This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"The launch was overshadowed by Nintendo's release of Super Mario Bros. 3 a week earlier."
I know you guys have been working very hard on making the article much better, so I don't want to start flinging fact tags around if there are easy answers.
Thanks.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
That is from the Retrogamer article. The first three sentences of that paragraph are all taking from that article, with the citation appearing at the end of the third sentence. Indrian (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Because readers can't check the first citation, do you think it's better to use the IGN reference when there are multiple sources?LedRush (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no less valid, but they are less useful and less helpful.LedRush (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That isn't a reason to reject a reliable source. Indeed, I've taken articles to WP:GAN and WP:FAC where the majority of sources are books that cannot be found on the end of a web search. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can help you find sources, as can the more prosaic tools of an Amazon account and a good credit card. ;-) Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
When have I ever said anything about rejecting a source? I'm saying if we have the choice of two sources, one that a reader can easily use and one that they can't, make sure to include the one they can use. If you want to use the other one two and double cite it, that's great. I'm not sure why my statements are being so misrepresented here.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
It's okay LedRush. Sometimes these things come out because really active editors have to sometimes deal with quirky things, and when it was said "sources are no less valid" and then you saying "no less useful" it in turn was forgotten what you had originally said, and of course everyone here at that point would have been happy with the double citation. No worries.--SexyKick 03:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Honestly, though, it is the antagonistic and confrontational attitude of many here which largely keeps me away from this page except when the big decisions are being made. I must say, the changes to the article have made it much better and I'm glad that others can endure here and make the positive contributions for which I do not have the patience.LedRush (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I have often considered myself lucky for that ability. I have seen people I really respect and know as level headed and calm get upset here, and so I know it's not the easiest page to work on.--SexyKick 23:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That and the "not this shit again" attitude that seems to be prevalent around here, haha. I think the thing with this one is that even if it is a little more convenient, it's not an expectation of Wikipedia articles to have to double a source just to provide an online link - if anything, Internet articles are likely to be less useful and less helpful because they tend to have a lower standard of reliability, but not always. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 00:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not making that argument. Listen, I gave some simple advice to make the article more useful for a reader. If you want to ignore it or put words in my mouth, go ahead.LedRush (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey easy, bud. I'm just saying that's the way I took it when I read it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Ritchie took it the same way, too. Clearly when I posted my response about expectations of sources explaining what I read into it, that was taken offensively in return. I'm a firm believer, though, that 90% of situations where someone ends up upset are solely because of simple miscommunication, so let's just sweep this under the rug and call it us not understanding what each other really meant, shall we? ;) Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Another source question
What is the source for the following statement in the lede: The console's life was extended with peripherals and add-ons such as the Sega CD and 32X, network services such as the Sega Net Work System, and third-party console variations such as the Sega TeraDrive.LedRush (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe much of that is from Kent's book, some of it is IGN or 1-up articles. The sources for them should be in their appropriate sections.--SexyKick 06:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Usually the lead section shouldn't need any sources, but the Sega CD and 32X sections talk quite a bit about their intentions: Sega CD being designed to be popular based on the rage going on with CD-ROM technology which was so new at the time, and the 32X specifically being designed to cover the gap between Genesis and Saturn. Sega Net Work System I think is a poor choice for that statement; Sega Channel's later run was more prolonging, though, lasting past the discontinuation of Genesis. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't find sources which say each of these actually extended the life of the console.LedRush (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you are right about this one. Certainly one of the justifications for creating the peripherals was that Sega hoped to extend the life of the system, but I do not believe there are any sources -- nor is their any evidence -- that the peripherals actually accomplished this. The wording should probably be tweaked. Indrian (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
FAQ bias
If its not a Frequency Asked Question, not something anyone would ever ask about, it shouldn't be there to begin with. Please look at the nonsense KieferSkunk keeps trying to add in and give your opinions.[1] Specifically [2] and [3]DreamFocus 22:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you going to respect the opinions of others if it comes to light that you are the only one who thinks it's nonsense? Because so far, you haven't shown even an ounce of respect for anyone's opinion other than your own. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
To address what I *think* is Dream Focus's issue with the "no substantive arguments for/against the proposal" statement I'd added to the FAQ, here are the responses that were given IN that proposal:
User:Salvidrim!: "(Support compound title) Both titles are acceptable and valid"
User:76.65.131.217: "...per the majority of talk archives ... this has been debated many many times this year ... Stop debating it"
User:Czar: "...the rename FAQ's verbosity should be addressed. Genesis overpopulates Mega Drive in every measure I've attempted ..."
Dream Focus went on to point out that there were still issues in the sales numbers shown in the article (which I mentioned we were still working on), and then repeated an old argument that "there is no doubt that most of the English speaking people in the world that bought it, lived in North America". Czar's argument similarly repeats an old argument which, at the time of proposing the move, I believed had been at least partially addressed. Other than that, there were no substantive arguments for either title (and I posit that those arguments given were not substantive) - you can clearly see just by scrolling up on this talk page that the knee-jerk opposition to the proposal was from people who simply did not want to discuss it, no matter what we'd done.
Is that clear enough for you, Dream? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You are editing things out of context as usual. What I said was "Oppose What the hell? Are you serious? How many times a year do we have to have this same exact discussion? Everything that could be said already has been multiple times. This is the name it was first released to an English speaking market as, so that's what we go by. And America is the largest English speaking market for video games, or was at that time by far. Dream Focus 03:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)" I didn't just object to it, I also said in the following sentences specific reasons why. Now explain to people why your edits to the FAQ should be in the FAQ? DreamFocus 22:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And you conveniently ignored everything that I'd said in the proposal, in my responses to you, and pretty much everything both Red Phoenix and SexyKick said as well, that explained why the arguments about both "largest English-speaking market" and "first English market name" were NOT necessarily the sole reasons for keeping the title at Genesis. Not to mention you simply repeated the old argument that we were specifically trying to AVOID having come up again after having done so much work on the article. You never acknowledged a single word of our responses to you.
See, if you HAD read our responses, you'd see that this is now the FOURTH time I've explained that these points are essential points in this article's naming history. The purpose of the FAQ is to explain, as thoroughly but concisely as possible, when and how this article's name has been changed and debated, and to explain the reasons and arguments given in each major event in that history. It's not about taking credit, and it's not about glorifying the work. It's about trying to keep everyone from rehashing the same old, tired arguments over and over and over again ad nauseum. And in the case of pointing out the GA work and the move discussion that followed it, it's about pointing out that the article has substantially changed and COULD be considered for a new discussion, despite your assertion that nothing has changed. (If nothing had changed, it would not have been given GA status.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing has changed any of the issues listed in point 8 of the FAQ. The fact that you got GA status is not relevant in any possible way. DreamFocus 23:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? Nothing? Not even the fact that the Genesis does NOT have exclusive notability due to Congressional hearings, since the equivalents of those hearings occurred in the UK as well? Not the fact that we're finding plenty of non-American press coverage from around the world that puts the Mega Drive much closer to equal standing in terms of notability? Those are the arguments that can be directly addressed with sources, and they have been. The rest of the arguments listed in that section are arguments we simply cannot address either way through article improvements - they are shown there because people have made them, whether or not there's any substance to them. The same goes for arguments in favor of Mega Drive. THAT IS WHY I WAS TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO READ THE FRICKIN' ARTICLE BEFORE COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSAL. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Genesis gets more news coverage in all searches, because the vast majority of people that owned one or bought games for it lived in North America where it was called Genesis. That's true even without coverage from the Congressional hearings. DreamFocus 23:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And what are you basing that on? Google hits? What about non-web sources? What research have you done? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The research sources search for video games. 4,870,000 results for "Sega" "Genesis" and 1,280,000 for "Sega" "Mega Drive". DreamFocus 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? You can't find your way to the Video Game Wikiproject's reliable sources Google source, and copy and paste what I put in quotes above? DreamFocus 23:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to demand that I cite every little detail of what I believe has been addressed (even though it's plainly obvious), then I think it's only fair that I hold you to the same standard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the naming debates ever centered around a deficiency in the article. Or its "global viewpoint" or lack thereof. The debates centered more around the subject of the article, wikipedia policy, various ways of reinterpreting sales numbers from a multitude of conflicting sources, google results, and bizarrely enough, whether or not we should "count" India as an English-speaking nation.
The tone of the article, and the US congressional hearings were minor side-points at best. APL (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that summation. Also, I really don't find anything bias about Kiefers edits in the FAQ. I don't understand what the problem is.--SexyKick 04:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
(Just clarifying that SexyKick's comment above and Dream Focus's comment below are not linked.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
First he does this [4]. Please comment on whether this is obvious bias, and does it belong in the FAQ. He then edit wars with me a bit to have this in the FAQ [5] claiming no arguments anyone said were "substantive". Anyone who disagrees with him, has their opinions simply dismissed. Does anyone think either of those edits of his should've been in the FAQ? DreamFocus 23:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You do realize I had support for those edits, right? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I will also point out that I tried to have a more private discussion about Dream Focus's behavior on his talk page, but he has decided it's not worth his time or effort to discuss it with me, as seen here: [6]. So I will let his actions here speak for themselves. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Really? Where? I don't see any discussion for adding things to the FAQ. That's why I started one here. And you want to talk to me about this, you do it here where everyone will notice. I erased your post on my talk page with the message "keep it on the proper talk page. And stop distorting things)" [7] and then had to eliminate it again when you tried to repost it. DreamFocus 23:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I asked you to explain your behavior, Dream Focus. I was NOT trying to debate the FAQ itself on your talk page. You obviously didn't bother to read what I was saying that time, either. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let's make points on the merits of the issue at hand instead of at each other's expense. (I edited the section title. Also I've been getting constant edit conflicts for about ten minutes.) I interpret Dream's point to be that the FAQ is documenting minutiae that it need not document. This is what I alluded to earlier—the FAQ shouldn't be a history of the talk page, but succinct answers for questions asked commonly. The last question appears outside the scope of the FAQ. czar♔ 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
So it's not relevant at all to the naming history that the article's contents, and therefore assertions about its world view and US centrism, have changed? It's not relevant to point out that the article is now considered a GA, and many of the arguments made when it was NOT a GA might not be valid anymore? It's not relevant to point out that we tried another move proposal and it was quickly shot down? Do you really want people to think nothing actually HAS changed? If that's what people really want, then fine, we can just delete the whole thing if that would make people happy, because between people having started several more useless discussions since the FAQ was created, and now asenine debates like this one, it's becoming pretty obvious that it's not doing us any good. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a history of move discussions right below the FAQ. It seems like KieferSkunk's additions would fit in better there. APL (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. That should solve everything I hope.--SexyKick 04:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I was actually unaware that there was a separate history being maintained on this talk page itself. The FAQ is its own page and is transcluded into this one, so editing it causes the editor to lose context on what surrounds it. So, if the consensus is that we should just maintain the history in the list below the FAQ, then I propose that we flat-out delete the FAQ. If we're going to be disallowed from keeping it in sync with reality, then I'd rather get rid of it than to let it go stale and misinform people. (And yes, I am saying that this argument is basically saying we, collectively, should no longer maintain the FAQ because it's going to start a goddamned war every time we try. Unless I'm being targeted specifically, this mess would have happened to anyone who'd tried to add that text to the FAQ.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sorry. I read the page wrong, and thought he meant the section in the FAQ right below where it says FAQ. Which would be section 1. Nevermind my comment. I really don't know why Dream has a problem with the latest move request being listed in the FAQ. I think it has a place there. I'd really like @Born2Cycle: to weigh in some though. I hadn't noticed that section either. I think the FAQ really helps things though...I deeply appreciate your effort in maintaining it.--SexyKick 05:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, since he completely rejected my attempts to discuss this issue with him privately (on his talk page), and called them "nonsense", I can only assume he either has some sort of axe to grind with this article in general or with me specifically. You can see that he's refusing to address or even acknowledge my points about his behavior - they just go unanswered, and a few times he's repeated a point that I've specifically rebutted in such a way that demonstrates he's ignored my rebuttal completely. I really have nothing else to go on - I can only WP:AGF so long. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I could give adding it in a shot and see how it goes. Or we could ask Dream to outline how he thinks it should be written into the FAQ...certainly it does seem like he's not reading what you have typed.--SexyKick 06:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
SexyKick, I have no problems with a move request being mentioned, even if it was withdrawn very quickly. I have a problem with unrelated and misleading information. [8][9]DreamFocus 07:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
KieferSkunk, you did not rebut me. You seem to think your response automatically clarifies everything and convinces everyone of your position. I read what you wrote, and its nonsense. There are multiple points listed in the FAQ, and you haven't even discussed most of them. Nothing in the article was changed that would affect any of the things listed. The FAQ is not a history of the article, its meant to explain the name and issues that keep coming up. DreamFocus 07:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright...how is this edit then?--SexyKick 13:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
[10] What does the GA have to do with the discussion? The core issues were not changed at all. Also why does it say "It must be noted that the move proposal in October 2013 was withdrawn solely because editors objected to discussing the topic at all, regardless of position." Some stated a reason to objecting to the move other than that. Talk:Sega_Genesis#Requested_moveDreamFocus 13:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It says that because that's why the person who proposed the move, withdrew the move. That was his reasoning, not the other things. Yes, some stated a reason, but that's peripheral to the situation. GA has *some* to do with this, because it has to do with solid referencing representation. Presumably the UK is now better represented, because the article now mentions that Night Trap was mentioned in Parliament. However, since we have the Parliament transcripts, we can see that it was literally just that. Mentioned, cited in fact for doing something right. It was still nothing compared to the pages about the US hearings in Kent's book.--SexyKick 14:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
"The result of the move request was: Withdrawn - unanimously opposed in first hour". That's the reason given at the time. Now later on the user is claiming something else. Five others participated. I and czar gave specific reasons to object to the name change, with one person suggesting a compound title, and two just stating it had been debated to death already. DreamFocus 14:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I really am amazed at your ability to completely miss the point of virtually everything I've said this whole time, Dream Focus. Not once have you shown any ounce of willingness to see things from my point of view. Not once have you acknowledged that you might be just as in the wrong as you think I am. When you say that my withdraw reason of "unanimously opposed in the first hour" and my later saying that people opposed even DISCUSSING the issue are two fundamentally different things, then at best I can only believe that you've totally missed the point, and at worst, that you're simply here to fight with me specifically. I honestly can't tell which is true, but the fact remains: The proposal ITSELF was unanimously opposed, REGARDLESS of position.
