Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Second model names consensus request

I'm looking to tackle the sections one at a time as part of the touch-up, as well as the content forks that make little sense (i.e. Sega Net Work System). First section I already have done, as the massive edition covering the Sega v. Accolade issue. Next section I would like to take on is the Variations section, which is sorely in need of a rewrite. I won't hide my intentions here; I am looking to obsolete List of variations of the Mega Drive, which I believe is a poor content fork, but regardless of one's perspective of that list, the Variations section in this article is in pretty bad shape and could be expanded and improved.

Here's what I want to know: can we establish an official consensus on the titles for the second model? It turns out that Sega has used official titles more often than we've realized; in Sega CD I found a source officially referring to the second model of the add-on as the "Sega CD 2/Mega-CD 2". Looking at the second model of the Genesis, we continuously refer to it over and over in the article as the "Genesis/Mega Drive model 2". My question is, should we not refer to these models by their official titles as well? I may have to find sources to back these up as necessary, but we can see plain as day on the Mega Drive models "Mega Drive 2" on the Japan version and "Mega Drive II" on the European version. For North America, we have "Genesis III", backed up by sources from Sega v. Accolade. Are we okay to use these on an official basis in the article, instead of the made-up "model 2"? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't be certain, but I'm beginning to wonder whether the Genesis III isn't what you think it is. Looking at the Sega v Accolade article, it suggests that this is the Genesis III. It also states that the Genesis III was released in 1990. That doesn't add up. The slimmer redesign of the console didn't come out until well after the Sega CD (which also received a facelift).

This is pure speculation, but is it possible that "Genesis III" was Sega's internal name for a console that looked precisely the same as the original Genesis, but with the technical protections added? I don't know whether that would be extra hardware or simply updated firmware, but to the untrained eye, there was no way of telling the difference. Legally, they needed to give it a distinct name, so they simply added "III".

Does that make any sense? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference in the hardware between the USA/JPN/EUR versions, the region and video modes were set trough a series of 4 jumpers (JP1, JP2, JP3 and JP4) and I oppose the proposal as it will lead to more confusion and talk page arguments. 82.37.210.221 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also fairly certain (though someone on Sega-16 would probably know better) that revisions of the Model 1 had the TMSS installed. The 32X manual (which I got off of a website using a google search) refers to the Sega Geneses models as "New Model" and "Old Model". I wish we could find a magazine article talking about the new model when it came out. Personally, I am happy with "Sega Genesis Model 2" - Amazon seems to call it both Sega Genesis 2 and Sega Genesis II (depending on the accessory). If the "Genesis III" really is the model 2, it was likely only called "Genesis III" internally, like Project Mars.--SexyKick 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal stricken. Humiliation noted. Why can't legal sources actually refer to things the way the rest of the world does? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's explore the article-split idea just a little...

It's been suggested a few times that one way to satisfy everyone in the ongoing Mega-Drive/Genesis dispute would be to fork this article into two separate ones, one that discusses the Mega Drive specifically, and the other focused on the North American Genesis. Since we're apparently doomed to argue about which of these titles is the "correct" one forever and ever, I propose we actually explore the article-fork idea.

The way I see it, here's the way content is likely to flow under the two respective titles:

Common to both titles

• Hardware specifications and technical capabilities
• Hardware development history
• Relationship to prior hardware
• General discussion of competition between Sega and its rivals
• Worldwide sales figures

Mega-Drive specific

• Release dates for Japanese, European and other worldwide markets
• Non-American software libraries
• Japanese/European/Asian sales and reception details

Genesis specific

• Copyright issue causing the name change in North America
• North-American software libraries
• North-American marketing campaigns (Console wars, primarily with Nintendo)
• US Congressional hearings into video game violence and sexual content (Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, etc.)
• North American sales and reception details

There are plenty more details that can be fit into these lists, but this gives a good idea of the general areas that are covered by the sources we have available. As such, if we were to do a content fork, we would either need to duplicate a lot of common prose between the two articles, or designate one of them to hold the majority of the content, and have the other either link to it or transclude it. The first idea would be difficult to maintain (the two articles would need to be edited in lockstep, or they would quickly get out of sync with one another), and the second would likely just result in more arguments about which article is the "primary" one. But it COULD be done.

Now, take a look at the article's history (described in the FAQ): It was, early on, forked to two separate articles just as described here. At the time, however, there was not nearly the same level of content as we have now, and it was decided that the articles would be best merged back into one. Perhaps the story would be different now - a lot more research, fact-finding and debate has happened since then, so perhaps we now have enough distinct content that two articles would be sustainable.

So the question becomes: Is it worth it? Are both topics equally and distinctly notable? The amount of argument from both sides would seem to suggest so. But I'll note that in all the debates I've either participated in or witnessed, it's primarily come down to just a few core arguments, much of which boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, only some of which is based in actual policy, and even less of which is backed by sources. When you strip out the persistent name-calling, accusations of regional bias, and straw polls and reliance on such, the actual substantive arguments are pretty slim and, for the most part, unconvincing. To be honest, I think we're just as unlikely to reach a consensus on a content fork as we are on which title the merged article should have.

Now, for my part: Yes, I live in the United States, where the console is called the Genesis. But I fancy myself a video game historian, and I have done a lot of personal research into a number of consoles (including the Mega Drive/Genesis) from a worldwide perspective. So I believe I can speak with some authority when I say that the Genesis has particular notability because of events that occurred in the United States (most particularly the Congressional hearings sparked by Mortal Kombat and Night Trap - the latter of which I have a personal connection with). I have so far not found anything in Japanese or European sources that give the Mega Drive anywhere near the level of coverage that the Genesis did in the US, mainly because most other markets were much more heavily skewed than the North American market (either the Mega Drive was wildly successful, or it did very poorly, but either way did not generate much press). The evidence has consistently pointed to North America as having been the most notorious market in the world for this console (even if not the physically largest, most successful or most lucrative).

I originally argued in favor of the Mega Drive name because of the fact that it was known as such in every geographical region in the world except North America. But that's pretty much the extent of my reasoning for that title - all of the other info I have available leads me to believe that "Sega Genesis" has more notable content.

All that said, I'm sure I'm going to have at least a dozen people disagreeing with me, so here's your challenge before you argue: Provide sources. As you find sources that point to significant non-American coverage that lends increased notability to the Mega Drive title, we can make adjustments to the coverage areas to determine whether an article fork makes sense. I think that will be far more constructive than all the heated disputes we've had previously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Support APL X201 mentioned that earlier, and I think there is indeed something to work on. What we're basically saying is that the Genesis is notable in and of itself, not just as a renamed version of the Mega Drive. If we can establish that, and I think we have more than enough info to do that, that would warrant separate articles, in my opinion. --McDoobAU93 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So my question is: HOW do we split these articles in a way that doesn't lead to unnecessary duplication or disputes over which one should hold the common content? Do we perhaps have a third "Common details" article that we transclude into both titles? Is that something the WP community will accept? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I accidentally support this idea? (I say a lot of dumb things.) Could you point out where? APL (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, APL ... it was X201 who made the suggestion about separate articles here. I'm honestly not sure why I thought it was you instead. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth. --McDoobAU93 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No prob. APL (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reject Splitting the article because a few people object to the title and are determined to be trollish about it is ridiculous. If you completely ignore that issue - then splitting the article makes no sense whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, why does it not make any sense? I think at its core, it does make some level of sense - you have some common content and distinct, title-specific content that is large enough put together to make the topic somewhat unwieldy. I'd like some reasoning more specific than just "a few people are being trollish" - the above debates, unlike many in the past, are at least showing some promise for making progress. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"a few people object to the title" - You mean around 50% in every recurrence of the name debate, regardless of what the article was called at the time. When the article is known as "Mega Drive", "Genesis"-proponents complain, when it's known as Genesis it's the other way round. By your statement, everyone involved in any of the name disputes (which includes yourself) is being "trollish". --188.31.19.187 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Name-calling ('trollish') is not helpful to the discussion. Both sides accuse each other of being a few trolls who continually bring up the name debate - which shows that there is a genuine debate and lack of consensus. AFAICT the Genesis side of the debate really boils down to, "But I had a Genesis when I was 10!!!" - most of the 'reasons' advanced in the FAQ for the Genesis name are either heavily debated or simply not true (eg the suggestion that the Mega Drive name was principally used in non-English-speaking markets - how does that square with the Mega Drive name being used in 'every' English-speaking market except North America?) Unfortunately the Genesis-advocates know that they can just make a lot of noise whenever the argument comes up, call it a lack of consensus and so stick with the original name. There often seems to be no real reason advanced to keep the Genesis name - any debate is just squashed with 'there is no consensus, so we keep the original title.' I realise this might look like assuming bad faith. I don't think it is. I've tried to be constructive here and the utter lack of co-operation from some is disheartening. GoldenRing (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I don't even know what side of the name debate SteveBaker is on - it seems to me his comment could be coming from either side and he doesn't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I agree with every point you raised, and you put it far better than I ever could. I first wandered onto this talk page barely a week ago, and the general hostility and assumptions of bad faith are alarming! Very discouraging for someone new on the scene... 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the split, but I feel I need to pick you up on a particular point. I can tell you that there was intense, vehement press against Night Trap and similar games here in the UK, and I'm pretty sure that the issue got debated in parliament. There was also plenty of coverage of Sonic 2's release, even making the evening news on national television - a first for any game. But how in the world are we to judge which is the most "notorious" territory? Naturally, I know how heavy the press coverage was in the UK but can't comprehend what it was like in the US; vice versa for you (if I may make that presumption). Likewise, the US being bigger, it's generally going to have literally more of anything, but how do we adjust for size difference? (That is to say, if a game sold a million copies in the UK and a million copies in the US, pound-for-pound it did better in the UK, even though they sold the same number. Does the same apply for media coverage?) I fear a comparison is nigh on impossible for anyone who didn't spend considerable time on each side of the Atlantic. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And that's absolutely fair - I said I fancy myself a historian, but I'm nowhere near the level of real historians and people who have professionally studied the subject. :)

I was discussing with RedPhoenix how I think we really need a separate article on the US Congressional hearings (and the Parliamentary debates as well), since that's really its own subject and has little to do with the Genesis/Mega Drive itself. (That really has more to do with the companies and games involved, and the fact that the 16-bit hardware was capable of producing images realistic enough to trigger strong emotional responses.) I think if we were to successfully separate that aspect of the topic from the current article, there would be relatively little left to distinguish the Genesis from the Mega Drive in terms of individual notability... which unfortunately leads us back to the original dispute (which of the titles is the correct one?).

Do you know if the flap over Night Trap and the like caused the same kinds of significant policy/governance changes in the UK as it did here in the States? That issue led to the formation of the ESRB, which has been described as a thorn in the side of game developers ever since, but I'm not aware of what might have happened over there. If it did lead to similar ratings councils, that would be good to know, and more fodder for the topic article. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Night Trap ultimately had to be rated by the BBFC - the British Board of Film Classification - which meant it was illegal to sell the game to anyone under the age of 15. As their name suggests, they usually only rated films, and Night Trap may have been the first game to go through that process. I've got a load of old Sega magazines from the period, and I know they contain some good contemporary articles on the subject. I may dig them out if I find the time.

As for the issue of the "correct" name for the console, well, here's my argument, in a nutshell...

We should go with whatever Sega themselves call the console.

So what do Sega call it? Well, during the console's commercial lifespan, there were three major HQs dotted around the world: Sega of America in San Fransico, Sega Europe in London, and the original corporation in Tokyo, which we'll call Sega Japan. Of the English-speaking HQs, we know that Sega of America went with Genesis, and Sega Europe went with Mega Drive. Obviously, they don't speak English in Japan, but the English words "Mega Drive" appear - fully romanised - on the Japanese console packaging, the game box spines, the actual cartridges, and, yes, even the console itself. With two major Sega HQs going with "Mega Drive" and one going with "Genesis", to me it's strange to side with the odd one out. Add Australia and many other territories to the equation and not going with "Mega Drive" seems to me to be bordering on perverse.

That's my opinion, anyway. It's so basic an argument that I can hardly believe it's not addressed in the FAQ! Any validity in it? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Good info on Night Trap. Those magazines would be quite useful, if you have the time. :)

I've not seen the naming argument presented quite like that before, but there's one more specific argument and one more general that are covered in the FAQ:

1. The name given to the console in its home market (Japan) is Mega Drive, and
2. The "Mega Drive" name is used in all geographic markets except North America.

It follows logically that the Sega HQs in each major region were responsible for the naming, so I think that's just adding a layer of complexity to it. But the counter to both of those has typically been that both geographical distribution and sales numbers alone are not enough to sway the notability argument. First, nobody can agree on what threshold marks the "strong majority" for sales when considering US vs. worldwide sales - mainly because no official or exact sales figures exist (or have been found, at any rate). There's a lot of speculation and several major conflicting accounts for sales, so by definition that information isn't solid. There's also been a lot of debate as to how important those details are to the argument. I'm pretty sure that the current (admittedly weak) consensus for Genesis is based less on geographic distribution and sales figures, and more on the various notability arguments, combined with the predominance of sources discussing North-America-specific topics such as the ad blitzes and the violence controversy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that my argument removes several layers of complexity, rather than adding one. No need to go into sketchy sales figures or unquantifiable media notoriety - just a case of, "What do Sega themselves call the console?" And two major HQs out of the three say "Mega Drive". Problem solved.

Like I said, that's just my opinion, but there does seem to be a secondary issue at play here: some people consider "Genesis" and "Mega Drive" to be different names for the same console, while others see the Genesis and Mega Drive as separate consoles all together. Despite region locks, a number of games are fully compatible with all three territorial variations - and in that sense at least I'd be against splitting the article. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support This is the perfect compromise which all sides can be happy with 62.252.234.27 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not the perfect compromise. I'm all for anything that will finally settle this debate once and for all, but I don't think it's the proper solution to write two separate articles about something that is ultimately the same subject and try to maintain them both. It'd be like trying to separate NES and Famicom into two articles just because they're from different regions; bear in mind these two started as separate articles and were merged together before. Per WP:UNDUE as well, I don't feel there's enough due weight in each title to validate a content fork between Genesis and Mega Drive. All we're going to do here is make two very incomplete articles that don't fully encapsulate the subject rather than a complete one that grasps the subject as a whole. I think it's almost a violation of WP:WORLDVIEW to do so because it will create biased articles as a result, not to mention lower-quality ones which could never satisfy Wikipedia's standards for completeness while separated. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the spirit of the proposal not necessarily being right for the article, I do think we could accomplish it from a technical standpoint without too much trouble. In programming, if you have two functions that do nearly-identical things but, say, print out different titles with the same text below them, you usually move the common code into a subroutine, and call that subroutine from the two main functions. Using transclusion, you could do the same thing here on WP - create a common-content article (eg. "Common hardware of the Mega Drive"), and transclude it into the two individual articles. If you make a change in the common article, it automatically takes effect in both main articles, so then there's not necessarily any need for content to become stale, biased, or out of sync.

What I don't know is if that kind of article structure would jibe with WP policies, nor would many editors necessarily understand how it works. It could also make discussions more difficult to follow. So I totally agree it's not an ideal solution technically. But the more important thing to answer is whether forking makes sense at any level. My inclination is no, but I wanted to make sure we gave the idea a proper discussion since it's been brought up a few times and pretty much immediately discarded without much thought. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And actually, more to the point, my purpose in going into such depth here was to try to illustrate what would be required to make such a content fork work, and what (at least from my POV) the articles would end up looking like at a high level. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My belief is definitely not. I will admit that personally I tend to object to content forking unless it's a worthwhile fork that can potentially become an outstanding article in its own right and holds enough due weight and notability to do so; otherwise, it's not worth it. Sega CD and Sega 32X are great content forks, for example, while I would honestly disagree with Sega Net Work System and List of variations of the Mega Drive being worthwhile of them. The problem here with making a fork is that doing so will require cutting depth from each new article. Neither one, then, would in my opinion ever be capable of passing a featured or good article candidacy because neither one would meet the broad coverage requirements of high-quality articles (WP:UNDUE, again, applies), all because neither article covers the worldwide view of this one console. That's my opinion, at least, but I'm glad to see we're looking at any way possible to settle this. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(nod) And like I said, I'm inclined to agree on that front. Assuming I haven't forgotten or overlooked any major aspects of the Mega Drive side, the "tree" at the top of this section looks pretty heavily skewed toward Genesis content, in both breadth and depth. If we were to fork, I'd guess that the Genesis article would end up being larger and more complete than the Mega Drive one, but you're right that neither one would be as complete as the merged article. I think it does generally support where we are right now, though, so I hope it will help explain the situation from another POV that might help the debate in general. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki articles are not software. We don't have #defines. Even if we could address this by transcluding common code, we'd have to write stilted prose that never referred to the topic by name since we don't have a way to to refer to X as "Sega Genesis" in one transclusion and as "Mega Drive" in another, not to mention the complications that arise in certain contexts regarding whether you want to say "Sega Genesis" or just "Genesis" in one, or "Sega Mega Drive" or "Mega Drive" in the other. It's just not practical. --B2C 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Sadly this is not a good idea. It would give the USA folk and the others their own playgrounds so that they can each be happy, but that's really only good for them. For readers it makes sense to have a single article. For instance, the stuff bullet-pointed as Genesis-specific is an important part of the machine's history. Most if it would wind up in both articles for the sake of completeness.

Splitting this article would be like splitting Gasoline and Petrol. (I'm not going to click through, but I assume those both go to the same place.) APL (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

They do. Ironically, I suggested a lead sentence opening above similar to how that article handles the duality of its names. I think it actually gives equal weight as a lead sentence and would help to balance out the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would be akin to forking Volkswagen Golf and Volkswagen Rabbit. Or Best Foods and Hellmann's. Marketing differences (including targeting a different region) of the same fundamental product do not justify separate articles. --B2C 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support It seems to me that common sense is overwhelmingly in favour of using "Mega Drive" as the article name and the sole arguments in support of using "Genesis" (that the console caused particular controversy in North America compared to other regions - which is still semi-disputable, a la the Night Trap issue in the UK) are actually arguments better reasoned for the creation of a separate article to deal specifically with those North American issues. The added benefit of this separation would be the ability to keep the main console article (which I would vehemently argue should be "Mega Drive") clean of clutter relating to one specific region of the console, and a much more neutral and international POV.

I feel we should maintain the primary article as a broad coverage of the console, covering the technical aspects, multiple variations, add-ons, history, later third party iterations, global reception and legacy, etc. Whilst the Genesis article would specifically focus on the console's North American issues - from the trademark reason for the North American specific name, the ESRB issue, noteworthy marketing campaigns, etc. That way we could improve coverage of both aspects of the console. The Mega Drive article could be brought up to a much higher standard without having to balance out the importance of the North American issues place in a subject of international scope, whilst the North American issues could be addressed in much better detail in an article specific to the Genesis. --188.31.19.187 (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The thing is the same thing, market with two different labels on it. I'm trying to think outside wiki-politics and instead think about what makes most sense to a general reader who comes to the article. Any split would necessarily include so many cross-references between the two articles that it would seem very strange to someone who didn't know the politics that had made it that way. GoldenRing (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Support for obvious reasons. I think the idea has got legs and can work. Each console has lead a different life, enough to warrant a separate article. Separate articles would end the never ending "wrong"-ness of whatever the article title happens to be at any given time in the future. But even more importantly than that, it will allow the people who want to improve the articles to actually do it. - X201 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should we give the article a compound name?

As per WP:AND Compound titles are acceptable in some circumstances, this is a better solution than a split as it keeps all content in one article and better than the name Sega Mega Drive or Sega Genesis alone as it suits all sides, this was once agreed by all sides before but was deemed against policy, but WP:AND makes compound names perfectly acceptable in instances like this one. So I am proposing either the name Sega Mega Drive and Genesis or Sega Genesis and Mega Drive what does everyone think? 62.252.234.27 (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)— 62.252.234.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Title change proposals are normally discussed and listed via WP:RM, not WP:RFC. --B2C 02:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. OK, fine. First, there seems to be enough unrest about the title to warrant applying the WP:Yogurt Principle (essay written by yours truly) here. Second, there is precedent for this: Hellmann's and Best Foods. Third, this article is about a product that Sega marketed with two distinct names and a few distinguishing characteristics. Finally, if this article is given a compound title, I think it should be Sega Genesis and Mega Drive because that flows better than Sega Mega Drive and Genesis. --B2C 02:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Persuaded by APL to oppose --B2C 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Just want to pick at something here: Based on the discussion in Talk:Hellmann's and Best Foods back in 2011, it looks like the (again small) consensus there about that article's name is that it should be considered an exception to the rule and that it doesn't actually meet WP:AND (which didn't exist at the time the article was first written with that title). I don't think we can point to it as a precedent for supporting a compound title here - the circumstances are different. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not have precedents, and you are citing a discussion you had with one other person in a different article. Also, the essay you link to is something you wrote which isn't even in mainspace, it just something on your personal user page. Dream Focus 11:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. We did this before and tons of editors went up in arms about it.--SexyKick 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Do you have a policy based reason to oppose it? --B2C 03:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well it won't be speedy closed if others don't agree with me. Precedent just shows that this won't work. There's not absence of evidence of this one.--SexyKick 03:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "I expect everybody else to oppose this so I will too" is not in and of itself a very compelling reason to oppose. Again, do you have a policy based reason to oppose it? --B2C 03:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I thought doing something we know to be disruptive and cause outcry had a policy against it? (also that was a strange way for you to interpret my statement, which meant "everyone 'did' hate this", not "I expect..." anything)--SexyKick 03:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
        • It has been a long time. What's different now is that we've given Sega Genesis a lot of time and the talk page is still filled with discussions and discontent about the title. And, frankly, the proposal is right. There is some room in WP:AND to support the compound title in this case. I've never cared about the title. I just want a stable solution. --B2C 04:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Please assume good faith. There is an actual disagreement and debate about the name of this article and there has never been a consensus on it; the status quo is there precisely because no consensus has been reached and in that case the original name of the article stands. Attempting to reach that consensus through discussion is not disruptive. GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral: I was one of the editors that proposed and then implemented this exact change back in 2011, resulting in an enormous firestorm over the fact that the title was inconsistent with naming policies and was confusing. Hence this entry in the FAQ:

  In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.

  Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.

  I think you're going to have quite an uphill battle on this one, considering history was not kind to this proposal last time it was seriously considered. Personally I think it would be a fine solution, particularly if it would bring this ongoing dispute to a close. But all I can really say is "Good luck." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, pending consensus on name: I oppose on two grounds. Firstly, a compound name would almost certainly simply lead to arguments about what compound name to use, specifically whether to place Mega Drive or Genesis first. I note that the RFC here doesn't suggest one or the other, and I'm concerned we may get people stating their support for making such a change in concept, who will not be happy once a change is made in practice.

This brings me to my second point: I would oppose any change to the title (barring compelling new arguments), as whether the change happens or not the debate is not quelled, the embers are stoked, and more topics are opened ad infinitum. As far I can see the only solution with any chance of success is to stick with the current name until everyone finally get bored of constantly debating it so we can move on to something constructive, perhaps related to the other ~7000 words in the article below the title. With that said, if there can be consensus on which compound name to use (which I feel would require a miracle at this point), then I fully support changing it to match; whatever allows us to all move on from this. Aawood (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Aawood and per previous established consensus that name change discussions without new arguments are disruptive. The compound name idea isn't new, and per SexyKick there's not much hope that this discussion will wind up any better than the last one. Lastly I do agree with Aawood that we would probably just be trading one argument form (Genesis or Mega Drive) for another (Genesis/Mega Drive or Mega Drive/Genesis). --McDoobAU93 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I could with some effort manage to care less what the article is called, but to me it does seem nutty to rename an article unnecessarily. We have things called redirs that permit us in effect to give an article as many names as we like to prevent people failing to find what they want because of having failed to type in the correct name. "Sega Genesis" seems harmless as it stands and is crisp and inoffensive. If you happen to like " Sega Mega Drive and Genesis "; go for it! Create a redir with that name and stop worrying yourselves and other people about it. JonRichfield (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

People are offended by the name Sega Genesis Jon 82.47.189.182 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) contribs) (talk)has made no other edits outside this topic.

