridiculous title suggestions, and what I see just above me is not helping in the slightest. So, with the "national pride" nonsense out of the way (of course, I'm American and was raised knowing only a "Sega Genesis" for a very long time), I should put down what actually matters:

• First off, (nearly?) every non-US/Canada release of the console is still the "Sega Mega Drive". "Arguably" nothing, random hopeful Google searches to determine anything is nonsense; they are not easily "trackable", and should be taken with a pound of salt. The actual releases of the actual subject are easily "trackable" and do actually make sense.
• The various related articles are still going to hang out at "Mega Drive", which is a big inconsistency no matter what.
• We actually had it at Sega Mega Drive once, and it was fine for a very long time. Yes, that's much better than "hey, let's just go back to the original title, never mind how old the article might be and what kind of standards we had back then".

None of this has anything to do with "fanboyism", or how much "no one cares" (which will work against you here). All of this has to do with avoiding the various misleading scenarios we have now. There really is no argument against this other than "stop arguing", which isn't even a great statement, especially not here at Wikipedia. Please, let's just move it back to Mega Drive.

Oh wait, this was a "vote", wasn't it? This is never supposed to be a vote. I am talking about the article's current issues. Despatche (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The constant fighting over the title is part of why it went back to the original title. Every non US/Canada release of the console makes up roughly 40% of the consoles sold. So that's a good argument for the current title. Basically all of the gather-able data indicates that Sega Genesis, Sega CD, Sega 32X, and Sega CDX are the common names, that plus the constant fighting got it back to the original article title.--SexyKick 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the 'go back to the original' was more a tiebraker than the main reason. As had been constantly said, having it at Mega Drive WOULD be fine, but in the end it was decided that Genesis was simply the slightly better choice. But I have to ask, what "misleading scenarios" are you talking about? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So we ignore reasonable consistency and actual fact in an attempt to get the kids to stop fighting? The Mega Drive series of articles now has issues that are confirmed to never be dealt with, and a large part of it is because you have reintroduced what should have been long-dead for--literally--"the sake of it". As for the "gather-able data", if it's just a bunch of Google searching, it's not very helpful due to the nature of the internet; the Google searching that can be done still cannot be considered decisive because of other facets of the nature of the internet; we know this all too well, so what happened? "Shutting the kids up". This is what I have seen you do and what I have been told by you. It's situations just like this that make me doubt the worth of WP:COMMONNAME.

Needing to find a "tiebreaker" to a situation that shouldn't provoke any real fighting (other than national pride) tells me that the whole process is pointless because everything is decided by whims (national pride) instead of any real facts, when a large part of Wikipedia is scrutinizing those whims as much as the facts and trying to avoid giving the former too much importance. Meanwhile, "Misleading scenarios" indeed refers to what I was talking about earlier in that edit: the fact that we can actually determine a "common name" beyond Google searches is being completely ignored for the sake of what may as well be "national pride" and "shutting the kids up"; the fact that there are now semi-permanent consistency issues that are confirmed to be so for some time; and that all this fighting only came up recently, probably started and definitely continued by--wait for it--national pride and friends.