I was going to say that I was about to take you to dispute resolution over your claims that I'm deliberately trying to mislead people. But you know what? I give up. I'm tired of arguing with you. I'm tired of having to fight a goddamned WAR every time we want to get anything done around here. You can do whatever the hell you want with this article, hell be damned. I'm done, and I'm never coming back. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you are willing to just leave it alone, and not try to argue forever, or attempt to delete the FAQ entirely because you didn't get your way. DreamFocus 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't seem overly productive. I'd like to note that I generally agree with Dream's points, and the Kiefer is again behaving in a belligerent and anti-productive manner. None of the changes in the article have a substantive affect on the naming discussion, as others have correctly pointed out, and Kiefer's aggressive and uncivil attempts to shove this issue down our throats again calls into question why he was looking for article changes in the first place. The FAQ does not need a high level of detail on the article's history, and should focus solely on the issues of naming.LedRush (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The FAQ, from what I've seen, has become a canvas for POV pushing. KonveyorBelt 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to be a bully here, and I'm not trying to push a bias or POV in all of this. I've only been trying to help keep things neutral and well-informed. The reason I'm getting more and more angry about this is because everything has to be a god damned BATTLE here - we simply can't get ANYTHING done because everyone has to FIGHT all the time. I AM SICK OF IT. Even the most innocuous edits these days seem to require an act of Congress. I'm done with this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are hurling attacks and hyperbole maybe you do need to be done with this. KonveyorBelt 18:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Changes relating to the article title, even tangentially, are certainly a battle. This is why we all agreed (including yourself) that reopening debate about the title should be avoided. APL (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
We all agreed that reopening the debate in the absence of any new information should be avoided. However, that wasn't the case this time. But as I said, no matter - I'm done. Just one quick note, tho: If you guys do decide to do away with the FAQ, be sure to get an admin to remove the edit notice for this page as well, so as to not cause undue confusion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I just want to point out that it's a shame you guys push Kiefer like this. Most of the comments made towards him are bewilderingly negative, and he's actually one of the most level headed and fair contributors this article has ever had. He made his edits to the faq with local consensus, and was absolutely not trying to push a POV. Working with him on the actual article part of the article has been a pleasure. If / when the FAC Review happens, I would hope he has recovered from this. I don't see the problem the problem with him, and I'm disappointed that it seems like every single little thing has in fact turned into a big battle. I get fighting over the name, but I don't understand the fight about writing name debate information, into the name debate FAQ. Kiefer, I'm sorry I asked you to do that...--SexyKick 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This is silly. This is just about the FAQ line, right? It's easy to understand why this version is making people upset, but a compromise wording should be easy to settle on. How about this?
"On such-and-such date the article achieved GA status as a result of a substantial overhaul and addition of many sources. However, After a brief debate, consensus formed that the changes did not warrant reopening the naming debate."
Easy.' No need "note" any opinions about the process, or to opine one whether or not the changes addressed people's previous objections. But also no need to ignore it altogether. APL (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am fine with that.--SexyKick 22:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There was no consensus to not reopen the naming debate, the move request was opened as 3am central European time when the Mega Drive world was asleep and closed at 4am, the only people who got a chance to vote were Americans and they voted from a bias nationalist viewpoint instead of on the merits of the changes, if the poll were allowed to run more than an hour a judgement could then be made on weather or not consensus was achieved but noting can be inferred from a 1 hour pollTechnotopia (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well then, I apologize for causing such a fuss over this. That was basically what I'd been trying to say all along, but I got too fired up over this and ended up being too narrow-minded, and I became uncivil as a result. Unfortunately, this is what years of bickering has done to me, and I just can't handle it anymore. I'm sure some will be pleased to know that I've rescinded my adminship, marked myself as going on a long wikibreak, and I intend to stick by what I said earlier - I'm not coming back. Thanks for everything. Have fun. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
What the hell, guys? I go onto my work rotation, and come back off to find everyone's fighting again? What the hell's it going to take for everyone to just take it easy and work on building an article instead of trying to hedge their bet on their position for this article title? Seriously, we've gone in the last couple of months from the Mega Drive-favored community constantly challenging the article title (and slinging personal attacks, in terms of one particular persistent IP editor), to the improved article quality, to another proposed move rescinded in an hour, to the Genesis-favored community doing everything they can to hedge their bet and keep the title in the face of having the title challenged again. As I've stood back and watched this, I can't help but feel that points of view are so pervasive that it's literally destroying this article - even I was so much against a compromise title at one point that I let it cloud my judgment, and would consider it at least a somewhat reasonable option if it were proposed.
You know, I'm not against the thought that there are POV issues with the FAQ; in fact, I can see where they're coming from. However, I can't help but feel like we're right back where we started, where we have editors invalidating the arguments of other editors entirely. Just to briefly quote LedRush, "None of the changes in the article have a substantive affect on the naming discussion, as others have correctly pointed out, and Kiefer's aggressive and uncivil attempts to shove this issue down our throats again calls into question why he was looking for article changes in the first place." Really, so the extensive North American and lack of worldwide coverage in the article had nothing to do with the article's title before? I'm not saying it's necessarily right, and all editors are entitled to believe what they think is the more correct answer, but it's another point that must be recognized and considered as a valid point. Perhaps it belongs, then, under #9 in the FAQ as an argument for Mega Drive, but one could also use it as an argument for Genesis that the article does not perceive such a bias and the latter still fits better (and no one thought of that before me, seriously?). It's my firm belief that refusing to consider an argument that is logical to another is a violation of WP:AGF.
Honestly, what good is the FAQ doing us now? It's solving none of our problems if we're arguing over it and not establishing it as a stable document. Perhaps the most we need of it is the list of requested moves that is linked in the next template, as well as a link to the disruption discussion and the establishment that further discussion without bringing something new to the table is considered disruptive. Thoughts, anyone? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 04:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"Really, so the extensive North American and lack of worldwide coverage in the article had nothing to do with the article's title before?" No, it did not. At all. And you complain about all the arguing over the FAQ, then join the argument yourself and thus keep it going. The FAQ was stable at the end of August, with only a minor spacing edit done in September, and the changes in October now all reverted. Just leave those out, and its fine. As long as no one tries to add back in things that are clearly POV, as several editors have agreed it was, then the discussion can end. DreamFocus 07:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch the FAQ - that discussion's over. I threw in my two cents as a contributor to this article, and that's it. Enough of this. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Amen. If people argued that the name should be one thing or the other based on an improperly weighted article, I must have missed it. The arguments I saw did not revolve around these matters, but on more permanent criteria. And the issue I had after I came back was that Kiefer was being outrageously antagonistic while at the same time pushing very subjective opinions into the FAQ. The FAQ was fine as written before and was largely stable. People would come in and point out deficiencies, and we were able to civilly update without much incident. But Kiefer, in my view, was clearly trying to color the naming debate with subjective assessments of the article history and calls for renaming. Just keep the FAQ simple and objective.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Part of my establishment with the GA review wasn't just a GA review; anyone who had seen how the article looked three days before I submitted it for review until the end of the review was nearly a total article rewrite, and the weeding out of bad sources and introduction of reliable ones not only fixed how the article was written, but helped to establish that there was deep worldwide coverage of the system, that it was quite notable worldwide and not just somewhat notable elsewhere but incredibly notable in North America. I suppose that's kind of lost in transition here, but it's irrelevant to the FAQ discussion. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 14:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, I don't remember the argument that the Mega Drive was not notable worldwide...in fact we had tons of discussions on sales figures, online sources and off-line sources which indicated that the Mega Drive was quite notable. However, a change in focus of the article does not change the number and availability of sources which refer to the Genesis or Mega Drive respectively. It's great that the article is better now than it used to be, but I don't see how this can change the calculus on the proper name of the article.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
And that's where all of the fighting is still going on — no offense, I'm not making a personal remark, but I'd say from the talk page comments that it's about 50/50 that some people do and some don't. LedRush, I appreciate your reasonability in your discussion; at least we can disagree peacefully. Almost every debate, for whatever reason, has had a strangely 50/50 split, or at least roughly so, and I'm not sure there's a lot everyone agrees on when it comes to this article. Heh, I wonder how a 16-bit video game console could stir up almost as much contention as the naming debate between Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning (note: same article). Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Phoenix that the FAQ threatens to become a naming-debate-by-proxy. I think I mentioned this above when someone suggested going through the FAQ point by point and trying to find consensus on whether the points were valid.
However, perhaps that suggests a partial solution? Sometimes high-profile name debates wind up on a sub-talk-page leaving the root talk page free for actual relevant discussion. Could this article do something similar? Perhaps we could come up with a consensus that all naming debates go on Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ_Debate and let the culture warriors rage on there forever and ever. If they eventually form a consensus, all the better, if not, at least they're not here. APL (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with LedRush. Strangely enough, article-name arguments based on the actual article or its references were few and far between. (And the FAQ seems to back this up.)
It's possible that isn't a good thing.APL (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
(I also agree that Kiefer's addition to the faq, while well-intentioned, was phrased in a way that really betrayed his frustration and bitterness. A more neutral description of the same events would probably be fine with everyone.) APL (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Model 2's AV port
The article states that the Genesis model 2 has standard RCA jacks.
This is entirely false. All model 2 Sega Genesis and Megadrive's contained a 9-pin mini DIN connector. It's the same connector and pinout as that of the 32X and Nomad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmd8x28 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. That was my fault - I based that prose on the Model 2 unit that I had owned a number of years ago, which had a set of RCA jacks on the back. A little looking around confirmed that that was actually due to a fairly popular modification, and I had just assumed it was official because it was well-enough done on my unit. Thanks for the correction. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Sales Figures
The article says that Sonic sold 6 million as a pack-in. The source says that it sold over 6 million units and was not "initially" a pack in. Why do we have the [pack in] parenthetical here?LedRush (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Because the game was often included as a pack in. See similar articles that do the same thing.--SexyKick 03:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
To me, that indicates that the sales were due to "pack-in" sales, which isn't the case. Wouldn't it be less misleading to omit the parenthetical that says it's a pack-in?LedRush (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that doesn't apply to any game. Everyone knows that pack in games are also sold at retail, and in no occurrence that I'm aware of, are the numbers tracked separately. Not with SMB3, not with DKC, and not with Sonic 2. These games were all still pack ins though, and so were noted as such in their respective console articles. Why would anyone think all the sales of SMW were from being a pack in?--SexyKick 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Because the parenthetical says "pack-in"? Seriously, though, I see your point.
(Any thoughts on Sonic 1 above?)LedRush (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what to think on it actually. I am hoping other editors will have some thoughts on it.--SexyKick 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Another IP editor changing "Genesis" to "Mega Drive" without consensus
Thought I should post this here because someone has started to change "Genesis" over to "Mega Drive" without consensus at Sega Nomad. This diff is an example, and I thought I'd give everyone the heads up, because as I understand it, our use of "Genesis" here as this is the parent article means it's also our main naming convention in the "child" articles (Sega CD, Sega 32X, Sega Channel, Sega Nomad, Sega Net Work System, List of Sega Genesis games, etc.) I've reverted it for now, but depending on what happens, we may need to start watching closely again for the next few days. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Do tell. It seems like an isolated incident for now, but we may need to look out for vandals and the occasional sock. KonveyorBelt 01:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering, since we've had this issue constantly. I'm watching Sega Nomad closely since it's my next GA nom, but I know I work a schedule where I can't keep my eyes peeled here all the time, so I'd be glad to have the help of the local community watch that is the contributors to this talk page (of which I am one, too). Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If you just named things Mega Drive and Mega CD it would solve a lot of issues :) Technotopia (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not my experience, either. When it was called "Mega Drive" and "Mega-CD", we had the opposite happen a lot, too, where people would come in and switch all "Mega Drive" occurrences to "Genesis". Sadly I don't think it'll ever really be settled, even if a compromise title were in place. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the article - which I'm sure will please no end of editors here - and will also keep an eye on it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Sonic the Hedgehog Sales Figures
I know that this has been discussed on other forums, but I couldn't find discussion of it here.
In the article, we say that Sonic sold 15 million. But the sources says that is only 15 million as a pack in and that it was approaching 1 million sales before that time. Wouldn't that make 16 million a low ball-estimate? I mean, we have to assume that people bought the game after it wasn't a pack in anymore, and we know that people bought it beforehand. I have seen a 4-4.3 million figure for Sonic before (http://www.listal.com/list/bestselling-genesis-mega-drive), but I haven't found any reliable source. Can anyone find a good source for the non-pack-in sales figures? It is bothering to see incomplete information in the infobox of this article.LedRush (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The source actually does not clarify that it was 15 million "as a pack in", does it? If so, where?--SexyKick 17:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
At 30 seconds it says it was going to sell 1 million by year's end. At 1:20 he says "we gave Sonic the Hedgehog away to 15 million households with our hardware system."LedRush (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
One thing about the original Sonic the Hedgehog is that it was a pack-in on day one, the first day Sonic was sold. Chalk that one up to the genius of Tom Kalinske, to bundle his mascot character in with Genesis. Of course, the Genesis had already been out for a while with Altered Beast as its pack-in, so Sonic was also sold separately. While I don't have a source to say so for sure, I have to speculate from the numbers provided from LedRush that 4 million might be the individual sales and 15 million would be the pack-in total. However, it's WP:OR to say that explicitly, especially since we don't know what the sources are really counting. We may be comparing apples to oranges here. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 21:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
As I mention above, the source we currently use for the article says that Sonic was on its way to selling a million before it was packed in.LedRush (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to check, but I think it's the Retro Gamer article that says Sonic was packed in on day one. It makes the point of Sega's strategy in developing Sonic and Kalinske's move to have Sega's new mascot packed in immediately because Altered Beast was not helping sales in the "Bible Belt" of the United States due to its occult themes. I'll look it up again tonight; I've got a copy of the issue. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Any other thoughts? As I read the sources, we know that the 15 million number is not talking about total sales, but merely pack-in sales. At the very least, we should say "pack-in only" for 15 million.LedRush (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Rather limited detail in "technical specifications"?!