Offense, or lack thereof, will not ultimately decide what the article is named, 82.47. --McDoobAU93 17:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If they are offended they don't have to use that form of the name. They can use the names of the redirs, individually or in rotation. If they really, really can't stand the name then let them feel free to explain in encyclopaedic terms in the lede to the article what they perceive to be the source of their offence; thereby they can spread the awareness of its intrinsic evil till everyone wanting to look up the article will insist on typing in "Sega Mega Drive and Genesis" every time they wish to refer to it, and speaking of the "Sega Mega Drive and Genesis" instead of speaking of the "drive" or "Meg", or even (horrors) the "Seg". Let's get real folks, you can't legislate what people will call things when the Disrespect Inquisition isn't breathing down their necks. Good Lord! Next people will be calling Xeroxes "copiers" or something! Just drop it for Heaven's sake, add as many redirs as anyone is in a mood for, and forget it, say I! JonRichfield (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is how you feel Jon then name the article Mega Drive and add a redirect for the erroneous name Sega Genesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.189.182 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jon: I would honestly like to know why "people" are so offended by this name. It's not like we named it after Adolf Hitler, right? (Oh shoot, I just lost the debate, huh? :)) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@anyone who cares. I had thought I had put it plainly that I cared very little which option(s) got chosen, and that what offended anyone could be worked around, and that what mattered was that we went for some reasonably constructive, useful and "encyclopaedic" action. I am only here because RFC rattled my cage. If Mega drive plus redirs suits a lot of folks, go for it. If not, go for something that does. In 8e13 years, approximately 1e9 Chinese couldn't care less. JonRichfield (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you don't really have an argument either way, and your original comment about people being "offended" should just be considered a snide, sarcastic and utterly pointless jab? Okay, I can buy that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You like it? You can have it free. You want to buy something, then rather spend your money on a course on reading English and responding constructively. Spend lavishly. JonRichfield (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons I mentioned the last two times it came up. WP:AND does not apply here. It is for two complementary concepts. Ying and Yang, Big-Endian and Little-Endian, that sort of thing. It is not for situations where there are two names for a single thing. Worse, it implies that the two things are two separate but complementary items, which is needlessly introducing confusion. APL (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Consensus can change, but I can only see this one ending badly and not remaining stable. What we really have to do here is pick one and stick with it; and yes, some editors are going to be unhappy one way or another because they feel that one or the other is the "right" name. Here's the answer: both are the right name. Neither "Mega Drive" nor "Sega Genesis" is an erroneous name. That is exactly why we've had these naming disputes over the years; because there are two right names and in each case editors have argued that one is right and disregarded the other as incorrect but in reality both are right. I happen to slightly prefer "Mega Drive" myself if we had to pick one (and I am American, just wanting to establish that here for those who haven't already stalked my user page from this discussion), but for the sake of consistency, something these Sega articles badly need to be improved properly, I don't see a combination name being stable at all and I think it will get changed if it goes through, and we'll be doing this all over again instead of working on the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. With respect to all of the Opposes above, I don't see a policy-based reason to oppose the compound title. Hellmann's and Best Foods has been stable eight years. The belief that Sega Genesis and Mega Drive will not be stable because it was rejected before (including by me) is not a strong reason to not try it again, especially now that we know that Sega Genesis has not stifled controversy. --B2C 18:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not understanding this argument, honestly. What does policy have to do with any of our opposes? Is there a policy that makes them invalid? The only "policy" I can think of that applies is "learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it".--SexyKick 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    You’re asking the wrong question—Is there a policy that makes them valid? —Frungi (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Please read WP:JDLI. It is unhelpful to participate in such discussions without supporting your position with policy-based reasons.

      I can't speak for others, and I haven't looked in the archives, but as I recall my objection to the compound title originally was that it was a novel approach for which there was no precedent (I don't think I knew about Hellmann's and Best Foods then), that the compound title failed on naturalness, conciseness, and consistency, and because I presumed we could achieve a stable and non-controversial title by using either name.

      That last assumption has proven to be false. Further, I think the compound title does meet WP:CRITERIA reasonably well, arguably better than the current title. It's certainly recognizable, and arguably meets recognizability better than either name alone. It is certainly precise and, it turns out, consistent with other titles of similar topics (topics about a product marketed and named differently in different regions, like Hellmann's and Best Foods). It's not even clear that the current title is better on naturalness; certainly not for those who are familiar with Mega Drive name and unfamiliar with Sega Genesis.

      Agree or disagree, this is an example of what I mean by supporting your position with "policy-based reasons". --B2C 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

      • Respectfully, I must submit to you, was there a policy-based reason to prefer "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive"? The fact is that just because policy says an option is acceptable doesn't mean it's "supported" by policy - it's just permitted. Reading over WP:AND, "Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased." Are we now conceding that this article has a neutrality problem? The right answer here is to improve the article, hammer that out, and then pick and stick with a title. Honestly, it's my thought that "Mega Drive" would be that title once the article is finished, but I'm not too particular to one or the other as long as we're consistent. Part of the problem here is that the article is still quite choppy and, honestly, in pretty sorry shape (no offense to SexyKick, I know you're trying, but it's a long article and it does still need a lot of polish). I'd be glad to jump in here more soon; I just added over 9000 characters a couple of days ago for a section I'm shocked wasn't already in here. Also, per WP:TITLECHANGES, "titles for articles are subject to consensus", and I would say that a stability concern in an oppose is a policy quote of this policy, per this quote: "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
      • Furthermore, where do we go from here? Does Sega CD become Sega CD and Mega-CD? Sega 32X become Sega Genesis 32X, Sega Mega Drive 32X, and Super 32X? Okay, the last one's blatantly ridiculous, I know, but you get my point. Suddenly the consistency of these articles all becomes about compromise titles and everything just gets confusing for the content forks spreading out from this main article. Which title do you prefer in each article? Do we keep having to use "Mega Drive/Genesis" when not referring to one in a particular region? WP:IAR's spirit of the policy is that we should do what it takes to improve Wikipedia. Does introducing all of these naming issues really improve these articles?
      • I just don't see this being a good thing for the articles. It's imperative that this article have one title, a stable title, and a simple title. While one way or another someone won't be happy whichever way it goes, it's what will lead to the best quality of articles, this and its content forks included. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, no offense taken at all. My English isn't top tier, (especially in regards to structure and flow) and I haven't been really tidying up any sections for a couple years now at least. Your presence alone has been a breath of fresh air and has had me feeling really positive emotions about potentially doing real work on the article again. I don't know why talking on the talk page is so much easier...but for some reason, it just is. (And it's a real time waster too.)--SexyKick 08:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
          • And it's nice to have an editor who hasn't given up on the article while all of these debates rage on. I'd love nothing more than to rebuild this into a GA again, and progress toward a Sega Genesis Featured Topic. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - We have the best name under WP policy, and while I accepted this compromise in the past, it seems clear that changing the article to a compound name will not end the fights over the title.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• COMMENT... It often helps in these discussions to clarify the difference between a things NAME and the TITLE of our article about the thing. They are not necessarily the same. The machine that is the subject of this article has two NAMES ("Sega Mega Drive" and "Sega Genesis"), and either NAME could be the used as the TITLE of this article (at the moment we do this - using the NAME "Sega Genesis" as the TITLE of the article) ... However, we don't have to use either of the subject's NAMES as the TITLE of our article... there is another option... we can come up with a descriptive TITLE for the topic. I think that is what is being proposed here... to move the article to a descriptive article TITLE that in some way combines the two NAMES for the machine. That is allowed under policy. So... the only question left is, do we want to do this or not. That isn't a policy issue, but simply a matter of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support over either name individually, since each name is and was used in various parts of the English-speaking world. (And strongly oppose the bickering between the two sides.) —Frungi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support A compound title would certainly be preferable to using "Sega Genesis" alone. I would still argue that "Mega Drive" is the most suitable name, but if there's a strong enough feeling that the "Genesis" variant was notable enough to be worth of inclusion in the title in addition to "Mega Drive" then I don't really take issue with that and think it's an acceptable compromise. The compound title has failed before, but as Born2Cycle has pointed out, that seems to have been due to erroneous reasoning on the part of those involved in the decision to scrap it. Born2Cycle makes a very sound argument as to why a compound title is more suitable and in line with policy, which I personally wouldn't have been in favour of before reading his argument. Whilst the opposes don't seem to have made any real argument at all besides WP:JDLI.--94.197.144.52 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)— 94.197.144.52 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

That's not true at all. A number of policy-based arguments have been made against the compound name, both this time, and in greater depth the first time around. APL (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a substantive (non-procedural) policy-based oppose argument in this discussion yet. Have I missed it? Can you point one out, or refer to one? --B2C 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to read one of the previous discussions where this dragged on for months already. No one wants to waste time repeating themselves and having the exact same long drawn out conversation yet again. Dream Focus 23:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor should they. For a perennial proposal it's the burden is on the supporters to demonstrate that they're covering new ground. I haven't seen that. All I've seen is editor-centric arguments that this will stop the debates. (Last time it attracted new participants! Incl, myself.), appeals to WP:AND that are ... questionable at best, and some obscure WP:Otherstuff. All this is ground that has been trod at least twice before.

APL (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close This is ridiculous. WP:HORSE How many times will the same discussion be had? Dozens of people participated previously. Consensus was clear. Repeating it time and again hoping for different results, arguing nonstop until most people give up bothering with it, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No substantive (non-procedural) policy-based reason for opposing the compound title is given in the FAQ, nor has been cited in this discussion. Somebody has to provide it at least once before others can claim there is no need to repeat it. --B2C 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You can read the long discussion in a section above, or check through the archives for the long discussions of the past. Whenever a debate is started by a SPA with an IP address, time and time again, then its probably the same stubborn guy anyway. Dream Focus 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to point out that this matter was discussed at the talk:Hellmann's and Best Foods page around the time that the 2011 "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" move discussion had concluded, and provided reasoning why the compound title was acceptable for that title but not this one, the most important point being that these two brands were both developed independantly for years with neither being distinguishable from the other. Also worth noting is that User:Born2Cycle had commented on this and agreed at the time. Whether something has changed since then, I could not say. Benach (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I recall that as well, but I don't like to write things without checking, and I didn't feel like checking. I fought for the compound name back then as well, and I know that since those arguments didn't keep the title there then, they wouldn't keep it there now. It will bring wiki users who have user names, and they'll want to change the title, and they won't just be shouting "yank bias" or whatever it is Americans shout when an article is stuck in original English either.--SexyKick 09:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What difference does it make if a total of two people discussed something a year and a half ago about a different article? We've had dozens of people discussing things previously here in greater detail. Dream Focus 10:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm new to the debate, but AFAICT the only consensus to ever develop was for the Mega Drive name - which the article retained for five years. The compound name was tried and obviously didn't result in consensus. The current name is only there because there was no consensus and so the original title was retained. That's not a clear consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  The current name is because of overwhelming consensus, not just because it was the original title. Dream Focus 10:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Okay, I've gone through the archives. I still can't find a policy-based argument against the compound title. What I do find is a bunch of WP:JDLI arguments, like this jewel:

  This title is batshit nuts. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  Unless someone can explain why a compound title is against policy or guidelines, I really think it's time to file the move to Sega Genesis and Mega Drive via a formal WP:RM proposal/discussion. --B2C 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, all right. (I don't claim this list is complete. It's just what I remember off the top of my head.)

• • "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."

A compound title is not natural. Nobody has called the device "G and MD" or "MD and G", and nobody would be likely to link to it in that form.

• • "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."

A compound title would be longer than necessary to distinguish the article from other subjects.

• • "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles."

This was the biggest bone of contention, and probably the one G&MD proponents are calling "WP:JDLI", but this is a real concern that's completely policy based. There are LOT's of products with more than one name, and even more articles with engvar titles, but they don't do this compound name business. They choose one and go with it. Even if it causes people to complain on the talk.

In addition there are concerns that G&MD is confusing because it implies that it's two separate devices that are used together. Communicating clearly is always a primary goal on WP, and describing that as WP:JDLI is disingenuous.

APL (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• • THANK YOU. I'm striking my support. --B2C 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per APL's policy-based argument just above. --B2C 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question: I agree with APL's analysis ... if we think about the compound as being a NAME (as a NAME the compound is not natural, concise, or consistent), but what if we think of it as being a DESCRIPTIVE title? The compound "X and Y" does strike me as being a natural and concise description of the device (although descriptively it might be better to have it read: "Sega G or MG".) Not arguing in favor... just raising the question. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That would imply that the noun/description choice came before the name guidelines I mentioned. I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to consider all that while you're deciding on whether to use a proper noun or a description, not just when you're deciding which proper noun to use.

Looked at in that light, I suppose you could make the argument that the description is as natural as a proper noun (I would personally not agree with that, though.) But it's still not the concise choice or a choice consistent with other articles of this type.

(If, for some reason, a compound name had to be chosen, I do agree that "G or MG" is less confusing than "G and MG".) APL (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mega Grive"? ;-) 86.4.242.105 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Mega Grive". It's my new compromise title proposal. APL (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Descriptive titles are for topics contrived by WP editors that don't have names. Yes, Airplane and Aeroplane once redirected to Fixed-wing aircraft, but even that title was a commonly used name for that topic, not a descriptive title. I know of no precedent for using descriptive titles on articles about named entities. The closest example is Hellman's and Best Foods, but those two products had truly distinct origins, which justifies the compound name in that case. That is not the case here. --B2C 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Counterproposal: We're doing this whole thing backwards...

I'd like to make a counterproposal in this RFC, per my comments above. We keep arguing about the notability of one title or the other, the concepts of giving equal weight to both, and whatnot. Has anyone here, aside from myself and SexyKick as the top two contributors to this article, ever actually read this article to find out? Nope, instead we're all just bickering about what we believe on our own knowledge of video games. Wikipedia doesn't work that way; it works based on verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. Part of the issue here is that there's still cleanup to be done, and WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues are included in that.

So, I respectfully submit a counterproposal on the name. Let's stick with Sega Genesis for three more months. In that time, I'll be busting my tail on this article when I'm not working or busy with other life issues (i.e. I just self-published a fiction novel and I'm trying to maintain it and get ePublication formats ready, etc.) I'm sure SexyKick will be doing the same, and anyone else who's actually willing to help contribute to the article itself can help, too, of course. We can collaborate on any particular section, as need be, as the IP editor has done above about the lead - and no offense to the IP editor, I love the good-faith effort and what's come out of that will help in the future, but it's my honest take the lead should be done last, once the rest of the article is done so the lead may accurately sum up the whole article.

The reason I ask we stick with Genesis during that time frame is because a consistent title is important for several sections. Any section that does not refer to a region-specific model will need to use the version in the title. The only exceptions one way or another would be in areas that refer to the console in a region, such as when talking about sales in Europe, Mega Drive would be what we use to describe the console, but when talking about Sega v. Accolade, Genesis would be what we use because that was a case in the U.S. My aim here is to create a worldwide article that covers all the bases and removes any WP:WORLDVIEW violations before we ultimately decide on a title. If it's "Genesis", fine. If it's "Mega Drive", fine. If it's a combination, we'll deal with that when the time comes. What I'm suggesting, though, is that we allow the article to be improved in the next three months, have some editors from the Video games WikiProject review it for standards (i.e. similar to an A-Class review, skipping the GA process temporarily because of lack of title stability).

What do you think? Is it a fair request? Investing the time into this article it needs instead of investing all of this time into the naming discussion will help us to clear up some of the issues we're arguing over and allow us to make a better choice that truly fits the notability criteria. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Things are going against what you wanted, so you are suggesting we stop the discussion and wait three months, then you can start it up again? No. That's ridiculous. Keep it at Sega Genesis, respect the establish consensus from all the long debates of the past that had high participation and months of discussion already, and stop beating a dead horse already. We shouldn't have to repeat this every few months. Dream Focus 12:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Erm, what things were going against what RedPhoenix wanted? In fact, they very much went towards what he wrote in...however, he does want to take a break from these debates popping up. I agree with this. It's kind of clear that with the IP editors and their constant talk of "yank bias" and other terms that only they've used, that it's a big issue to only one or two people, and they're going to abuse anonymous to constantly start up move discussions that aren't really in the spirit of Wikipedia.--SexyKick 20:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of any proposal to put some sort of "cool down period" on the non-stop debates here. Three months is would be a start, anyway. I think revisiting this issue more than once a year is dumb as a pile of rocks.

Sadly, I'm not sure if a consensus on such a cool-down period would be within policy. APL (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone is here again now paying attention. This hasn't been seriously discussed in two years. Now is the time, not 3 months from now. --B2C 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was just seriously discussed in July. It's only August. That discussion occurred when everyone was paying attention, and it's only been a month and this same IP editor calling out yank bias on everything (check his edit history) has made another RFC. Big surprise right? ;p - We just revisited the discussion two months ago, and that discussion went on for a month, and it's only a month later. "Now" might be the time to find a way to halt that persons pattern.--SexyKick 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. How did I miss that? Well, no one can blame me for fueling any of that! Anyway, I'm not a big fan of stifling discussion. I think this will die out soon on its own accord. --B2C 01:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That falls on all of us here. One important matter that played into each discussion is the notability of one title over the other, but until the article thoroughly covers all major points and is of a good caliber, how can we know for sure? We all do have our worldwide perspectives and know quite a bit about it from where we're from - mostly because, I presume, those of us who were here owned a Genesis or Mega Drive at some point in the past. If we can cover all of the points with sourcing and make sure to thoroughly explain every aspect, something I'm intent on doing (as well as others, I know), then by having built a neutral, world-encompassing article that covers matters everywhere, we'll all be able to read the article and make a better evaluation of what the name should be, and changing any of the in-article lingo shouldn't be too hard to match it. I'm not saying we still won't get people passionately fighting for "Genesis" or "Mega Drive", but perhaps it will make the situation more clear, and at least we'll then have improved the article instead of just bickering on this talk page. Some good can definitely come out of it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to "what's notable", I put together a quick list of main points in my original exploration of the article split. For convenience, I'll repeat it here:

Common to both titles

• Hardware specifications and technical capabilities
• Hardware development history
• Relationship to prior hardware
• Console wars, primarily with Nintendo
• General discussion of competition between Sega and other rivals
• Worldwide sales figures

Mega-Drive specific

• Release dates for Japanese, European and other worldwide markets
• Non-American software libraries
• Japanese/European/Asian sales and reception details

Genesis specific

• Release date
• Trademark issue causing the name change in North America
• North-American software libraries
• US Congressional hearings into video game violence and sexual content (Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, etc.)
• North American sales and reception details

Please feel free to edit this list with anything I've missed that's covered by sources (current and proposed). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the convenient copy; it's quite helpful. I think we could strike software libraries out of both, though, as realistically they did share the same library for the most part and specifying which goes where is a job best handled in a rewrite of List of Sega Mega Drive games.

Now, sliding off topic but without any intent to start the naming debate again just yet; while working on Sega CD and Sega Game Gear, I've found both some of the marketing campaigns used in Europe as well as a little bit about the controversy Night Trap caused in Britain as well. It's not a lot so far, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe that too might become a neutral point. However, let's complete the article and the research before we make a call on that; once the article is done, we'll have the sources to know for sure. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, why are the North American marketing campaigns deemed as worthy of their own section, but no others? The console wars raged here in the UK, too, and Sega came up with some extremely memorable ads. Type "Cyber razor cut" into YouTube for some notable examples. They may actually be more notable in the UK, in fact, given that the Mega Drive won the console war over the SNES here. (Also, I've asked this a couple of times but no-one's answered it: how big was Sonic Twosday in the US?)

Regarding Night Trap and the like, I've been digging into my old Sega mags and have slowly pieced a few things together. In the run-up to the aforementioned Sonic Twosday, video games suddenly became big news. Naturally, certain sections of the media decided to be moral guardians and ran a lot of scare stories. There was a tragic case of a young epileptic lad who died while playing games - resulting in the infamous headline "Nintendo Killed My Son" in The Sun. Then there was an episode of TV show World in Action, bearing the subtitle "Welcome to the Danger Zone", which aired on 15th February 1993. I can't find a copy, but it seems it was an all-out attack on games in general. The next day, The Daily Star ran an article under the headline "Breeding a Nation of Monsters", which drew unfounded links between teenage murderers, schoolboy rapists, and games.

So far, that's not specific to Sega, but then entered Night Trap. What we're looking for is a copy of The Daily Mail from 28th April 1993 - that's the one that started it. "The Sega Sickener" was the headline, and the strapline read, "Outrage at video nasty that makes a game out of 'real life' women being mutilated". It's reproduced in part in an issue of Sega Power I have in front of me right now, and it quotes Terry Dicks, Tory MP for Hayes and Harlington: "The manufacturers are evil and ought to be punished for promoting this game... [Parents] should be forced to give their name and address if they buy it."

And then it was open season on games in the media for the next year or more. Any number of Members of Parliament were forever giving their opinions on things they'd never even seen, Sega submitted Night Trap to the BBFC for rating (usually only reserved for films), and at some point in late 1993 or early 1994 (I think), the ELSPA system of age classification came in. That may have been linked to Mortal Kombat, but it's difficult trying to piece this all together.

Hope that's helpful. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one example of why I feel like you haven't really read the article.--SexyKick 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any need for such a disparaging comment directed at me as a person. Nevertheless, would you mind enlightening me as to what I've done wrong? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll understand once you've read the entire article. ;p SexyKick 18:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's two extremely unhelpful - not to mention unnecessary - comments. Have you got something against me personally? If you're not going to justify your first reply, I can only suspect so. My post provided plenty of information that I thought would be useful to KieferSkunk, including names and dates of publications which could be significant sources. Some was background, some could actually be used to improve into the article. I really don't know what part of it suggested that I "haven't really read the article", and you're refusing to enlighten me.

Three bullet points at the top of this page read:

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks

Pretty good advice, in my opinion, and I'm following it the best I can. Are you? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression SexyKick has a feeling of ownership over this particular article, making him oblivious to how bad it is. It's written from a very slanted North American POV, and the article title is simply the most obvious symptom of that. I feel a certain group of editors want to keep it that way - they want it to be about the North American Genesis, with anything of international scope as an aside. If that's the case then the argument for making a separate article specific to the North American Genesis, as opposed to the International Mega Drive has merit. Wikipedia deserves a well-written article about the Mega Drive, written from an international perspective, covering all regions, and at present we don't have that. It may well also be the case that we should have an article specific to the Genesis as well, if editors feel that's a particularly notable variant - but this should be in addition to a good Mega Drive article, not instead of one. --188.29.95.44 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

86.4: The list I gave above was based on the current state of the article and the sources we have listed in it - it's not necessarily a statement of what's "deemed" to be noteworthy, just what currently is based on our current set of sources. That's why I've been asking people to contribute to that list with sourced information. Unfortunately, "I remember..." or "I'm pretty sure that..." aren't good enough to contribute to the article, but "In this copy of X magazine, there was coverage of..." definitely is. As we gather more sources like that, the list of noteworthy items in all three categories will likely grow, and some of them will likely become neutral. Overall, that will go a long way toward improving the article and hopefully settling the long dispute.

I can't speak for SexyKick, but I have to agree somewhat that if you give the article itself a good reading in its current condition, you'll probably see what we mean. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a second - you and SexyKick both seem to have missed the point I was making: The stuff about the extensive UK marketing (including the Cyber Razor Cut ads and all that) is in the current article, and seems to be sourced. So I'm questioning why "North-American marketing campaigns (Console wars, primarily with Nintendo)" is listed under "Genesis specific" in your bullet points. Well, obviously "North American" = "Genesis specific", but you know what I mean.

