Talk:Sega Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleSega 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 starSega 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.
Article milestones
July 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 22, 2008Good article reassessmentNot listed
April 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 11, 2013Good article nomineeListed
December 15, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2014Featured topic candidatePromoted
May 15, 2015Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.

Needs to point out that the 7.67 Mhz 68000 only accesses memory at 1.92 Mhz[edit]

On the SNES page it explains how certain parts of the memory are accessed at 2.68Mhz and 1.79Mhz (despite the latter being exclusively for joypad registers). It should be explained that the unlike the 5A22, the 68000 always takes atleast 4 cycles to access memory once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you reliably source this? If you can, I'd be glad to add it in. Red Phoenix talk 22:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Redacted content that does not meet FA criteria"?[edit]

I'm curious about this too. What's going on in this edit? Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, for starters most of it is original research. The statement that Sega ported a lot of arcade games early on is entirely unsourced. Castle of Illusion is singled out because of a tweet by Sega marketing director Al Nilsen and is therefore original research based on a primary source. The next sentence singling out several more games is sourced to a Gamasutra article that actually has nothing at all to say on the topic, and the material relating to Alex Kidd as a Sega mascot is completely erroneous and based on long-standing myth that has been debunked through greater access to Japanese sources. It was completely appropriate to remove all of that from an FA. Indrian (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I wasn't necessarily defending the content, just felt that edit summary didn't do the change justice. (It felt like the equivalent of when people's entire AFD rationale is "Delete - not notable." - not necessarily wrong, but not particularly articulate either.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries. I agree that the original summary was a little unhelpful. I had to dig through the deleted content to discover the issues I highlighted. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks for explaining that, Indrian. If anyone would like to partially restore this content with better sources, or otherwise expand the "Game library" section, that would be fine; however, the reality is that this flawed material has not been fixed during the nearly two years since it was added in January 2016. While it might seem unfair to good-faith contributors, FAs are supposed to be barred in practice from new editing unless it meets Wikipedia's very high WP:FA standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Are they? FA standards raise over time, but the quality of older FAs can remain the same or even drop. Not that this changes anything here, but FA status should be a reward for being a well-written article, not the end goal which we lock away once it becomes one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I slightly overstated things above: All I mean is that edits to FAs should be, and usually are in practice, held to a higher standard than (say) edits to stubs. That's quite distinct from arguing that FAs don't need to be maintained or updated to reflect new scholarship. This principle holds especially true if an editor seeks to change or remove long-standing text that is presumed to have consensus by virtue of surviving an FAC, but also applies to wholly new additions. Even if it were not enshrined in policy, this tendency to scrutinize FAs is really just what one would expect from common sense alone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand taking trimming the Game Library section to make it more appealing to FA standards, but why get rid of Boon's tweet saying that MK1 played better on Genesis? It was a factor to why to the Genesis version was popular, not just the censorship.2605:E000:6300:8300:C8B1:59B8:DAAD:24BE (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

First sentence of lead.[edit]

Hello, The first sentence reads "The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive" should it not read "The Sega Genesis, known as the Sega Mega Drive" ? I believe so as in the info graphic, it's described as "Sega Mega Drive". (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I mean, that's just the company branding, the actual system was just called the Mega Drive, so it's not really wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, it is inconsistent how we write "Sega Genesis" but not "Sega Mega Drive". Popcornduff (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Similarly though, the console is just "Genesis", "Sega Genesis" is the article name, as "Sega" is a natural disambiguator (Though yes, probably common name as well). However, after the lead sentence, it should just be "Mega Drive" and "Genesis" in prose. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Right, but should we still add Sega to the first mention of Mega Drive too? Personally I think not, but wouldn't really argue it if we did. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't. We only say "Sega Genesis" because it's the article title. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I also don't really give a shit about this, but it does give me pause for thought. Yes, it's the article title, but it might also give the impression that the two product names are Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, whereas really it's just Genesis and Mega Drive. Popcornduff (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
            • I would lean towards adding Sega to Mega Drive, before removing Sega from Genesis, in the lead sentence. But similarly, I don't care much. ;) -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
              • Actually, I would disagree with you, "Sega Genesis" is just as commonplace as "Genesis" in common language (maybe more), but the same can't be said for Mega Drive, which is where I assume the issue comes from. But if there is no real consensus either way, then we should keep status quo. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
                • Previous discussions when we were doing naming debates was that "Mega Drive" was preferred over "Sega Mega Drive" because of video game naming conventions not to include the manufacturer at all, i.e. as in Wii, PlayStation, and Master System. "Sega" is only included in Sega Genesis as a disambiguation versus other articles called Genesis, such as the band or the book in the Bible, and it's always preferential not to have to use a parenthetical wherever possible. Red Phoenix talk 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
                  • Right, but I'd still argue the common name would include Sega, like it currently is for the Switch (where it's at least 50/50 in common usage). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
                    • And I would respectfully disagree that while used, it's not necessarily the common name. I've seen more of "Sega Master System", in part of using the acronym "SMS" as an abbreviation, than I have "Sega Mega Drive". As I recall when we worked intensively on this article, I saw more sources call it "Mega Drive" than "Sega Mega Drive". I also saw more "Genesis" than "Sega Genesis", except when introducing the console the first time as an identifier. Therefore, I would argue we have it the right way as it is. Red Phoenix talk 16:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)