Talk:Sega CD

Mega CD/Mega CD II

There's a lack of the AU system logos and machines. Why? Discuss. - 211.26.51.207 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Lunar

For whoever is running through this page demanding citations, especially in regards to Lunar: Silver Star Story and its sequel being notable games for this system, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the subject of the article before questioning what others are contributing about it. If you did this beforehand, at the very least you'd see that there are novel-length and abundantly-cited Wiki entries for each game of the series and that the two main games of the series made their debut on the Sega CD for which they made quite an impact. You'd also see that these same two games sold so well for the Sega CD system that interest in them has warranted them being been ported many, many times to later systems such as the Playstation 1 all the way to the current iOS. These two games also enjoyed a considerable amount of press in the forms of positive reviews and rewards (as their respective articles show), and the games are still finding an receptive audience 21 years after the series' first game's release. I don't know about you, but I think that qualifies its "notable franchise" status enough that such pedantry is really not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.171.6 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Audio Discs

Does this use audiodiscs? 67.188.172.165 03:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "Can the Mega-CD play audio CDs?" then the answer is yes. - X201 09:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a Sega CD model 2 (manual eject clamshell CD door) connected to a Sega Genesis model 1, and I can confirm that the Sega CD has support for standard audio CDs (Compact Disc Digital Audio) and CD+G. CD+G demo discs were included with some models of the Sega CD (and some of these could be purchased separately as they appeared in used game stores if they weren't included with a Sega CD purchase). Given the additional CD+G support, if one has a CD+G collection (such as Karaoke discs in CD+G format) then they should be able play those using the Sega CD and TV (and optionally along with any audio receiver or amplifier the audio output is played through). Activating the CD+G button in the CD player mode switches to a screen that is capable of displaying any CD+G graphics and text. 76.122.221.218 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Segacdlogo.png

Image:Segacdlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section has nothing to do with the Sega CD itself.

I am going to remove it because that controversy belongs to Night Trap, not the system.

I agree. But next time, sign your post. - X201 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IMAGINE MOJO JOJO SAYING THIS

The Sega CD had been announced at the Chicago CES on January 1992. Early reports had suggested that hardware in the system would allow it to display more on screen colors (from a larger palette) than the Sega Genesis or the Super Nintendo, which was an important technical concern for consumers. In the end, the Sega CD was unable to convince North American gamers, mostly due to the cost of the console, and the lack of any hardware advancements. Many people felt there was not enough value for the price. Moreover, the game experience was little improved. Players came to have high expectations for the add-on, and Sega even promised that the Sega CD would allow a higher color palette than the Genesis. However, the end result was somewhat lackluster compared to expectations. Graphically, most games ended up looking not much better than normal Sega Mega Drive games, though the sound quality was higher, owing to the CD format of the games.

AND IM JUST GANA LEAVE IT AT THAT MAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this above statement is more or less accurate (as someone who grew up during the era when the Sega CD/Mega CD was marketed and sold). The Genesis could do 64 colors on-screen (out of 512). The Sega CD had the same capabilities. It had better sound capabilities, a bit less internal memory then the Genesis and (as CD-ROM format) more profitable storage capacity. However, remember that its main competition -- the SNES could do 256 colors on-screen (out of like 32,000) and the NEC CD could do something like 512 on-screen colors. People talk about certain programming 'tricks' that could be done with the Sega CD, but they did not really upgrade the Sega CD's color capacity. Mostly, they could make things look more vibrant/colorful through some complicated, old school, computer tricks. Browned79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.245.20 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd version called "Sega CD 2" in the US?

The article seems to say so, but doesn't give any proof. I seem to recall that, much like how the Mega Drive 2 was still officially simply called Genesis for the US version, not Genesis 2, the 2nd version of the Sega CD was still merely officially called Sega CD, not Sega CD 2. However, I'm not going to change the article just based on my memories. Someone needs to find a cite on the official name of the 2nd model one way or the other. 76.226.203.71 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall the Japanese version of the console being called "Mega Drive 2", or the CD unit being "Mega CD 2" - I thought in every case, both in Japan and the US, they referred to the redesigns as "Mark 2", but officially they were still "Mega Drive/Genesis" and "Mega CD/Sega CD". I also do not have an official source. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember the UK ones being MD/MCD 2--Him and a dog 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had both a Megadrive with a Mega CD AND a Megadrive II with a Mega CD II with my Australian machines over the decades. The logos aren't on here, which is annoying. But they ARE the real names for all four counterparts of the Sega Genesis and Sega CD in Australia. The "II" machines were the scaled down ones that sat side by side instead of one on top the other. (And no, it's NOT "just the JAP model" - there's differences, mostly button colour and logo, but still.) - 211.26.51.207 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sega Mega-This, Sega Mega-That

I think we have a terminology problem in this article. The article keeps referring to the Japanese hardware as "Sega Mega Drive" and "Sega Mega-CD", when officially the subjects are just "Mega Drive" and "Mega-CD", respectively. Sega didn't attach their company name to the name of the Mega Drive-line of products, to the best of my knowledge, so it's erroneous for us to refer to those products as such. I believe we should rename this article, as well, to just "Mega-CD" (and we should verify if the hyphen is part of the name or not - is it "Mega-CD" or "Mega CD"?). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The logo versions are Mega-CD and Sega CD. The written text versions are Mega CD and Sega CD. I agree with everything else. - X201 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Look up the Australian releases. SEGA MEGADRIVE. On every box, game, system, the lot! - 211.26.51.207 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but in the United States of America, everything shows Sega Genesis, Sega CD, Sega Genesis 32x... on the product box and on the actual product itself. 76.122.221.218 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

JVC xEye

It should be also noticed that the north American model plays genesis cartridges as well.

The section about the wonder mega is sort of inaccurate in details. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio format?