Anyway, if you can get this to work (it seems temperamental at my end), someone somewhere has digitised a bunch of retro UK video games magazines. Could be good for sources. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidently I missed that - thanks for pointing it out. Feel free to amend the list above as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem - now done. Also added "Release date" under Genesis, for the sake of symmetry. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

He missed it because he is blinded by bias and is stuck in denial 77.97.141.75 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, these personal attacks are getting old. Next one gets an instant report to WP:ANI, no exceptions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Easy, guys. Let's just focus on the article instead of going back and forth. On the topic of an article rewrite, I can already see several glaring issues, namely as I look at the article's sourcing. Let's face it; we might as well go for broke, make the article stable, and go for an FA. I'll give some specifics later on; I have a project in real life I have to complete first. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Am I late to the party? I didn't bother to read over the numerous comments preceding mine, so I'm not sure if anyone has closed the discussion yet. Personally, a compound name wouldn't bother me. It seems like the only way to be equally inclusive. I'm sure some editors would still be up-in-arms over the article naming issue, but wouldn't a compound name possibly appease most people? I say it's at least worth a shot, assuming it hasn't been tried already. If the change upsets too many editors, we could always revert back to the previous title. 98.86.114.181 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Repairs I'm seeing needed

Apologies I haven't been around in the last few days; as I've said to some before, I work an abrasive schedule. Anyway, I'll be back on in a couple of days to edit the page, but let's talk article repair, shall we?

Regardless of your take on region naming, here's what I'm seeing needs fixed:

• LOTS of unreliable sources. We need to use sources from WP:VG/S wherever possible, and fill in with better quality sources.
• Lead does need a rewrite. Part of this will be dependent on the eventual outcome of the article, so this should be saved for last.
• "Console wars" main article needs redirected to the main article History of video games, and segments on its discontinuation needs to be removed because that's better off for the "decline".
• VRC section; should that lead into the section about Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, the US congressional hearings and the controversies in the UK Parliament? It's funny the controversies aren't covered better here; though it's not really a Genesis-exclusive issue, there's no denying how crucial it is to the history of the Genesis.
• Should sales figures over the course of time be mentioned? At least in the decline they should be mentioned there; it gives an important comparison of how the Genesis performed against its competition, including the SNES.
• Emulation is short, choppy, and full of useless cruft. How many of these emulators are actually noteworthy of mention aside from the fact that they exist? Combining it with information about plug-and-play devices that emulate Genesis hardware and the release of Genesis titles on newer consoles might be worth a mention in the same section, and all together with the "Legacy and revival" section, putting together one section about the survival of Genesis/Mega Drive games and software years after the system was discontinued.
• Tech specs are a bit long and crufty, and appear to contain original research.
• Peripherals section could be expanded, or a new section added, about the internet services Sega Channel and Sega Net Work System, and then those articles can be redirected to those sections.
• Variations definitely needs expanded. I can see this comprising a couple of subsections, with maybe a sentence or two about each variation. Then, List of variations of the Mega Drive would also be obsolete, but that's okay because that list is full of cruft and OR, anyway.
• Article could definitely use a reception section. Not only does it play into the console's legacy, but it helps to convey more about how the console was seen during its lifetime.

Thoughts? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this is going to be one of the longest articles of all time. x.x

• What sources are we considering unreliable right now?
• Emulation surely is crufty. Kega Fusion, and to a much lesser extent, Gens are the most used emulators right now.
• Sega Channel I would think would be long enough and contain enough sources on its own to be its own article. I don't feel that is the case with the latter. Sega Channel had multiple exclusive games for instance, I don't know...
• I would think (though I'm not an expert on this matter) that the List of variations of the Mega Drive would just be easier to rework and link to.
• Reception I think just plays into Legacy and revival. There wasn't a Reception section in the SNES article until CaseyPenk just did this huge rework of the article. (and pending on what Anomie feels about it, we might revert all of that because such drastic changes to a featured article seem unwaranted)--SexyKick 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sure it'll be that long. There is some expansion needed, but a lot of cruft also needs to be taken out in emulation and tech specs. Sources, I'd have to do a full source review as in featured article candidates, but from just skimming the list, I have my doubts about several of them... not the factual information itself, but the sources have to be reliable to establish credibility. As for the variations, I actually disagree that it'd be easier to rework the list because having read it several times, I feel that the list is crufty with excessive unnecessary detail and also contains original research (read the section on the Firecore? Saying it's "crudely" emulating Genesis software is pretty pointy.) I believe, though, that I can successfully work it into a couple of subsections (First and second models, alternate variations by third parties, and post-lifetime releases), with each subsection only taking a couple of paragraphs each. If desired, I can put this together in my sandbox in the next week or two to show a proof of concept. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I do feel like the List of variations of the Mega Drive needs to be completely wiped and redone. The proof of concept idea would be an improvement to what's in there ATM.--SexyKick 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Still working on it, I had a rough week at work. I did, however, get rid of the emulation section by condensing it into Legacy and revival, and adding subsections to that part. I think it also makes more sense that way, as emulation of the system is really a matter of the system's legacy and later releases, too. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose making this article overly lengthy by having details on each of the different variations of the Mega Drive, if you feel a specific variation is particularly noteworthy then it should have it's own article, but tbh I get the impression you are just trying to wind up proponents of the name Mega Drive who now only have one article/list without a gimped title77.97.141.75 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm more of the disposition that if it could never be a featured list or a good article, it shouldn't be an article or list on Wikipedia. You're also forgetting List of Sega Mega Drive games, which I've said nothing about, and furthermore I've argued for Mega Drive before and honestly believe it is the better title. At this point, looking at repairs has nothing to do with the article name, except that removing bias in the article in the cleanup will help to better direct the naming debate if it fires up again; not to mention, of course, I'm a Sega enthusiast who wants good articles and not crap. Also, I'm not talking about having lots of details; if we wanted that, we'd redo List of variations of the Mega Drive, which is absolutely ridiculous and an original research dumping ground. If I can find some time to make that concept, you'd see that each variation really only has, in my concept, a sentence or two to it, and the entire section would be a couple of paragraphs total. That's all it really needs. Lastly, like I said I favor Mega Drive myself, but "gimped title", really? The problem's that we have two equally valid titles, and that's why this debate has raged since 2003. No reason to talk about the naming until the article could stand as a good article and meets all Wikipedia policies, especially WP:WORLDVIEW. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, variations with their own articles already: Pioneer LaserActive, Amstrad Mega PC, Sega TeraDrive, Sega Nomad. LaserActive couldn't be merged in because it's quite a diverse system that ran both Mega Drive/Genesis, as well as TurboGrafx-16 and was an audiovisual system; Sega Nomad I think has enough as the successor to the Sega Game Gear to warrant its own article as well that needs rewritten. The two computers, I'm not sure on yet. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Should be called Mega Drive

Please all see here for reasons as to why this has been removed - again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A brief challenge to two of the FAQ's arguments for "Sega Genesis"

All right, before I start with this, let me make something perfectly clear. Those who have been on this debate have known that I'm in total favor of consistency, whether or not it's "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive", and do slightly prefer Mega Drive myself but voiced support for maintaining the status quo in the previous RFC a couple of months ago. I'm not here to suggest the name change again without new argument, or any of that other stuff. Those who have seen my edit history have seen lately I've been away for a little while working on other pursuits, but I'm not gone from Wikipedia, not by a longshot.

Also, before I begin, I will say the latest edit war on this talk page is despicable. Why we have an IP editor continuing to sling that term "yank bias" and we're still seeing personal attacks is beyond me... but anyway, let's get away from that and to actual reason, shall we?

I understand that the following two points were simply listed as "common arguments" for Sega Genesis in the FAQ, but having done the writing for Sega CD and Sega 32X, I don't think that these two points are valid arguments. Let me break these down one at a time:

• The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)

Are we really sure about that? I've seen quite a few European sources in my research, both past in time and retrospective. Period sources include MEGA, which was a UK publication devoted exclusively to the Mega Drive. Man!ac Magazine also did some publications in Germany on the Mega Drive, and who can forget Famitsu in Japan? Retrospective sources include Retro Gamer Magazine in the UK, as well as Eurogamer. The sources are out there, and I'm willing to bet there are many more "period" sources from that day that I know I don't know about because I'm not from, nor do I live, in Europe. However, can we really say it received more press coverage just because not all the press coverage is as available today? Bear in mind, we're looking at a console that debuted while the Internet was still developing into the behemoth it is today.

• The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
  • The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
  • U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.

Comically enough, the article talks a lot about advertising specifically in Europe, almost more so than it does in North America. Now, I do have some sources for some tricks that Tom Kalinske and Sega of America pulled to get retailers on board in America, but clearly the heavy influences of advertising in Europe, shown in the article, can't be denied. It's more likely to me that we simply can't show just how vicious either war was, which is part of why I advocate rewriting the whole console wars sections. Keep in mind as well that Sega has a "Sega of Europe" division and we don't have a lot of info in the article as to what was their marketing strategy, because we lack the sourcing that I'm sure exists. Now, before "burden of proof" gets stuffed on me here, I'm aware I'm not providing any more sourcing at the moment for this last aspect, but simply ask you to consider the point.

As for US congressional hearings, which I recall as the linchpin of KieferSkunk's argument... that's not exclusive to North America, either. Check this source out that I used in Sega CD here, and go to midway into the "Welcome to the Fantasy Zone" section. There were questions raised in the UK Parliament about Night Trap as well, which also makes it likely to have happened for Mortal Kombat, too.

If I had more time, I'm sure I'd be source-hunting for more, but for now this is all I have time for. Are these really valid points? Sorting out what is valid and what is not will help to clear this debate up in the future. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I think it would also be useful if the FAQ was at least partially referenced. It currently throws around a lot of claims of consensus reached without pointing to the record of that consensus. Discussions here tend to go the same way - "We had consensus" "No we didn't" "The 'consensus' is just a manufactured end-run around the rules" etc. Having the history bit of the FAQ link to discussions / RFCs / straw polls etc would at least help people like me who are new to the debate to get their heads around it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Would add the (intended to be humorous) point that メガドライブ, claimed to be the original name in Japanese, in fact comes out of Google Translate as 'Rye Mega Cloth Sleeve'. Not sure if it's a comment on the build quality of the console or what. GoldenRing (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For the Japanese, translations are a little rough because of the huge differences between Japanese and English. It's not so straightforward to just put something in a translator and get out what is intended. In a lot of cases, what you're actually seeing is that the title is romanized to actually read as if it's English... in this case, I'm not a Japanese expert but I believe the letters above are katakana and read "Me ga do ra i bu", or Mega Doraibu, which is about as roughly close as you can get to "Mega Drive" in Japanese using Japanese phonetics. It's not really a translation, per se, because of that and the way these titles were developed.

About referencing the FAQ, that would be a chore, but certainly not impossible. There's some 50 pages of archived talk page material to sort through. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

These are definitely good challenges to the points up there, and I'm certainly open to getting new sources that prove contrary to the points as they were made. But I want to be clear on something about the FAQ: The section where both of those points came from specifically says these are common arguments on that side of the debate, NOT statements of fact. They reflect the arguments that were made in previous consensus discussions, whether or not there are equal-and-opposite arguments on the other side. In fact, I tried to be as clear as possible when drafting that part of the FAQ that they are not necessarily true statements, and the closing part of the FAQ tries to be clear about further discussion being welcome if there are new sources or policies to bring to the table. So, good on you for challenging those points with a call for new sources - I've seen others from the UK say that there was plenty of press coverage on the Mortal Kombat/Night Trap controversy there, so I definitely want to give those points due course. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that they're merely common arguments, and even said so myself in my statement ;) However, I did not think anyone had brought the counterpoints to these to light just yet, even in all the RFCs, etc. Given that there's no telling when debate will begin again, I thought it best to go ahead and present the counterpoints so that they may help us to make an informed decision in the future. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

USA-centrism

So it was Mega Drive in Japan, and also everywhere but the USA (and I guess Canada too, but whatever). That's not even most of the English speaking world. --Niemti (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reference the FAQ at the top of this talk page to find out why the page is at. In order for discussion to be restarted on the subject, new information that has not yet been discussed has to be brought to light. Otherwise, it is very likely that there will not be consensus for any move. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also like it very much if people stopped accusing editors involved in this debate of being biased toward the USA. It's getting REALLY old, and it's going to result in ANI reports soon, since it has been such a prevalent problem. (See my warning above.) Instead of complaining about bias, why don't people actually try fixing the problems they see with it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, in an effort to keep discussions on-topic, I've added an edit notice to this talk page to call more attention to the FAQ, and to specifically mention the disruption consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And that's why I'm glad we have an admin on this issue. Thanks, Kiefer. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We and not allowed to point out the blatant American bias throughout the article and the talk page, when we do they accuse us of being disruptive when their bias is the only thing holding this article back and has been for almost a decade, and when we raise the issue of bias they collude on each others talk pages and ban us, this article will never be fixed with the American editors and admins that relentlessly troll it and rig polls41.130.195.106 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. Just saying that this article is biased isn't helping. We've been asking you to bring new information to the table that refutes bias. Just simply complaining about it isn't going to get anything done, and it has been happening so much that it's gone well beyond the point where we can take it in good faith. Accusing us of rigging polls, trolling, and taking inappropriate administrative actions against editors doesn't help either. I don't know how much more simply I can put this: You are being disruptive by just accusing us of being biased when the established community as a whole has already agreed that the discussion isn't likely to move without new information. If you have new information, please, by all means, bring it. The fact that very few people have, so far, leads me to believe that the status quo is in fact correct, and therefore is NOT biased. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you really do believe that editors and admins are colluding against you and rigging the system, you are certainly more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U or any of the other dispute-resolution systems, and even ask for formal admin review (you can certainly ask to have my actions reviewed if you want - I don't mind), and let people who aren't involved in this dispute take action if they feel it's necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One more comment, btw, since I know it's going to come up: I personally live in the United States, but have maintained for the entire time I've been involved in this dispute (what, five or six years now? I've lost track) that "Mega Drive" is the better title. I know there's at least one other US-based editor who feels the same way. The reason I don't keep arguing for it is because it's pretty obvious to me that consensus isn't going that direction, and there's little point in keeping on fighting over it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(Insert) That's ironic Kiefer, because I'm an English editor, and live in Merry olde England - but I argue for the Genesis title. My arguments are all on here - mostly archived now - but my preference for Genesis is based on the fact that both are suitable titles, with nothing between them. So my allegience to "Genesis" is based on the arguments presented by others - not only the content of the argument, but the way in which it is presented and put forward. and I have to say that in this regard non-American editors are very often shameful and embarrassing. Witness the "arguments" put forward by a recent IP editor on my talk page. I really cannot see how any intelligent person will believe that such behaviour lends strength to their position and draw others to their banner. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the main reason we (the more seasoned editors that the IP editor above was likely referring to) are getting to be more knee-jerk about this - the vast majority of the time, these accusations are literally baseless. They just say we're biased, they assert that we're showing our bias all over the place, etc., but they have yet to actually present any significant info that actually backs up the accusation. In a small handful of cases, editors have at least quoted passages from the existing article, and/or from earlier comments by other editors, that they believe is evidence of existing bias, but so far I haven't actually seen anything substantiated (and only a very small number of "I think I remember seeing" comments) that shows us that reliable sources would actually provide a larger world view than what we already have. (Which is also why I can't believe we're still discussing this topic so many years after it started - there's a reason this page is listed on Wikipedia's "Dumbest Arguments Ever" page.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you feel the argument is dumb please feel free to disappear from it, we won't miss you. As for your national bias I can point to the 1 day rigged poll you ran on the Mega CD page to rename it to the non notable yank name without other editors being aware and with out time to respond or refute the name change, it was just another snatch and grab on a name by you nationalist yanks92.238.252.159 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what? I've had enough of your derogatory remarks. You clearly don't understand anything about Wikipedia's policies on consensus, sourcing, and discussion. Your repeated use of the word "yank" in every comment you use also indicates to me a violation of WP:NPA. Please read my post below that I wrote; you could have done this the right way by bringing the necessary sourcing to the table, adding something new to the discussion, and not lambasting people with your slang. Instead, you've seen fit to continue to throw the same accusation over and over again, and refused to drop the stick. So, I'm not going to persist in arguing with you anymore. Instead, I'm going to turn this case over to WP:AN/I and have a neutral admin and experienced editors intervene. It's time you learned how to be respectful to your peers who edit and maintain this encyclopedia. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's policies on consensus, sourcing and discussion which is why I pointed out how kieferskunk avoided the process and rigged the name change on the Mega CD article and you running off for help from a yank admin just further proves nationalist yank collusion to keep the erroneous status quo and again if you don't want to discuss the current issues (yank bias) then please leave this talk page and article alone WE WILL NOT MISS YOU, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM 92.238.252.159 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? How did I rig the name change on Mega-CD? Virtually everyone agreed that that article's name should be kept in sync with this one (and if this article should change back to "Mega Drive", we'll happily change the CD article to match). I'm asking you to discuss the issue, but all you're doing is calling me a yank. I don't see how you think that's going to help anything. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I have taken this to Wikipedia:AN/I#Continued_personal_attacks_by_IP_user_92.238.252.159. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of accusations of "American bias", I have yet to see anyone actually give examples of bias, so simply slinging the term around isn't going to sway anyone. That is not how Wikipedia works; it works through sourcing and proof. Those who have actually read the article will see that though there is quite a bit of American coverage, notably because Sega of America's involvement had a huge influence on the Genesis/Mega Drive as a whole and its revolutions on video game sales (i.e. Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske's razor and blades model), there is also quite a bit of coverage on Japan and Europe as well, as there should be. Could it be improved? Absolutely. Instead of bickering and accusing others of bias, though, why not expand the article with sourced coverage? Be the change you want to see, don't just yell for it. It's a sad moment that the best argument I've heard about worldview bias came from arguments about Sega CD, with these comments here and here, and those aren't even really good arguments, just a bunch of yelling and use of the term "yank bias". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose we follow Red Phoenix's plan and get all non American users banned, this is sure to end the naming dispute once and for all 41.130.195.106 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sure, we can start with you. (Adding this IP to the AN/I.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Much onto mudslinging, are we? That's pretty funny, but guess what? That wouldn't end the naming dispute anyway, since KieferSkunk and I are both two American editors who favor "Mega Drive" ourselves. Chaheel is a British user who favors "Genesis". This mass grouping has to stop, and above all else, stop the mudslinging! Actually put some effort into research for a change and find the sources to make aspects of the article more notable on a worldwide level, then discuss the name again! Stop this "I'm right, you're wrong because of your nationality" stuff and be the change you want to see! Jeez, guys, how can I make it any clearer than that? I'm the #2 editor to Sega Genesis in edit count and at one time had it promoted to GA status (when the standards were not as high and before I retired) as "Sega Mega Drive". If all you're here for is to see your favorite title on the article and you're not willing to contribute and help make it stronger, then you really don't have much reason to argue. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of YouTube as reference material for Sega ads

Aren't the links to all the Sega ads in YouTube copyright violations? In any regard, it seems a little tacky to me that this wouldn't be covered in some print source media anyway, such as "Retro Gamer". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there's general consensus that we should never link to YouTube unless YouTube itself is the subject of the article. Further, I've seen plenty of other editors say YouTube is most definitely not a reliable source. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Damn, what I'd give to get more time to edit this article, but I have to be up early for work tomorrow again. Might have some time on Friday. Biggest thing striking me as a problem in this article are the references (an issue we had even when it was a GA, with unreliability being a serious problem), followed by excessive cruft (emulation, tech specs), poorly written sections (variations, history could use a buff, lead), and world view (universal, there are more sources out there from all sides that could help to fully define the impact of the console around the world, South Korea and Brazil included). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul project

Hey, editors. It seems like there hasn't been a lot of work to this article lately aside from my contributions... I'm supposing that the title debate has kind of scared everyone off. So, today I finally have some free time and initiative, so I'm going to sit down with a few energy drinks and start weeding out the issues here. References are going to be the tough part, but with the help of WP:VG/S and some back issues of magazines, I think I can make some significant progress here. Ironically, I think I'm going to structure much of what's here by using the FA article Super Nintendo Entertainment System as a guide... what a surprise. I'll make sure to place the {{underconstruction}} template up on the page while I'm working, but please, don't hesitate to help just because it's there! I take no ownership of this article and would be glad to tag-team a project with anyone here. Also, just an interesting side note: one reference I'm going to use is Retro Gamer issue 27's article "Retroinspection: Mega Drive", which ironically is featured on the cover with the line, "In terms of 16-bit, it's GENESIS: Revealing the success behind Sega's outstanding Mega Drive." Kind of thought that was a funny homage to the dual titles of the console, ha ha. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! Somewhere in my stash, I have a copy of that same magazine (there is, or was, a reference in this WP article to "Blast Processing" attributed to a quote from that Retroinspection article). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, I stand corrected - the magazine I have has the "Retroinspection: Mega-CD" article, not the Mega Drive article. Oops. :) And the Blast Processing quote came from an American developer who said he was referring to a technical trick ("you could basically just blast data into the DACs"), which the "PR guys" jumped on and turned into a new advertising term. Didn't have much to do with the CD unit specifically, but that's where that particular quote came from. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Curiously...

As part of the overhaul, I uncovered a couple of Sega support manuals for Genesis/Mega Drive repairs, published by Sega Enterprises, Ltd., and they refer to the second models of the console as the "Genesis II" and the "Mega Drive II". Finally, maybe we have an official name for the second model? Hopefully it's not too confusing since legal documentation referred to the refit of the first model with the TMSS as the "Genesis III". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Being the son of a Sega CD developer, I always knew the models were referred to "in-house" as the Model 1 and Model 2 (both the console and the CD add-on got these designations). And in the console Model 2, there were some significant technical differences specifically to make the console work better with the CD, such as supporting external audio through the expansion bus rather than needing an external cable in the Model 1, as well as providing a standard stereo RCA out for stereo without requiring the headphone jack, etc. I never knew where that stuff might be documented, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that's pretty awesome. No wonder you're on top of the Sega stuff, KieferSkunk. Currently I'm about halfway done: completed Add-ons and Variations, almost done with Tech Specs, still need to weed out History and Legacy. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Case in point...

I've discussed the bad sourcing and OR in this article before. Here's a case in point, that's even in the lead: it's stated that the video game hearings and the VRC forced Nintendo to join the ESRB. That's not true at all: the ESRB was created out of the congressional hearings as a joining of six video game companies after all of the controversies. Nintendo was actually very well treated in the hearings because they showed how much they censored their content, and as a result of the ESRB formation, Nintendo saw no more need to have their censorship policies. Actually, Sega proposed the universal adoption of the VRC, but this was shot down, and it's speculated by a few individuals that it was shot down specifically because it was Sega's system and neither Nintendo nor 3DO would accept that. Instead, they kind of made Sega go the route of the ESRB in this way. It's all citable out of the Kent book, and will be part of the next section I work on.

Ironically, Night Trap did not have a VRC rating, a fact Nintendo pointed out in the hearings. Just thought all of this was worth mentioning. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega Mega Drive, also known as the Sega Genesis in North America.

