Talk:Sega Genesis

Massive Lede section

It's been a while since I dared look at this article, but I have to say that the lede section alone is becoming larger than some stub, or even start class articles, weighing in at 540 words. It really needs trimming down by some margin. Before I work on it with secateurs, I thought I'd mention it here first for other opinions? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed—it continues to balloon. I had recommended a much more concise three ¶ lede back in Archive 21 that may be helpful as a baseline. czar ♔ 14:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we're still using the lede that was written during the FACR, and since that was subjected to their scrutiny I'd rather stick to it over redoing it.--SexyKick 17:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just browsing through and stumbled upon this article, and came here to say the same thing. The current intro seems very bloated and confused to me at the moment, going as it does into unnecessary detail which could be saved for the body text (the tech specs and two different names for the console in South Korea, for example). As it stands, I really don't think it gives a good enough precis of the subject. From WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview - I think novices would be more confused than ever after reading just the lead.

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points - I'm not sure it's a resounding success on any of these points, especially the last two.

The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences - It definitely fails abysmally on this point.

The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style - Again, I don't think the current lead lead does novices any favours, what with the jargon-like technical details.

There's so much room for improvement over the current convoluted detritus, I don't really see why anyone would argue too vehemently against trying, so I urge the more experienced editors to do so. I freely admit that I don't really know how to help, but if I can, I will. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Because when it gets touched it opens a big can of worms and a nationalistic debate begins 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a compelling reason not to try to improve the article, though, is it? There are far more divisive subjects out there with pages that have excellent lead sections, so surely there's no excuse for the embarrassing unwieldy mess that greets us at the moment. As I detailed above, I'm surprised anyone thinks it complies with WP:LEAD, but that's just my opinion. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated before, we went into FACR with the lede Czar had worked on, and you had previously approved of. That lede was panned, slammed, and tossed out for a full rewrite which was then subjected to their scrutiny. It hasn't been messed with since, and is better to just leave it be, because "FA is FA" for a reason. ;p (On the other hand, if you have an argument against the FA review standards, well you can keep that to yourself because it's not going to hold weight, thank you - we worked for a month on the GAR, and then almost two months on the FACR with half a dozen other experienced Wikipedians, you came in with a very humble point of view I must say, so if you want to keep that humility, you will certainly understand what I'm saying here, otherwise, I recommend taking a page from the famous Mr. Pat Sajack, cause he seems like a guy who's decent as decent can be you know.)SexyKick 02:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because something was rated as a FA at some point in its history is no reason to lock the section down and forbid any changes. The page itself has changed many times since then. The lead is currently so large that in no way can it be considered to "stand alone as a concise overview" - my emphasis. In the edit above Sexykick states that the article was worked on "with half a dozen other experienced Wikipedians" of which I played a minor humble role, and have improved edited the article many times before and since. I now seek to improve the article further by pruning the overly large lead section. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

changed one time since promotion to add the words "which was". I completely disagree with the assertion it doesn't stand alone as a concise overview, we were directed to use the lead as it is because of the extended length and coverage of this article. More to the point, the only suggestions for trimming so far have made no sense to me. Possibly because they didn't come from you. Maybe you yourself have different ideas, but I felt the FACR finally hammered (verb picked carefully) out the problems with the lead that stemmed from all the name-warriors fighting each other all the time into something that worked and made sense. As specifically stated by one of the reviewers, who felt they were going over old scars from a long fought war. I for one agreed with that, and I don't wish to see the article re-enter that phase.--SexyKick 11:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the console's notability is "established in the first few sentences"? To be frank, I don't. The current lead seems to focus more on Virgin Mastertronic being the European distributor and things like that, which I'm not sure really belongs in the lead at all, never mind the first paragraph. Do you think it's "written in a clear, accessible style"? Again, all this talk of Zilog Z80s and Motorola 68000s make it rather cumbersome in my opinion. I recommend trying to read the lead (and just the lead) through the eyes of a novice. Does it really "summarize the most important points" about the subject in a way that would "be able to stand alone"? I'm surprised anyone would think that is the case. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's my belief that especially the first paragraph of the lead has a major problem: the whole reason it exists and spells out all the names and releases is because it's essentially been the naming debate by proxy. All the Mega Drive and Genesis fighters have had such a hissy fit over it for months and making sure the console is identified properly and all the WP:WORLDVIEW issues people have fought about over the years, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm totally cool with stripping all of that out. That being said, I do differ on your opinion of the mention of the Motorola 68000 and Zilog Z80 in the lead; they're linked so novice readers can click the link and find out what it is, and they're key components to what made the Genesis unique, not to mention what it was based off of in that design was somewhat popular and was directly based from Sega's System 16 arcade board. I wouldn't mind submitting a suggested revision, but it will take me some time. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 19:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone's suggested this before, but if you're looking for a way to remove the naming problem all together, would this be an acceptable compromise?