Sega Genesis / Megadrive uses *.vgm and *.vgz audio format (and SNES uses *.spc and *.rsn). What's Mega-CD's audio format? 109.93.139.118 (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The file extensions you're seeing there are somewhat arbitrary, as they're produced by programs that either record or interpret the sound processor instructions from the consoles. The extensions don't actually have much to do with the "format" of the sound produced by the consoles - the latter would more often be described in terms of the sound quality (44.1 KHz 16-bit stereo, etc.), and the format for interpreted storage could be anything - WAV, MP3, or an instruction-based format like VGM or SPC.

That said, the Mega-CD contains hardware to read and render CD audio (Redbook and straight) and to mix that audio with the output from the Mega Drive's built-in FM synthesizer and Z80 output. So any program that outputs an instruction-based file format like VGM will likely give the same output as for the Mega Drive by itself, and that output would not include any CD audio - just the FM synth/Z80. If a program were to provide the mixed output, it would likely be in a streaming audio format such as WAV, MP3, OGG, etc. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That certainly clears some doubts I've been having after listening to some of Mega-CD games' in-game audio on YouTube. 79.101.83.228 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

More Audio

The article states the machine has a signal to noise ratio of greater than 90db. That is very very impropable. Furthermore, the sampled data is only 8 bit, and the TI chip is 1 bit. These bitdepths raise the noisefloor by a very big ammount (to -48 and -6 db respectively). So i would say that it's signal to noise ratio can vary but is usually way below 90db. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.234.209 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the esteemed commenter misunderstands how these things work.

1/ It is capable of replaying CD audio. Even if the lower-level sampled sounds used in games are 8-bit for the sake of compactness and simpler processing, CDDA is 16-bit. Which suggests about a -96dB noise floor overall, with the PCM game samples being -48dB within that. Though on a typical period television, you'd be unlikely to tell the difference anyway unless you hooked it up to a stereo - the sample rate (and probably a whole load of aliasing) would be a more noticeable issue. But, a CD player that only had -48dB SNR would be considered a very poor CD player, especially one which offered line-level outputs with the intent of being connected to a regular stereo... after all, it's approximately equal to that of compact cassette...

2/ A single-bit PWM output D/A converter does not necessarily suggest one-bit sample resolution, which would sound desperately rough, to the point that they likely wouldn't have bothered using it. Note that it's PWM, not PCM. This is generally the type of converter that you find in consumer-level CD players and home stereos, and they certainly don't have -6dB noise floors. They usually run at very high frequencies (on the order of MHz) and in fact offer a fair degree of "oversampling" as a result (a 2.8MHz converter would actually offer output approximately equivalent to 20-bit resolution at 44.1kHz - or "16x oversampled" as there are 4 bits left over - or an intermediate resolution at a simulated higher sample rate), so there's very little jitter, a stable DC signal would be assured of not varying by more than a fraction of a single 16-bit step even if it was somewhat noisy at the 20-bit level, and steps between the different 16-bit output values would be somewhat smoothed out to effectively reduce the amount of aliasing encountered.

A 1-bit PCM D/A would indeed sound awful, but 1-bit PWM oversampling ones are quite common and sound perfectly good - they're often the preferred choice over plain multi-bit PCM ones in fact. 87.115.171.55 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that the Sega CD model 2 box (MK-4101, UPC 010086041019) table shows these relevant product specifications (I couldn't get a good photo so I typed it out from the box specs): Sega CD Specifications Microprocessor (CPU) Motorola 68000 @ 12.5 MHz RAM 6 Mbit (program, picture, and sound data); 512 Kbit (PCM waveform memory); 128 Kbit (CD ROM data cache memory); 64 Kbit (backup memory) Boot ROM 1 Mbit (CD game BIOS, CD player software, CD+G compatible) Access Time Approximately 1 second Sound Circuitry PCM sound source: Stereo, 8 channels; Sampling wavelength: 32 Khz max; 16bit D / A converter; 8x internal over-sampling digital filter Audio Characteristics Frequency range: 20 Hz-20 KHz; Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N): >90dB@1Khz; Channel separation: >90dB Audio output (stereo) Line out: RCA pin jack x 2 (L / R) Dimensions Width: 15.6 in./396mm; Depth: 8.7 in./220mm; Height: 3.3in./84mm Weight 2.65 lb. (1.2 kg) (Note: Specifications subject to change without notice.) 76.122.221.218 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:List of Sega Mega Drive games - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Updating to note that this RM was closed as 'no consensus', with advice to make individual move requests on their respective pages so they can be argued individually. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed title change: Sega CD

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sega Mega-CD → Sega CD – Since the "parent" article for this article, Sega Genesis, is probably going to stay at that title for the foreseeable future, and the CD add-on for both versions of the console (Mega Drive and Sega Genesis) has the same general market scope as that of the console itself, I believe we should update this article's title to match. Thus, "Sega CD", reflecting the North American name. Note that this is purely to maintain consistency with the base-console article, and not a statement of favoritism for the North American market. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this is more likely to be a controversial decision, I want to solicit some feedback on the idea beforehand. For more context, please refer to the FAQ at the top of Talk:Sega Genesis regarding the naming history and decisions made in that article - they have a transitive effect on this article and a few other related ones as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support this move for consistency; the same arguments that can be applied to Sega Genesis can be applied here as well, and I don't see why one should be consistently maintained in one setup, and the other in the opposite. I should note that I do have plans to correct this article soon and push it to GA status within the next couple of months, as time allows for me. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support and please make this formal per instructions at WP:RM#Requesting a single page move. --B2C 02:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support and we could actually include the games lists in this too with redirects on their articles to here. Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_multiple_page_moves--SexyKick 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just because a related article uses one name or type of spelling or formatting doesn't mean relating articles are amended to follow that, e.g. Snow tire and Formula One tyres, etc. Zarcadia (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think consistency is one aspect of this argument, but as Red Phoenix mentioned above, the same arguments that have been applied (on both sides) to the base console largely apply to the CD addon as well - it had near-identical market distribution and similar adoption, and it gained specific notability in North America (even more so than the Genesis itself) due to the controversy surrounding Night Trap. Since at one point these kinds of arguments brought a consensus decision to the console article to name it after the Genesis brand, I think it stands to reason to apply the same here, even if we're not thinking of consistency specifically. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mild oppose for now - Just putting consistency etc to one side for now. Could we use this article as a part of the process to calm the move debates down? e.g One side gets Genesis the other gets Mega CD, and then we use the prospect of naming consistency in a future debate (they will happen - they always do) to keep both sides in line. I know this is a left-field proposal, but these debates are all about levers, and I think its time that the people who have the interests of the article at heart have some levers of their own that they can pull in future. If both sides have something to lose it may help in making them think twice before challenging the article names. - X201 (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally would prefer to see the decision on this article's title be based solely on merit and policy, or on consistency grounds, rather than trying for appeasement or compromise in the ongoing dispute. Unfortunately, the compromise solutions in the past only ended up causing more problems than they solved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If there's one thing in this debate that hasn't worked, it's been the compromises. I have a feeling it might end up inciting more discussion if it's compromised like that instead of keeping it consistent. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Was just exploring to see if there was a mechanism for slowing down the fast and loose rename requests. - X201 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Rename per the parent article. It is more helpful to the encyclopedia's readers overall to have consistency rather than have a mix of titles aiming to compromise between editors. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative

BTW, if consensus doesn't bear out a change to "Sega CD", I'll propose that we officially move to "Mega-CD" instead of "Sega Mega-CD", for the same reason that "Variations of the Sega Mega Drive" was moved to "Variations of the Mega Drive" - "Sega" isn't officially part of the addon's name outside North America (whereas it is in North America). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• If that's the way we go with this, then I'd go with that. Agreed for the same reasons as "Mega Drive" is preferential to "Sega Mega Drive". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another point of consensus

While everyone's coming here to check out the title naming suggestion...

I'm going to start rewriting this article here very shortly, per WP:TNT, like I did with Sega 32X. My question, how would you guys feel about merging Sega Multi-Mega into this article and also into the Variations of the Mega Drive article? After reading, I don't think Sega Multi-Mega warrants its own article, nor will it ever gain the sourcing needed to establish notability to itself, but it's certainly worth a mention (and possibly a section) here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree to that Red.--SexyKick 16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it can always be forked back out if needs be. - X201 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I went ahead and redirected it to Variations of the Mega Drive#Sega Multi-Mega/CDX since it was all unsourced information anyway. As the only remaining productive member of WP:SEGA, it's good to know this is all getting squared away and I can get these cleanups going with consensus support. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Technical aspects between Model 1 and 2 Sega CD/Genesis

Hey there. I recall the following points about differences between the Model 1 Genesis+CD and Model 2 versions, but I don't have sources handy for them, so I'm not going to try to add them to the article at the moment. But if someone can do justice to them, that'd be awesome.

• The Model 1 Sega CD has a 1/8" stereo input and shipped with a short male-male 1/8" headphone cable to connect the headphone output from the Genesis to the Sega CD. This allows the CD unit to mix the Genesis's audio with that of the CD when using the stereo output on the back of the CD unit. Otherwise, the only way to get combined audio was through the RF, and that was in mono.
• I believe but can't confirm that the Model 2 Sega CD retained this input (for compatibility with Model 1 Genesis), but could also get the Genesis sound through the expansion bus, so using this cable wasn't necessary if the CD was paired with a Model-2 Genesis. (I never had a Model 2, so I couldn't speak to this myself.)

Also, signing my comment. Voila: — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to find the manuals for both models but only found one for the second model. Everything I'm putting into the new technical aspects, in its trimmed-down form, comes from the manual. If I can find the other manual, I might be able to arrange that. Apologies for the slow pace of my article rebuild, I've been getting absolutely demolished at work and it's kind of stripping away at my motivation to work on this. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is the most work these articles have seen in a long time. Thank you so much, and definitely don't worry about a perception of slow. It's happening, and that's way past fast.--SexyKick 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, since before last month, I was basically away for five years.  ;) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Red Phoenix: I found info in the Model 2 manual that backs this up. Source: http://emu-docs.org/Genesis/Sega%20CD/Sega%20CD%20Model%202%20US%20Manual.pdf . While the technical details about how sound is transferred between Genesis and Sega CD aren't covered in the manual (eg. sound traveling through the bus), it does talk about how to send stereo sound from both Genesis configurations to an external stereo. It specifically notes the loopback cable for Model 1 Genesis, and omits any mention of that from the Model 2's section. If we don't already mention it somewhere, this can probably be covered best by simply saying something along the lines of "Combining stereo sound from a Model 1 Genesis to either version of the Sega CD required a cable between the Genesis's headphone jack and an input jack on the back of the CD unit. This was not required for the Model 2 Genesis." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've put that in. Phew, this'll get so much easier when I'm back on my normal schedule at work. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The supplied stereo mixing cable intended to go from the headphone jack of the Genesis model 1 to the mixing cable input of the Sega CD model 2 also had a noise reducing ferrite loop. In theory, any dual stereo 3.5mm cable would also work, but there must have been a technical reason to include the noise reducing ferrite loop on the included cable. Note that routing Genesis audio through the mixing cable also required adjusting the headphone volume slider for optimal sound mixing balance. Final mixed output is from stereo RCA connectors output from the Sega CD. 76.122.221.218 (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Propose we rename the article Mega CD

