Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Sega Mouse / Mega Mouse

"The Sega Mouse and Sega Mega Mouse were also released for the Mega Drive,[62] the latter being available in North America while the other served the Japanese and European markets"

This sounds the wrong way around to me, as the word "mega" wasn't used for other hardware in the US but was in Japan and Europe. Can anyone confirm? Miremare 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the mouse name was in the US, but I agree that it would seem inconsistent for "Mega Mouse" to be released as such in the US market, considering nothing else in the Genesis line was named "Mega-" anything. In any event, the above sentence is very poorly worded, regardless of any factual inaccuracies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This [1]seems to suggest that it was called the Mega Mouse in North America - X201 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, what X201 said. I brought this section over a while ago when I merged the Mouse/Mega Mouse article over from its own separate article that really didn't deserve one. I did think it was odd myself, but as far as I know that is the case. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Revival contents

Should the Revival section not contain information about the four new licensed Genesis consoles? Firecore+RetroGen & GenCore+GenMobile??

And what of this thing? http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/31177/new-sega-console-hitting-summer --108.2.2.183 (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Variations should probably be cleaned up...

Variations has information that is also in the Revival section. Should we clean that up, and move any extra info into the Revival section?--SexyKick 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of Discontinuation

Could someone check Stephen Kent's sources? There is reason to believe that the date of discontinuation is wrong.

At the moment I think we have to assume that Kent (or Kent's readers) confused 1995 as the year when Saturn was released in the US and as the year that Sega of Japan released their last Mega Drive game in Japan with the year that "Sega" (which one?) discontinued hardware/software? for the European or American markets.

• 1. via Sega-Saturn.com's News Room: December 27, 1996: SEGA SLASHES ANNUAL PROFIT FORCAST: "Now that we know our sales in the Christmas shopping season, we will wipe out worldwide inventories of 16-bit machine-related products, worth about $60.8 million," - from an official Sega press release
• 2. http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/21/1876835/GameGenieFix.jpg - Notice how it says "(c) 1998". That means that Sega produced the hardware until 1998 at least.
• 3. Sega of America would go on to publish several games for the Genesis. Among them Virtua Fighter 2, a game produced by Sega of Japan in 1996.

It would be nice if anyone could quote the part in Kent's book that is used to justify the 1995 date. DCEvoCE (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We all know that the Mega Drive was discontinued in 1995, this doesn't mean support was discontinued at that time (regarding the image) and it doesn't mean all inventory had been sold, and it also has nothing to do if games were still produced. You're confused on what the discontinuation date is, I'm sorry you don't understand despite people trying to tell you otherwise.--SexyKick 02:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"We all know that Mega Drive was discontinued in 1995" - what kind of evidence is that ? DCEvoCE (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is Kent's book, which is the only verifiable piece of evidence in this "argument," and the only one that mentions discontinuation. You refuse to listen to anyone who has tried to help you understand. Community understanding is also evidence, and the overwhelming community understanding is 1995 is the discontinuation date.--SexyKick 13:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the cited pages in Kent. Page 508:

By the end of 1995, Sega of America found itself juggling seven separate and incompatible game platforms [....] Sega Enterprises CEO Hayao Nakayama made the logical choice to concentrate on Saturn. [....] What made sense in Japan, however, was about to become a disastrous move in the United States. [....]

Tom knew that the 16-bit business was going to be there. Paul Rioux knew it, and so did Shenobu Toyoda; but Japan refused to believe. They were convinced, and they would not listen to Tom [Kalinske]. [....] They would listen to no one and they absolutely bullied the U.S. into launching the [Saturn] system. It very much compromised their ability to keep the 16-bit business. —Michael Latham

And page 531:

Concentrating on Saturn proved to be a tactical mistake that cost Sega millions, if not billions, of dollars at the end of 1995. [....] With only a few hundred thousand people owning Saturn, the market for Saturn software was tiny compared to the Super NES and Genesis markets. Nintendo concentrated on its 16-bit sales that Christmas and had the most lucrative holiday season of any game manufacturer. Cash-starved Sega did not have the inventory or the new games to capitalize on Genesis.

And pages 534–535:

By the spring of 1996, the industry was rife with rumors that Tom Kalinske was leaving Sega. [....] He didn't seem as ready to fight Japan on decisions he knew were incorrect [....]

It wasn't the failure of Saturn that made him lose interest; it was the inability to do something about it. He was not allowed to do anything. The U.S. side was basically no longer in control. —Michael Latham

On July 15, Sega announced that Kalinske had tendered his resignation.

Hope that helps. As a compromise, perhaps state that Genesis was discontinued in 1995 with the remaining inventory disposed of in March 1997 at the end of Sega's 1996/97 financial year? Anomie⚔ 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome as always, Anomie. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's fortunate I had time to make it to the library to pull those quotes, and that I had this page watchlisted to notice. Anomie⚔ 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your work! but there's nothing that hints on the discontinuation of the Genesis, but the launch of Saturn. Like I wrote earlier: "I think we have to assume that Kent (or Kent's readers) confused 1995 as the year when Saturn was released in the US [...] with the year that "Sega" (which one?) discontinued hardware/software? for the European or American markets." DCEvoCE (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've kept 1995 but linked it to Japan as the last game by Sega of Japan was released in late December 1995 (Pengo) - see http://sega.jp/archive/segahard/md/soft.html DCEvoCE (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you still don't understand. : ( Discontinuation has nothing to do with games released. Licensed games for the Mega Drive have come out well since the year 2000. 3rd party consoles (Genesis 3 & Majesco made Genesis 2's) extended support (to honor all warranties) and games being released have absolutely nothing to do with discontinuation. Please open your heart and understand. The Genesis, Mega Drive, etc. was completely discontinued in 1995. They stopped making new consoles to ship to stores. That's what discontinuation is. Excess inventory, non shipped inventory, and surplus stock at Toys R Us does not count as evidence that the Mega Drive had not been discontinued. It's discontinuation was announced and clear at the time.--SexyKick 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So, GameCube was discontinued in 2003 then? Seriously, what you are saying is not correct: The Genesis 3 was introduced in 1998 in North America, and you can see a photo of the motherboard with its production date here: http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9163 Direct link to the photo, as shown in my initial statement: http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/21/1876835/GameGenieFix.jpg - This unit is produced in 1998 by Sega (as can be seen by the "(c) 1998 Sega" copyright notice) but distributed by a third party. Plus you still have not provided ANY source for your 1995 claim at all. DCEvoCE (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DCE...Majesco needing to make Genesis 2's (and eventually 3's) to sell in America is further proof of the discontinuation of the system. While we settle the matter here, please leave the original part of the article that you wish to change, intact. GameCube production was only put on hold while they waited to sell through inventory. There was a new model post 2003 that didn't have component video support. Plus, we know the GameCube was discontinued in 2007. If we wanted to count 3rd party system sales, the Genesis was never discontinued, since there are four licensed Genesis consoles on the market today.--SexyKick 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference Replacement Needed

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Christoph Bolitz. "Sega Mega Drive information". www.skillreactor.org. Retrieved 2008-04-01.[dead link]

That's the reference for Source 21, notice something wrong here? The link's dead now and the article uses it 16 times. All of those references have to be replaced with reliable sources somehow. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's archived. Yet, you can't link directly to the Mega Drive article.--SexyKick 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that does make me think, though. If memory serves me right, that's a sourced report. Maybe we could go through the sources listed on the page, start picking out those with reliability, and use them directly (as well as for other points as well if necessary. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that article reliable? It sources to the german Mega Drive site where the JP, EU, and Other sales numbers came from that were unreliable. It also sources to [2] and that site is just filled with misinformation.--130.76.96.19 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture being removed

Any reason why this picture is constantly being removed [3]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the IPs must have some reason, but they haven't deigned to tell us. I have requested semi-protection in the hope that that will spur them to actually communicate with us. Anomie⚔ 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

480i Video Modes

I think it should be mentioned in the video section, that 480i video modes do exist on the Genesis and MegaDrive. 480i for PAL, and 448i for NTSC. It's RARELY used, but does exist. It still retains the 320 pixels width however, so it no longer becomes a normal aspect ratio. One game that I know of off-hand that uses it, is Sonic 2, two player split screen mode, which is interlaced mode. The Censor Commodore graphics demo also uses the interlaced modes also, for doubled vertical resolution.

See this screenshot to see for yourself: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/Evilweredragon/Screenshot2010-03-28at20934PM.png

Very rarely used video mode, but does exist, and I think it should be mentioned because at least one popular game used it.. I was told one racing game was also used it, but the games name can't be recited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmd8x28 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I just tried it on my Sonic 2, it switched to interlaced mode.--SexyKick 05:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The 32x doesn't have a "3D graphics processor"

I've removed this line of text from the article due to it being false "..and a 3D graphics processor."

The 32x doesn't have a discrete 3D graphics processor, it has a frame buffered VDP which is controlled entirely in software by one of the two SH2 CPUs in the console. All of the triangle setup, matrix math, Z buffering, texturing, etc. is done 100% in software on the SH2s. The 32x is flexible with which CPU controls the VDP, and most games use one CPU for game logic and the other CPU for rendering. If you want to get the most out of the console, you can split the rendering load between both SH2s and put the game logic on the Genesis's 68000 CPU and sound on the Z80. 66.68.118.47 (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cartridge slot and compatability

I'm no expert, but given the other material in the article, it seems that basic MegaDrive/Genesis cartridge and console inter-compatability should be described. ie which works on what? I'm also thinking the cartridge slot is itself an 'input' but is not listed amongst the other I/O ports... 220.244.94.133 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean is the cartridge slot the same, it has to be. The cartridge slot is basically mapped address and data bus pins of the 68000 CPU in the console, plus !WE, VCC, GND, etc. All Genesis consoles that have a cartridge port will all have the same pinout. Putting VCC into A13 would be a really bad idea.

If you mean game compatibility across consoles, 99.9% of the time they are. The only troubling issue that I'm aware of on the Genesis is the sound system is different on almost every PCB revision. Besides the original PCB revisions that had the discrete YM2612, the sound is garbled and distorted on the later versions with the YM2612 integrated into the Sega AISC. The cause of it is the sound mixer circuitry is garbage, though you can replace it with the CCAM if you're handy with a soldering iron and can follow a schematic.66.68.118.47 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple images in the infobox

In order to prevent an edit war or similar, I thought I'd post something here. Recently an image of the Genesis II with 32X and Sega CD attached was added to the article in the infobox. Since the article is about the Mega Drive/Genesis, and not the add-ons, as well as the fact we already have an image (of the original Japanese version) I moved the new image to the add-ons section of the history. I felt that while not relevant for the infobox, it was relevant to demonstrate the add-ons. I appear to be in disagreement with SexyKick on this issue, and thought it would be best to openly discuss this here. I shall add to this in sections (to avoid one huge edit which is bound to cause problems). Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have come to a compromise (or two,) and that there was no need to bring this to the talk page.--SexyKick 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any reason NOT to bring it to the talk page either - it is a TALK page, not a RESOLVE CONFLICT page after all, and it's not as if our conversation was personal in any way. I posted it here about 2 hours an hour ago anyway. Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My two pen'th. Both photos, Yes. Both in the infobox, No. The Genesis should be moved into the article prose. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Aditional:The opening lines of the 32-bit era and beyond section and the Genesis image seem made for each other. - X201 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I originally moved the Genesis image to the add-ons section (rather than 32-bit and beyond, since it is specifically concerned with the add-ons). Apparently SexyKick had different ideas and was dead set on having it included in the infobox (not sure why TBH), but it did result in the caption being cleaned up so it's not all bad. I still don't get why SexyKick didn't want it on the talk page though, the result would have been the same (apparently there is some kind of protocol that says we should do it via user talk pages, but I've never heard of it and I think putting it here just encourages discussion). Anyway, I still support moving the Genesis II/32X/CD image into the body of the article, but I'm not going to get up in arms about it.

@SexyKick: You seemed to always be suggesting compromise, but your compromise seems to have been your original suggestion with maybe a little cleanup. As for not having to bring up when I posted here originally, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I had done so out of desperation or something. I normally bring things up in the talk page of articles since it gives 3rd parties the chance for input, nothing more. If there is some protocol against it like you suggested, then please point me to it. Alphathon^TM (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We did come up with a couple compromises and I was happy with them all, two from me, and at least one from you. It didn't need to be the one with just condensed caption (which there was no caption before yesterday, so overall improvement : ) anyway.) I am used to editor's trying to work stuff out between them first, before assuming you can't work with the other person and there's no hope of getting things moving before going to the talk page. In this case we came to a few compromises to chose from. After two or three messages no less. If it seemed like we couldn't work together to me, then I would have brought the issue up here after those few messages. But Alpha, you're a good editor, and I enjoy working with you. You give me ideas, and seem to be pretty smart. I hope you'll be helping me with references, and redundancy in the Revival/Variation sections in the future.--SexyKick 11:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair, I just don't treat it as a "last resort" - it's just a different place to discuss things. Not everything CAN be discussed editor-to-editor, so I just tend to use the talk page, like we are now. It just means that if someone else wants to say something they can.

"I hope you'll be helping me with references, and redundancy in the Revival/Variation sections in the future" I certainly will if I can. I want wikipedia to be as informative, concise and neutral as possible, and the text is certainly more important than image positioning etc, as long as the images don't get in they way (at the moment they are at least good enough, even if I'd prefer that it were different). I am a very visual person (I do web design, graphic design and photo manipulation as my job) so I probably care more about that kind of thing than is really necessary. Alphathon^TM (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this is supported by myself X201 and Miremare (see logo discussion below) I have gone ahead and removed the Genesis 2/32X/Sega-CD image. Sorry SexyKick but it clutters the infobox and as Miremare pointed out it may stand in the way of your coveted GA status. I have placed a similar image of the PAL version (does not include controllers, so is vertically smaller and has not been de-saturated so is not black-and-white) in the add-ons section. It should be noted that I have also removed the Sonic-CD and Doom 32X images as they're non-free and their usage is tenuous at best. Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sega Activator merger?

I think this should happen. When/how can we make this happen?--SexyKick 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it is notable enough to be its own article, but I think it would be better suited to be merged into this page instead (with a link and passing mention here of course). Either that, or the existing entry for the standard pads in this article needs to be drastically expanded. Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, It would appear I mis-read the article - it is best suited to here. Doesn't really matter anyway since it's been done :P Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! : ) SexyKick 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mega Drive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Tagged as in need of updating. Contains potentially dated statements from August 2005. Dead external links from May 2010 and March 2009. Unsourced statements from April 2008 and April 2009, Tom B (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it likely that any recent sales information is even out there to add? Tezero (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

don't know myself, i tried to fix part of it a while ago but that got reverted for some reason Tom B (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

still a lot of problems after one month, delisting Tom B (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The one reverted change I noticed, (I double checked too) was possibly viewed as original research. However, all the rest of all your changes stuck. Alphaton also fixed more refs after you. I always hear things like "why isn't this article a featured article yet?" and now it's not a GA either...strange. I've slowly been fixing some of the refs here and there as well, as well as adding references to the few un-sourced statements in the article.--SexyKick 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so it goes from an A class, to a GA class, to a C class article in the space of a couple months???? How did we skip B class?--SexyKick 03:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've weeded out most of the problems. Apart from one Business Week source supposedly needing some kind of verification...I gave citations to everything that was marked as needing them, removed anything I couldn't find citations for, went ahead and did the same for many things that weren't marked with citation needed as well. Fixed the dead links - at least temporarily, with archived links. It's my fault for putting this off so long, I've had most of the articles I used for citations opened in Firefox tabs for a couple months now. Just had to get the motivation to fix them up I guess.--SexyKick 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

I don't know a whole lot about weasel words. Based on past edits, it leads me to believe it has something to do with the Sega Anser, and Tom Kaliske. Alphathon, you seem like the perfect person to fix these possible problems.--SexyKick 04:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks . Having had a quick look at the bit about the Anser, it could possibly be the cause, but the Tom Kalinske bit almost certainly does not. Things only become weasel words when such language is unattributed, like "many people have said..." without giving citations or examples. It could certainly do with a bit of a clean up though and parts of it may fall under informal language, so I'll take a look at that at the same time. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's not to say it hasn't been incorrectly tagged, which is certainly a possibility. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There might be a more general tag that more accurately describes what is wrong with the article but I tagged it for sentences like this "Virtua Racing could hold its own against Star Fox in terms of visuals" which reads like a blog or a fansite but certainly not an scientific article. Something more accurate would be: "Virtua Racing was released with an expansion chip on cartridge". Someone else probably could word it better than I can but I think you get the picture: More facts, more descriptive, less speculation, claims, comparisons, original research. The entire article needs a rewrite. DCEvoCE (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I personally have never liked that caption, but it is not weasel words; it would be called informal language or something along those lines, or possibly puffery. Weasel words is a way of describing things like "Many people have said..." or "It is often speculated that..." etc without giving any attribution. As another way of describing it, the equivalent to the "citation needed" tag for Weasel words is "Who?", as such statements require attribution. For example "People such as CEO Joe Blogs^Citation and VP of Marketing John Smith^Citation have said..." would be fine, but "Many people have said..." would be weasel words. Since it isn't really accurate I've removed the template, but if you can find an example that is weasel words please bring it to our attention (and if it is the case feel free to put the template back). I don't really agree that "the entire article needs a rewrite", but there are certainly problems with it. As I said to SexyKick, I'll have a look through it and see what I can do. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Now that is a tag that may well apply and it could certainly do with it. I thought I might as well start a section to discuss anything relating to it.