Template:BlockquotetopThe Sega Genesis or Mega Driveref group=note>The name "Mega Drive" (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) was used on the console's initial release in Japan, but changed to "Genesis" in North America. Most other territories use "Mega Drive", while South Korea etc. etc.</ref> is a 16-bit video game console etc. etc.Template:Blockquotebottom

If I've done that correctly, people can hover their mouse on the note if they're confused about there being two names, and the details of it all can be fleshed out in the History section (as it pretty much is anyway). If they're not interested in there being two names, it removes the clutter from the first paragraph and we can go about establishing what the console is and why it's notable.

I take your point about the Motorola 68000 and Zilog Z80, and it's fair enough, but I still hold that the priorities should lie elsewhere so early in the article. I'm not looking to start a fight over it or anything, though. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

...And I haven't done it correctly. I was trying to create a pop-up after the words "Mega Drive" saying something along the lines of "The name "Mega Drive" (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) was used on the console's initial release in Japan, but changed to "Genesis" in North America. Most other territories use "Mega Drive", while South Korea etc. etc.". I'm not sure where I went wrong - I'll leave it to the more experienced editors... 82.14.71.42 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That has not been suggested before, and it's not a bad idea. The distributor issue is sort of an expanded problem of the same core concept: did the article violate WP:WORLDVIEW? (It's my belief that issue has long since been rectified; it's by far the most multinational video game article with mentions of Japan, North America, and Europe (as expected), but also Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, India, Kuwait, and South Korea, and the games list mentions pirate releases from Taiwan. I know it's gotten so touchy before that I had issues here with another anonymous editor because it got so tickytack based on the fact that some editors really wanted Mega Drive and some wanted Sega Genesis. That's how this blood feud listed at WP:LAME played out. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind some lead tinkering going on, but there's a caveat that needs to be considered, and that's this: Even during the FAC, the lead was a point of contention and was very carefully worked out amongst the reviewers because there were so many perspectives on it. I know I had to fight off someone who suggested a five-paragraph lead because I thought it was completely ridiculous and a WP:LEAD violation, noting that WP:LEAD does not allow for five paragraphs. Part of the problems here have to do with the unusual controversial nature of the article and why in the world not only its name but every aspect about it seems to spark some kind of either national warring or fanboy warring is beyond me. I even let that get to me at the FAC when I thought someone was fanboy warring who wasn't. So, I would say this: It would be nice for the lead to get a shave, although a three paragraph lead definitely seems reasonable if done the right way. It does, however, need to be carefully worked out to ensure it's still FA-quality material and can be agreed upon. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 12:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have never been completely happy with the lead either. For the record though, my five paragraph rough draft contained 539 words. The current three paragraph lead clocks in at 535. If my lead was "a ridiculous violation of WP:LEAD" (a gross exaggeration, but whatever), then so is the current one.

And since when has one person getting the discussion ball rolling by putting together a rough draft "fighting somebody off?" It was a collaborative discussion. That draft served as a starting point for further refinement, and I never argued strenuously for its adoption. I find this contention both hurtful and counter to the facts. Indrian (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Indrian I'm not referring to your draft - I apologize if that seemed to be the case. Wasn't that originally suggested and pushed hard by another editor at the FAC? You did your best in trying to go with it, and I appreciate what you accomplished with it; it was important to getting this article through FAC and helped us put together the lead we have now which did pass. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote from the FAC:

In short the last paragraph of the lead is no different, but the lead is also very short and doesn't work as a very brief overview of the subject. While it may discuss the contents, it doesn't do so in a way that meets 1a or 2a. The actual contents itself looks better, but I'm going to stop for now simply because the lead alone needs to be completely re-written and expanded to 4-5 paragraphs. I am also noticing some numbers errors. The "40 million" estimate for units sold is not given as an estimate in the infobox nor as an approximate as listed in the body. And yes, there is a difference. I also looked up the Sega Genesis 3, and aside from being mentioned, it is not covered in the third party variations nor along with the other derivations. As part of the comprehensive criteria I am adamant that these releases be covered because the current coverage is inadequete and only raises more loose ends. We barely get a sentence about the CSD-GM1 which was in a "boombox". Many issues exist and I think it is far too soon before this can even be considered featured article candidate. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to show you I meant no harm ;) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you may be right. Sorry. I did a five paragraph draft at one point, so I thought you were referring to me, but there were definitely some people fighting for some pretty convoluted language at one point or another. The lead issue was definately a big fight. No hard feelings at all. Indrian (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all, Indrian. The quote I posted above actually happens to be what led to the subsequent discussions and lead drafts, and in the FAC I strongly opposed this point posted by this IP. We ended up reworking it together, although your draft was the core of it and wasn't a bad idea at all given the circumstances. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed lead rewrite #1

This is my suggestion. In order to separate it from the rest of the discussion, I'm going to put it in an archive template as always.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ, Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) in most regions outside North America, is a 16-bit video game console which was developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Master System. Designed by an R&D team supervised by Masami Ishikawa, the Genesis hardware was adapted from Sega's System 16 arcade board, centered around a 16-bit Motorola 68000 and an 8-bit Zilog Z80 as its central processing units. Its game library consists of over 900 titles, as well as titles for its peripherals and network services. The console was made in several variations from Sega and various third parties.

In Japan, the Mega Drive did not fare well against its two main competitors, Nintendo's Super Famicom and NEC's PC Engine. However, it achieved considerable success in North America and in Europe, capturing the majority of the 16-bit market share in several territories including the United States and the United Kingdom. Contributing to its success were its library of arcade game ports, the popularity of the Genesis-exclusive Sonic the Hedgehog series, several popular sports game franchises, and aggressive youth marketing that positioned the system as the cool console for adolescents. Though Sega dominated the market in North America and Europe for several years, the release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System resulted in a fierce battle for market share in those territories that has often been termed a "console war" by journalists and historians.ref name="IGNHistory2" /ref name="segacd" / As this contest drew increasing attention to the video game industry among the general public, the Genesis and several of its highest-profile games attracted significant legal scrutiny on matters involving reverse engineering and video game violence. Controversy surrounding violent titles like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat led Sega to create the Videogame Rating Council, a predecessor to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

By the end of 1994, when a new generation of 32-bit consoles rendered the system technologically obsolete, the Genesis had sold 29 million units worldwide, and by the end of its life Sega had sold an estimated 40 million units. The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers continue to produce games for it. Many games have also been re-released in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network, and Steam.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That's a start; it still needs work, but it's a good start to the trim. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed a good start, in my opinion. If I may raise a few things:

- Can we insert something in the first paragraph stating that it remains Sega's best-seller? That will help to establish notability.

- Similarly, I think perhaps the "console wars" are notable enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph, if that doesn't necessitate a massive re-write.

- You seem to have accidentally removed most years. It's kind of imperative people know the console was released in 1988, and had its heyday in the early-to-mid-90s.

- Is it worth naming any other long-running game franchises (besides Sonic) that debuted on the system?

- Did the Videogame Rating Council cover the whole of North America, or just the US? Either way, I think it should be clear it wasn't a worldwide body.

- I still wonder whether my suggestion of a pop-up note to sidestep the naming issue all together is the most elegant solution on offer.

- Finally, surely it should be, "known as the Mega Drive" in the first sentence. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Couple of quick responses:

• Not a bad note for it being Sega's most successful console, as it was.
• I'd contest "console wars" as a made up WP:OR term; that's part of why that article disappeared. Its success in North America and Europe is already references.
• Years probably aren't a bad addition.
• Sonic's by far and away the most notable on long-running franchises; many of Sega's franchises were here but were mostly exclusive to the Genesis or only comprised a couple of titles. Ones like the Phantasy Star series actually debuted on Master System, which is probably the next in line.
• I do have one issue with the hat note: it's covered in the article, so why even need a hat note or an explanation in the lead?

Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. To answer you (in order):

- Fair enough.

- I was trying to make the point that the North American and European success could potentially be referenced earlier. My understanding is that the first paragraph in particular should, if possible, clearly state (1) what the subject is, and (2) why it's notable. Point (1) is definitely covered in detail in your new proposed lead (perhaps slightly too intricately, but I'll leave that for others to decide). Point (2), on the other hand, isn't really approached at all, and in my opinion it should be.

- Fair enough.

- Actually, I wasn't just thinking of first-party franchises. Many of the EA Sports titles that still sell by the bucket-load to this day, for example, can trace their ancestry back to this console. I'm just raising the point in case anyone thinks that helps establish the system's importance in history.

- My thinking was that we could go one step further than your proposed lead and even get rid of the "known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) in most regions outside North America" clause, i.e. start the article with, "The Sega Genesis or Mega Drive is a 16-bit video game console...". That would leave it completely de-cluttered and conveniently sidesteps the naming issue all together. If it's deemed that we can't start without any explanation whatsoever, then I propose a hat note as a compromise. But I strongly agree with you that everything except the very basics with regard to the names and distributors is better left in the body and out of the lead. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One last thing: you removed the reference to it being a cartridge-based console. I think that's at least as fundamental a detail as the processors, chips and boards mentioned, so should be included. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Massive support from this anon :) This suggestion is infinitely better and more informative than the current lead. I also support 82.14.71.42's ideas on further clarifying its notability. I'll be stumped if this doesn't make it into the article. 91.154.11.76 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would change
"Genesis-exclusive Sonic the Hedgehog series"
To "Sega Exclusive", it started on the Mega-drive but versions were soon made for the Master System and Game Gear within the Mega-Drive's life cycle 77.97.151.145 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega-16.com

I should preface this by saying that I added Sega-16 interviews to Sega Saturn, and suggested one for use in Sega CD, which was subsequently added by User:Red Phoenix. However, I always had a sneaking suspicion that Sega-16 might not have editorial oversight up to Wikipedia's standards (although I wasn't too keen on checking), and WP:VG/RS lists the site as unreliable. Perhaps Horowitz is sufficiently reliable that his interviews with primary sources can be cited, but it would be quite hard to individually justify all eight references to Sega-16 in this FA. Note that numerous Sega-related articles, even Good Articles like Sega Channel, continue to use Sega-16 as a reference.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I would contest quite the opposite. As much as WP:VG/RS doesn't say that it is, I wasn't there to debate it with them at the time. I did my homework on Sega-16 before I ever used it for any information, and surely Horowitz's contributions can be considered reliable as he is an established video game journalist. It's also worthy of note that his work specifically on Sega-16 has been cited by Retro Gamer. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sega-16 could certainly help flesh out Sega CD's "Library" section if that is so, but I think it would be nice to have a broader discussion and establish a new consensus about the site if it is reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, honestly. Part of the thing here is that Sega-16 has had a changing face over the years. It used to host a lot of comment from Sam Pettus (Eidolon's Inn, which is a thoroughly unreliable site) and did have a lot of issue. In the five years I've been gone, though, it appears that Horowitz' involvement in the site has heavily increased. He removed the unreliable content; it's literally nowhere to be found there. Their game lists are gone, all of that is gone, and their features are rock solid with most being written by Horowitz himself (a few others are written by members of his listed site staff). Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources would be a good idea if there is a belief that the situation has changed since it was initially deemed unreliable. Taking a closer look the last recorded discussion was over two years ago so a new discussion could very well come up with a new consensus. I would however suggest that some solid evidence be provided as to what is different now since that would make overturning the previous consensus a more plausible outcome.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a conversation about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Sega-16 czar ♔ 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With the Sega Genesis originally being called the Sega Mega Drive, and with it being called the Sega Mega Drive in every other release region other than North America, it seems more suitable for this page to be titled 'Sega Mega Drive' rather than 'Sega Geneses' as that is the console's primary name. Mega Drive is also much more recognisable then Genesis due to the console being called the Mega Drive in many more countries.

