Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Massive Lede section

It's been a while since I dared look at this article, but I have to say that the lede section alone is becoming larger than some stub, or even start class articles, weighing in at 540 words. It really needs trimming down by some margin. Before I work on it with secateurs, I thought I'd mention it here first for other opinions? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed—it continues to balloon. I had recommended a much more concise three ¶ lede back in Archive 21 that may be helpful as a baseline. czar ♔ 14:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we're still using the lede that was written during the FACR, and since that was subjected to their scrutiny I'd rather stick to it over redoing it.--SexyKick 17:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just browsing through and stumbled upon this article, and came here to say the same thing. The current intro seems very bloated and confused to me at the moment, going as it does into unnecessary detail which could be saved for the body text (the tech specs and two different names for the console in South Korea, for example). As it stands, I really don't think it gives a good enough precis of the subject. From WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview - I think novices would be more confused than ever after reading just the lead.

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points - I'm not sure it's a resounding success on any of these points, especially the last two.

The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences - It definitely fails abysmally on this point.

The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style - Again, I don't think the current lead lead does novices any favours, what with the jargon-like technical details.

There's so much room for improvement over the current convoluted detritus, I don't really see why anyone would argue too vehemently against trying, so I urge the more experienced editors to do so. I freely admit that I don't really know how to help, but if I can, I will. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Because when it gets touched it opens a big can of worms and a nationalistic debate begins 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a compelling reason not to try to improve the article, though, is it? There are far more divisive subjects out there with pages that have excellent lead sections, so surely there's no excuse for the embarrassing unwieldy mess that greets us at the moment. As I detailed above, I'm surprised anyone thinks it complies with WP:LEAD, but that's just my opinion. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated before, we went into FACR with the lede Czar had worked on, and you had previously approved of. That lede was panned, slammed, and tossed out for a full rewrite which was then subjected to their scrutiny. It hasn't been messed with since, and is better to just leave it be, because "FA is FA" for a reason. ;p (On the other hand, if you have an argument against the FA review standards, well you can keep that to yourself because it's not going to hold weight, thank you - we worked for a month on the GAR, and then almost two months on the FACR with half a dozen other experienced Wikipedians, you came in with a very humble point of view I must say, so if you want to keep that humility, you will certainly understand what I'm saying here, otherwise, I recommend taking a page from the famous Mr. Pat Sajack, cause he seems like a guy who's decent as decent can be you know.)SexyKick 02:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because something was rated as a FA at some point in its history is no reason to lock the section down and forbid any changes. The page itself has changed many times since then. The lead is currently so large that in no way can it be considered to "stand alone as a concise overview" - my emphasis. In the edit above Sexykick states that the article was worked on "with half a dozen other experienced Wikipedians" of which I played a minor humble role, and have improved edited the article many times before and since. I now seek to improve the article further by pruning the overly large lead section. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

changed one time since promotion to add the words "which was". I completely disagree with the assertion it doesn't stand alone as a concise overview, we were directed to use the lead as it is because of the extended length and coverage of this article. More to the point, the only suggestions for trimming so far have made no sense to me. Possibly because they didn't come from you. Maybe you yourself have different ideas, but I felt the FACR finally hammered (verb picked carefully) out the problems with the lead that stemmed from all the name-warriors fighting each other all the time into something that worked and made sense. As specifically stated by one of the reviewers, who felt they were going over old scars from a long fought war. I for one agreed with that, and I don't wish to see the article re-enter that phase.--SexyKick 11:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the console's notability is "established in the first few sentences"? To be frank, I don't. The current lead seems to focus more on Virgin Mastertronic being the European distributor and things like that, which I'm not sure really belongs in the lead at all, never mind the first paragraph. Do you think it's "written in a clear, accessible style"? Again, all this talk of Zilog Z80s and Motorola 68000s make it rather cumbersome in my opinion. I recommend trying to read the lead (and just the lead) through the eyes of a novice. Does it really "summarize the most important points" about the subject in a way that would "be able to stand alone"? I'm surprised anyone would think that is the case. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's my belief that especially the first paragraph of the lead has a major problem: the whole reason it exists and spells out all the names and releases is because it's essentially been the naming debate by proxy. All the Mega Drive and Genesis fighters have had such a hissy fit over it for months and making sure the console is identified properly and all the WP:WORLDVIEW issues people have fought about over the years, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm totally cool with stripping all of that out. That being said, I do differ on your opinion of the mention of the Motorola 68000 and Zilog Z80 in the lead; they're linked so novice readers can click the link and find out what it is, and they're key components to what made the Genesis unique, not to mention what it was based off of in that design was somewhat popular and was directly based from Sega's System 16 arcade board. I wouldn't mind submitting a suggested revision, but it will take me some time. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 19:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone's suggested this before, but if you're looking for a way to remove the naming problem all together, would this be an acceptable compromise?

The Sega Genesis or Mega Driveref group=note>The name "Mega Drive" (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) was used on the console's initial release in Japan, but changed to "Genesis" in North America. Most other territories use "Mega Drive", while South Korea etc. etc.</ref> is a 16-bit video game console etc. etc.

If I've done that correctly, people can hover their mouse on the note if they're confused about there being two names, and the details of it all can be fleshed out in the History section (as it pretty much is anyway). If they're not interested in there being two names, it removes the clutter from the first paragraph and we can go about establishing what the console is and why it's notable.

I take your point about the Motorola 68000 and Zilog Z80, and it's fair enough, but I still hold that the priorities should lie elsewhere so early in the article. I'm not looking to start a fight over it or anything, though. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

...And I haven't done it correctly. I was trying to create a pop-up after the words "Mega Drive" saying something along the lines of "The name "Mega Drive" (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) was used on the console's initial release in Japan, but changed to "Genesis" in North America. Most other territories use "Mega Drive", while South Korea etc. etc.". I'm not sure where I went wrong - I'll leave it to the more experienced editors... 82.14.71.42 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That has not been suggested before, and it's not a bad idea. The distributor issue is sort of an expanded problem of the same core concept: did the article violate WP:WORLDVIEW? (It's my belief that issue has long since been rectified; it's by far the most multinational video game article with mentions of Japan, North America, and Europe (as expected), but also Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, India, Kuwait, and South Korea, and the games list mentions pirate releases from Taiwan. I know it's gotten so touchy before that I had issues here with another anonymous editor because it got so tickytack based on the fact that some editors really wanted Mega Drive and some wanted Sega Genesis. That's how this blood feud listed at WP:LAME played out. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind some lead tinkering going on, but there's a caveat that needs to be considered, and that's this: Even during the FAC, the lead was a point of contention and was very carefully worked out amongst the reviewers because there were so many perspectives on it. I know I had to fight off someone who suggested a five-paragraph lead because I thought it was completely ridiculous and a WP:LEAD violation, noting that WP:LEAD does not allow for five paragraphs. Part of the problems here have to do with the unusual controversial nature of the article and why in the world not only its name but every aspect about it seems to spark some kind of either national warring or fanboy warring is beyond me. I even let that get to me at the FAC when I thought someone was fanboy warring who wasn't. So, I would say this: It would be nice for the lead to get a shave, although a three paragraph lead definitely seems reasonable if done the right way. It does, however, need to be carefully worked out to ensure it's still FA-quality material and can be agreed upon. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 12:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have never been completely happy with the lead either. For the record though, my five paragraph rough draft contained 539 words. The current three paragraph lead clocks in at 535. If my lead was "a ridiculous violation of WP:LEAD" (a gross exaggeration, but whatever), then so is the current one.

And since when has one person getting the discussion ball rolling by putting together a rough draft "fighting somebody off?" It was a collaborative discussion. That draft served as a starting point for further refinement, and I never argued strenuously for its adoption. I find this contention both hurtful and counter to the facts. Indrian (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Indrian I'm not referring to your draft - I apologize if that seemed to be the case. Wasn't that originally suggested and pushed hard by another editor at the FAC? You did your best in trying to go with it, and I appreciate what you accomplished with it; it was important to getting this article through FAC and helped us put together the lead we have now which did pass. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote from the FAC:

In short the last paragraph of the lead is no different, but the lead is also very short and doesn't work as a very brief overview of the subject. While it may discuss the contents, it doesn't do so in a way that meets 1a or 2a. The actual contents itself looks better, but I'm going to stop for now simply because the lead alone needs to be completely re-written and expanded to 4-5 paragraphs. I am also noticing some numbers errors. The "40 million" estimate for units sold is not given as an estimate in the infobox nor as an approximate as listed in the body. And yes, there is a difference. I also looked up the Sega Genesis 3, and aside from being mentioned, it is not covered in the third party variations nor along with the other derivations. As part of the comprehensive criteria I am adamant that these releases be covered because the current coverage is inadequete and only raises more loose ends. We barely get a sentence about the CSD-GM1 which was in a "boombox". Many issues exist and I think it is far too soon before this can even be considered featured article candidate. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to show you I meant no harm ;) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you may be right. Sorry. I did a five paragraph draft at one point, so I thought you were referring to me, but there were definitely some people fighting for some pretty convoluted language at one point or another. The lead issue was definately a big fight. No hard feelings at all. Indrian (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all, Indrian. The quote I posted above actually happens to be what led to the subsequent discussions and lead drafts, and in the FAC I strongly opposed this point posted by this IP. We ended up reworking it together, although your draft was the core of it and wasn't a bad idea at all given the circumstances. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed lead rewrite #1

This is my suggestion. In order to separate it from the rest of the discussion, I'm going to put it in an archive template as always.

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

---

The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ, Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) in most regions outside North America, is a 16-bit video game console which was developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Master System. Designed by an R&D team supervised by Masami Ishikawa, the Genesis hardware was adapted from Sega's System 16 arcade board, centered around a 16-bit Motorola 68000 and an 8-bit Zilog Z80 as its central processing units. Its game library consists of over 900 titles, as well as titles for its peripherals and network services. The console was made in several variations from Sega and various third parties.

In Japan, the Mega Drive did not fare well against its two main competitors, Nintendo's Super Famicom and NEC's PC Engine. However, it achieved considerable success in North America and in Europe, capturing the majority of the 16-bit market share in several territories including the United States and the United Kingdom. Contributing to its success were its library of arcade game ports, the popularity of the Genesis-exclusive Sonic the Hedgehog series, several popular sports game franchises, and aggressive youth marketing that positioned the system as the cool console for adolescents. Though Sega dominated the market in North America and Europe for several years, the release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System resulted in a fierce battle for market share in those territories that has often been termed a "console war" by journalists and historians.ref name="IGNHistory2" /ref name="segacd" / As this contest drew increasing attention to the video game industry among the general public, the Genesis and several of its highest-profile games attracted significant legal scrutiny on matters involving reverse engineering and video game violence. Controversy surrounding violent titles like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat led Sega to create the Videogame Rating Council, a predecessor to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

By the end of 1994, when a new generation of 32-bit consoles rendered the system technologically obsolete, the Genesis had sold 29 million units worldwide, and by the end of its life Sega had sold an estimated 40 million units. 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 continue to produce 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.

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

That's a start; it still needs work, but it's a good start to the trim. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed a good start, in my opinion. If I may raise a few things:

- Can we insert something in the first paragraph stating that it remains Sega's best-seller? That will help to establish notability.

- Similarly, I think perhaps the "console wars" are notable enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph, if that doesn't necessitate a massive re-write.

- You seem to have accidentally removed most years. It's kind of imperative people know the console was released in 1988, and had its heyday in the early-to-mid-90s.

- Is it worth naming any other long-running game franchises (besides Sonic) that debuted on the system?

- Did the Videogame Rating Council cover the whole of North America, or just the US? Either way, I think it should be clear it wasn't a worldwide body.

- I still wonder whether my suggestion of a pop-up note to sidestep the naming issue all together is the most elegant solution on offer.

- Finally, surely it should be, "known as the Mega Drive" in the first sentence. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Couple of quick responses:

• Not a bad note for it being Sega's most successful console, as it was.
• I'd contest "console wars" as a made up WP:OR term; that's part of why that article disappeared. Its success in North America and Europe is already references.
• Years probably aren't a bad addition.
• Sonic's by far and away the most notable on long-running franchises; many of Sega's franchises were here but were mostly exclusive to the Genesis or only comprised a couple of titles. Ones like the Phantasy Star series actually debuted on Master System, which is probably the next in line.
• I do have one issue with the hat note: it's covered in the article, so why even need a hat note or an explanation in the lead?

Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. To answer you (in order):

- Fair enough.

- I was trying to make the point that the North American and European success could potentially be referenced earlier. My understanding is that the first paragraph in particular should, if possible, clearly state (1) what the subject is, and (2) why it's notable. Point (1) is definitely covered in detail in your new proposed lead (perhaps slightly too intricately, but I'll leave that for others to decide). Point (2), on the other hand, isn't really approached at all, and in my opinion it should be.

- Fair enough.

- Actually, I wasn't just thinking of first-party franchises. Many of the EA Sports titles that still sell by the bucket-load to this day, for example, can trace their ancestry back to this console. I'm just raising the point in case anyone thinks that helps establish the system's importance in history.

- My thinking was that we could go one step further than your proposed lead and even get rid of the "known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu) in most regions outside North America" clause, i.e. start the article with, "The Sega Genesis or Mega Drive is a 16-bit video game console...". That would leave it completely de-cluttered and conveniently sidesteps the naming issue all together. If it's deemed that we can't start without any explanation whatsoever, then I propose a hat note as a compromise. But I strongly agree with you that everything except the very basics with regard to the names and distributors is better left in the body and out of the lead. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

One last thing: you removed the reference to it being a cartridge-based console. I think that's at least as fundamental a detail as the processors, chips and boards mentioned, so should be included. 82.14.71.42 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Massive support from this anon :) This suggestion is infinitely better and more informative than the current lead. I also support 82.14.71.42's ideas on further clarifying its notability. I'll be stumped if this doesn't make it into the article. 91.154.11.76 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would change
"Genesis-exclusive Sonic the Hedgehog series"
To "Sega Exclusive", it started on the Mega-drive but versions were soon made for the Master System and Game Gear within the Mega-Drive's life cycle 77.97.151.145 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

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

---

With the Sega Genesis originally being called the Sega Mega Drive, and with it being called the Sega Mega Drive in every other release region other than North America, it seems more suitable for this page to be titled 'Sega Mega Drive' rather than 'Sega Geneses' as that is the console's primary name. Mega Drive is also much more recognisable then Genesis due to the console being called the Mega Drive in many more countries.

So with the name being the Sega Mega Drive for the majority of the world, it seems more suitable for: The page name to be changed from 'Sege Genesis' to 'Sega Mega Drive' And the initial paragraph of the page changed from: The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu?) in most regions outside North America, is a 16-bit video game console which was developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. to: The Sega Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu?), known as the Sega Genesis in North America, is a 16-bit video game console which was developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. Little Sir Steel (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The American editors suffer from severe nationalistic bias and will not listen to sense "Little Sir Steel" but they do have a sense of humour
"Sega Genesis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so."
this is the funniest joke i have read all year considering this is one of the worst articles in the history of wikipedia. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How hilarious that you seem to still misunderstand the situation... No wonder no one here takes you seriously. It's even funnier that it irritates you so much in your misunderstanding that you keep coming back and spewing your ignorance without changing your tactic. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 04:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to change, you and your MURICA buddies are the one's in the wrong as an infinite number or archive pages show 77.97.151.145 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Ooooh, no. No no no. Let's not start this up again. As a Brit who prefers the name Mega Drive, no. We've been on this road many times before, and it leads to endless circular discussions, rampant accusations, and general badness. We threw the corpse of this particular dead horse out years ago. Let it be. Just no. Aawood (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

To be fair, the FAQ that describes the details of this contentious history is buried in the middle of a whole bunch of other templates at the top of this talk page, and it's not very obvious to anyone who doesn't know where to look for it. I think, since this keeps coming up, that the FAQ needs to be placed in a more prominent position. (I see we have an edit note as well, but even that looks more like general instruction text to me, so it's likely to be overlooked.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Edit Notice

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

Here's the current edit notice:

I suggest this as an alternative:

How's that? (BTW, yes, I did return to this article despite boldly saying I wasn't coming back, but I'm just here to help make some things clearer, not to weigh in on either side of the debate.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Minor suggestion:

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

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

Um, apparently I can't do that. I'm not an admin anymore (I had them turn that off last year during the firestorm), so I'll need someone else to do it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you ought to head to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, KieferSkunk. Any admins watching this page? @Sergecross73: You were the only other admin I could think of who was involved with the title debates off the top of my head; might you be willing to update the page notice for us? Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it take the BN to request edit-notice changes? Seems a little draconian. But in any event, cool. You guys have done good work in the last year. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Re mop: Oh, that's okay. :) I voluntarily asked them to remove me as an admin - I wasn't really doing anything admin-ish, I certainly wasn't acting like one at the time, and I felt it would be best to give up the tools lest I be tempted to use them for evil. Basically, for my purposes, nothing here I can't do without 'em, so why bother? :) Appreciate the thought, tho. (Also, that's probably a little off-topic for here - we can continue that discussion on my talk page if you like.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Cool, thanks Yunshui! The new notice is a lot more attention-grabbing, so hopefully it'll encourage future editors to actually read the FAQ before bringing this topic up again. Appreciate the quick response. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Correction needed

The line "It can also play the complete library of Master System games when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed." is not quite correct, there is one game that does not work, F-16 Fighting Falcon. The manual for the PBC mentions this, if a cite is called for.98.243.94.83 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A citation will be needed; we couldn't find this information in reliable sources when we worked on this article. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the manual is the citation. Or are offline print items no longer accepted for citations? Conversely, one could ask where is the citation that it plays ALL instead of MOST Master System games?98.243.94.83 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The manual would fall under WP:PRIMARY, but I think it would be allowed, just the same. --McDoobAU93 21:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sega Wheel

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

Technical Specs

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

I imagine the real issue here is the lack of in-depth sources on the tech specs. Feel free to present some reliable sources here and they can be added to the article (though keep in mind we aim to write articles that the average general audiences can understand, so we don't want to get too deep into the tech jargon either) Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Prototype (?) Sega Headset

Sega also almost released a head mounted VR headset made to be used with the Megadrive, along with the 32X and MegaCD. I believe I have my old magazine cover from the era I could scan that has the official device (be it physical object or artist rendition - I think it was the former).