The systems name is Mega CD not Sega CD that title was only used in one region and has no notabillity94.172.127.37 (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? That's not what our sources have been saying for years. Please refer to the FAQ on Talk:Sega Genesis for the myriad of arguments on both sides of the naming debate, which apply very strongly to this peripheral as well, and cite sources that back up your claim. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of rewriting the article, which will establish notability of both titles. To say that "Sega CD" has no notability is to miss the point, especially since this has been argued half to death already over at Talk:Sega Genesis. Per the consensus above, unless new reasoning and a change in the consensus can be established, the recent discussion on the matter will stand as the consensus. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Support The American name really isn't notable in the grand scheme of things62.252.234.77 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) striking sockpuppet !vote Axem Titanium (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per the consensus at Talk:Sega Genesis. Keep it consistent. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose name change. We have had this lengthy discussion already at the Sega Genesis talk page. Need to just keep it over there instead of having dozens of people repeat themselves. We use the first name it was released under in an English speaking market. Dream Focus 02:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus at Talk:Mega Drive and never has been.62.252.234.77 (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully submit to you in return that there has never been any consensus the other way, either. This is an issue that has sparked many unnecessary arguments; what's in a name, really? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's how you feel then you would not mind the article having the correct name of "Mega CD" instead of the non notable "Sega CD" title 94.172.126.154 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The onus is on you to bring a new piece of information to the table that would prove that "Mega CD" is in fact the correct name for the article. The community has agreed over in Talk:Sega Genesis that both names are correct, and that the CD addon shares the same notability in its respective regions as the parent console does. (In fact, Sega CD has even more specific notability in North America than the Genesis itself does, due to the controversy surrounding Night Trap. This is one of the best-documented examples of video game controversy in the industry's history.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While it might have more notability in North America, it most certainly does not have more notability in the rest of the world, please remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, your North American bias is unwanted and turns potential editors away from improving such articles.94.172.126.154 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia means by "notability". Notability is established through reliable, third-party sources that cover the topic from a neutral point of view. We have a LOT of sources that cover the Sega CD in North America from technical standpoints, as well as in relation to the console war with Nintendo and the controversy surrounding one of its most prominent games (and the FMV game genre in general, which was considered to have failed at the time). Those sources have established North American notability, and as such we use them to cover their topic at an appropriate scope. This is not to say the Mega-CD outside of North America isn't notable in Wikipedia's eyes - it certainly is, and we have sources for that too. But you're claiming that the Sega CD's level of notability in North America is insignificant compared to the rest of the world, and I'm afraid readily-available sources don't support that claim.

And back to the original point made: We've had this discussion many, many times about the "proper name" for the article over at Talk:Sega Genesis. There are at least five major debates on that issue over there now, and it resulted in a FAQ (which I helped rewrite recently) that discusses this history at length. The general consensus is that we don't have a strong, compelling reason to change the title from what it currently is, we don't have strong consensus for either title, and per consensus policy, the default action is to take no action. If you have something to bring to the table that we haven't already beaten to death, and that you believe could swing consensus to the Mega-CD side, please, by all means show us what that is. Simply accusing us of "North American bias" isn't going to get you very far. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: I knew what you meant, but had I chosen to interpret your last statement more literally, it would have actually refuted your original point as written. "While it might have more notability in North America, it most certainly does not ... in the rest of the world..." Keep in mind that the two titles are referring to the same hardware, so you're treading perilously close to arguing that the CD add-on as a whole was only notable in North America. I know that's not what you mean - just thought I'd make you aware of that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

".The general consensus is that we don't have a strong, compelling reason to change the title from what it currently is, we don't have strong consensus for either title, and per consensus policy, the default action is to take no action." quote from kieferskunk 24th july

"Sega Mega-CD → Sega CD – Since the "parent" article for this article, Sega Genesis, is probably going to stay at that title for the foreseeable future, and the CD add-on for both versions of the console (Mega Drive and Sega Genesis) has the same general market scope as that of the console itself, I believe we should update this article's title to match. Thus, "Sega CD", reflecting the North American name. Note that this is purely to maintain consistency with the base-console article, and not a statement of favoritism for the North American market." quote from KieferSkunk on 13 June 2013

So when no consensus is reached we leave the article name alone is what you argue Kieferskunk where as you then do a 1 day poll which no one was aware of to name this article to "Sega CD" from "Mega CD" when it should have left it alone by your reasoning. Also if people were aware of his 1 day poll they would have opposed it as for notability not meaning notability and instead meaning sourced... (don't you just love it when yanks make up new definitions to the ENGLISH LANGUAGE) then I will work over the weekend to find Mega CD sources94.172.126.154 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I could just as easily accuse you of European bias, but you don't see us pulling that card, do you? Actually, I think you should read WP:TITLECHANGES. You're actually debating with two people who argued for Mega Drive in the Sega Genesis debate, and I know I happen to be American and still argued for it. But here's the issue: no one's going to win this argument over whether or not Sega's American or global names are right, because truthfully:

• 1. Sega's naming was always inconsistent. The second model of the parent console is "Mega Drive 2" in Japan, "Mega Drive II" in Europe, and "Genesis III" in North America. Sega's 32X add-on has four different names dependent on region, and started as "Project Jupiter" before being made into "Project Mars". These are just a few examples.
• 2. This has been argued for, literally, years. No consensus has ever been reached either way, and per WP:TITLECHANGES the original title is the default tiebreaker. Since Sega Genesis is the parent article, this article as a content fork should be consistent with the parent.

Next, your comment "don't you just love it when yanks make up...", I'm going to say that's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and neither one is going to help you get what you want. Please be respectful and back up your claims instead of calling us "yanks" and making broad sweeping assumptions.

And lastly, please don't endanger what I've done to make this article actually decent. I've worked very hard to get this article to where it is now, and on GA review because it finally deserves it. In order to establish notability for Mega-CD as the name, you're probably going to have to establish that Mega Drive is more notable than Sega Genesis at that article, and to do that you're going to have to bring new information to the table that hasn't been discussed before. That'll take a lot of work, as no one has done that in years. As far as I can see it, that's the only way this article can go to Mega-CD. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither articles deserve GA status in their current state with inherent North American bias and like I said I will spend some time over the weekend going through my old Sega magazines to find Sources for "Mega CD".94.172.126.154 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already given you the tools on how to do that, simply finding sources that call it the "Mega-CD" won't do enough because you don't have consensus on the matter for starters, and because there are already sources using both names, neither of which establishes any more notability than another. I encourage you to read Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive 20#RFC: "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" as the article title. This was the last official RFC on the matter of these names, and outlines what you'll have to do to reopen the argument, which is essentially to add something new that hasn't been mentioned before. This is also the consensus on the matter. If you have something new that might change the course of this consensus, please share it, and I'd encourage you to do so with the video games WikiProject. Thank you, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the RFC at Talk:Sega MegaDrive this article however is about the Mega-CD not the Sega MegaDrive.94.172.126.154 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