Frequently Asked Question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the above so controversial, since it better represents the official international name of this system? Is this English wikipedia, or American wikipedia? Why have you themed the entire article around the one name from the one region that was forced to be changed due to a trademark dispute? Logic, where is it. Yes I've seen the debates regarding this...point is, why were there debates regarding this? Once again, logic...where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.148.190 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 October 2013‎ See the FAQ. - X201 (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC) There is no logic, it all stems from nationalistic bias and mob ruleTechnotopia (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Note that 121.217.148.190 has no edits outside of this talk page, just like many other IP addresses that have appeared in the past to bring up the same issue. Technotopia has almost no edits outside of this, and has been blocked for harassing others. [1] Most likely all the same person. Dream Focus 11:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's reasonable to assume that every new user who posts here is an existing editor in disguise. It is the nature of naming disputes to attract new people. As people see an arbitrary choice as an affront to their 'side', or a conspiracy by the other group, they feel the need to speak up on WP for the first time. Immediately accusing them of having some agenda is probably bad. APL (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC) All my IP edits came before I created an account and from Virgin Media Ip addressess from Bradford England. What you fail to realise is the entire world thinks you are wrong on this issue and it will be brought up forever by new people until you yanks drop the stick and stop beating dead horses.82.47.200.6 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC) The above edit is mine, I wasn't signed in but it goes to highlight what my ip looks like and that Dream Focus fails to AGF. Technotopia (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC) There is no good faith to assume. Be aware that your continual antagonistic commentary could be considered personal attacks. I am reminded of another editor who used to consider everything that agreed with her as consensus, and everything that disagreed with her as mob rule. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I agree when he posts nationalist sections like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dream_Focus#The_American_spelling_of_something_is_always_the_best on his talk page how could one ever assume good faith or expect his actions to be based on wiki policy... and fyi, consensus is mob rule... Technotopia (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Did you bother to read what I posted there years ago? "Less letters in words give our office workers an advantage over you, since they have less letters to type, and thus get things done faster." I doubt anyone could take that seriously. Anyway, anyone can change their IP address, they having plenty of free proxies out there, and some services exist to even sell you plenty of IP addresses to use. It seems odd that just as the issues dies down for a bit, a new IP address just appears and post a message just like the many previous IP addresses did before it. Dream Focus 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) If we're not going to delete this crap (as we should based on our notice regarding the article title debate), can we at least hat it? There is no value to this discussion.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebuild complete

A few minor issues and only one reference I'm not liking that I can't find a replacement for, but otherwise we're done. A few things still to weed out, but otherwise it's right there, and definitely higher than C-class. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I'm confident enough in it that I'm going to renominate it for GA status. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You have done an absolutely wonderful job on the article. I'm disappointed about the removal of the Cyber Razor cut / Peter Wingfield information, which could have been sourced to this site and I'm surprised at the removal of the 1998 competition between the Genesis 3 and smaller SNES, which had a reliable source. However, I protest the removal of the thoroughly discussed, as well as sourced (mostly by magazines from the time that had online documentation available at the time of their addition to the article and content discussion) and agreed upon summary of sales information. I believe we don't need to remove that to be A class. If we feel like tweaking some of the wording, that would be better.--SexyKick 14:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles need to be stable for good article status and this article is less stable than the average American 192.227.157.173 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technotopia (talk • contribs)

It's actually quite stable as an article, perhaps not the title. Also, really? More nationalist remarks of hatred? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the one reference you're not liking? I could try searching too. I think the Legacy and Revival needs AtGames' 2012 Genesis consoles added to it, the Sega Genesis Classic and Sega Genesis Ultimate Portable (mainly since they're licensed).--SexyKick 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have said just two (Segagaga and scanlines16.com, both for the Korean Mega Drive), but now I must protest on the sources for the sales information. I have two key problems with the version that you've presented, SexyKick. For starters, with the exception of the New York Times, I have a hard time believing that quite a few of those sources are reliable. Sega-16 has really improved in recent years with a legit staff and use of their information in other regarded publications (i.e. Retro Gamer cited Sega-16 in their Retroinspection), but in 2004 they were mostly user-contributed. Also, the numbers completely speak of WP:OR; we're assuming way too much here. IGN, Retro Gamer, these are regarded sources that have done the fact-checking for us. They vary, absolutely, but somehow we've come up with a higher number than anyone else? WP:VNT states we should go by what we can verify in reliable sources, not necessarily what may be true or not. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As a note: WP:VG/S is a good guide of what is considered reliable. Remember, anyone can host a website... I happen to host one myself. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Which of them are unreliable? The magazine sources cleared the discussion, so all of the American sales numbers throughout those years are fine. Video Business, Business Wire, those are reliable sources. CVG, certainly a reliable source. Speaking of CVG, this would be a good source if there's anything it says you might find of interest in there. Also, it was brought up in those discussion if simple math was OR or not. And there's even a policy on it being just fine.--SexyKick 00:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to WP:SUM, I'm aware, but how do you get 41.7 million at all? No single source comes remotely even close to citing that amount; 35.4 million is the highest I've ever seen, with most either saying 29 or 35 million. It would seem more likely that WP:SUM has been misused here and that the 35.4 million figure is being used with the supposed 3rd-party and Nomad figures. How do you know the 35 million estimates don't include those already? We also can't say that Sega never released a sales figure for the Genesis because we don't have a source that says that. We can't say they did and we can't say they didn't, that's OR to say either. What I'm saying is this synthesis is inappropriate because we are basically deciding what includes what when the sources don't explicitly say what they're counting, so we have to go simply by the numbers. Also, the fact that 29 million is not the lower estimate and 37 million is listed as the lowest, I have an issue with that because that to me seems like blatant disregard of reliable sources in favor of larger numbers. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because a source is generally considered reliable does not mean it should be automatically accepted free of scrutiny. There is clear and demonstrable proof via reliable sources of the time period in question that the 29 million figure is inaccurate as a final sales tally because the primary sources that give that figure did so well before the end of the system's production run. Any use of 29 million as a total sales estimate is therefore completely unacceptable and would only serve to seriously degrade the quality of this article. That said, I do have concerns with the attempted inclusion of Brazilian figures, as I have no way to gauge the reliability of the Portuguese-language sources used for those figures. Without commentary from someone who is actually knowledgable about the region and its game industry media (as opposed to someone who is only able to read Portuguese but does not have this knowledge), I am against their inclusion. Indrian (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not entirely true; IGN also gives 29 million as a figure. Man!ac does so and its date is in 1995, right at the end of the Mega Drive's era as Sega's primary console and the shift to Saturn. I'd be much more inclined to believe 35 million (a figure Retro Gamer cites as well), but as far as I can see it, 41.7 million is an outrageous and totally incorrect figure. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you slightly misunderstood me. The PRIMARY sources that give a 29 mil figure come from 1995, before the end of Genesis sales. The IGN SECONDARY source is parroting this number and therefore is flat out wrong. Incidentally, that is not the only mistake made in what is a horribly shoddily researched article that should be taken with about five pounds of salt. I agree with your concerns about 41 million being way to high (or more accurately way to high based on available sourcing). I believe there have been some dubious attempts at sourcing Brazil and Nomad figures that has led to this issue. I have no problem with 29 million appearing in the article as a representation of total sales by 1995, but it has no place here as a total sales estimate. Indrian (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it WP:OR for us to estimate any sales figure at all in the absence of an official one? Even if we can demonstrate that the 29-million figure is logically incorrect because it was issued before the end of the production run, if we don't have a better figure, shouldn't we be reporting what our sources are reporting, and not making judgements on their accuracy? (Or rather, reporting what we do know, that this figure was as of 1995 and doesn't reflect sales after that point?) In other words, why are we arguing about this and ignoring what our policies say about such things? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why I am against using the 29 million figure in a sales estimate for lifetime sales. Absolutely nothing wrong with using it as a figure for sales to a certain date. The IGN article's claim of 29 million lifetime sales is not just logically wrong, it is demonstrably wrong from other sources. A source that is incorrect on its face (and since this is about figures and not opinion or analysis there actually is a "right" and a "wrong" here) is by its very nature unreliable. Therefore that figure cannot stand in that context. I would personally go further down the road you suggest and avoid providing any "lifetime" sales figure and stick to what our reliable sources actually say. WP:SUM does not apply, because this is more than simple addition since we have to make assumptions about what smaller figures in reliable sources are already included in some of the larger figures. That is OR. I don't really want to reopen that particular debate since a consensus was reached earlier on the estimates, but I will strongly oppose any attempt to justify a 29 million lifetime sales estimate based on a horrendously written IGN article. Indrian (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Those disputed sales figures have also been a large portion of the ongoing title dispute and have always struck me as a terrible thing to be trying to base a cogent argument on. The very fact that they've been so widely disputed should (IMO) serve no greater purpose than to comment on the fact that no reliable figure exists, but certainly not to establish market dominance in any specific region or establish notability based on sales. (And so long as the absence of a reliable figure is covered appropriately, I don't see that that should preclude a GA.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

When I saw that Red Phoenix had rewritten this article and fixed the blatant OR/SYN issue in the sales figures, I just knew that Sega partisans were going to come along and rehash this same old issue. Back in 2011 I proposed a wording along the lines of "comment[ing] on the fact that no reliable figure exists" as suggested above (it's now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 85#Wording), but of course the partisans continued arguing until I (and probably everyone else) gave up in disgust. And then the partisans claim ironclad consensus in their favor. That's been the usual pattern here for some time now, and while I hope that changes I'm not feeling very confident. Anomie⚔ 10:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there are enough people that want to reopen the sales figure debate, I am happy to argue for getting rid of the estimates and OR. I am just not inclined to reopen that debate myself. Indrian (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I went over the sources again and definitely noticed that one is a blog. I've removed that, and have included Anomie's wording. There is also this source in which Joe Miller; who worked for Sega in the 90s says the Genesis sold over 40 million, that the Sega CD sold 6 million, and admittedly he over estimates the Game Gear (if you go buy Wikipedia's numbers on that article) but says he thinks it sold 12 million. RedPhoenix, I also presume this source which the last GA relied upon heavily is not considered reliable with today's standards?--SexyKick 15:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, SexyKick, it's not. Not at all. Nowhere even close, as a matter of fact; little more than a fan blog, and to be honest I should have recognized that in 2008, but I was only 18 at the time and wasn't really paying that much attention to reliability—the fact that it slid through a GA review is just a reflection of how the standards have grown in five years, and done so well. Indrian, I about wanted to reach out and strangle you until I reread what you wrote and saw you meant the IGN article is poorly researched—I had thought you implied that my research for this article here was shoddy, though I busted my rear and exploited every source I could find and had at hand to make it happen, not to mention weeding out a ton of unreliable sources and replacing them with more reliable ones. I think part of the problem is that when lifetime sales are quoted, they don't define the parameters. Does it include Brazil and South Korea? Does it include the Genesis 3? Are the Sega Genesis CDX (Multi-Mega) and third-party variations included? I haven't seen a source that states exactly what they're counting. I misunderstood your statement because as far as I can see, we really don't have primary sources, do we? We have sources from the period, yes: Man!ac quotes 29 million as of 1995, but I wasn't thinking that would be a "primary" source—to me, that would be the ever-elusive number from Sega themselves that we don't have. That being said, consensus wise I would be okay with trying to avoid lifetime sales figures; I am glad that we are eliminating the OR, which has been my goal in rewriting this article from my return to Wikipedia since. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Another question to ask is whether the numbers are units manufactured, units shipped, or units sold, and whether the numbers are likely to be accurate (e.g. financial reports) or inflated (e.g. press releases intended for stealth advertising). For that matter, there's also the possibility of source confusion between calendar years and financial years. All this is particularly important when combining disparate sources for sales by year, as you could easily wind up with a situation where units are counted twice. Anomie⚔ 00:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. I remember my brother used to have one. Aside from that I don't generally play video games at all, I've never owned any console of any kind, and haven't seen one of these in about 20 years, so bear in mind you're talking to an outside point of view on this!

Stability

I'm going to concentrate on this before everything else, as this article has one of the most infamous renaming / edit wars in Wikipedia history. A recent incident occurred this March, where Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) indefinitely fully-protected the article in (this diff). We don't normally fully-protect stuff unless there are severe stability problems. The previous GA reviews don't seem to be linked correctly, as they have been created under the old name of Mega Drive.

So, can you assure me that that's all in the past, won't happen again, and the article is now generally progressing in one consistent direction. Personally, I am ambivalent - although I'm British, I recall "Genesis" emulators appearing in the mid-1990s, so I'm used to the term.

Reading through the article, the text seems to jump between "Mega Drive" and "Genesis". I would stick consistently with "Genesis" and only refer to "Mega Drive" if the prose specifically talks about features on a non-US model (eg: "on the European Mega Drive")

Aside from that, I'll read through the article now and make comments hopefully by the end of today. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re stability: I've had a minor discussion with Red Phoenix and Sergecross regarding the potential for the title to be switched back to "Mega Drive" after Red Phoenix's rewrite, given that the article appears to foster a larger world view than it did before, and some of the most contentious issues in that dispute are being addressed (such as the faulty sales figures). I don't know if it necessarily would go back to MD, but it's my hope that any future discussion on that issue would be properly based on the new state of the article and not on the "traditional" conjecture, and that it would lead to greater overall stability. That said, I know that that's a big can of worms nobody really wants to open again, so I'm not sure what we'd rather do on this front. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as the key players agree on this to be the way forward, we're fine. "Stability" in the context of the GA criteria is really for constant back and forth between editors, making a version of the article to review against impossible. That's exactly what happened in March (you wouldn't have had a full protect otherwise). What I would do is wait until the GA review finishes. Assuming the review passes, the article will then have a broad coverage of reliable sources accurately covering the topic with the correct due weight on them. At that point, you can tot up what source mentions what name, and if there's a clear and obvious consensus that "Mega Drive" is the preferred option for the sources present, that's what the article should be called. Having said all of that, I know nobody wants to resurrect this old chestnut yet again. Regardless of which - if "Genesis" is the article name, then "Genesis" should be the dominant term used. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes good sense to me. I'll note the progress made in our FAQ when the time comes. Thanks for your input. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Been a long time coming, hasn't it? I will just go ahead and note as one of those "key players" you're referring to, that I do agree on this to be the way forward. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just wanted to mention that I think you're incorrect on one point above: Dennis apparently full-protected the page back in March using Twinkle, then changed the protection level to semi-protected with a note that Twinkle wasn't working the way he wanted to. It looks like approximately 10 days passed between the two protects, but his note seems to indicate full-protection wasn't what he intended. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't let APL off the hook for edit-warring with the IP or calling their edits vandalism (I'm happy to assume they were trying to improve the article). Anyway, plenty of GAs and FAs are semi-protected, so I'm not worried about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was that IP and APL was vandalising the article, he changed every reference of Mega Drive when in the context of the European market to Genesis, I changed them back and he began warring but those issues seem to have been overcome.Technotopia (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, APL was not vandalising. He was doing what he thought was the right thing to do to the article (even if nobody else agreed with him), and was inviting discussion on the talk page. If he was blanking sections and replacing them with, say, "sonic fanboyz r gay", then that would be vandalism. Check the definition of WP:VANDAL carefully! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333, I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

At least four editors (including myself) were reverting the disruptive changes by a single IP account. If "Nobody agreed with [me]" why was the wording we were reverting to kept from March until last week when that section was rewritten to a third, better, wording? (Actually, at the time you posted your comment, the version we restored still stood.) If you or anyone else believed our reverts were improper, you've had months to restore IP user's version. But nobody did.

Which makes a lot of sense, because I and the others were doing nothing more than reverting back to the consensus version. (The IP editor was a single-purpose account with an axe to grind. He was blocked for this behavior, and I notice that after his block expired, he made exactly three edits, all vandalism.)

I would like either an explanation of your comments or an apology. APL (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

History

•  DoneThe reference for the first sentence needs a page number
  • I'll have to look; I have the ebook version of the Kent book. The rest of my page numbers were graciously provided to me at the FAC for Sega v. Accolade, so I may have to see if I can get a hold of a physical copy of the book itself. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I have the book. I will look up the page number this evening if no one else has gotten to it. Indrian (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • And its added. Indrian (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Indrian, you're awesome. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "Already on the market at this point was the SG-1000" - what was the SG-1000 exactly?

This paragraph is also problematic from an accuracy standpoint. It is true that a stumbling arcade market helped lead Sega into the console market, but this was a factor in the creation of the SG-1000 launched in 1983. Therefore these decisions were made before the buyout when Sega was still a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. Nakayama was running the Japanese part of the business at that time. Indrian (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I see that's problematic, except that it doesn't really touch on the origins of the SG-1000; I mentioned in the article that the SG-1000 was already on the market by the time of the acquisition, and that Nakayama decided to focus on home consoles. Am I missing something here? I've made this more clear in the article.

As written now, the article implies that the company made the decision to make a major commitment to the home market AFTER the buyout and treats the SG-1000 as some kind of primordial anomaly from before this change in focus. This is simply not true. When Sega announced the SG-1000 in May 1983, the company's managing director made a statement that Sega's fate was now tied to the home market. That is when the focus on the home began. Indrian (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've got that statement, that would be awesome. I haven't been able to find anything about that. Honestly, I didn't read that particular connotation into the statement. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If (and only if) you have a reliable source for all of that, it would certainly be worth mentioning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I know where to locate the publication in question, but will not be able to acquire it in time to do a proper citation for this review. Its not strictly necessary to fix my problem with this paragraph anyway. I will just go ahead and rearrange the material that is in the article. As I stated before, its not that the information is incorrect so much as I feel the flow of the paragraph puts undue emphasis on the post-buyout period. Indrian (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I completely rewrote the first paragraph of the history section to provide more context on Sega's difficulties in the period and Nakayama's decision to move into the home market in 1983. I think it just lines up the chronology a little better. I need to add a little sourcing to what I supplied, which I will do this evening when I am back with the bulk of my research materials again. I'm going to go ahead and mark this one as done though, as I believe I satisfied the reviewer's initial concern that the SG-1000 was not properly defined. Indrian (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Furthermore, the release of NEC's PC-Engine .... having to compete with NEC" - don't need the second "NEC", "them" will suffice. The source cited to this sentence does not appear to mention the PC-Engine

It is not mentioned by name, but the "much-publicized 16-bit system" mentioned in the article is, in fact, the PC Engine. Indrian (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "the name of the console was changed to "Genesis" due to a trademark dispute" - with whom, exactly?

The dispute was with a hard drive maker called Supra that released a product called the Mega Drive for the Atari ST. The hard drive is shown at http://www.atarimagazines.com/startv3n5/harddrivecompare.html. I am away from my research materials at the moment, but I will try to locate a reliable source that specifically mentions the trademark dispute so this can be added to the article. Indrian (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's great if you have it; Retro Gamer suggests another company but cannot state with exact certainty if that was the case. If you have one that does, that's awesome. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cannot find anything definitive. I do not think Retro Gamer is correct, because Megadrive Systems did not file for a trademark until 1991. Interestingly, the only Megadrive trademark on file that would fit the time period is for skiwear and athletic shoes, which would most likely not conflict with Sega's interest in electronics. It could be that Sega was just worried about brand confusion between their product and the Supra Megadrive or some other product. I don't think we have the sourcing required to sort this one out; even the Retro Gamer article hedges its bets and says "consensus" says it was a trademark dispute rather than coming straight out and saying it was. Indrian (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, and that's why I didn't want to post that in the article. I think we can safely say it was a trademark dispute, but we can't say for sure what it was with. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you're probably best off saying "According to Retro Gamer's Joe Schmoe, the name change derived from a trademark dispute" - make it clear it's an opinion, not fact. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to make it clear that we cannot be certain a trademark dispute was involved. I am going to mark this one as closed, but we can revisit if you feel my edit was not sufficient. Indrian (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the consequence of simply not mentioning a trademark issue at all? Do we have any evidence that the decision to change the name for the US market was for any reason other than "we felt like it"? Note how Nintendo marketed the Famicom and Super Famicom as the NES and SNES outside of Japan, even though there was no outside force responsible for it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The trademark theory does appear suspect, as the US Trademark database shows only a single mark active during the launch period of the Mega Drive, and it is for athletic equipment as stated above. I think risk of brand confusion with the Supra Megadrive (which does not appear to have been trademarked) is the most likely reason for the change since they kept Megadrive as the name in Europe. Note I am just speculating for my own edification and not advocating adding that to the article, as there is no sourcing for that. I would personally have no problem with just removing it. Indrian (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the lede last night to simply mention that the console was rebranded in the US, without attempting to explain why. When we get a good source that really does explain this in detail, we can add the appropriate prose and citation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  DoneThe last sentence in the first paragraph is now unsourced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I will be adding sourcing to the first paragraph over the next day or so. Indrian (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, I moved the Kent reference down a line, because that same page discusses the management buyout and Nakayama's appointment as CEO. I still need to add a little sourcing in a couple of other areas, but this specific issue can be closed. Indrian (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Added a couple more sources, this paragraph is almost finished. Indrian (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, the entire first paragraph has references now. The only sentences without a cite are pulling from the same ref as the following sentence. Indrian (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Launch

•  Done "Released in Japan on October 29, 1988, the Japanese launch for the Mega Drive" - the wording is a bit awkward here. I'd suggest "The Mega Drive was released in Japan on October 29, 1988." and put the remaining prose in a separate sentence.
•  Done Some of the second paragraph may not be correctly cited to sources. For instance, this Nintendo Life source doesn't seem to say anything about the claim that "Although the Sega Genesis was not capable of arcade-exact graphics & sound, it was closer than what was possible on the NES or Master System". It does mention that arcade titles were ported, but that's not quite the same thing.
  • Went ahead and stripped that out. We already covered Sega's basis of arcade technology earlier by stating how the Genesis was based on the System 16, and mentioned the Sonic revolution later. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• I think there needs to be more about Sonic The Hedgehog as being the "killer app" that made the console commercially successful, I don't recall anybody caring much the device before the release of that.
  • Working on that, and I think a full paragraph in "Console wars" would be a better spot for that because Sonic wasn't launched until 1991, and the approach used to market Sonic was so crucial to his success, placing him as the pack-in for the Genesis and positioning him directly to compete with Mario, but with an attitude and as the "cooler" character. Would like to use bits from Sonic the Hedgehog (character), as well as IGN's 11-page History of Sega, but I'm not sure if it is full of errors since we've had some debate on IGN's research with the numbers (note, though, that it is a different writer). @Indrian: and @KieferSkunk:, could I get an honest assessment on the IGN article and ideas on how to approach Sonic? I agree it should be a larger section in this article; Sonic was very important to the success of Genesis. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That History of Sega article is pretty good, and I have no problem with it being used. There is also a video retrospective of Sonic done by Game Tap and watchable on YouTube that is full of info taken from interviews with several of the major players. Indrian (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Cool, and I saw the GameTap retrospective in the Sonic the Hedgehog (character) article. Looks like I'll be spending some time today (whether early or later on, I'm not sure yet) on that. There's also more on there about marketing tactics, which I think would beef up this section even more. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I've got a section going, but I"m sure it could use a fresh set of eyes, too. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I made a couple of tweaks, but it is looking pretty good. Indrian (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "Tec Toy also ran the internet service" - in 1990? I don't think it would have been commercially successful at that point

Edited the sentence to make it clear that the Mega Net service launched in 1995 and not when the console was released in 1990. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to wreck everything here, but was it MegaNet in Brazil and Net Work System in Japan? Which service was MegaNet, the modem or the cable line? Neither Sega Net Work System nor Sega Channel really make this clear, and I think this may cause some confusion to the reader. Heck, I'm a Sega junkie and I'm confused. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Sega entered the partnership in the northern hemisphere spring of 1995" - this sentence is grammatically incorrect, and confusing. Up to this point, all countries mentioned except Brazil are in the northern hemisphere
•  Done "Samsung handled it" - handled what? (Presumably "sales of the console") This short sentence can be joined onto the subsequent one.
•  Done Can you confirm scanlines16.com is a reliable source?

This site is not listed at WP:VG/RS and appears to be a fan blog. I do not believe it is reliable, but if someone else has additional information then please bring it forward. Indrian (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the one site I've been trying to get rid of. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it really considered necessary to have this information about the South Korean launch? That's all the scanlines source is for, and you'd be surprised how hard it is to find a reliable source for a specialty release only in South Korea (anyone speak Korean? For whatever reason this is even harder than finding info for Tectoy's Brazil releases). What makes Brazil unique is that Brazil has had a sustained interest in the Mega Drive, but there's not anything to indicate the same interest exists in South Korea. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

^Above comment redacted. I found citations to a pair of Korean gaming magazines which will at least be enough to mention Samsung's distribution of the console and both its "Super Gam*Boy" and "Super Aladdin Boy" names. Therefore, I've replaced both of the blogs with the magazines. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Console wars

• This seems an unusual title for a section - would "Initial success" be better?