The tech was to harness the power of 3D objects the 32X could make, sent through the headset during the 1990s' VR craze. (It was never released, but it DID exist. Much like the SNES CD tech that was reworked as the Playstation/PS-ONE.)

What do you think? If this is doable, ping me a message on my talk page. (Sometimes away from Wiki, forget what I worked on.)

- CertifiableNut (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

it has its own page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_VR 68.51.193.141 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ should be WP:Sega Genesis/FAQ

Please see this thread to comment. Thanks! Wnt (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that the linked thread has been closed and archived as "Keep as is". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The name

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

---

It's been a few years now and consensus can change. Can we have a new rfc on the name? 80.192.85.232 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What new information that isn't presented in the FAQ (which is quite visible as you posted your question) are you prepared to show that would prompt such a request? --McDoobAU93 19:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No new arguments McDoobAU93, the rfc would just be to see if consensus has changed or if people are happy with the status quo 80.192.85.232 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Unless a new argument for change can be presented, that hasn't been presented before, no new discussions are to be created. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying consensus cannot change without a new argument? I think it can. Most of the old arguments were never resolved one way or the other, every one just took a site and tried to shout the other side down with facts that suited their personal preference, An rfc is good way to see where the community's head is at on this. It's been a few years it's worth doing 80.192.85.232 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Expect this thread to be closed soon per the FAQ. The community has decided that only new information will prompt a name change; shifting tides of community opinion will only cause the name to change every so often based on who responds to a given debate. The current version is clearly stable; when everyone focused on improving the article instead of arguing about the name, the article reached FA-status. The request for new information is even and fair to people on both sides of the debate. --McDoobAU93 19:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Without a new approach/viewpoint/idea presented, there is no reason to think there would be any change. The constant arguing and rehashing of old ideas has been deemed disruptive and non-constructive. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry mcd00b but the debate isn't even and fair because the Genesis side has the name without consensus per last rfc and it isn't stable because im here asking for an rfc and ask about once a year as do others, and with their posts being censored and deleted then it clearly isn't even and fair. sergecross that's the whole point there doesn't need to be a new approach or viewpoint presented, peoples minds can change and consensus can change which is why having an rfc would be worth while. 80.192.85.232 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Last chance - propose a new viewpoint/approach/rationale or this is closed. ("Not fair" is not one.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats fine. continue to censor and delete opposing views so you can have your way. Why not ban me for a year too because this behavior is clearly not here.... enjoy your abuse of power. I will be back next year to see if there are any more rational users.80.192.85.232 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The introduction now says Mega Drive instead of Sega Mega Drive

[1] It now reads "The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive (Japanese: メガドライブ Hepburn: Mega Doraibu?) in most regions outside North America". The image in the infobox shows the logos of both the Genesis and the Mega Drive as having Sega's name over them. Was it called Genesis and Mega Drive, or Sega Genesis and Sega Mega Drive? Dream Focus 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

All of the above. I think the point is that common usage was different. "MegaDrive" was a unique enough name that people (including sources? I think?) didn't feel as obligated to stick the "Sega" in the front of it.

I remember there was some debate about this, but I can't quickly find it. (There's a lot of noise in the talk archive.) APL (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What we know, is that it was just "Mega Drive". Sega Genesis, or "just Genesis" is more up for debate.--SexyKick 18:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, here in Australia, it was commonly referred to as Megadrive, since nobody, from Sega Australia down to retailers, could decide if the name was one or two parts due to the all caps logo. Even though the Japanese name is two parts, the common name became one lump here: "Megadrive". Even magazines of the era wrote reviews for the machine using the name as such. - CertifiableNut (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Have I misread that, SexyKick, or are you saying that the term "Sega Mega Drive" is incorrect? Because that's just demonstrably false. 80.5.147.237 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to back that up, here's a scan from the manual for Sonic the Hedgehog (a first-party game):

http://s9.postimg.org/i5ervtqvj/smd.jpg

It clearly refers to "the Sega Mega Drive" (in multiple languages), as do all the other manuals I've just checked - and not just first-party ones. I hope this clears up any misconceptions that it was "just 'Mega Drive'", as stated above. 80.5.147.237 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Masami Ishikawa

I think Masami Ishikawa should redirect to this article. The Genesis is his major work and he's mentioned by name several times in the article. Should be straightforward enough to do boldly and move along, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masami Ishikawa said it should be discussed here first. Are there any objections? – czar 01:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, he may have be behind a well known product, but that doesn't always give a cause for notability. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the redirect. Either "Sega Genesis" or "Sega Genesis#Development" works. He's actually mentioned in the lead, so either works. Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional claims

re: [2] @Indrian, FACs are not infallible. WP:V instructs "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If the claim is widespread, it shouldn't be an issue to source it. As it stands, its closest reference is an interview, so the first part of the paragraph needs to be sourced anyway. It's common to add direct citations to contested claims, especially when using a turn of phrase like "unprecedented". – czar 06:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dishonest info box.

When RedPhoenix and I took the article to FA, we had to go through an extensive FAC review. One of the things that changed during FACR was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Genesis&type=revision&diff=583567199&oldid=583565859 this edit, and also this further edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Genesis&type=revision&diff=584004218&oldid=584003857 and reading through the FACR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sega_Genesis/archive1 I see this was actually discussed and these changes were added to appease one of the reviewing parties. The only way to have a fair / non-misinforming infobox is to state the WW&Majesco discontinuation years, and also show that ongoing licensed Sega Genesis & Mega Drives are still being sold in their respective territories. If Tec Toy discontinues their Mega Drives, OK, then we'll list the year if / when that happens. If AtGames discontinues their licensed Sega Genesis stuff, similarly, OK. But removing stuff we went over in all our work to take this through Featured Article Candidate Review isn't fair if you're going to continue to leave the impression of "Discontinued: World Wide" while the console is still licensed and being sold.--SexyKick 08:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does it list three places it is "Ongoing" in the Discontinued section? It says it was discontinued in North America in 1999 (Majesco) but is still being made in North America now by AtGames. How many are sold each year? Any way to find out? Dream Focus 11:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It is ongoing in Brazil, US, and Europe. There's not really a way that I know of to find out how many are being sold each year, but the consoles are all for sale on the manufactures homepages.--SexyKick 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was the grounds that myself, and I believe Dissident93, were objecting on - it doesn't make sense to list "ongoing" status in the "discontinued" section. It doesn't make any sense. It clutters it, and it doesn't conceptually make sense to list there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It was suggested in the FACR because the person reviewing specifically said "it says discontinued in the infobox, but the article then goes on to say it is still sold?" The involved editors were all fine with this solution - it makes sense to someone reading "Okay, discontinued in 1997. But I see it is still being sold now. Strange but interesting.". It wouldn't "clutter" it if the subject matter of the article wasn't so expansive. Do you have another suggestion for a way to satisfy what was brought up by the FACR? Certainly this "clutter" was of no consequence to FACR. So I argue it's not to be considered clutter - if it were to stop us from achieving a better article, I might agree. However we managed to nab the highest article grade we can get, and the reason it exists the way it does is because of the review process there. A process intended to make the article better. Of course not everyone is going to agree on what is or isn't going to make the article better, but we all worked pretty hard for months on that, and "cluttered" > dishonest.--SexyKick 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me think and see if there's a better way to express it. It just seems odd to list this off when its something that is literally the opposite of the definition of the field. (Listing "ongoing" in the "discontinued" field.) In the mean time, yes, we get it, you guys worked hard on it. But that that doesn't mean we keep it that way forever, and its nothing personal. It just looks a little busy as is, for infobox content, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just a note that says something like "Ongoing through secondary manufacturers" without going into confusing detail? ApLundell (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd approve of that. It could be set up like how the notes are set up at the also FA SNES article - it can be explained in the "Notes" section, outside of the infobox, where it will look less cluttered. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Are these newer versions licensed by Sega, or are they considered clones/knock-offs? If the former, then we could say production has never really stopped. If the latter, then the solution would be along the lines of what ApLundell suggested. --McDoobAU93 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

They are licensed. You know, right now we don't go into confusing detail. It is no more cluttered than the Release Date section of the info box. Both the release date, and discontinuation sections are using the provided templates already; they go into no further detail than the other so it is simple, concise, and uncluttered. It would be silly to just maintain a commitment of that section to just JP for instance. Though perhaps we could use the "Retail availability" section to fit in the "Ongoing"'s.--SexyKick 17:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I do believe that would make more sense than listing it in the "discontinued" section as well. I'm fine with that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Alright. Hopefully speaking, the case, is Solv Ed!--SexyKick 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Its solved for me - I'm happy with this compromise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Same, looks better now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Licensed or not, they're still clones, it seems odd to consider a system that was officially discontinued long ago as ongoing because of that. Is Intellivision ongoing because of the recent release of the officially licensed Flashback clone?22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.193.141 (talk)

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

Wikipedia - Titling Issues

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

This post was removed originally, but I request that it be re-examined by multiple moderators (both American and non-American, but with particular inclusion of the latter) before subsequent removal - it was claimed that my query is not constructive, but I disagree. I am asking for clarification on whether Wikipedia is US Centric (in which case, more care needs to be taken to explain this across the site, and the article should remain unchanged) or if it is an International archive (in which case the title of the article should change to "Sega Mega Drive"). This is very much a constructive and necessary question to ask, as it has an effect on the naming conventions being adhere to. 86.163.133.144 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ as requested by the person who removed your post? The answer you seek is already provided. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ towards the top of the page, it covers the naming in great detail. I removed your comment because its rather obvious you're leading into trying to start another article title debate (which your reinsertion/expanded comment shows that I was correct on this assumption.) The consensus is that, unless a new argument is proposed (Hint: Your stance is one that has been re-proposed over and over again.) then no more debates on the title should happen, as far too much time has been wasted arguing on this already. Please do not go against this consensus, or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What is commonly ignored in these posts is that there already was an examination conducted by editors worldwide, including American editors who favored Mega Drive and European editors who favored Genesis. As both Izno and Sergecross have noted, no new rationale has been presented and the FAQ goes into great detail explaining the timeline for the name of the article, which explains why the statement was removed. Along with the consensus on the name, consensus was established that simply starting up the discussion again (thinking sentiment or a new "cast of characters" might result in a different outcome, even though it's never about the vote tally) goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing and thus should be nipped in the bud on sight. It is also worth noting that since the naming issue was settled, the article as been improved substantially and is now considered a featured article, identifying it as one of the best available on the project. --McDoobAU93 16:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies then, I'm not very adept at wiki's behind-the-scenes stuff, so I didn't really know which talk page I was supposed to go to (I believed it to be the one for the user/moderator, as that's sometimes been the case on wikia pages), and as it wasn't linked, I went with my incorrect initiative.

Even so, had a conversation like this been left on the talk page, I wouldn't've assumed the discussion hadn't come up before, so perhaps keep this one around? 86.163.133.144 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hence the reason when Sergecross73 removed your comment previously, he directed you to the FAQ on the page. That said, a link to the FAQ in the edit summary might have been more of a direct indicator of where to look. Beyond that, retaining this thread doesn't appear to be necessary. --McDoobAU93 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Should we un-collapse the FAQ maybe, so it doesn't blend in with all the WikiProject and GA boxes? Its awfully big, but at least people wouldn't miss it... Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because it will outweigh the other conversations that need to take place on the talk page. I think, in future, a link to the FAQ in the edit summary when removing a potentially non-constructive thread will suffice. --McDoobAU93 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I mean, there's also a giant disclaimer present any time anyone edits the talk page that links to the FAQ, so it really isn't that hard to find if one truly desires to read up on it more... Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is pathetic! How many times has this same single purpose IP address showed up and made the same exact arguments time and time again? No matter how many times they get blocked, they just show up with a different IP address and start the same argument. Its clearly the same guy as always. Its only been 20 days since the last time. Special:Contributions/80.192.85.232 Since the only time an IP address edits the talk page, it is always the same guy, who has been blocked multiple times on different accounts, can we just protect this page from IP addresses editing it? Dream Focus 21:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • While this new IP is also from the UK, where the other more argumentative editor is located, so far this one isn't passing the duck test. I'm willing to go on good-faith for a bit until something changes. If it does, then I think that is something to consider. --McDoobAU93 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we really assume that it's the same guy? Not that it matters though, as it doesn't happen every day, so I don't think protecting this page is needed, specifically as a lot of people are watching the article and revert anytime it comes up again. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is obviously the same guy. His first statement says so. Complaints about it being America not international, and makes the same argument as he has done a dozen or so times already. Dream Focus 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Not that I disagree, but he isn't the only one with that sentiment. (not that it matters at all) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Yeah, its hard to say. It could be that original guy, doing a bad job at taking a slightly different approach, or it could just be another person who has an attachment to the "Mega Drive" name. Either way, it seems like he's stopped for now, and if he starts back up, whether its him or not, he's blocked, so we're all set here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

CD as media

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

Well, the Powerbase Converter allows use of Sega Cards, but we don't include them as part of the Media used. I'd be against inclusion for the main reason above - it's a peripheral, and not a base part of the Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I'd be fine with adding it if there wasn't an article specifically for the Sega CD. But there is, and there should, and there likely always will be, unless by some crazy scenario, someone gathered a consensus to merge two separate FAs together into one article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

When you say "base part of the Genesis," do you mean what comes in the Genesis package? 98.119.155.81 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what he means. Since the Sega CD has it's own article, any info/specs particular to that should go there instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that belongs in the Sega CD article, not here. --SubSeven (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Genesis may not play CDs in default but it can through the Sega CD which is designed to be connected to it. It's kinda like putting a hard drive onto an Xbox 360 to achieved backwards compatibility with some original Xbox games. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good analogy; the Sega CD playing CDs as a media isn't any form of backwards compatibility, nor did the 360 get access to a new form of media (like DVD) in your example either... Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What I mean to say is connecting a Sega CD to a Genesis or putting a hard drive onto an Xbox 360 allows those consoles to play games that are normally not playable on them. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, just not how it would be a reason to include CD as a media here. I can remote play ps4 games through my Vita, but that doesn't mean I'd put blu-rays as Vita compatible at the Vita article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What does SK mean in the Release Date?