P.S. "Removed redundant screenshots of Sonic CD special stages, and Doom 32X." those images were not redundant...superfluous perhaps, but not redundant (technically the two are synonymous, but redundant carries connotations of repetition; i.e. being superfluous due to being repetitious). I am fairly sure this is a wording issue rather than you being disruptive; I just thought I'd let you know. See Wiktionary:redundant

Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me. - Btw, I don't think having a screenshot or two is wrong. But we should perhaps try and find one that does a better job at representing the Mega Drive (i.e. Sonic 1).

For the add-ons a screenshot on each of their dedicated articles will do fine. There's no need to have them prominently featured in the main article.

Especially considering what they depicted (special stage in Sonic CD, untypical of the game itself, port of the PC game DOOM, notable mostly for being a rather mediocre port of the game).

In addition I am sure that there's a copyright problem with the screenshots as well. Fair use might apply but there's a limit of how much fair use stuff should be included to an article supposed to be on a free encyclopedia. I think by going with one screenshot and one or two of the logos we can remove the copyright tag. DCEvoCE (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as already mentioned, the logo issue hasn't been resolved yet, so for now let's leave it be or discuss it above. I really don't think there's much more to say on the matter; most of us seem to want to keep all the logos if possible (i.e. if they are considered justified) - where most of us differ is how to deal with the situation if they are not. That is what the copyright tag is concerned with, not the other non-free images, so whittling them down for that purpose is pointless (not that it shouldn't be done, just that it doesn't relate to the tag).

As for the screenshots, I have to say I agree. The only one that I think was actually useful was the Virtua Racing one, but you seem to think it from the arcade version (I honestly have no idea if it is or not). Also, I don't really think we need any more screenshots generally. There may be a section that would benefit from one, but just adding a Sonic screenie isn't really appropriate unless it provides some kind of commentary (such as to do with the graphical capabilities; simply the fact that Sonic is mentioned is not enough).

Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DCEvoCE regarding the unnecessary screenshots. Of the three, I think the Virtua Racing one is probably the best one to keep (if it is the MD version?) as it shows the most obvious graphical improvement over regular MD games. A screenshot of Sonic 1 I think we're already justified in having, as we claim it to be "one of the greatest games yet made" (cite 34? not clear on if that's in there or not) and central in selling the console. It's probably also the most recognisable MD game, so I don't think there's a better candidate for a "regular" MD game screenshot. Miremare 22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, what happened to the smaller side-by-side infobox images? It looked much tidier that way, and doesn't stretch down the infobox excessively for people with smaller screens. Miremare 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think DCEvoCE actually tried to reinstate the double-image along with removing all the logos, so it would have been reverted along with that. I agree that it was tidier (heck, I made the thing for that very purpose) but apparently SexyKick disagreed and replaced it with the two currently there. I felt that the main reason for changing it was for the infobox to have MegaDrives in it rather than the add-ons and as far as I was aware there was no consensus regarding the layout, so I didn't fight it. Since obviously you and DCEvoCE agree that it is an improvement maybe it should be reinstated.

As for the screenshot, is there a specific reason for a screenshot to be in there? Unless it demonstrates something specific (such as graphical capabilities of the system) then it would not meat it's fair use rationale. As J Milburn said way up in the main section, do not look for a reason to include non-free content. If it is required to provide commentary that a free image or the text cannot provide it is permissible. Otherwise it is not. Basically, having a screenshot of Sonic adds nothing to the article other than visual interest as far as I can tell and as such would not be justified use of non-free content.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure myself regarding the Virtua Racing screenshot. It's too blurry to really make out much if anything. That also makes me think that it wasn't taken by the uploader himself but found on the web.

Sonic 1 would be the obvious candidate in regards to any screenshots. To be honest I don't really understand what exactly it is that makes a screenshot from a game (copyrighted) different to a photo of the hardware (free) ?

But then again, even if there'd be no difference I don't see any reason to add more than the Sonic screenshot (and maybe the Virtua Racing one if you guys insist). So yeah, let's keep these things down to the bare minimum. DCEvoCE (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"To be honest I don't really understand what exactly it is that makes a screenshot from a game (copyrighted) different to a photo of the hardware (free)"

You obviously don't understand Wikipedia's non-free image policy then, or their image policy in general.

With a free image you can add it to the article no questions asked as long as it is relevant and related to the section in question. This only applies up to a point of course: this is an encyclopaedia not an image gallery. With copyrighted images on the other hand, there must be a rationale for using that specific image; it must fulfil a specific purpose as detailed in the rationale and it must be not just relevant, but required. Basically, if an article can convey the same info without the image, it is not allowed*. This is why I mentioned graphical capabilities - if it is used to specifically demonstrate that the system is capable of a specific thing (such as the type of 3D rendering found in Virtua Racer for example) then it has a specific purpose. Otherwise it does not qualify under Wikipedia's non-free image policy. Simply the fact that it is a Mega Drive/Genesis game does not qualify it, as it is not enough to say "This is a Mega Drive/Genesis game", it has to be "This game uses technology X" or "This game's expansive maps pushed the console to its limit" (where it showcases the map specifically) or "This game was the first to achieve 'technique X', which was made possible by 'hardware Y'".

* This assumes that the info is notable to the article. If it is not, then it is not permitted either

Notice that these examples make mention of the console's capabilities, rather than simply the games' capabilities - images must be specific to the article in question. The Sonic article would need a far less specific rationale for its use, since it is a picture of the subject of the article (although it would still need to be showing something, such as "At the end of some levels, special stages can be accessed by jumping through a giant ring" (if the picture is of said ring).

Technically speaking the same rules for inclusion apply to non-free images, but since free images take priority over non-free ones and there are no copyright concerns to consider free images are not nearly as strictly enforced and don't have to be nearly as specific. If the topic is the 32X for example, a 32X image would be considered notable enough for inclusion, but a generic screenshot would not unless it shows something that is 32X specific, such as a technology.

Really, unless there is some context to which the image is being attached, it is almost impossible to tell if it is "justified" use of a non-free image, but if it is just being used as an example of a Mega Drive/Genesis game, then it is not. Incidentally, the Doom 32X image would be debatable but possibly justified on the grounds that it shows a graphical improvement (or whatever) over standard games, rather than just showing an example of a 32X game. The reason why it is debatable is that a) the 32X has its own article therefore most images of that type should be there along with other detailed analysis b) it does not clearly show anything specific - it says that the 32X is required to do it, but it isn't immediately obvious as to why the 32X is required and no reasoning is given.

I hope I have been clear enough...I seem to be having trouble putting this into words.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation but what I was getting at was something like this: Why is a photo of a game copyrighted while a photo of a hardware isn't? If you made the photos yourself and release them under the appropriate license it shouldn't really matter what it depicts. DCEvoCE (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. It's to do with the conversion from 3D to 2D basically. When you take a picture of a 3D (real) item, the photograph is not equivalent to the original; one is an object, the other is a 2D image. You cannot type on a picture of a keyboard, you cannot write with a picture of a pen etc. With game/software screenshots technically the whole thing isn't usually copyrighted, but the assets used are. For example a picture from Sonic the Hedgehog contains the Sonic artwork, which is copyrighted, along with other characters, game tiles etc. The specific scene is not copyrighted (although the design for the level might be) but the artwork used to create it is. Similarly, a picture of a picture could be considered copyrighted since it is capable of being used to reproduce an approximation of the original. In a nut shell, things which are copyrighted like this are considered derivative works. Alphathon^TM (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had already talked with J Milburn about the inclusion of these, J Milburn was the admin who put the non-free content tag on the article because of the logos, and he did clarify with me. Please stop removing these, and other previously accepted content from the article.

Also, I want to know what is wrong with this statement - One of Sega's most famous advertisements in North American media was its slogan "Genesis does what Nintendon't",[28] - the source clearly supports the word famous. I can see removing the second half of the statement, "which showcased the graphics advantage that the Genesis held against the aging NES," if you found that to not be neutral for some reason (everyone knows the Genesis had a graphics advantage, and one of the things those ads did was showcase that) then please talk about it here before removing it.

I would like you to please discuss removal of information here in the talk page, because I'm finding your constant removal of information, especially sourced information, to be more and more concerning.--SexyKick 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing implicitly wrong with the caption, but it adds little to the article and is not quite what I'd call a formal tone. Something more along the lines of "One of Sega's North American advertisements, featuring the slogan "Genesis does what Nintendon't"" (which is what we have now plus an extra bit) would be better, although the end is a little redundant. If it is important to have that it is famous (Why does fame matter? Surely it's what it signified that matters) then it should be in the prose, not the image caption. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and a few more things. The citation never mentions the word famous (or any synonyms of it) in regard to the ad, so the citation does not support it. Also, I don't know what information has been removed, unless you count the image captions that go along with the images, or possibly the "due to legal issues" from the intro that DCEvoCE removed (which is true but is mentioned later on in the article in the "History" section, and isn't really necessary for the intro). Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this talk and the mega drive article for a long time now, but this has seriously got out of hand and frustrating. DCEvoCE is actually 17daysolderthannes, a Nintendo fanboy banned from Sega-16.com for trolling. he has a conflict of interest and is probably just here to disrupt things and just make life harder. The article and talk used to be about facts and such and as always, everyone tries to discern and ascertain the truth and facts, but every time people find out new things and updates the page and backs up those facts, someone just immediately removes it/them and or undoes what was just edited. What is the point of having these talks and articles on Wikipedia if someone is just going to be a Nazi and solely control the article. I am not a fan of this Nazi-ism. This isn't the only article and such to be affected by this Nazi-ism either. I didn't think it would be possible for one person to ruin Wikipedia for everyone :(--75.69.252.5 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That certainly explains things for me...

"Sega would increasingly be known as a company not afraid to push its products with strange, and perhaps even inflammatory, advertising." If I were to sum this up in one word; "Famous" thus, supported by source. But as always, if you can edit the statement to make it better, awesome. Just, simply saying "A North American Advertisement" is not very informative.--SexyKick 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@75.69.252.5: Can you provide any evidence that DCEvoCE is 17daysolderthannes?

A quick look on his talk page reveals that he uploaded a picture that 17days claims to be the owner of. It got taken down because he provided an incorrect license, and Anomie re-uploaded the picture for him.--SexyKick 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@SexyKick: "Sega would increasingly be known" does not mean "This advertisement would increasingly be known" - what it is saying is that Sega was known for a type of advertising that this is an example of, not that the advert it self is well known (it is well known, but that statement does not support it). I still don't think that it's really relevant how famous it is anyway.

As for the infobox image you just changed, see above (of the people who have expressed an opinion it is at least me and Miremare who agree with its inclusion and only you against (DCEvoCE also seems to agree, but that is debatable). Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think famous is relevant, but the caption should be descriptive like it is. I don't see anything wrong with the word famous, as Genesis Does What Nintendon't was their most famous advertisement here in the States. Famous certainly doesn't provide undue weight, or non neutrality either.

On the infobox, IMHO both the logos and the consoles are too small, too blurry, and when compared to the PS3 and SNES articles, just seems to look gaudy or bad. I liked the way you had made the MD2 225 px so it kept its proper proportion compared to the MD1. I understand the style you're going for, but there just isn't enough room in the infobox to make it look right, and IMHO (and with respect) it isn't even neat/tidy.

So it's easier to compare, here are links to both versions of the current info box.

Smaller and bigger and for comparison, SNES and PS3--SexyKick 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

First, stop comparing to other articles to show that something is good or bad. Such comparisons can be used to reinforce a point or give an example, nothing more. Besides, the PS3 in the PS3 article is a tall, narrow console, so is more inclined to go that way (hence it looks better) and the SNES article suffers the same issue as your version of this article. As for too blurry, it is no more blurry than the big version (in fact less so due to the size it is shown at) and considering other issues you have had (being able to tell that the "top", "middle" etc in the captions were bolded for example) I honestly think you have your monitor set up wrong. My guess is you are using a CRT that is set to a resolution that it too high for it to properly support (although there are other explanations).

Also, you are ignoring the issue that on smaller monitors, your version at best clutters the thing up. Even on my 24" (1920×1200) monitor both pics together fill about half of the side of the screen, so on smaller ones it negates the infobox.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I too am using a 24 inch 1920x1200 LCD monitor. IPS panel no less. However, I do have my zoom settings set to default (not zoomed in, with CTRL+Scroll) when I do zoom in, things are a bit different. However, I do not zoom in, and do not think most people will. In fact, I have to ctrl+scroll zoom twice to make the small text bold. I sincerely think you are not using default zoom, as even if I zoom in Firefox, it does not zoom in IE8 (which I never use) and in IE8, I have to ctrl+scroll four times to make the small text become bold. You are zoomed in, that is why the pictures look big to you, however, with my default zoom/zoom off, AKA, neutral zoom, I see no bolded small text, and very small image. And no, zooming in is not a solution, I should not have to zoom in and make text extra big to compensate for tiny pictures.--SexyKick 18:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit: If you're on Firefox Ctrl+0 will resize your screen back to normal, also I was using the other articles to reinforce my point. The SNES is a featured article, and its "big" 250px wide pictures are fine and neat. There's no reason to make sure the info box stays super scrunched, and doesn't dip below the table of contents.--SexyKick 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I seem to have the same set up as yourself (IPS panel, default zoom, FF etc). I do this for a living you know (as well as photo manipulation and graphic design I do web design so I know how to test for various end-user scenarios). That being the case, the only things I can think of is that maybe you are using a non-standard default font or you are using Win XP (Vista and 7 use a different font rendering system that better anti-aliases text). Even when I zoom out I can see that they are bold (up until the 4th zoom-out action, where it's almost illegible anyway). Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the small, blurry image, well I can only speculate that a) we have a different definition of small - each console is about 60% of the size it is in your version b) no idea about the blurriness... it doesn't make any sense. maybe you need an eye test (this is not meant as an insult, it's just the only explanation I can think of right now). Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The logos are what are more blurry. I have 20:20 vision : ( Here's what I see smaller and bigger.--SexyKick 21:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well I see your text problem - you have ClearType turned off. See [4]. As for the blurriness of the logos, it seems to be mainly because they are .gifs - .gif scaling isn't great since subtle transparencies and tones cannot be produced - it is limited to 256 colours and 1 bit alpha (yes or no for each pixel being transparent). That is why when I uploaded the PAL logo I did it in .png. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is what I see (with ClearType on) [5]. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Genesis logo is a PNG. I don't see why we can't have everything be 250px (or 225 in the MD2's case)--SexyKick 22:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't have that much of a problem with the Genesis one. I see your point about the JP one, but the Genesis one is fine. (I'm sure the Genesis one used to be a .gif - probably shouldn't checked). Seriously though, turn on ClearType - it's so much cleaner. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have resized the actual file (from the original big version) of the JP logo so that it doesn't rely on gif scaling and it is now much cleaner :). If we do change it back the file can be reverted. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also done the Genesis one now. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

---

A couple of points back on the images, the question isn't whether we're justified in including a Sonic 1 image, because what we say about the game already does this, it's a question of whether we should or not. I think we should, not least because it's probably the best-known MD title so aids recognition of the article's subject, it pretty much single-handedly sold the system so is definitely important enough, and provides the reader some kind of idea of what an MD game looks like. I would also say that having the Virtua Racing (or Doom or whatever) image as an example of the improvements granted by add-on hardware is a little pointless without context, which a shot of a "regular" MD game provides. By which I mean, it's strange to say "this is an improvement, but we're not going to show you why or how". Just a thought. And to User:75.69.252.5... Nice try, but you mentioned Nazis right at the end... D'oh! Miremare 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Sega CD example shows mode 7, and the 32X example shows the enormously enhanced graphics, and JM is certainly the hard one to please.--SexyKick 18:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not 17daysolderthannes from Sega-16. I am christuserloeser from Sega-16. My own website is DCEvolution.net. That's where the "DCEvo" part in my name came from. The "CE" stands for "Christus Erlöser". Which I changed to "christuserloeser" when I frist joined an English forum back in 2003. I am not sure why I registered as "DCEvoCE" instead of "christuserloeser". But yeah, I uploaded the photo by 17daysolderthannes. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B (when we solved the licensing issues). DCEvoCE (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and assume that DC stands for Dreamcast (certainly seems to)... so presumably there is no pro-Nintendo fanboyism there :P. Anyway, glad to have cleared this up... don't you just love it when users jump to conclusions /sarcasm. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I again removed the non-free tag since we are no longer using all three logos. This is temporary, once we resolve the issue we can put the other logo back in, or whatever, doesn't matter. But we don't need the tag unless all three logos are in the article. What exactly needs cleaning up? I thought we addressed the off-weasel words?