It seems the tech specs bit is rather sparse, and isn't set up in the comprehensive table format as are many other computer and console entries... is there anything that can be done about this?
For example, is the memory complement complete and accurate? I've come to this article to try and clear up whether a statement and source on the Sega CD article is correct (where it states a figure some 6.5x higher than the combined amount here, but says it's "twice that of the Genesis"), and I'm not sure this actually covers it. There's 72kbyte of main RAM, 64kbyte of VRAM... but is there anything else? 136kbyte is a strange figure after all. Any additional sample memory or the like, to take it up to 160, 192, 224, 256kbyte?
What *speed* does the CPU run at? Again, the Sega CD article says its 12.5Mhz CPU is "5 Mhz faster" than the original, but I could swear I saw the Genesis 68000 listed as a simple, discrete crystal controlled 8Mhz, as per the Macintosh, Atari ST etc, rather than a video processor clock derived 7.14Mhz or so (as per the Amiga and a few others). However, that 12.5Mhz could either be another mathematically simple crystal effort... or it could be an exact +75% speed up from the video chip, which could be quite simply done by having a single high-speed clock serially divided by different amounts for both processors... (7.14* x 1.75 = 12.5...) ((* as derived from an exactly 140ns cycle time))
And, the maximum on-screen colours... isn't that a combination of 32 background and 32 sprite colours (2 x 16 colour palettes in both cases?), IIRC? So it's more likely you'd only ever have 62 colours at once in normal play, except when non-transparent sprites were used to help make more colourful static title screens etc. Usually there would be a note made of such.
(And so-on, and so forth...)
This info is presumably out there somewhere, as it would need to be known in order to create emulators and such... 87.115.171.55 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought process here, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic information to know. Excessive technical specifications tend to be full of jargon and cruft, and also usually contain lots of WP:OR. This isn't a tech manual for the Genesis; it's an encyclopedia article about it, and all of those numbers and figures are not contributing to understanding the Genesis. Please read WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a directory of information. Furthermore, I happen to disfavor the tables as being clunky and just another example of a directory; the prose format is better handled to deal with the necessary information important to understanding the subject of the article. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether we need more information, I do feel .55 has a point if they feel information we currently have may not be accurate. If this article and the Sega CD article have incompatible information on CPU speed and memory as .55 suggests, then one of these articles is incorrect; this is worth following up, even if we don't want to add more information at this point. Aawood (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to find a source, but I don't believe there is an inaccuracy here. CPU speed for the Genesis, as I recall while flipping through sources, is 7.6 MHz, which makes the 12.5 MHz Sega CD approximately 5 MHz faster and the statement accurate. Also, the confusion about the RAM add ups here is because the sources actually cite two different units; read closely. While this likely should be converted, Sega CD's figures aren't in megabytes, but megabits. For whatever reason the sources vary, and I rewrote both articles at two different times. This also means the RAM amount in Sega CD is not nearly as high as is being assumed. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 13:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
On that note, I did find a potential discrepancy in that the Allgame article actually uses the term "available RAM". To what exactly they're referring to is ambiguous, so I have removed that particular statement from the Sega CD article, and I don't see it taking anything away from that article. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sales figures and the issue involved
Okay, so here we go again, folks. In order for this article ever to reach FA status, we have to hash out these sales figures and come to a firm consensus about this.
So, what's the problem? The problem is that several reliable sources seem to contradict one another. Without an actual figure from Sega, and with so many variations manufactured by third parties, it's pretty hard to say for sure what sales are for what. I'll list some of what's in debate below, so everyone can see:
Man!ac Magazine, a German publication, lists 29 million units sold as of May 1995.
It's also worth noting that this is the only source that lists 665,000 Sega 32X units sold, as most others put it around 200,000, so there is a possibility this may be a gross overestimate.
IGN: An article by Levi Buchanan, an IGN staff member, lists 29 million units sold worldwide.
Indrian claims this article is full of inaccuracies and can't be relied on.
Anomie, on the other hand, claims larger numbers may come from sources where units were counted twice, due to "stealth advertising" or compared with units manufactured instead.
Retro Gamer magazine places its estimate between 30 and 35 million
New York Times says "some 20 million sold in the United States alone"
There are also numbers provided in the article to add up to 20.4 million sold in the US.
In an interview with Sega-16, former Sega of America R&D head Joe Miller said about 40 million units were sold.
Wired and GamePro also agree on 29 million units sold worldwide.
I think what would be safe to assume here, from my standpoint, is that they're all correct in some form or another. The question is going to be what they're counting, because there is so much to count here. Aside from Joe Miller, who is a former Sega employee, nothing even comes close to "41.7 million", and I think we're hitting a big WP:SYN issue because we can't splice all of these numbers together like this. There has to be a better way to handle it than how we have in the article. Thoughts, suggestions, consensus? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 13:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, the smoking gun in all this is the 29 million figure in the German magazine in the middle of 1995. This means that any of the recent sources that are providing a 29 million lifetime sales figure are most likely using outdated information since we can actually pin that figure to a specific date that occurred before the Genesis was discontinued. Since Sega was focused on the Saturn by that time, it would not surprise me if 1995 was the last year that Sega and/or the retail tracking agencies released comprehensive sales figures to the public, which would explain why later sources have been stuck in that point in time. I personally think the safest thing to do is state that as of 1995, the Genesis was estimated to have sold 29 million units. Then, we can give a few specific figures like the New York Times U.S. figure and some of the Majesco sales figures after that to provide further context. I am against estimating a final number, because this appears to fall out of the scope of SUM and into the realm of OR. All of this should be prefaced by a statement that Sega has not released final sales figures to the public. Finally, Joe Miller should probably not be used as a source since he is far out of line with all other estimates and can be considered unreliable since he is trying to recall a figure from memory years after the fact. I am certainly open to a different approach than the one outlined above, but I am adamantly opposed to claiming 29 million as an accurate final tally, because that number has been clearly contradicted. Indrian (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that 1995 was the end of its lifetime, 29 million is probably accurate up until the end of 1994, and since support was cut off early in 1995, that's probably a good figure for how many it sold in its "lifetime" before the Saturn release. 32X was already out by this point, and progress was heading in the direction of 32-bit consoles, with Saturn excitement starting. It's not, however, how many overall have sold. Can we really preface with a statement that Sega has not released final sales figures if we don't have a reliable source that says they never did? For all we know, they could have and nobody knows about it. We can't say it if we can't show it, and I think it throws up red flags if we're going to push forward with this article as I"m planning. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 14:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
My 2¢: you have IGN and Wired, sources with editorial oversight, agreeing on 29M. While that slippery truth is desirable, WP cares more about the reliable secondary sources than the accurate synthesized truth. And with cause! (This said, one of y'all could probably write a nice article on this topic to be published in a magazine, which would then find its way back here...) If you want to add and qualify other estimates after the 29M, sure, okay, but I'd recommend not beating this to death, for your own sanity. 29M. czar♔ 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
People often bring this up in regards to this issue, but it does not apply. Verifiability not truth relates more to opinion and analysis, areas where there is not a "right" or a "wrong" answer. "Truth" in the philosophical since, not "factually accurate." The policy is not meant to defend shoddy research where the basic facts, which can only be "right" or "wrong", are at issue. Twenty-nine million is a demonstrably false number, and just because a generally reputable site publishes something does not automatically mean they got their facts right. If the best book on World War II ever written by the most accomplished World War II scholar the world has ever known stated that Pearl Harbor was bombed on November 8, 1942, we would not include that information on wikipedia. If you simply must have a policy rationale, then this is exactly what WP:IGNORE is made for. Anyway, I want to see this article reach FA, but I will categorically oppose any FA candidacy for an article that includes a statement to the effect that the lifetime sales of the Genesis were 29 million. This is demonstrably false based on reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between a WWII scholar's typo and a number generally cited by multiple, main RS in a field. I think it's silly to hold the article's FAC hostage over this one point, but it's your ballgame. czar♔ 17:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Accuracy is of paramount importance (and no, truth and accuracy are not the same thing). When a fact is demonstrably false through information contained in reliable sources, that fact has no place on wikipedia. Its really that simple. Indrian (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:CALC isn't OR. Otherwise we never would have settled this when Anomie took it to everywhere he could think of in Wikipedia, only finding more people to agree that WP:CALC is not OR and that these are reliable sources. It says it has to be reflective of the sources; well the 1st party numbers add up to 35.4 million, we have one source that estimated 35 million, so this makes sense. The US sales numbers by year add up to the NYT's statement. The sources are there, and they don't need any OR writing on top of them. Wording can be tweaked, we have good writers. We could even say that as of (insert month) in 1995 the Genesis had sold up to 29 million units, because that's the earliest we have a source that hits that number. Part of Wikipedia's goal is to be informative, and to show what sources say. I presume that's why you point out all three different sales numbers for the Sega CD, right? So throwing out the yearly sales numbers which we have good sources on shouldn't be on the table. We don't need to preface with "Sega never published", I actually took that out in the version that passed GA. We know the first party Sega Genesis was discontinued in 1997, not 19995. "Stealth advertising"? We have reliable sources, they were from publications made during the time. They were online for all to read during the last discussions that took place about this. Some are still online. Tell me, is CVG stealth advertising? Is the NYT stealth advertising or inflating? Is that their (the NYT's) typical practice, or how we typically look at it when NYT's sources are added to articles?--SexyKick 15:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Calc applies to basic arithmetic, which we do not have here, and I doubt that the problems with this approach were completely articulated in previous debates. We have no proof that like numbers are being added. For example, are sources reporting units shipped to retailers, or sell through at retail? Manufacturers sometimes use the one metric and sometimes the other. They call both of these metrics "sales" indiscriminatley, and they often do not indicate which metric they are actually using. There is no guarantee that the various sources are using the same metric for sales. As soon as we decided the numbers can be added together because they are measuring like attributes, we are making a judgment call about the figures. That is original research. Now, I have no problem with any of those figures being discussed in the article when they are from reliable sources, but we should not be assuming a total when we cannot prove the numbers should be added together. Indrian (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
They were all reporting sell through. Sources that reported anticipations, or shipped units were initially found, noted as such, but then passed over as actual sales sources were found. They're sales for calendar years IIRC (as all the dates for the articles are in January, apart from 1993's sales), but that's why the fact they were online for all to read during the last discussion is important. Furthermore, we have the New York Times as the source of evidence that the total is an accurate estimate.--SexyKick 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I really don't feel strongly about this issue (unlike, say, the 29 million figure thing above). I remain skeptical that we are reporting accurate numbers this way, but because we are clearly marking it as an estimate, the reader knows what he is getting into. I won't fight this one. Indrian (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did use a range in the Sega CD article, but I stated it was a set of estimates and didn't disclaim any set of numbers. I'm still not pleased with what I did with estimates for Sega 32X, using just the Man!ac article's 665k when almost EVERY other source says 200k. In the case of this article, I have similar concerns to those of Indrian, and that we'd be best off not to have any WP:SYN and approach it like I did in Sega CD: cite a range of estimates and say nothing as to whether or not Sega ever released figures, because there's no reliable source that says whether they did or not. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
So what would you want to change in the revision of the text that was there when the article passed GA?--SexyKick 05:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Note the GA review specifically said "I'll trust you all to come to a sensible conclusion". Taking that as an endorsement of the then-current state of the article is incredibly dishonest. Anomie⚔ 18:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, I see this is probably not going to reach any easy resolution, just as in the past the resolution was effectively a war of attrition followed by the only side left declaring victory. Some notes of my own:
Interesting that Man!ac also has an excessively high figure for the 32X. Do we have a legible scan of this magazine article? Does it specify whether it's units sold, units shipped, or units manufactured?
@Anomie:Here, courtesy of SexyKick after a discussion we had before Sega 32X was GA reviewed. It does list a source as well, and I've ran the German through a Google Translate, it doesn't say a whole lot. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 03:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. All I found earlier was a version linked from an old discussion here with text too small and blurred to be read. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting new interview with Joe Miller. Although I find it a little odd that he specifically adds up all the variations excluding Majesco but doesn't seem very confident in his total. BTW, I found this comment in Sega-16's forums amusing, and it does raise the question.
That Joe Miller interview brings up a question about that New York Times 20 million number: Does the 20 million already include Nomad, and possibly the Majesco sales Mr. Miller didn't remember?
I really do think that adding up all those different sources to reach 20.4 million US is WP:SYN. Do they all clearly reference calendar years rather than financial years? Are they all the same of units sold/shipped/manufactured, or might some be different? Do they already include Nomad sales? Of the two sources online:
[11]: I wonder what comes after "Nintendo's director of marketing, Bill White, disputing Sega's figures, says …"? I also note it says "Sega sold", not "Sega of America sold". And it says they sold 4.5 million "game sets", which makes me wonder "What exactly is a 'game set'? Could that include Master Systems and/or Game Gears?"
"Nintendo's director of marketing, Bill White, disputing Sega's figures, says Nintendo still holds a commanding position in the market. He said after the 1992 sales year it controls 70 percent of the 16-bit market with its Super Nintendo system." followed by summaries of N's Super FX chip and S's Activator. Forward all thanks to the UW library czar♔ 00:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Nothing useful for this discussion, unfortunately. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
[12]: "estimates extrapolated front NPD Group's Toy Retail Statistical Tracking Service". Extrapolated from the NPD numbers by whom? And I note that the Nomad is also a "16-bit console".