I was going to find out which year did the Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis/Samsung Gam*Boy has released. So I search the Wikipedia and find this site [[3]]. There was no problem until finding this. But after I clicked the SK link on the right box that named Released Date, the page showed up like this[[4]]. Is this link says that it was released in 1990 at Saskatchewan or saying something else?User:8068joshua User talk:8068joshua 19:13 , 22 October 2015 (UTC+9) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right, it does seem to link there, but I doubt that was its intention, I believe this is a mistake. I always assumed the "SK" stood for "South Korea", which is also discussed in the article. Lets see if any of the other article writers/maintainers have any insight to this... Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and just remove it as being uncited, which can be challenged and removed at any time. If someone can provide a reason why it belongs in the infobox, it can always be added back. --McDoobAU93 16:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It does mean South Korea, and I do believe it is per MOS that the citation is not there specifically, but where it talks about South Korea in the article. Release date used to have more countries listed too, like Brazil. Don't really know when or why they got removed either, but it was probably similar reasoning to this.--SexyKick 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but I looked at the section talking about the launch of the console and there is no date listed where it talks about the system's debut in South Korea. Adding to that, the "SK" hyperlink actually went to an article on Saskatchewan, not South Korea. --McDoobAU93 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia really should change the SK link to South Korea... As it stands now, it's ROK (Republic of Korea, the official name). Normally, we'd omit non-English speaking territories from the infobox release section, but I'm not sure if hardware is also covered in that, so I re-added it back for now. If I'm wrong, just remove it again.

EDIT:Actually, it does seem weird to omit the Brazilian release date, but keep it mentioned as "Ongoing" below. Either we re-add Brazil to the release section, or remove South Korea. (Second option is probably the better one) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Model 3 picture is actually a Model 1

In the section "Trademark Security System and Sega v. Accolade," the console pictured is a Model 1. Model 3 has a big script "3" on it. I'm not too handy with pictures, hopefully someone can correct this ... ? It may take me a while to figure it all out. Belltoes (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps this is a version within models that looked like that? This may be a wording issue. I've only heard "models" in reference to the body style differences. Not sure if calling the 3 different looking releases Models 1, 2, and 3 is a normal term now. Belltoes (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The image shown is an original style Genesis (Genesis I), which was released in 1989. According to this article, Genesis II was released in 1993, a year after the case was concluded. The Genesis 3 was released in 1998, WAY after the case! The "Model 3" terminology comes from the court report, and in a search I couldn't find it anywhere else. But the TMSS was added in a newer motherboard, so apparently the "Model 3" is a name for a new motherboard? They went through quite a few. It is confusing, though... It would probably be best to remove the "Model 3" language entirely, and just say that they added the TMSS in a new motherboard variation. - MaJoRoesch (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, it doesn't say "Model 3" it says "Genesis iii", which (and I brought this up myself when it was added, about being confusing) is apparently the correct jargon for that revision of the Model 1.--SexyKick 12:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Tec Toy Mega Drive?

I find it odd that Teec Toy isn't even mentioned in the "third-party models" section, despite being the most successful third-party manufacturer. Can we add in a sentence or two and a picture to the gallery? Thanks. Phediuk (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Tec Toy

This article suggests that Tec Toy still sells Mega Drive. They discontinued it to focus on the Master System a few years back.

Source: this interview http://www.sega-16.com/2015/11/interview-stefano-arnhold-tectoy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is a shame. I had always thought that since they were still selling this handheld version of the Mega Drive that they hadn't decided to discontinue it. What should we do with the main article in light of this news? Do we say that they discontinued the Mega Drive but continue to sell a handheld version of it with built in games only?--SexyKick 15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Tectoy is still selling this handheld version of the Mega Drive. However certain lines of text have been removed from the article to reflect this news. No one replied to my questions here, unfortunately.--SexyKick 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Further confusing the issue is this console has Sega Genesis games included with it. So go figure on that.--SexyKick 12:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The first link is insufficient to support your claim that in Brazil "the Mega Drive never ceased production". Perhaps Tectoy is just selling old inventory through its website. As for the second link, every single game on that list is available for the Master System. If we want to clear up any confusion about Brazil, our first priority should be making it clear to readers that almost all of the 3 million units sold there were emulated clones with no cartridge slot rather than actual Genesis hardware.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Er, who said "the Mega Drive never ceased production" on this talk page? And wasn't that sentence taken out of the article (as it should be if it wasn't)? Also, since you brought it up, we have no idea the percentages of the sales of what had a cart slot or not. 2005/2006's Super Mega Drive III still had a cartridge slot. So basically it comes down to the MD Play right now, and since the article already says a handheld version came out in 2007, that seems sufficient.--SexyKick 23:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you figured out the answer to your question on your own there. If you were not complaining about my removal of that line, I'm not sure what other redacted "lines of text" you could have been referring to above. My point about clones still stands, but I stand corrected on the specific matter of the cartridge slot.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 2nd link, a lot of MD games were ported to MS, like Street Fighter 2. If they are still selling the handheld version, we could specify that one. (unsigned comment by ip editor)

So essentially, this line: "As of 2015, licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced by AtGames in North America, Blaze Europe, and Tec Toy in Brazil." is the remaining mention that it's still for sale there. If the MD Play doesn't count as a qualifier, then we just remove the end to be "As of 2015, licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced by AtGames in North America, and Blaze Europe in Europe." (or is it just the UK? I'm not sure.)--SexyKick 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would support removing that part of the sentence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the UK ones by AtGames too? http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/retro-mega-drive-console-sales-surge-400-at-argos/0159413 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Blaze Europe is the division of AtGames that handles Europe. As far as I've been aware. Going with just AtGames for now then. There should be a discussion later for if we're deciding on handhelds count or not. As I think the most accurate statement is As of 2015, licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced sold by AtGames in North America and Europe, and a handheld version by Tec Toy in Brazil.--SexyKick 12:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Genesis sales revisited

There is reason to doubt the 40 million estimate for Genesis sales worldwide. Sega has provided an official estimate of 30.75 million (see page 158). It's not clear if this figure refers to the entire lifespan of the system, or merely when it was discontinued in Japan (though the former seems more probable), and the licensed versions manufactured by Samsung, Tec Toy, and Majesco are not included. Nevertheless, 40 million is an improbable and conveniently round number. In addition, while NPD data from the era is often unreliable, considering that this article currently cites NPD data for the notion that the Genesis outsold the SNES in the US, it's worth noting that a 2014 Wedbush report uses NPD figures to reach the opposite conclusion (see the figures on page 36).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have never been happy with that 40 million figure, which was arrived at here via dodgy math and then made its way to Retro Gamer and Joe Miller's memory via citogenesis (or citomegadrive if you prefer ;), thus allowing it to be cited on the page in time to tidy things up for the FAC. We have sourced estimates of 20 million in North America, 8 million in Europe, and 3.58 million in Japan. That's 31.58. I assume both the NA and Europe estimates were rounded up to the nearest million, so 30.75 makes perfect sense in that context. Since Sega did not sell direct in Brazil, I would assume those figures are not included. Ditto Majesco. Even if we accept the figures for those two sources given here (though I have never been satisfied with that Brazil source), we are way under 40 million.

I think part of the issue is that we always assumed 29 million at the end of 1994 due to the one magazine article and kept adding on to that, which can lead to higher estimates. That 29 million figure, however, makes no sense. Adding up the figures in the magazine for the US, Japan, the U.K., and Germany only gets you to 20.4 million. That's practically nine million short! In contrast the SNES worldwide figure is just a hair over 3 million greater than the tally of the country totals. Where do those other nine million come from? Certainly not the rest of Europe, because other than in the UK, the SNES outperformed the Mega Drive in Europe, so you would see a similar large discrepancy in the Nintendo figures. And it's not Brazil. Even if they are counting Brazil in these tallies, which I doubt since Sega is not selling there direct, we have the Retro Gamer interview with the CEO of Tec Toy in which he states that it was only in 1996 that the company reached 2 million in sales of all Sega consoles combined (that's Master System, Mega Drive, and Saturn). Even if you assume Sega equaled Nintendo's performance in the rest of the world and then treat all those Brazil sales as Mega Drives on top of that (not to mention pretend they were all sold by the end of 1994), you still only get to 25 million. Get really crazy and assume that all 3 million Brazil sales sourced in the article occurred by the end of 1994, and you are still only at 26 million. That 29 million figure in the magazine has to be a mistake. In light of all of this, I would change sales to 30.75 million with a footnote stating this does not include sales in Brazil or by Majesco. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking it over, the source for "according to a 2004 study of NPD sales data, the Sega Genesis was able to maintain its lead over the Super NES in the American 16-bit console market" completely fails to support the claim. The SNES probably did take North America in the end. More importantly, the Sega CD number is also far too high. Famitsu, June 1995, gives an estimate of 2.22 million Sega CD units sold worldwide by March 1995 (lines 5 and 18, with the Japanese installed base at 400,000 versus 380,000 the previous year and the international installed base at 1.82 million versus 1.32 million the previous year), which likely came from Sega itself. This also squares nicely with a January 1994 Beep! article posted on NeoGaf, which appears to have worldwide Sega CD shipments at 2.15 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, that New York Times article almost certainly rounded the Genesis number upwards, just as it did for the Saturn. Wedbush has US Genesis sales at 18.5 million including Majesco. (This is likely to be an underestimate—shipment data would be more reliable if it existed—but 20 million is very unlikely).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Even better: Here are Famitsu's figures for Genesis (lines 5 and 17), Game Gear (lines 8 and 20), and Sega CD (lines 6 and 18) as of March 1996: Genesis—28.54 million (3.58 million in Japan and 24.96 million elsewhere), Game Gear—10.62 million (1.78 million in Japan and 8.84 million elsewhere), Sega CD—2.24 million (400,000 in Japan and 1.84 million elsewhere). Good to know our Game Gear estimate wasn't wildly exaggerated, but how anyone ever thought Sega CD was 6 million is beyond me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How does the above fit into Sega's 30.75 million? Well, our sources (including a Sega of America press release for the first figure) claim Sega sold 2 million Genesis units in the US in 1996 and maybe 400,000 in 1997. If we added both of those numbers to Famitsu, we would likely be double-counting many systems, as "Sega farms out Genesis" makes it clear that Sega was no longer manufacturing Genesis in 1997 and many or all of the 400,000 systems sold were likely already in the pipeline and counted in the 1996 figure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Actually, Sega of America claimed to have sold 2 million Genesis units in 1995, and only 1.1 million in 1996, so it's possible those specific SoA press releases accurately reflected sell-through data. This revision makes it even clearer that 30.75 million is the final figure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that Sega of America was only claiming there were 18 million Genesis owners in mid-1997, which is probably almost exactly the final number.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a very good thing we finally have a 1st party worldwide number. Furthermore, I think it's good that the Wedbush source shows how much the 1st party Genesis and Super NES sold head to head. But we still can't leave out the Nomad, Majesco, and Tec Toy from the "units sold" figures. The 2004 NPD source includes the Majesco sales because it still tracks them yearly; throughout 1999. On page 11/12 (4.1 Data) They get their numbers in Table 1 from the NPD. claiming there were 18 million Genesis owners in mid-1997 is a good consistency point, since we still have the source saying 400,000 more were sold that year. So that really hammers home the 18.5 million number in the Wedbush report.--SexyKick 18:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's incredibly dangerous to synthesize sources in the manner you propose, as the history of this article demonstrates. Wedbush is including Majesco in its figures, which might nonetheless be a tad conservative for both the SNES and the Genesis. Double-counting Majesco (with a PR projection of future sales in place of any actual estimate) and adding the fabled 1 million Nomads to the Wedbush number to generate the conclusion that the Genesis actually retained the lead in North America after all is a desperate reach. There is no evidence that the Nomad—a portable version of the Genesis that was sold only in North America and lasted five months before being discontinued—sold 1 million units except the same unreliable GamePro article responsible for such recent hits as the famous 10.6 million Dreamcasts sold myth. Nor is it obviously unarguable that Nomad is even the same product. (I am operating on the assumption that Sega stopped manufacturing Nomad after March 1996, when they decided to focus on the Saturn. The main Sega Nomad article suggests otherwise, but I don't trust it without having seen the source.) The biggest problem with the "estimated 36.25 million" units sold? It's your estimate!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What source says there being 1 million Nomad's out there is fabled? I read a ton of that Wedbush report, and it didn't actually say that Majesco's sales were included. Which page does it say that on?--SexyKick 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need a source to debunk the Nomad figure. You need much stronger evidence to defend treating it as though it has equal validity with the other stats on the page, especially when we know that that GamePro article is flagrantly unreliable and was just getting its info from Wikipedia in the first place. NPD presumably is not discriminating against different models of the Genesis, and another source on NeoGaf who has gone through the NPD archives has confirmed this assumption.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying a guy on a forum did some stuff? You yourself said 1997: "over 18 million in the US". You supplied that source. What happened at the end of 1997? 400,000 more. You supplied that source too. 18.5 million is wedbush's report. The 2004 report goes to 1999. Re: GamePro's Nomad projections; the proper way of doing things isn't by sweeping them under the carpet. Before the primary and secondary sources existed for 40 million, the editors here came to consensus to present the 29 million number - though we knew it was wrong, present the other numbers, because Wikipedia reflects sources. Not our own opinions. And WP:CALC is not synthesis (as was well covered in this debate the last time as well). The Nomad article went FA with that source, Gamepro are reliable sources. When you find more accurate numbers like with Cesa, that's a different story. Please use them. But truthfully, the Wiki way is to then say "Blake Snow said 10.6 million, but Cesa says 9.13 million." There aren't any conflicting Nomad numbers; that is why it is your opinion. If we were to follow that though, then we wind up still having to show the 40 million sources, and showing the 30.75 million sources, but honestly I know we all agree that's a detraction from article quality since we actually have the numbers to accurately add these things up with now.--SexyKick 22:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no desire to enter the SYNTH versus CALC part of this debate at the moment, but that GamePro source is an unmitigated disaster of lies and misinformation that is known to have inaccurate 3DO, Dreamcast, Sega CD, and 32x figures at the very least. It should absolutely not be used as a source for anything (and yes, I realize the handheld article is technically a different article from the console piece, but they are a pair written by the same author and published on the same day, so they are one body of work for these purposes). I've said it before and I will say it again, an article that is demonstrably full of errors and poor research is unreliable on its face regardless of whether the larger source is generally accounted as reliable. Indrian (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The way the other articles all seemed to do it, was use the Gamepro article until what they deemed more correct numbers came along. While Lynx supposedly sold 3 million (the article reported 500k), the GameGear was just about on point. What is likely is that Sega made 1 million Nomads in 1995, and sold them until they ran out. You definitely don't see me defending the 10.60 million, but you can see how the research was done to come to its conclusion thanks to Times' wonderful walls of text in the Dreamcast talk pages. (which I read as they went on) If we have a specific bone to pick with the Nomad part of that article, then that is what is relevant in this case.--SexyKick 23:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"And WP:CALC is not synthesis (as was well covered in this debate the last time)." The lesson of that debate is simple: You were wrong.

I may not have been involved with the article back then, but I am certainly familiar with the history, and well recall the persistent efforts of IPs and certain Sega fanboys to promulgate the insane notion that because sources like the "Segatastic" blog had higher estimates, those higher estimates must automatically be the most comprehensive estimates. In fact, I'm tempted to quote some of those discussions, in particular your own comments pushing for higher totals based on wild synthesis and conjecture, but I won't (for now) because that's in the past, and anyone can look through the archives to judge for themselves the accuracy of my characterization. What is clear, however, is that both 40 million and the now-infamous GamePro article are the product of citogenesis. (By contrast, the 29 million figure was extremely accurate and based on Sega's final tally when they discontinued the system in Japan.) You, SexyKick, are in part responsible for creating 40 million by playing with made-up numbers like "37.3-40.8+ million"; I simply cannot take seriously the pretense that you are acting as an objective, impartial observer. The rest of your post is you playing dumb, and you have no reason to play dumb, unless you are seeking to obfuscate the truth.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

29 million was never accurate. As is proved by the Cesa numbers, and as we also know that the two 3rd parties and Nomad sales are indeed missing from that. You provide these helpful, illuminating sources, which I am thankful for, and instead of playing them to their credit, you open it up to this "WP:Calc is synthesis" nonsense again. To obfuscate the truth, is to simply say 30.75 when we not only know the 3rd party numbers are missing from that, but we have the sources on top of it. To obfuscate the truth is to ignore WP:Undue Weight. You have been throwing out accusations and character attacks since I showed up today, and looking through your history, I am not the only editor you have done that to. It isn't true, and it isn't nice. If anyone is trying to obfuscate the truth, it's the person getting angry and avoiding good faith. 29 million is further from 36.25 than 40. Even 30.75 is further than 40. 40 was too far, it wasn't my number either - those were just the sources we had available to us at the time. These sources help us make it right. I want to present the whole picture - not hide part of it. Saying 30.75 million is the same thing as saying 40 million. It's just in the opposite direction. "if we pretend this data doesn't exist"--SexyKick 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that the interview linked in the topic below this one finally gives what I consider to be a solid source for Sega system sales in Brazil. Through September 2015, TecToy has sold 5 million Master System and 3 million Genesis units. I realize some of our blog sources already had those numbers, but I always questioned the validity of those sources. This time, however, the figures come straight from the chairman of the company. Indrian (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

SexyKick, the following parts of your edit cannot be allowed to stand:

• The GamePro source is flagrantly unreliable. You have no consensus for continually re-adding it to this page and the Nomad article, as demonstrated by Ryūkotsusei's purging of that source on several articles and Indrian's comment above.
• The double-counted projections and exceedingly dubious Nomad figure you use to conclude that the Genesis "narrowly" captured the majority of the North American market is a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. NPD is not necessarily the last word on this topic, but it's better than the misleading attribution of your personal calculations to the 2004 source.