94.172.126.154, I contend that while this is a separate article, it is one under the topic of the Genesis/Mega Drive and as such what was applied there is to be applied here. Consensus at the RFC indicated and supported this for all Genesis/Mega Drive topic articles, with the exception of List of variations of the Mega Drive and Sega 32X. Also, I disagree with your assertion that this article does not represent a worldwide view simply because it's titled "Sega CD". Sources used include the Japanese magazine Weekly Famicom Tsushin", as well as the German magazine "Man!ac". As such, I've alerted WikiProject Video games to this matter and asked for feedback to establish a clear consensus. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The naming disputes will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER end, until a compromise is reached. One side will always feel hard done by and want the "correct name". All naming rules need to be ignored, and ARBCOM need to allow a compromise name. The rest of you are free to continue to allow yourselves to be ground down by this if you want, but if you want it to end, which I'm guessing is all of us, a compromise solution is your only exit strategy. - X201 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you there on that it won't ever end, X201. It'll go one way and then someone will protest, then it'll go the other way and someone else will protest. Personally I don't mind whichever way it goes, as long as it's consistent because it makes zero sense, i.e., to have a Sega Genesis and a Sega Mega-CD, in my opinion. The only issue with a compromise name, though, isn't the policy. It's that the editors simply won't have that by consensus, and the compromise didn't stick because neither side liked the compromise. Settling it would require ArbCom stepping in, setting it, placing move protection on all the pages, and locking off any further discussion on the matter. And that, as we know, violates the spirit of Wikipedia. *sigh* I just don't see an end to this, or even a reason anymore to keep working on this or on the Sega Genesis article as I was planning. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Another option (and I think a more workable one) is that we have articles on both names. Genesis and Sega CD articles that cover the consoles in North America, and Mega Drive and Mega CD articles that cover the other regions. If an article subject is distinct enough, and the article is big enough to support its own article, then it is a perfectly valid step for a fork. There is plenty of difference in the two brands regarding their marketing, legal issues, software development and media impact to support separate articles. This method would be the easiest and would do what the encyclopaedia is here for, creating content.

What I said on WT:VG would still be needed though. The naming issues will not be solved until both sides give ground and find a workable long lasting solution between them.- X201 (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

All the other articles start with Sega, keep it as Sega CD. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - to keep it consistent with the Sega Genesis page. (The "Mega" naming convention is lost otherwise.) Now please, let's stop wasting time squabbling over this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

*Support - For the reasons I have stated above and in the benefit of common sense94.172.126.154 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC) striking sockpuppet !vote Axem Titanium (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE - The three IPs 94.172.127.37, 62.252.234.77, and 94.172.126.154 are all blocked. The first blocked almost a month ago, the other two just moments ago. Tracing and DUCK seem obvious if not the repeated bias from the 94s. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Though I know the IP editor I was arguing with is no longer here, I feel I should respond to one of his arguments just the same. He basically accused me of doing an end run around the community with a "one-day poll" to change this article's title from "Sega Mega-CD" to "Sega CD", when my own arguments supposedly supported leaving it where it was for notability and consensus reasons. Just to explain: We had just finished this long, heated dispute about "Mega Drive" vs. "Genesis" for, what, the sixth time? and the community over there had already agreed that, with a couple of exceptions, related articles such as this one should be renamed for consistency. So as a formality, I floated the idea here, and when it appeared this move would be uncontroversial, User:BDD went ahead and moved it. There were plenty of people who were aware of the discussion, and everything was done according to policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • He just wanted to make his point, but he did it the wrong way. If there's anything the last RFC showed us, it's that we should just live with it as it is because all we do is get into war with each other when we debate this subject. Setting this article to "Sega CD" was in the interest of consistency with its parent article, which has been the center of these debates for years. And of course, every time it gets argued, the bias card gets pulled and everyone who argues for Sega Genesis gets called a yank. It is funny, though, because of his pressure I put even more into this article including a whole new section about the controversy involving Night Trap, which should help to establish some neutrality and reasoning on the matter. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We're done!

Rewrite is basically complete, only some slight tickytack cleanup to do. How's it look? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sega CD/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 03:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Red Phoenix! You again :P. Anyway, just thought I may as well clear out the GANs, so here I am :D -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 03:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So, we meet again, and coincidentally with another add-on for the Sega Genesis :P Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup :D. Clearly you love Sega stuff :). Anyway, my internet's being a pain, would you mind if I took up to a week to do this? Thanks! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine; I could use the time anyway since I work a pretty abrasive job, schedule-wise. I'm the only remaining active member of WP:SEGA if that says anything about me and Sega stuff. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Really, the last member?! Wow. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... really. Or at least the last one who's active and still contributes. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gah, time is really evading me. I really have to apologise for such a long delay :( -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That worldwide view may need to be addressed, remove it if it was just because of the name. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm supporting the name of Sega CD, I don't know what to do there though -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I think you have to just close the review as a quick-fail at this point because now we've just likely violated criterion 5: that the article is relatively stable. It was at the time of nomination, and though I don't see the IP's points as valid because of the past RFC and because there's plenty of coverage on all of the regions even if most of the sources come from North America (and what's wrong with that? That's the first time I've ever heard someone claim a biased view because I don't have as many sources that were written in Europe as I do in America even though there is fair coverage of all of the regions in the article; still seems more to me that the IP is pushing his point about the title by attacking the sourcing). What I think might work, though, is if you'd be willing to fail this for now and let me get a hold of you for a review when the dust finally settles from this matter. WP:NOTNOW likely is relevant in a sense of this article review in this case, sadly. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That claim is incorrect though, it matters not where the sources originate from, or what language they are in, the scope and understanding has to be a worldview. We do not need a Japanese sources for Sonic the Hedgehog to tell the story and development of the character because such documents exist in English. The individual releases for each region should be covered, under broad, but there is no rule on splitting sources up by region to meet "worldview". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not conceding my point; I do believe as well it's an incorrect claim, but I'm concerned now as to whether or not the IP editor has stirred up enough rabble and fire over the naming disputes again as to violate the stability criterion of the GA standards. That's where I'm worried. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That IP did contact me on my talk page about it... I'm wondering what to do now. Criterion 5 was what I was I worried about, the stability of the article.