The marketshare battle between Sega and Nintendo in the 16-bit era has often been referred to as a "war" in reliable sources, leading to the term "console war" becoming a standard term for any fierce marketshare battle in the video game industry. I personally find the term appropriate for this reason, but am open to more input. Indrian (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Console Wars is fine too, but more because I am comparing it to the Super NES article. (comparing it because that is a Featured Article so has been a model of style to initially follow).--SexyKick 21:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Part of why this section was called "Console wars" is because there used to be a "console wars" article that was redirected to History of video games. That goes for the SNES article too, but that article doesn't exist anymore. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always kinda thought "Console Wars" was an odd, rather comical title for this section (and the same one in SNES). The whole section really has much more to do with Sega vs. Nintendo than with Genesis vs. SNES - it just happened to be those two consoles over which the companies were fighting (and thus why this should be at least partly covered here). I'd like to suggest a different name for the section, tho - "Initial Success" doesn't strike me as accurate, but perhaps "Advertising blitz against Nintendo" might cover it pretty well. (If we adopt this one, then I'd vote for making the same change in SNES to "Advertising blitz against Sega".) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not really just advertising, though. It was sort of a whole new train of thought for marketing the systems altogether: Kalinske's razor and blades model, combined with the suggestion to sell Sonic the Hedgehog on day one as a pack-in title wasn't just "advertising", it was proper marketing that sold many more Genesis units. I'd like to propose "Worldwide marketing" as a suggestion. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "Aggressive marketing" or "Aggressive marketing campaign"? It's the same general idea, but the thing that was notable about all this was specifically how the two companies were directly attacking each other via ads and placement on a scale not seen before in the industry. This point in the industry is really the best-known and most remarkable of all "console wars" that have happened, and it set a few precedents, and Sega arguably "won" in terms of having more people remember its marketing campaigns, even though the Genesis ultimately lost the majority market share to the SNES. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be okay with "Aggressive marketing". Or "Genesis does what Nintendon't". (Just kidding on the last bit.) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems a little bit off for what the section talks about. How about something along the lines of "Competition with Nintendo". Interestingly the chapter in Kent's book that refers to these things is called "The War" if I recall.--SexyKick 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is "Sega of America" the correct title to use here?

Yes. Sega of America was the official name of the console market subsidiary of Sega Enterprises in North America. Not to be confused with Sega Enterprises USA, which was the arcade market subsidiary. Indrian (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "the developed a four-point plan:" - the following clauses should be semicolons, not commas
•  Done "Due to the Genesis' head start, much larger library" - should be "a much larger library"
•  Done "it was able to secure an estimated 60% of the American 16-bit console market by June 1992." - this is cited to a findarticles.com URL, which no longer work

Changed to magazine source.--SexyKick 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Sega farms out Genesis. Television Digest. 1998-03-02" - this reference needs more information

See 32-bit era section.--SexyKick 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade

•  Done""PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD."." - per MOS:ALLCAPS, this can probably be in lower case as normal without losing encyclopedic value, plus there's duplicate punction at the end

• If need be I can change it, but there was no such issue with its use in the FA Sega v. Accolade. It's in all caps because that was the message, verbatim, as it was displayed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

For Keith Moon's FA review, we went with the {{smallcaps}} template Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, I can dig small caps as a nice little in-between option. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done References to "Kent, "The Legal Game", p. 384" are a little confusing - although not required for GA, consider using {{sfn}}, {{refbegin}}, {{refend}} and Harvard referencing for books as it makes navigating references slightly easier and more flexible. I can have a look at these if you want.

• Shouldn't be too hard to fix. I took those from Sega v. Accolade where it was suggested I use a different referencing format because it was cited so many times and they wanted page numbers for each citation. It shouldn't be too hard to make this conform to the rest. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Okay, I've changed the Kent citations over to full ones to avoid confusion. Templates will be something I'll have to look at in the future; as I've only been active on Wikipedia really for a few months after a five-year retirement, I'm still getting readjusted to the many ways things like citations can be formatted and handled in articles. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "On August 28, 1992, the Ninth Circuit overturned" - this reference is behind a paywall (as are several other sources in this area). Don't know if this is a problem or not

They are newspaper article pulled from Newsbank. Its no less valid a source for that, and the bibliographic information is accurate. No different than a print source not being available online for general perusal. Note that this section is a nearly direct copy from the Sega v. Accolade article, which gained FA status with those sources. Indrian (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Videogame Rating Council and Congressional hearings on video game violence

•  Done Confusing mention of the Sega CD - it's defined later in another section
  • I went ahead and mentioned that the Sega CD is an add-on for the Genesis in that sentence. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• I appreciate this is using summary style, but I think the text relating to Night Trap on the Sega CD is off-topic for this article (though the information about Mortal Kombat isn't)
  • Night Trap is actually central to the congressional hearings - many of the people involved in those hearings pointed to the "scantily clad women" and the infamous bathroom scene as evidence that game producers were promoting violence against and sexual exploitation of women. Basically, Night Trap and Mortal Kombat were taken together as a sort of one-two punch to the industry. Unfortunately for this topic, you really can't discuss the hearings without mentioning both games. (I don't want to make myself sound too self-important, but I have specialized knowledge of this topic - my father was on the Night Trap development team.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Sega CD isn't off-topic here because the Sega CD is an add-on for the Genesis, not a console all to itself. However, I can see what you mean and should define the parameters for Sega CD in the paragraph. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Parameter defined by mentioning the Sega CD was an add-on for the Genesis. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "In 1993, American media began to ..... receiving unprecedented media scrutiny" - don't need the second "media"
• "Questions were even raised in the UK Parliament about its suitability" - in which instance, you should be able to find a verbatim transcript in the United Kingdom Hansard. I'm not sure what terms or dates to search for, but maybe you can help. This would be a good source to add to the article.
•  Done "Parents and senators alike were outraged by the level of graphic violence depicted in the arcade version of the game" is a little vague. I don't think every parent was outraged, this sounds like something the Daily Mail would print, to be honest! I doubt Frank Zappa (had he been alive), a parent of four, would have batted an eyelid.
  • Reworked that whole portion of the section - for this point in particular, it now mentions how Nintendo responded to "public outcry" - this accurately reflects the nature of the commentary against the game without trying to be too specific. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Is 1up.com a reliable source?

1up.com has been recognized by the Video Game Project of Wikipedia as a reliable source, as it is a news site run by a media company that began as an online companion for a reputable print magazine and features both editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:VG/RS for more details. Indrian (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done The large quote from Howard Lincoln is unreferenced
  • This was actually from the Kent book, but I suppose doubling the citation would help make this more clear. I have doubled the citation.Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• I think the second paragraph is a bit too long. All we need to get across is that a game had an unlockable "adult mode", Nintendo's equivalent didn't, and it was controversial. You can probably trim the information down a bit - any pertinent facts should move to Mortal Kombat or other respective articles. Trimming the above unreferenced quote would help towards this.
  • I really wanted to keep this because it makes quite a bit of mention over the Nintendo/Sega rivalry and the controversy over rating systems, including the VRC that Sega used in this era. If you feel it's in the wrong spot, though, I'd be glad to move it to Night Trap. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the bulk of the prose should go in Night Trap, though you still need a summary of it here, just not quite as much as what's there now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't Doom have something to do with all of this?

Actually, no. Doom was released in December 1993 just as the hearings were getting started, so it did not really factor into the whole ratings debate despite being a controversial game. Doom's presence was more keenly felt during the 1999 hearings after the Columbine shootings after the game received a lot of publicity because it had been a favorite of the shooters in that incident. Indrian (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

32-bit era and beyond

•  Done "Nintendo took in 42 percent of the video game market dollar share with no next gen system" - what does "next gen system" mean?

I think I clarified this, but let me know if you still think it is a problem. Indrian (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Nakayama's decision undercut the Sega of America executives; CEO Tom Kalinske," - this probably wants to be a new sentence starting at "CEO"

Really, this whole thought needs to be tweaked for accuracy. He did not become "uninterested in the business;" he found most of his authority stripped away due to the difficulties the company was experiencing and grew uninterested in being a powerless figurehead. Indrian (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Sega farms out Genesis. Television Digest. 1998-03-02." - what is this reference? If a magazine, it needs a page number

It was an online source for sometime, taken from an article in a magazine, sort of like findarticles.com's stuff was. There was no page number listed when it was online. this page uses it as a source, and says it was an article in Consumer Electronics. Hm, actually managed to find the article here.--SexyKick 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is allgame.com a reliable source?

Allgame has, I believe, a sort of borderline or quasi notability and is usually sourced for game credits rather then for substantive information. I would hesitate to use it as a source here. When I am back with my research materials, I will attempt to provide a better source. Indrian (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It is listed on WP:VG/S as reliable, and not as reliable only in certain situations. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I still find that allgame sometimes contains mistakes and is not as well-developed as its sister site, allmusic. Anyway, I know this is mostly minor quibbling, but I swapped out the allgame reference for a Gamasutra reference regarding the Genesis 3. Indrian (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That'll work. Gamasutra might be able to say more about the Genesis 3 than Allgame could anyway. Surprisingly, I had a tough time trying to find anything that said anything about the Genesis 3 and had any assertion of reliability with my research, but I will admit that Gamasutra is not really a website I'm too familiar with. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical specifications

•  Done "A 16/32-bit Motorola 68000 CPU is the main microprocessor of the Genesis," - should be the other way round ie: starting "The main microprocessor...."
•  Done "while a Zilog Z80 is also included as a sub-CPU" - what does "sub-CPU" mean in this instance?
  • I don't know the answer to this myself. I changed this to refer to backwards compatibility, which the Z80 was required for, but I do not know if it had other functions as well. Someone with more technical knowledge will need to look at this. Indrian (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The Z80 was also used to produce sound effects for Mega Drive/Genesis software - mostly for percussion sounds, brief voice clips, or anything else that required sampled sound as opposed to synthesized sound (the FM synth chip). IIRC, it also played a role in handling input from the controllers, but I'm less sure of that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Whilst it is true that the Z80 and PSG provided Master System backwards compatibility and both were used in 16-bit mode to produce extra channels (e.g. percussive 'noise') in addition to the FM synth's 6 channels, the PSG was not the sole playback method of PCM samples as implied in the article text, and above. The YM2612's sixth channel was indeed capable and was used to playback 8-bit resolution, higher quality PCM compared to that of the PSG which was, practically, limited to 4-bit resolution (or 1-bit PWM). 118.210.63.208 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I addressed this by generalizing the statement to say how the Z80 controlled both chips to produce different kinds of sound, without trying to be too specific. Thanks for the notes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "The original model of the Mega Drive" - presumably meaning the Japanese version?
  • More likely this means the Model 1, as opposed to the Model 2 redesign. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I was partially right. That passage really did mean the Japanese Model 1 specifically - the North-American Model 1 Genesis combined the video and FM chips into a single custom chip, and that chip was then used in all Model 2s worldwide. Prose has been clarified. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done The "SegaSpecs" reference looks like it has some malformed brackets on it
  • Yeah, that one was my fault, sorry. Fixed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "For audio, the system utilizes FM, PSG, and PCM sound source" - can you define what the acronyms mean, so a user doesn't have to click on a link to work out what they are
  • I don't think we need to go into depth on what these things actually are or what they do - we link to the appropriate articles for a reason. However, the prose has been cleaned up and made more accurate - FM and PCM are both ways of producing sound, while the PSG is a physical chip that produces sound. The concepts were mixed incorrectly before. (Definitions follow, for reference.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • FM = Frequency Modulation
    • PSG = Programmable Sound Generator
    • PCM = Pulse-Code Modulation
•  Done "as well as an RF Out port and A/V Out adapter ports for video signal" - this bit needs clarifying. A non techie won't understand that RF is for an older television. By A/V, do you mean RCA jack sockets?
  • Just a technical note here: The Model 1 Mega Drive/Genesis has a proprietary connector for the A/V out - a round 3/4" (or 1") plug with 5 pins that stem out to 2 RCA connectors (1 composite video, 1 mono audio). These days, it's difficult to find compatible cables for this connector. The Model 2 replaced that connector with standard RCA outputs for composite video and stereo audio. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "The system's games are in ROM cartridge format and are inserted in the top of the system" - don't need second "system", "inserted at the top" should suffice
  • Looks like someone already got this one. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "… and can display up to 32 colors at once …" - this should read 64. Aside from this being widely known and published in Sega's 16-bit marketing literature of the era, the 315-5313A shown on the mainboard in this section of the article (once referred to as the YM7101, referenced in the article text), whilst still known as the VDP should not be confused with the spec of its predecessor in the Master System. 118.210.63.208 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My understanding was that the system as a whole supported 32 colors at once, and in one special drawing mode there was a limited gamma channel that could apply a single shade to each pixel, effectively producing a second 32-color palette where each color index was controlled by that of the main palette (eg. if the gamma channel was 50% black, then a white entry in the main palette would be grey in the sub-palette, and changing the white entry would also change the grey entry automatically). The VDP itself had to support 64 simultaneous colors to do that, of course, but I thought the hardware using it was limited to 32 colors on-screen due to its design. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, those details are probably too technical to be relevant for this article. I'll switch it to 64 - the original prose claimed it could do 512 colors at once, which was flatly incorrect (512 was the total color palette the system could choose from). Thanks for the correction. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Peripherals

•  Done "The standard Mega Drive controller features three main buttons and a "start" button usually used for pausing mid-game." - surely it also starts a game, otherwise it's an unusually named button!
•  Done "The controller itself has a distinctive rounded shape" - distinctive to whom?
• "similar to the design of buttons on arcade fighting games" - an example might be useful here
•  Done "Sega also released the Remote Arcade System" - this needs a little clarification. Presumably this was the standard controller, just without any plug-in cable

"Wireless controller" is a pretty standard phrase. I personally think this is perfectly clear in context, though I added a wikilink for anyone who needs a dicdef on that. Indrian (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Since no further objections have been raised, I am going to mark this one as done. Always happy to revisit, of course. Indrian (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "The Genesis and Mega Drive are also backwards compatible with the Master System" - wikilink backward compatibility
•  Done "The first peripheral released for the system, the Power Base Converter allows" - wants a comma between "Converter" and "allows"
• "A second model, the Master System Converter 2, was released only in Europe for use with the Mega Drive II" - this is the first use of the term "Mega Drive II" in this section. With this in mind, I wonder if it's worth pulling "Variations" up to sit before this section?
• "A number of other peripherals for the Mega Drive were released that add extra functionality." - presumably they were also released in the US for the Genesis too?
  • Some were, some weren't. It might be out of scope to delineate all the peripherals for all regions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Is sega-16.com a reliable source?

• Sega-16 has been cited by Retro Gamer, and their staff members are published members of the video game community (see here). I would say that their staff-contributed content is reliable. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, due to the staff members having works published, and because the sites content is also featured in sites like Gamefaqs, and Gamerankings.--SexyKick 03:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "The light beams are easily distorted by a non-flat ceiling or obstructions such as blades of a ceiling fan or light fixture" - why is this important?
•  Done "the peripheral's price point also contributed to the its lack of success" - grammar problem here, extra "the"
  • On both of these last two, I reworked that whole section to flow more easily. A lower level of detail that should fully explain what the device was meant to do and that it was a commercial failure both because it was unreliable and costly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Internet services

•  Done "The Genesis utilized a number of Internet-based services" ... "As well as first-party Internet gaming" - to me, "internet" means something communicating via TCP/IP, and I can't see evidence that this did. I suggest renaming this to "Network services".
  • TCP/IP isn't a solid requirement of Internet gaming - in fact, many systems use UDP (one-way, non-redundant packets) to communicate since it's less expensive. That said, all of the Genesis/MD services were modem-based and went through systems similar in nature to AOL/Compuserve, as opposed to being Internet-wide. (These services also predated popular adoption of the Internet by several years.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up this section to make it flow better, and renamed it "Network services" to better reflect the technology being used at the time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Game library

•  Done "but eventually contained games that appealed to all types of gamers" - see if you can removed the repetition of "game" in this sentence
  • Got it. Switched "gamers" to "players". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• "Sonic the Hedgehog and its sequel, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, would become the Genesis' top sellers, followed by Aladdin" - the source given implies Aladdin sold more than Sonic the Hedgehog (I)

Yeah, and that IGN article is full of inaccuracies. It probably should not be used. Also, there have never been any complete lists of Genesis game sales figures released through reliable sources, so the IGN author just trolled the Internet (probably wikipedia's own best-selling games list) and assumed an absolute sales ranking based on incomplete data. While the sales figures themselves are mostly solid, this should probably be reworded to expunge references to sales ranking. Indrian (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega Virtua Processor

•  Done I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on what the NES and the SNES do, it's off topic
  • I reworked that section to give more context about the general concept of adding processors to game carts as a way to improve graphics, then split the SVP into its own paragraph so that the reader gets better context about Sega's attempt to compete. It's necessary to understand what was going on with Nintendo's games to understand the motivation for the SVP. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Add-ons

Sega CD

•  Done "rushed to complete CD-ROM peripherals for the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System, respectively" - SNES has already been defined, the acronym will suffice
  • Nintendo never released a CD peripheral for the SNES, actually - they had started on one, but they were to have contracted with Sony for it, and Sony instead decided to develop their own console (the PlayStation), which seriously hurt their relationship with Nintendo in the process. That is one of several reasons why Nintendo waited all the way to the GameCube to release a disc-based system, far behind everyone else by that point. (But that is out of scope for this article - the important point is that Nintendo was not present in the CD-console world at that time - it's incorrect to say they were.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not quite accurate. Nintendo and Sony entered into an agreement in 1988 for joint development of a CD peripheral for the SNES and a Sony branded system that would integrate the SNES and CD-ROM (exactly like how Sega partnered with JVC for the Mega-CD and the JVC branded Wondermega). In 1991, Nintendo pulled out of the deal because Hiroshi Yamauchi decided that the original contract gave Sony too much control over the software for the CD system. Nintendo then entered a new relationship with Sony's largest competitor in the CD space, Philips, to develop the CD peripheral, which is why the CD-I got some crappy Zelda games. Ken Kutaragi and Norio Ohga at Sony felt so angry and humiliated by this turn of events that they decided to create the Sony Playstation. Ultimately, Nintendo did not release a peripheral, most likely due to a combination of piracy concerns, the failure of the Sega and NEC CD systems in the marketplace, and the need to shift their focus to next-gen hardware development. It is accurate to say, however, that Nintendo was at one time scrambling to create a CD system, and both Nintendo and its third parties were actively locking up games like 7th Guest, Myst, and Sewer Shark (before Sega got it obviously) for release on the CD system that never materialized. I would personally not change this sentence. Indrian (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'll see about getting something in there about that - Sega definitely wanted to beat Nintendo to the market, but at planning time wouldn't have known that Nintendo wouldn't release its own add-on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "and added internal RAM to save data" - this needs clarification, "save data" can also mean writing files to disk
  • The bit about internal RAM for saving data is technically incorrect (and so is the source): The Sega CD itself adds RAM specifically for providing larger scratch memory for games, but not to save game data (its RAM is still volatile). Instead, an external cartridge was available that provided non-volatile RAM storage for save data, and only a handful of games supported it - you'd put this data storage cart in the Genesis cartridge slot, and the game in question could detect whether it was present. Some games only supported storing a high-score table on it, while others used it for checkpoints and configuration data. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Tech note, btw: The video buffering and decompression technology used in Night Trap, Sewer Shark and pretty much all of Digital Pictures' FMV games depends pretty much exclusively on the Sega CD's RAM, and uses nearly all of it just for video tasks. The Genesis video RAM continued to be used for the actual display, with the CD program in this case feeding the decoded tile data to the console piece by piece. You'd be amazed by how hot that data bus was getting. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, but games like Sonic CD, their progress could be saved directly onto the Sega CD just like the Sega Saturn. You didn't need the save cart. I've changed the wording to use the sources wording, please let me know if this is sufficient.--SexyKick 20:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that's possible, considering the Sega CD's RAM wasn't battery-backed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't really know how it's possible either. Especially considering my Saturn's battery has died twice (so I lost all my knife only Resident Evil playthrough saves) and my Sega CD still has my Sonic CD time attack scores and "continue" option which starts me on the last level. There's also the backup option, which lets you choose to either save to the Sega CD or a would-be ram cart (which I don't have).--SexyKick 20:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Here are some screenshots of the copy data interface of the Sega CD (model 1), and I'm also reading on forums that there is a battery in the system.--SexyKick 20:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Ah, gotcha. Okay, thanks for clarifying - I'll make sure to get that back into the new version of the prose I put up (which addressed the whole section). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Statement more accurately states what the save RAM was used for, and also mentions the external cart.
•  Done "Sega announced the release of the Mega-CD in Japan for late 1991" - does this mean it was announced in 1991, or was announced earlier for a release in late 1991?

I just took this sentence out. Since both the US and Japanese versions were launched within the periods initially announced and did not suffer from any meaningful delays or other problems that need to be covered in regards to these initially announced dates, the actual release dates are sufficient in my mind. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Factors impacting these sales included the high launch price of the Mega-CD in Japan" - don't need to mention "Mega-CD" or "Japan" again, "its high launch price" will do
  • Post-facto note: The launch price was seen as exorbitant in the US too, so generalizing this sentence gives proper weight to NA. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega 32X

•  Done "Despite the success of the Sega Genesis in 1994," - why is 1994 specifically mentioned here?

The 32X project was conceived in early 1994 as a way for Sega to compete against the Atari Jaguar and the more sophisticated games Nintendo released using the SuperFX chip. The article is attempting to convey that Genesis remained a market success in 1994 but was beginning to lag technically. With the release date of its next generation system, the Saturn, still in doubt at this point a plan was implemented to extend the life of the Genesis with the 32x add on. A nice thing about having an outsider look over an article like this is that even though this context seems clear to me, I am knowledgeable about the subject and may be mentally filling in some of those blanks myself. If you still believe the article does not adequately convey the importance of discussing 1994 in this context, I would be happy to take a pass at fixing this. Indrian (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this was just some bad grammar that led me to misparse the sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "when compared to its main rival, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System" - "when compared to the SNES" will do here
•  Done "third-party developers" already wikilinked earlier

Variations

•  Done There is currently a merge proposal to integrate the spinout article back into this one
  • That's outdated, and I'll pull the tag. I did propose it a month or two ago and it was defeated. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "The Mega Drive" - as before, not the Genesis?
  • The majority of the recognized variants of this console were made in regions where the console was called the Mega Drive. I think it's appropriate to keep it named as such in this section. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Unless each mention can be quantified with "European" or "Japanese", then swapping between "Genesis" and "Mega Drive" seemingly arbitrarily mid-article will confuse the reader. GA quality prose must be consistent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive."--SexyKick 17:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Trademark Security System has already been mentioned (though see comment about about moving this section to earlier). I also think some if not all of this section could be moved to the "History" or "Peripherals" section

• I'll take out the opening paragraph. Thought it was worth a mention since some Model 1s have it and others don't, but if the earlier coverage is sufficient to say that, I'll mention it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "as well as move the RF Out switch to the RF unit" - what RF unit?