In addition, if it were remotely accurate, 36.25 million would not be the final figure, as it excludes the units sold by Samsung, which were estimated at 194,000 in early 1994 and are probably not included in Sega's total (Samsung manufactured the hardware itself, unlike Ozisoft). That said, we're never going to get a perfectly exact figure for licensed variants, and shouldn't try.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the lead to say: "Sega sold 30.75 million Genesis units worldwide. In addition, several million licensed third-party variants of the system were sold in various regions, with the bulk of those being sold in Brazil."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This source (from the University of Texas & University of Tokyo) gives detailed annual NPD sales data and market shares for the US during 1994-2001. It shows the Genesis outselling the SNES in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, while the SNES only outsold it in 1997. This contradicts the claims made in this article and by Wedbush about the SNES catching-up with and outselling the Genesis in the US. RetroGameFan (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that chart until after skimming through the article and declaring it obsolete in light of the recently revealed Wedbush report, and was wondering if I would be forced to address it. Good catch. While the figures are interesting, it's hard to see how they could be true, when our sources tell us that the SNES outsold the Genesis in 1995 (2.7 million to 2.1 million) and 1996 (1.4 million to 1.1 million) as well as in 1997 (due to the Genesis shortage that year) and 1998 (per the NeoGAF chart below)—when Kent recounts that the SNES won "the waning years of the 16-bit generation"—and when it would still take the mythical one million Nomads for the Genesis to surpass the NPD/Wedbush figures for the SNES even if we assumed that all 1.5 million units Majesco projected to sell were sold and that the Wedbush report chose to exclude them. More crucially, the chart's figures for 1995 are fairly questionable, as Sega themselves claimed to have captured 43% of the U.S. hardware market in 1995 versus Nintendo's 42%, including sales of the Genesis, Game Gear, Saturn and Nomad--the latter of which, to beat the SNES, must have been selling like crazy, right? The chart you linked to attributes roughly this entire percentage to the Genesis alone, and then attributes another 5% to the Saturn. If your source is really only quantifying console sales and excluding handhelds, there is not necessarily any contradiction there, as the Game Boy was certainly more important to Nintendo's overall market performance than the Game Gear was to Sega's, but the coincidences in the numbers are worth looking into more closely. Even the fact that the chart identifies the Genesis as a "CD-ROM" system, to me, casts doubt on its credibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Not all sources are going to become obsolete when they conflict with others. We have an WP:Undue weight situation. Two reliable sources say two different things. It is not an easy situation. I have attempted to address it, but we aren't going to wind up using "just the one *insert forum user here* prefers", nor are our personal views of "interesting but I personally don't see..." we have two reports on NPD data. One totals up to Sega's end of 1997 numbers. "Over 18 million" + 1997's 400,000. vs. The Other One that is using arbitrary methods that do not give us direct numbers to compare. In regards to the stuff from last week, per Indrian and Ryu, I can see there is a consensus to not use that gamepro article. The Nomad article needs to be updated with an explanation of this included in the article and sourced to the GamePro archived source though; not simply the removal of it - to both inform clearly and prevent further citomegadrive.--SexyKick 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw I am happy with that dummy edit you just did. I tried to write something myself but the words weren't right, and I couldn't leave it. I do absolutely however, find the continued personal attacks to be very much the opposite of what using Wikipedia to be. They are depressing and I find they are making me sad. I saw another editor experience these same emotions when you called them out and wrote a paragraph about how they "couldn't possibly be a serious editor". Please do understand - this is not the way to treat fellow editors. This is not a forum, and this is not a city street playground. You are smart, capable, and have enough clout to be able to resolve conflict without this form of behavior.--SexyKick 16:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that Wedbush chose to exclude NPD data on the Genesis 3 for whatever reason? Sure, but there are other possible explanations for coincidences in the numbers.

The percentages in the 2004 source are obviously impossible and render the source utterly unreliable on its face, because even in the best-case scenario the Genesis could have only roughly equaled SNES sales in the U.S., yet there would be an enormous gap in favor of the Genesis if it had really outsold the SNES every year except 1997. Still, what could explain the error? The answer lies in a revealing NeoGAF discussion sparked by this very dispute. As it happens, the 2004 Clements and Ohashi source was based on NPD's raw data, subsequently revised (see post #379) because the Genesis/PlayStation figures were too high while the SNES/N64 figures were too low. (That the revised Genesis 3 sales recorded in 1998 and 1999 come to just under one million actually supports Majesco's figure, because most of the numbers seem to be undercounts characteristic of NPD data from the time, which is nevertheless better than nothing when trying to determine the overall trend.) This is a simple case of the more recent report from 2014 reflecting the most up-to-date research available. Unfortunately, SexyKick's unbiased search for the truth has turned the relevant portion of this article into a POV nightmare, with a manufactured controversy designed to render the facts unknowable:

• "According to a 2004 study of NPD sales data that presents year by year charts through 2001, the Sega Genesis was able to maintain its lead over the Super NES in the American 16-bit console market.[56] The chart in this source does not include any data prior to 1995, differs from several other sources cited above, and does not give provide figures as to the absolute numbers of any console sold.[56] However, according to a 2014 Wedbush Securities report based on NPD sales data, the SNES ultimately outsold the Genesis in the U.S. market.[57] This 2014 report does not present yearly data and it does not state that Majesco's sales of the Genesis 3 are included in its estimations.[57]

The bits in bold are SexyKick's unsourced personal innuendo based on wildly subjective criteria (reliability is contingent on "year by year charts"?). The portion in italics is a dummy edit I added to demonstrate the inappropriateness of SexyKick's heavy-handed approach; he claims to see no issue with it. As for SexyKick's concept of the "combined market" of the U.S., Europe, and Brazil, clearly it is an attempt to conceal that out of all the relevant countries comprising this "combined market" the Genesis won only in Brazil and the U.K.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments, seem to be all based upon "some guy on a forum said", and that is what original research is. We do not know who won the American market because we have one source saying Sega won, we have another saying "Sega: 18.5 million" not "Genesis: * million". It sounds like your interests are better served posting on forums than working on these articles if you can't understand that Wikipedia reports viewpoints; not cherry picks them. By the numbers, we have 20 million vs. 20 million + ? Nomad anyway, I'm sure some forum will speculate and debate. You also do the article quite a bit of annoying harm by reverting every intermittent change on your revert quest.--SexyKick 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

NB: Sales for every system from this era would be underestimated if we relied solely on NPD data; for example, NPD puts U.S. Saturn sales at 1.4 million compared to Sega's 1.8 million. Because of this, even if we accept at face value the baseless fantasy of 1 million Nomad units sold (as well as the premise that the handheld market should be conflated with the console market), assume that the 1.5 million Genesis 3 units Majesco projected it would sell were all sold (NPD records a bit more than half of that figure), and double-count the 1.5 million even though the forum data posted below seems to have debunked your theory that Wedbush arbitrarily excluded it, your comparison still does not make any logical sense. The NPD numbers for both the SNES and the Genesis (including the Genesis 3) are underestimates, whereas the Majesco projection likely equals or exceeds the real figure while the 1 million Nomads is an extreme overestimate. Combined Genesis/Nomad sales in the U.S. are unlikely to have surpassed 20 million, but SNES sales in the U.S. definitely surpassed 20 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That the NPD figures were revised is demonstrated by the Wedbush report. This is not a case where there are reliable sources in disagreement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the wedbush report simply only took from the Sega 1st party sales. There is no other way to explain 18.5 million reported from Sega, and then 18.5 million reported from them. I could try your hardlining and say that makes their claims unreliable - but it doesn't work that way. It's a reliable source presenting a different point of view. Two reliable sources *are* in disagreement. It seems to me one is incomplete, it has tons and tons of text, but says no where that Majesco's Genesis 3 was accounted for in there - and the coincidentally identical numbers back that idea up.--SexyKick 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this particular fight, but I do want to make a couple of points. First of all, Sexy, you are right that a forum post cannot in and of itself overturn a reliable source. Since there is a contradiction between two reliable sources it might (emphasis on the might) be necessary to present both. However, on the flip side it is original research and POV to cast aspersions on the Wedbush figure by highlighting its lack of yearly sales info (irrelevant to the larger issue) and speculating on the presence (or lack thereof) of Majesco figures.

On the other hand, Times is right, the Wedbush report supports the forum contention that the numbers were later revised. According to the 2004 study, the N64 sold ~17.1 million units. According to Wedbush, the figure was 18 million. Add up the revised figures in the forum post, and you reach 17.99 million. While that includes two more years of data, the sales in those years were only 160,000, not enough to move the 2004 study numbers to the point where you would round up to 18 million. Do the same trick with the PlayStation. The 2004 study says ~28 million PS1 units by 2001. As the console still saw significant sales over the next three years or so, this means it would likely exceed the 30.4 million figure in the Wedbush report by the time it was discontinued. If you add up the forum totals, however, which only show about 26 million by 2001 and then adds four more years of data, you get 30.18 million. As a minuscule number of units were probably sold after 2005 (the last year on the forum), that lines up well with the 30.4 million in the Wedbush report. The logical conclusion is that the numbers were indeed revised at a later date and that the forum numbers are accurate since they line up with the Wedbush report. I still do not suggest citing the forum here (not reliable), but in terms of source critique, this shows the Wedbush report is probably quoting accurate NPD figures, while the 2004 study is (for whatever reason) not. Indrian (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There's still no reason for him to revert the entire article if he's focusing on a specific paragraph.--SexyKick 07:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but like I said, I don't really want to get involved in the edit war part of this. I'm just pointing out a few facts and figures. Indrian (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

But I don't accept the rest of SexyKick's edit. I will never consider "over 35.25 million" to be a more accurate statistic than 30.75 million, not including several million licensed third-party variants. Before including the "several million" phrase in my compromise edit, by the way, I was going to use "30.75 million...roughly 35 million counting licensed variants" with the latter cited to Retro Gamer, but then I checked the source and realized it didn't quite say that—my wishful thinking colored my memory. How we could bury Sega's number behind this apples-and-oranges synth calc and pronounce ourselves satisfied is beyond me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding worldwide sales, I found this source on the talk page archives here, an interview with Joe Miller, Sega's former Senior Vice President of Product Development, stating the Genesis sold over 40 million worldwide, including all models and third-party sales. RetroGameFan (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I just realized Joe Miller's already been mentioned above. Still, I think it might be worth mentioning in the article. RetroGameFan (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, this is a classic example of citogenesis; he is just parroting the Wikipedia numbers of the time. He was head of R&D so would have no special sales info. We took him out for this very reason. Indrian (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Mega Drive did indeed outsell the SNES in Europe. In that same NeoGAF thread, someone posted this source, which shows that, by the end of 1994, Western European sales stood at 6.88 million for the Mega Drive and 4.65 million for the SNES. The Mega Drive sold more in Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and "Other W. Europe", while the SNES only sold more in Germany. RetroGameFan (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Technically, those are not sales, but the active install base of each console according to Screen Digest. One can pretty safely assume that the market share proportions are probably about right, but sales of both consoles would be a little higher. Also, since it only goes through 1994, we cannot be sure Sega outsold Nintendo in the end. We have a final Europe estimate of 8 million for Genesis kicking around in the article. I am not sure we have a final SNES estimate. It looks like Nintendo's total European figures increased more than Sega's in 1994, so its possible that Nintendo started outselling Sega in the waning years of the generation in some European markets if that trend continued. Indrian (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into the European figures very closely, but my guess would be that the final European sales numbers for both the SNES and the Genesis would be roughly in a statistical tie, which is why I accepted Indrian's earlier comment—the larger the gap with which Sega won in the UK, the largest European market, the more likely it is that Nintendo ultimately outsold Sega in some other European countries.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This forum posts contains data that the poster got directly from Nintendo. This shows SNES sales for all of Europe at 8.7 million, which is higher than the Sega estimates. Unfortunately, this does include some data from other areas of the world like Australia as well, but I imagine sales in these regions were negligible. My guess is that Nintendo won the waning years of the generation in most markets (the Screen Digest data indicated Nintendo was starting to outsell Sega even in 1994). Also, I have heard that tracking data prior to 1994 is often less reliable, so its possible the Nintendo and Sega numbers are misstated to a degree in the Screen Digest report. Regardless, I think its safe to say that Nintendo probably ended up on top on the whole, but not by a large margin, and certainly not in the United Kingdom. We cannot be 100% sure based on these figures, however, since some sales from outside Europe are mixed in. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding up the highest install base for each Euro country in that Screen Digest source gives us 1994 Euro totals of 7.27 million for the SMD and 4.65 million for the SNES. Also, SMD outsold the SNES in 1994, with SMD selling 1.54 million in Western Euro that year, compared to SNES selling 1.06 million in 1994. In addition, SNES had a drop from its 1993 sales (1.56 million), whereas MD was consistent with its 1993 sales (1.55 million). RetroGameFan (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Those other regions include Europe, Oceania, and mainland Asia. The SNES was a big deal in mainland Asia, so that would account for a big chunk of those 8.7 million sales. The only sales data we have for Europe specifically is Screen Digest, up until 1994. For 1995 onwards, total Euro/Asia/Oceania sales from April 1995 to 2001 add up to 2.26 million. Even if we assume it was all for Europe alone, and added them to the Screen Digest number, the final number would be 6.91 million for Europe. It's very unlikely the SNES caught up with the SMD in Europe. RetroGameFan (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Consoles in mainland East Asia were almost entirely unauthorized clones rather than actual Nintendo manufactured hardware. I would have to go digging for more numbers, but my guess is Screen Digest under reported SNES penetration prior to 1994, a period when estimates across all regions are known to be far less accurate generally due to more primitive tracking. For a different perspective, according to one of the first posts in the NeoGaf thread, Beep! claimed Mega Drive sales in Europe of 3.30 million by March 1993 (end of Sega's fiscal year), while Screen Digest claims that the MD install base was already 3.580 million at the end of 1992. I still believe that Nintendo most likely outsold Sega in most of continental Western Europe, though I am certainly not advocating any article changes with the current level of sourcing. Indrian (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

RetroGameFan, if there's anything this discussion should have taught us, it's that arbitrarily combining numbers from different sources is usually a recipe for disaster. If Nintendo's data suggests Screen Digest overstated the Genesis install base and understated the SNES install base for the end of 1994, combining the flawed Screen Digest numbers with Nintendo's post-April 1995 data on the theory that the latter includes a huge number of SNES consoles sold in mainland Asia and that the supposedly comparable flaws of each source will cancel one another out is unlikely to generate a reliable conclusion. In addition, I would like to emphasize that the official Nintendo figures are inherently more reliable than the vague reference to 8 million potential Saturn owners in CVG (unless they somehow got that number from Sega, in which case Ozisoft would also be included).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

NB: Actually, there is strong reason to believe CVG got the number from Sega's European subsidiary and that Ozisoft would not be included, but it was likely rounded up to the nearest million and apparently had not increased appreciably from September 1996—when the article would have been written—to January 1997.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am not necessarily declaring the Screen Digest figures invalid at this point; just noting that pre-1994 tracking data -- whether from the NPD or Famitsu or what have you -- is generally considered flawed, which is part of the reason it's hard to find that info on the web. I'm therefore not ready to consider Screen Digest as gospel without more corroboration. That said, it is considered a reliable source, so I am not advocating its removal either absent more definitive proof that the numbers are off. It's still a little circumstantial at this point. Hopefully more will turn up one way or the other. Indrian (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Screen Digest is a reliable research firm source, arguably the Euro equivalent to the NPD at the time. Their SNES sales don't contradict Nintendo's numbers, since Screen Digest's data is for sales in Europe, while Nintendo's data is for shipments (not sales) across Europe, Oceania and continental Asia all combined. As for the SMD, Screen Digest's data is lower than Beep and Famitsu. Beep's 3.3 million number is for that fiscal year alone (April 92 to March 93), not lifetime SMD EU sales, which they put at 5.1 million by March 93 (and forecasted 8.6 million for March 94). Famitsu reported SMD EU sales at 5.4 million by March 93 and 7.25 million by March 94, which they put ahead of combined SNES sales for Europe, Oceania and continental Asia (3.46 million by March 93, and 5.85 million by March 94). Almost all sources point to the SMD beating the SNES in Europe (except for Germany). RetroGameFan (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Europe debate, the former president of Sega of Europe claims that Sega was the leader everywhere but Germany: http://www.sega-16.com/2008/09/interview-nick-alexander/