I believe that the article does display it in a worldwide perspective. If you want me to cancel the review and then contact me to re-review it once the dispute is sorted, that's ok. The naming disputer is really pointless, as Sega CD seems to match the fact that all the other articles begin with Sega. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion about the dispute never ending may be true, but I see more support for Sega CD than anything else, and this was passed as move, so clearly the "Mega" portion is deemed unnecessary. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's really what it takes, I'll go and spend the $6, or whatever it is, and get Retro Gamer issue #61 if a European source is deemed necessary. Retro Gamer's "Retroinspection" series is pretty helpful, but a pain to access because it's not widely available (at least not in a free sense). I would still fight the suggested title change for reasons of consistency, but I can make a European source happen if this argument continues and consensus sways the other way. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it necessary, WP:TITLECHANGES says that the original title has an advantage over any other moves, and Sega CD follows the naming conventions of the other Sega articles. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 03:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source add: A mirror of The rise and fall of Sega from Eurogamer.[1] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is that a reliable source? On the plus side, it turns out I was able to find Retro Gamer issue 17 online... don't ask me how. Turns out Retro Gamer did two articles on the Sega CD, and issue 17 is the other one. I've added in a couple of additional facts and citations to this source to help cement this, and also removed the globalization tag again. As Retro Gamer is a British source, even if this claim is illogical, the addition of a reliable source from Europe in English, including the addition of some text to the Reception section, ought to solve this problem once and for all. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is a RS, just an easy mirror for people to go by. I'm going to guess this is a good source for the Game Gear, but that's more for the other GA at this point.[2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• That link above is a mirror for the Retro Gamer article I was telling you I found and used, lol. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

1 - "The Sega CD is an add-on device for the Sega Genesis video game console, designed and produced by Sega and released in North America in 1992" So this first sentence of the lead announces it was launched in North America as an Add on for the "Genesis", when it should state it was launched in Japan first as the "Mega-CD" as an addon for the Mega-Drive, displaying the information chronologially out of order to support your regional bias is wrong. In fact if you got rid of this paragraph all together it would read much better and more neutral as the second paragraph would make a much better lead starting with "In early 1991, Sega announced the Mega-CD for release in Japan in late 1991, North America (as the Sega CD) in 1992, and in Europe in 1993"
2 - References to the "Genesis" through out instead of "Genesis and Mega-Drive" or "Mega-Drive and Genesis" again show a strong North American regional bias
3 - "The Sega CD can only be used in conjunction with a Genesis system," this sentence is just wrong all together.
4 - The article lists the USA price but fails to list the UK launch price of 269.99 pounds or any price for any country in Europe again showing a regional bias
5 - All the sources come from American sites and writers who ONLY have an American perspective on the system.
6 - RE TITLECHANGES the original topic title was and always has been "Sega Mega-CD" and was only changed last month with a one day vote which no one was made aware of apart from a few American editors from the Mega Drive naming dispute.94.172.126.154 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see EngvarB on here. The prices could be added, but WP:NOPRICE also exists. And you are blocked for continued abuse and likely block evasion from a month ago. Some of these issues will be fixed during the GA review, but as someone who edits EU centric articles with high frequency, I can assure you that nationalistic warring is a bad thing, regardless of the area. When referring to NA releases, use NA name. When referring to JA releases, use JA name. Same with EU. Super Nintendo Entertainment System is not Super Famicom, but it is referred to for any Japanese-related discussion as Super Famicom and not SNES. While the prose can be better, there is no "you must do this" for a GA level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, and speaking of the actual GA review, I just added in an entire section about Night Trap! Yay! Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What's EngvarB? Regardless, Chris's point is absolutely correct.

Red Phoenix, cool! I need to take a proper read of the article tonight. (in two hours) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 09:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's so hard to read on an iPad when pages reload for absolutely no reason. I've read the beginning, I'll get to the rest tomorrow. *yawns* It's 10:20PM, gotta get some sleep. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I was a little late to this party, but if you still need any citations from RetroGamer's Mega-CD RetroInspection article, I have a copy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That could be best left to Red Phoenix to decide. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Review

Alright, on with the review. I'm still up to the Game Library section, the article's so long! :P

Now I'm up to Reception. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 04:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Very long, loads of info.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   The quote from Latham and the one after that needs sourcing.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Not much unnecessary info here.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The controversy above is sorted now, so no problems there.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few things as already stated.

 Done - Doubled the citation for Latham's quote. The one below it is part of the one next to it and is all the same, and is already sourced. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 pass-Yay! It's a GA! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 23:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Night Trap coverage

Hey, just got a chance to catch up with the recent work on this article. Looks great for the most part, and I agree with the GA review - good work, Red Phoenix. :) Got one question for you, though:

The new Night Trap section: This section strikes me as having very little to do with the Sega CD itself. Virtually all of the coverage in this section has more to do with the game's visuals and presentation, and the surrounding controversy, both of which are covered at length in the game's own article, and much of which is also covered in Sega Genesis and Sega of America. I'm not sure we need the details again in here, though we certainly do need to mention Night Trap as the one game people remember the most from the Sega CD because of the controversy. (Basically, Sega CD had the unfortunate distinction of being the system that brought the "violence against scantily-clad women" issue to a head, but the issue would have boiled up had it first occurred on the 3DO or the original VHS NEMO system that game was first developed on.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(Amended: Not covered in Sega company article.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing Night Trap and Sega Genesis, I think it's actually pretty poorly covered in each; the matter including Night Trap and Mortal Kombat has only a paragraph or two in Sega Genesis, and it's just completely insufficient in Night Trap for as significant as it was in terms of that game. The section I put together is probably the best quality section that covers this matter specifically in the light of Night Trap and Sega. I suppose the question is, then, where does it belong? You do have a point with it not being fully sufficient for Sega CD, although I would counter it deserves at least a paragraph in the History section because it was quite influential an issue involving the Sega CD, and I do have it well sourced. It certainly should exist somewhere and I think it does need at least a paragraph here; you've said it yourself that part of the Sega CD's notability is the controversy surrounding Night Trap, which says to me it should have something in this article even if not as much as I added. Does moving it to Night Trap make more sense? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 10:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I'm not saying we shouldn't cover it at all here. I just think that the larger discussion on the controversy should go in one of the articles that's more about Sega the company than about this add-on - reasoning being that the "other half" of the controversy was over a cartridge game (Mortal Kombat) that had nothing at all to do with the CD. It's a complex issue that really needs its own entire article (and I know we have good sources on it to cover it at that level), but I don't know how to properly identify it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Did the hearings ever have a formal name? I didn't see one in the Kent book, which I used as the main source for the segment. Night Trap probably isn't a bad place for it pretty much as it is, and a cut-down version wouldn't be bad here. Maybe something like 1993 Congressional hearings on violence in video games or something like that would be an appropriate title, or maybe somewhere in the media there was a title used that could be applied to this situation. Reading the Kent book has also, interestingly enough, made it clear just how much the Nintendo-Sega rivalry played into it: according to Kent, Lieberman didn't go so harshly on Nintendo because of their self-censorship, so Howard Lincoln was able to fire some shots directly at Sega, and of course Sega's Bill White fired them right back. In fact, there's also a quote in the book that I didn't use here about how it is believed Sega's Videogame Ratings Council wasn't selected as the universal game rating system because it was Sega's and Nintendo and others didn't want to use it just because Sega created it. It really goes deeper than just video game violence right into console wars... Might a section in History of video game consoles (fourth generation) be appropriate? This was, after all, a major issue that defined the generation. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there was a formal name for those hearings, since it wasn't a lawsuit per se. Nobody actually sued Sega, Nintendo, Midway, Sony or Digital Pictures over the violence and perceived sexual content in those games - the hearings were more of a "What should we do about this?" scenario, and many of those don't get formal names. I've seen other articles titled like the one you suggested, so that could work. Mortal Kombat and Night Trap were at the center of those hearings, but there were other games that played into it as well - Doom would become a major player as well in the near future.

A quick Google search turned up dozens of articles on the hearings, including video footage and WikiBooks references. I think we have ourselves a good project here - would that I had more time to work on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Work schedule, trying to publish a novel soon, and my projects I'm already looking at taking on, like Sega Nomad as well as an article I'd like to start myself, Atari v. Nintendo, which will be written in the same vein as my FA, Sega v. Accolade, in regards to this issue that resulted in a lawsuit. Let me know if you do decide you'd like to tackle it, though; since WP:SEGA died, I haven't done a collaboration project... and that was six years ago. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

JP Release Date?

I see it's been changed from October 1991, to December 1st 1991, to December 12th 1991. Any info on why or where these changes came from? I know October 1991 comes from Allgame.com, but past that, I don't know where the other release sources came from.--SexyKick 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

December 1st, the one I put in, came from the Retro Gamer source (reference 5). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

See also section

The "See also" section currently contains only a link to Family Computer Disk System. This probably ought to be improved somehow, but I'm not sure exactly what should be added or removed. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Technical aspects & specs discrepancy

OK, it might be written as such in one of the cited sources, but I don't think that it's correct that the Sega CD offers double the memory of the Genesis. Between all the listed RAM banks, I count a very healthy 856kbytes, of which 768k is shared between program/data memory and VRAM. The original console, at least according to its own Wiki article, has 136kbytes of the latter type (64k VRAM, 72k program/data memory), and lacks the other banks... or in other words, between 5.6x and 6.3x the memory, for between 6.6 and 7.3 times the original complement in total (and 992kbyte between all banks). So, which side of this coin is the mistaken one?

(An additional bit of stattery for other nerds who'd be interested in such; the 32X boosts this by a further 512kbyte for a total of 1504kbyte (almost 75% of what the PSX offered), of which at least 576k is dedicated for video, 588k for program/data and 88k for sound/cache/backup, with the remaining 252k being shared between program, data and video. Maybe. I might have miscalculated some of that...?) 87.115.171.55 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to cite it with a reliable source to show that change it. Check out WP:VNT for more; WP:NOR as well. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On the note of your {{dubious}} tag, I'm removing it; Allgame is considered a reliable source by the Video games WikiProject (see WP:VG/S). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the article is a tad bit deceptive. At one point it mentions -- wrongly -- that the system's color capabilities were higher then the Sega Genesis. Yet elsewhere in the article, it correctly points out that it could only display 64 colors on screen (out of like 512). This was the same as the Genesis (Mega Drive). Compared to the SNES or the NEC or must personal computers it was a weakness in the system and a point of criticism during the life of the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.245.20 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good eyes. Part of the thing that happened here was there was a confusing quote from Tom Zito that the console only put up 32 colors, which we hashed out earlier. I think this was simply missed while fixing that, and I've removed that part of the phrase. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad, and the Bogus

I interlibrary loaned this (apparently scarce) book, The good, the bad, and the bogus: Nathan Lockard's complete guide to video games. It covers SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD reviews, if you'd like a lookup for an obscure title on your to-do list. The linked Google Books page lets you do a search for the book's contents. I'll have it for the next week or so, so let me know if you can use a ref or two.  czar ♔ 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cut the lead in half?