I don't know that this has been noted before, but I see that the WP:SYN numbers for US sales give 16.8 by 1994 and 18.9 million by 1995, which contradicts the vaunted Man!ac magazine's 14 million published in mid-1995 through the end of 1994. To me, that makes it seem even less likely that the WP:SYN numbers are accurate.
I still don't buy the arguments that somehow every mainstream source (except for one New York Times author, somehow) got 29 million from a German magazine and never sought updated figures, while random people pulling numbers off of blogs can come up with an accurate figure. It sounds just as likely as the theory that Man!ac has the total number manufactured up until Sega of Japan discontinued the console in 1995, with that inventory being sold over the next few years to reach the 29 million in sales reported by the other sources.
With this new Joe Miller interview we could probably craft a decent paragraph summarizing the situation. Maybe somewhere along the lines of "Official sales numbers from Sega have not been found. Mainstream reliable sources have reported sales estimates of 29 million[1][2] to 35 million.[3] In 2013, Joe Miller, Sega of America R&D Head until 1997, estimated slightly over 40 million in an interview with Sega-16.[4] Fans dispute the lower figures, pointing to a Man!ac article from mid 1995 that states 29 million (along with an unusually high figure for the Sega 32X) at that early date;[5] combining best-case numbers from numerous sources, they have claimed totals as high as 41.4 million.[6]" But that doesn't help with deciding what number(s) to put in the infobox or in other articles. Anomie⚔ 18:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll reply later when I've slept, however the 1994 sales source specifies 32X sales as well.--SexyKick 00:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Your source says Sega sold 500,000 32X units in 1994 (which would be lifetime sales) in same sentence where it says Genesis sold 4 million units, and Man!ac says 300,000 units US and 665,000 units worldwide through the end of 1994. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple more figures from some further digging. A Fort-Worth Star Telegram article from February 1995 claims that the 32X has sold over 500,000 units since release. A January 1995 Rocky Mountain News Article claims there are 18 million Genesis systems in US homes, which actually lines up well with the Synth figures and contradicts the Man!ac source. Please do remember, however, that when discussing sales figures from various sources, most of them are probably estimates from analysts and retail tracking companies, and even officially released sales figures are often inflated in some way through clever reporting and accounting tricks. This is why trying to discern a "lifetime sales figure" is not really a good idea, and we should just stick to reporting those figures present in reliable sources. (Which, of course, do not include any source giving a 29 million lifetime figure, as any source making that claim is unreliable on its face due to proven use of incomplete sales data.) Indrian (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Still digging, and I will continue to add any new figures I find to this post. In a March 1995 interview, Victor Ireland of Working Designs estimated there were 15 million Genesis units and one million Sega CD units in the United States. Ok, the more I dig, the more that 18 million seems like a mistake. It could be a typo (the article says 18 million and 18% of US households, so maybe they repeated the number by mistake), or maybe the reporter confused current systems with systems projected by the end of the year. Anyway, I found an April article from a paper called the Delaware County Daily Times that states Sega has sold more than 15 million Genesis systems in the United States. This is fast becoming a consensus figure among publications in early 1995. And another vote for 15 million Genesis sales and 500,000 32X sales, this time from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in April 1995. Moving on to November 24, 1995, we now have the Kansas City Star reporting an estimated 16 million Genesis systems sold in the U.S. By July 1996, the Toronto Star is reporting 18 million Genesis units sold in the US. I will finish this post by stating that whoever it was above that stated that somehow one New York Times author came up with a different figure than other sources should know there is a difference between what is available through a Google search and what one can find through doing actual research. The San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times both give the over 20 million figure for U.S. Genesis sales in 1998, and there are undoubtedly more newspapers that did so as well that I do not have access too. Going to the Internet for historical data from before the early 2000s is never going to return very good results. Indrian (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"most of them are probably estimates" indeed. I wonder where all these local papers are getting theirs. Maybe we should just see what VGChartz has to say? Anomie⚔ 21:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
All of those newspapers are reliable sources. Your disdain for proper research is appalling and has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Now do you have something to contribute to this discussion, or are you just here to disparage the entire journalism trade? Indrian (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and just in case you were actually interested in the answer to your own question, these types of figures come from three primary sources: the companies themselves, retail tracking services like the NPD, and financial analysts. Incidentally, these are the same three sources all figures still come from today. The video game industry does not release figures in the same way the book publishing, movie, and music industries do, so all we have is estimates from the trackers and often inflated figures from publishers. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's what makes figuring out video game sales so frustrating. Indrian (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's disdain for proper research, Indrian. I've known Anomie since before I retired in 2008, and I've known you since we worked together on Sega v. Accolade, and both of you are excellent editors who do know much about reliable sourcing. I think Anomie's frustration with this, though, come from this drawn out discussion and the WP:SYN potential we've been looking at with the current number and the way it's handled in the article. But that's exactly why we're researching and talking about it now is to fix it. That being said, Anomie does have a slight point in something you just said: The video game industry doesn't release figures in the same way, and if nothing else, the problems we've had here with figuring out the sales numbers are proof of that. My take on all of it together is that we should use reliable sources, cross-reference them with the dates they were published, eliminate any non-reliable sources and those we know are drawing on old statistics—WP:IGNORE, if necessary—and put together the best single range of estimates (at a couple of various time points if necessary, i.e. end of 1994 and lifetime estimates) without synthesizing numbers to put together a sales total estimate that makes sense and isn't WP:OR. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 23:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me. Indrian (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
On the Man!ac source
Check the scan out. The scan from Man!ac indicates that they received their numbers from Robertson Stephens, Sega, Nintendo... etc. If that's the case, what are the odds the 29 million number is Sega's number they released at the end of 1994? I'd presume that Sega sourced their own numbers for the article and not those of someone else. It would also explain the widespread "29 million" figure that's been published in the media widespread and why the usual reliable sources have that number. Seems like Indrian may have been on to something here. The question, then, would be how many sold during their decaying years, during Majesco's years with Genesis 3, etc. Nomad was released after 1994, so that would not be part of those figures, either. Perhaps we do have an official figure after all, just not at the right time that we're looking for. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 13:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Been out of the loop for a few days, so I will respond to a couple points from a couple different parts of this discussion here. First of all, yes as you pointed out Man!ac is going straight to the source to get its figures. That does not mean they are necessarily 100% accurate, since some of what they have been fed are probably estimates, while Sega and Nintendo could be doing clever manipulations of their numbers regarding "shipped in" and "sell through," but its pretty obvious that every recent publication claiming a 29 million lifetime figure are pulling from this data. Further up, someone wonders why current sources are pulling from a random German magazine, but that poster is missing the point. No, current sources are not aping that magazine; they are aping the reliable figures released during that time period, which no doubt appeared in multiple publications. If we could find an EGM or a Business Wire press release from that same period, we would probably find the same number. And since 1994 was the last year Sega focused on the Genesis, I would not be surprised at all if that is the last year that Sega publicly released a comprehensive sales breakdown for the system. Still, it is clear that any modern retrospective reporting 29 million in sales is using outdated information. This is why I will flatly oppose any attempt to use the 29 million as a lifetime sales figure, even with qualifiers like "some sources claim" or "estimates range from" or what have you. Since this figure can be conclusively proven to have appeared at a time before the Genesis was discontinued worldwide, it is a demonstrably false final figure, and any source quoting that figure can therefore be considered unreliable on its face, even if the article appeared in a generally reliable source. For the rest, I think these are probably end of 1994 figures, but to make that claim would be OR without further information. I think the best we can do is say that "as of <magazine date> Sega was reported to have sold 29 million Genesis consoles worldwide" or something to that effect. Then we can append the more recent figures we have for specific markets after that. Indrian (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
We could, however, say that 29 million were sold by the end of 1994 (and Man!ac does say on the article that all sales are to the end of 1994 in the article). Given this, I still have to believe the Retro Gamer estimate between 30 to 35 million is probably the closest one we have, especially given the console still ran although in a limited run compared to Saturn at the time. I'm still not seeing the "41.7 million". Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 17:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I forgot they specifically said end of 1994. So yes, I think we should go with a "by the end of 1994, Sega had sold 29 million systems." Also, I did a little more digging and found another article that really sheds no further light on this, but I figure I'll present it here. A USA Today article from September 26, 1996, includes an analyst estimate that 15.6 million Genesis systems were still in use in the United States. This has nothing to do with sell-through, as it does not count scrapped systems or systems gathering dust in closets, but its another figure for context. Indrian (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
What we can safely say so far
I think after our discussions so far, we can safely say the following things:
29 million Genesis units were sold worldwide by the end of 1994. Not only does Man!ac source this to Sega themselves, but the consistency of this number across several other reliable sources also indicates this as possibly being the only number Sega released, or at least the most commonly known.
In 1995, Genesis was shifted away from to focus on the Sega Saturn, but not officially discontinued.
Even so, Majesco rereleased the console after discontinuation and sold approximately 2 million units, however I have some concerns about the source used in the article. I have personal experience with Sega-16, as I used it both in 2007-2008 before my retirement from Wikipedia and in the current day as well, and before about 2009, Sega-16 primarily relied on user-submitted content, including the article cited in our article—although that Sega-16 article lists its sources, if we could track it back. Nowadays a lot of their content is supplied by a solid staff, including a professor whose writing works on video games have been published in several video game magazines, but older archived content from Sega-16 is sketchy at best.
1 million Nomad units were sold, according to GamePro, but should that count as Genesis units? It could if we decide it does, as the Nomad was basically a portable Genesis. On a side note, I'm still planning to rewrite Sega Nomad, but I haven't been able to get access to Retro Gamer issue 69 yet, which features a "Retroinspection" on the Nomad.
Retro Gamer claims 30-35 million units, which may be a little low at the bottom end if Nomad and Genesis 3 are added in. The upper end of these numbers are also supported by part of the current WP:SYN research that shows close to 3 million units sold in North America between 1995 and 1997, when Majesco took over.
Joe Miller, former Sega of America R&D head, has claimed 40 million lifetime units, but he was a Sega employee and it might be tough to discount possible conflict of interest, even though it was a while ago.
Third-party variations are going to be a real pain here. None of them really sold a bunch (Pioneer LaserActive, anyone?), but it's pretty likely those aren't counted, although they likely won't make much of a dent on the number.
So where are we? What we really need to do is define our parameters. As I'm seeing it, I think the safest bet is the Retro Gamer estimate of 30-35 million units, likely edging toward the upper end, but I'd think we'd cite that number. We could list the Majesco number as well as the Nomad number, but not make any implication at all as to whether or not those numbers are combined in that estimate or not (likely not IMO, but the article doesn't say that, so that'd be OR to say that). That's just what I"m seeing at this point. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't find anything to greatly disagree with in this analysis, but it's not a solid wording yet. I'd explicitly state that it's not known whether any of these numbers include Nomad sales or sales by Majesco, Tec Toy, or any other third-party. If we get into the NYT 20 million US number I suspect Nomad is included there given Joe Miller's comment, but of course we don't know either way. Anomie⚔ 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Normally I'm a big believer in acting on my analyses per WP:BOLD, but that's exactly why I haven't implemented it yet; even I'm not sure I have it solid just yet. The one problem I have with an explicit statement, though, is that that raises a red flag to anyone reading the article, and thus is a bad idea if the goal is to send this article to WP:FAC. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not confident that we can come up with a wording that mentions Majesco and Nomad numbers that doesn't imply one way or another on the inclusion question, without explicitly stating that the sources don't specify whether they include those numbers or not. Anomie⚔ 02:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps they're best not mentioned, then? Nomad numbers will definitely go into the Sega Nomad article once I get that rewritten. My concern is, how many other companies have sales figures for this? Majesco, Samsung, Tectoy, Pioneer, JVC, Aiwa, Amstrad... the list just goes on, and are they all treated as Sega's sales too? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 03:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Likely we'd never find numbers for most of those companies anyway, and you're right, that most of them probably wouldn't make a dent. What we are guaranteed to have is "by the end of 1994", blah blah, which it already says in the article, and then we have this list of reliable sources that (btw are not WP:SYNTH like you keep asserting) happen to total up to what three newspapers confirm for end of 1997 totals. It is completely known that Majesco isn't included in those. Where's the disconnect for you in the journal sources Phoenix? What OR statements are in the article right now? Are there inaccurate statements that do not reflect what reliable sources say? Let me break 41.4 down for you. 29 minus 14, plus 20.4 for end of 1997 US (which, if that .4 is such a problem, pretend it's not there - we have three newspaper sources for 20 million at this point), now we're at 35.4, we add on the Nomad, and we're at 36.4, we add on the Tectoy 3 million sales, and we're at 39.4, and when we add in Majesco's 1-2 million, we're at 40.4-41.4 million. Writing a total is okay per WP:CALC. We had a large majority of editors that agreed these numbers were okay to add, it wasn't iron clad consensus because a couple of editors wanted to stick with 29 million. What I don't like, is Anomie's insinuation of WP:OR when he was perfectly fine when the article had said that the Genesis was discontinued in 1995, cited Kent's book, and it doesn't even say that in the book at all. The Super NES is tied for my favorite system, I paid attention to this generation throughout the 90's, it's why I'm able to recall specific things and was able to research where the sources are. I don't see why anyone would compare a newspaper or magazine source that cites the NPD, to VGchartz. I would compare IGN to the New York Times as the mad daughter to a sane mother. They're still both reliable sources, but one just doesn't hold the same reputation for accuracy. I respect you Anomie, I really do, and I know that to a certain extent you respect me too. But, you are not making much sense to me when it comes to thorough source representation. We have reliable sources, we're not making anything up. Writing in that "fans dispute" blah blah, is actually what WP:OR is talking about. What reliable source says that?--SexyKick 03:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would go with the 29 million by the end of 1994 number as it has the most sources, with the later numbers every thing seems quite unclear and you have to remember that officially licensed "Mega Drives" are still being sold today and it doesn't look like any one is counting sales for themTechnotopia (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not just remove the NA history? Isn't the 20 million enough? For example, I could take this article and break down 1989 and 1990 sales. Now I'm leaning towards 21 million. Does that not contradict the Discount Store News? « Ryūkotsusei » 22:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I like this idea; we've had a couple of sources say 20 million in NA, so why even use synthesized numbers when we have solid ones that say the same for those? My concern is the worldwide figures above that and what really goes into what. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Silence...