A few things. I am sure Sega led in all those markets in the early years. I am not so sure they were ahead at the end of the console cycle. As I said above, Screen Digest is a reliable source, but ALL the reliable tracking sources had issues in the early 1990s because they tracked less of the market and had to rely more on estimate formulas. This is why the NPD appears to have restated many of its early figures at a later date. I am sure Screen Digest did the best it could at the time, but there is a good chance they were off to some degree. Also, install base =/= sales, so even if their figures are reasonably accurate, they are not measuring the same thing. As for Nick Alexander, he left Sega in 1994, so he would not know the final figures. You are correct that I misread Beep, my apologies. You, however, are misreading the Nintendo figures. Legitimate, authorized consoles did not sell in mainland Asia in the 1990s, it was a clone and pirate market. Nintendo would have sold hardly any inventory there. Australia was a small market to, so would not have siphoned off many sales. 7.5 to 8 million of that 8.7 million was probably Europe, and they almost certainly won in more than one market to get to a figure so close to Sega since Sega took the largest prize, the UK. Also, Famitsu indicates that in the 1995-96 Fiscal year, Nintendo took just over a million lead over Sega in international markets. Its a shame that they did not breakout US, Europe, etc. from that figure, but since the companies were running neck and neck in the US at that time (according to the yearly NPD figures at NeoGaf, Nintendo sold just over 800,000 more systems than Sega in those years combined, but much of that was in 1996 which is barely represented in Famitsu [goes through March], plus they were still making up an early deficit in the market) and Sega was crushing Nintendo in the UK at that time, Nintendo must have been leading in more than just Germany to obtain such a margin internationally (and no, a smaller market like Australia, where I am unsure who was leading, would not be able to create such a wide gulf all by itself). I think Sega did have as much as a two million lead in Europe in the early days (Famitsu and Screen Digest appear to largely agree on that despite the figures themselves being different), but Nintendo ultimately caught up, and in some cases sailed past. Again, it's all still circumstantial, but the known unreliability of early 1990s tracking combined with the final Nintendo figure in territories other than North America and Japan, and a lack of any yearly figures for either company past 1994 still leaves me suspicious. Once again, however, I am not advocating a change based on the current evidence, just more research. Indrian (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RetroGameFan, shipment data would be more reliable than tracking data, rather than the reverse as you seem to imply.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well the 8 million number comes from that CVG article right? That article was November 1996, while if I remember correctly, Sega discontinued the Mega Drive in Europe in 1998. I think it's unclear who won Europe. Also, where are we getting this whole "Genesis won UK" from? Is there a source for that? Another thing I would like to point out is that the article says "an estimated 3 million Genesis units were sold by Tec Toy in Brazil" when the TecToy chairman says in that interview they sold over 3 million. Perhaps using "over" instead of "estimate" would be better?

Let me ask you a different question: Why should that 3 million Tec Toy figure be included at all? Tec Toy sold 2 million Sega consoles by 1996, the vast majority of which were Master Systems; after 2002, they switched to selling a variety of clones with built-in games and no cartridge slot. Clones shouldn't be counted! No-one tries to count (say) every cloned NES to reach much higher figures than Nintendo's 62 million. Why does every sales comparison involving the Genesis have to be a case of apples-and-oranges? Do Tec Toy's clones count because they were licensed, or merely because Sega fans want to make it seem like the Genesis was more successful than it actually was? Tec Toy certainly doesn't belong as part of a calculated total, and is only relevant as an interesting fact about the Brazilian market for the body. Consider that, per a Brazilian magazine scan posted on NeoGAF (post 224), by some point in 1997 the SNES had outsold legitimate Genesis hardware in Brazil (350,000 to 300,000).

Regarding Europe, NeoGAF has a dead link to and an excerpt from a January 1997 Sega press release in French that corroborates the 8 million figure. Thus, it appears CVG got the number straight from Sega of Europe (in which case Ozisoft would definitely not be included), but the absence of qualifying promotional language such as "over" indicates it is likely rounded up to the nearest million, while the total did not increase appreciably from September 1996—when the article would have been written—to January 1997. Sega was no longer manufacturing the Genesis in 1997, so the final number is unlikely to be significantly higher. Remember, our sourced estimates for Europe, Japan, and the U.S. alone are just over 1 million shy of Sega's final worldwide total—or only 670,000 shy, if one accepts SexyKick's premise that Wedbush is referring solely to first-party models (though this is almost certainly debunked by the NPD numbers on the forum, which include 890,000 Genesis 3 units sold in 1998 and 1999, leaving 17.61 million first-party models if this sum is subtracted from the Wedbush total; NPD numbers are underestimates, but it would make no sense for Wedbush to arbitrarily exclude NPD's data for those years out of its nonexistent anti-Sega bias).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Tec Toy mention was just about the last sentence in the "32-bit era and beyond" section. For the record, I thought "30.75 million units, not including licensed 3rd party releases" was just fine for the top right corner. Though, I think why those NES clones aren't counted is because they aren't officially licensed by Nintendo, right? Another thing is, the chairman of TecToy said they discontinued the Megadrive, but this article still suggests otherwise. The Genesis may have been discontinued in 1997, but they'd still need to sell their inventory. Lastly, is there any actual evidence of the Mega Drive winning UK?

According to EA, UK sales by 1997 stood at 4 million for the Mega Drive and 1.7 million for the SNES. RetroGameFan (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Combining EA's 4 million number for the UK up to 1997 with Screen Digest's 5.17 million number for continental Western Europe up to 1994 would give us a total Western Europe number of 9.17 million for the Mega Drive up to 1997. RetroGameFan (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You cannot combine those numbers because the two companies reach completely different conclusions about the state of the market from 1991 to 1994. EA gives different totals for the UK in every year for both the Genesis and SNES than Screen Digest. Anyway, based on Sega's worldwide total, the company did probably sell between 8 and 9 million in Europe. Based on Nintendo's figures, they must have sold at least 7.5 to 8 million in Europe. As Sega sold as many as 2.3 million more systems than Nintendo in the UK, Nintendo must have won in most of the remaining markets in Europe for the final figures to be that close for both companies. Indrian (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, if Sega had sold that many by 1997, they would have said so, instead of claiming 8 million at the same time. I fail to see the point of the exercise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, now that we have more than one source claiming that Sega did win UK, we could just say Sega was more popular in the UK, and that was the biggest market in Europe? Therefore, we couldn't be claiming that Sega won every market in Europe, just the biggest one. Could also even add in that article about how AtGames re-release seems to be doing well in the UK too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Genesis rerelease

A newer and smaller version of the Sega Genesis in being retailed in some malls now. Will the sales of that version add to the numbers mentioned in this article? 173.55.37.52 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's licensed; if its sales are reported. With AtGames' licensed re-releases, sales have never been reported so do not exist in the article. Do you know of any articles mentioning this re-release in some malls?--SexyKick 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read any articles. I saw those consoles in some Target malls. 173.55.37.52 (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dollar General, Family Dollar, and sometimes Walgreen's/CVS, since 2009 have sold the ATGames version around Christmas- the units tend to sell out at the stores. 2015 also had more than normal online vendors selling them. The latest version was the 2015 edition that had 3 Mortal Kombat games in the mix... they also sell "Gophers" a handheld version that has a SD slot. Sales figures would be interesting.

It's called a Mega Drive

Aww jeez, not this shit again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You guys must have gotten very creative with the sources you chose to site when coming up with the article name. The system is known as the Sega Mega-Drive world wide. Only in North America did it have the Genesis moniker due to a hard drive device already existing with that name in North America. The "Genesis" name is NOT known outside North America, The name Sega Mega-Drive is known inside North America. Sega Mega-Drive is the Common Name and Global Name, Stop being daft.77.100.129.163 (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I agree that the article's title should be Mega Drive for that reason. I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to represent a worldwide point of view? I also believe it was most popular in PAL regions, where it was called Mega Drive, but I could be wrong. Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Did either of you read the FAQ? These sorts of discussions get removed quickly. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I did, it's seems to be a way for people who think they WP:OWN the article to censor and silence discussion. :( 77.100.129.163 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that such discussion is automatically branded disruptive says it all. It's like we're not allowed to disagree. Adam9007 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @Dissident93:The FAQ doesn't mention that "Mega Drive" is just as much an English name as Japanese. I disagree with previous arguments that "Mega Drive" is purely Japanese. Adam9007 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I personally think it should be titled Mega Drive as well, but all this discussion leads to nowhere in the end, as seen many times over the years. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @Dissident93:Maybe so, but just because it's done so in the past, doesn't mean it will do so this time. I think that if there's any chance it won't just lead nowhere, it should be given that chance. Adam9007 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Nobody is going to squash discussion if some kind of new information is brought to the table. Right now I just see the same tired arguments. --SubSeven (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking to expand Game Library section

I was wondering if you guys would be interesting in the Game Library section. Here's my brainstorm of it so far:

Paragraph 1: Early titles were arcade ports (Altered Beast/Golden Axe/Super Hang-On) and mascot titles (Castle of Illusion/Moonwalker/Quackshot). These games did well but enough to help Sega compete in NA.

Paragraph 2: Kalinske joins and wants a new mascot and more western development. Sonic replaced Alex Kidd. Sega Technical Institute was created, and they worked with Blue Skies and Apossola for Western-esque software.

Paragraph 3: Japanese 3rd party support was poor. Square and Enix skipped the system, and despite Sega having their own RPGs (Phantasy Star/Shining Force), Genesis couldnt compete marketshare-wise in Japan. Capcom initially didn't put SF2 on the system, but eventually got a port. Western support was strong, including EA Sports and Virgin Games. Mortal Kombat 1 was multiplat, but the Genesis version could allow you to bypass the censorship and according to creator Ed Boon played closer to the arcade version than the SNES version (I have a source for this).

What are your guys thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.68.56 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I had most of this in the article a few years back, along with a section on European advertising as they had this awesome Peter Wingfield campaign that lead into this awesome Cyber Razor Cut promo. However mostly all of it was removed during the FAC process as superfluous. Many of the sources are probably still out there though.--SexyKick 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. To be fair, a lot of what is mentioned is said in the page, just spread around.

Hello, I've been doing a lot of research on the Mega Drive recently, and am willing to contribute to the library section. The Saturn and Dreamcast ones are several paragraphs long, so I think the Mega Drive one could work in that format to. I don't think the Japanese support was "poor," even though it missed out on Square and Enix's killer apps. I'd say it had decent 3rd party support (Namco, Konami, Koei, Taito, Capcom, etc.) not to mention a lot of developers who started out on it. I'll be doing an entire game library write-up in a few days.FightersMegamix (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, sorry about taking so long about this. I have a write-up written on Microsoft Word that I'm working on, but got distracted by the holidays. Just to be sure, was BlueSky Software ever owned by Sega? I'm trying to separate my write-up with Sega internally developed games and games that Sega just published. I've seen conflicting reports on BlueSky, so I thought I'd ask here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightersMegamix (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure they just had a publishing deal with Sega of America. They also made games for other, non-Sega systems around the same time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew they made games for other systems, which confuses me because in this interview Rick Schmitz says that Sega bought BlueSky: http://www.sega-16.com/2006/05/interview-rick-schmitz/FightersMegamix (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, but that's too weak of a claim in my opinion. More likely is that he is mistaken or misremembering something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Here is what I have written so far. I'd like to know everyone's thoughts. I think I covered most of the defining games, and I imagine some of the link directions probably lead to the wrong Wikipedia article, but I'll be sure to look into that before I put it in the main article.

As Sega is a prolific arcade developer, early Genesis games included arcade ports such as Altered Beast, Golden Axe, and Super Hang-On. Console teams would develop titles in acclaimed series such as Castle of Illusion, Phantasy Star, Shinobi, and Streets of Rage. Alex Kidd was the mascot of Sega's previous console, but he would not receive any Mega Drive sequels after Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle due to Sega of America wanting to replace him with the titular character from Sonic the Hedgehog as mascot. The Sonic the Hedgehog series was a big hit both commercially and critically, with the original game being the best selling game on the system. Sega of America would also help set up Sega Technical Institute and Sega Interactive, who worked on titles such as Comix Zone and Eternal Champions respectively in an attempt to appeal more to Western Audiences. (New Paragraph) In addition to games developed by Sega's internal studios, Sega would collaborate with various other developers to publish more games for the system. These developers include Ancient (Beyond Oasis), BlueSky Software (Vectorman), Camelot (Shining Force), Climax Entertainment (Landstalker), Electronic Arts (Joe Montana Football), Johnson Voorsanger Productions (ToeJam & Earl), Novotrade International (Ecco the Dolphin), Technopop (Zero Tolerance), Treasure (Gunstar Heroes), Vic Tokai (Decap Attack), and Virgin Games (Disney's Aladdin). Initially, the system suffered from limited third-party support due to its low market share and Nintendo's monopolizes practices. Notably, the arcade hit Street Fighter II by Capcom initially skipped the Genesis, instead only being released on the SNES. However, as the Genesis continued to grow in popularity, Capcom eventually ported a version of Street Fighter II to the system known as Street Fighter II′: Champion Edition, that would go on to sell over a million copies. Other notable third-party blockbusters include NBA Jam and the Mortal Kombat series. FightersMegamix (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No disputes? I'll be sure to add it in tomorrow then. FightersMegamix (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

References go after punctuation, but it's good to go otherwise. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they do appear after the comma's and periods, unless you yourself just edited that in now. 69.108.65.144 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I added it in, but what is with all the _? For example, it changed Castle of Illusion to Castle_Of_Illusion. Not sure how to fix this. :/ FightersMegamix (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So where did the old paragraph go? Not all of its information seems to be integrated into the above. I would suggest keeping that original first paragraph, and trying to integrate your points into a second, maybe third paragraph. Also I'm not exactly keen on the lack of sources-to-information mentioned throughout the two new paragraphs. This is an FA and so when we try to improve upon existing content we have to do so with higher standards. To me, this kinda just seems like we're trying to name as many games in as short a space as possible - there's really not much we're saying apart from "this game, that game, the other game." The stuff I had about different games, the Cyber Razor Cut, more depth about MK (like talk of how impactful the blood code was, and the idea now that it was notable enough to have reliable sources discussing that is kind of notable to me personally - so often you want to talk about something, and there's just no sources) that information was removed during the FAC and actually went into a bit of depth, had quite roughly a dozen+ relevant sources, and I felt it was actually interesting and taught things not commonly known. Especially in the UK advertising area. Stuff about Moonwalker and Michael Jackson. But, I do think the article is better overall now and so I accepted the loss of quantity to the goal of quality. And truly I feel the one paragraph you replaced, actually tells us more than the two new paragraphs.--SexyKick 20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add stuff about the advertising and Mortal Kombat being uncensored but since it was already covered in other parts of the article, I thought you guys would view it as redundant. I am willing to expand on that stuff if you want. I did find some sources on Kalinske and Joe Miller talking about the need of Western-appealing software, as as well as Ed Boon discussing the SNES and Genesis versions of Mortal Kombat. FightersMegamix (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you want, we could bring back the old paragraph and combine them.FightersMegamix (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I do want to bring back the old paragraph and, while I do rather wish we could bring back all the old stuff too, we can't / shouldn't because of the FAC review. I don't much mind whatever you add after the recently removed paragraph - except that thing you mentioned earlier with the SNES version of MK playing closer to the arcade isn't even close to true. That may be what he said, but in the SNES version you can't even have projectile wars because only one projectile can have a hitbox at a time on the SNES. And that's not the only thing...the SNES plays like a very handicapped Sega Genesis version, and the Sega Genesis version actually retains a ton of juggle combos from the arcade. "colors and sounds closer to the arcade" is the closest I could go with, because that's accurate.--SexyKick 06:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. He said the Genesis version was closer to the arcade, not the SNES version. Also, I guess you could bring back he original paragraph then. FightersMegamix (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I misread that, twice!--SexyKick 08:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, changes done. Balls in your court now if you wanna bring back the old stuff. FightersMegamix (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sega-Mega-Drive-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg and File:Sega-Genesis-Mk2-6button.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sega-Mega-Drive-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg and File:Sega-Genesis-Mk2-6button.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 12, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Mega Drive (top), known as the Sega Genesis (bottom) in North America, is a 16-bit home video game console developed and sold by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. Using hardware adapted from Sega's System 16 arcade board, it was first released in 1988 and supported a library of more than 900 games. Though sales were poor in Japan, the system achieved considerable success in North America, Brazil, and Europe. The release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System two years after the Genesis resulted in a fierce battle for market share in the United States and Europe that has often been termed as a "console war" by journalists and historians.Photograph: Evan Amos

is there any reason that Mega Deive is being used first if the article itself is titled Genesis?--174.91.186.82 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the top image is of the first version of the system's release, while the bottom is the revised version released years later, so I assume they're presented in chronological order of release, not according to the the name of the article. That's just my observation though, I did not take the picture or implement it into the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably just the order they appear in the image.