I read through the Cleanup article in the tag, and I don't see how it applies to the article.--SexyKick 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, it would seem J Milburn disagrees... because obviously a logo for the Mega Drive and a logo for the Genesis represent the same thing /sarcasm. I only wish he would respond to our posts - I believe we have met the burden of proof and he hasn't said otherwise, so clearly he doesn't agree. It would seem we need to take this elsewhere as SexyKick said so long ago. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, until it is decided one way or another by "those in higher places", the other logo should probably be reinstated (if the dispute is >1 = bad, then there is no way having one removed will help and everyone other than J Milburn seems to think they are all justified - their removal is seemingly to try and satiate him... which is a bad way to go about things really - what or who is to say he is right other than him before we do go higher?). Agreed? Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also please note there is no non-free issue with any other images in the article, this has already been clarified by J Milburn, as stated many times through this extremely hard to follow talk page.--SexyKick 21:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that does contradict at least one thing he said before. Before he said that if the JP logo were textlogo, there would be no problem. There would have still been three logos though.

Also, the difference between Genesis and Mega Drive is talked about in the article...this makes no sense TBH.

More on the info box, I just checked the vertical size of the taller Mega Drive info box, and it's still smaller than the SNES, and PS3 info box, as well as being the same width. However, the way it is now with the side by side images, we have a wider infobox that the SNES, NES, and PS3 articles...as well as smaller images. This just seems lose/lose all around to me.--SexyKick 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"I imagine some of the screenshots will have to go too. The strange thing is that the editors are hoping to take the article to GAC/FAC- adding copious amounts of NFC is not going to help..." J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)' (from my talk page) Alphathon, Miramare, and myself have already agreed that the screenshots have to go. Seems J Milburn agrees, despite your claims that he would be okay with the screenshots and that the logos would be the only issue. @SexyKick: You reverted the changes made to the article again without having read what we discussed here. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I had discussed it with him before. He's only saying that because you went and told him you thought they should be removed, and he knows the less NFC the better. Right now I have no hope of the article going FA this year, and probably not GA either. The article has to be stable, and it was only stable until he came and complained about there being 3 logos, and then all hell broke loose.--SexyKick 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. An article like this will never pass GAC with a decent reviewer, and certainly not FAC, purely because of the ridiculous amount of non-free content. The fact that "all hell broke loose" "because" of me is nothing to do with the problems in this article. If you'll note, I haven't actually removed any of the logos- I pointed out the problem, and left you (collective you, "you" referring to "the regular editors") to deal with it, but you haven't even managed that. And do not put words into my mouth regarding the screenshots. I have pointed out issues with the screenshots, but when you try to wikilawyer your way out of having three separate logos in the infobox, what chance have I got of getting rid of superfluous screenshots that are going to be edit-warred over until the cows come home? J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

God, I've just skim read some of the more recent posts, and been reminded of why I got on with other stuff. This is not controversial. The fact that you people all want your pet articles to have a bazillion non-free images does not mean we need some sort of "higher authority" (whatever that means) to tell us that whoops, yes, actually, we do have a policy on this. Just deal with it. Look at every non-free image, and think "right- do we need this image? Would the article be worse off without it?" In all the articles I list on my userpage put together, there are fewer non-free files than there are on this article- and yes, I've written about television, music and other topics that tend to attract non-free content. I'm not saying that all of the images need to go, and I'm not providing detailed arguments for/against each one, I'm just telling you how this works, and telling you what you're gonna have to do if you want this article to get anywhere. Not only do I have experience with regards to non-free content but I have experience with regards to writing decent articles. This is not some kind of ego-trip- common sense would tell you that listening to my thoughts may be beneficial. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the screenshots (which I assume only the virtua racing one will be staying at this point, as its inclusion is by far the most justified - as mentioned, the other screen shots are better used in the Sega CD and 32X articles) it is absolutely not fair to remove the Genesis or Mega Drive logo. This article is a merged article, there used to be a Genesis article, as well as a Mega Drive article, and it is in fact discussed how it was different. It would 100% absolutely be lacking without a logo for both the Genesis and the Mega Drive. Constantly people come to this article, and try to make it an article about the Genesis. And without any Genesis logo, or Mega Drive logo, it creates undue weight for the other party. If we have no logo, people will obviously try to add in logos. I tried removing either the Asian MD logo, or the PAL region MD logo, and other editors not involved in this discussion kept putting them back. I believe we could manage to keep one logo for each product this article covers. That is, the Mega Drive, and the Genesis.--SexyKick 10:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into why I think all three logos are justified (that can be found here). I agree with most of what SexyKick ways in his post, but there are a few things I feel I must point out. Likewise, There a few things I want to point out/explain to J Milburn.

1. It is very true that people may continue to add the logo(s) if they are not present, but that is not a valid reason for their inclusion. Simply because people are likely to break the rules does not make the rules null and void. If that were the case then what would be the point in rules?
2. As I have said before, I see it is as all or nothing with the logos; that is, I feel that if we cannot have them all then we must remove them all in the name of balance. SexyKick mentioned undue weight but this is true for the different MD logos as much as it is MD vs. Genesis. The logos are there primarily for product identification, which does not apply when you shift regions. The PAL logo does not identify the JP MD in the slightest (and vice versa) and is actually more likely to cause confusion, essentially being a negative identifier. Similarly with "I believe we could manage to keep one logo for each product this article covers", the JP and PAL Mega Drives are just as distinct as the JP MD and Genesis other than he name difference, so assuming that each is considered an individual product there would be 3 in total. I'm not saying they are mind you (I would phrase it more 3 forms of a single product).
3. J Milburn, I accept that you are experienced in these matters, but from my point of view it seems that you are missing the point. I understand* why you do not think they are justified for use - copyrighted logos in general are given a sort of free pass for inclusion, which you do not feel extends to all three. The reason such a pass seems to be given is to allow for product identification/brand recognition, which in this case applies to all three independently and simultaneously as mentioned above (point 2.). As I see it, in this case, if that general rule applies to 1 logo in general, then it applies to the 3 of them in this article. The reason I mentioned "taking it higher" (I wouldn't have put it like that had SexyKick not phrased it as such earlier in the discussion) was mainly to get a second (or third etc.) opinion from other such experienced people, as despite your experience, you are still a single, fallible, human being and may simply be missing something or misinterpreting something. While you are more likely to be right statistically based on your experience, I simply think this is one of those situations where the one "in the know" is mistaken (or thinks they know when they actually don't, although that is unlikely I think).
4. You have also pointed out (not now, but in the past) that if the three logos were relevant, they would be discussed in the article (paraphrasing). I would change this to if they are relevent they should be discussed in the article and will be once proper citation is found. All of the editors in this discussion seem to know why the logos are separate and independent but for a proper discussion in the article on such an issue proper citation is a must.
5. As said, I don't think the vast majority of the other non-free images are justified (if any). Speaking about the non-logo ones for a minute I will gave a break-down:
   • MegaDriveBox.png - This is being used to show that Sonic was bundled with the console, which is more than adequately explained in the text (adding an image is essentially a poor form of citation at best). N
   • SegaGenesis-NintendontAd.jpg - Again, this is simply representing what was mentioned in the text - the picture itself adds nothing, especially since most of what is being described is the content of the ad rather than the visuals. N
   • SonicCD.PNG - This one is plausible, but not in it's current state. In order to be justified the description must be more specific (e.g. what the enhanced graphical capabilities allowed and how the pic demonstrates it). Also, if it is justified, it belongs in the Mega CD article, not the Mega Drive article. N
   • Doom32X.PNG - Likewise, if it is justified, it belongs in the Sega 32X article, not the Mega Drive article (and I don't think this particular screenshot is). N
   • VirtuaRacing.PNG - This is the most justified pic IMHO, but again, if this belongs anywhere it is the Sega Virtua Processor article, not here. At least this one seems to have a definitive purpose. N

* What I really mean is I think I understand - no one can ever truly know if they understand someone else or not...unless telepathy is a real phenomenon of course.

Right, that's all for now. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So if this is true about the Virtua Racing, etc. why aren't there ever questions about the Star Fox and Super Mario World pictures in the SNES article???--SexyKick 14:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What on earth have other articles to do with this one ? And "all hell broke loose" because you keep reverting edits by other users and admins, not because J Milburn tagged the article. 22:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCEvoCE (talk • contribs)

As DCEvoCE said, what does that have to do with these images? Regardless, I would imagine one of the following:

• I am being too harsh in my appraisal of the Virtual Racing one.
• Users in the past have been lenient with regard to the SNES images (with the StarFox one being included in three articles to display the same thing no less).
• No body has paid them much attention

Honestly I don't know how the Mario one is still there - it's supposed use is "...to identify the subject of the quote: "Nintendo's strongest selling point, however, was the game that came packed in with the Super NES console—Super Mario World.", and for no other purpose", which it doesn't really do does it (and isn't really required)?

Bear in mind the StarFox one was (as far as I can tell) added to the article back in 2005 and the SNES article became "featured" in 2007, so maybe the rules were more relaxed back then. Certainly, looking at it's fair use rationale I don't think it passes either but as I have said multiple times I am no expert on this.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

NFC

All my experience, and from what I've seen and read, says that it is good habit to base your article on other featured articles of the same style/similar topic. When I read FAC reviews, I often see editors winning Support from Opposers by pointing out other Featured Articles that have done the same things. I see how you guys have a problem with me pointing out how the Featured Articles for the other Mainstream Consoles have done things. SNES is the most relevant, as it was Sega's main competition, but it's also not like there's a ton of featured articles based on Consoles. SNES, Wii, and PS3, to my knowledge.

They all have large infobox console images and logos - unlike the MD article now

They all have copyrighted screenshots (though not always from games) - which you don't want the MD article to have any of

The PS3 article has 6 NFC images - four of which are screenshots, and this [6] that is a {{PD-textlogo}}

The SNES article has 3 NFC images - two of which are screenshots, and this [7] is a {{PD-textlogo}}

From the people I've been talking to, apart from you and J Milburn, all think that both the Sega Genesis, and both Asian Mega Drive logos are 100% for sure Textlogos, and that probably the PAL Region Sega Mega Drive logo is textlogo as well, because it is still nothing more than simple geometry and stylized text. I did not bring up the Brazil Mega Drive logo, but it's obviously a textlogo anyway.

It's our own ignorance of textlogos that has brought this issue about, since without those logos, we only have five NFC images - three of which are screenshots, which is below the highest FA article on consoles, and only two above the SNES article, which seems fair considering how much wider the content range of the Mega Drive was.

Note the text in the {{PD-textlogo}} "consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" and that's all these logos are.--SexyKick 04:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, File:Best Western logo.svg which the US copyright office officially ruled three times as insufficiently original.--SexyKick 06:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well considering that the crown thing (or whatever the hell it is) is part of a logo that is not eligible for copyright, that would probably put the JP Mega Drive logo in the same catagory (it's no more complex after all). The other two I'm not sure about due to the the effects etc that have been applied. The shapes/text themselves would almost certainly qualify but the fact that they are stylised to look like metal etc may go beyond the threshold of originality. If you are convinced that they are, "take it higher" as it were and find out. Certainly confirmation of the JP one would be useful (and it would mean that I could create a vector version of it, which would make scaling much smother and allow it to go much larger and not lose quality).

For the images however, be careful. It is not enough to say "this featured article has X non-free images" - it is not to do with the quantity but the usage. If the StarFox image has been there for several years, including all the time it has been both GA and FA, then that does suggest that the Virtua Racing one is valid here, since it is showing the same thing. I'd be more wary about the Mario one as it has been there for less time. If it has been there since before the last FA review, then that does work in favour of the other screenies. I don't think that the PS3 screenshots can be used as an example of what is acceptable though - they are shots of the system software, which is part of the console, not of games, so it cannot really be used as a precedent.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked here, and here, and it seems the Super Mario World screen shot was there before it was a featured article.--SexyKick 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a W made out of simple geometrical shapes. "Stylized text is still text" is what I keep reading in regards to textlogos. this and this are good examples of non text logos. There's no one like, "official" to check with about this stuff to my knowledge.--SexyKick 12:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, wrong. The fact that something happens to be text does not make it public domain. Yes, I can't type "Hello" in Times New Roman and claim copyright, but, for instance, someone could very easily claim copyright on this. No, these logos are not as complex as that, but I'm just pointing out that you're looking at this in completely the wrong way. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I know no other way to look at it than "Should they be in the article?" Yes. "Would the article be lacking without them." Yes. "Can we really not live without having them in the article." I personally can see having one Mega Drive, and one Genesis logo in the article, otherwise it would sense to have a separate article on the Genesis. That's the product with the most story to tell, the Genesis outsold the Mega Drive...that's looking at it the wrong way too. So OK, "Are each of the logos justified to have in the article?" For ID purposes, yes. OK...you still can't have them all because having even two logos that are NFC is too much, much less three logos. OK. So are they really NFC? "You're looking at it the wrong way." I don't understand. I know no other way to look at it other than all these different ways which I've listed. The JP Mega Drive logo is a a red M made out of two triangles (simple geometry) and a green D with the upper right corner having black streaks in it. It's just an M, and a D, and extremely simple geometry. We all know the Sega logo itself is text logo, and that the shapes surround the Genesis and PAL Region logo qualify for text logo. So, what else? The letters in Genesis have blue shading, and the letters in Mega Drive have blue shading, as well as circles on each side of the logo. Shaded text, and simple geometry.--SexyKick 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously JM, I don't know how you can say that the JP is copyrightable when File:Best Western logo.svg is not. this is obviously copyrightable since it is not text - it is an illustration with text used to frame it. In that case, the frame is not copyrightable but what it is framing is and as such the work as a whole is. The JP on the other hand is simpler than the stylised W in the Best Western logo (closer to the standard way of conveying text), or at the very least at the same level of complexity. The M would NOT be copyrightable even if it weren't text since it is just two pieces of simple geometry. If there is something about that logo that takes it above the threshold of creativity that does not apply to the Best Western logo then I'd like to hear it. This is not the "wrong way to look at it" - if something is non-copyrightable then it is non-copyrightable, end of story. Sure, the motivation for doing so isn't great (to try and get around what you are claiming as inappropriate use... which I still do not buy but whatever) but regardless, if it cannot be copyrighted, then the discussion is irrelevant. Simply because the discussion has brought it to our attention, does not make it invalid (think of it as "hold on a second, I don't think this applies anyway" rather than "if I can get it to be classified as this then I have won"). I would say since you seem unwilling to reply to our arguments (how can we have a discussion if you won't even do that?) and those you have replied to seem to have missed the point, you are denying us justification on identification grounds (despite the fact that each logo only applies in a distinct area of the world) and that you are saying something shouldn't be classified properly because of the manner in which the improper classification was discovered, that we need to "take this higher".

@SexyKick: I'm sure that the place where copyright disputes are handled would be the same place where disputed copyrightability would be handled. It would need to be brought up there anyway for the rest of the discussion.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think you present this case far better than I do, so please notify me and J Milburn when you take it up elsewhere. (also I know this talk page is confusing but I had an additional reply to you higher up)--SexyKick 14:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I've been a little conservative with regards to this issue in the past. I may well be wrong- if all three logos turn out to be PD, then I have no objection to them all being used. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, four angry points to make. First, third and fourth apply generally. Firsly, tl;dr. Secondly, you're misrepresenting or at least misunderstanding what I am saying- I didn't once say that considering whether these images are PD is the wrong way to go about it. Thirdly, this discussion is made even harder to follow by the completely illogical use of arbitrary breaks. Give them a bloody title. Goddamn. I can't even be bothered to write the fourth point. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about TL;DR, but the thing this, that's completely lazy to feel that way, and be a form of authority on top of it. It makes me feel a slight bit of disrespect if I think you really feel that way. Currently I have quite a bit of respect for you, and an argument certainly doesn't get in the way of that. TL;DR though...wow. This discussion is extremely hard to follow though, you aren't kidding, and probably understanding the fact too. I assume the fourth point was CBA? (no disrespect intended from that joke btw)--SexyKick 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question regarding text logos (and this may not be the best place to ask it): What's the difference between the copyrightability of a text logo (or a logo deemed too generic to be copyrightable) and the copyrightability of a brand name? "Best Western" the logo may not be fully copyrightable because it's too generic a rendering, but "Best Western" is still a copyrighted brand name. Likewise, "Mega Drive" is a copyrighted brand name even if the JP logo isn't sufficiently unique. So, where does one draw the line, and frankly, what relevance does that all have to the question of whether to include a logo in an article about the subject? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Brand names are generally too short to be copyrighted (see [8]). They can be trademarked, but trademark alone does not make it non-free for Wikipedia's purposes—otherwise we would have an impossible time writing about anything that is trademarked, much less having any images of it. Anomie⚔ 01:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the JP Mega Drive logo??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

J Milburn (talk) says there are still too many non-free images in the article, and made a comment about three logos in his last edit. This was after he took out the image of the Sonic 1 cover. Shall we drop the JP Mega Drive logo to compensate? Is it possible to find a public domain version of the logo? How would one define that?--SexyKick 11:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that there is a public domain version of the logo (by definition it should not exist unless SEGA has released it into the public domain). I'm not sure J Milburn has any justification to assert that position though and I am currently discussing the issue at his talk page (in fact I am in the middle of drafting a reply right now). I don't believe that there is any Wikipedia policy that says this is an inappropriate use of non-free images and I have asked for a pointer to where it is written, but as yet have not received such a link, so I'm not sure. Alphathon^TM (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

" Obviously I don't agree with both of you about the Sonic box art, since the Genesis taking off in the market is 100% because of Sonic, but I don't think I can win there because it's box art. I'll have to think of a good alternative, as I don't want to use a screen shot to demonstrate it."