I hope we haven't forgotten the goal of an FA here. I apologize that I've been quite busy; when you work in the retail industry, this is a tough season to focus during, and available time is thin. I don't think we're too far off; if we get sales figures solved, I think we're about there. I've recently been made aware of a whole issue of Retro Gamer devoted to the console as sort of an all-encompassing issue about the Genesis, so I'd like to pick that up soon and use it to finish up the soft areas in this article and get it all tightened up before an FA run. Time is going to be very limited for me at least until January, so progress is likely to be slow, but I am still planning to push this article forward. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 04:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, content-wise, I think we are pretty much there. I am sure there is some polishing that can still be done -- and in fact I have done a little rewriting just today -- but I don't see any serious obstacles to bringing the article to FAC and getting more feedback there. I think we are really close. Indrian (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I can see that; I'd still like to go through and make sure we have no bad templates, i.e. citation needed or dead link, as I know it was recently tagged with a couple which should need just some quick fixes. Are we in agreement about the sales figures, then? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks to me like the article is currently back to the OR BS. Anomie⚔ 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reservations about some of the Brazil figures and the Nomad stuff, but to call the whole thing BS betrays your lack of desire to be constructive regarding this issue. To answer Red Phoenix, my position on the sales figures remains as before: 29 million by the end of 1994 is the only fully reliable total we have. I would personally abandon the ultimately fruitless attempt to give a final lifetime sales figure. There was a mighty big discussion on all this though, and a consensus was reached that giving an estimate based on WP:SUM was okay. I am not entirely convinced, but since the article is clear that the final tally is only an estimate, I don't see how providing these figures actually harms the article. Therefore, I am willing to bow to consensus on this. The only course of action I would vigorously object to would be attempting to represent 29 million as a final lifetime sales figure. Indrian (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it indicates that I'm sick of people pushing WP:OR figures and claiming they have consensus for it because the same two people post reams of text over and over again. #What we can safely say so far is IMO a decent summary of the situation. Anomie⚔ 11:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Actually I think you and I are largely in agreement on the facts; I'm just not as interested in fighting about it. Honestly just taking the article to FAC will probably sort out the issue, because if the reviewers there are unhappy with the math, it will force a change regardless of any consensus on the article talk page. Indrian (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to think we should have a backup plan in case. Retro Gamer's estimate of 30-35 million consoles sold is probably the best ballpark of that range, and getting into the range itself is Joe Miller's 40 million comment to Sega-16, but he's a primary source as a former Sega of America R&D head. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
nonconstructive comments from 82.47.201.61
Until the name is fixed and we have stability I don't see how FA can ever be achieved.82.47.201.61 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is perfectly stable, because even though whiners like you bring up the name on the talk page from time to time, the article itself has not changed names recently because most people on both sides of the name debate are smart enough to realize that it really does not matter much at the end of the day. I have my own preference, which I have never divulged in all the pointless name arguments I have deliberately avoided, but at the end of the day, the factual accuracy of the article is more important than what we call it. Indrian (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you use the word 'we' as if you are a contributor to the encyclopedia? --SubSeven (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, there went your credibility on this issue. Indrian (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
User:82.47.201.61 needs to be trout slapped: I have yet to see you constructively contribute at all to the article and to the naming debate. It's erroneous to you, but consensus disagrees. Frankly, I'm sick of your jingoism and can assure you that you will be blocked if you keep it up. If you want the name change so bad, be the change and bring something new to the table. Don't just keep complaining here and trying to get your way by being an annoyance to the people who are trying to contribute to this article. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus.... 82.47.201.61 (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus to change anything at this time. There is a consensus that any further debate without bringing something new to the discussion is disruptive, which is exactly what you're doing. Continuing to argue it until you're blue in the face and making nationalist remarks just because it isn't going your way is only going to serve to annoy those you're speaking with and make them take you less seriously. You're free to disagree (as I do, I also happen to be more partial to "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis" and have voiced that on several occasions in the past), but drop the jingoist remarks and get a WP:CLUE. The Genesis people haven't won out because there's a lot of them and they're all from North America—they've done so through logical reasoning and presentation of solid points that go deeper than nation of patronage. I'm an American who favors "Mega Drive", I'm not the only one, and I know of at least one British editor who favors "Sega Genesis". Put the insults aside; you're not doing yourself any favors by yelling your point over and over again. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 03:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yet another IP address with no edits other than this talk page and some attitude as the others. Special:Contributions/82.47.201.61 Can we just block IP addresses from this talk page? DreamFocus 17:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The IP was blocked, and then, right on queue User:Technotopia showed up who is very likely a sock of that IP user. (Or vice-versa.) And who, in any case, has had all the same problems.
Note that Technotopia has been blocked for two weeks. Any edits by sockpuppets can be reverted on sight (and should result in an extension of his block). --NeilNtalk to me 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
So, to bring this back on topic, there are two courses of action I see happening next. First, we should probably submit the article for a formal copyedit to clear up any prose issues. Second, if we really care about revisiting the sales figures, we should probably take it to the videogame project to find a larger consensus. If we are happy moving forward with the sales figures and just seeing what FAC says about them, then I would just say run the copyedit, make sure the image rights and sources are in order, and then submit. I am content either way on sales figures, but I fully understand why there may still be some concerns. Just my two cents. Indrian (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That or possibly an RFC on the sales figures to hash it out could work, too. Per something a user said above in my "What we can safely say so far" section above, it's not necessarily a bad idea to drop the North American addition because we do have a source that says 20 million in North America (The New York Times), which is what the numbers added up to. I have a couple of source concerns in there, though, most notably with the Sega-16 source used for the Majesco numbers. Now, Sega-16 has much improved in recent years thanks to its staff, and their contributions in video game publishing and reputation, such as Retro Gamer's citation of their material, establish them as a reliable source now, but it is not the same website it was in 2004, when it relied on user-submitted content, which is what the archived article used for that source is. That's also likely the reason it's not still on Sega-16 anymore, either. Unless we can track back where that number comes from, I don't think we can really use it. In the sales figures, as I read it, it's also unclear where we get 35 million, although I'm speculating that's WP:SYN from the 29 million number with 14 million in the US, plus the 6 million between 1995 and 1998 sold in North America during that time. In any regard, it's not clearly spelled out how or where that number came from. Biggest concern I have is wondering what numbers count what, since there are so many third-party variations and still are today, and that's why I disagree with the calculated numbers, just because we don't know what we're counting. We have safely eliminated 29 million as a figure, and have established it as an "end of 1994" figure, so that might serve as a "lifetime" sales before the shift to Saturn focus when it was an active product. My thought is that the safest thing to say is that it sold 29 million by the end of Sega's focus on it at the end of 1994, and a total of 35-40 million worldwide, using Retro Gamer and the Joe Miller interview with Sega-16 to cite that, including 20 million in North America, citing The New York Times. That's a simple enough breakdown that should satisfy all ends, isn't it? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 19:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
@SexyKick: Would you agree with this? I know you've been a staunch defender of the summative numbers, but I think this suggestion resolves that concern and gives us a sourced estimate close to what we've added up, right in that ballpark. Accuracy-wise, I can better see how the numbers fall between 35 and 40 million with what we have and what we've hashed out, but I wanted to ask you first before I make the changes. Just to highlight, these are the premises: 29 million by end of 1994 (and end of Sega's focus on Genesis, sourced by Man!ac), 35-40 million overall (sourced by Retro Gamer and Sega-16's interview with Joe Miller), and 20 million in the US (sourced by the New York Times). No mention of Tec Toy sales, Majesco sales, etc. due to sourcing issues, and I'm not really sure we need those anyway since they may not count as they're not Sega's sales. Nomad sales may or may not be in the 35-40 million, so I wouldn't want to add that number into the count either, but its number of 1 million is in the newly rewritten Sega Nomad.Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, I would be comfortable copyediting the article myself with a set of fresh eyes, given that it's been a few weeks since I've really touched the content. Submission to FAC can hammer out any major issues after that, but anyone who's seen the GA reviews I conduct periodically knows I'm a stickler for grammar and sentence fluency (e.g. Talk:Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep/GA1. @Indrian: If we can hash out a quick agreement on the sales figures (and I've elaborated my thoughts above), I'd be glad to do the copyedit and then submit it for FAC as a co-nomination with yourself, User:SexyKick, and, if he returns from wikibreak, User:KieferSkunk. In recent weeks this has really become a total team project and I'm proud to have worked alongside everyone here. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 20:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I would be honored to be part of a co-nomination with you and would certainly be on hand to help with any issues that arise during the FAC process. Indrian (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, this is the second article you've helped me with, Indrian. I could think of nothing better than to do a co-nomination. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Issues I feel that go along with, or before the copy edit is the loss of information about the current status of things. I want to add the thing about Fix It Felix Jr. from Kotaku, and the third paragraph of the lead really suffered from the rewrite, since before it was a lot more accurate, and yes we needed to talk about some of those things more in the article. Before it said licensed variations of the console are still on sale, I've posted a source for it somewhere in this now super long talk page, I believe it was from Euro Gamer. Before it mentioned homebrew roms, and video game remixes, etc. and I believe it should go back to that, and whatever sources we need, there are sources for that we can add. I know there were at least two remix albums. One from the Sonic games, and one for Genesis games period. It had remixes from games like Altered Beast and Toe Jam & Earl, so maybe I can find something on the internet talking about those. On the sales, I don't want us to jump the gun, I really want to know what the FAC Reviewer says. Most people don't bring this up as an issue, and it got to this state from the large discussion that the Video Games Project had on it in 2011. So, if it will be an issue, they will bring it up, but until then I believe it's more thorough and informative as it currently stands.--SexyKick 10:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm a tad bit worried about due weight if we bring back most of the home-brew section, as it's not really too relevant to the console itself other than to say that it exists. That's part of why I'm glad the article does mention the existence of emulators and the games Beggar Prince, Legend of Wukong, and Pier Solar and the Great Architects, but I think the GA reviewer had it right in that case. If we haven't yet, I believe we mentioned moving the bit about the Firecore down to the last section about legacy, but simply never did that. Also, just a heads-up on procedure: there's not a single FAC reviewer: FACs are processed by consensus and it's expected that multiple people will review the article and provide feedback. Images will also be checked for appropriate fair-use and spread in the article, sources will be reviewed for reliability (which is why I'm so insistent on the older Sega-16 source used for Majesco numbers not being used because I don't think it is reliable), and it's also likely given the history of this article that there will be a full source spot-check to make sure everything is sourced accurately, no original research is present, and nothing is plagiarized from a source. It's a rather comprehensive process, much deeper than a GAN. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
While I've been posting sources, today's edit made me recall another book that I haven't been able to get my hands on that could be used to get information relative to the article. It is for sale here on Amazon.--SexyKick 15:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that is more or less the Sega history from Eidolon's Inn in book form. If that is the case, it is full of bias, factual errors, and inconsistencies and documents none of its sources. I would not trust it for any information. Indrian (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You know what they say; anyone can pay to have a book published. I've recently done so myself. In any regard, I'm looking to pick up an issue of Retro Gamer all about the Genesis in itself, which should go deeper than the Retroinspection article I've used already. I do feel the article is pretty significantly deep already, but I do worry about factors such as sales figures and a couple of sources in the article, so anything that can help, will. Unfortunately, it's a tough season for me since I work in retail, and anyone who's ever done that in their life knows what November and December are like, so time is very limited right now for me. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
In response to "First, we should probably submit the article for a formal copyedit to clear up any prose issues." -- I would be happy to get into the nuts and bolts of grammar, but my edit was undone without comment. I suppose every sentence has already been debated to death given the state of the talk page. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not important if there have been past discussions. I just wanted to offer my help and/or mention that Wikipedia is living up to its reputation. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Possible new facts
I've finally got a hold of Retro Gamer's "The Mega Drive Book", which I'm going to start reading through. Hopefully it may be able to be a good reference and shed some light on some things about the console for us. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's something already. This special issue is just a collaboration of several past Retro Gamer articles, but also includes a retrospective of Sonic the Hedgehog, and that article mentions that the Mega Drive (using their term, since they're a British publication) sold 40 million worldwide. At last I think we have some support underneath the upper-end numbers of Genesis sales through a reliable source. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
(sort of fits in this topic) the statement about Parliament should be clarified to be in line with its source.--SexyKick 04:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Lead Rewrite
Per FAC, I have begun a complete overhaul of the lead at User:Indrian/sandbox by blending elements of both the current lead and Red Phoenix's version with a few additions of my own. It is nowhere near finished yet, but suggestions and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Indrian (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now finished my first pass at a new lead, which can be found at the link above. I want to emphasize that this is a rough draft version and I myself do not consider it ready for deployment. It is far enough along though, that I think it best to garner feedback from other interested editors. It addresses some of the concerns raised at FAC about length and technical details while providing at least a sentence or two of coverage regarding every major section of the article. I know User:Red Phoenix prefers fewer paragraphs in a lead, but all five in this version are fairly short, so it mostly moves along. Certainly open to finding ways to trim and consolidate though. Anyway, all constructive feedback is welcome. Indrian (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Its captivating, but you're losing me with that second paragraph. I would axe it. Perhaps you're focusing on the wrong details? Shouldn't it be more about the controller? If I recall correctly... didn't everyone like the 6-button? I think that should be part of the last paragraph since you're discussing peripherals. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the second paragraph is a little weak. I'll trim some of the tech; I think I got a little too focused on one reviewer's complaints about lack of technical detail. Indrian (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I trimmed most of the tech and moved a couple other things around so that the paragraph still felt robust enough to stand as its own entity. If we can find a good source praising the controller, I would be happy to add something about that to the lead as well. Let me know what you think. Indrian (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
We have one in the article at the moment. It's mentioned in the legacy section.--SexyKick 00:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You're right! I will consider how to incorporate that. Any thoughts on my rewrite yet? Indrian (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't like that again the mention of the console currently still being sold and games still being developed is removed. I think RedPhoenix made a really good point to the IP about manual of style, and its direction for leads. I want to see how he responds. I'm not the best writer here by any means (one of the worst IMO)...my English is clumsy, even if I can communicate ideas across effectively sometimes.--SexyKick 00:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken on the current stuff being removed. Look in the last paragraph: "Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it." Indrian (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I don't know how, but I missed that whole last paragraph last time I had read it. (I haven't had much time to put into personal projects this week either)--SexyKick 03:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we could change the word "gained" to "endured", I think that's more accurate. The IP commented that he didn't like the word estimated, and I don't think we should really put the 29 million thing in the lead. The Z80 is also the reason the Master System is backwards compatible, so saying it's specifically for sound might be misleading. If we're trashing the 2nd paragraph though, that could be irrelevant. I definitely think it's a much better lead than we currently have. Very impressed, very good job. Also, timeline wise...right now it says by the end of its official discontinuation 40 million units were sold, but I think it's somewhat likely the 40 million includes Majesco's Genesis 3 numbers, so it'd be good to adjust the wording on that in accordance.--SexyKick 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that's right about the Z80, but the Z80 is also included on the System 16 arcade board, so it's not just because of that that it specifically was included as a sound chip. Since we know the Genesis was based off of the System 16, might this have been a drive-by feature that was coincidental and Sega decided that if it would include a Z80 to make it backward compatible, or was that their full intent? It wouldn't be necessary or necessarily encyclopedic, but I'd just love to find that out for my own curiosity. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 04:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
All right, I'm back and can give some input. I'm still not pleased with the idea of 5 paragraphs. I'd be willing to work with 4 because MOS:LEAD allows it, but realistically I'd much prefer a three-paragraph system. Paragraph fluency is one of the most stringent parts of the copyediting I do, and short, choppy paragraphs tend to be problematic for how paragraphs read. Here's what I'm seeing from the lead currently in User:Indrian/sandbox.