• Clarified. Thank you, prepositional phrases. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "The AC adapter was also changed from a 1.2A model to a 0.85A model" - why is this important to mention?
  • Changed to mention that the Model 2 required less power. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done "The new model measures 220mm wide, 212mm deep, and 59mm high." Units should be provided for both metric and imperial. Pick one main set, put the other in brackets, and be consistent with it. Also applies elsewhere in the article

• Simple conversion okay for this? Source cites metric only, but it shouldn't be too hard to convert the number. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is the exact size of the unit important? This is an encyclopedia article, not a specs sheet. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's not vitally important, but if you include a measurement, use a conversion. See the {{convert}} template for how to do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reworked this section to say the Model 2 was smaller and lighter than the original console, without mentioning specific dimensions. On the Sega Nomad, I applied the unit conversion to the size of the LCD screen. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Also, Amstrad manufactured the Mega PC" - what's a "Mega PC"? (first mention in this article)

I combined and rearranged a couple of sentences to try to make it clear that both the MSX computers and the Amstrad computer mentioned in the article are standard PCs with an integrated Mega Drive. If you still think this is unclear, we can try something else. Indrian (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Since no further objections have been raised, I am going to mark this one as done. Always happy to revisit, of course. Indrian (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "Since the discontinuation of the Genesis" - "since" should read "after"

As a further note here, I do not believe the AtGames consoles should be listed as a "variation." That company uses modern components and then emulates the features of the particular console in software. Its really no different than running a game emulator on a PC; they just put a fancy case and a controller around it. Indrian (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

More and more this seems like semantics. I'll ask for a quick consensus on that, but we can remove it. If we do, I'll suggest we move the picture of the Firecore down to the section it's mentioned in at the end, and replace its image with one of the Sega Genesis CDX (which oops, not sure how or why I managed a Multi-Mega picture but not a CDX one). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Strike that last part, I'm thinking the wrong table (d'oh!) If we had a free picture of the Aiwa knockoff, that would be awesome for that spot, but we don't have one that I know of. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Legacy and revival

• "The Sega Genesis and Mega Drive has often been considered among the best video game consoles ever produced" ... but the sources then go onto rank it at #5 or #6. "among the best" implies at least several #1 positions in the list. I'd tone this wording down a bit

I am personally uncomfortable with this entire paragraph. I do not think it adds anything useful to the article. There are better ways to acknowledge the enduring appeal of the system. Indrian (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's okay, since the Super NES article has a paragraph like that, and it's an FA. But...I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it.--SexyKick 22:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Are gametrailers.com, GamingExcellence and GameDaily reliable sources? Even if they are, I think we should be able to get better quotes from the national broadsheets as to its true popularity (and I don't doubt it was hugely popular, so it ought to be possible)

I agree that using these sources is a mistake. Indrian (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we can replace them, but GameDaily is listed on WP:VG/S as reliable. Gametrailers also is. GamingExcellence I can't vouch for one way or another. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think mentioning its popularity (as documented in reliable sources and in a neutral tone) should go in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-releases and emulation

• This whole section, bar the final two paragraphs, seems to have sourcing problems, going to either self-published or primary sources. I think it needs sorting out. If a Genesis emulator isn't documented reliably, it isn't notable, and it doesn't need to be mentioned here. The Radica Games console ought to be citable to a better source (and if not, Radica Games is a prime candidate for AfD)
  • Is it just worth removing the entire section on emulation? 10 to 1, I'm willing to bet a lot of emulation won't have a lot of media coverage because it's generally frowned upon (kind of like torrenting software or Limewire: has legitimate uses, but is just full of copyright violation potential). It's not my favorite section of the article, either. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You can mention that emulators exist, but only mention specific types if reliable sources document them. I don't think we need a complete cull of this section but it does need to be trimmed down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Later new releases

A watermelon, yesterday

• I think this section could start with just a summary of what it's about. Particularly attention might be given to new releases being English translations of old Japanese games
  • I'm not a huge fan of this section myself, but do think it's kind of cool. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• "In their 100th blog post, WaterMelon announced that Pier Solar is about to have another production run" - is this blog reliable?
  • It's WaterMelon's blog, as far as I'm aware.

Uh, huh - and who's Watermelon? Watermelon talks about the fruit, and Watermelon (disambiguation) doesn't have an entry for a blogger or any similar term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• WaterMelon is the developer of the game, so the blog qualifies as a primary source. Is that sufficient for this purpose, or does that worsen the issue here? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• If it's not, there is an IGN source, too. That being said, I can see how this section could be reduced to a little bit about Super Fighter Team's releases, and another sentence about Pier Solar. I'm seeing now how this section could be quite a bit smaller, as not all of it is necessarily relevant to Genesis. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sales notes

• This has been extensively covered on the talk page. I'll trust you all to come to a sensible conclusion ;-)

Images

•  Done File:VirtuaRacing.PNG has a fair-use rationale against Mega Drive, which is a redirect. Its caption "The graphics in Virtua Racing were comparable to those of Star Fox" doesn't mean much to anything who hasn't played those two games - perhaps just comparable to hardware or other console models would be better?

• I've tweaked it to use the chip names instead of the game names. Do you think I should leave the wording as "were comparable to" or should I use the sources wording "the graphics (from the SVP) could hold their own again (the Super FX chip)" ?--SexyKick 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think making a direct comparison to Star Fox is appropriate - Virtua Racing is probably the best known SVP game, and Star Fox is arguably the best-known SuperFX chip. The context in that section of the article should make it clear that the SVP was designed to directly compete with the SuperFX, the Atari Jaguar, and the upcoming Nintendo 64. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• I fixed the fair-use rationale - it's now pointing to this article (instead of the redirect) and is more complete. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done File:Gens Windows Screenshot.png doesn't seem to show much of interest, and really needs a game to be running to give value to the reader. Are there any games at all that are PD, or is every single one copyrighted?
  • One problem with emulator screenshots is that, unless you do like this one did and show the emulator's UI (which is usually not very interesting on its own, like you mentioned), it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a game screenshot taken from a good capture device on the original hardware, and one taken from the emulator in question. If there's a significant enough difference between an emulator screen and the original hardware, that usually means there are significant flaws in the emulator that are likely to reduce its notability. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind not having an emulator screenshot. Do we think one is needed?--SexyKick 22:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I doubt it. The UI presented there could have been created by any program. There's absolutely nothing in it that specifically identifies it as a Genesis emu, and I doubt we'll find one that meets our notability standards AND is visually interesting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking the picture out would seem to be the best solution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Removed.--SexyKick 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done File:VRC MA-17.JPG's caption could do with explaining its relevance, ie: Mortal Kombat as released on the console
  • Updated to read "V.R.C. MA-17 rating (as applied to Mortal Kombat for the Genesis)" — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Mortal Kombat had an MA-13 rating. Sega got away with that rating because of the Blood Code, so the game appeared to be tamer than an MA-17 game. (and of course, they were in charge of the rating system).--SexyKick 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, then do we have a proper image for MA-13 instead of MA-17? Or do we have a good example of an MA-17 game? MA-13 would be better IMO because we can still apply it to Mortal Kombat, as opposed to some possibly obscure game that doesn't figure into the section as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Yep, we had an MA-13 image, which I've swapped in and changed the caption to note it was used on Mortal Kombat. It's the same image used on Videogame Rating Council. Only thing I really don't like about it is for whatever reason the MA-13 image seems to be fuzzier and not as sharp or as clear as the GA or MA-17 ones. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done File:Mega Drive mboard.jpg's caption could do with expanding. PAL is jargon - would "European" do instead? (I know France doesn't use PAL which makes the caption not quite true)
  • Updated to read "European Mega Drive mainboard". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Done File:Xbands.gif could be cropped as the SNES is off-topic
  • Instead, I've actually replaced it with File:Sega megamodem.jpg, which is a picture of the modem used for the Sega Net Work System. Coincidentally while the XBAND picture uses it with the XBAND article, the MegaModem picture is not used in any other articles as far as I'm aware. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's it

A hedgehog, yesterday. He isn't blue, he doesn't wear red sneakers, he doesn't collect rings, and he doesn't live in the Green Hill Zone.

And that's it. There's quite a bit to sort out here, including investigating some references and some copyediting. However, there appears to be a dedicated team behind this article to sort it all out, so I think a pass is possible with some further work. With that in mind, I'm putting the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Question, what is stopping this from being, or rather, what more would need to be done, to make this an FA review? It doesn't seem much different than the process the SNES FA review went through.--SexyKick 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts from my side of the peanut gallery: First, there's still the question of whether we're going to assess the article's title again - we would definitely not want to make this article an FA and then redirect it to another title. And second, I think FA has a stronger requirement for the article to be stable. But I'm not a GA/FA expert. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh jeez, this has by far and away, got to be the LONGEST GA review I've ever seen... Compare this to the GA review given to me for the FA Sega v. Accolade, lol. That being said, I'm not bothered by the long list of notes; it's just going to make the FA candidacy later on a lot better. I will admit, before we begin because there are so many involved here, that I do feel a little bit of WP:OWN for this article, as this is now the fourth GA review I've taken this article to—although the first in five years—, I rewrote the entire article quite recently, I'm the #2 contributor to the article in edit count (SexyKick is #1, and I applaud his awesome efforts in maintaining this article), and I'm sort of the sole remaining active member of the long-deceased WP:SEGA, to which this is one of the most important articles to the task force. That being said, I know the policies well and I'll try not to let this bother me as I go through the notes step by step. SexyKick, to answer your question, an FA review requires submission at WP:FAC, which will need consensus to promote, as well as image and source reviews (I also had to have a source spotcheck on Sega v. Accolade), and then the final check by one of the FA commissioners. Part of the benefit of doing a GA review first is that it lets us weed out any remaining issues and resolve all of that before starting an FA nom. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer of Talk:Sega v. Accolade/GA1 should be trout slapped - a recent discussion thread of WT:GAN explains why I find "rubber stamping" reviews like that with zero feedback unacceptable. The FA review for it is okay though, as I see a number of the "usual suspects" at FAC have had a look and supported it. Also, as you say yourself, this is a high profile article, much more than Sega v. Accolade, so there's more work required to address the GA criteria as the subject matter is broader. Although I've made many comments, I see a number of them have already been closed down, so it looks like progress is clearly being made. Keep it up! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a {{whale}} might be more appropriate in that case... but I was confident enough myself that it met the standards, and I pretty much almost immediately sent it to FAC after that. I'm actually surprised how this GA review has generated so much interest in editing this article for a change instead of bickering over the name... that's actually the first time in, like, ever, lol. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You serve as a good role model, Phoenix. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can all follow him to the other Sega articles relating to this one to achieve a Featured Topic. There are only six more by my count.--SexyKick 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks, SexyKick, but if we have to do all the games as well, we're really stuck. Not sure how they'd define that line, but if we did, List of Mega Drive games lists over 900 games alone, and then add 40 Sega 32X games and 220 Sega CD games... yikes. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong about six.--SexyKick 05:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What's left?

All right, it's been a couple of days. We've made amazing progress and a lot of changes. Aside from general cleanup and copyediting, we need to get some consensus on a couple of key points. Here's what's left:

• Variations: there's a lack of consistency on the naming of the first and second models. We have sources to say Genesis II and Mega Drive II (though this may be confusing with Genesis III, which was the TMSS model), but is it enough to use that, or do we want to go with Model 1 and Model 2 throughout?
• Variations: Does the AtGames Firecore belong in the Variations, Legacy, or not in the article at all?
  • I'm for keeping the Firecore. It was the first time Sega had officially licensed a new system to run Genesis cartridges. And the 2012 revision of it is called the Sega Genesis Classic, comes with two wireless controllers, and 80 built in games. I think it's fairly notable due to them getting the backing of Sega on it. It wouldn't really be notable otherwise. I think it's really just the emulation sources that are possibly unreliable there, right? The Legacy stuff he brought up earlier with Gametrailers/Gamedaily we checked out.--SexyKick 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Sales figures: solid answer? I'm still not sold on the summative number as an answer; given our discussion of 29 million being too low and the sums being OR, I think we almost have to go with 35 million as the number. Also, can we really say much about the lack of figures without anything that says Sega never released a figure? Every source I've seen emphasizes it's an estimate, not an absolute.
• Legacy: I'm going to start stripping some of this out, but what should stay and what should go, I could use a hand with.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• The other major problem I see is the game library section. The Buchanan IGN article is, to put it succinctly, full of it when it claims to reveal the best-selling games on the system. There have not been figures released for most Genesis games, so he was just looking at what sales figures existed and making unsupportable claims. We do not have figures for Mortal Kombat (it sold over 6 million copies worldwide, but there is no break out of the Genesis figures specifically) or for any of the EA sports games, for example, which could have easily outsold Aladdin. And speaking of EA Sports games, they should probably be mentioned more prominently in the game library section as well. There is a general consensus that getting in early on the Genesis with a sweetheart licensing deal is what made EA the company it is today (or, at least, the company it was six or seven years ago). Overall though, things are looking good, and we are definitely getting close. Indrian (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Close, I'd say, even to FA status. This review has turned up a lot more than I saw after two days of a rewrite, but then again that's part of what it's supposed to do. The Retro Gamer article has some more on the deal with EA, and there's a little bit here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On naming for "Console II" vs. "Model 2", I see that we have some sources calling the console "Genesis II", but AFAIK that's both an unofficial, colloquial name and a misnomer - it would suggest that the new version was a significant upgrade to the original version (like going from PlayStation to PlayStation 2). I honestly think it's misleading to call it that unless our sources are certain this was an official name from Sega. If not, I would rather we refer to it as the Model 2 to indicate it was a second revision of the original console and not a whole new one. (We do know that "Genesis 3" was the official name of the third-party unit produced after Sega discontinued its first-party production, so no problems there - that's clearly marked and only used in one section.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've viewed the sources myself, they're from a Sega service guide for for the second model, and its supplement. I haven't posted URLs because I'm pretty sure the links to where they're at on the internet is a copyright violation, but they're scanned from the paper versions of the service guides published by Sega. We also have the fact that "Mega Drive II" is stamped on the European version of the second model to support this (and "Mega Drive 2" on the Japanese version). I'm okay with either, but we should just pick one and stick with it across the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Things look generally in place for a pass, apart from "Re-release and emulation". The section looks better, but there's still too much stuff being referenced to possibly unreliable sources that needs sorting out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've given this a much-needed trim. The one source left that I used, GameSpy, is a defunct website that was run by IGN and also is listed at WP:VG/S, and basically I cut the cruft out so it just mentions that said emulators exist. We still have some upkeep measures and consistency edits to get, but as I can see it, we've really whipped this article into shape and fully weeded out the references. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And hopefully that means we're done! (If I understand Ritchie correctly)--SexyKick 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're done - the article now meets the GA criteria and so I am marking the review as a pass. Well done everybody for an excellent collaborative effort. I've totted up an estimate of the annual readership of the article (and principal redirects) and it comes to more than 500,000, so the principal contributors to getting this to GA status each can have a half million award. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo! Congratulations! I'm updating the article FAQ now to reflect this work and the potential for a new consensus discussion on the title, as a result of the various title issues having been addressed in various ways. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

AtGames' licensed 2012 console revisions.

Apart from AtGames' own product pages for the Sega Genesis Classic and Sega Genesis Ultimate Portable (if they count as reliable), the only reliable news source I'm about to find is for Blaze's Mega Drive Arcade Ultimate Portable - which only has 18 built in games instead of 80. There are other sources that don't look so reliable. Shall I add some of this into the article now, or wait until the review is over?--SexyKick 16:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I was just mentioning to Techno below, the AtGames device appears to have dubious notability - if we're unable to find good sourcing for it, I'd be more in favor of removing it outright, perhaps referring more generally to the category of "console-in-a-controller" devices (of which Techno listed several other examples). Sega licenses a lot of things - how many of them are truly notable? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Variations (non-GA-review)

There are many systems licensed by Sega that play Mega Drive games, should these be listed also? the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Sega Camega, Sega Mega Drive Plug n Play TV Games, Sega Mega Drive Plug n Play TV Games Volume 2, SEGA Mega Drive Sonic Arcade Nano Plug N Play, Sega Megadrive Stick Arcade Game 26-in-1, Blaze Sega Mega Drive Radica 10-in-1

There are also countless unlicensed systems too but I'm not sure if they are notable.Technotopia (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of these sound similar to the AtGames "Genesis-in-a-controller" product, which itself has dubious notability. Do we have much individual coverage of these? Also, I think the variations that we're covering in the article already achieved greater notability by being different implementations of the original hardware, rather than hardware-based emulations of the console - at least in my mind, those qualify better as true variations and not emulations or re-releases. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

One other thing here: Sections like this one should really only serve some representative samples - we can't nor shouldn't list all of the examples exhaustively (and that was a problem in the original spin-out article that this section is serving to replace). I do agree that we should probably list one of the "X-in-1" and/or "console-in-a-controller" types to represent the category, but we certainly shouldn't list them all, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How would something like this sound? In 2004, a trend emerged toward plug-and-play TV games, and Radica Games released a licensed, self-contained, version of the Mega Drive in both North America (as the Play TV Legends Sega Genesis)[113] and Europe (as the Mega Drive 6-in-1 Plug 'n' Play). It contains six popular games in a small control box with a permanently connected control pad. It does not have a cartridge slot and thus is a dedicated console.[114]--SexyKick 03:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think so long as we also mention that there are many other similar systems in the same category, without having to list them, that would work fine. I notice you have citation marks in that example - does the Radica Games device have good sourcing? If so, I'd be very happy to use that as the category representative. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

First-party variations gallery has too many things in it

I'm looking at the image gallery for the First-Party variations section, and I think we could cut this thing in half or better. Right now, we have:

• Model 1 JP (unnecessary - not a variant)
• Model 1 NA (unnecessary AND redundant)
• Model 1 PAL (unnecessary AND redundant)
• Model 2 JP
• Model 2 NA (redundant)
• Model 2 PAL (redundant - we should show just one of these)
• Multi-Mega
• Nomad
• TeraDrive

The section itself only talks about the Model 2, CDX (Multi-Mega), Nomad and TeraDrive, as well as some arcade boards, so it seems we shouldn't need to display Model 1 here at all (since it's already pictured at the top of the article) and only one representative version of the Model 2, since there are only minor cosmetic differences between the regions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--SexyKick 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega Nomad

A couple of things:

1) Is it worth mentioning in passing that the Nomad never got a European release?

2) I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to describe it as the "successor to the Game Gear". Granted, they're both Sega handhelds, but the Game Gear had its own games which came on proprietary cartridges. You couldn't play them on anything else. Nothing was ever released exclusively for the Nomad, making it a handheld Genesis/Mega Drive. The Game Gear wasn't a handheld Master System, but a standalone console. Could this be made a little clearer in the article? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sources have termed it the successor to the Game Gear, and have also done so in Sega Game Gear. Realistically this is all just more semantics, but Sega Nomad is on my hitlist for a rewrite, which should help to address some of this and ensure the appropriate content is available. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the only source cited for the paragraph in this article doesn't term it as such. I know it's semantics, but I feel it's worth making clear that the Game Gear was a platform in its own right; the Nomad wasn't, so therefore wasn't a direct successor to the former. But I'll leave that up to you.

(On an unrelated note, there's a rogue semicolon in the last sentence of the opening paragraph of the lead, if you wouldn't mind...) 86.4.242.105 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with the IP on this one - the "successor" comment sounds a bit too much like an editor's/reviewer's opinion and not so much something Sega would have said itself. I'd personally rather take that bit out and focus on how the Nomad turned the Genesis/MD into a portable console. If I'm not mistaken, it was the first handheld to provide 100% compatibility with a non-portable system, which I think is its most notable point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

"The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a..."

Is that parenthesis strictly necessary? Is it accurate? Surely the machine's name (in North America, anyway) is "Genesis", and the "Sega" part is just the manufacturer. (In the same style as, for example: Adobe Photoshop; Ford Focus; Apple iPhone; Kellogg's Corn Flakes etc. etc.) "Genesis" isn't actually short for anything. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but it strikes me as a rather redundant statement. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We've been over that a couple times. The parenthesis may not truly be necessary to say it's often shortened, because we don't need to say that the sky is blue, but I think it's correct as is.--SexyKick 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually disagree - the console's proper name is "Genesis", not "Sega Genesis", so it's not actually commonly shortened to anything (unlike how the "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" is often shortened to "SNES" and "Super NES"). However, since the name is also a common word with a bunch of other meanings, and people do commonly refer to it AS the "Sega Genesis", calling it that at the start of the article and then referring to it as "Genesis" afterward should be sufficient to get our meaning across. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I recall several times where I've flip-flopped on this - I think we've generally agreed that, according to our sources, "Sega Genesis" is used often enough to qualify as an official title. But "Genesis" is not a nickname or a shortening - it's another common name, and there's ambiguity here as well since it was still common in this console's era to attach the company name to the console name even if that wasn't officially how it was branded. ("Atari VCS/2600", "Nintendo Entertainment System", "Sega Genesis", "Sony PlayStation", but the PS1 was about the point where that stopped being common practice - hardly anyone refers to the "Microsoft Xbox", for example.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving on from the GA review

All right, guys, congratulations to everyone for the hardfought GA review. The work's not done yet, though. Here's what we have left:

• Consistency editing, ensuring all names are consistent and all references are formatted correctly.
• Naming - Now that we have everything set with the article for good, it's time for the be-all, end-all discussion to end the naming debates, likely using the RFC process. This won't be an easy hurdle and it may seem hard to believe this'll be the last one, but now that the article has eliminated WP:WORLDVIEW concerns and is a thorough coverage of the subject matter, we finally have the article to tell us the true story.
• Sales for the console and games - As long as we can come to an agreement about how to deal with these figures and how to state them in the article in a neutral way, we're good.
• Images - WP:FUR needs to be tight, but I'm wondering if a picture of Sonic would be appropriate for this article.
• FA Candidacy - Once we're all set, it's time to go for broke. I'm not satisfied with just GA status; it's awesome to have this back, don't get me wrong, but this would be an incredible FA for everyone involved and a true sign of cooperation within Wikipedia to write an article.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So, as time allows, I will happily head up the discussion on the article title - both proposing and moderating it to the best of my ability. I plan to use the WP:RM process and to thoroughly explain the basis for the new discussion, and will send out a notice to WT:VG. Per WP:CANVAS, I do not plan to send out individual notices myself, though anyone else is welcome to invite individual users as they see fit. (I can't do it myself because I know for a fact I won't be able to completely avoid appearing biased in my invitations, best of an effort as I would put in, so I'm just going to avoid that entirely.)

For what it's worth, I do believe we need to close the naming discussion before we can even consider a run for FA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, I made the list with the intent of tackling all of the above issues before a FA candidacy. On that note, I have been redirecting some Sega Genesis accessories to this article that are not notable on their own. I have also PRODded a couple of unnotable third-party controllers that don't assert any notability at all. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with Sega Net Work System and Sega Channel, I'm not sure how well each stands as an article on its own. Finally, it's only been a couple of months but with this rewrite done, I'm also thinking it's time to merge List of variations of the Mega Drive. The Variations section is much improved and now the Variations sub-article is simply cruft. It's time for it to go. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No argument from me on Variations. :) Wikipedia is not a directory. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. As you can see below, the move discussion went downhill in a hurry - that might be the fastest withdraw in history. I really should have known better. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in, this article has improved no end in recent days, so congrats to all involved. However, I've had a bee in my bonnet for a while about the lead being a little convoluted, and I still believe that to be the case. The competition with the SNES, for instance, is mentioned at the end of both the first and second paragraphs. It also details relatively obscure technical specs such as the System 16 arcade board without even stating at all that the console is cartridge-based. Could it stand to be streamlined?

If you want an outsider's opinion about anything else in the article, just ask. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely still not perfect, but I wonder if we're to a point where we should consider un-protecting the page so people like you can make fixes to it. I'll let a more experienced admin speak to that. In the meantime, I'll take another crack at shoring that up tonight or this weekend, if I have time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I don't see an official "to do" list, but these are some things I noticed as missing when I read the article:

• No source/citation on discontinuation (though date is used in infobox)
• Size of library (in titles) not in article
• Much of the current lede's third paragraph is never mentioned in the article
• Current lede's "majority"/"market share" claims are not in article
• Missing response section for critics' response at the time of console release and not just legacy
• Legacy doesn't currently address the hobbyist communities supporting the console (remixers, whatever) or the target audiences for the indie-released games and compatible hardware. This would give us a better idea of the console's actual legacy other than some people supporting it with projects. (How did the retro stuff sell? How is the legacy of the console used culturally in non-top ten lists?) If expanded well with RS, a summary of this would fit well in the lede.

Feel free to append more here or to suggest another venue for such a list czar ♔ 14:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The date of discontinuation is implied in the Sega Farms Out Genesis source.