I know this is a little off topic, but I just thought I'd ask - why do you think there needs to be a picture for each section? If there is an applicable image, add it, but don't go hunting fro an image that may be applicable. Images, especially non-free images other than logos, are to be used to demonstrate things, not to give visual interest. If there is commentary to be made on a non-free image, add it. If not, don't. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh, looks like J Milburn beat me to it. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Other than logos? No. If logos are non-free, they are to be treated as non-free content, just like anything else. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about logos. Each section doesn't need an image, I'm just basing all my work on the other featured articles on game systems, with a focus on the Super Nintendo article since it uses many of the same sources, and was of the time of the Mega Drive - so things are extremely similar and it's easy to get reliable sources and styling. That's why he now have a history of emulation projects, with an interface from a popular emulator - just like another featured article. There are many sections without images, and it may remain that way, but it would be cool to get an image for the revival section, maybe of the hardware of Mega Drive Guitar Hero Idol, at least that would be a free image since it would be a picture one of us takes, so there aren't any plans for more non-free images. I would like to steer the direction of this back to the logos, since that was the primary focus of my reply to your comment at J's talk page. He said there were too many, and that they're similar, and that's why he's put the non-free template on the article.

"Other than logos? No. If logos are non-free, they are to be treated as non-free content, just like anything else."

My wording was a little off to be sure. I didn't mean to imply that the same rules don't apply to logos, just that I was discussing the non-logo non-free images. It was a wording slip-up on my part. Alphathon^TM (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't honestly see how the logo's are similar to one another. The two Mega Drive logo's are completely different, for instance, if one lived with the big blue Mega Drive logo their whole life, and saw the smaller, square, green and red "MD" logo, they would have no idea that it's supposed to be the same Mega Drive. The Genesis logo should be self explanatory as to why it's different enough; there is the whole quieted down debate of calling the article Genesis or Mega Drive, since Genesis sold more than all the Mega Drives combined, and "Sega Genesis" is the term that gets more results on Google and Yahoo searches.--SexyKick 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Basically, when push comes to shove, are these logos important? No. Would the article be severely lacking without them? Not really. As I have said, if the logos themselves were of significance, they would be discussed at length in the article. However, they aren't; the idea of discussing them at length in the article is laughable. Logos, like any other non-free image, have to be justified; yes, a single logo image in the article on the logo's subject is generally considered acceptable, but that does not extend to as many logos as you please. Equally, you couldn't use multiple album covers in an album article without good reason, multiple photos in a biography of a dead person, or any other multiple use of a kind of image generally considered acceptable "by default". J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you have posted here, I might as well do the same.

"Posting essays like that is not going to get you anywhere, if I'm honest, and I know the NFC policy/guideline, you don't need to copy it across to me."

I wouldn't really call it an essay. Most of the "size" of the post, as you said, is info copied across from the policy page. The only reason I copied it across is that I didn't know that you knew it (how would I know for sure); I wanted to make sure that it was clear exactly what I was referring to and present it in such a way so that you didn't have to follow a bunch of links (but could if you so desired). Besides, the length of a post/reply should not determine its worth. Certainly, the fact that a post is long does not detract from its worth and the only reason it should be considered bad is if the reader has a short attention span and cannot follow it. If I have a lot to say, I will say it and will not hold back arguments for the sake of length.

"Basically, when push comes to shove, are these logos important? No."

Says you. That is a bald assertion and does not give any reason why it is not important. I respectfully disagree, if only for identification reasons (a large part of the purpose of a company or brand logo no?). Also, I would say that the presence of all three at least shows that SEGA chose to market the system differently in all three regions (something which would be hard to discuss in an infobox).

"Would the article be severely lacking without them? Not really."

Again, I disagree, since it is not representative of all regions otherwise.

"As I have said, if the logos themselves were of significance, they would be discussed at length in the article."

Since when is "significance" (notability I assume) determined necessarily by discussion at length within the article (or even discussion at all)? When logos are concerned, surely the only historical logos would apply to that? If there is a current logo it is used and old/outdated logos are used only when commentary is required, but this is not the case here. In that case the logo which is used is determined by what is current/the most recent. Which would be used in this case?

"However, they aren't; the idea of discussing them at length in the article is laughable."

Really? Again I take issue with at length. It is at least relevant to show how SEGA treated the marketing differently by region. While it is not currently discussed, why is it laughable to suggest that it could be? This is another bald assertion.

"As for WP:LOGO (which I wrote, as it happens...) the fact that people have [not] raised the issue before does not mean that there is no consensus;"

We'll if there is no evidence of it then it is essentially your word against mine. I say again - links please!

"een [even?] if it did, the fact there is no consensus on a specific issue does not mean you can use non-free content as you please."

That argument would make some sense if we were talking about something more obviously wrong, like using two comparable non-free images to display the same thing. The problem is that is not the case. In the PAL region for example, neither the Japanese of North American logos show the brand at any point in it's history and so are not showing the same thing.

"Logos, like any other non-free image, have to be justified; yes, a single logo image in the article on the logo's subject is generally considered acceptable, but that does not extend to as many logos as you please."

That makes sense only if logos are interchangeable, which they are not.

"Equally, you couldn't use multiple album covers in an album article without good reason, multiple photos in a biography of a dead person, or any other multiple use of a kind of image generally considered acceptable "by default"."

The use of multiple album covers in articles is frequently used to show special editions or regional variations (identification, just like with the logos). As for multiple photos in the biography of a dead person, if they apply they are used. If two photos are used to demonstrate the same thing (e.g. a person is know for wearing a type of hat) then that is unjustified. If they demonstrate different things (like the regional logos do - they provide identification for their respective regions and are not interchangeable for this purpose) then they are justified. I am not claiming that it is acceptable by default. I am saying that in the article it is justified use.

Honestly this conversation seems kind of pointless. As yet you don't seem to have presented any reason why the use of all three is not justifiable beyond "there is more than one image". I have asked for links to policy or consensus that supports your argument and have received nothing. Your argument seems to be "it is unjustified therefore it is unjustified" which is at best a bald assertion and at worst an argument from authority. You seem to be saying "trust me, it is" without giving us any reason to believe you are in the right. I have provided reasons why I think it is justified use; please tell me why I am wrong.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you would just trust me, but I'm not going to expect that. The burden of proof lies with you; you really need to stop demanding evidence from me. Every non-free image has to meet the NFCC- like I say, there is a common belief that one logo is acceptable in an article (but you will not that no policy, anywhere, says this; there's just a general consensus that a single logo meets NFCC#8) but that does not extend to multiple images. You can say that it's my word against yours, but that's irrelevant. The burden of proof lies with you, and that is written in policy. I suspect you have every intention of getting this article to GA and maybe FA status- I can assure you it will not pass the latter with this use of images, and it will only pass the former if you find yourself with a lenient reviewer. Again, your reply was approaching tl;dr levels. Just stick to the point... J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, which logo do you suggest we pick?--SexyKick 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple,Judgment of Solomon = None of them. - X201 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@J Milburn:

While I agree with the whole burden of proof lies with me (or us, whatever) thing, you don't seem to be telling me/us why my arguments are invalid or irrelevant. It is very difficult to make a case when you do not know what the conviction is. As far as I know the burden of proof does not translate into me/us needing to know what criteria it is being judged by implicitly. If mistakes are made, correcting them is far more productive to both our causes than hitting our heads against brick walls and throwing the same arguments back at each other. Up until now I don't think you had pointed out 1 thing that it was actually violating, but from what you said in that post, your problem seems to be with NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", especially since they do not violate any other rules.

Here is my thinking:

1. How does any logo that is not commented on in the article satisfy this criterion? Is it simply an exception to the rule that is accepted due to lack of challenge. If that is the case why? My reading has lead me to believe that it is due to brand identification and/or commentary.
2. If it is accepted generally for a single, all-encompassing, logo then I would submit that in this article in particular (which is a special case due to regional differences and is in no way related to the "default position" mentioned earlier) all three logos are required to fulfil the same function as said single logo. This is because no single logo can represent the brand in any other region due to the differences in naming and branding conventions. Neither Mega Drive logo can identify a Genesis item since it is not Mega Drive and vice versa. Likewise, the Asian and PAL branding is so dissimilar that no one logo adequately represents the brand. It should also be noted that all three were used concurrently and that they were never used in other regions, so would only be identifiers to importers etc. Now assuming you accept this premise, does it not make sense that in this case (not generally, but specific to this and a few other articles, such as the NES/Famicom article for example) the three logos together are equivalent to one in a normal article and thus should be allowed on the same grounds.
3. I don't think many people would argue that the logos add nothing to the article, so I think the issue lies with the word significantly. Again, if single logos satisfy this then I would say that the three logos together also do due to the equivalence mentioned above. Also, simply the presence of the three logos shows the marketing/branding/naming disconnect between the three regions and info on that certainly could (and probably should) be mentioned in the article, which would also justify it in the same way as the rebranding of the PS3 justifies its 2 logos.

Right, that's me for now. Please, if my arguments are flawed or invalid, tell me. The burden of proof lying with me/us does not require that you tell me/us nothing. I have to prove the statement, but you telling us nothing of why we are wrong gets no-one anywhere. If nothing else it educates us as to why it isn't allowed and makes us better at both enforcing and adhering to Wikipedia's rules ourselves.

I await your response.

@SexyKick:

X201 is right. If we cannot have all of them, none is the only other acceptable option IMHO, since without them all it is biased toward whatever remains and unrepresentative.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The only reason we have all three logos is because when he had two, people kept asking for the JP Mega Drive logo to be added. I want all three logos in here, so lets do whatever we need to in the article to keep them in. I think a second content note would be a good place for this information. Otherwise we'll have to take the issue up the ladder, WT:VG--SexyKick 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's completely the wrong way to look at this. Instead, we should be saying "how few can we get away with"? J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images, or logos? (not rhetorical btw) Also, here's another question. Does the JP Mega Drive logo fall into the same category this does? [9] I think it does...I only notice TM on it, instead of the other symbols. Maybe we can change it then?? Would that help?--SexyKick 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"how few can we get away with?"

I know you weren't asking the question directly, but I would argue all three - assuming the goal is to be informative (which it is - this is an encyclopaedia after all). Any fewer and it becomes non-NPOV unless we get down to zero. So the two neutral options are: all 3 or none. Assuming the usage qualifies as justifiable (which I obviously think it does) this means the only viable possibility is all 3.

As for the simple geometry idea, I don't think that'd help. For one, I think it is too complex to justify (although I'm on the fence about that). Regardless though, just because one is a free image (i.e. the JP logo classified as simple geometry) doesn't mean fair use of the others is any more likely to be considered justified (it may even hurt their case since many would see it is being a free alternative, although I would still maintain that they are not interchangeable).

Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I assume "how few can we get away with?" would essentially be an shortened version of "How few can we get away with without compromising the quality of the article and while staying within Wikipedia's other guidelines?". Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly didn't hurt the other, non free SNES logo from making its article. All the JP MD logo is, is a black square, a green D, and two red triangles.--SexyKick 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not just a green D - it is specifically stylised out of other shapes. There is certainly something to be said for the fact that all of the sub-objects are simple geometry, but I think that their arrangement as a D constitutes creativity and thus would be copyrighted. I'm no expert on the boundaries between simple geometry and copyrighted material though. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current Microsoft company logo is just the word "Microsoft" in a bold, italics, sans-serif font with a small notch cut out of the first O. This logo specifically has been copyrighted for many years, yet could be argued to be only a simple application of geometry to an otherwise standardized representation of the company's name. My point being that arguing about copyrights on the grounds of artistic style vs. simple geometry is fruitless and pointless. (I realize this is months after the discussion, but I was away from Wikipedia for a while.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought. This is the current fair use rationale for the Japanese logo:

The image is used to identify Sega Mega Drive, a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey.

Really, I think a good way to convey what I mean would be if this instead read:

The image is used to identify Sega Mega Drive, a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help readers in Asia identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey.

I am not suggesting that it be changed to this (although it could be) but I think it gets my point across quite nicely. The North American and PAL logos have corresponding purposes with readers in Asia replaced by readers in North America and readers in Europe and Australasia respectively. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• None of the logos could be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that was a reply to SexyKick, not me (doesn't seem to make sense if it's to me). By the way, why are you using bullet points? Is it supposed to signify something? I've never seen it used in that way. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I talked to some more experienced editors than myself, and they personally felt the JP MD logo is {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademark}} The right side is completely made up of text (stylized text is still text) and is clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. The left side is a little more iffy. Is there sufficient creative input in the red and green "MD" to make it copyrightable? The required threshold of originality is very low, but it's still just an M and a D. It's probably {{PD-textlogo}} since it is just an M and a D and it's not really more complex than the W-thing at the top of File:Best Western logo.svg which the US copyright office officially ruled three times as insufficiently original. If only the original uploaded had known about these templates, we might not be here discussing this right now. There is only a Trademark sign on the logo. This is not the case with the other two logos. Please advise again JM.--SexyKick 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alphathon: Is there anything you won't criticise me for? I have no idea why I chose to use a bullet rather than indentation- the structure of this discussion is all over the place. SexyKick, as I said on your talk page (but for the benefit of others)- If the black section on the left was cut out, I would be inclined to agree. Until then, in my (fairly experienced Wikipedia/Commons-wise, if I may say so myself) opinion, it could not be considered public domain. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There was absolutely no criticism in my last post. I was merely seeking clarification and both bits were legitimate questions (which you have now answered).

I am aware that I tend to be overly critical and analytical (not necessarily coming up with the correct analysis of course) of things. Rest assured though that pretty much everything I have written was completely neutral in terms of emotion (to me this is an intellectual argument, not an emotional one). I was a little exasperated earlier (as you might have guessed) about you not addressing my points, but other than that I have been either just neutral or light hearted most of the time (including this post) It's just the way I talk/type . Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well look, we need all three logos there because of WP:FACR "#1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" The logo is a fact or detail, and all three of the them are big facts, important details, and all three place the subject in a different context.--SexyKick 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the details of the logos are "major facts or details", then discuss them in the article, as the FACR requires. If they are discussed, we can re-assess the use of non-free content in relation to said discussion. FAC frequently comes down hard on unwarranted NFC, and rightly so. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that to claim that the logo is a major fact or detail is a "little" disproportionate. The logos are details but are not major details. Don't get me wrong, I still think they should be included and certainly think it is justifiable use of non-free images, but they are not a major facts or details. Things that would come under that banner would be things like "it was a game system" "it was 16-bit" "it was made by Sega" "it competed with the SNES" "it was released --insert date and region here--" etc. The logo is an identifier more than anything and is also useful to demonstrate regional differences, but it is not a major fact or detail. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So you both think according to that, it'd be just fine to have no logos??? How about we let the Featured Article review tell us which non free content to remove if they come down on it so hard? I planned on requesting a peer review either this week, or next depending on if I'm adding one last section to the article or not. However if we can't convince you that a logo is needed in the article, then I guess we won't be able to convince anyone that a logo is needed in the article.--SexyKick 01:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting me, which isn't entirely surprising considering I'm having a hard time explaining it. I don't think that we can do without any of the logos if we want the best article possible and I think we are justified in doing so. However, if it ends up that we cannot use all of the logos, in the name of neutrality we would be forced to remove them all. You said above "when he had two, people kept asking for the JP Mega Drive logo to be added", that was probably because they thought it was biased against the Asian market; either it was what they used themselves or they simply wanted to be fair to those who did. If we are forced to remove one, we must remove them all so as to not have that bias.

Note: FA '#1 (d)' states "it presents views fairly and without bias;"

That does not make it a major fact or detail though, so I think this particular argument is invalid. As far as I know an image can never be a major fact or detail, at least not on it's own. The fact that it has the name Genesis in North America and Mega Drive everywhere else is a major fact. The reasons behind the name difference would be a major detail. The logos fall into neither of these categories. That does not mean it shouldn't be included and including commentary on the branding in various regions would be grounds for inclusion, but that doesn't make the logos major facts or details.