The list of distributors seems quite excessive, though it certainly could be put somewhere in the article. If it's decided to keep the list, though, don't forget to add Shaw Wallace in India as the Mega Drive, since we happen to know that one as well and we've really gone all out to get so many regions already.
Paragraphs three and four seem like they could be reworked a little bit into one paragraph. It seems to read a little out of sequence chronologically, and when I read it, it seems to be disordered from an organizational standpoint, as well.
Content-wise, I think the lead is okay in what it says, but did we say everything in the article, too? Do we have it sourced?
Paragraphing I can see is a real issue here, and I still strongly disagree with the IP user's suggestion of 4-5 paragraphs. However, I'm not against the idea of a new lead; in fact, I'm quite honored that it was suggested that we go with the lead I wrote a while ago and the IP user liked that better. Using User:Indrian/sandbox as a content reference, and adding/subtracting just a little bit, here's a suggested lead I will pose, using a more reasonable number of paragraphs, sentence fluency, and clean copyediting. As usual, I'll put it in an archive template, so that it's isolated from the rest of the discussion.
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-bitvideo game console developed, manufactured, and marketed by Sega Enterprises, Ltd. The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Master System. Sega first released the console as the Mega Drive in Japan in 1988, followed by a North American debut under the Genesis moniker in 1989. In 1990, the console was released as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, Ozisoft in Australasia, Shaw Wallace in India, and Tec Toy in Brazil. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy.
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 Motorola 68000 processor as a primary CPU and a Zilog Z80 as a secondary processor specifically for sound. The system supports a library of over 900 games created both by Sega and a wide array of third-party publishers and delivered on ROM-based cartridges. It can also play the complete library of Master System games when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed. The Genesis also benefited from numerous peripherals and several network services, as well as multiple first-party and third-party variations of the console that focused on extending its functionality.
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 gameports, the popularity of the Genesis-exclusive Sonic the Hedgehog series, a wide array of first and third-party sports titles, 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. As this contest drew increasing attention to the video game industry among the general public, the Genesis and several of its highest-profile games gained 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 had sold 40 million units when it was officially discontinued three years later. The console and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third party re-releases of the console are still being produced, and several indie game developers are producing games for it. Many games have also been re-released in compilations for newer consoles and offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.
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.
This, too, is a compromise; a simple 4-paragraph solution with the first introducing the subject, the second talking about its technical aspects, the third its history, and the fourth its legacy. Of course, however, I'd be glad to know what you guys think. It's worth noting, too, that neither Joe Miller nor Retro Gamer say the number is an estimate explicitly on 40 million units. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of saying "three years later" or mentioning its discontinuation as the timeline for 40 million, we can just say "and had sold 40 million units by the end of its life." instead. (this has to do with what I mentioned above)--SexyKick 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I say we go with the version posted here by Red Phoenix that condenses my original with the tweak suggested by SexyKick. Great teamwork on this one guys! I do feel we need to keep the word estimate though. There are no official final figures, so it would be misleading to portray it as such. Retro Gamer and Joe Miller are just guessing even if they are informed guesses. Indrian (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What do we think of fitting in the 6 button somewhere in the lead due to its popularity like Ryuko suggested? And the word "gained" confuses me a little bit in the lead, but it could just be due to the way I read.--SexyKick 05:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I changed gained to attracted. Indrian (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Genesis concept art
For those working on related Sega articles, this new art book could be a potential ref czar♔ 17:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that book looks really exciting. Its actually going to be more than an just art book, as it will include over 20 interviews with Japanese developers including Yu Suzuki, Yuji Naka, the principle designers of Altered Beast, Golden Axe, Revenge of Shinobi, and Streets of Rage, and the lead hardware designer of the system itself. Should be some fantastic material in there. Indrian (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Compromise proposal on Sales Figures
For everyone who's interested in the Sales figure discussion, but also for the involved users: @Anomie:@Indrian:@SexyKick:
I have an interesting compromise proposal to deal with sales figures that will both allow us to cite as many numbers as possible and still get our estimates right. I think such a move would not only be enough to ensure there is no WP:SYN violation, but also to allow for all of the collected information to be shared. We now have a reliable source for the 40 million estimate, in another article from Retro Gamer which estimates total sales for the console at 40 million units as part of a retrospective on Sonic the Hedgehog. Now, as it stands, the article deals with the estimates by using two separate sections; I think we can do it with one, and in a very organized, unsynthesized, table-based approach. This way, we can keep all of the numbers we have, avoid worries of WP:SYN (I'm okay with WP:CALC, but we just need to know for sure we're adding apples to apples here, not apples to apples and oranges, etc.) Below, I have built a table for this proposal, and I'll use an archive template to frame off what this section would look like when done (except the subsection header would be a section header; the subsection header is used here to keep this talk page organized.)
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.
Sales figures
Sales figures for Sega Genesis
Type of sales figure
Units sold
Worldwide sales figures
WW 35 million — 40 million units[1] NA 20 million units[2]
Worldwide sales figures until end of 1994
WW 29 million units JP 3.5 million units US 14 million units UK 2.1 million units GER 800,000 units[3]
North American sales figures, 1989-1997
1989-1990: INSERT FIGURE HERE 1991: INSERT FIGURE HERE etc., etc., etc.
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 only sales figure I have not included here is the Genesis 3 figures for Majesco, because as I've argued before I still believe that the source for those numbers is dubious, but it can be added to the table if we find a reliable source.
I believe this is a nice compromise to the issues and allows us to preserve all of the figures without explicitly stating anything that could be considered original research. To SexyKick specifically: I know you want the FA reviewers to look at this, but I'm deftly afraid that if we don't have this hashed out before we send it off, it could train wreck the whole FA candidacy if we don't have a solution before the review. I think this takes care of everything and gives everyone what they want, while adhering to policy and maintaining high quality. Thoughts? Would you guys like something like this over what we have now? Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the section header in the middle of your post made the pings fail. I'm slightly worried we might have run into citogenesis, but reliable sources are reliable sources until we have credible reason to believe otherwise. I'd say just go with the 40 million or whatever the new RetroGamer source directly says, and the 20 million US. I'd leave out the year-by-year US figures as excessive detail. And I don't see the point in mentioning 1994 anymore. Or Nomad or TecToy for that matter, but if you really want them I hope you can come up with some wording that doesn't imply that they're not included in the 40 million. Anomie⚔ 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd really rather not have them either, Anomie, but consensus so far has indicated to the contrary, that editors of this article seem to want that. This is an attempt to try and resolve all of this in a format that avoids OR concerns, and also due weight concerns of having two separate sections. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 03:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I only see two editors who really want that, and they only wanted that because it bolstered the WP:SYN numbers that we don't need anymore now that we have a reliable source. I think I may have misunderstood, you were probably talking about Nomad and TecToy, not yearly US numbers. Also, I'm not sure if you were intending to have a table like that in the actual article or if that was just for the discussion here, but the FAC people would probably want it as prose instead. Anomie⚔ 03:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally I'd prefer just the prose anyway as a subsection of the History area, but again, I think I would get reverted and other editors would disagree. The table's a suggestion; probably better than the bulleted lists we have now. Honestly I really want to just wipe those two sections altogether, but if we can't do that, this table idea is an alternative. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 03:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Anomie that at this point the 40 million figure in RG is probably coming from Wikipedia, as its not like any new official information has been released between the Genesis and Sonic articles. I feel, however, that if a reliable source endorses the research done here by editors, then that gives the numbers a new legitimacy that makes them suitable for Wikipedia despite the circular reinforcement. I am fine with going with the 35-40 million as an estimate and using the RG articles as a source. I believe that the 1994 figures should stay as well, both because that is the most recent estimate we have from a source contemporary to the console's commercial lifetime and because 1994 was the last year the Genesis actually mattered from a commercial viewpoint as well. I would agree that year-by-year figures for the U.S. are now excessive and that the NY Times article is sufficient. Other than that, I am satisfied with the proposed chart. Indrian (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
We've also got the source from Joe Miller, who worked for Sega, but he's a primary source. Still, in an interview he did say 40 million were sold worldwide, and Retro Gamer's been known to cite Sega-16's interviews before, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually where it's from. Just a thought, but if there's issues with number releases, who else might know better? We've already all but proven lower numbers to be fallacious. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 05:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to list regional sales data (similar to how the Master System article is), we have NA / EU (which you didn't list) / JP (though it does match the 1995 number) / BR. I'm hoping one of the two kickstarter books will have the Genesis 3 stuff, and if not, well...at least it was once known. I don't think we need the tables, and I don't think we should have a range.--SexyKick 04:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
SexyKick, I'm still really doubtful about the reliability of the Kickstarter books; remember, anyone can pay to have a book published. Self-published books aren't likely to be reliable unless the authors are known to be experts in their subject material or a reputation for fact-checking has been established. If we don't have a range, would you prefer we just quote the 40 million number, with 20 million in the US? I'd really like to know what you think, but I don't consider what we have now as an option. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 05:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The more recent book is going to be licensed by Sega, CVG has already endorsed it. The other, you should check its Facebook / Kickstarter pages, they've hired an editor to go through all the citations for the book and are sparing no expense. Back to the subject at hand, there's no sense in just writing NA: 20 million, we should just put the 40 for the units sold section in the info box, and then within in the article, distribute the rest of the numbers to their proper paragraphs. US: 20 Million (NYT), EU: 8 Million (CVG), JP: 3.58 Million (GameZine), and BR: 3 Million (UOL). So, we should just write in 40 million, cite retro gamer, and leave everything else out except in discussion of such regions. Like in the article, where it talks about TecToy, it can mention they've sold 3 million, and still sell the system. Similarly, in the article where it says the Mega Drive remained third in Japan, that is a good place to write "reportedly only selling 3.58 million units in that region" or similar. At some point in the article, it would be wise to state the 29 million source as well, so there is still that sense of timeline. Wherever you think is best. 32-bit era and beyond maybe? The best place to mention 20 million in the article, is perhaps also in 32-bit era and beyond, it could be mentioned that was the number when Majesco took over, and the Sega Farms Out Genesis article, I believe it mentions how many Genesis 3's they intended to ship, and so we can write that into the 32-bit era and beyond as well.--SexyKick 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Now that's a solution I think I can agree with; we can always discuss the books at a later time if something were to arise from it. If that's the case, I think I might be able to finish up some cleanups here and submit this for an FAC today. :) Of course, when I do, I plan to extend the co-nominations as I've specified above. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty. I'll look through myself later as well. It looks nice so far.--SexyKick 16:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Can we put a quote from the RetroGamer magazine article into the source for it so others can read the line it comes from?--SexyKick 21:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I will be back with my collection later tonight, so I can take care of that if Red Phoenix does not get there first. Indrian (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied with the comments we've received at this article's FAC yet. A lot of them have seemed to be quite off base, especially in the ways of content. I've been quite adamant that the content we have is sufficient, trying not to turn this article into a directory of miscellaneous irrelevant info (e.g. the third-party variations; if any were relevant beyond selling a few thousand units and existing, there would be more reliable sources about them.) From the last comments on Indopug, I disagree that this information is missing; just organized and presented differently than what he's looking for.
My question: despite these oppositions to the comments, do we go ahead and hedge our bets anyway and add more sections, at the risk of getting excessive? I'm really not too much in favor of it, but I really don't want to see this article fail at FAC. We've fought too hard to bring it this far. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
What could we add?--SexyKick 05:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if I'm reading the FAC right, it looks like reviewers have disliked us not having expansion on the third-party variations (something I disagree with - even Retro Gamer only covered each variation with a sentence apiece, if that shows how little they thought of each one) and an expansion on the legacy. Now, I don't think I would be so opposed to the last one and the Sega Genesis' effect on video gaming as a whole being condensed into one section in the Legacy area, but we'd have to tread the waters carefully - how much of the Genesis' legacy is attributed to Sonic the Hedgehog? We've already given some retrospectives on why the Genesis is liked, considered one of the best consoles in the history of video gaming, but we could pursue more commentary if need be and expand that paragraph. That I'm not so sure I'd be quite so bothered by. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 12:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors
Would anyone mind taking a look?