The lead seems to big. A lot of it is taken from the already existing history section. Does any one mind if I cut it short? Potatoechip (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead is written to be in compliance with MOS:LEAD. Lead sections are supposed to summarize the main points of the article, so it is normal for it to share some duplication with the body paragraphs. It's actually in really good shape the way it is, and the FA review going on right now will help catch any issues. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why 2.7 million by the end of 1994 is more accurate than 6 million overall

Please refer to this. It's a set of pretty good points. I would also agree that the sources that say 6 million are likely a case of citogenesis; they grabbed their numbers from Wikipedia. As further discrepancy, Allgame references 1.5 million. The 2.7 million figures are period-based, though, and reliable, making them more likely to be accurate than retrospectives. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is POV editing being justified by original research; it is your opinion that 6 million lifetime units is too high so you stick with an earlier during-its-lifetime source that claims different. The truth is neither claim necessarily excludes the other. They both can be used and tbh I don't think that single offline German article holds any more authority than the other sources. Why is the possibility that the German article is wrong not being considered? Instead, every other source which you or others believe does not fit with this source is being discounted. That is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. If there are varying figures, they should all be cited and no undue weight should be given to what you or others personally believe to be correct. All these excuses to not include the 6 million figure basically boil down to original research which in turn basically consists of opinions. You are also ignoring the Wikipedia principle of 'verifiability, not truth'. There is absolutely no reason to remove those fully referenced statements. The correct thing to do would be to state 'By the end of 1994, the add-on had sold approximately 2.7 million units worldwide and total lifetime sales have reached 6 million units world wide.' That is what the sources say. That is what I'm going to insert. And you have no more authority than me to be able to remove my fully referenced statement. Dizevil (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Except when you can systematically prove a source to be inaccurate, there is no point in using it. The GamePro article you are using has already been shown to be wrong in its figures; it cites 200,000 units for the Sega 32X, when several other sources list higher numbers. Man!ac lists 665,000 worldwide, Next Generation lists 400,000 in North America. Furthermore, the GamePro article makes reference in another section to Wikipedia figures, meaning there's a good chance they looked at their numbers from us to get a good chunk of them. That's called "citogenesis", which means that figure is unreliable. Take the Man!ac article in return, however. They give the source of their figures, including Robertson Stephens and Sega, to name a few. Furthermore, the 2.7 million figure is further backed up in the March 1995 issue of Screen Digest. Retrospective sources for video games can be nice and are reliable, but if you can show they're inaccurate and took their numbers from Wikipedia, why would you use them? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree the GamePro source isn't good. But there's also 1up, and Joe Miller, who under quoted Wikipedia's numbers for SMS sales. Maybe if there were a conflicting final sales statement that was in a realistic ballpark, I might agree with you on this one Phoenix, but Dizevil is kinda right. Plus, the 6 million number is in one of those kickstarter books.--SexyKick 00:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that 1UP and Miller's estimates are based on anything at all. Wikipedia took the figure from Pettus, and a variety of other sources took it from Wikipedia, but no-one knows how Pettus came up with that figure. It cannot be supported with contemporary sales data.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"There's no evidence" other than the typically reliable sources, and lack of a contradicting number. There's no number in sources, between the 2.7 million, and the 6 million. The kickstarter book actually lists out some numbers for the alternate Sega CD models, like the CDX and JVC models. That likely makes the difference.--SexyKick 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest. I don't have a reliable source for it, but my understanding is that the JVC WonderMega units only sold about 10,000 in all. Logic dictates that it's highly improbable the CDX has any responsibility for it, too; if that were the case, surely the CDX would have a higher reputation than it does, more akin to the Sega Nomad's independent coverage that the CDX doesn't have. If you want to really throw in a curveball, Allgame only says 1.5 million, and I have to believe that's North American only, as that site tends to speak only from an American perspective and documentation. Roughly speaking given the sales of the Genesis, I could see that as supporting the 2.7 million overall, if that's the case. Joe Miller is a primary source and it's a little sketchy whether or not he knows for sure... he left Sega by 1997 if I'm not mistaken, and he didn't really have his hands on the Sega CD while there. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that while we have figures up until the end of 1994, something else came in late in '94 and early '95 that would have dropped, not increased, Sega CD sales, and that's the Sega Saturn. Unfortunately I think it's safe to say the 2.7 million by the end of '94 and the 6 million overall are mutually exclusive. It cannot be both; it must be one or the other, just as Schrodinger's cat can only be alive or dead, not a superimposition of both states at once. I think there's more to back the 2.7 million by the end of 1994 reliably than there is for the 6 million. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Collected Works book has an interview with Shinobu Toyoda of Sega of America and Sega of Japan, Hayao Nakayama, the former says 800,000 units of the 32X were sold (specifically in the US), and 5 million units of the Mega-CD were sold worldwide.--SexyKick 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, the over five million figure given in the book does not come from any interviews; it is merely claimed by the author of the text. That number continues not to be credible due to the sources presented here. Indrian (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So after I got involved with other things, 2.24 million popped up. I was wondering if anyone had a readable version of the source?--SexyKick 14:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

variations created

The lead says Sega produced one variation of the Sega CD while the variations section says Sega produced three variations. Kap 7 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite what it says. The lead says Sega redesigned the Sega CD once, which they did. The three variations are the Sega CD, the redesigned Sega CD 2, and the combination Sega CD and Genesis in the form of the CDX, which isn't so much a redesigned Sega CD as it is a hardware combination of the two. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hardware combination wouldn't be considered a redesign? The device looks completely different also. Kap 7 (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sega CD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/features/vgs/sat/segafight/page11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/210105/the-20-best-platformers-1989-to-2009-page-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sega CD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sega-16.com/2012/03/interview-scot-bayless/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/sega-cd-anniversary
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SabxzUSK?url=http://allgame.com/platform.php?id=36 to http://allgame.com/platform.php?id=36
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://allgame.com/platform.php?id=17675
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SacEnfe5?url=http://www.allgame.com/platform.php?id=17669 to http://www.allgame.com/platform.php?id=17669
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=3&cId=3147448
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/retroactive-metal-gear

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

UK release date

The cited European release date is listed as "spring of 1993" in the body, and as simply 1993 in the infobox. According to CVG from May 1993, page 8, the first country in Europe to get the Mega-CD was the UK on 2 April 1993. Should we include that release date? – Hounder4 01:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If you’ve got it reliably sourced, go for it. The info in the box is because that’s all we had reliably at the time that we could find. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)