No point worrying about it. The very first line of the article explains the name thing, and also the very first line of the blurb. So there's not much chance for confusion. ApLundell (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mega Drive's 25th year anniversary in the UK

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/retro-mega-drive-console-sales-surge-400-at-argos/0159413

Should this be added to the legacy section? I know some people are against adding stuff about the clone systems, but to be fair, I do believe this one does come with a Cartridge slot.FightersMegamix (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sega Genesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gametrailers.com/video/top-ten-gt-countdown/18703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

failed
The original link is dead, and the bot's archive link is dead the current link for the content is
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/view/gt-countdown/105483-Top-Ten-Consoles
But it may not last as GameTrailers has been shut down, so might be better to use the Youtube link here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUAjZ4iMPrQ
I tried to edit the reference but the page is protected by people who WP:OWN the article to force the Genesis name on people.77.99.165.245 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Add-ons

What about the Master System Converter? It was an add-on that fitted into the cartridge-slot to make it possible to play Sega Master System games. Maybe it wasn't listed because it is no upgrade, but it made your Genesis/Megadrive downwards compatible. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's included in the Peripherals section, under the North American name. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Missed that. Thanx. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

New "NES Classic"-style Genesis

Sega has announced a new version of the console, and it will come with 80 games preloaded on it. See here. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually think this device is discussed in the article already, under "Later releases", so it's not really new. These devices are on sale now and have been for a while; they have maybe 40 actual Genesis/MD titles on them (mostly from Sega itself, although one set recently has the three "Mortal Kombat" titles), and the other 40 appear to be homebrew. --McDoobAU93 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Name outside of North America

WP:WHATPLACE

The intro states:

"Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive [snip] in most regions outside North America".

However what regions do not call it the Mega Drive outside of North America? Even the originating Japanese name メガドライブ or Mega Doraibu is a nipponised "Mega Drive". So should it not be "Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive [snip] in regions outside North America" ? Dlpkbr (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The article clearly states (a bit further down) that the system was released as Super Gam*Boy by Samsung in South Korea (due to Korean law at the time forbidding the importing of foreign video-game consoles). So yes, most regions is factually correct. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Best Selling Games

The article says "Disney's Aladdin (stand-alone), 4 million[3]" but I am pretty sure Aladdin was bundled at various points. Look at this for example: https://segaretro.org/File:MD2_US_Box_Front_LionKingAladdin.jpg FightersMegamix (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sonic 1 was also bundled, so do we remove it as well? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It mentions Sonic 1 and 2 were bundled though, but says Aladdin was stand-alone, when it was bundled too.FightersMegamix (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I just removed that wording from the infobox, as Sonic 1 and 2 were obviously not only available as a pack-in title. If it's that important to note, it belongs in prose. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

A number of Genesis and Mega Drive emulators have been produced, including GenEM, KGen, Genecyst, VGen, St0rm,<ref name=dump>{{cite w

Suggest change VGen to VGen by Jason Meehan cite http://www.jasonmeehan.com/games_and__misc.htm

Also might add in the freeware SEGA Genesis game Roadwars 2000 also by Jason Meehan.

FYI The author of Genecyst was Icer Addis of Bloodlust software. He went to work for EA in 1998/1999. I met him when I did an interview for EA in 99.

}} 73.14.133.201 (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Jason Meehan

Not done: No independent sources provided for this edit that would back it up or back up the notability of this particular game. --McDoobAU93 19:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sega Genesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_n9_v38/ai_20456851/?tag=content;col1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208030840/http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_May_11/ai_16940486/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_March_9/ai_16634009/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/top-25-consoles/4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Radicca/ATGames Versions

The section on the firecore is wrong. Too much for me to fix. The Firecore is not an emulator perse but rather a SOC. The dates of ATGames distribution is also wrong (They were licensed in 2005) but didn't partner for worldwide distro out of China until 2008. The details on all this are here: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/126333-new-at-games-genesismegadrive/page-2

Below is the pertinent part:

- January 4, 2005: AtGames obtains an exclusive OEM license from Sega for their old platforms' software library.

- March 2005: AtGames sublicenses some Sega titles to Jakks Pacific (almost undoubtedly for plug-n-play purposes). Recall that Digital Eclipse converted a few EA Sports Genesis titles to the Sunplus SPG110 for Jakks Pacific. I don't know precisely when that was done (though Jakks' EA license acquisition itself was announced in July 2004), but a January 2005 Amazon.com user review proves it was released earlier than this action. As the conversion was primarily done via an automated, custom tool (created by noted Atari 8-bit programmer John Harris), further Genesis projects likely could have been done with minimal resource investment. The Genesis library was thus probably that much more attractive to Jakks--or, well, maybe Jakks would have just used AtGames' Titan hardware, but I think it would not have been to their satisfaction.

- March 2005: AtGames sends a letter to Radica, challenging their exclusive plug-n-play Sega license. Radica meets with Sega and threatens them with legal action if Sega allows AtGames' Jakks agreement to proceed. Sega decides to side with Radica.

- April 2005: AtGames commences arbitration against Sega, scheduled to begin in November 2005.

- June 13, 2005: AtGames launches a civil suit against Radica in California Superior Court, "alleging intentional interference with contract and unfair competition."

- July 12, 2005: Radica files to get the action moved to federal court, based on a legal convention about foreign arbitral awards.

- October 7, 2005: US District Court grants AtGames' motion to remand back to state court, based on the fact that no arbitration agreement exists between Radica and AtGames.

That's all I have, unfortunately. Nothing about what actually happened during the AtGames-Sega arbitration. What the Sega-16.com forum user asserts is that the settlement resulted in a sharing agreement between Radica and AtGames, including Radica's Genesis hardware forming a new base on which AtGames built their subsequent Genesis products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C054:55B0:443B:763D:2BF6:784C (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't use forums as sources. But besides that, I'm not sure I follow your opening comment. I don't see anything in the article that says Firecore is emulation. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sega Genesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/977/977.F2d.1510.92-15655.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804045733/http://www.blazeeurope.com/sega/cartridge-console-with-15-sega-megadrive-games/prod_68.html to http://www.blazeeurope.com/sega/cartridge-console-with-15-sega-megadrive-games/prod_68.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Genesis or Mega Drive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Read the FAQ at the top of this talk page. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Would it not be more appropriate for this article to be named "Sega Mega Drive"? It seems inappropriate to prioritise a regional title over the consoles international name. Taurmin (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ plastered all over this talk page and even as a notice when you edit this page. It answers this question. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Just thought I’d throw this out here. When you’re looking or editing through mobile using a web browser app, the FAQ and the notice when you begin editing don’t show up on the page. Is there any known way this could be addressed, or is it maybe a suggestion for the village pump about edit notices in mobile? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: This is just one of many issues with the mobile site. For example, a protected article always tells the reader says that it's due to Vandalism, regardless of the admin's protecting reason or the reason set in the pp templates. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it; I don’t normally use mobile but I am today. Surely though someone might know a solution? Is there a way we can post a notice that will show somewhere on the mobile talk page so editors less familiar with the situation will know? At this point, I’m just fishing for ideas based on the situation I see, especially since the title issue keeps coming up though it’s a WP:DEADHORSE. I’d hope not everyone who posts here about it is just ignoring the warnings and all using computers that give them ample heads up about it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes also don't appear on mobile. I don't believe there's any easy solution, and it's probably been discussed at the pump before. -- ferret (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I'm not sure. That the article was protected by an admin back in 2013, and so please don't rename the article from this site.

1. Genesis was called Mega Drive in Europe. Sega just renamed the console in USA because it was the 16-bit home video game console.
2. Please do not attempt to rename the article.
3. See WP:VG --156.208.142.227 (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, I'm not trying to rename the article, I didn't start this section. I support the current name. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Idk. --156.208.142.227 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

156.208.142.227, what point - if any - are you trying to make here? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, I'm not going to make here. --156.209.24.120 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems quite apparent. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it ought to be renamed. It was only named Genesis in a certain, minor market. The name of the system is not Genesis, it is Mega Drive. This would be like not having football refer to football on Wikipedia because Americans are using the name for something else. Simply bizarre.--2001:984:5CB7:1:A4F9:BA88:D510:FEC0 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Mega Drive or Genesis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Read the FAQ at the top of this talk page. No new arguments or evidence presented. -- ferret (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

---

This definitely needs addressing, since the Genesis market, while having the most people, is outnumbered by number of nations calling it Mega Drive and not Genesis (ratio of 3 to 1 at least - UK, AU, JP vs US). - Tallaussiebloke (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that it should be Mega Drive. But discussions like this are considered disruptive unless something new is brought to the table. Adam9007 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The FAQ is flawed for a start. For example: "While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language." Come on. It was the name in England, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Indonesia [technically dual language country] and more. Meanwhile Genesis covers North America. - Tallaussiebloke (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what is meant by that is that non-English speaking countries calling it Mega Drive vastly outnumber English-speaking countries that call it Mega Drive. Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is a bit pointless, because even if you go English-Only, it's still at least 5 countries to 1 saying Mega Drive (England, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand to Unites States) - Tallaussiebloke (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC).

Has anything changed? Or is this just another attempt to rehash the same old arguments again, for a debate in which both answers are correct? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"A debate in which both answers are correct". If this were true, the title of the article would not be "Sega Genesis". Also worth adding, Sega created the Mega Drive (the Original Name) and renamed it Genesis for American consumers. Was the outnumbered title component even considered last time? Or the flawed FAQ checked? - Tallaussiebloke (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You've missed the entire point of my comment. Do you have a new development or not? Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

See...here's the thing. It HAS been addressed. Many times in the /23/ pages of archives this talk page has, including a quite extensive debate that led to the title changing from "Sega Genesis and Megadrive" to the current title -- most if not all of this takes place in archive 14 and 15. And note as implied able, pretty much all arguments have been heard, you're really not adding anything new to the table. Yes, we KNOW where it was called what, that's not an argument that has any validation considering how many times it's been made. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

European launch

The European launch paragraph in the "Launch" section needs to be rewritten with newer sources. Through verification, a lot in that section isn't mentioned in this source from IGN. I decided to list the following I pointed out:

• "The European version was released on November 30, 1990." The European release date given in the article is 30 November 1990, both in the infobox and the "Launch" section. That date isn't cited in the article at all, and the IGN source never mentioned it. One English-language source I found is the September 1990 issue of Computer & Video Games, which says September on it (not sure if this is the European date, as that date applied to the UK).
• "Building on the success of the Master System, the Mega Drive became the most popular console in Europe." IGN doesn't mention that the Mega Drive was the most popular in Europe. There might be sources for this one.
• "Since the Mega Drive was two years old at the time of its release in the region, more games were available at launch compared to the launches in other regions. Ports of arcade titles like Altered Beast, Golden Axe and Ghouls 'n Ghosts, available in stores at launch, provided a strong image of the console's power to deliver an arcade-like experience." Again, IGN doesn't mention any of this. The CVG reference I found might help, as it mentioned that the Mega Drive has 22 games at launch. Space Harrier II, Super Thunder Blade, Ghouls 'n' Ghosts and The Revenge of Shinobi are mentioned in the CVG source. So was Altered Beast, which was a pack-in game at launch. I'm not sure about the "arcade-like experience" part, IGN never said this either.

It would be helpful if anyone can find other sources on the European launch or has any thoughts on this. – Hounder4 02:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The October 1990 issue of ACE also mentioned the release date of September 1990 with 20 games. – Hounder4 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Edge from February 1994 says it was September 1990, Which ties in with Sega Power saying it was at the Computer Entertainment Show in Earls Court, which ties into the show being held from the 13-16 of September that year. - X201 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

More weight for the ECES from C+VG - X201 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and change it then. Three sources vs none, this really shouldn't even be up for debate anymore. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was debating it. I'm surprised the change has not been made already. Indrian (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done those changes today. – Hounder4 16:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Redacted content that does not meet FA criteria"?

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

• Well, for starters most of it is original research. The statement that Sega ported a lot of arcade games early on is entirely unsourced. Castle of Illusion is singled out because of a tweet by Sega marketing director Al Nilsen and is therefore original research based on a primary source. The next sentence singling out several more games is sourced to a Gamasutra article that actually has nothing at all to say on the topic, and the material relating to Alex Kidd as a Sega mascot is completely erroneous and based on long-standing myth that has been debunked through greater access to Japanese sources. It was completely appropriate to remove all of that from an FA. Indrian (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• That's fine, I wasn't necessarily defending the content, just felt that edit summary didn't do the change justice. (It felt like the equivalent of when people's entire AFD rationale is "Delete - not notable." - not necessarily wrong, but not particularly articulate either.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• No worries. I agree that the original summary was a little unhelpful. I had to dig through the deleted content to discover the issues I highlighted. Indrian (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Thanks for explaining that, Indrian. If anyone would like to partially restore this content with better sources, or otherwise expand the "Game library" section, that would be fine; however, the reality is that this flawed material has not been fixed during the nearly two years since it was added in January 2016. While it might seem unfair to good-faith contributors, FAs are supposed to be barred in practice from new editing unless it meets Wikipedia's very high WP:FA standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Are they? FA standards raise over time, but the quality of older FAs can remain the same or even drop. Not that this changes anything here, but FA status should be a reward for being a well-written article, not the end goal which we lock away once it becomes one. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I slightly overstated things above: All I mean is that edits to FAs should be, and usually are in practice, held to a higher standard than (say) edits to stubs. That's quite distinct from arguing that FAs don't need to be maintained or updated to reflect new scholarship. This principle holds especially true if an editor seeks to change or remove long-standing text that is presumed to have consensus by virtue of surviving an FAC, but also applies to wholly new additions. Even if it were not enshrined in policy, this tendency to scrutinize FAs is really just what one would expect from common sense alone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand taking trimming the Game Library section to make it more appealing to FA standards, but why get rid of Boon's tweet saying that MK1 played better on Genesis? It was a factor to why to the Genesis version was popular, not just the censorship.2605:E000:6300:8300:C8B1:59B8:DAAD:24BE (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

First sentence of lead.

Hello, The first sentence reads "The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive" should it not read "The Sega Genesis, known as the Sega Mega Drive" ? I believe so as in the info graphic, it's described as "Sega Mega Drive". 80.0.45.128 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

On the SNES page it explains how certain parts of the memory are accessed at 2.68Mhz and 1.79Mhz (despite the latter being exclusively for joypad registers). It should be explained that the unlike the 5A22, the 68000 always takes atleast 4 cycles to access memory once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.193 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you reliably source this? If you can, I'd be glad to add it in. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

http://oldwww.nvg.ntnu.no/amiga/MC680x0_Sections/mc68000timing.HTML

http://md.squee.co/68k_Instruction_Reference http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~Matthew.James/engn3213-2002/notes/busnode7.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.173.193 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just trivia related to how the 68000 works. Its the same on all 68000 products and isn't specific to the Mega Drive. The fact that the SNES is different is irrelevant. 90.205.254.13 (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sega Retro

I read a handful of Sega Retro articles, and I thought they were interesting. Are they a RS? MightyArms (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• They are a user submitted wiki, so no. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah shit... their articles are quite good, if you ask me. But I'll accept the rules of the Wikipedia... MightyArms (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Did you check those articles to see if they themselves cite any sources? Sometimes SR articles have references in them, and if that's the case then you could try to find any reliable ones & snatch those to use here.