The third paragraph of the lead; "The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party rereleases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it. Many games have also been rereleased in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam." Are nearly all covered in Legacy and revival. What specifically isn't covered from this? The video game music part? Do we consider OCRemix a reliable source?

The market share percentages for America at various times, are sourced in the article. I do think it would be somewhat interesting for critics response from the time, for instance Doom on 32X was rated extremely high by EGM and critics of the time. Yet we say Doom was largely criticized because sources of today pan it, but really sources of today tend to look unfavorably on old games unless they have a legacy like Mega Man or Castlevania. Sometimes it's the opposite though, like Sub Terrania.--SexyKick 15:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Discontinuation moved to section below. The current lede implies a measure of popularity, which is not in the Legacy section, and many of its elements, including Steam, collectors, and music fans don't have so much as an allusion within the article. (Overall, the Legacy section is also way too brief to warrant a one-third of the current lede's space, but different issue.) If those things are important, they should have better reflection in the article. After a thorough search, I still don't see where the article backs up the current lede's claims about majority European market share. This is my reader's feedback—the aforementioned things were not apparent to me after reading the article. It's anyone's prerogative to address or not. czar ♔ 00:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Discontinuation

The 1997 Business Wire source says, "[Sega] will continue to sell Genesis hardware and software in the coming years", which would not imply a 1997 hardware discontinuation. The 1998 Consumer Electronics ("Farms Out") source says S stopped manufacture in 1997 but adds that the Genesis is still being made, which would also not imply discontinuation. Indrian mentioned above that this needs better sourcing, and I agree. czar ♔ 00:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It adds that it's still being made by Majesco, not Sega.--SexyKick 00:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Vetting a source for sound chips

Hey, just wanted to know if there's any objection to this source regarding technical details about the console's sound hardware: http://bigevilcorp.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/sega-megadrive-10-sound-part-i-the-psg-chip/ . This article gives the specific part number for the PSG chip and explains how that chip is directly used to produce PCM sound, and how the Z80 as a slave to the 68000 is used to control both audio chips. This is the clearest explanation of this hardware that I've seen so far (it's written from the standpoint of how to write software for it). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It'd be nice, but I don't see a whole lot to assess reliability here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a blog. Would be nice if we had a better source of tech info on this. Any problems with the prose in the tech specs as it is? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just the notes in the review. I had to cut out a ton of the tech specs that were in the article because most of it was OR or unreliably source, and overall didn't do a whole lot for the article and understanding. As long as the notes above get covered, I think we've got most of the base points. The one thing I'd love to find a source for as well, is how the Power Base Converter utilizes the Zilog Z80 to play Master System games, because the Z80 was the main processor in the Master System. I'm not sure that is really necessary for understanding, again, but it is pretty darn cool. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

For really accurate tech specs you have limited options. The classic option would probably be official programming reference manuals, but good luck finding those leaked and even then they may not be entirely accurate. Another classic source would be unofficial manuals from major third-party developers, but you'd probably need even more luck. Your best bet is to find documentation written by the authors of emulators with high levels of emulation accuracy or by homebrew developers who've written code that runs correctly on real hardware. There people could really be considered "experts in the field", although I see WP:SPS has been changed since I last cared to look to put even more restrictions on experts. Sigh. WP:IAR on that, considering mainstream sources shy away from covering emulation for fear of offending Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony?

As for that source in particular, I see he claims to be an audio engine programmer, but I haven't checked the truthiness of that or for whether he's done much audio programming for this console. Anomie⚔ 00:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a programmer myself, I can vouch for the fact that his code compiles and runs, and his presentation makes good sense. As I said, his post represents the clearest and honestly most simple explanation of how those chips work together that I've found so far, mostly because he understands it well enough to break it down into terms that most people can understand. (In my field, that is a rare and very valuable skill.) I'm personally inclined to believe that the source is accurate, but accuracy doesn't always equate to reliability, and as a blog, it falls in a general category of sources we don't consider reliable by default. Perhaps another place to apply IAR? (Are there other sourcing experts we should consult on this?) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"…PSG chip and explains how that … is directly used to produce PCM sound …" This source also explains the FM chip plays PCM. Refer Talk:Sega_Genesis#Technical_specifications. 118.210.63.208 (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Got that, thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect Proposal: List of variations of the Mega Drive

Personally I would favor redirect for this myself, and have no problems doing this per WP:BOLD, but given its defeat a couple of months ago, starting a discussion is the right thing to do. List of variations of the Mega Drive is just full of unsourced cruft, and Wikipedia is not a directory. However, the recent improvements to this article has finally made the important parts of this list available, as I suggested it would a few months ago. That's all we really need, but given the long history of the Variations list, it's still a plausible search term and should be redirected to Sega Genesis#Variations. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect - The majority of the information in the current Variations article lists technical and cosmetic details to such a degree as to make it a specs sheet. Wikipedia is not a directory - this information is not encyclopedic and much of it is not properly sourceable. The work done in the Variations section in this article deals with the essential content much better, IS properly sourced, and is limited to variants that have significant notability. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect - No one's going to put in the work to make it a list, and there are not really enough reliable sources to source out a full variation list.--SexyKick 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The article shows useful information to compare the versions and see how it progressed over time. Most of the information couldn't be merged over here, it making the article far too long, and you know that much detail wouldn't last long anyway. Also, the nominator started this discussion before already at List_of_variations_of_the_Mega_Drive. If you want to have it again, put the merge tag back up on the page you wish to eliminate. The last edit to that page was you removing the last discussion two days ago. [2] You ended a merge discussion only to start a new one, with the discussion now in a new place, thus able to ignore those who said "oppose" at the location of the old discussion. Dream Focus 23:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of that and I have seen the opposes there, but I'm also aware that the circumstances have changed since those opposes were registered. Simply, I forgot to remove the tag two months ago; it was long dead by then anyway. I would prefer the article be redirected, which would save its edit history and allow it to be accessed, but the excessive detail, as far as I'm concerned, has no place on Wikipedia. We have all that we really need on this article. Let me ask you, Dream Focus, is all of that detail really encyclopedic, and if it is, can you source it all and show that it's note-worthy? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Are you planning on putting a link to the new discussion here though? Since it concerns that page primarily, it should've just been had there. And of course its encyclopedia. Just as List of iPod models and other such articles are. A notable product can be studied to see what variations were made over time, to better understand it. Dream Focus 01:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• The scope of the iPod models article is very different, though, and is well-sourced. We've been over the sourcing issues with Mega Drive Variants several times now, and it's likely that by the time we trimmed out the unsourced cruft, the stuff that is NOT encyclopedic, and the things that might just be blatantly false or made-up, there would be just enough information left in that article to fill the same space as we have in the Variations section in this article. The few variations we have good information on are notable for particular aspects that are better served in prose (as we have here), and the many variations we DON'T have good info for or that DON'T meet WP:N are not worth listing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• A complete list should always be the goal. For the areas that aren't referenced, have you tried to find sources for the information, or discussed your concerns on the talk page of that article? It shouldn't be that hard to find some information about them in old game magazines archived online. I don't see any cruft there at all. I see them listing valid information showing what each variation had. This is the same thing that is done at Comparison of Nintendo portable consoles, Nintendo video game consoles, PlayStation models, List of Xbox 360 retail configurations, and other such articles like this one. Dream Focus 02:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• All of your examples here are for either different SKUs of a single console (Xbox 360 release levels - these were all the same console with different supplied accessories and in a few cases a different paint job) or a listing of disparate consoles made by the same manufacturer. In neither case is there a large set of poorly-documented third-party consoles with dubious notability, some of which are completely unlicensed and unofficial, as is the case with the Variations article. That in itself is notable, but listing them all isn't appropriate, and I don't see a good way to achieve the same level of quality as in your examples with the information we do have.
• All that said, I'm not the research expert here - I need to let those folks who have done the research work into this speak for themselves. I'm speaking on the evidence of what I've seen over time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• My take on it is on this: A lot of those lists posted by Dream Focus are, to me, a casual gamer, pure tech spec nonsense, as is this one. I think the main focus of this question should be, does an article about every variation give due weight to variations in the consoles? My answer is absolutely not; it gives a RIDICULOUS amount of weight to each one. Having a complete guide to every little difference between every kind of system release is not going to help in comprehension of the subject; we write articles with the presumption that the readers know nothing about the subject matter. Instead, a list of variations is like a game guide, providing a bunch of excessive detail that fans of the console would want to know but is not useful to understanding the subject itself, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia, and what Wikipedia is. We all know, however, that it is not a game guide. Now, I'm not saying the fact that a console was released in several different formats isn't notable at all, but we've given it what I would call proper and due weight in the article already, and the list blows it out of proportion. It's in many ways a relic of the early days of Wikipedia, when quantity of article far outweighed the quality. As we work on quality, we find that some articles just don't carry this due weight, and are better merged or redirected. Such, I firmly believe, is the case with this article/list. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 05:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dream, I agree with you some, I really do, but the sources just aren't there to make the article sustainable. I wish it could be something like List of 32X games, but I don't think anyone wants to put that work in, even if the sources were around for the majority of the variations, which they're not. For instance the 2012 revision of the AtGames Sega Genesis (the Sega Genesis Classic) - I can't seem to find any reliable sources that talk about it at all. I found one reliable source for AtGames' European (outsourced to Blaze) Mega Drive Arcade Ultimate Portable, which is the Sega Genesis Ultimate Portable with only 18 built in games instead of 80. So, it is what it is.--SexyKick 06:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Has this about died? I'd say we're at no consensus at this point unless more opinions are added. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we need a larger audience. The argument with Dream Focus kinda dominated this, but only a few people have weighed in. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect - Any notable differences in models can be noted in the Genesis article. Any trivial differences can, and are, documented in Sega Wikias/fansites etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And, if nothing else, the list could always be remade later if reliable source are found. If nothing else, it would need to be completely wiped and started over anyway, and because it's more than simply "variations" due to the number of third-party models, probably remade as something else entirely IF and ONLY IF sources establishing notability of such variations existed. Unfortunately I find that doubtful because there's not a whole lot to be said about the numerous third-party variations. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? Redirect seems to be the consensus, but it seems a little weak so far, so I'd still like to get a little more input first since it seems to be somewhat more contentious than I initially anticipated. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • • Five new sources have been added. One of the Kotaku articles links to [3] which shows all the information. As mentioned on the talk page, I tried to register on that forum to contact that person and ask about their sources, but AT&T blocks emails from some forums, so I was unable to get registered there. Since a reliable source like Kotaku considers them reliable, so should we. Various reliable sources have been found for bits of information here and there throughout the article. These sources mean the article clearly meets all requirements of notability for a Wikipedia article. Nothing gained by eliminating it, or the many other articles like it for other systems. Dream Focus 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree about Kotaku, but I don't think SegaRetro wiki sources are what Wikipedia takes as reliable. Further on that note, that's really the List of Variations people should be going to. Not only is it more comprehensive, it has many more pictures that Wikipedia would never host seeing as their NFC. That's where people would get that type of information, and not Wikipedia.--SexyKick 15:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Once the unsourced content is cut and turns into a decent article, it'll probably be short enough for a merge anyway. Its only a redirect and Dream is free is overhaul it in a sandbox. In its current condition, I agree with a redirect. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dream Focus:, I'd be glad to let you sandbox it and work on it. Like I said, it can always be brought back if it returns in good shape, with good coverage on each variation, and without being set up as a directory of information, and doing a redirect instead of a deletion preserves the article history for all to view. The issue here isn't that the subject of variations in itself isn't notable—if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a subsection in this article—but that there's not enough established notability in the content fork; in other words, each variation in itself needs to be established as notable in the list, especially since not every variation has an article. Some of them could get some; for instance I think the JVC Wondermega/X'Eye could warrant an article, and Allgame has a full article on it as a good source, but I haven't ever seen enough to see the Aiwa player deserving of one. What I'd also recommend working on is not just establishing what differs on each one (although this could be mentioned), but focusing on the history of each version, such as the Pioneer LaserActive's design to compete with the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer and its commercial failure due to its nearly costing $1000 before getting the add-on packs that let you play Genesis or TurboGrafx-16 games on it. Honestly, I don't see it happening and I don't see the sources being there, but consider it something where I'm, very politely, daring you to prove me wrong, maybe because I want you to prove me wrong and show it can be done the right way. List of Xbox 360 retail configurations, while not perfect, should serve as a good model to follow if you'd like to try it, utilizing full prose and good sourcing. It still reads too much like a directory to me, but at least there is some establishment of notability for each with the tie-ins of Microsoft's E3 announcements. If the variations list is to be kept, it needs a complete and total overhaul to justify keeping it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not everything on a list needs to have its own article. Six of them do though. I could search for any of them in the video game reliable sources custom Google search [4] and find multiple reliable sources covering them and create a Wikipedia article for them. Then people would complain that most of these articles were too short and to just merge them together in a list article instead. Dream Focus 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Strangely I can only think that that process would actually result in a higher-quality list, if that were the case. Only thing that could possibly use an article is the JVC Wondermega (X'Eye), although it is covered more in Sega CD. Sega Nomad has proven to have enough out there to warrant its own article, and I've just submitted it to WP:GAN in hopes it's a good article. If I may be honest, I just don't see this ever becoming anything more than a directory, and never to featured list quality. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect, but preferably without merging any information from the split article. Do we need so much redundancy? The main article is already pretty hefty. It looks like all of the console's variations and available add-ons are adequately covered here. A split article doesn't seem necessary, unless someone is trying to truncate the Genesis article a bit; in which case the variations / add-ons probably shouldn't be covered by the main article to begin with. 98.86.118.17 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Looks to be pretty clean-cut from here, consensus favors a redirect. That being said, before I redirect this, I'd like to give it a little time to let anyone who wants to work on this a chance to sandbox it; the old records will still be available after the redirect, but since they might be a little harder to get to, I'll give it some time. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn - unanimously opposed in first hour — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Sega Genesis → Mega Drive – This article has been the subject of much debate for years, with most previous discussions ending in "no consensus" or being retroactively criticized for not involving enough people to form a proper consensus. However, the article just underwent a major overhaul and has achieved "Good Article" status, and it is my belief that it now presents a more accurate and more balanced world view of the subject. We have addressed most of the points that were argued on both sides in previous debates - most notably the fact that no official, final sales figures were ever published (that we know of), and that the article was previously written with undue weight toward North American events.

Given the new state of the article, I believe that the article now presents the subject more neutrally, and as such, "Mega Drive" outweighs "Sega Genesis" as a general concept - when you factor out all the instances where we currently refer to the Genesis in a non-region-specific context, the instances where we're talking about the North-American version specifically are much fewer, and more consolidated than before. As a result, the article will generally flow better if we primarily refer to "Mega Drive" and talk about the Genesis only when referring to the North-American version.

For those who are not familiar with the dispute, this game console is known as "Mega Drive" in every part of the world except North America, where it was called "Genesis". We do not have solid sales figures on which to base a popularity argument, and there is an entire FAQ devoted to explaining this article's long and contentious naming history. I would encourage folks to read over that FAQ, which references applicable policies that have been brought up in prior naming debates, and keep the salient points from that FAQ in mind when discussing the current proposal. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm the nominator. Full disclosure: I live in the United States, where the console is called the Genesis, and I have always believed Mega Drive to be the better title. My personal reasons have been based on the fact that "Mega Drive" is the name given to the console everywhere except the US, and with the current rewrite in place, I no longer believe that the US congressional hearings over video game violence make the Genesis specially notable over the Mega Drive as a whole - we have new information and a better understanding that show this was a general issue in multiple areas of the world, contributing to a better world view than we've had previously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What the hell? Are you serious? How many times a year do we have to have this same exact discussion? Everything that could be said already has been multiple times. This is the name it was first released to an English speaking market as, so that's what we go by. And America is the largest English speaking market for video games, or was at that time by far. Dream Focus 03:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Please go read the updates to this article that we just spent a whole week working on, then come back and tell me that we're still rehashing the same issue again. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I notice the sales figures Sega_Genesis#Sales_numbers say it sold more copies in North America than everywhere else combined. So most people that owned one, knew it by this name. I don't see anything new that convinces me the name should be changed. Dream Focus 04:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • We have further discussions in progress up above to deal with that - the sales figures have always been in doubt, and that particular section needs to be updated to reflect the current state of discussion. (I'll take a shot at correcting it.) Fact is, that claim has never been verifiable, but we've only recently put it under close scrutiny and realized how unreliable it was. It's probably safer to say that the US was its most successful region, in terms of sales, but to say it outweighed the rest of the world combined is not verifiable. Further, the title policies do not dictate that we must base the article's title on the subject's sales figures - we've achieved a broader world view on topics relevant to the console's history where "Genesis" becomes the exception to the rule. This is a different place than we've been with this article in the past. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • There is no doubt that most of the English speaking people in the world that bought it, lived in North America, where it was called the Genesis. Dream Focus 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • (1) That cannot be verified with the information we have. If you have better information, please enlighten us. (2) Even if the Genesis outsold the Mega Drive 4-to-1, there are many other things to consider than just raw sales figures that establish the subject's overall notability. We have attempted to address those issues in light of the fact that we don't have firm numbers to go on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this has been debated to death. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • So just because it's been discussed before doesn't mean things can't change? Please take a look at the updates to the article - it has been significantly improved and deserves another look now that most of the previous issues have been addressed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Rather vague isn't it? Its the same issues as before, nothing changed about anything brought up previously. Dream Focus 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Compound as Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. Both titles are acceptable and valid, neither will ever find strong consensus to back it, it's always going to be debated. Screw the WP:TITLE police and lay this neverending back-and-forth to rest once a for all. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per the majority of talk archives for this page, this has been debated many many times this year, which even had a full-up RFC. This is a WP:DEADHORSE for this year. Stop debating it, and improve the content of the article instead until 1 year has passed from TODAY (why today? because the issue was reopened after it was closed down in June) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. (edit conflict) Congrats on the GA and ten thumbs up, truly, but the rename FAQ's verbosity should be addressed. Genesis overpopulates Mega Drive in every measure I've attempted (ghits, trends, ngrams). If this RM doesn't end in a landslide, ping me and I'll back Sal's compound compromise. czar ♔ 04:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

All right, never mind

Okay, considering the overwhelming opposition to this thing in just the first hour, it's obvious we're not going to get anywhere. Please just forget I mentioned it - I will do what I can to speedy-close this thing and I will never bring it up again. My apologies - I really thought you all would be more open to a reasonable debate this time, given the hard work we put into trying to address your concerns. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions, I think the only 'concerns' most of us had are that someone might stir up the debate again. --SubSeven (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was approaching it from the standpoint that arguments on both sides of the debate were based on a flawed article riddled with poorly-stated prose and unreliable sources. I'm just disappointed that the only response I got from people not actively involved in fixing the article's problems was the knee-jerk "Not this shit again" response, even though I tried to explain why it was worth discussing. So like I said, someone else can take it up next time if they want to put up with that. I'm done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That to me is a shame. That being said, there are those who will simply stick to their beliefs firmly as they can, stick their fingers in their ears, and go "la la, I'm not listening, you'll mess it up and my points are better anyway". Trust me, I had to refrain from doing that during the GA review when Indrian was rooting out parts of the article. Oh well, I suppose that a march to FA status is the next goal, and with the title not going anywhere, perhaps the best solution is to continue with the sales figure discussions, resolve the remaining few issues, and seek a WP:FAC. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 05:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If everyone disagrees with you, you just claim they aren't listening. Great. And you are planning on starting up this discussion yet again later on?! Honestly now. Stop beating a dead horse already. Dream Focus 05:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My point, Dream Focus, was not that you were disagreeing. I did ask for debate, which meant I was open to people disagreeing with me. But I was hoping that it wouldn't just be knee-jerk responses - I was hoping that people would read what I said, take a look at the new state of the article, and start discussing it from there. Evidently, that was too much to ask.

Now, I don't see how you can jump to Red Phoenix saying he's going to start this discussion again. He said he was going to seek a Featured Article discussion - we were just hoping to determine whether the FA would be "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive". The overwhelming consensus appears to be that we should not have that discussion, so I guess we're going with Genesis, come what may. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• KieferSkunk, you didn't explain anything. The New York Times is a reliable source, while you are not. If it says over 20 million Genesis were sold in America, then we believe it. You started an argument, it wasn't going your way, and so you closed it. The only responses you got were not from people whose only concern was you repeating the same nonsense argument again. I made valid points. You refuse to state exactly what you have changed in the article which you believe somehow would make this a different debate. Please, enlighten us all. Dream Focus 05:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I quickly withdrew it when I saw that the majority of the people who had previously provided reasoned debate in the previous discussions were knee-jerk opposing it just because it was a title debate. It became quickly obvious that people were not going to read the article and debate on its merits. So, rather than draw it out, I withdrew the nomination. You should be happy.
• As for "not explaining what changed", did you even read the nomination? I specifically pointed out that we had consolidated prose that dealt with the NA-specific Genesis (as opposed to non-region-specific references that followed the article title by convention) and demonstrated that we had achieved a broader world view. Even when I explained that to you upon your request, you basically ignored it. I don't know how much clearer I can be without just pointing you at the edit history and making you read all the edit summaries. But, it doesn't matter - the response I got was quite clear in saying people weren't even going to bother reading what we had to say. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding "I made valid points": Yes, they were valid points. You mentioned the sales figures statement still claimed that the Genesis sold more units in America than the rest of the world combined - the fact that it says that is a valid point. I said that I would try to address that because, according to the GA discussion, it was wrong and unverifiable, and we had not yet addressed it (or we missed it during the GA review). I further countered that there's more to determining a title than raw sales figures, especially when their validity is in doubt. But by the time I'd gotten to where I could even begin addressing that, four other people (two of whom I have a great deal of respect for) made it clear the conversation as a whole was going to be an exercise in futility. That's why, despite what reasonable debate you and I may have had, I decided to withdraw. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What he believed made it different, was the article being at GA status, and he expected people to review the article before deciding their !vote. That's all. He wasn't trying to shake things up again, he was being optimistic. It was good. And it's over now, so everyone who didn't want it to be brought up again can relax...about your other point though, yeah, I don't know why one or two editors take issue with that New York Times source. I'm open to (and was trying to put in myself) the most neutral wording, like Kiefer is trying to go for. Hopefully he can do a better job than I on the wording.--SexyKick 06:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a FYI you started the requested move at 03:38am GMT and ended it at 04:28am GMT when nearly all the Mega-Drive supporting world was asleep. If you had let it run for a few more hours it would have gotten a lot of support especially considering what the article has gone through in the past week. Technotopia (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I still strongly feel a compound name is the ONLY solution and "Hellmann's and Best Foods" article sets a precedent for using a compound name. Technotopia (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this in the FAQ? Even with the reduced bit, its still rather bias. [5] It doesn't belong in the faq. Dream Focus 13:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The comment above yours is why we need the Hellman's and Best Foods part in the FAQ (as that was the point knocked home in the last RFC - there's a reason it's at Hellman and Best Foods), and I don't think it's wrong to have that last part in there, except its wording should possibly be changed to simply state that the article was brought to GA by editors who weren't fighting over the title, so why would anyone want to do that, when you too can get an award for improving other articles, and maybe even some barnstars along the way?--SexyKick 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I was only referring to the other section.

In October 2013, a group of editors headed by User:Red Phoenix undertook a large effort to fully revise the article and bring it to Good Article status, addressing some of the points brought up in prior title discussions.

