Talk:Sega Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 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.
Featured topic star Sega Genesis is the main article in the Sega Genesis series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Sega video game consoles series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Dishonest info box.[edit]

When RedPhoenix and I took the article to FA, we had to go through an extensive FAC review. One of the things that changed during FACR was this edit, and also this further edit and reading through the FACR I see this was actually discussed and these changes were added to appease one of the reviewing parties. The only way to have a fair / non-misinforming infobox is to state the WW&Majesco discontinuation years, and also show that ongoing licensed Sega Genesis & Mega Drives are still being sold in their respective territories. If Tec Toy discontinues their Mega Drives, OK, then we'll list the year if / when that happens. If AtGames discontinues their licensed Sega Genesis stuff, similarly, OK. But removing stuff we went over in all our work to take this through Featured Article Candidate Review isn't fair if you're going to continue to leave the impression of "Discontinued: World Wide" while the console is still licensed and being sold.--SexyKick 08:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does it list three places it is "Ongoing" in the Discontinued section? It says it was discontinued in North America in 1999 (Majesco) but is still being made in North America now by AtGames. How many are sold each year? Any way to find out? Dream Focus 11:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It is ongoing in Brazil, US, and Europe. There's not really a way that I know of to find out how many are being sold each year, but the consoles are all for sale on the manufactures homepages.--SexyKick 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this was the grounds that myself, and I believe Dissident93, were objecting on - it doesn't make sense to list "ongoing" status in the "discontinued" section. It doesn't make any sense. It clutters it, and it doesn't conceptually make sense to list there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It was suggested in the FACR because the person reviewing specifically said "it says discontinued in the infobox, but the article then goes on to say it is still sold?" The involved editors were all fine with this solution - it makes sense to someone reading "Okay, discontinued in 1997. But I see it is still being sold now. Strange but interesting.". It wouldn't "clutter" it if the subject matter of the article wasn't so expansive. Do you have another suggestion for a way to satisfy what was brought up by the FACR? Certainly this "clutter" was of no consequence to FACR. So I argue it's not to be considered clutter - if it were to stop us from achieving a better article, I might agree. However we managed to nab the highest article grade we can get, and the reason it exists the way it does is because of the review process there. A process intended to make the article better. Of course not everyone is going to agree on what is or isn't going to make the article better, but we all worked pretty hard for months on that, and "cluttered" > dishonest.--SexyKick 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me think and see if there's a better way to express it. It just seems odd to list this off when its something that is literally the opposite of the definition of the field. (Listing "ongoing" in the "discontinued" field.) In the mean time, yes, we get it, you guys worked hard on it. But that that doesn't mean we keep it that way forever, and its nothing personal. It just looks a little busy as is, for infobox content, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe just a note that says something like "Ongoing through secondary manufacturers" without going into confusing detail? ApLundell (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd approve of that. It could be set up like how the notes are set up at the also FA SNES article - it can be explained in the "Notes" section, outside of the infobox, where it will look less cluttered. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Are these newer versions licensed by Sega, or are they considered clones/knock-offs? If the former, then we could say production has never really stopped. If the latter, then the solution would be along the lines of what ApLundell suggested. --McDoobAU93 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
They are licensed. You know, right now we don't go into confusing detail. It is no more cluttered than the Release Date section of the info box. Both the release date, and discontinuation sections are using the provided templates already; they go into no further detail than the other so it is simple, concise, and uncluttered. It would be silly to just maintain a commitment of that section to just JP for instance. Though perhaps we could use the "Retail availability" section to fit in the "Ongoing"'s.--SexyKick 17:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I do believe that would make more sense than listing it in the "discontinued" section as well. I'm fine with that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yay! Alright. Hopefully speaking, the case, is Solv Ed!--SexyKick 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Its solved for me - I'm happy with this compromise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Same, looks better now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Licensed or not, they're still clones, it seems odd to consider a system that was officially discontinued long ago as ongoing because of that. Is Intellivision ongoing because of the recent release of the officially licensed Flashback clone?22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

If there is one that allows legacy cartridges to be used, I would say yes. I have the Flashback IntelliVision unit (as well as their ColecoVision unit) and it does not allow you to use carts for the original consoles in the way that some of these devices do. --McDoobAU93 14:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional claims[edit]

re: [4] @Indrian, FACs are not infallible. WP:V instructs "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If the claim is widespread, it shouldn't be an issue to source it. As it stands, its closest reference is an interview, so the first part of the paragraph needs to be sourced anyway. It's common to add direct citations to contested claims, especially when using a turn of phrase like "unprecedented". – czar 06:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Titling Issues[edit]

Is Wikipedia an international archive, or an American archive? I was under the impression it was the former, but if so, the article should be titled "Sega Mega Drive", not "Sega Genesis". The article even states itself that it's known as the Mega Drive in "most regions outside of the USA". Therefore, it's known internationally by the name Mega Drive, not Genesis. Unless Wikipedia is formally declaring its website and archives to be US Centric rather than International, but it has never claimed to be in the past.

