Talk:Sega Genesis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 14 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sega Genesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Sega Genesis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the article's name. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic.

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.

Sega Genesis is the main article in the Sega Genesis series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 5, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
March 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Not listed
April 17, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
April 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 5, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 11, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
December 15, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 14, 2014	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Video games: Sega FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Ghosts (Pac-Man) (8 participants)
Midnight.works (5 participants)
Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell (3 participants)
Vette (Star Wars) (3 participants)
International Hobo (1 participant)
Wally Scharold (4 participants)
Cake Mania (series) (2 participants)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (17 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

ZX Spectrum (nom)
Squirtle (nom)
Slowpoke (Pokémon) (start)
Strago Magus (start)
Rayman (video game) (nom)
Setzer Gabbiani (start)
General Leo (start)
Game Boy Color (start)
Missile Command 3D (nom)
Harold Halibut (nom)
Talim (Soulcalibur) (start)
Fusajiro Yamauchi (start)
Mr. Mime (start)
Bella Goth (start)
Game Boy (nom)
Sonic Triple Trouble 16-Bit (nom)
Home Safety Hotline (nom)
Klefki (nom)
Sobble (start)
Exdeath (start)
Virtual Boy Wario Land (start)
Lucky Luna (nom)
Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome (start)
Mega Man X6 (start)
38 Studios (start)
Pikachu (start)
Reigns (video game) (start)
Shipment (Call of Duty) (start)
Fallout Online (start)

DYK nominations

Reviews and reassessments

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom)
Hogwarts Legacy (rev)
Pokémon Channel (nom)
Rain World (rev)
Noctule (band) (rev)
Mario Kart: Double Dash (nom)

Articles that need...

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

What is the naming history of this article?
- This article was started on November 30, 2001 under the name "Sega Genesis".
  Originally, the article covered only the North American console using the Genesis name.
  
  Coverage of the Mega Drive brand was added on February 17, 2002.
- The article was split in 2003 into two separate articles: "Sega Megadrive" and "Sega Genesis".
  "Sega Megadrive" was created from a redirect, then renamed to "Sega Mega Drive" on August 21, 2004.
- The two articles were later merged back into one in 2005, under the compound name "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis".
  A set of editors discovered in 2006 that this title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles should be formatted.
  
  At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis"[1], largely due to it being the console's name at its initial launch in Japan.
- The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis".
- In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.
  Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.^[1]
  
  A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title.
  
  This led to a new proposal to move the article to "Sega Genesis".
- The article was renamed to "Sega Genesis" after the proposal succeeded [2], and has remained that way since.
Why is the article's original, non-stub title important?
Because of the following title policy statement at WP:TITLECHANGES:
"[When a title] has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker".
The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years. Doesn't that mean it was stable there?
Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period. But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter. Many editors take this as a sign of instability.
It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period. By default, no action was taken.
So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)?
This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close.

The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name.
So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"?
As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected.
So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct?
That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion.

There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move.
Is the new title stable?
Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support have thus far been made.
What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"? (Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.)
- "Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES)
- "Genesis" was the first name given to the console in English-speaking markets. (Naturalness criterion)^[2]
- "Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME)
- Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name.
  - It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed.
- The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)
- The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
  - The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
  - U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.
- While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language.
  - The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR)
What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"? (Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.)
- "Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan.
- "Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON)
  - The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America, and should be considered an exception.
- Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America.
  - To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics.
- "Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT)
  - Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N)
- As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument).
Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?
Per Wikipedia's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but nevertheless the consensus favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons.

"Sega Genesis" was favored in November 2011[3], though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong.
Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?
This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:
Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;

This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)
Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again?
Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction.

Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Wikipedia, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate.

Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself.
Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic? What if I have something new to say?
The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily.

Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again.

That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Wikipedia policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ.

In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive.

Notes

^ While the compound title Hellman's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.
^
P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
- "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Discussions:

Created as Sega Genesis, 1 December 2001; version as of July 2003
Dispute about title begins, August 2003
Fork created at Sega Megadrive, 20 August 2003
Created again, from a redirect, as Sega Mega Drive, 22 August 2004
Sega Megadrive redirected to Sega Mega Drive, 22 August 2004
Sega Genesis and Sega Mega Drive merged to Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis, 2005
Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis → Sega Mega Drive, Moved, 17 August 2006
Sega Mega Drive → Sega Genesis, Not moved, 15 July 2008
Sega Mega Drive → Mega Drive, Moved, 17 April 2009
Mega Drive → Sega Genesis, No consensus, 1 September 2011
Mega Drive → Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, Moved, 21 September 2011
Sega Genesis and Mega Drive → Genesis (Sega Mega Drive), Not moved, 11 October 2011
Sega Genesis and Mega Drive → Sega Genesis, Moved, 1 November 2011
Sega Genesis → Sega Mega Drive, Not moved, 26 June 2013
Sega Genesis → Mega Drive, Withdrawn, 12 October 2013

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Edit Notice

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

Here's the current edit notice:

Important Notice regarding the Article Title Debate

The article's title is a frequently discussed topic. Before commenting on the title, please read the Title FAQ thoroughly. The community has agreed that further discussion without bringing anything new to the table will be considered disruptive and dealt with accordingly.

I suggest this as an alternative:

BEFORE SUGGESTING A TITLE CHANGE

Please read the Title FAQ for this article before proposing a name change. The community has agreed to treat repeated discussion as disruptive unless new information is brought to the table.

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)[reply]

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

Minor suggestion:

BEFORE SUGGESTING A TITLE CHANGE

Please read this article's Title FAQ, which explains the current title. The community has agreed to treat repeated discussion as disruptive unless new information is brought to the table.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This edit request to Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Sega Genesis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The manual would fall under WP:PRIMARY, but I think it would be allowed, just the same. --McDoob AU93 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this sort of strictly factual detail is exactly the sort of thing Primary sources are good for. APL (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a copy of the manual handy? Can you give us the text of the passage in question, and especially the page number that it appears on? That'd be helpful, because I know this question has come up in the past and nobody was able to find a good reference. APL (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's needed - the IP editor just caught a bad lead sentence, and I just reworked it. The article itself doesn't say it plays the complete library, it just says it plays Master System games. There used to be a whole paragraph on this in the old version of this article, but I think that might be borderline WP:TRIVIA. To the IP editor, what I was trying to tell you was to provide the citation or a scan for us to verify it because no other source did. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Wheel

The June 1994 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly states that Sega would be releasing a "Sega Wheel" to coincide with the release of the Genesis version of Virtua Racing. The photo of the device shows it had pretty much the same design as the later Saturn Wheel. So far as I know, though, the Sega Wheel was never actually released. So is this worth mentioning under "Peripherals", or is it just trivia?--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Specs

The technical specs section is severely lacking in detail. At the least, the clock speeds of the two main processors should be given... 86.26.232.213 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the article to Mega Drive

The correct name for this system is the Sega Mega Drive, Genesis was just an american name.82.39.42.100 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Hellmans-1] While the compound title Hellman's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.

[2] P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
"The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

[3] "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 The technical specs section is severely lacking in detail. At the least, the clock speeds of the two main processors should be given... [[Special:Contributions/86.26.232.213|86.26.232.213]] ([[User talk:86.26.232.213|talk]]) 16:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
+== Rename the article to Mega Drive ==
+The correct name for this system is the Sega Mega Drive, Genesis was just an american name.[[Special:Contributions/82.39.42.100|82.39.42.100]] ([[User talk:82.39.42.100|talk]]) 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)