P.S. If by "you both" you meant J Milburn and someone other than me (X201 maybe? I don't know), then I apologise for misinterpreting it. If that is the case, just ignore the first sentence though.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SexyKick, you can't just "take it to FAC and see what they think", if any images are not welcome, they are not welcome whether the article is at FAC or not. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think SexyKick was was implying that their opinion as to whether they are welcome may differ to yours. Just because you don't think they a justified doesn't mean everybody does, hence "...and see what they think". Of course the fact that it is at FAC does not mean they are welcome, but if the FAC thinks they are, it at the very least strengthens the case for their inclusion. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That said I don't know if the FAC is really the right place to get a second opinion. There is probably a "right place" to take discussions like this; perhaps the talk page of WP:Logo, WP:NFC or WP:WPFU or something similar. SexyKick suggested WT:VG further up which might be useful (since they are more likely to know/understand the history of a console than the average wikipedia editor/admin). Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:NFC would be the place. We don't need video-gaming experts for this discussion, we need people who know our NFC policies... J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning that they would give the best non-free appraisal, or that it is the best place to ask, only that they may be able to provide perspective on the issue. That said, doing so would probably constitute meat puppetry and would at the very least create some bias, so it's probably best to avoid it anyway. Alphathon^TM (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm so confused here reading all this after sleeping...J, which image was the fair use rational not supporting and why?? For clarity's sake?--SexyKick 14:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that I claim to speak for J Milburn or anything (that'd be a bit inappropriate to say the least), but it would seem that it is all three together; i.e. any one of them would be fine by J from a non-free file POV, but all three together are not justified if the usage is simply as a logo (no commentary/discussion). Am I on the right track? Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I know this is off topic, but I didn't want to start a whole new section. By "technically superior", I meant in the technology sense, not in the "it's only a technicality" sense. "Superior" on it's own is too vague and could easily refer to gameplay or control (or any other aspect of a game for that matter). I have now substituted it with "technologically superior" to avoid ambiguity present in both versions. As for utilizing vs. demonstrating, the stage utilizes it, the picture (or more accurately its use in the article) demonstrates it. In my experience it is best to avoid "active" captions (like saying "this picture is here to show X") as it comes across as an argument or a sales pitch; instead it is best (again, in my experience) use "passive" ones (like saying "this is a picture of X"). They should be descriptive no prescriptive (I think that's the right word). "Demonstrating" or "a demonstration" would be appropriate if it was a picture of a demonstration of Sonic CD, but that is no - it is a picture of Sonic CD. They are subtle differences, but help to neutralize the tone. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the tone of "technologically superior" and I wish I could have thought of it first. I don't much care about the wording on the Sonic CD picture as long it's not going to be challenged for being there again. I'm glad there is someone to help tone these things, instead of just removing them or reverting them.--SexyKick 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all logos except the original one provided by the manufacturer's archives. DCEvoCE (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with all of your changes to the article. JM did not challenge those images. My work is based on the other featured articles. I do not see why almost every edit you make to this article has to be disruptive DCE, from the discontinuation date, to the removal of the Sega Anser, to this. Let us try to finish proving the inclusion of the logos first. No one is going to be OK with just the JP MD Logo in the article. You've also undone the work of Alphaton by re-uploading the hi res version of the JP MD logo. We don't need hi res logos.--SexyKick 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree with all of your changes to the article as well but there's only so much I can do. Funny how you omit from your rant that you deleted the JP MD logo in the first place. DCEvoCE (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cause I uh...never deleted the JP MD logo. Where did you get that idea? Plus I wasn't ranting. Alphaton uploaded a lower res version, the version that used to be there, was the one you just put there. I get the idea that you want to have the higher res version available for people, that's nice and all, I understand you're trying to help too. But we wanted to save space so we had the logo the size of the one used in the article. Makes sense right?--SexyKick 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

see revision 370584823 from 28th of June which I edited and which I happen to remember to link to the same MD logo as it does now. One of your next edits during the early July would change the logo and replace it with something else. DCEvoCE (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I temporarily had only the left portion of the JP MD logo image, which is the actual logo. The right portion of the image is not used on games or systems, only the left portion. So temporarily in the article, it only showed the left portion. It was decided to have undue weight the way I had it set up, so it was reverted to be the way it was before you took away the Genesis logo, and more widely known Mega Drive logo. Not at any one point was the JP MD logo gone or deleted.--SexyKick 21:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@DCEvoCE This is just silly. The rest of us were having a discussion here. Do you really think that coming along and imposing your will (and claiming that it is a "solution" without even discussing it) will work? All it is likely to achieve is either an edit war or a shouting match and may even constitute vandalism (it is certainly unconstructive since the issue is being discussed and no decision has been reached).

Also, I can confirm at least that SexyKick is accurate in saying that (s)he did not remove the logo from the page (at least not when you are saying so). It was cropped down to just the left portion since it had been challenged as being too high-res (hence the smaller, lower quality version that you replaced). It was cropped simply to lower the resolution, but since it did not represent the full logo and marginalised the JP logo, a smaller version of the full logo was uploaded.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@SexyKick While it is a good idea, I really don't think putting all the logos in one file is going to help (in fact it may hinder - I don't know but there may well be a rule that all logos must be in separate files). Also, your fair use rationale doesn't seem very clear or any more useful than the standard one. Here is what you put (so you don't have to flick back and forth):

"The image is used to identify The image is used to identify the brand Brand identification, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey., a notable product or service. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey. There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: "The Mega Drive was called the Genesis in North America.""

Much of what you have written is duplicated in your version so I have struck out those parts. That leaves us with:

"The image is used to identify the Brand identification, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the [brand,] product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey. There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: "The Mega Drive was called the Genesis in North America.""

Now for the actual content:

"The image is used to identify the Brand identification, a subject of public interest."

Actually, it is used either "to identify the brand" or "as brand identification". If it were to "identify the Brand identification" it would be used to identify whether or not an image is brand identification. Also, I don't really think "a subject of public interest" is relevant, although there's nothing actively wrong with it.

"The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the [brand,] product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey."

I would replace "The significance of the logo is" with "the logos are used". What you have written does not say why they are significant, only what the purpose is.

"There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: "The Mega Drive was called the Genesis in North America.""

I really don't think that is enough to justify it on commentary grounds, especially since it doesn't mention the logos, branding or marketing; and quoting an article which is subject to change could disallow the file if it were to change.

I'd also like to point out that nothing has been said regarding why all three logos are used, rather than just one, beyond "The Mega Drive was called the Genesis in North America", which can only possibly justify the use of the Genesis logo and one other logo.

P.S. My handle is Alphathon, with an "h". Why does everyone always get that wrong? Meh whatever

Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

TBH I just copied the information from the other Mega Drive logo. You're of course free to edit it any way you see fit. I guess I could write another content note about the logos, TBH I was hoping you would do it. I also thought we were trying to keep the "Top:" part of the info box on one line? Maybe your sig should only bold the H in your name? I notice DCE had also removed the non free template, and JM just had to put it back. So I guess he noticed that there is only one image of all three logos? So the number of non free content has been reduced. Yes??--SexyKick 14:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"I also thought we were trying to keep the "Top:" part of the info box on one line?" If possible yes, but a while back it was changed since the Japanese logo was also used on Asian and I believe South American systems (not sure on SA, but definitely Asia), which also use PAL. EDIT: see: Variations of the Sega Mega Drive#Brazil and Variations of the Sega Mega Drive#Asia

"So the number of non free content has been reduced. Yes??" No. The number of non-free files has been reduced, sure, but that single file contains three pieces of non-free content, which is what matters. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think we should go back to just using the left portion of the JP MD logo since it's the only portion that actually appeared on merchandise. [10] (and only the spine at that) I think it was just on Sega's website, attached to the logo image solely for that pages purposes. Having two Mega Drive logos on one line at 250px is still more undue weight than having a 250px Genesis logo under them IMHO, since it's more accurately representing the logos, and coincidentally the market shares of the three main regions of Mega Drive. I'm also going to change the top line to say PAL, and back to Genesis since that MD logo was only used for PAL territories, and calling it the Genesis logo is much more accurate IMHO. I guess I'll put in the content note while I'm at it.--SexyKick 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually It wasn't the only bit used - [11]. The bit at the side was used more frequently, but mainly because it was smaller and therefore more convenient. For an analogy, look at the spine of an old-style PS3 cover such as the killzone 2 one in this forum thread: [12]. On the spine is a small logo used as a patform identifier, which is a cut-down version of the full logo, which is on the front cover (down the left side, in the black strip). Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the content note, and changed the Euro-Stralia caption to say PAL. I didn't change the MD logos to share one line, and I didn't change North American to Genesis as I think we should discuss that here first. Possibly in another section so we can keep that seperate from this.--SexyKick 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See above Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the content note I just made, the fact that the left portion of the JP MD logo is actually the whole logo and basically the changes I've been making. In case you didn't notice the last change I made to the article - I put all three logos back in, rather than using one image, and I added the content note. My hand slipped the first change I went to hit preview with, that's why I think we're confused right now.--SexyKick 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. I'll explain in full, hold on. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude if we're going to be talking this much then perhaps we should talk on AIM or Windows Live Messenger, or maybe even Google Talk?--SexyKick 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right here's the deal. I was replying to multiple different posts of your at once (which you posted before I could reply etc) so that is where the confusion lay - the timeline isn't obvious.

As for talking over IM, no. I used to be into PC games modding and such so added a load of randoms (i.e. people I don't know in real life) to MSN but it turned sour after a while, so now I only IM people I know in person.

Logo Names

PAL should not be used for the Euro/Aus logo, since PAL (technologically speaking ) refers to any system which uses the PAL colour system rather than the NTSC colour system used by the JP and NA consoles. This includes Europe, Australasia, Brazil (and other countries using Brazilian consoles) and non-Japanese Asia. This was not something I knew until DCEvoCE pointed it out with edit (see, (s)he's not all destructive). This is also why the JP logo is called the Asian logo, not the Japanese logo (I do not know if the Brazilian consoles use the Asian, Euro/Aus or a different logo, so it is currently not represented. I'll look into it). Technically France used SÉCAM rather than PAL anyway and it still used the Euro logo. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

However, in this case, PAL is a region which video games are sold in PAL_region. There is a PAL release date. This logo used for Euro/Australia was only used in those PAL regions. IMHO this is more of DCE's nonsense hurting the article (in this case keeping the caption lines to one line each, as well as causing confusion to the editors.) I know he means well though. If we were to follow this line of thinking, then we would have to change the "PAL" release date as well. I'm actually still fine with calling it the JP logo, since Korea only unofficially used it (marketed by Samsung.) Tec Toy used at least two different logos for the systems in Brazil. One was a Genesis styled Mega Drive logo, and another was a red background with the words Mega Drive over it. Still, not logos used by Sega.--SexyKick 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am fully aware of the "PAL region". My point is simply that it is ambiguous. One alternative would be to call it "PAL" or "PAL region" in the caption and have a cite note similar to the "number sold" figure. Basically something along the lines of "PAL refers to the PAL region; that is Europe, Australia and New Zealand. This logo was not used for Asian or South American systems which used the PAL color system". Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See this is why IMing would help a lot. I would suggest we each get Google Talk, and then we'll be the only person on each of our Google Talk lists. But, to my knowledge, the Mega Drive didn't sell anywhere in South America except for Brazil. You haven't said anything about the new content note, or the fact the JP logo is really only the left portion of the image currently in the article. I think it should go back to being on the same line as the PAL Region logo. I think if we called it PAL in the caption, then we need a content note, but calling it PAL region should be good enough, as it's a wiki link.--SexyKick 16:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"or the fact the JP logo is really only the left portion of the image currently in the article"It isn't - I mentioned that above (maybe you missed it). Here is is again (with minor corrections):

Asian logo

It wasn't the only bit used - [13]. The bit at the side was used more frequently, but mainly because it was smaller and therefore more convenient. For an analogy, look at the spine of an old-style PS3 cover such as the Killzone 2 one in this forum thread: [14]. On the spine is a small logo used as a platform identifier, which is a cut-down version of the full logo. The full logo in this case is on the front cover (down the left side, in the black strip).

Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole discussion (sorry), but it wouldn't hurt much to simply remove all the logos. Why? Because:

1. the Genesis logo is already visible on the Genesis console photo and at least one other image in the article;
2. the Japanese Mega Drive logo is already visible on the Mega Drive console photo. There are a few extra fluff on the logo image but I don't think the difference is important at all (the logo as it appears on the logo image is far from commonly used); and
3. the European logo should be removed for consistency's sake per my two previous points, or replaced with a photo of the European console on which the logo or a variation of it appears.

Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, none of the consoles feature those logos. Not the JP Mega Drive console, nor the American console. AL, I see what you're talking about, but it's not actually part of the logo, just that boxes box art. Here is another example, the same way we all know the text isn't part of the Mega CD logo and in the same respect, why aren't we using the whole Genesis logo then? The use of the JP Mega Drive logo is actually extremely consistent, and only the left portion of the image we have is the actual logo itself. You can see on JP instruction manuals, and carts as well - the times they include the logo on them that is. And AL, do you think you could take a look at the new content note and see if you can't think of anything to help make it better?--SexyKick 17:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. That said, to be truly balanced I think if the JP logo is cropped, it needs to be bigger than the current square portion. on it's own it's barely even noticeable, which kinda misses the point. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've just had an idea! Why do the logos have to appear exactly as they do on the box art? Would it not stand to reason that we could use text-only versions using the type-faces within the logos? That would be more tha enough for product identification purposes and since it would be text-only wouldn't have the copyright issues we are discussing. The JP logo could be problematic since, as you said, the main bit of it is the bit that isn't stylised text, but it may be a start - we might be able to use the JP anyway if its the only one since no free image can be used in it's stead. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The JP logo is the whole issue though. We could just take it away, and everything would be fine. And the way I had the JP logo at 48px wide, was bigger than it currently is, but then the PAL R-logo was 198 px wide (with a space in between to add 4px, and so they didn't clash.) We only need to justify the inclusion of the JP logo. BTW great edit in the main article. It looked pretty good IMHO, I even got some compliments about it. (though you said it was ugly)--SexyKick 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get what you mean by the last bit ("BTW great edit in the main article. It looked pretty good IMHO, I even got some compliments about it."). Is it supposed to be the other way around?

Anyway, back on topic. It isn't just the Japanese logo we have to justify - it is all of them at once. If it were just the JP one, there would be no issue. If it were just the PAL one, there would be no issue. If it were just the NA one there would be no issue. The problem is that they are all here at the same time, which is what J was complaining about. Yes, removing the JP logo may solve the problem though (from a non-free stand point; it would be worse from the article's stand point). There is nothing to say that 2 logos wouldn't have the same issue (inapproprate use of non-free images). Anyway, my thinking is that if we use text, since both the PAL MD and Genesis have distinctive enough fonts to serve as product identification etc and won't be copyrighted, so we might be able to use the JP logo. If not, we can always use the text part - something like this. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I wrote that wrong. This talk thing is getting soooo long. (and it's been really hard to keep straight, we could try emailing each other instead...) I meant to say I got compliments for the way I had all three logos in there before, with the JP logo at 48px, the PAL logo at 198px. I just got confused writing.

There is something to say that the PAL logo with the Genesis logo wouldn't have the same issue. It's talked about much more in the article that it's called the Genesis her, instead of there, and it was like that, I believe since the inclusion of any logo at all in the article. So about five years maybe? I'd have to check to be sure. Either way, hopefully the great text you added to the article resolves this issue, and then we can decide whether to leave it as is, or to change the JP logo to only use the left portion.--SexyKick 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding an unreferenced note that multiple logos exist does not suddenly justify three non-free images... Again, you're looking at this in the wrong way... J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I take that to mean the very first thing I said "Should we get rid of the JP Mega Drive logo?" is also the wrong way?? Because that is part of the way I'm looking at it. Because I know for a fact that both the PAL and NA logo were justified already, it all comes down to justifying the JP logo. Everyone but you has thought the use of all three was justified so far. I don't know why you can't understand. I understand we're supposed to limit non-free content as much as possible. So does AL.--SexyKick 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized, doesn't this cover it? "The Mega Drive quite possibly received more officially licensed variations than any other console. While only one major design revision of the console was created during its lifespan, each region has its own peculiarities and unique items, while other variations were exercises in reducing costs (such as the removal of the little-used 9-pin EXT. port) or expanding the capabilities of the Mega Drive.[15]"--SexyKick 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@J Milburn who was that comment addressed to (or what was it in relation to)? The post it appears to be a reply to (due to indentation etc) makes no mention of such a thing so I can only assume it is in responce to SexyKick's cite note mentioning that the split marketing caused there to be multiple logos. If that is the case, then I agree, it does not justify it. I do however feel it is worthy of mention so moved it, reworded it and just now added a CN tag since it does indeed need citation (have not had a chance to look properly yet - I know it to be true, but don't at this point have a source to back it up).

Also, what is your take on my proposition for replacing the logos with free images? As far as I can tell both the PAL Mega Drive and Genesis logos could be replaced with simple text version in their appropriate typefaces, which would not meat the threshold of creativity. I think their distinctiveness is just enough to provide adequate brand identification, but a lot of logos I have seen used state that in order to not misrepresent the company no free alternative could be created, so what's your take?

Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My take on it is that 1.If we have to take a logo away, we're taking the JP logo away. 2.The removal of any of the 3 major logos hurts the article, especially the two for English speaking regions. There are of course, more logos we could have put in the article. [15] but we've already tried to keep it to the bare minimum of the three main regional, concurrent, original Sega produced logos. I don't understand why this is coming seven months after the JP logo was added. It doesn't make sense to not have any of these three logos absent from the article. In the interest of completeness all three need to be there, in the interest of import identification and product identification for all regional visitors who come to the article, all three need to be there. I'm also starting to get the idea that JM is not paying attention to everything we say.--SexyKick 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@SexyKick: I do think you are thinking about it the wrong way. You (SexyKick) seem to be trying to create a reason to have them in the article which is not a good way to go about it - if there isn't a good reason they shouldn't be there in the first place. That said, both you and I think they were justified to begin with so that's kinda moot anyway. J is saying that you should not be trying to insert non-free content and should only do it when it is already justified. However, while you were (seemingly) trying to find a reason to include said non-free image you (SexyKick) have drawn to my attention at least the amount of missing info on things relating to the PAL region and Brazil (and the market separation) and marketing other than that of Sega of America (among other things), so at the very least something has come out of this. Having re-read the article for a bit much of seems a bit lacking, so I fully intend to flesh it out.