So with the name being the Sega Mega Drive for the majority of the world, it seems more suitable for: The page name to be changed from 'Sege Genesis' to 'Sega Mega Drive' And the initial paragraph of the page changed from: The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu?) in most regions outside North America, is a 16-bit video game console which was developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. to: The Sega Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu?), known as the Sega Genesis in North America, is a 16-bit video game console which was developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. Little Sir Steel (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Because there isn't a very obvious FAQ at the top of this page?--SexyKick 22:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

✗ per page move FAQ czar ♔ 23:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The American editors suffer from severe nationalistic bias and will not listen to sense "Little Sir Steel" but they do have a sense of humour
"Sega Genesis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."
this is the funniest joke i have read all year considering this is one of the worst articles in the history of wikipedia. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How hilarious that you seem to still misunderstand the situation... No wonder no one here takes you seriously. It's even funnier that it irritates you so much in your misunderstanding that you keep coming back and spewing your ignorance without changing your tactic. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to change, you and your MURICA buddies are the one's in the wrong as an infinite number or archive pages show 77.97.151.145 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• And yet again, an editor with hardly any edits says this, along with this IP address. Dream Focus 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh, no. No no no. Let's not start this up again. As a Brit who prefers the name Mega Drive, no. We've been on this road many times before, and it leads to endless circular discussions, rampant accusations, and general badness. We threw the corpse of this particular dead horse out years ago. Let it be. Just no. Aawood (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To be fair, the FAQ that describes the details of this contentious history is buried in the middle of a whole bunch of other templates at the top of this talk page, and it's not very obvious to anyone who doesn't know where to look for it. I think, since this keeps coming up, that the FAQ needs to be placed in a more prominent position. (I see we have an edit note as well, but even that looks more like general instruction text to me, so it's likely to be overlooked.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow, is KieferSkunk back? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't see me. Nothing to see here. Move along. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Notice

I suggest rewording the edit notice to be more succinct, for what it's worth czar ♔ 21:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the current edit notice:

I suggest this as an alternative:

How's that? (BTW, yes, I did return to this article despite boldly saying I wasn't coming back, but I'm just here to help make some things clearer, not to weigh in on either side of the debate.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that. Seems the message needs to be clearer than it is. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor suggestion:

Though the previous one is okay too czar ♔ 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I'll go ahead and implement it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, apparently I can't do that. I'm not an admin anymore (I had them turn that off last year during the firestorm), so I'll need someone else to do it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you ought to head to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, KieferSkunk. Any admins watching this page? @Sergecross73: You were the only other admin I could think of who was involved with the title debates off the top of my head; might you be willing to update the page notice for us? Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it take the BN to request edit-notice changes? Seems a little draconian. But in any event, cool. You guys have done good work in the last year. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think he meant the BN for reinstating your mop. Or we can also {{Admin help}} czar ♔ 03:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revise Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Sega Genesis with the the {{editnotice}} just above. czar ♔ 03:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(Note: I moved things around to fix indent issues caused by the admin-help templates.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re mop: Oh, that's okay. :) I voluntarily asked them to remove me as an admin - I wasn't really doing anything admin-ish, I certainly wasn't acting like one at the time, and I felt it would be best to give up the tools lest I be tempted to use them for evil. Basically, for my purposes, nothing here I can't do without 'em, so why bother? :) Appreciate the thought, tho. (Also, that's probably a little off-topic for here - we can continue that discussion on my talk page if you like.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive... the edit notice has now been updated. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Yunshui! The new notice is a lot more attention-grabbing, so hopefully it'll encourage future editors to actually read the FAQ before bringing this topic up again. Appreciate the quick response. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have helped, I just wasn't fast enough. Nice work. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Correction needed

The line "It can also play the complete library of Master System games when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed." is not quite correct, there is one game that does not work, F-16 Fighting Falcon. The manual for the PBC mentions this, if a cite is called for.98.243.94.83 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A citation will be needed; we couldn't find this information in reliable sources when we worked on this article. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the manual is the citation. Or are offline print items no longer accepted for citations? Conversely, one could ask where is the citation that it plays ALL instead of MOST Master System games?98.243.94.83 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)