I am so sorry for being so rude. Despatche (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is over. Don't whine because you didn't get your way. Most were in favor of this. Both names have a lot of links to them, over 500(I didn't bother clicking next 500 a few times to see exactly how many). The majority of the systems sold were in the American market, so most people that bought one did so in America and Canada, not other English speaking markets. That came up in the discussion. Its what most people who have one know it as. Its what most of these things produced have written on it as its name. Dream Focus 23:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree with Dream Focus. Why doesn't everyone stop arguing about it now; think of all the wasted time and energy that could have been directed towards improving this article. Considering that this article is WP:VG class C but of high importance it could certainly benefit from some enthusiam for its contents rather than its title. Mike 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed ... for as much effort has been put into arguing about what characters appear at the top of the article, we could have been dealing with all the other characters below it and bringing the article closer to GA-status, if not FA. --McDoobAU93 04:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It was delisted from GA for reasons that were all fixed literally right after. If I had known how to challenge the delisting at the time, I would have done so (way too late now). IMHO it only has a C rating because it was never actually reviewed. Mostly the master system section stands out because it needs sources. I've gone through much of Jin's list of ways to improve the article (listed above) but I couldn't find any good sources for the Master System section. I think we fixed all the original research, and moving of the 32-bit era into legacy. I'll get around to checking what I did and putting done tags up soon.--SexyKick 03:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any pre-existing discussion, because that discussion is over. This is an issue with the article and related articles that is currently still here, as I've said again and again. I'm tired of the forced inconsistency when it's uncalled for, and the forced consistency when it's completely unnecessary. Please fix this issue. Despatche (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to actually explain what said "inconsistency" actually IS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That "pre-existing discussion" is far from over. Even most of the voters who supported the move were not completely sure about it, but only agreed because of personal preference. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so pointing to useless voting figures is pointless. As has already been mentioned before, the fact of the matter is that "Mega Drive" is the original name, it is the most common name used in most English-speaking countries, it is the most common name in nearly all non-English countries, and it even returns more Google hits than "Sega Genesis", an originally unintended name that only ever came into existence because of copyright issues. I have yet to see a single compelling reason why this article should be named "Sega Genesis" instead of "Mega Drive". Jagged 85 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, Sega Genesis was the original English name, it's the name on most of the consoles sold/produced, is the name used in most English sources, and it even returns more Google hits than Mega Drive.[5]--SexyKick 06:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now spanned two calendar years, and is just plain stupid. I would like to suggest a ratio, that every whinge & moan posted about the name requires two contributing edits to the article itself. And search/replace Megadrive with Genesis doesn't count. Hells Bells, Even the characters over at Talk:Muhammad/images have the decency to only post the once before disappearing again. And no - it wasn't a vote, it was a consensus. If you don't know the difference - go and find out. a_man_alone (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Google search engine I use returns far more hits for Sega "Mega Drive" than it does for "Sega Genesis". Maybe it's different in North America? Jagged 85 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It sure didn't seem like a "consensus" to me, considering how some did not agree on the move and how even some of those who did support the move stated "Mega Drive" as their preference over "Sega Genesis". Going further back, the majority did not support the move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis", but they did support the move to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". But then, all that ended up doing is making it easier to convince people that "Sega Genesis" is at least a better title than that compound title, so we end up with a less preferable title despite the previous vote in September initially opposing it. The only "consensus" I saw was in moving the title from a compound title to a single title, not a "consensus" preferring Sega Genesis over Mega Drive. Jagged 85 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to setup Google to search for the entire world, and not just your country.--SexyKick 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"The only "consensus" I saw was in moving the title from a compound title to a single title, not a "consensus" preferring Sega Genesis over Mega Drive." - check back through the archives. Just because there was dissent doesn't mean that consensus wasn't reached. No matter how much obstinate shouting and opposition goes on, it is still possible to reach a consensus when it becomes apparent that a tableau in argumentation has been reached and there is a preferation to use one title over the other. a_man_alone (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you normally enter a discussion by proudly proclaiming that you "know little" about the ongoing discussion and that you've only given "quick glances" to what everyone else has taken the time to write? If so, does anybody normally listen to you at all? APL (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, is this really worth arguing about? Anyone navigating to Sega Mega Drive will be redirected to the current article. The reason for the redirect is explained clearly and concisely in the first paragraph. Perhaps everyone could take a deep breath and have a glance at WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Perhaps you should also try reading WP:FUCK. Mike _talk 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would point to three facts:

1. The original name in the home market (Japan) was Mega Drive
2. The name in the most popular market (Europe) was Mega Drive
3. Most English speaking regions (UK, Australia, and even others such as Asia, Africa and Brazil) all know it as Mega Drive. In fact, all 35 of the alternate language versions of this article refer to it as the Mega Drive.