"...especially the two for English speaking regions." WARNING! That is Systemic bias! The English speaking region logos are no more important than the JP logo!

Other than that, I agree with that particular post (the one this is a direct reply to) for the most part.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you guys can justify spending all this time arguing then that is fine. English isn't my first language and it takes me way too long to write just a few couple of lines. Anyway, from what I understand though WP isn't a democracy. The goal is not to cater to what a majority thinks is correct but the goal is to provide the correct information. I would also like to remind you guys that everyone can edit Wikipedia. Contributions are not suddenly invalid because someone like SexyKick decides they are and keeps reverting them.

Back on the topic at hand. In case we're going to vote: I say keep the MD logo as the article's name is "Mega Drive" and not "Genesis". Otherwise I'd agree with Megata Sanshiro that no logo is better than three.DCEvoCE (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the "From what I understand though is that WP isn't a democracy" is at least partly directed at my post. Your are correct, but bear in mind it doesn't just apply to you. You edit doesn't suddenly become valid just because you made it any more than it is invalid because of a revert. I am not trying to suggest that any of your edits were "invalid" (whatever that means...I think you may mean constructive) but if you impose your will, don't be surprised if other who disagree with it do the same (hence my post about potential for edit wars etc).

If the edits were to do with adding info that was sourced and relevant, removing unsourced info, removing unambiguously irrelevant info or removing an unambiguous copyright violation then fine, there is right and wrong, a correct and incorrect. If on the other hand the issue is the subject of a current discussion but you ignore it and just do what you want in relation to it, don't be surprised if other editors exercise their right to edit and revert your edits. At best you will piss people off. All it can possibly do is increase tensions between sides of the discussion.

Generally these disputes come about because of ambiguity or differing interpretations of the rules - there is not necessarily a correct or incorrect (valid or invalid?), only what is accepted as probably within the law, so trying to force an opinion is pointless (since other than edit warring there is nothing either side is technically doing wrong).

Maybe you don't care about the article being good, I don't know, but doing things to piss off other editors on something as relatively trivial as a fair-use image dispute is not a good way to improve it. All you will do is create enemies (unfortunately a great many people do hold grudges on these things, which I suspect may already be the case with SexyKick and yourself).

If you have anything else to add to the discussion (such as perhaps reasons for you position) go right ahead. Just remember that if you change an article while a discussion is going on and the outcome is different than your opinion then it will be changed. That is all.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you don't care about the article being good lol, don't be ridiculous. I think my contributions - although only few - were always aimed at turning this into a scientific article. If you think that a screenshot of the arcade version of Virtua Racing along with a statement like "Virtua Racing could hold its own against Star Fox in terms of visuals" make a good article then so be it. DCEvoCE (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

""Maybe you don't care about the article being good" lol, don't be ridiculous. I think my contributions - although only few - were always aimed at turning this into a scientific article."

You seem to have taken that out of context. As you said though English isn't your first language so it's understandable (I tend to use overly-complex language - my mother is a librarian so the complexities of the English language have been fairly prevalent in my life). Those two sentences were intended to make a point, not imply that you were acting in bad faith. Basically they meant "The way you went about this was nonconstructive because it creates conflict between editors, please don't do it again".

I should probably also point out that none of that section was aimed at the removal of screenshots, only the logos, since that is what is being talked about.

I don't think that the Vurtua Racing pic improves the article. The pic certainly could be justified within that section to showcase the hardware capabilities but as it was I agree with either it's removal or a replacement of it's caption. Most of the screenshots are tenuous at best. That isn't what I meant though. As I said, I was only talking about the logos. I apologise for being vague and/or unclear.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to create a reason for them to be in the article. I'm not the one who put any one of them into the article. The reason is already there. That reason is the reason you're trying to keep them included. I'm trying to find the reason they're there that JM will accept. Email would be much easier to work with here since 90% of my posts seem to be to you. We're the only two talking here, and we've made this talk page quite a bit longer than the article. Yeah, it's nice others can come and try to help, but no one is here anymore. I don't know what happened to the people who used to care about the article...but we've been doing a good job of keeping its quality up since it got delisted. I worked hard going through each reference one by one making sure everything was good, I reformatted about 60 of them, and that's over half. I fixed all the citation needed, and dated info, and verification needed tags in the article. Shame it was a week too late for the GA Reassessment, but that's pretty much why I went through and did all that stuff. You're acting like I put these images in the article this week, and am trying to invent a reason they need to be here - when all three logos were in the article before I even edited it once.

All the featured video game console articles include all the regions logos from the time. NES, and SNES...even PS3 even gets to have old and new logos. It's not our fault Sega has three branches that chose to market their region independently, with their own logo, style, and boxes for each software and hardware. NES gets the Famicom Logo, and NES logo, SNES gets the Super Famicom logo, and SNES logo. But the Mega Drive article...its inclusion of all regional logos that were used concurrently with the systems launch, its unjustified for it. Not for the other articles, just for its article.

No, I'm not trying to find a reason for them to be here, because the reason for them to be here was always known to everyone here. You only think I'm looking for a reason, because I'm looking at it from JM's point of view. "All three regional concurrent logos are too much. It's OK that featured video game articles get to have their multiple logos, because that's not what we're talking about today. Today we're talking about the Mega Drive article, I don't care what Jimmy's Mom lets him do, you're not allowed to eat Cheerios."

IE. To JM, there's no reason for the JP logo to be here. OK, so it was the Mega Drive most places, and the Genesis in North America, why are there three logos???

We all know why there's three logos in the article, now make him realize it too. The way we fix this while keeping the most content, is to either find a reason he will accept for the JP logo to be there with the other two, (or in short, the JP logo to be there) or take away the JP logo, since the PAL logo and Genesis logos are already justified. So we either A. Find a reason JM accepts for it being in the article, or B.Take the JP logo away so we can keep the most content in the article. Yes the article is lacking in completeness this way, but unless someone thinks of a way to make JM realize it needs to be here, it's going away so we can get the non-free template removed. The removal of the JP MD logo hurts the article the least.

That's why it's the title of this topic.--SexyKick 21:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'm trying to find the reason they're there that JM will accept."

"You're acting like I put these images in the article this week, and am trying to invent a reason they need to be here - when all three logos were in the article before I even edited it once."

I am not acting that way. It may appear so, to you, but I am not. I know you're trying to find a reason to keep them. What J means is that (s)he considers them to be unjustified from the reasons given and you seem to be trying to find other reasons to have them in the article. I know that you think they are justified already, just as I do (not necessarily for the same reasons - it's quite difficult to tell in this mess. We at least seem to be on the same page though). The problem is that from an outside perspective "I'm trying to find the reason they're there that JM will accept." and "trying to invent a reason they need to be here" seem to be almost the same. I can see that you feel that the reasons are there and that you for the most part just trying to emphasise them. I have no idea how knowledgeable JM is on the Mega Drive, but if the level of knowledge is lacking even slightly I would imagine a lot of your posts would look like "trying to invent a reason they need to be here".

"the PAL logo and Genesis logos are already justified"

"Take the JP logo away so we can keep the most content in the article"

"The removal of the JP MD logo hurts the article the least"

Seriously, the JP logo is no less important than the PAL logo. The original two were presumably justified because Genesis obviously isn't the same as Mega Drive so the two weren't compared in that way. The same justification would hold if it were the JP log and the Genesis one.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, i.e. a collection of knowledge in information. The fact that the encyclopaedia is written in English does not mean that information pertaining to English speakers (in this case most of the people in the PAL region and NA) is more important or noteworthy. Even if it were the case that readership dictated worth, the JP logo is probably just as important as the PAL one, since a great many of its readers are likely to be enthusiasts so are more likely to be familiar with import units. In fact, in NA there are probably more who know the JP logo than the PAL one (since there is little to reason to import PAL games - they are usually inferior on older systems like the MD).

Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I'm glad we're basically on the same page. Let's hope we can square this away ASAP. I don't hold grudges either, I just take things on a case by case basis.--SexyKick 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets clean this up a bit

---

OK, I'm going to take advantage of this relative period of calm to clear this up a bit. I have made this a new sub-section to make it easier to edit (via the edit link on the side) and so that we can sort of reset the thread in terms of what is a reply to what.

Also, while I'm doing so, let's standardise who to reply to something. Basically, when replying to someone, indent once more than the post. Do not just post at the bottom of the page, since that can be very confusing - post replies under the post you are replying to,. If someone else has replied to a post as well, post under their post with the same number of indents so that it is still obvious what the reply is to. To separate them use a line break ({{-}}) since that adds a single line worth of white space. If for whatever reason you want to post somewhere else, make it obvious by using an "@" or a "RE:" or something.

EDIT: When you get to where you would use 6 indents, instead use an {{outdent|:::::}} to push it back to the left edge. The poster after that should use a single :

EDIT 2: different discussion threads can be separated using an <hr/> tag

I don't have time to do it now but tomorrow morning (it's 1:30am here in the UK) I will post in bullet form exactly what my position is on the issue and what I see as possible solutions.

Good night

Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, a random power outage postponed my post, but I've got power back now so here I am (just managed to reply to DCEvoCE before it went down, so I wouldn't have got it done in the morning anyway, but that's neither here nor there really).

Here is how I see the issue:

• The issue seems to be that there is more than one (or more than two) logo(s) in the infobox. As I see it the issue is not specifically due to the JP (Japanese/SE. Asian) logo. As pointed out be SexyKick it would seem that back when there was only the PAL (region) and North American (Genesis) it was considered justified. That said, I am yet to find any proof that it was considered justified to anyone other than to editors of this page, so it may just have been that no-one complained.
  1. For now let's assume that it was the case that it is justified when only the Genesis and PAL Mega Drive logos are present. It seems to me that this is due to the obvious difference in what they represent (i.e. Mega Drive and Genesis). That being the case, presumably the JP logo would also fill the role of the PAL logo in terms of justification. In this scenario it would seem that the objection is that the PAL and JP logos represent the same thing, that is the Mega Drive, and therefore the assumption is that they are interchangeable.
  2. An alternative scenario is that there was simply no previous objection to there being two logos, so the addition of the third simply made the supposed bad situation worse. Again, this assumes that all three logos are interchangeable.
• For most brands etc, only a single, current logo is considered to be allowed under fair use, so if a company undergoes a re-branding only the newer logo may be used unless there is specific reason to justify it (such as a major product re-branding which is discussed within the article).

• As far as I am concerned, neither of the two possible scenarios are valid, since they are based on the false assumption that the logos are interchangeable. The general reason to have a logo in an article (not specific to this article or dependent on commentary) is "to help the reader identify the product or service, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrate branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey". Assuming this applies, no single logo can provide this function within this article specifically. The reason for this is that the PAL logo was only ever used in the PAL region and none of the other logos were used in that region, so only the PAL logo can fulfill this function for users in the PAL region. Likewise, the JP logo was only ever used in Japan and South-East Asia and none of the other logos were used in that region, so only the JP logo can fulfill this function for users in Japan and South-East Asia. Finally, you guessed it, the Genesis logo was only ever used in North America and none of the other logos were used in that region, so only the Genesis logo can fulfill this function for users in North America.
• As a way to better convey this ask yourself these questions: There is a user in North America who has never imported a system. Do either of the other logos "help the reader identify the product or service, assure the reader that they have reached the right article or illustrate branding associations of the product or service"?. As far as I can tell, the only possible answer to the question is no. The same is true if "North America" is replaced with "PAL region" or "Japan/SE. Asia". Therefore, the fair use of each logo applies independently of the other two. The Genesis logo "helps North American readers identify the product or service, assure said readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrates branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey". This does not interfere with either of the other two logos and does not apply to users outside of North America. Likewise the PAL region logo "helps readers in the PAL region identify the product or service, assure said readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrates branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey". Again this does not interfere with either of the other two logos and does not apply to users outside of the PAL region. Finally, the JP logo "helps Japanese and South-East Asian readers identify the product or service, assure said readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about that product or service, and illustrates branding associations of the product or service in a way that words alone could not convey". Once more, this does not interfere with either of the other two logos and does not apply to users outside of Japan/SE. Asia. If need-be, the fair use rationales within the files' pages could be tweaked to indicate that they only apply to a certain population of Wikipedia and that the logos are not interchangeable. If there is an objection to said change, then I don't see the argument, as it would be essentially be arguing semantics.

I have written enough for now, so possible solutions should my take not be accepted as justified etc will be added later. For now, I await responses from you all (especially J Milburn)

P.S. J Milburn, please address my points directly and in as much detail as possible. If my reasoning is flawed or invalid I want to know and I want to know why. This is not so a counter argument can be formulated (although it may be applicable in the case of a misunderstanding for example) but so that I can better understand how Wikipedia handles non-free files so as to avoid such issues in future and so that I may combat them better myself. While you are not obliged to do so under Wikipedia rules, it is very difficult to explain things if you do not communicate. If you are misunderstanding my point, that does not make my justification invalid, but if I don't know of said misunderstanding then I cannot correct your understanding.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I too await JM's response. I hope it will address your points directly, in as much detail, and good faith as possible.--SexyKick 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Image Captions

---

Further to the discussion on the logos, I just thought I'd point out that the descriptions of them as "Asian, PAL, and North American" respectively is maybe a little mixed up. The North American one is fine, but as far as Asia is concerned, the majority of the continent is PAL, Japan being the exception rather than the rule. The "PAL" logo was used (as far as I know) throughout not only the "PAL" areas (excluding those already mentioned in Asia) but in South America, the whole of which, other than Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, uses NTSC, not PAL. France (not sure about Russia or other SECAM countries) also used the "PAL" logo. So isn't the so-called "PAL" logo more of a "worldwide" logo, with the Asian and North American ones being used in their own areas only? Miremare 13:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

France is part of the PAL Region, basically they're regional logos, it's not about who uses NTSC or Secam. Also I don't think we need to show third party Mega Drive logos (which would be South America)--SexyKick 14:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that it isn't any more a "PAL" logo than the Asian one. In fact it's probably less so. Also I haven't referred to any "third party" logos. Miremare 14:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In the caption it is not noted as a "PAL logo," but it is noted as a "PAL region logo" (which is a wikilink.) If the JP logo wasn't used on the Korean MD then we could just call it the JP logo in the caption.--SexyKick 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As SexyKick said, this refers to the PAL region, not regions which use PAL. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't only used in the PAL region, it was used everywhere but NA and Asia. Miremare 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So, PAL Region + S. America then? If you can provide some citation that would be great. As it stands we know that it was the PAL region one, so what is in the article is correct even if it is incomplete.

Since the MD was handled in Brazil by a separate company (TecToy) I would be surprised if it was done elsewhere in S. America by Sega themselves, so the availability of games/systems carrying the PAL region branding may well be because they are PAL region imports or something similar. As I said, if you can find some citation for the use of the PAL region logo in S. America that'd be great.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm fairly sure I've seen S. American units (not sure which country) which use basically the Genesis logo, but with the word changed to Mega Drive (in the Genesis font/style). Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese logo is the Japanese logo. The European logo is the European (& Australian) logo and the North American logo is the North American logo. It's that simple. There is no "PAL logo" as France uses SECAM but still uses said "PAL logo", and Brazil, while PAL-M, had their own logos. As did Korea ("Samsung Super Gam'boy" and China, Taiwan, and Thailand. - @SexyKick, it would be VERY nice if you were to stop the editing war and I highly recommend that YOU provide sources for your claims. Or to put it bluntly: STOP REVERTING MY EDITS! Thank you. DCEvoCE (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you please read what has been said. It says PAL region, not regions which use PAL. Please read the PAL region article before changing it - France uses SECAM, but is in the "PAL region". A lot of S. America uses PAL, but is not. Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so given that the areas named above by User:DCEvoCE used their own logos, (which I wasn't aware of) who's to say that our "PAL" logo was used throughout the PAL region (the article on which notes that the definition of the PAL region varies with manufacturers)? Is there a source stating Sega's definition of the PAL region and what logo/s they used where? If so, fine, but if not I think it would be less prone to misunderstanding to refer to the logo in question as the European, or European and Australasian, logo. Suggest wording the sentence something like "The logos used in Japan, Europe and Australasia, and North America". This statement would at least be verifiably true, unlike what we have at the moment. Miremare 20:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason they had different logos was that they were handled by different divisions of SEGA; Sega of America and Sega Europe handled the N. American and PAL releases respectively (Sega's main office handled Japan). I'm not even sure they officially sold the console outside of S.E. Asia, Europe, Australasia and N. America; so assuming that is the case, for Sega at the time, PAL region = Europe + Australasia. As I said, I'm not sure, but even if it isn't I'm fairly sure they didn't have any other major offices (America and Europe had only just been set up so it wouldn't make much sense to have a Middle East office for example). Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, and Sega only officially sold the console in Europe and Australasia, then wouldn't it be better to use "Europe and Australasia" rather than "PAL region", which at best is unhelpfully vague and has a definition we can't be sure of, and at worst implies the console was released in PAL region territories that it wasn't? Miremare 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the main reason for it being listed as "PAL region" rather than "Europe and Australasia" was to prevent the infobox getting to cluttered - the two images of the console make it bad enough as it is (which has been discussed already - I stand by my position that the Genesis 2 + 32X + Sega CD image should be moved down to the "add-ons" section for the same reason, but SexyKick wouldn't have it; this is not the place to discuss it though). I wouldn't opposed to having "Europe and Australasia" other than adding clutter to the infobox, but as it stands the caption is on two lines anyway so it wouldn't make much difference. What I was really objecting to was it being changed to "Europe" by DCEvoCE, since that is incomplete, and you saying it is not a PAL logo since it is not used in some places that use PAL TVs. In this situation "PAL region" and "Europe and Australasia" are interchangeable; the PAL region varies form company to company anyway, so to say that it "implies the console was released in PAL region territories that it wasn't" is just false, since said territories are not set in stone. As I said though, I am not against calling it "Europe and Australasia" and have in fact changed it to that a few times myself (usually from "Europe" to be fair, but you get the idea). Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That the PAL region varies doesn't mean there's no implication if we're linking to a list of countries that are usually grouped into that region. But I'm glad we agree about the change, if not the reason for it. Regarding the infobox, I missed the discussion about it, but there's certainly too much in it image-wise. For what it's worth, I think we could lose or move the Japanese logo, and the 32X etc image would, as you say, better suit the add-ons section. Superfluous infobox images would very likely prevent the article getting back to GA status, which is as good a reason as any for a cull. Miremare 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about the possible implication, but I don't really think it's relevant; it is a caption for a logo which explains where it was used; it is not there to tell anyone where it was sold. Regardless, the "European & Australasian" version has 0% chance of such an implication, so is probably the better choice. With regard to the discussion of the images it's further up at #Multiple images in the infobox. Aside: You see SexyKick, this is why I prefer to do this stuff on the talk page. As for removing the JP logo, please read the rest of the thread (starting at the "Lets clean this up a bit" header) to see why I disagree. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reworded it to say European/Australasian. Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Korean Mega Drive 2 and the caption on this both prove the JP logo should be called the Asian logo.--SexyKick 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Super NES gets to have to have both models of itself in the info box, as well as the NES article, and PS3 article. All three are featured articles. I doubt we'll come across a better Genesis 2 image than the one pictured. It certainly isn't a reason it would fail GA, and shouldn't be a reason to fail FA either, based on the other three articles. The Mega Drive is so expansive, and has so much to it, and that info box image really helps. As well as provides undue weight to an actual Genesis console, the product name under which it experienced the most success.--SexyKick 05:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with the second image is that it poorly illustrates the console itself. It's too cluttered, with the Sega CD and 32X, neither of which are the subject of the article and so don't need to be illustrated there. If you want a Genesis 2 in the infobox that's all very well and good, but due to the 32X on top, we can't see the Genesis logo, so how do we know it's a Genesis? :) Infobox images are to aid recognition of the subject, which is why this image is unsuitable IMO. Miremare 11:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Korean Mega Drive 2 and the caption on this both prove the JP logo should be called the Asian logo." - There is _no_ Korean Mega Drive. It's called Samsung Super Gam*boy like I wrote in my previous post. It's got a logo in Korean letters.