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there'd be a lot of biting back if that happened. There's a very prevalent attitude that goes around no matter who brings up the title debate, and that argument is "Not this shit again!". I tend to think that if this weren't a featured article already, though, I might be inclined to agree with you—believe it or not, the title debate happening here for the millionth time is actually part of what brought me back from five years of retirement. With it being featured, though, there's no longer really much editing to be done here except to argue on the talk page for the sake of arguing or the same old "I'm right, you're wrong". Don't get me wrong, I love a good debate as much as the next guy and actually thoroughly enjoy debating issues on Wikipedia, but I'd be worried we'd be opening up another bucket of worms in that though the restriction would be lifted, editors would still snap back with that same old "not this shit again" attitude and spook the newbies off with the same old good old defensive attitudes. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 03:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand the commenting was meant to funnel to the VP, but w.r.t. this article, I think the "not this shit again" is much more prevalent when there appears to be disregard for the previous discussion. A good way to counter this is to wait six months, a year—not that it needs to be codified as such, but hardly anyone can complain about another straw poll for consensus if the nom shows awareness of previous discussions and clearly states a simple interest in checking whether consensus has changed (and isn't raising the subject to push a personal POV). As for user attrition, I'd liken it more to online forums asking newcomers to search for answers in existing threads before making new ones. It's also a degree of priority balancing—bringing in new blood without pissing off the old guard. czar♔ 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Could a Wikipedia auto-confirmed user please cite the "around 40 million units sold" article part with this source?
That source is already used in the article to back that claim. There is no need for action. Indrian (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Featured topic
Continuing from #Withdraw above, I think overview topics would be useful for the Genesis FT. This isn't a new proposal, but articles on the Genesis peripherals and variations would be easier to complete than full articles for every little thing. The way I see it, the scope of a Genesis FT would be the main section titles in the Genesis article. I'll grab the old FT from WTVG for workshopping below. czar♔ 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, just found Archive 20 and Archive 21 on the topic of a separate Variations of the Sega Genesis and Mega Drive article. Guess I won't hold my breath (though I think it makes the most sense if the FT is the goal, and otherwise since it'll be a while before someone cares to fix up those individual consoles) czar♔ 05:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I updated the icons for the articles and added the Menacer article. I believe I recall reading on the VGP page that people weren't sure about including the Sega v. Accolade article. I don't think it matters much either way because it's an FA already. I can see why it'd fall outside of the scope.--SexyKick 12:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Consensus from those discussions, as well as one from WT:FTQ, was that Sega v. Accolade doesn't fit with the theme. A little bit of a shame, but its inclusion would likely also mean Videogame Rating Council would have to be thrown in, and then we've totally slid "off topic", per se. There was a Variations article, and I argued hard for it to be merged away a few months ago; the results have actually been quite nice when you read the Variations subsection of this article. Some of those variations do have their own article for being notable on their own merits: Pioneer LaserActive, for instance, was more than a Genesis variation, although I'm not really seeing much behind Sega TeraDrive, personally. JVC Wondermega/X'Eye does not because it's a straight-up Sega Genesis/CD with enhanced audio, and only sold (according to references I've seen) 10,000 units tops. There was also some past debate about Sonic the Hedgehog (character), but I think overall consensus was it didn't need to be there. Menacer, if it's here to stay, should be in the topic, absolutely, but I have to worry that its addition adds a whole new layer to what's considered complete—I'll grant that when this project was started, I never thought Sega Meganet or Sega Channel would end up worth keeping, but certainly fit in well now as Xbox Live would into an Xbox topic. I should note as well that I'm still also trying to get Sega CD and Sega 32X to FA status to ensure this is a "featured" topic and not just a "good" topic - not to mention, of course, they would be cool additions considering this article is also a FA. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Yeah. Without Sega v. Accolade we do need another FA to make featured topic.--SexyKick 16:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Menacer merge
I propose that Menacer be merged (and/or redirected) into Sega Genesis since I can't find enough dedicated and reliable coverage for the former to warrant its own article. (Other than [13], the WP:VG/RS search is all user-created stuff.) There may be some print coverage worth mentioning, if notable, but otherwise I think one or two sentences in this article do the available RS proportional justice. (This was first mentioned at WT:VG.) czar♔ 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn (see #Withdraw) czar♔ 07:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge.Comment: I see where you're coming from, but I don't think a merge would be appropriate. Very little of the information at Menacer belongs in this FA, so this would essentially be a deletion. There may be a different plausible article—List of equipment for the Sega Genesis or something—that would be a better merge candidate. – Quadell(talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Rethinking, given Red Phoenix's information below, along with the quality of the sources at Menacer... – Quadell(talk) 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support, I have been convinced by the arguments below. A merge would be appropriate. – Quadell(talk) 15:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Support, and also support merging in Sega VR and Sega Lock-On as well. There's not a lot of reliable sources out there for these peripherals, even for a list. A simple passing mention in the parent article is likely sufficient coverage. I worry that the list counter proposal would not be able to be reliably sourced for every peripheral. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 20:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - and also for the other two as well. We can use the IGN 25th anniversary reference to write some feedback on the Menacer in this article, and it should be sufficient. If the Sega Activator can't sustain its own article, then there's no way the Menacer can. The Activator is much more notable.--SexyKick 23:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Sega Activator did not have reliable sources covering it, was shorter, and had citation needed tags in it. This is a totally different situation. DreamFocus 04:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There are more reliable sources for the Activator laying around the net than for the Menacer.--SexyKick 05:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to find them and recreate that article then. DreamFocus 14:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The point is, that even though more exist (due to it being unwieldy, infamous, and an earlier version of the kinnect, etc.) it's sufficiently mentioned in this article as it is and can't really stand on its own as its own article. I could reference that morning show, with I think Regis and that woman? Where they played a boxing game with the activator. That's pretty notable. I think you're missing the point though. Did that happen with the Menacer?--SexyKick 15:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I loved that episode. They made it look better than the Kinnect or the Wii.--SexyKick 16:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Clearly meets WP:GNG now. I just added in another source someone found and mentioned on the talk page. Nothing gained by deleting that article. Most of the information would be merged over here, if any of it at all. DreamFocus 04:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
With respect, Dream Focus, WP:GNG isn't necessarily the only argument for a merge in this case; and in fact, I would agree it's fine GNG-wise. Certainly there's enough for a mention of Menacer on Wikipedia, but I don't believe there's enough coverage to justify a spinout article here. Of the three sources on the Menacer article, one is a user-submitted guide which does not meet WP:RS, one retrospectively mentions a remake similar to the Menacer made by Sega, and the third may be worth something, but it's short and isn't a lot of coverage all to itself. The general notability guideline on the subject is certainly met, but its weight in sources is only really enough to optimally provide a stub, at its very best. I've looked hard at this one, as I had to do with Sega Meganet to find enough to work with there, but I just don't see it happening here. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Its not a stub. It has enough information from the sources to confirm the information currently in the article, which is beyond stub size already. Nothing gained by eliminating that article. It wouldn't be a merge, it'd be a delete. Can you honestly say more than one sentence about it, if even that much, would be added to and remain in this article if it was merged? DreamFocus 14:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
No, and to me that's all the coverage warranted on Wikipedia given our number of sources (which I've researched, as I do with most Sega products when I work on their articles, as I also did with the Variations list). What's gained from its elimination is a higher quality of the series of articles related to the Genesis and the elimination of potential original research from all the statements that can't be sourced. I know how you feel—I used to be very inclusionist-minded myself, and got quite involved when a user named TTN merged together a slew of Sonic character articles back in 2008. However, I'm now very much of the mindset that we need to write quality content, not just be a repository of information. There are other places for that, like Wikia sites and places like MobyGames, where it's okay to publish original research and content with less in-depth coverage in third-party reliable sources. Whenever I look at these and review for quality, I look at the established benchmarks from community consensus: WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFL I believe are excellent starting points to say, "Could an article or list ever meet these criteria?", though not necessarily that they do now, as it's our job as Wikipedians to make the improvements necessary. If sourced coverage isn't deep enough, or there's not enough about the subject to say, I believe it benefits the encyclopedia to consider merge or redirect at that point, as I do now with Menacer. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 15:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
DF, if you were able to find print sources that cover the Menacer's introduction and reception for an article with full coverage, I would no longer be in favor of merge/redirect. As the sourcing stands, there is little to say about the Menacer and it will likely remain just a hair past "stub" length for perpetuity. czar♔ 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Magazines that covered Sega products at the time would of course have articles about this. Finding them would be a chore though. Google news archive project was shut down incomplete years ago, and never completed. The Wikiproject Video Game search shows results, just a lot to sort through. DreamFocus 16:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want to delete an article, why not go through the proper AFD process? You know nothing will be merged, so don't call it that. Nothing gained by deletion, so I don't see why some of you are so determined to do so. Its not a stub, its a full article with all the valid information someone curious about this thing would want to read about. DreamFocus 16:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
For starters, Menacer is still a plausible search term, so a redirect is completely reasonable. Also, as opposed to an AFD, if such sources ever were to come to light, an article could be rebuilt and the edit history of the old article is preserved. These are reasons not to favor the AFD process when deletion itself isn't warranted—and though I like what he does, I don't agree with the way TTN forces through fictional character merges and redirects through AFD, and would rather discuss it out in this fashion. Now, as for the determination involved, there's a flaw with your assessment: this isn't "valid information". Why not? It's not reliably sourced. If it's not reliably sourced, then it's original research, which violates one of the three core policies of Wikipedia articles. Certainly we don't go and delete every article just because it lacks sourcing; there's a good chance it may, but in this case I have my concerns after researching to try and find sources. I did the same with Sega Meganet and was concerned there as well, but eventually found enough that I was confident in keeping and rewriting it, and now it's a GA. Spinout articles such as this, where the subject is a "child article" of another one, don't always have enough coverage to warrant splits from the main article. Some do (Sega CD and Sega 32X, as well as Sega Channel and Sega Meganet are good examples of spinout articles from this one), but not everything needs a separate article. As of recently, I've been so focused on these Genesis bits lately, if you must know, because I'm working on a Sega Genesis featured topic, which is two FLCs (and possibly two optional FACs) away from being able to be nominated as one of Wikipedia's best-covered topics. It's been a careful case of weighing out every option with every article in the topic, and this one unfortunately just comes up short to me and with what I interpret can be done with it. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 16:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no original research in that article. All information is referenced to Digitalspy, 1UP, or IGN, all of them reliable resources. Is there any information you believe needs additional referencing? DreamFocus 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well done on rectifying that; I commend your efforts. However, I still feel strongly enough about the merge not to change my decision. If there's not any more to say, this article sorely needs expansion on its development, reception, functionality, game library... etc. Sega Meganet is to me a bare minimum of what I think is needed in terms content wise of being able to have an article on a subject, and that was not an easy one to do—I strongly debated merging it off myself but was fortunate enough to find sources to turn it from a stub into a good article. If it can't be expanded, it's undue weight to have an article to itself. I similarly worry about a list of peripherals thinking only the controller, Menacer, and Activator would actually have anything significant to say. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Slight correction for clarity: I use "undue weight" to mean a lot of different things, but WP:UNDUE utilizes it to discuss viewpoints. WP:BALASPS would be a more appropriate link to what I mean. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 02:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - If you can't find enough sources to justify an article, you're not looking hard enough. To cover the Menacer fully in the Mega Drive article would be to place undue weight on the peripheral. It might be worth instead merging Menacer 6-game cartridge into the Menacer article. - hahnchen 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe it needs more than a sentence or two in the main article, hahnchen. As it is is probably good, maybe one or two more wouldn't hurt; if need be, a whole paragraph in Peripherals could be devoted to Menacer if there's really that much, and that would be adequate coverage and due weight. Undue weight is set if we keep the article; that, in fact, is even more undue weight because we're saying it warrants an entire article but not a subsection in the parent article? I'd hate to see the precedence this will set if we really keep this; what's next, Sega Activator comes back? We start an article on the controller and the six-button, and all the individual peripherals? A list of them all? At what point do we recognize this is article spam, draw the line in the sand, and say, "No, we're going to clean up the series and make a good and appropriately-weighted series of articles that adequately covers the whole topic without unduly weighting something with little impact on the topic"? We're not a directory of miscellaneous information, we're an encyclopedia. That's what I'm getting at here. I'm looking at the whole series and saying that enough is enough. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 13:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Giving it a sentence or two in the main article is fine. Giving it a sentence or two on the whole of Wikipedia isn't. That's saying it deserves less coverage on Wikipedia than some obscure self published indie game. There are clearly enough sources for the Menacer to pass notability guidelines, same for the Activator. See page 82-85 for Julian Rignall writing about it in Mean Machines - https://archive.org/details/mean-machines-sega-magazine-04 There is plenty more. - hahnchen 17:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Obscure indie games should only be covered if they meet certain criteria for notability, and don't have somewhere they can be merged into that makes for a more comprehensive article on the whole. We have a difference here in that this is a child article of Sega Genesis, and can thus be covered elsewhere. They may meet notability guidelines, but that doesn't mean the coverage is deep enough for that — i.e. we have Columbine High School massacre, but why then would we also have Columbine High School when most of the coverage is on the massacre? The answer is, we shouldn't. Give me development, critical reception, and information, and I might be swayed, because that's the depth of coverage we need to justify an article on a video game peripheral. Just saying coverage exists doesn't mean there's enough for an article all in itself. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The Menacer is no more a "child article" of the Mega Drive any of its video games are. When you say merge, you actually mean "delete", as DreamFocus suggests. To give the Menacer the coverage it deserves given its coverage would be impossible in the target article. You've already given it two sentences, how much more would you give it? the two paragraphs suggested by NukeofEarl below? Actually describing the parts and listing the supported games would be undue weight in the target article. You want more reception? Issue 4 of Mega, and Issue 14 of Sega Force. I'm sure if I looked in American magazines, I'd find more too. - hahnchen 19:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Redirect would actually be the more proper term over delete. I won't consider changing my decision unless I can be convinced that Menacer or any peripheral could ever meet these criteria. That, to me, is the standard we should be attempting to achieve on any article in Wikipedia - if it can never do so, it should be merged or redirected. Sega Meganet is a bare minimum example of how you can skate by with the least amount of coverage on a subject achievable (due to lack of available reliable references thanks to its obscurity); coverage on Menacer has to be at least good enough to achieve that with some effort. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - The article can very easily be condensed into one or two paragraphs in Sega Genesis, and I don't see much potential for expanding it. I've never come across a significant mention of the Menacer in my researches, at least. As a general rule, I think giving a gaming peripheral anything more than a small subsection of the article on its parent platform is giving it undue weight.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Right now there is not enough coverage to create an article much larger than a stub. Short, spotty articles that are unlikely to improve in quality due to a lack of sources do not serve wikipedia even if the subject squeaks through WP:GNG. If additional sources are found later, there is nothing stopping us from spinning it out as its own article again.Indrian (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion that stubs do not serve Wikipedia. - hahnchen 19:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You need to read whole sentences rather than cherry-picking stuff to make a point. I stated articles "unlikely to improve in quality due to a lack of sources" do not serve wikipedia. Stubs that are likely to be developed further later are perfectly acceptable and a natural part of wikipedia. If and when you are able to gather enough sources to write a more substantial article, I would not object to you spinning out the article again. Indrian (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've given several sources with which to improve the article above. - hahnchen 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sure all of the major publications of the time reviewed the hardware, but a reception section is just one part of an article. Information on development, technical specifications, market performance, and legacy would also be needed to create a fully realized article. Right now, I see little evidence that sources exist sufficient to cover all those bases. If, however, I end up being wrong about that it is really easy to reform the article. I don't see a problem here. Indrian (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You're sure that it was covered by all major publications. But because there is not enough coverage to create a 50kb featured article, we should remove all but two sentences from Wikipedia. I think that would be toxic. - hahnchen 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I find a legion of short, stubby, incomplete articles equally toxic. One correction though to your attempt to generalize my thoughts: size is not the issue, comprehensive coverage is. There are several short featured articles on wikipedia, which is all well and good. If we cannot tell a complete story through an article, however, that article should not exist. Anyway, we will just have to agree to disagree and let consensus run its course. Indrian (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia articles never become featured articles, nor are they 50kb long. The article is as long as most articles out there, and has enough valid information to justify its separate existence. DreamFocus 01:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It now seems that this debate really boiled down to what the threshold on article quality/potential article quality needs to be to justify keeping an article - Indrian and I have our bar set a little higher than Dream Focus and hahnchen, but that's what makes us different as Wikipedians. A fair debate, and one Wikipedia I am sure will have to consider on the whole someday, especially given the existence of the more in-depth and less research-controlled Wikia, also ran by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's done so periodically since I first started in 2007, and we've really seen that with the raise in article standards, experience necessary to gain adminship, class and assessments, the new Draft namespace... you get my drift. I'm not ashamed to admit my concerns with this article's quality and its correlation to the quality of the topic, which can be a featured topic candidate after List of Sega CD games passes its FLC and then I get List of Sega Genesis games through (though I'm working on Sega CD and Sega 32X FACs as well).