The name Mega Drive is more common and more well known by more people in more countries. How is it even an issue to call it "Genesis"?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.100 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and you'll see that each of those items was discussed and how the consensus was reached regarding the name. --McDoobAU93 00:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read the FAQ before entering this discussion and found it far too unsatisfactory. I've went through the archives and I just don't see where the so-called "consensus" is. All I saw was people preferring a single title (just Mega Drive or just Sega Genesis) over a compound title ("Sega Genesis and Mega Drive"), not over what that single title should be, as some of those supporting the move away from a compound title clearly stated their preference for Mega Drive over Sega Genesis. Going further back, an earlier vote to move from Mega Drive to Sega Genesis was even rejected by the majority of voters. I did not see any "consensus" at all to suggest that Sega Genesis should be preferred over Mega Drive, nor does the FAQ give any adequate explanation for it. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The results of a straw poll was the first suggestion that "Sega Genesis" was strongly favored over "Mega Drive" or the compound title. As a result, a proposal was made to move the article to Sega Genesis, and clear consensus was found to be in favor of that proposal. I'll add this to the FAQ. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you go back as far as you can possibly go, nearly the beginning of the project, you'll see that the article on the 16-bit Sega console was first started as Genesis (item 4 on the consensus explanation at the bottom of the FAQ). If you prefer something more recent, please review this most recent move discussion, in which the closing admin said there was "clear consensus" for the move to Genesis. Also, the above IP erroneously states that Europe was the system's most popular market, when roughly 50% of the consoles made were sold in a market where the system was named Genesis (please refer to the cited sales figures in the article). Then of course there's the issue of the console's first appearance in an English-language market ... again, that's North America, where it was known as Genesis (item 3 on the consensus explanation). --McDoobAU93 22:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all crap. It does NOT matter what name a wikipedia article was originally created under. We should be using the best name. The console is known as the Mega Drive by more people in more countries, and with more published/reliable sources. It really is not an issue for it to be called Genesis, a name used in only one country (and even then, only accidentally, due to an unforseen trademark error). This does not constitute a worldwide view in the slightest (look in the Languages dropdown on the right of the article - none of the other languages label it as such, including the NA languages French and Spanish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.125.130 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "more" means what you think it means.LedRush (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Probable error

The "Add-ons" section currently states 'At June 1994's Consumer Electronics Show, Sega presented the 32X as the "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games."', with a footnote citing Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Video Games. Although I was not at the 1994 Consumer Electronics Show, the very idea that Sega themselves would introduce the 32X as "the poor man's entry into next generation games" seems manifestly ludicrous. Without having read the book, I can only assume that the quoted description actually comes from Kent himself, not Sega's marketers, in which case the article's statement should be changed to 'At June 1994's Consumer Electronics Show, Sega presented the 32X, later deemed the "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" by Steven Kent in his The Ultimate History of Video Games.' Can someone please confirm or deny the accuracy of this?--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to be right about this. I would either (a) change it immediately as you suggested; or (b) delete the quotation immediately (making the statement purely factual) and let someone add it back in per your comment when someone reads the book.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Sega presented the 32X with plans to make the Saturn. I remember Sega saying things like the 32X would be the best selling 32-bit machine because of how cheap and accessible it would make the next generation of gaming. It always seemed like Sega presented it as the poor mans entry into the 32-bit generation, even if they maybe did or didn't use that specific quote themselves.--BeastSystem (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is this: did Sega actually say it was "the poor man's entry into 'next generation games'"? If they did, and it's sourced, it belongs. Otherwise, it's either (a) someone else's words, and should be listed as such or (b) it's someone's interpretation of Sega's intent, thus making it original thought and inappropriate. --McDoobAU93 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A simple google books search turned this up and it claims Sega themselves referred to it that way. So now we have two book sources. Stephen's book also comes up in the search, but with pages removed.--SexyKick 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What page is it on? The link you provide just takes me to the start of the book.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I'm not questioning that "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" appears in Kent's book; indeed, my suspicion is that the phrase comes directly from Kent's book, rather than merely being quoted in it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed ... I revised it to indicate that critics (not Sega) had made that statement, and found it had been undone just now. Again, if there is proof that Sega ITSELF called the 32X "the poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" and not a critic or writer adding his own opinion, then it needs to be shown that way. The question is not that the statement was made (the source clearly indicates that), but who we say made it. The evidence does NOT indicate that Sega made that statement. --McDoobAU93 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's odd about the link. When I click on it, the link takes me straight to page C44 with "poor man's" highlighted. The reference shows Sega themselves called it that. Stephen's book also claims the same thing, he didn't say it himself, he said Sega said that, and so does this book. That's two sources that have nothing to do with each other showing the same fact; Sega presented the 32X as the poor man's entry into the 32-bit market. Otherwise why introduce a new 32-bit system after you've already announced the Saturn??? They tried to pincer the market by taking the rich half and poor half of the 32-bit market at the same time. ie compete with themselves to make more money the same way other corporations do. Critics did not make this statement, nor did authors. Sega themselves said it. How is this confusing? McDoob, did you perhaps miss my comment above with the reference to another book claiming Sega themselves said this???--SexyKick 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After re-checking the provided link, I do stand corrected, to a point (a very stretched one, though). I revised the paragraph and sentence and included the EXACT quote from the book you linked to. I also re-arranged the citation footnotes to make it easier for editors to know what source that statement came from. I believe that resolves the issue for now, and thanks SexyKick for providing that information. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)