And regarding the MD logo in Asia: There are several countries in Asia, and personally I guess that they switched to the Japanese logo in ~1993 in some regions, but prior to that they had their own logo, at least in in some regions in Asia, as shown in this picture. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure it's called the Super Aladdin Boy, but that's not really relevant. As for having both images in the infobox, the main issue is that it increases the vertical size a great deal and essentially turns it from an infobox to a picture box; when you go to the page you see the images, not info. Besides, this article is about the Mega Drive/Genesis, not the add-ons, so featuring them in the infobox is not really appropriate. I have semi-reverted your changes (I have retained the game screenshots but re-added the MD2+add-ons pic to the section (on the left) as well as removing the second image from the infobox). I have another proposition though - the problem with the images the way they are is their vertical size. What I plan to do is to make a hybrid image of the Japanese MD & the JP MD2 image from the variations article and put them side-by-side (like in the NES and PS3 articles) in the infobox so as to keep the vertical size down. For now I have done it using divs like in the NES article. Basically the reason it might hurt its FA/GA status is the clutter, not the fact that there are two images. Regardless, you are but one person SexyKick and it would seem that no-one else agrees with you about the image use. Alphathon^TM (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious it is a Genesis 2; there is no way it another device and it is clearly a Genesis as the buttons are black (and the add-on says Sega-CD not Mega-CD, which is circumstantial but implies it) Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and DCE that picture doesn't even have the Korean Mega Drive's box, which is the only place they ever put the Asian logo on the system anyway. Both of the Korean models have the Asian logo on the box.--SexyKick 17:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Alphathon: I had to look it up myself, and it first was called Super Gam*boy as the Master System was called Gam*boy, while a later release was renamed to Super Aladdin Boy: Link

@SexyKick: It's interesting that you don't know much about this console (nor Wikipedia for that matter, referencing other articles instead of WP's guidelines on how to write an article) yet you act like you'd know everything. And even if confronted with proof you deny its relevance or factual accuracy. So, for the 4th of 5th time (including the explanations provided to you on my talk page): The Korean models did _not_ have an Asian logo on the box. They were not called "Mega Drive" which is exactly why they did not use the "Mega Drive" logo. Sega itself did _not_ distribute nor manufacture the Korean models. It was Samsung. However, there seems to be a late 90s version distributed by Sega itself. But that was post 1995, when the console was well beyond it's prime: "They were released much later in the consoles life as a cheap games system for those on a budget." DCEvoCE (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the Master System was called Gam*boy, the Master System 2 was the Aladdin Boy, the Super Aladdin Boy was the Mega Drive and the Super Aladdin Boy II was the Mega Drive 2. [16] Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That said, I don't really think it matters that much to the discussion - we both know what is being talked about. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sega-CD & 32X images

---

While we're on the subject of images, we have three game screenshots in the article (Sonic CD, Doom, Virtua Racing), all of which appear to illustrate the same thing - that various hardware add-ons could improve performance. Fair enough, but I think we could get away with only illustrating that concept once, (and once again I think it's important to bear in mind that this article isn't about the Mega CD or 32X) and perhaps add an image of an actual Mega Drive game to better show its capabilities. Probably not worth making such major changes before bringing it up here though. Miremare 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the other featured articles such as the Super NES article get to have multiple pictures of games to demonstrate the different abilities added by add ons or capabilities of the system itself. Sega CD added Mode 7, the SVP added heavy polygon pushing, and the 32X added tons of colors (the Mega Drives main limitation,) plus the ability to push true 3D games.--SexyKick 17:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, which is why I removed the Mega-CD & 32X images in my initial edit. They all demonstrate slightly different things and are not interchangeable, but the way they are used is tenuous (except for the virtua racing one as that shows how gfx chips could be integrated into games which cannot really be deferred to another article unless a virtua processor article is made). I would say they are probably not justified. Really, the Mega-CD and 32X pics belong in the Mega-CD and 32X articles, bot here. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the guy who put the image there to being with? That proves I'm not the only one who agrees with it being there. BTW the info box is extremely ugly right now, with the super small images and what not. I don't understand why we can't have it look as good as possible, like it was. Nor do I understand why, if we absolutely have to move that picture, why we are using a really ugly old version of it?? We can't have consoles side by side either, as the info box needs to stay at 250px wide.--SexyKick 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also if it wasn't for the damn non-free issue, I would have put the article back up for GA review by now. I would have really preferred moving stuff around for the reviewers.--SexyKick 17:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"BTW the info box is extremely ugly right now, with the super small images and what not."

Says you. I disagree, but regardless it isn't the point. It is an infobox, not a picture box. The pictures are there to provide identification, not to look pretty.

"Nor do I understand why, if we absolutely have to move that picture, why we are using a really ugly old version of it??"

It isn't any older than the Genesis 2 really. It is simply the slightly older Japanese version. P.S. that is not a question.

"as the info box needs to stay at 250px wide."

Why does it? it was ~260px before anyway (250 for the images, ~5px padding either side)

Please do not revert before discussing it.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, 5x padding. I will keep that in mind. The info box is ugly though. All of those pictures would look much better with the standard 250px width. The second info box image was perfect too. The first shows the original Mega Drive, then the second picture shows the final, complete Genesis. For identification purposes, IMHO that picture was a dream come true.--SexyKick 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "complete" Genesis - it is a Genesis with add-ons. The add-ons are not part of the Genesis. It could be described as a complete "Sega-CD 32X" or something to that effect, but not a complete Genesis. The Genesis is the base console. Also, it is not what the article is about - it is about the base console. The add-ons have their own articles. Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not just simply just about the Mega Drive, it's about everything Mega Drive. It's about the history, launch, add on systems, peripherals, rivival. The reason the article is so long is because the consoles life was so storied and expansive. The Genesis with the 32X and Sega CD attached is how the main system ended its initial run.--SexyKick 18:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well in that case why isn't every controller, game, regional variation and accessory represented in the infobox? The Mega-CD and 32X are not part of the console - they are closer to peripherals than parts of the console. What about the Wondermega, or the various clones etc. The add-ons are no more relevant to this articles infobox than the Kinect is to the 360 article, or the Memory Pak is to the N64 article etc. They may get a mention and pic in the article, but not in the infobox (assuming decent non-free images without them exist). The Article is about the Mega Drive/Genesis. The add-ons are related to it and are therefore mentioned in the article, but they are not part of the console. Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please use outdents. It keeps the page tidy. Rather than :::::: (6 colons), use {{outdent|:::::}} (outdent with 5 colons). Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it would be ridiculous to put 3rd party, and clone console in an infobox. Or games, or screen shots, etc. That's not what the picture is of. The picture is of the hardware complete Genesis 2 combo. Like, this info box is going a tad too far.--SexyKick 19:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't of a "complete Genesis 2" though. Obviously it would be ridiculous to have screenshots (which I didn't mention btw) but it is equivalent to having all the possible accessories (network adapter, lightguns etc). They add capabilities to play certain games etc that are not available be default, just as the 32X and Sega-CD do.

Yes, the Saturn article goes a bit far, but I think the Genesis 2/32X/Sega-CD one does as well. The Saturn article would probably be better with the black one under the infobox in its place. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you're using internal links, just use piped links like this [[Sega Saturn|this info box is going a tad too far.]] rather than external links. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

TBH I didn't feel like making up the wiki link, it was way easier to do it the other way, since I had to search for the article that I vaguely remembered had games in the info box. I know other people agree with me on this, because I've seen people talking about how nice the picture looked in this article, on forums. Obviously I can't ask anyone to come and say they support the image being there...but the way it is now is extremely ugly, and the way it was before was great, especially for identification purposes. I don't think any part of it went too far...even the PS3 infobox picture shows the consoles controller. <joke>If anything, the second picture was just too good at its job, and made other articles jealous, sending out their projections of fake editors to change this articles infobox. I mean, look at all the issues with the logos, and the captions all coming up in the last couple weeks. When we went months without issue. And you know, I didn't see any of you guys springing to fix Tom B's reasons for GA delisting. I'm the only one who worked on fixing them, and none of them were related to the infobox. This just serves as proof that the PS3 article is now sentient, and all of you are projections of its new found FA power.</joke>--SexyKick 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"the way it is now is extremely ugly, and the way it was before was great, especially for identification purposes."

You're doing it again - you're stating your personal opinion about the how it looks as a fact. As I said, I disagree. It is your opinion, not a fact. As for identification, it is not identifying the Mega Drive or the Genesis, it is identifying a group of accessories and add-ons which are related to the console, but are not the console - again, the article is about the console, not the accessories or add-ons.

"I didn't see any of you guys springing to fix Tom B's reasons for GA delisting. I'm the only one who worked on fixing them, and none of them were related to the infobox. This just serves as proof that the PS3 article is now sentient, and all of you are projections of its new found FA power."

Lolwut? I haven't even looked at the reasons for its delisting. I don't really care why it was delisted and I am not working to get it back there. I am trying to improve it where I can as things come to me. I am not looking for info to improve the article, but if I can proved things which improve it, all the better. Apart from that, it doesn't matter that you are only one who worked on fixing them - that doesn't make you right. I have never claimed that the images would stop it from being made a GA/FA, only that I think it it is better the way it is (again, this is an opinion, but one that would seem to be shared by others, at least superficially) and that Miremare said it may get in the way of GA/FA.

As for the PS3 bit, WTF are you talking about? (Was it a joke? Tone is not well conveyed over the internet)

P.S. This is reply to your unedited message; I have not read the edited version yet.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a joke. Hence the <joke> and </joke> tags. I guess I should have bolded them so they would spring out more. My bad. I'm sorry it seems as if I'm stating my opinion as fact, but I didn't say it was a fact, or my opinion. Obviously it was my opinion, I should have been more clear and said IMO, but I thought it was obvious.--SexyKick 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not how the English language works. As I understand it, if you make a statement it is to be considered that you are stating it as fact unless there is a qualifier for some other thing. That can be irony, joke, opinion etc. In spoken language, tone can do this quite well for things like irony, but for opinion, especially in text form, you need to be clear. As I said, I replied to your un-edited post, so before you added the joke tags. Also, in reference to the PS3 and the controller, it needn't be there either, but it is a bundled item with all consoles (in either DualShock 3 or Sixaxis form...which look essentially identical anyway) so has slightly more reason to be there than the 32X and Sega-CD. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I uh, didn't put the joke tags in later, I didn't get what you were talking about with the edited message thing. They were there from the start. No worries, and I'll be sure to use IMO and IMHO more often that I already do (which if often, but clearly not often enough)--SexyKick 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well maybe I just missed them. I don't know. Whatever, doesn't really matter. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Miremare: SexyKick added these images. All of them. I tried to remove some of them but he kept reverting my edits (and still does, no matter which topic I edit). His reasons are "other articles" and that "You need to learn how WP works". Before his edits, this was a WP:GA but since his/her edits it got delisted. I am really frustrated with this person. DCEvoCE (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, SexyKick does seem to do that (use other articles as examples and talk as if in authority). This is not common law. It is based on fixed rules, not what has been decided in previous cases. Not sure that the De-listing was related to SexyKick's edits though (which seems to be what you're implying. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh...I'm starting to think you're kind of a jerk DCE, you keep attacking me. It says on each picture who added the picture, and the only three pictures I added were for the SVP, and add ons section. You do need to learn how wikipedia works, and that quote comes right off your talk page from me being nice to you, in reference to the fact that you could have placed your source for the different logos here on talk, but you kept choosing not to, saying I shouldn't be reverting what at the time was unproven information. This was a GA, and it was delisted because of dead sources, unsourced statements, dated info, and verification needed tags. I, and only I, was the one to fix every single one of those problems. I didn't see any of you helping to fix those problems after Tom B pointed them out, and Tom B was also the one who delisted the article for those same reasons. I'm sorry I didn't fix them sooner. I also went through every single one of the references, and fixed the syntax, and added the date accessed tag to every one that didn't. I'm sorry you don't like me, and I'm sorry you feel the need to attack me. I also already went through another incident with those three images and the person who added the non-free content tag. The content tag is there because of the logos, and not anything else. This has been verified. If you would start trying to read clearly (no offense,) you wouldn't have these problems. You kept reading "PAL region Logo" as "PAL Logo" which is completely different, and now you need my reverts on those images as "You need to learn how WP works" because you read that statement out of context. This is why I hate bringing things up on talk. I should have handled the logos issue myself, and avoided all this trouble.--SexyKick 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I brought it up with JM before you posted here. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true, you did. I should also note that I read when preparing a featured article, or justifying article content for FA review, that it was a good idea to take other FA's of the same genre as examples. So yeah, citing other featured articles style is what I believe to be good protocol, so long as its used in context and follows the narrative of the article.--SexyKick 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a fine way of justifying a GA/FA review, but should not be used to justify individual things (use of non-free images etc). That is done on a case be case basis.

As for the use of the Genesis image in the add-ons section, the reason I chose the other one is that it does not include the controllers (so is more completely relevant to the section) and is vertically smaller so doesn't interfere with the "32-bit era and beyond" section. On my screen (1920×1200) it indents the heading and the first line of that section, but my version does not. Also, the Genesis version has clearly had all colour removed from it so it doesn't look real - it looks doctored (because it has been); The PAL version has not. Honestly, the only possible reason I can think of for you preferring it is that it is a Genesis, not a Mega Drive.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Err, everything in that picture is black and white. There aren't any colors in Genesis hardware. It is a much higher quality picture in every way too...--SexyKick 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. It's difficult to explain if you don't deal with photographs at at least a semi-professional level. The true colour of the console is dependent on the ambient light - and there is no true white ambient light (at least not on earth). This text may look grey but it is in fact slightly blue. It is very subtle, but that image has been edited and is not accurate to life. Incidentally, the same is true of the Saturn 3D controller image used on various pages. Both have had all colour removed. If you open an image editing program and look at the Mega drive 2 pic I put in the infobox, you should see it is ever so slightly blue. The Mega Drive 1 one is blue, green and purple in various places. It's to do with how the eye works that we see in as black and white as our eye compensates for the natural ambient light - when it is actually black and white it looks, um, wrong or unnatural, as nothing in this world in completely black and white. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if there is another version of it somewhere which hasn't been desaturated I could restore it. I will agree that overall (other than the saturation thing) the Genesis one is better at full size, but at the scale used in the article, there is no visible difference in quality. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems there is another version of this image here, which actually suggests it is a possible copyright violation. I don't know if it is (there is no reason to think that they weren't uploaded by the same user, or the this one wasn't original taken from Wikipedia or whatever) so I don't think there is a great deal of point in perusing a violation case thing, although if I can find an appropriate template I'll add it. Anyway, from that I can restore the colour and remove the slight yellow-brown tinge it has (reflection of the walls). Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done The difference is subtle, but it is no longer black-and white. Notice the distinction between the front and where the cable comes out of the six-button controller; it is now clearly distinct as the light is hitting it differently Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea how complicated this is with you refusing to post your new messages at the bottom of the page. lolol--SexyKick 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I have to edit it as well :P. At least this way you can see what everything is a reply to. If I just put it at the bottom of the page it would turn into the mess that is the first part of this ridiculous thread. Incidentally I did a check and it takes up 32 pages of A4 paper (roughly the equivalent of US letter paper but used by the whole of the rest of the world...when will the US learn eh?) at standard text size (12pt I think). Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, if this was a discussion between 2 people, posting at the bottom would be a no-brainer, but since there are several of us (you, me, DCEvoCE, X201 (briefly), J Milburn and Miremare...I think that's everyone) and several different issues (use of the logos, use of screenshots, use of the add-ons image etc) it isn't really plausible. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seems the Saturn image has been featured on Joystiq, so it would seem they broke the terms of the CC licence. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"I'm starting to think you're kind of a jerk DCE, you keep attacking me." - Well, you gotta ask yourself this: Who reverted my edits, spammed my talk page accusing me of vandalism and kept reverting my edits even after being repeatedly asked not to (and instead to add additional info) ? And now you threaten to report me ? This just keeps getting better and better.