Which articles were they, out of curiosity? ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's one example of the pages I looked at. This page has over 100 citations. This article has 59 citations. MightyArms (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Dang, there's definitely something there then. Granted they're mostly citations from magazine scans, but those are still valid so maybe they'd be worth individually looking into somewhere down the line! ~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 13:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We'd just use the magazines as sources then, not Sega Retro itself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sega Retro has been pretty useful to me for exactly that - finding magazine articles I wasn’t aware of. In that sense it is quite useful, but unfortunately most of its articles are quite unsourced and full of speculation and some factual errors. Basically, it can be helpful in finding other resources, but that’s the limit of it. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been my experience/stance as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. That's what I've generally used Sega Retro for in the past (not to mention other unreliable sources that cite more reliable ones in themselves).~~Tristan ("TheDisneyGamer") 12:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, it's just that a lot of people don't understand this for some reason. Like when people think they've come up with a good idea to cite the sources on Wikipedia articles rather than the Wikipedia article itself for a research project, which I've always thought was common sense and the entire point of the site... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Updates and cleanup ahead of a TFA run in August

Before I start this: Advocates for the "Mega Drive" name, just don't. I'm actually right there with you, but this isn't a hill worth dying on and this isn't being done to push an American-centric viewpoint. It just works out and it's for the betterment of this article, and unfortunately I missed the Japanese release date last year or I would have done it then. Also pinging Indrian, TheTimesAreAChanging, SexyKick, Dissident93, and Sergecross73 as users who might be interested.

It's been five years since this article was promoted through FAC. Now, August 14, 2019 will be the 30th anniversary of the console's North American release as the Sega Genesis. As it stands, this article is still in pretty solid shape, but there has been more information arising since its 2013 promotion through FAC. For one (thank you Indrian for showing me this site), a recently translated interview with Hideki Sato has provided us some insight into development of the console that we don't have in here yet. But that being said, I think we're close enough that with a bit of maintenance and added content, this would be a great article to be Today's Featured Article for that date. Thoughts of what we can improve and if that sounds like a good idea? Red Phoenix ^talk 12:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think it'd be good to add some info (and better sources) for the Sega Genesis Mini to talk about how Sega hired M2 to redo the emulation, cutting out AtGames etc. - maybe some stuff about the Mega Sg, and new games like Hardcore/Ultracore, Tanglewood, Xeno Crisis and others since we dropped off editing. The 32X unit sale need updating too (800,000 iirc) asked Indrian about that years ago when the source came out.--SexyKick 04:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd love to see some of those sources if you've got them. I'm planning on starting this shortly. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

https://kotaku.com/sega-will-release-the-genesis-mini-on-september-19-1833681956 - https://www.techradar.com/news/16-bit-platformer-tanglewood-is-available-for-sega-genesis-now - https://bloody-disgusting.com/video-games/3474131/xeno-crisis-brand-new-aliens-inspired-video-game-coming-sega-genesis/ - https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissabrinks/2018/08/29/mega-cat-studios-brings-new-games-to-classic-consoles-with-style-and-precision/#7010f22e28e1 - https://blastmagazine.com/2019/03/28/consoles-that-refuse-to-die-new-snes-nintendo-64-genesis-and-nes-games-launched-in-2019/ - https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/27/analogue-mega-sg-review/ - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pa98gb/sega-finally-gets-the-retro-console-treatment-it-deserves (unsure which of these count as reliable sources or not) - From "Sega Mega Drive Collected Works";

With regards sales of the Mega-CD, quoting from the book, "It was a modest success, shifting almost five million units worldwide." Finally with regards the launch of the 32X Shinobu Toyoda of Sega of America recalls, "We had an inventory problem. Behind the scenes, Nakayama wanted us to sell a million units in the US in the first year. Kalinske and I said we could only sell 600,000. We shook hands on a compromise - 800,000. At the end of the year we had managed to shift 600,000 as estimated, so ended up with 200,000 units in our warehouse, which we had to sell to retailers at a steep discount to get rid of the inventory."

Sega also licensed a re-release of the 6 Button controller, with one variant for the original Genesis, as well as an improved USB variant with additional L and R buttons. http://gametyrant.com/news/retro-bit-sega-genesis-controller-review-the-perfect-replacement-for-any-sega-fan Bluetooth versions are supposedly on the way.--SexyKick 20:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.polygon.com/2019/3/25/18278800/mega-sg-review-analogue-sega-genesis-mega-drive--SexyKick 14:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18513025/analogue-console-clones-gaming-history-preservation-code-hardware--SexyKick 13:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned this when it was posted on the Sega CD talk page, but there is no reason to trust that 5 million sales figure for the Sega CD because it does not seem to come from any of the new sources unearthed for that project. There are a lot of bad numbers floating around out there for a lot of video game systems, and just because an otherwise reliable source reprints a figure from elsewhere without doing good research does not mean we further distort the historical record by including it here. Indrian (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

See the silliness of the Dreamcast sales numbers, with the 10.6 million figure eventually being traced back to a Gamespot article that quoted a forum where someone who didn't normally make the sales estimations tried to take a stab at it while the normal forum expert on estimates was away for a week... The normal expert was more or less in line with the actual Sega figures that are now being sourced to a whitepaper. Quite a lot of citogensis arose out of us listing that 10.6 as well, with the original gamespot source being replaced later by "better" sources who certainly fed off us. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, Indrian that talk was from so long ago it honestly feels like a different life. I remember you mentioning that the book doesn't source the Sega CD number so only the 32X number would be OK to use. This is probably why I was only waiting for 32X numbers. I also never got the book or would have updated that article myself instead of asking you to. The 32X numbers are from a direct interview and confirms how many they made to ship.--SexyKick 13:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

While certain users may be emotionally invested in higher estimates that have since been debunked, as a reminder, here are the "units sold" figures that Sega itself provided to Famitsu as of March 1996, by console:

• Sega CD (lines 6 & 18, in the Sega sections, colored green): 400,000 sold in Japan (unchanged from the previous year) and 1.84 million sold in other regions (up from 1.82 million the previous year), for a total of 2.24 million.
• Game Gear (lines 8 & 20, in the Sega sections, colored light green): 1.78 million sold in Japan (up from 1.6 million the previous year) and 8.84 million sold in other regions (up from 8.65 million the previous year, for a total of 10.62 million.
• Genesis/Mega Drive (lines 5 & 17, in the Sega sections, colored green): 3.58 million sold in Japan (up from 3.55 million the previous year) and 24.96 million sold in other regions (up from 22.91 million the previous year), for a total of 28.54 million.
• Sega Saturn (lines 7 & 19, in the Sega sections, colored grey): 2.5 million sold in Japan (up from 840,000 the previous year) and 900,000 sold in other regions (no data for the previous year, obviously), for a total of 3.4 million.
• You can also check out the corresponding data for March 1995 (and March 1994) here.

The figures for the Sega CD and Game Gear can be taken as final. Sega's final sales figures for the Genesis, Saturn, and Dreamcast, as reported to the Computer Entertainment Supplier's Association (CESA) are as follows p. 158:

• Genesis: 30.75 million.
• Sega Saturn: 9.26 million.
• Dreamcast: 9.13 million.

As far as I know, Sega has not officially reported total sales data for its other hardware, such as the Master System or 32X. However, I see no reason to question Shinobu Toyoda's recollection that 800,000 32X units were ultimately manufactured and cleared out of Sega's inventory at rock-bottom prices.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as 32X goes as well, I have seen the primary source for the 665,000 units at the end of 1994. Knowing it was basically done by then, I think it does actually line up with Toyoda's recollection. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mega Drive vs Genesis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was read the FAQ. В²C ☎ 22:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't this article refer to the console as the Sega Mega Drive, given that it was only called the Genesis in North America? It seems silly to refer to it as Genesis when the country of origin AND the rest of the world referred to it as the Mega Drive. Dominar_Rygel_XVI (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read through the talk page archives. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dominar Rygel XVI: The FAQ should explain it: Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ Popcornduff (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This needs to be more easily visible somehow. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a huge red banner that displays when you edit this talk page... It might actually have saved dozens of posts by now. Who knows. Popcornduff (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There are certain forms of editing where you don't see it, though. Editing on mobile, for instance, the banner doesn't show up. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but like Red Phoenix said, it might not be shown on all editing platforms. Also having it clearly visible outside of editing the talk page should also be helpful. Maybe it's just because of how cluttered the top of this talk page is that the FAQ link gets missed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Renaming the article to "Mega Drive" would fix the issue of people not seeing the banner warning. 80.0.45.128 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect, unfortunately. You would instead see steady proposals to rename the article as Sega Genesis. History has shown that is what happens. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bit unfair that the vast majority of the planet is being ignored though. I'd like the current version of this page to explain why the US name was chosen over the global name. JamesGeddes (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@JamesGeddes: Please read Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ, which is linked above, for a thorough explanation of the long history of title warring on this article. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Relation between "Third-party models" and "Later releases" sections.

My main question is: shouldn't, for example, the Brazilian versions like the Mega Drive Guitar Idol be included on the third party section instead of later releases? Another thing is: what is supposed to be the main topic on the later releases section? Only games released after the system's discontinuation, or should it include everything related to the system? The latter option would make sense, but in that case we have, for example, the Firecore being referenced in both sections, despite being released in 2009, so by that logic the Mega Drive Guitar Idol should also be included in the third party models section.

I know that this is a minor complaint, and I hope that I was able to communicate my ideas clearly, but I just wanted to put this question out there, since other people could also think in the same way. GrankElderDragonSlayer (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, you have some good questions. I’ll see if I can answer some of them. As it pertains to Mega Drive Guitar Idol, perspective has been not to treat it as a third party. Why? It’s made by Tectoy, who also handles all of the first-party Mega Drive units in Brazil - Sega themselves are not present in Brazil. Essentially, Tectoy is the first-party in Brazil for Sega. The idea behind later releases was really to focus on everything that’s come out after discontinuation and demonstrate the level of enthusiasm the console has enjoyed since it was officially no longer supported. Firecore kind of meets the requirements for both sections as a third-party console produced a decade and a half after the console’s cancellation. If you have any more questions, I’ll be happy to answer. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks for replying!GrankElderDragonSlayer (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

In 1.1, History > Development, paragraph 5, please change:

from The appearance of the Mega Drive was designed by a team lead by Mitsushige Shiraiwa

to The appearance of the Mega Drive was designed by a team led by Mitsushige Shiraiwa

That is, correct lead to led. Thank you. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks FlightTime! Best wishes from 82.39.96.55 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ermm, FlightTime, I hate to sound rude but did you actually do it? You say it was done at 1923; I am looking at it at 2138 and it appears not to be done. I have flushed what caches I can ... tbh this has never been an issue before. Was your tea ready earlier than anticipated?? :) 82.39.96.55 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's fixed now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dissident93. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Best Selling Game

The best selling game is incorrectly listed here as Sonic 1 not Sonic 2. 2601:5C4:8100:92D:2574:E55C:4159:C03C (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Our sources don't indicate that's incorrect. Sources have suggested Sonic 1 sold 14 million copies, while Sonic 2 sold 6 million. I'm sure the original being the Genesis pack-in game had something to do with that, but those are the numbers in the reliable sources, so that's what we're going with. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally I always thought it a bit silly to consider a pack in game's pack in sales as part of the overall sales when comparing numbers. Just seems a bit dishonest. Obvious one can only go with what sources say and I really totally blame them, and it's hardly limited to here....but yeah. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it might be helpful to specify in the prose that the bestselling game including pack-ins is Sonic 1 and excluding is Sonic 2? Popcornduff (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That might be a nice compromise. Who knows how much Sonic the Hedgehog would have sold had it not been the pack-in? Putting their best game in with the console was a controversial, and somewhat revolutionary, idea at the time. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wasn’t Sonic 2 a pack-in game as well though? I could swear that was how I got it waaaaaay back in the day. Unless it was just a retailer specific thing? Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You might just be right about that. But I haven't seen it in a reliable source... Red Phoenix ^talk 13:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I propose that, if we want to specify that Sonic 1's numbers were inflated as it was a pack-in (regardless of whether other games were too), we find a source saying exactly that and reference it. Otherwise leave it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: We just might have that, to an extent. This IGN reference, used in the article, states that Sonic the Hedgehog sold 4 million units, not 15 million. Its numbers have been challenged before, mainly on the 29 million total Genesis units, though we've been able to corroborate that's probably the case as of the end of 1994, shortly before Genesis support was cut short. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yemen?

I'm a little skeptical that a computer would be specifically marketed toward Yemen; it's one of the poorest countries in the Arab world. The citation doesn't mention it, either, and the article on MSX mentions "Arab Gulf states" instead. Brutannica (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It actually does say so in the citation. The linked URL is a text copy on Sega-16, which contributed material to the published magazine article in Retro Gamer, but doesn't have all of its little side-columns. I have the magazine source itself. In a side column, titled "Hybrid Children", the following quote is published, in regard to the Genesis/Mega Drive:

MSX fans will be interested to know it was integrated into the AX-330 and AX-990 models, for Arabic distribution in Kuwait and Yemen.

So it's there. How accurate the source is on that regard, I can't speak to, but I don't have any other reason to challenge it. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

In correct information in the summary info at beginning of article. Makes it seem like sega went out of business in 1997

The beginning and end dates for Sega at the beginning of the article imply that they went out of business. I propose indicating that they exited the console manufacturing business to concentrate on software or at least put a star next to the end date to indicate a caveat.

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnk119 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

sorry didn't look close enough and don't know how to delete post

Please delete this post and my previous one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnk119 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no image of the Mega Drive 2?

There is only a image of the Genesis 2. But the Mega Drive 2 was released in Japan and the rest of the world looks differnt, and I think deserves an image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otokeizan (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? AFAIK the Megadrive 2 looked the same as the Genesis 2, but it had red buttons, or at least the PAL MD2 did anyway. That's hardly a significant difference, or one that warrants an image to highlight said differences? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Mega Drive

The article should be named the Sega Mega Drive not Genesis. It is known around the world as the Mega Drive, only Genesis in America. The SNES is known as that everywhere besides Japan where it’s the Super Famicom, so it is SNES on here. DokoKanaP4ul (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ. Popcornfud (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

DokoKanaP4ul - I understand your argument (and that of the IP user above you), and it is a reasonable argument. However, the FAQ that Popcornfud pointed to explains how this argument has been made many times prior and has not yielded a change in consensus. Please take the time to read it - the only real way to change the consensus on this topic right now is to bring new reliably-sourced information to the table that clearly shows that "Mega Drive" is the clear winner. As of the last major discussion, no such information had been found, and we believe it's unlikely to exist. But if you have any, please share it with us and we'll take it into consideration. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

So basically all this amounts to is once again letting the whiny Americans have their way, because heaven forbid anyone except an American could ever be correct about something. 2A02:C7F:635:D300:F9A4:4BBF:36BE:949 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As a non-American who was also surprised to see the title of this article when I first read it years ago, no, I don't think that's the case. There is basically no clear correct answer for this, so the status quo remains. Popcornfud (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Change 'Sega Genesis' to 'Sega Mega Drive'. Wikipedia is a world wide service catering to users from all over the world. The current naming promotes an 'America first' mentality which goes against what Wikipedia stands for. 84.92.124.231 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ: Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

And unfortunately, this is exactly why this article has to stay semi-protected.  :( . Red Phoenix ^talk 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Lo and all those many years later, the same debate carries on. Including people who don't read the "BEFORE SUGGESTING A TITLE CHANGE" section right above the edit window. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is the same disruptive IP hopper that has been doing this for years, judging by the weird tone and content of the comment. But a few sections down shows that newbies still do it too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not all the same person. We've had some inquiries at WT:SEGA recently as well. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My stance on the topic remains that we need new info to sway consensus. I happen to still prefer the Mega Drive name myself, but that ship has sailed, and I don't have any new compelling arguments for it. Each time I've come back to look in on this talk page, it's still been mostly the same set of arguments with no new real info presented. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, same here, pretty much. It's tough having to explain every time why we can't change it when that's my stance as well (and I'm American, at that). That being said, I'm sort of thinking that changing it again would be a bad idea only for the sake of changing it, that it would start to set some really bad precedents for article naming and instability. There always were a lot of really good arguments going both ways, and I guess that's why we have WP:TITLECHANGES. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I know it’s not all the same guy, but the same guy is definitely still around. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the edit notice about the page title should be flashing with rainbow neon colors to make sure that everyone notices it. JOEBRO64 12:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of console from Mega Drive to Genesis for North America

To be clear, I'm not talking about the article title – although I've read through the various discussions and vehemently disagree with the North American-centric reasoning – I'm talking about the name of the console itself.