This post was removed originally, but I request that it be re-examined by multiple moderators (both American and non-American, but with particular inclusion of the latter) before subsequent removal - it was claimed that my query is not constructive, but I disagree. I am asking for clarification on whether Wikipedia is US Centric (in which case, more care needs to be taken to explain this across the site, and the article should remain unchanged) or if it is an International archive (in which case the title of the article should change to "Sega Mega Drive"). This is very much a constructive and necessary question to ask, as it has an effect on the naming conventions being adhere to. (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ as requested by the person who removed your post? The answer you seek is already provided. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ towards the top of the page, it covers the naming in great detail. I removed your comment because its rather obvious you're leading into trying to start another article title debate (which your reinsertion/expanded comment shows that I was correct on this assumption.) The consensus is that, unless a new argument is proposed (Hint: Your stance is one that has been re-proposed over and over again.) then no more debates on the title should happen, as far too much time has been wasted arguing on this already. Please do not go against this consensus, or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What is commonly ignored in these posts is that there already was an examination conducted by editors worldwide, including American editors who favored Mega Drive and European editors who favored Genesis. As both Izno and Sergecross have noted, no new rationale has been presented and the FAQ goes into great detail explaining the timeline for the name of the article, which explains why the statement was removed. Along with the consensus on the name, consensus was established that simply starting up the discussion again (thinking sentiment or a new "cast of characters" might result in a different outcome, even though it's never about the vote tally) goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing and thus should be nipped in the bud on sight. It is also worth noting that since the naming issue was settled, the article as been improved substantially and is now considered a featured article, identifying it as one of the best available on the project. --McDoobAU93 16:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies then, I'm not very adept at wiki's behind-the-scenes stuff, so I didn't really know which talk page I was supposed to go to (I believed it to be the one for the user/moderator, as that's sometimes been the case on wikia pages), and as it wasn't linked, I went with my incorrect initiative.
Even so, had a conversation like this been left on the talk page, I wouldn't've assumed the discussion hadn't come up before, so perhaps keep this one around? (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hence the reason when Sergecross73 removed your comment previously, he directed you to the FAQ on the page. That said, a link to the FAQ in the edit summary might have been more of a direct indicator of where to look. Beyond that, retaining this thread doesn't appear to be necessary. --McDoobAU93 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we un-collapse the FAQ maybe, so it doesn't blend in with all the WikiProject and GA boxes? Its awfully big, but at least people wouldn't miss it... Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No, because it will outweigh the other conversations that need to take place on the talk page. I think, in future, a link to the FAQ in the edit summary when removing a potentially non-constructive thread will suffice. --McDoobAU93 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, I mean, there's also a giant disclaimer present any time anyone edits the talk page that links to the FAQ, so it really isn't that hard to find if one truly desires to read up on it more... Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is pathetic! How many times has this same single purpose IP address showed up and made the same exact arguments time and time again? No matter how many times they get blocked, they just show up with a different IP address and start the same argument. Its clearly the same guy as always. Its only been 20 days since the last time. Special:Contributions/ Since the only time an IP address edits the talk page, it is always the same guy, who has been blocked multiple times on different accounts, can we just protect this page from IP addresses editing it? Dream Focus 21:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • While this new IP is also from the UK, where the other more argumentative editor is located, so far this one isn't passing the duck test. I'm willing to go on good-faith for a bit until something changes. If it does, then I think that is something to consider. --McDoobAU93 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Can we really assume that it's the same guy? Not that it matters though, as it doesn't happen every day, so I don't think protecting this page is needed, specifically as a lot of people are watching the article and revert anytime it comes up again. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • It is obviously the same guy. His first statement says so. Complaints about it being America not international, and makes the same argument as he has done a dozen or so times already. Dream Focus 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Not that I disagree, but he isn't the only one with that sentiment. (not that it matters at all) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Yeah, its hard to say. It could be that original guy, doing a bad job at taking a slightly different approach, or it could just be another person who has an attachment to the "Mega Drive" name. Either way, it seems like he's stopped for now, and if he starts back up, whether its him or not, he's blocked, so we're all set here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

CD as media[edit]

So, I wanted to get some consensus on this edit. I don't find it to be necessary. CD's are not compatible with the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive itself, and we've got a specific article for the Sega CD tech specs - at Sega CD. I assume that others probably agree on this, as I can't imagine this was an oversight with the article becoming a featured article relatively recently, but its been re-added twice now, so I figured its time to discuss. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Powerbase Converter allows use of Sega Cards, but we don't include them as part of the Media used. I'd be against inclusion for the main reason above - it's a peripheral, and not a base part of the Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, I'd be fine with adding it if there wasn't an article specifically for the Sega CD. But there is, and there should, and there likely always will be, unless by some crazy scenario, someone gathered a consensus to merge two separate FAs together into one article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
When you say "base part of the Genesis," do you mean what comes in the Genesis package? (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what he means. Since the Sega CD has it's own article, any info/specs particular to that should go there instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree, that belongs in the Sega CD article, not here. --SubSeven (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The Genesis may not play CDs in default but it can through the Sega CD which is designed to be connected to it. It's kinda like putting a hard drive onto an Xbox 360 to achieved backwards compatibility with some original Xbox games. (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's a very good analogy; the Sega CD playing CDs as a media isn't any form of backwards compatibility, nor did the 360 get access to a new form of media (like DVD) in your example either... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What I mean to say is connecting a Sega CD to a Genesis or putting a hard drive onto an Xbox 360 allows those consoles to play games that are normally not playable on them. (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, just not how it would be a reason to include CD as a media here. I can remote play ps4 games through my Vita, but that doesn't mean I'd put blu-rays as Vita compatible at the Vita article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)