"I didn't see any of you helping to fix those problems" - You gotta be kidding...!? You reverted every single edit that I did during the past four weeks, starting with this version which you reverted with this edit, when by the way it still was a Good Article.

Here's the comparison between both edits. DCEvoCE (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What do those edits prove other than the fact you were removing sourced statements from the article? If you want, I can message Tom B for quad clarification of why he delisted the article. From your talk page: "If you continue to attack me, I will have to bring this up on the incidents board." The incidents board is not the same thing as getting reported, once again, no offense, you need to learn wikipedia more. Talking to you on your talk page is not spamming you.--SexyKick 21:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits aimed at removing all bias, speculation and weasel words from the article so it would focus on facts and to give it a more neutral, scientific point of view. I started with editing the "Console Wars" section but that's where you put my efforts to an halt by starting an edit war that lasts until now.

Let me sum it up from my perspective: I asked you to stop spamming my talk page but you did not and still do not respect that. I asked you to stop reverting my edits and instead add the information you want to add but you did not and still do not respect that. I tried removing a few of the images and logos from the article and you kept reverting. I tried to fix the description of said images and you kept reverting. Please stop reverting my edits! and stop threatening and insulting me. Thank you! DCEvoCE (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I have insulted you, and if I did and either forgot or didn't notice. Then I'm sorry. But you can't just remove things from the article without talking about it, or collaborating with other editors who actually actively, constantly editing the article. It's not good practice. I still stand by my claim that your talk page is the method of talking to you, and if I have something to say to you, then it is not spamming your talk page, I don't mean to use the incidents board as a thread, but you clearly have a hatred of me, and the incidents board is I believe where you take an issue like that to.

If I want to edit something on the Super NES article, I have to talk to Anomie. If Anomie disagrees with me, then we talk about why does he disagree with me, and we work towards seeing eye to eye. In the rare event I don't see eye to eye with someone after a few talks, then I go to the talk page of whatever article that may be.

If you notice a piece of the article with bias and weasel words, and you edit it, and it gets reverted, please, take it up with the editor who reverted it on their talk page. If you wind up not seeing eye to eye, then take it to the talk page of the article.

To me, it seemed like you just blatantly removed everything about the Sega Anser, Tom, etc, plus, maybe things seemed bias to you that weren't actually bias. Talking here, as well as talking with other editors is a good way to get to the bottom of these things. Close to every time I revert something that isn't obvious vandalism, I write why in the edit summary. I see you generally ignore what's in the edit summary when you click on view history. Like how every time I reverted your caption editing, I wrote to talk about it on the talk page, and instead of that, you would just edit it again. Also, there's no edit war going on in the Console Wars section, so I don't get what you refer to.

This isn't the place to discuss this hatred you have of me, so if my comments here have not resolved your issue with me, then we'll need to go on over to the incidents board and see what other people think...also, since this is not the place to talk about this, I would have placed this on your talk page. However, you clearly think it's disrespectful to talk to you on your talk page, so I will place this comment here for now.--SexyKick 23:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also AL wasn't happy about you removing images either, and said something to you about it being disruptive as well.--SexyKick 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify and set the record straight, that was with regard to one edit when DCEvoCE was providing a "solution" to the logo issue. I felt that it was disruptive to impose his will on the page while a discussion was going on. The does not apply to anything else that was removed by him. I am not necessarily condoning it either, just pointing out that that statement only applies to the logos

P.S. I am constantly referring to you all as "him" or "he". This is not very politically correct (although likely correct since the majority if wikipedia editors are white, educated males between the ages of 18 and 35...and so are gamers) so if any of you is not a male, please let me know so that I don't use gender specific terms inappropriately.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't hate you on a personal level. I don't even know you. I just can't and won't accept your constant reverting of edits by me and others. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean others who reverted your edits??--SexyKick 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant your reversion of edits by him and your reversion of edits which other people made (such as my edits). That's how I read t anyway. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"by me and others" means the edits by me and others that you keep reverting.

I think your proposal to talk things through (essentially getting your approval) prior to being allowed to edit the article is unacceptable. It took several days trying to explain to you that the Japanese logo is not necessarily the Asian logo because China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand and Korea had different logos. If you take a look at the current version of the article, you'll see that it still reads "Asian" logo. That is one word. It took days trying to change one single word - without success. And you still don't accept the proof provided to you, and insist on keeping your edit, and revert edits by others that try to correct this mistake. I think this is unacceptable. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I see two sides here which both have a point. SexyKick, there is no reason whatsoever to talk about such things on a personal level when it affects a public project such as wikipedia. This is not about who wins or looses, but about what is wrong or right. DCEvoCE, you seem a little too ready to remove content, sourced or otherwise, which may or may not improve the article. If your edit is only a removal (which it often has been) and the content is sourced don't be surprised if someone such as SexyKick reverts it and asks for an explanation.

On this specific issue, I think for now it should say Japanese. Why? Well we can prove it was the Japanese logo. We know it was the Japanese logo. If it was used later in other parts of S.E. Asia, then it should read asian but have a cite note that clarifies when it was used and that there were other logos used in that region (if that is indeed the case). This should not be done until we have a reliabe source for it however. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll post again, more evidence (no point in reposting evidence everyone ignores, so I went and got more) notice where it says it's not allowed to be sold in Japan or Korea. Irrefutable proof that it's the asian logo, right there on the spine.--SexyKick 01:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, although at the risk of sounding cliché, it looks shopped (I can tell by some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time*); could be the result of a bad scanner, bad compression or poor optimisation though. Regardless, it would seem a cite note is still in order to clarify about the Genesis-style logo used on the front cover.

* This is a joke based on the internet meme [17]

Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record BTW, it should be noted that I didn't really look at what you had already posted since it was in the middle of the "discussion"* between the two of you.

* The urge to say argument is almost unbearable lol

Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not photo shopped, it's from this website which compiles a vast amount of cover art from many countries. You should take a look, and examine more cover art.--SexyKick 01:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I believe you. It just looks a bit "off". As I said (and I quote): "could be the result of a bad scanner, bad compression or poor optimisation though.". Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the abundance of new Mega Drive logos probably should mean we remove the asian Mega Drive logo, and have only the mostly widely used Mega Drive logo, along with the Genesis logo (since it's a different name, and actually talked about extensively in the article) just like it was before the asian logo was added. J_Milburn at the very least implied that we only needed to remove the duplicate Mega Drive logo, and from seeing the (at least 2) new Mega Drive logos, I think he's right. It's not like we can have all the 5 concurrently used logos. So I think we either keep the PAL region logo (more likely,) or switch it to be the new-not-in-article Asian logo (which includes the JP logo in the top half anyway.)--SexyKick 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the Japanese logo on the spine, alright. - I was talking about the golden logo though, which would equal the North-American Genesis, European Mega Drive, or Brazilian Mega Drive logo. - There are even Asian releases featuring the the European logo (see Chiki Chiki Boys on the left). Here's another one. And then there are some later Asian releases featuring yet another logo variant. And the Samsung Super Gam*boy / Super Aladdin Boy logos are basically the console's name(s) in Korean letters from what I can tell: Example 1. Example 2. The photos you were referring to several times in the past seem to be a late 90s version distributed by Sega itself: "They were released much later in the consoles life as a cheap games system for those on a budget."

I propose that if we keep the Asian label for the logo, we do add a footnote explaining this mess. On the other hand I still think it would make much more sense to identify this logo as the Japanese logo which everyone knows is correct as can be verified by linking to Sega's official website. DCEvoCE (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the Japanese logo for it is the original logo designed for the console by its original manufacturer and propose that instead we remove the European and maybe even the Genesis logo (as the article's topic is the Mega Drive, not just the Genesis). DCEvoCE (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, now it seems like we're moving. I wish I could post the box of my Korean Mega Drive, that features both Super Aladdin Boy logo, and JP Mega Drive logo. I don't care which Mega Drive logo we keep personally, as long as we keep one of each the Mega Drive, and Genesis. Taking away the Genesis logo while keeping a Mega Drive logo creates bad undue weight. DCE, I realize you weren't around when everyone was fighting over whether or not to call the newly merged Genesis+Mega Drive article, Genesis, or Mega Drive. A foot note seems well deserved for the sheer amount of logos. Maybe a link to a page on the different logos would be in order?? Also, since most of them are simply bordered type face, they quality for {{PD-textlogo}} and we could probably put all of them in the article. But I don't know about the info box, five logos in the info box, even since they were concurrently used, seems like it's starting to be a bit much.

I hope we've reconciled our differences then?--SexyKick 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that such a page really has enough notability to exist. I don't see any reason why it couldn't just be placed in this article in its own section though. Alphathon^TM (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need necessarily make such a distinction between the "Japanese" logo and the gold one. The latter is just a variation of the former. The "MD" and "Mega Drive" elements are what make the logo in both cases, and are present in both, in the same typefaces, just arranged differently. As an aside, and I don't have a source for this, but I have had an Asian PAL Mega Drive since 1991 (grey imports being popular in the UK at the time due the the lower price point compared to the official European version, and the ability to play imported games without modification) which does indeed feature the original "Japanese" logo, so so I'm certain it was used outside of Japan in its original form before the likely later "gold" version. Miremare 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, here is one the same as mine on ebay, featuring the original "Japanese" logo. Note also the "PAL-I" logo, showing that this is an Asian console, rather than a Japanese one, where of course PAL consoles don't work. If the Wikipedia article on PAL is correct, this console originated in either Hong Kong or Macau. Miremare 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a distinction does need to be made, but since they're so similar it can be done in prose. Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@Miremare: I think it's easy to generalize when there are individual examples that proof your point. There are however also are examples that do proof the opposite and those are much more interesting in regards to this discussion. This applies to the Samsung Super Gam*boy / Super Aladdin Boy as well as to the Taiwanese "Mark V" (yeah, never heard about that either until yesterday). Both of these countries are part of Asia but don't use the Japanese logo. On the other hand, like I said, by now it's pretty obvious that there are both, Asian consoles and Asian games, that do use the Japanese logo.

Again: I propose that if we keep the Asian label for the logo, it would be wise to add a footnote explaining what we know. On the other hand I still think it would make much more sense to correctly identify this logo as the original Japanese logo as can be verified via the manufacturer's official website.

This is of course my personal opinion and I don't think I will participate in any further discussion nor edit wars over this. DCEvoCE (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: @Alphathon: I really like the idea of the Japanese model 1 + model 2 in the article's infobox. But I wonder if it wouldn't look better to arrange them vertically instead of horizontally like it is now ? DCEvoCE (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I trued that but the difference in scale caused issues - it made the MD2 overly large or gave an odd stepping effect. Wasn't really any better than the old pic for clogging up the infobox either. Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DCEvoCE: I don't think it's fair to dismiss the PAL Asian Mega Drive as an "individual example" that makes it "easy to generalise". These were mass-produced machines made in their tens of thousands, I'm not citing something rare or outside the norm here. I don't think it's really disputable that the original Japanese logo was used outside of Japan, as we have seen it on both machines and games linked in this discussion, nor do we really have any good reason for assuming that it wasn't used. I don't see how there are "examples that prove the opposite", as all that's being said here is that the original logo was used outside of Japan, not that no other logos or variants of the logo were ever used - of course they were, and nobody is disputing that.

But I don't believe the Asian logo situation is quite as chaotic as you think - other than the original "MD" logo, we only have the gold logo (which as you say was presumably introduced to bring it more in line with the later NA and EU logos) both of which are on the Sonic 3 cover you linked[18]. The text-only variant as seen on the Sonic and Knuckles cover[19] wasn't Asia-specific, all regions had changed to this style of box by that time, with "Mega Drive" or "Genesis" written down the side of the box instead of the previously used logos, so nothing unusual there. Other than that, there's the two boxes that you linked with the European logos, but these are simply European imports. Finally there's the Samsung Super Gam*boy/Super Aladdin Boy, but that is a licenced variant produced by another company who used their own name and logo, so has no bearing on the logo/s that Sega themselves used. Miremare 02:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that the 32X, Sega-CD, and Virtua Processor pictures are some of the most important, and useful pictures in the article and In my opinion they should stay. There's a lot of misinformation about the capabilities of the two addons floating around and the screenshots succeed better than anything at illustrating exactly what the two things did. The only thing I would suggest is that the Doom picture be changed for a Virtua Fighter picture as the main feature of the 32X was its polygon capabilities, this would then be clearly showing the scaling of the Sega-CD, and the polygon capabilities of the 32X to anyone not familiar with the Mega Drive, these pictures would also compliment the sprite based 2D picture of Sonic the Hedgehog earlier in the article for the base system. Apart from those pictures being removed, I have absolutely no idea why the picture of someone's kitchen floor is still in the article, if any picture is completely without usefulness then its clearly that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus.arnold (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the JP/PAL logo

---

Regarding a possible imminent edit war between DCEvoCE and SexyKick, I would say that yes, the issues has been discussed at length, but that "...we agreed to remove the European logo, not the original Japanese logo." by DCEvoCE is plainly false (nothing regarding the logos has been agreed upon) and that removal of the JP logo (or any other logo) is unacceptable at this point. What remains is the status quo, i.e. all 3 logos. We have presented the case for their inclusion and it has not been countered as yet. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It won't be countered, JM thinks we're wrong, and he doesn't "argue" or "debate" when he thinks people are wrong. Me, and Anomie think the JP Logo constitutes {{pd-textlogo}} but unfortunately it has to do with discussion, and understanding...and JM doesn't think it's a text logo, so that's just me and Anomie. If it's a text logo, problem solved. Styled text is still text, and the M, and the D, are clearly just stylized text. We should obviously put the asian logo up there instead though, because the asian logo includes the JP logo in the top half, and still constitutes text logo. I don't think DCE realizes that only the left half of the JP logo is the actual JP logo, the right half is just the system name the way it appeared on the lower right hand corner of the Mega Drive. Now, there's no reason to keep the article itself in a mess, with tags that don't need to be there. We'll keep the JP logo in for now instead of the PAL region logo, since that will cause less fighting. There's no reason to keep the non-free tag there, and we should probably take out the citation needed statements unless we can find citations for them...and then we can put them back in when we do find citations.--SexyKick 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Will we really keep the JP and remove the PAL logo? How is that any better than the other way around? TBH before we do anything of the sort, we should probably work on a proper description of the marketing differences (rather than just having multiple unmentioned logos) since assuming we can source the info, it is notable for inclusion. As for removing "citation needed" statements - why? If you know something to be true, try to find a citation before removing it, not after. That way there is an incentive to do so (and it is why the tag exists in the first place).

P.S. I don't think the JP logo qualifies as a {{pd-textlogo}} as it is not simply text in a typeface, but it is certainly debatable and I am no expert on the matter.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if it isn't countered, is that not a round about way of saying you have reached the burden of proof (we have provided proof that hasn't been refuted). If that isn't the case, random trolls could just come along and say "this article isn't notable" but not reply to any reasons why it is and it would have to be deleted. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me AL, (one of the reasons I had removed the non-free content logo before, without removing the logos,) but I've tried to find sources for the two unsourced statements, and I can't. So, it's not like I haven't tried. I'm pretty good at finding sources too, and I give up. Your turn??? I want to be done with the whole non-free content thing so DCE can stop mistaking the screenshots in the article for non justified content - as it was all already resolved before the whole logos thing even came up.--SexyKick 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the screenshots as they were before were barely justified other than the Virtua Racer one which was clearly justified IMHO. Also, I'll have look. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when talking about multi-region marketing, surely the differences in the box art (which are still seen today but not to nearly the same degree) would be relevant (and fairly easily sourced). Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And yeah, if you don't think that the JP/Asian logo constitutes text logo, then for now, until we add more sources and info, we'll just have to live with two logos. Me and Anomie think it's textlogo. So, one more person would be helpful. Study the textlogo requirements.--SexyKick 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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