The article currently cites Retro Gamer magazine: "Consensus states it was due to a trademark dispute" as the reason for the change from Mega Drive to Genesis.

But an article in the book Sega Mega Drive/Genesis: Collected Works by Keith Stuart (a Britsh author and journalist for The Guardian) called Arcade Perfect reveals:

[Sega co-founder David Rosen] was also responsible for renaming the machine for the American market. It has been suggested that this was the result of a trademark dispute, but Rosen is adamant he simply didn't like the term 'Mega Drive'. 'I came up with the name "Genesis" because I felt this would be a new beginning for Sega,' he explains. 'At first, the Japanese management didn't care for the word, but I insisted on it.'

The book was created in partnership with Sega and contains quotes and lengthy interviews with various ex-Sega names (including Hayao Nakayama, Tom Kalinske, Yuji Naka, Yu Suzuki and more). As a source I think it has a degree of credibility and authority, although it's been out of print for a few years.

Since the article is protected, I just wanted to start a discussion on how we could get this added in the main article.

31.48.206.71 (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've added it to the article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that’s awesome. I remember we had a huge discussion on this during the GA review and couldn’t fully work it out. It’s a shame this book didn’t exist in 2014 or we could have had it right a long time ago. That being said, it’s great to know now. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Good find, good addition to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

Swedish EBM band Kommando XY featured the track "Genesis does (what Nintendon't)" on Welcome To Gestrikland 2008.

--89.183.30.144 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

Please change the title to "Sega Mega Drive" (since it was the name of the console in most countries) 2001:861:36C5:84A0:CDE:CE94:5101:60F7 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Read the faq. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

discontinued =

• WW: 1997 (Sega)
• NA: 1999 (Majesco Entertainment)
• BR: Still in production (Tec Toy)

The genesis still in production on Brazil, been sold by tec toy. Tec Toy introduced the Genesis on Brazil in 1990, and it still in production. Tailsgamer12br (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Plus, Mega Drive production actually stopped for a few years before resuming in Brazil. Master System, though, has not. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of this is widely regarded as true, both the Megadrive and Master System are listed on Tectoy's website, with the Megadrive currently out of stock 86.167.5.10 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

discontinued =

• WW: 1997 (Sega)
• NA: 1999 (Majesco Entertainment)
• BR: Still in production (Tec Toy)

The genesis still in production on Brazil, been sold by tec toy. Tec Toy introduced the Genesis on Brazil in 1990, and it still in production. Tailsgamer12br (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Plus, Mega Drive production actually stopped for a few years before resuming in Brazil. Master System, though, has not. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of this is widely regarded as true, both the Megadrive and Master System are listed on Tectoy's website, with the Megadrive currently out of stock 86.167.5.10 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The sales numbers of Genesis sold

the 30 million plus genesis sold worldwide was a December 1994 Sega Magazine review on how many consoles were sold. By 1997 the Genesis had sold 26 million hardware units in the U.S. and 47.8 million units worldwide, the wiki numbers are wrong. Go to SegaMag.com and find the real numbers. The people who make these pages be guessing rather then do real journalism. I thought maybe it was the mandela effect but now I see its misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7706:1A00:B1A6:EE9F:C533:D239 (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please provide your own sources per WP:BURDEN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you're not going to link to the specific magazine issue and help everyone out to find an updated official figure, why should anyone else dig for it for you? -- ferret (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Genesis did not sell 26 million units nor did they sell 47 million units worldwide. SegaMag is wrong and they don’t have the real numbers. The people who made this page used real journalism and the things you are saying is wrong. The Genesis only sold 19 to 20 million units in US and 30 million units worldwide. This is fact and stop trying to blame it on Mandela when that isn’t true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N-Sane Maniac (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Rename article to Sega Mega Drive

As the article notes, the Genesis name was used in North America, with most of the world calling this a Mega Drive.

I think it would make more sense for Genesis to redirect to Mega Drive than the current situation, which is reversed.

Thoughts? 2403:5808:2E:0:AB58:3F5E:C355:74FA (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been covered so many times it is now considered disruptive to suggest it without bringing up a new argument or reason for the change. As you edited by mobile, I'm assuming you didn't see the massive notice telling you to check the FAQ before trying this: Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Read the FAQ. Sergecross73 msg me 22:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Contesting the Article Title

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

---

I would like to contest the title on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. I am creating a separate section to intentionally distance my argument from earlier sections that provide no basis for the name change, as I am here to present what I believe to be actual evidence in favour of such a change, which hopefully will be considered constructive rather than merely disruptive.

Firstly, it should be noted that the present decision was based on a strawpoll of Wikipedia users (i.e. the opinions of a few), not on what is common in media outside of Wikipedia (i.e. wider usage).

WP:COMMONNAME states:

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.

Hence, my argument in favour of changing the article's name is that basing the name on data that reflects global usage seems to be more in line with the common name policy. In support of this argument I present for consideration some data from Google Trends and Google Ngrams.

Google Trends demonstrates that over the past five years "Mega Drive" has consistently trended more than "Sega Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive", with only a few occasions where "Sega Genesis" briefly spiked. It also shows that globally "Mega Drive" is a much more widely recognised name (and thus should be considered the device's 'common name'), and that "Sega Genesis" has less regional interest overall than both "Mega Drive" and "Sega Mega Drive" (when taken separately, as well as when combined).

According to Google Ngrams, in the English corpus, Mega Drive overtook Sega Genesis in 2015 and has remained the more widely used term ever since.

Thus the data seems to suggest that "Mega Drive" would be a much more widely recognisable article name for Wikipedia's global English-speaking audience.

147.147.123.46 (talk)

It is a misrepresentation of the prior discussions to just call them "a straw poll" within Wikipedia. It was years upon years of discussions that also considered in factors like COMMONNAME. You're also cherry-picking data to serve your stance - for example, the very Google Trends chart you provided yourself shows Genesis and Mega Drive as virtual equals at the current time, if not Genesis ahead. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This approach is also flawed because the Google trend data clearly shows that the searches relate not to the original consoles, but the Nintendo Switch and PS4 collections. The top 5 queries for both terms reflect this, so it's a false result. People are clearly searching for a different product. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I too have to echo the sentiment that saying the title is just based off a straw poll is wrong. The 2013 RFC, more recent than the straw poll, essentially established that both names are equally valid, both names have nearly equal claim to WP:COMMONNAME, and both names have strong arguments for each other. What makes this article Genesis, and not Mega Drive, is WP:TITLECHANGES, a tiebreaker that says we default to the first title used when the article was no longer a stub. That was Sega Genesis. That's all. There's nothing innately invalidated by not calling it Mega Drive; the article itself matters more than the title. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, this too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, It was a long drawn out process that involved several staw-polls, a zillion kilobytes of debate, name calling, etc. ApLundell (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I was the ip user you all hated in 2013, that you accused of Jingoism, anyway as "opinions can change" and Mega Drive is clearly the common name, we should have a new RFC on the name. Maybe people have grown up and accepted reality. 86.15.210.157 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As this conversation has shown, anything "changing" is just someone cherry-picking info. Nothing has changed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe people have grown up and accepted reality. Clearly you haven't. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My God what is wrong with you --SubSeven (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This will be a tough argument to make stick. COMMONNAME does go out of its way to be clear that it's not a justification for changing from one EngVar to another. ApLundell (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Mega Drive" is the Worldwide name, Commonname, Original Name, ect.... It's been close to a decade now, so we should have a new RFC on the subject to see if opinions have changed and the cabal of US editors who think the own the article have grown up. 86.15.210.157 (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think you're going to convince people that a new RFC is needed by trying to call the regular editors "the cabal of US editors who think they own the article"? Pro tip: your attitude trying to make this some nationalist issue and crusade for what's "right" is shooting yourself in the foot. Furthermore, "the ip user you all hated in 2013", are you User:Technotopia? Red Phoenix ^talk 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I don't remember the email or password I used at that point in time. Obviously I don't believe I can change the mind of the cabal who own the article, but there is a chance that rational uninvolved editors will see things objectively and sensibly and agree the name should change which is why an RFC is important 86.15.210.157 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Closing this then. You're block evading. You don't get a say (not that you were persuading anyone anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Banner issue on mobile

Just wading in here after so many years of recusing myself (and no, I'm not going to start another move request): The big red banner on the desktop site in the edit page is still pretty obvious. Someone would have to be deliberately ignoring it in order to claim they didn't know there was a precedent. The mobile website does not show that banner at all. I can't speak for the mobile app at the moment.

On the desktop site, the Talk page's headers at the top used to be a bit clearer about where to find the FAQ. I may have missed it, but I didn't see a direct link to the FAQ anymore - just the list of prior moves and discussions (links to archives), which is buried in a collapsed section. I'm not suggesting that we make the boxes at the top even bigger, but if people are still coming here to make these move requests without seeing the FAQ, perhaps there's something else that can be done to make that clearer. (That said, no matter how clear you make something, there'll always be someone who completely fails to read it.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, this is a problem in general with the mobile version. Not only does it not show banners, but under some circumstances it won't show hidden comments either. This is problematic for articles that use Engvar and take advantage of hidden comments to explain that (for example) it's Philosopher's stone, not Sorcerer's stone. It's just one of those things, and is why I tend to make mention of it in my responses - as I did above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a note of this a couple of years ago on this talk page. Unfortunately it’s likely to be the way it is until the mobile version is improved, which I desperately hope for as I feel it’s too clunky to edit efficiently. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protected - Section 1.6 Genesis 3 Image

In section 1.6, it shows the picture of the Model 1 where it mentions the third-party Genesis 3. This should be replaced with the image of the Genesis 3 from section 5.2. I'd make this edit myself, but I'm not a "confirmed" account. All the articles that need edits tend to be protected, so it's hard to get autoconfirmed.

Lokiscarlet (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It's important not to confuse Majesco's Genesis 3 from the later 1990s with Sega Enterprises' third iteration of the first model, called the "Genesis III". Confusing, yes, but it's actually accurate as it is. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I got confused between TMSS and something else that changed from model to model, but now I don't recall even what. But it is confusing that it'd be called Genesis III, since it was the model 1 with TMSS added. It kinda adds extra confusion that is doesn't ever seem to be called the Genesis III except in that court case and the story covering it. Guessing that's an internal name that got reused by Majesco simply for being newer than the model 2? They stylize it as III in the manual and 3 on the plastic. Lokiscarlet (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I got lost when researching it for this article and for Sega v. Accolade. My best guess is it was sort of a subtle modification to new Genesis units in 1990, and it was the second modification, therefore the third “model”. But after that, we get the one we identify as the second model, the drastically redesigned to be smaller version that Sega did, and Majesco’s of course came long after that. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

About the title

If mega drive came out before Genesis, shouldn’t the title be called Sega Mega Drive? Sanchez093 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Read the Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ. First name is not always the most common name. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but Mega Drive is more common then Genesis (Even tho I perfer Genesis) Sanchez093 (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That was not the findings that were found in the many discussions alluded to in the FAQ. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia in general strives to have an international POV. If the consensus was decided by Americans, it may be that issues of WP:BIAS WP:WORLDVIEW have led to the consensus. Tvquizphd (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, I made an honest mistake of embedding the entirety of WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDVIEW. Sorry for that. Tvquizphd (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Please read through the FAQ and archives first. You'll need something a lot stronger than a vague allusion to bias to change this long standing consensus - basic arguments like that have already been covered and reconciled. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The consensus was not decided by Americans. I've always made it clear that I'm a UK editor, and I support the term Genesis. You can see that only a few hours ago[5] I reverted yet another same-old-same-old request to change the title because it offered nothing new. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And you know what else? I’m an American editor who supports “Mega Drive”. But you don’t see me complaining about it. What matters more: the article’s name or its content? Red Phoenix ^talk 18:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading Talk:Sega_Genesis/FAQ. The link is broken on iOS Chrome, so I assumed the FAQ was deleted until I accessed the link on my Laptop. I've seen a reference to WP:LAME, and that's definitely true. I see the valid arguments citing English Varieties and Notability.

One argument that Megadrive "was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language" does surprise me a bit. Is there a general standard for giving more weight to English-language use in countries with English as an official language? The article on English Varieties does not address this.

To be clear, I'm happy to not die on this hill, and just want to learn more about the process.

If it's not topical here, I'd be happy to be redirected.

~ Tvquizphd (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s important to note that the FAQ reflects common arguments made and not necessarily policy or guidelines. I think the main thought process here is that in English speaking territories there were technically more “Genesis” sold than “Mega Drive” because of the console’s massive success in North America. But again, that’s just an argument that is commonly used, and it’s worth noting that consensus has never truly been established either way, and WP:TITLECHANGES has a tiebreaker that gives the edge to Genesis. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should rotate the article title daily, like they do for buses in Derry/Londonderry... Popcornfud (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Believe it or not, if you read the FAQ a regular cycling of the title was proposed and rejected. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons I favo(u)red "Genesis" over "Megadrive" was on the strength of the arguments - or to be more precise the puerile rantings of some of the Megadrive supporters. It was just embarrassing to be associated with some of them, so I chose not to. Note that these were generally drive-by IP editors - none of the regulars here, I hasten to add.

Although in reality - that's exactly how a decision should be made - which group do you support, the one that pulls sources with usage stats, documented magazine references, sales figures and history - or the one that posts "America sux, bite mi chunk, noobz. Megadrive roolz!" Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: That's actually a little ironic; it was the opposite for me. When I hopped aboard in 2008, "Mega Drive" was the article title and there were constant requests to change it to Genesis, and it was a constant slew of America-centric garbage. I'd never even heard it was called "Mega Drive" until I even came to Wikipedia, and as I started doing my research for my first GA run with this article in 2008, I started to get it and why it made sense to me to prefer that title.

I think the thing to take away from our two accounts is this: No matter what the title is, people will constantly try to get it changed to the other one. Not everyone who argues one way or another fits a stereotype, and those who argue there's a "cabal" of editors who fit that are wrong. It's just a shame more people don't understand that. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping to see which title was used in any official release in India. As India has a lot of English users and has English as one of its official languages (contributing to an influx of Indian users on the English Wikipedia), I think the preferences of India could be a way of re-evaluating or confirming the title "Sega Genesis". If the Genesis / Megadrive was never that popular in India, though, then that line of argument would have less weight. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't believe it had much of a presence in India. The article says they didn't even sign a distribution deal for India until 1994 (that's well past the halfway point of it's lifespan.) Even in modern times, you generally don't hear much of any platforms having a major presence in India. I dont know for sure, but I've anecdotally never read anything on it, and this article is an FA and barely mentions India...so I'm guessing this is a bit of a dead end. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there was an Indian TV commercial which used Megadrive though I don't know what year it was. Based on https://segaretro.org/Shaw_Wallace_Electronics it would have been 1994. It is a good point that the Megadrive may not have had much of an impact in India. I'll have to find figures later. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think volume of reliable source coverage would also be a factor here, but I’m not sure it would be anything more than insignificant on the whole. Of course there are areas that used totally different names altogether, i.e. in South Korea where a ban on Japanese imports led to Samsung bringing the console in and renaming it. Quite frankly at this point, having spent 15 years on Wikipedia wrangling with this question, there is nothing that will truly sway the argument one way or the other, and that’s why we have WP:TITLECHANGES. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

this is english wikipedia not usa wikipedia

why is the article called sega genesis if it was released as mega drive and localized for the american market only? 200.173.50.179 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of the page. It clearly explains all of your questions and concerns. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Then shouldn't have the US bias tsg, so readers are warned of the inherent bias? Also the faq seems fall under the fallacy of the constituency of the dead. Clinging to a consensus of over a decade ago, when wiki editors base were more white, male, middle class and American, likely doesn't represent the consensus of today.

I would suggest the title is changed to reflect the international name that more people worldwide would be familiar with. Using the genesis name is at best unconscious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.168.187 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I recommend taking another read of the FAQ. It doesn't seem like you understood it. At all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Genesis overclocking" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Genesis overclocking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 15 § Genesis overclocking until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"You can't do this on Nintendo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You can't do this on Nintendo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 16 § You can't do this on Nintendo until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

Add a link to the Wiki page for the Sega Master System [6] for the field "Predecessor" in the right-hand system specifications list. 87.49.45.108 (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - See WP:OVERLINK. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:Commonality

I'm surprised the FAQ doesn't mention this. Can anyone elaborate why it seems to have been ignored? Mnealon (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not ignored. Sergecross73 msg me 11:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't see how this would be applied. It seems to be the whole point of that particular guideline is to use terms that are neutral if they common and the issue here is there's two terms which are equally valid. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)