• • • I see no reason why that would be in the FAQ. Is that a frequency asked question? Dream Focus 17:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It demarcates an essential part of the article's history that is relevant to the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Don't you have an ego problem. People edit articles all the time, you don't add something into a FAQ to tell people what you did. Also dismissing the issues raised in the FAQ by stating vaguely you addressed some of the points, is rather bias. And you don't even mention what points you are claiming to have addressed. This does not belong in a FAQ, since it is not something anyone would ever ask about. Does anyone other than KieferSkunk believe that belongs in the FAQ? More opinions please. Dream Focus 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Dream, I'm really puzzled by the negative vibe here. : ( SexyKick 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I am too, honestly. Dream Focus, why are you so intent on accusing me of being an egotist when I'm not calling attention to what *I* did specifically - rather, what a group of people did, and giving credit to ANOTHER user who headed up this effort despite how difficult it was with his schedule? And when are you going to start reading what we're saying? Several of the comments you've left in this discussion are exactly contradictory to replies we've left you, the original nomination for the move, and the common arguments in the FAQ itself. You are arguing that I've said nothing specific when I have, several times, told you EXACTLY what I was pointing at. I just don't know how else to get any of this through to you, so all I'm able to do at this point is assume you're just being contrary for some reason only known to you. Sorry, but I honestly don't have the time or energy to keep arguing with you over it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm still chafing a bit over that ego comment, so I want to make one thing perfectly clear: You will know it when I display an ego. If I wanted to take all the credit for bringing this article to a GA, I would have said "User:KieferSkunk made a lot of improvements". I gave credit to Red Phoenix because he did the majority of the work on this overhaul. I would have given him and the rest of the users who did all the intensive work on this thing credit even if I'd had absolutely no part in it. It has been years since anyone, myself included, took the time to give this article the attention it needed, to take it from the laughingstock that it's been with all the bickering about its title, to an article that readers can actually get good information from, even if it's not perfect. So don't you tell ME that I have an ego, when all I'm trying to do is to record when things improved so people are well-informed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
              • You said "a group of editors headed by User:Red Phoenix", so I assumed you were part of that group. You complain about the bickering over the title, but you did start the bickering up yet again. And to insult the work of previous editors calling it a "laughingstock" is rather rude. Dream Focus 08:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe Kiefer means laughing stock in reference to the title debates, which certainly did degrade the impression of the article by association, rather than the article itself being specifically terrible.--SexyKick 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, Dream Focus is right. I was deliberately calling the article itself a laughingstock, because that's how many people outside of Wikipedia came to view it. Most of that was due to the stupid title debates, but at least part of it was because the article itself had degraded into something mostly nonsensical, full of cruft, inaccuracies and unverifiable statements. The IP editors who kept saying it was full of "yank bias" had a point: It was, and that was partly because many of the people who genuinely cared about fixing those issues had been driven away from working on it by all the fighting. Yes, I realize it's an insulting comment to a class of editors, and I realize that some of the editors in this very discussion are part of that group (as am I). But my comment also reflects what I see as the reality of the situation - can you point to any time in the last four years where anyone's spent much of any energy actually fixing the article and trying to get rid of unreliable, unverifiable claims? And yes, I am a part of the group that worked to fix the article and turn it into a GA, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically flaunting my enormous ego by mentioning the event in the FAQ. Nowhere in that comment did I mention myself, and I have no intention of taking undue credit for my effort. I added it because people reading the FAQ need to understand that this is NOT the same damned article anymore - most of the arguments were made when the article was still in bad shape, so to make those same arguments NOW would be folly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, a common argument about this article is a strong North American bias throughout, editors have spent the past week addressing these and other issues and managed to get the page to GA status, it stands to reason to make a note in the FAQ as many of the issues raised in the FAQ have now been addressed. Technotopia (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's always been my take that the article itself contributed to the discord, that WP:WORLDVIEW issues have been core to the naming debate. Without the actual research done to make a solid article to understand notability of certain issues worldwide, how could we say "Oh, it was bigger here", or "Oh, more happened here, so it should get the title"? I completely reject that sales figures in whatever regions should be the determining factor — it's only one small part of the notability of the title. Getting the article to GA status in itself also means that it has been evaluated to be an article that meets certain standards, including sourcing, which means that finally the article itself can be used as a good measurement of notability of certain topics. And aside from that, I'm personally quite excited for all the effort that's gone into this and the improvements that have finally been made to the ARTICLE instead of bickering over the title. This is exactly what we should have been doing in the first place. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but unfortunately it appears people are still going to bicker. All I can figure is that they just don't want to stop bickering - this could be a perfect article with perfect information, perfect wording, and enough world-view to make everyone happy, and I'm sure at this point that people like Dream would still find something to bitch about. Yes, I am bitter. Why do you ask? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, you really need to look into a mirror here.LedRush (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what's with all the hate going on around here? We just had the first major rewrite this article has had in forever and had its quality established through a thorough GA review, and now this discussion has degraded into an argument about ego? How did that happen? This just isn't even right anymore... Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A mention of this event should probably go into the FAQ as the second line of section 14.--SexyKick 11:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with a compound title? It was proposed earlier, but there was never a clear consensus on the discussion, which is now archived. I still support this compromise. 98.86.118.17 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The compound title was extremely disruptive for the article when it was in place. It brought many editors here who were simply only interested in the title because it wasn't supported by Wiki-policy in their opinions. How can you say there wasn't a clear consensus on the discussion when it was near unanimously opposed? The main person fighting for it even changed their minds to oppose it as well.--SexyKick 21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

I gave it a go. Feedback welcome. I can do the rest if there is consensus that this is going in the right direction. I'd consider pulling the South Korean alternative names from the lede as extraneous.

Old (single ¶) lede proposal

Currently The Sega Genesis is a 16-bit video game console by Sega that was released in 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ, Hepburn: Mega Doraibu), 1989 in North America, and 1990 in Europe, Australasia, and Brazil, under the name Mega Drive. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility via a peripheral. Based on Sega's System 16 arcade board, the Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. Although sales estimates vary; the Genesis was Sega's most successful console. Proposed The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ, Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) outside North America, is a 16-bit video game console by Sega first released in Japan in 1988. It came to North America in 1989, and to Europe, Australasia, and Brazil in 1990. In South Korea, it was distributed by Samsung as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the Sega Master System's successor, with which it is backward compatible via a peripheral. Based on Sega's System 16 arcade board, the Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms including dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) two years later, sparking a console competition that predominated over the 16-bit era of video gaming. Although sales estimates vary, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console.

Full (three ¶) lede proposal

Currently The Sega Genesis is a 16-bit video game console by Sega that was released in 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ, Hepburn: Mega Doraibu), 1989 in North America, and 1990 in Europe, Australasia, and Brazil, under the name Mega Drive. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility via a peripheral. Based on Sega's System 16 arcade board, the Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. Although sales estimates vary; the Genesis was Sega's most successful console. In Japan, the Mega Drive initially did not fare well against its two main competitors, Nintendo's Famicom and NEC's PC-Engine. However, it achieved much greater success in North America—rebranded as the Sega Genesis—and in Europe, capturing the majority of the market share. Contributing to its success were its library of arcade-game conversions, the success of Sonic the Hedgehog, and aggressive advertisement that positioned it as the "cool" console for mature gamers. The Genesis and Mega Drive also benefited from numerous peripherals and several network services, as well as multiple third-party variations of the console that focused on extending its functionality. Though Sega dominated the market in North America and Europe for several years, the release of the SNES posed serious competition, and the console and several of its highest-profile games gained significant legal scrutiny on matters involving reverse engineering and video game violence. The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it. Many games have also been re-released in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam. Proposed The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ, Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) in most regions outside North America, is a 16-bit video game console by Sega first released in Japan in 1988 and later released worldwide. It is Sega's third and most successful console. Although sales estimates vary, it sold well in North America and Europe, and less so in Japan. Its arcade game ports, first Sonic the Hedgehog release, and aggressive youth marketing greatly contributed to its sales. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), which sparked a "console war" that predominated over video gaming's 16-bit era. The console's hardware was based on Sega's successful System 16 arcade board. Its games come on published cartridges, whose licensing and reverse engineering became the subject of a lawsuit. The console is backwards compatible with its predecessor's games via an adapter, while its own library consists of over 900 games. Controversy surrounding violent titles like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat led to Sega's Videogame Rating Council, which became the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The console's life was extended with peripherals and add-ons such as the Sega CD and 32X, network services such as the Sega Net Work System, and third-party console variations such as the Sega TeraDrive. Though the hardware was discontinued in 1997, its titles are continually rereleased in compilations, published on digital distribution platforms, and emulated. The console is included on several top ten "best console" lists.

 czar ♔ 14:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with that change. Dream Focus 15:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried to give this a go a few weeks ago, but ultimately it all sort of fizzled out. For me, your proposal is an improvement, but the whole section could still stand to be streamlined a lot further. Going into the Master System converter and third-party Samsung release before we've established it's Sega's best-selling console strikes me as a little topsy-turvy, for instance. The way I see it...

• What it is: a 16-bit games console
• Who made it: Sega
• Where: Originally from Japan
• When: 1988
• Why it's notable: Above all other things, 1) It's Sega's best-selling console, and 2) It was one "side" of the famous console wars.

I believe if we can get all of that into the first two or three of sentences - and it's heading in the right direction - we'll have a much better article on our hands. And, by the way, I agree with you that the Samsung alternative names belong in the body rather than the lead. As it is, it only makes the tricky naming conventions even more baffling for a newcomer. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The first problem I see, is that it says "known as Mega Drive outside of America" and then there is exceptions to South Korea. I think since the current lead passed GA, that it's where we should leave it for now.--SexyKick 16:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not written in a coherent manner so it should be fixed. And who cares about GA status? Honestly now. If whatever handful of people randomly show up to discuss it agree its a good article, it gets that title. Dream Focus 17:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Being a Good Article doesn't mean it's a perfect article - there will always be improvements that can be made. But the point is that I agree with the original poster in that I don't think marketing decisions made by Samsung are so important to the subject that they should be in the third sentence of the article. The body text, yes; the lead, no.

(Besides, the South Korean models all had "Mega Drive" written on them anyway, which doesn't entirely contradict the "known as Mega Drive outside of North America" statement.) 86.4.242.105 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Per 86.4's suggestion, I went all out with a three-paragraph lede suggested rewrite, for your review. I think it's balanced and neat, and will ultimately fare much better at FAC than the current lede, even as a starting point. czar ♔ 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I like it overall. It does a good job of summarizing all the points mentioned in the article. Just three small things: First, it was adapted from the Sega-16 hardware; the current wording implies they just slapped a case and a cartridge slot on the actual arcade hardware. Second, it was backwards compatible through use of an adapter, so the adapter should probably be mentioned in that sentence. Finally, the Genesis was not discontinued in 1995. As the article correctly states, Sega heavily scaled back on Genesis production and promotion that year to focus on Saturn, but the system was still manufactured and sold into 1997. Otherwise, its looking good. Indrian (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Helpful feedback—appreciated. I made those changes. Let me know if there's a better way to mention the Sega-16 architecture. (Also note that the 1997 discontinuation is not cited in the article.) czar ♔ 20:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we will have to come up with a more definitive statement on the console's end, with sourcing, before we take it to FA. I'll look into it at some point. I found an article from 1997 about a price cut, which is why I know it was still being sold that year, but I don't have a statement on when it was discontinued. Indrian (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We did have a source for it. I'm not sure why or when it was removed from that, most likely it was due to the source being taken offline.--71.162.172.155 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We still do, actually. It's in the Sega Farms Out Genesis article. It says they weren't making the system anymore. The source that says 32X and Sega CD were discontinued in 1996 specifies that the Genesis was still going to be produced and sold. So the discontinuation happened in 1997 and Majesco took over.--SexyKick 21:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work on this, Czar - I like the full rewrite, and especially the intro. I think it works much better than the current version, and it's much better than the stuff I came up with. Just a few minor nits:

• "Sonic the Hedgehog debut game" sounds a bit too much to me like Sonic was a launch title - it wasn't, but it was the "killer app" for the system. I would replace that part with "the success of Sonic the Hedgehog" or something similar.
• Firefox's spell-check is complaining that "rereleased" is misspelled. Are we sure that's one word, and not meant to be hyphenated as "re-released"?
• I think the last sentence in the second paragraph mixes too many concepts together at once and is a bit confusing as written. I'd suggest putting concept and example together: "The console's life was extended with peripherals and add-ons such as the Sega CD and 32X, online gaming services such as the Sega Net Work System, and third-party variations such as the Sega TeraDrive."
• I think we need to move the concept in the last two sentences in the third paragraph further up into the beginning of the lede, and we can combine them into a single sentence more elegantly: "While the console saw only limited popularity in Japan, it was Sega's most successful console in North America and Europe, and is included in several 'top-ten' lists." (Top-ten of what? I think we should be a bit more specific about what kinds of top-ten lists we're talking about here, since you can have "top-ten worst of something" lists as well.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• One more: To address SexyKick's point above about the South Korea exception, how about going from this: "...known as Mega Drive outside North America" to this: "...known as Mega Drive in most regions outside North America"? The following sentence about South Korea would take care of explaining the "not most" part of that. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Incorporated all five suggestions above. "Rerelease" unhyphenated is consistent with NOAD. The third bullet makes the text marginally clunkier but perhaps smarter, so I went with it. The third paragraph leaves room for more critical reception at release and legacy summaries (and there should be plenty of material to summarize once the those section are expanded). Let me know what you think. czar ♔ 02:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Still not convinced on Sonic. It's not quite as important that that game was the first one the character appeared in (plus, the structure of that sentence kinda begs for a link to both the character article and the game article), as it is that that game was the one that defined the console and single-handedly made it so successful. I still think we should word that "the (superlative?) success of Sonic the Hedgehog", with italics on the title to make it clear we're referring to the game and not the character. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Objections are welcome. I think success is redundant, but I switched it to emphasize Sonic-as-game-title while still mentioning the debut, which is the most important aspect for legacy and lede purposes. I'd like to push this edit out now and move on to other things if there aren't any immediate objections (BRD if necessary, but ping me if R so I can D)—feel free to tweak it then unless you want my input  czar ♔ 03:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Czar. :) Looks good! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is looking very good indeed. It still needs some fine-tuning in my opinion, but by and large you've untangled the structure into a much more straightforward order, which is a huge improvement. To nit-pick:

• The word "release(d)" appears four times in the first paragraph, which is a little jarring.
• "Published cartridges" isn't a phrase I'd use - I'd favour either "ROM cartridges" or simply "cartridges".
• I'd reverse the order of the third sentence of paragraph two, i.e. mention the Genesis/Mega Drive's own catalogue first, then the backwards compatibility.
• The sentence beginning "Controversy surrounding..." needs "in the US" to be added to it somewhere if we're mentioning the VRC and ESRB. (The controversy wasn't US-specific, but those bodies are.)
• The current lead mentions that indie developers are still developing for the console. If that's well-sourced, I think that little fact is worth retaining.
• We can certainly do better than that final sentence in summing up the success of the console, but I'm afraid I don't have anything to offer. I'll give it some thought.

Those are just my opinions, so feel free to agree or disagree as you see fit. On the whole, though, this is a huge step in the right direction. Keep up the good work! 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly the parts that were removed about Sega still licensing sales of the console, and the sourced indie developer recent releases should be readded into the lead, and shouldn't really have been removed in the first place. I don't mind adding them back when I have more time, and if I have to stick the sources next to the statements in the lead, I don't mind that either, even though it's not really the MoS way to do it. Why do we say predominated, instead of dominated?--SexyKick 16:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

A small collection of horses that have been mercessly flogged despite being thoroughly and profoundly deceased

I missed this by being asleep, but I didn't think much of the responses, which were either "I don't want to talk about this" and or references to arguments to avoid like WP:GHITS. If any of the counter-arguments had listed actual sources, it would have carried more weight. I think you should have left the proposal open and ignored anyone who wanted to just sound off without citing a good policy or sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you read any of the long page filling discussions of the past about this? Check the archives for what you are looking for. Dream Focus 10:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have, and I've read WP:LAME. Since the article has never had a thorough source check before last week's GA review, I would say any previous argument is based on inconclusive data. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The last RFC ended with no consensus and since then the majority of the article has been re-written with valid sources and supports a more worldwide view on the subject instead of a North American view, it should be debated again. Technotopia (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly in my opinion, it was going to end the same no matter what, and the first hour was just a small piece of evidence towards that fact. Really, in my opinion, most of the article is actually still the same. (but I was one of the few people actually reading the article before hand to know and notice the difference) Pretty much, we cut out the Cyber Razor Cut, Sega Pirate, other UK ads, and Gotta Get Genesis. Also added in that Night Trap was mention in Parliament according to one source. Though it wasn't quite the centerpiece that it was in America. (link to a transcript about when it was mentioned there)--SexyKick 12:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was being brief, there were also more additions like the TMSS issue getting its own section, Sonic, the reduction of Tom Kaliske information, etc. But, I was mainly trying to focus on things that I felt localized to the name debate.--SexyKick 12:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are all little details of what is really a much bigger issue. Little sections that supported a US-centric view have indeed been fixed, and some cruft has been removed. But the article as a whole has also been reorganized to make it much clearer that the Genesis is a specific instance of the general concept of this console - perhaps its most successful instance, but in the broader world view, still the exception to the rule. That was what I had been hoping to convey in the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nothing at WP:GHITS says it's a bad idea for purposes of WP:COMMONNAME (the latter policy actually encourages it). That ATA GHITS sub-essay is more about general notability arguments from Google hits, and the whole ATA essay is specifically about deletion arguments, not particularly applicable to page moves and retitles. czar ♔ 12:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"not particularly applicable to page moves and retitles". On the contrary, it highlights a very important an relevant point. In a rename discussion, if one proposed name returns good quality sources from a Google search and the other returns fewer sources or even none at all, that does not mean that one has won. As WP:GHITS states an article, an by extension a name, "can be verified as notable entirely by offline sources". This is a very important point. WP:GHITS is pointing out that having Google hits that prove one standpoint, doesn't by nature disprove the other and ergo win the argument. - X201 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a data-driven position, not a trump card. Both proposed titles returned results in multiple metrics—one was ghits. I only said anything because the OP characterized my !vote's methodology as inapt, but was informed by (1) an essay instead of the policy, and (2) deletion argument advice instead of the established page move discussion practice. czar ♔ 00:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ritchie, I originally volunteered to shepherd this discussion, but I made two critical mistakes when starting it: First, I underestimated just how vociferous the backlash would be, and I overestimated people's capacity to see that things had changed and to be willing to discuss it anew given new information, which was what we had explicitly been asking people to do in previous discussions. I had an over-optimistic view of what the community was willing to do, and I saw that it was quickly going to devolve into the same old arguments no matter what I did. And Second, I overestimated my own willingness to put up with that. Now, if you want to shepherd the discussion or find someone else to do it, please, be my guest. I would still love to see this issue resolved properly. But I have to recuse myself from that role, because as you can see, I cannot manage it myself right now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. The writing certainly must be clearer, all little details do pile up, but I feel we lost more non-US details (and cruft) than we gained. The parliament mention of Night Trap was like a drop in a bucket compared to the huge scandal-esque lawsuit that happened in the US over that and Mortal Kombat (I couldn't find any parliament mention of Mortal Kombat in the parliament transcripts), there was the TMSS thing which is now covered in much greater detail, and so IMHO, not so much has changed. So certainly the next time this gets brought up, it's going to be a huge headache.--SexyKick 23:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Night Trap furore was more of a media frenzy in the UK than a political issue because Sega Europe, wanting to avoid what happened to Sega of America, pre-empted any calls for a games rating board by submitting the game to the British Board of Film Classification. Once that was done, no-one could touch them. I've got lots of issues of Sega Power and Mega (British magazines) from the era which provide a few details, but what we really need is someone to go to their local library and dig through back issues of the Daily Mail et al. Unfortunately, that person isn't going to be me, but I can provide a few dates if anyone thinks that would be helpful. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, 86.4, remind me to get a hold of you for some of those MEGA articles, I'm sure those might be helpful for doing a few Genesis game articles ;) Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've got any specific questions, feel free to ask and I'll see what I can find. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you've got anything on Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit), Sonic the Hedgehog 3, or Sonic and Knuckles, I'd be quite interested in those sources. Sonic 3 locked onto Sonic and Knuckles is my personal favorite Sonic game and I've beaten it several times with all 14 emeralds, but I'd love to turn the Sonic articles into Good Articles as well. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a fair few people on both sides of the argument who are more than willing to discuss the issue sensibly. Unfortunately, because of what's gone before, there seems to be a large group for whom it's become almost a matter of principle to maintain the status quo at all costs. With that in mind, is it worth having the debate here explicitly without a view to renaming the article? That way, at least we can sort out which of the points raised in the FAQ are valid and which are, at best, misinformed (and there's a few on both sides that I think fit that description). Just a thought. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that will ever work. (It's been weekly tried at least once, IIRC.) The problem is that there's no value in the FAQ in and of itself. Nobody is interested in updating the FAQ for it's own sake. Everybody knows that, even if our intentions are otherwise, a debate about the faq is just a thinly veiled debate about renaming the article, and everyone will treat it as such. APL (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, suggested improvements to the FAQ have been mooted on this page more than once recently, so I'm not sure why you're under the impression that no-one's interested in updating it. But that's veering away from the point I'm trying to make, which is that the unfortunate "us versus them" mentality that seems to prevail in these parts is down to a number of misconceptions on both sides of the fence, and the only way to move on from that that I can see would be free, frank, open, on-topic discussions. Perhaps I'm being more than a little idealistic, but if we can clear some of them up, maybe it would help matters. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, updating the faq sure. I was responding to the idea of "Sort[ing] out which of the points raised in the FAQ are valid". That's basically just the naming debate recast, and everyone will treat it as such, with all the same animosity. That doesn't mean it's impossible, of course. APL (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad that we have to have this argument once a month, but at least we're getting better at keeping it short. I didn't even notice the October edition until KS had already withdrawn it. :-) APL (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I only left it open for an hour. The argument was much shorter this time likely as a direct result of the quick withdrawal. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think fundamentally that a merge proposal is doomed to fail. The only way I can see this getting sorted out is to file an RfC that makes it abundantly clear that nobody takes any sides and that whoever files it is utterly ambivalent about which way the final result goes. I took the view it was staying as its current title through the GA review and acted accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

ESRB coverage is better here than in its own article

Just wanted to mention that this article's description of the VRC and Sega's role in helping form the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) is actually much better now than the ESRB's own article. The ESRB article is a bit of a mess and makes a big jump between the reasons for needing it and the fact that it was formed - it doesn't talk much about the steps involved in forming it. Perhaps some of the coverage in this article should be ported over there?

There's also a bit of a discrepancy that I think we need to address here (probably not a huge one): Both the lede (before and after Czar's rewrite) and the controversy section state or imply that Sega's VRC was used as the basis for the ESRB. I don't think that's true, and the ESRB article doesn't support that as it's currently written (since several other companies had their own rating systems and participated in forming the ESRB as well). But I don't know enough about this subject to say for sure what IS correct - could someone with a bit more knowledge here take a crack at it? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not true. The only real basis is that Sega did propose universal adoption of the VRC as part of the post-hearing talks, and it was rejected. There are a few quotes in the Kent book from some who believe the only reason VRC was rejected was because it was Sega's system. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

[Disclosure, I have not read the Kent book that's heavily referenced in this section, so I may well be commenting from a position of total ignorance.]

Even if it were true, I've be very surprised if there's a good source that says so. The ESRB is pretty secretive, and it wouldn't make sense for them to publicly announce that they were using Sega's system. Such an announcement would have been a slight to Nintendo et al.

For what it's worth, ESRB's faq says it was created in 1994 after some research. Which implies, but doesn't come out and say, that it was created fresh.

Regardless of what happened, I'd be really surprised if a source can be found that warrents a statement stronger than "some sources noted similarities between." But I'm not sure what value that has unless those sources are alleging a conspiracy. The public portions of both systems have a more than passing similarity to the MPAA ratings, so a similarity between the two is not super surprising.

It seems like it's enough to say that the VRC was a predecessor, and VRC was part of the controversy that prompted the creation of the ESRB. APL (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I still think we ought to do a collaboration article on the 1993 hearings into video game violence that Lieberman ran at some point. It was quite a complex matter that formed the ESRB, and I doubt it would all fit into Entertainment Software Ratings Board, Videogame Rating Council, Night Trap, Mortal Kombat, or anything we have now. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)