What's really struck a chord here, though, is that this merge/redirect discussion has turned into "Do we get rid of this one article, or do we revamp it and rebuild Sega Activator and start making a bunch of articles for peripherals?" I've been tempted before, i.e. Sega Meganet and Sega Channel, as well as Sega Nomad didn't seem worthy, but after research I found I could make it happen, and did, in the form of 3 GAs. I can't see that here; even one of my best sources for development (immensely helpful for the formerly mentioned articles), Sega-16, has nothing other than "Every console has a light gun" about it, and is overall a shallow piece of writing criticizing its functionality. Activator was barely covered at all, so no real luck on development there, too. Depth of coverage has me seriously concerned, though, if this could ever be more than a Start-class article, which to me is totally unacceptable.
I recommend letting the merge discussion run its course (let other people weigh in and let someone judge consensus when the time is right). Also want to add that Wikia isn't run by the WMF, although they share some resources. czar♔ 04:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Wikipedia will have to consider on the whole someday", it's already given it plenty of consideration, codified at WP:V and WP:N. You cannot merge Menacer into Sega Genesis without deleting 99% of the material (particularly given Czar's improvements), any actual merge would give the Menacer undue weight.
The Menacer article gets dozens of hits per day, how stupid do you think readers are? When they search for Menacer, they expect to see an article on the Menacer, not a two line dismissal in the middle of another article. The last article I wrote was How Videogames Changed the World, which is unlikely ever to have the sources for GA/FA, maybe I should have saved my time and just appended a sentence onto Charlie Brooker instead, the 100 readers per day would probably find it shitty though. - hahnchen 17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Really, "how stupid do I think the readers are"? hahnchen, I feel like we've just crossed the line about debating the subject and the core behind the discussion itself into personal attack territory. I've done nothing but try to be polite through this whole process and express my opinions, which are no less valid, and my opinion is that we are here to build quality content. Instead, your anger and frustration is leaking out into your counterpoints during this discussion, which only lends itself to a lack of good faith assumed and edgy arguments. I've already said as well that I would prefer the term redirect instead of merge for this; however, Czar's work is pretty outstanding, and I'm going to say this discussion takes full credit for motivating that work, which would not have happened otherwise. And that's good; even if this discussion doesn't go the way I think it needs to go, there is at least a victory for this article series in such a quality improvement, if nothing else.
As a brief counterpoint, by saying we can't give an article at least a GA is akin to telling the readers that we can't give them coverage on a subject enough to at least skim through all aspects of the subject and pass a review by a Wikipedian who goes over it thoroughly to make sure it's well-written, or at least is supposed to. It's even worse when that article is covered in repair tags and is full of issues. Coverage does not need to be deep at all for GA status, and quite a few of my GAs show that, but it does need to hit all the bases (something I've felt Menacer will have a lot of trouble with in terms of development and reception). You and I may disagree on that as we will, but don't assume that I believe readers to be stupid just because I don't think we should give them underdeveloped articles. WP:WIAGA is actually a very light list; completeness, sourcing, and following of Wikipedia policy are about all that are required. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 20:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Most people don't care about GA status. Most people who read Wikipedia don't know what that is. All Wikipedia requirements to have an article are clearly met. If an article meets WP:V and WP:N, as this one clearly does, then you can't just delete it because you don't like it. Sources have been found and added during this discussion, so its WP:notability is not in question. It is not a merge, but a delete. Even if the history of the article is there when its replaced by a redirect, it is unlikely anyone will ever find their way there. You should've just sent it to AFD if you wanted to delete it. DreamFocus 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I just don't feel like I'm being understood here. There's not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue here—at no point have I argued anything other than policy and depth of coverage concerns, aside from being open and listing what I am actively working on in terms of this article series in order to promote openness and full disclosure. Yes, as an editor I'm not shy to admit I do believe in quality standards if Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously. But, as a tad bit of a note, Dream Focus, I'm NOT the one who started this merge discussion—I merely asked about it in relevance to a WT:FTQ inquiry and another user opened it, and as such I've merely voiced my support and tried to hold friendly discussions with those who have opposed, only to suddenly feel attacked by everyone for my points of view on the necessary quality level of the encyclopedia. Some day I may have to put it into a userspace essay; it's about more than status, but that's not understood, apparently, either. Look, I applaud your work on Menacer, I do, and the reception is absolutely wondrous - as a result, I've stricken my support, but I won't oppose the merge proposal, either, as I do still feel I have concerns. As far as I'm concerned, I want nothing to do with this discussion anymore if the same points keep getting rehashed over and over, and the points I make aren't even understood by other editors, even if they're disagreed with. In respect, I ask that no one ping me to this discussion or get a hold of me on my talk page about this redirect discussion anymore. I've officially recused myself from this discussion. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 05:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
How long is that article without the Menacer 6 pack fluff? That game has its own article that the information would be merged to. The information is more relevant there.--SexyKick 03:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thanks Dream...let's just keep striking out the editors who are actually bringing Sega articles to FA status and GA status. Just because you think no one cares, just doesn't make it so. We're a couple steps away from having the Sega Genesis as a featured topic, and you want to pitch a fit over a small notch in the tree. It was five to two. I still want you to take it to GAC and try for a GA review. If you think the article isn't going to get any better than it is now, then it's time to do it. If there's only one article in this category that can't get GA status, then we can merge it in here without creating undue weight. I'm sorry if you disagree, but why stand in the way of good things and hard work with nonsense reasons like "most people don't care"? I think there's a chance you might be able to pass GAC though, so take it there and go for it, or get out of the way.--SexyKick 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You want to destroy an article simply because you don't believe it meets the standards you have set for all related articles? That is ridiculous. Are you going to try to eliminate all the articles for Sega games that don't meet that standard as well? This is not a valid reason for deletion/merge/redirect. DreamFocus 08:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't really being rhetorical with most of my writing there...let me ask a question (again, not rhetorical). Why do you think the Menacer article won't pass GAR?--SexyKick 09:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you think I or most people who use Wikipedia will ever care or even notice? The article is fine. I don't know whether whatever random group of people go around declaring things GA might say about it, nor do I care. DreamFocus 11:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's an interesting answer. You don't care? So, it's not that "most people don't care" like you stated above, it's that you don't care, and you're trying to impose your apathy on others. And the award for actually caring about articles goes to...(Spoilers: RedPhoenix)--SexyKick 14:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You are distorting things. If most people who read Wikipedia articles don't even know about the rating system, or notice it at all, then how can they care about it? The vast majority of Wikipedia articles don't have GA status. Wikipedia:Good_article_statistics says out of 4,413,000 Wikipedia articles only 19,045 have GA! But we don't go around trying to delete 99% of Wikipedia. And you can not care about articles if you are trying to eliminate them. I don't recall ever seeing a case like this on Wikipedia before, where a small number of people try to eliminate an article because they wanted all related articles to be GA status. That isn't how Wikipedia works. DreamFocus 17:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not distorting things anymore than you are. There's a big difference between "not at GA status" and "can never reach GA status". All you need for something to have GA status is for it to be stable, and complete...with obvious things like no original research and reliably sourced citations. We're kind of doing an improvement thing here to achieve a higher level of reliability on this subject and get the topic some notability for it. It's just weird to see you say you don't care about that stuff. I think the only thing you're worried about is that Menacer has a dedicated article to itself. There isn't any information that won't be retained in other articles. If there is, where? The Sega Genesis article says more about the Activator than the Menacer article says about the Menacer.--SexyKick 18:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about the arbitrary rating. I do care about the article itself. It is stable and complete. What else could be added? It says everything there is to know about the Menacer. And little or none of that information would be retained in other articles. Why do you say such ridiculous things? DreamFocus 14:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I just asked you this...what would not be retained? And I don't have the answers to what's missing, I'm not a GA reviewer. Please take the article to review so you can save it, otherwise consensus currently stands to merge. I'm being easy and giving you the path to me changing my vote.--SexyKick 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Just stumbling by; having re-read Menacer, here's an objective analysis with article qualities and content preservation on the whole in mind. Before I begin this, Dream Focus, I should clarify that I don't think GA is a rating that readers care about, but I do think its criteria, WP:WIAGA, is a good example of what a well-written and complete article should achieve to be an encyclopedia article and be useful to our readers on the subject matter. A GA review, as well, is supposed to be more than simply a check against these criteria; it's a peer review opportunity to ensure quality.
Most video game articles, including consoles and accessories, usually require four subsections in order to be considered complete. With games, that's usually development, gameplay, plot, and reception. For consoles and accessories, those sections are history, technical specs/product features, game library (sometimes can be combined with tech specs), and reception.
Here's what information we have: we have a brief overview of what comes packed with it, some details about the Menacer 6-game cartridge games (as well as snippets of a couple other games using Menacer), and some bit of reception on the gun and some on the 6-game cartridge.
Based on this analysis, Menacer is, in itself, currently inadequate as an article, but part of the issue lies in how split the subject matter is. Much of this article is about the 6-game cartridge, and I actually can see where the content can be split. There are two possible compromises I can see:
Keep Menacer, but merge Menacer 6-game cartridge into it and hope some development information may come up. Menacer 6-game cartridge is virtually obsoleted by this article, and as the cartridge prose is a substantial part of the weight here, it could be more of the hub for all Menacer-related information. This is a logical merge too in the sense that the 6-game cartridge was packed in with Menacer. As it stands, a majority of the subject's coverage is on the cartridge, not on the peripheral in itself.
Liquidate Menacer to other articles, preserving all of its info in various spots. This isn't too unreasonable in that pretty much everything has a spot it could logically go, as well. The general info could easily become one paragraph in the Peripherals section of Sega Genesis without adding undue weight, akin to how the Sega Activator merge was handled, and a sentence or two about the overall peripheral's reception could also be preserved. The games info could go into Menacer 6-game cartridge and to each of their respective games to assist their articles, as well as their receptions.
I'll leave it up to you guys to do as you see fit, but either solution would preserve the content as the opposition would like to see, as well as get rid of the poor article and notability issues plaguing the individual peripheral itself. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 19:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The hardware and games came together, so obviously they belong in the same article, as they are now. The cartridge article has no references, so I have no objections towards it being redirected to the Menacer article. DreamFocus 21:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. With both of you. An effort should still be made to take the article to GA-Review, because why not? And Dream, I think certainly a Menacer 6-game cartridge article is far more sustainable. Especially given the current sources we have for that article. If the Menacer article can't become a GA, most certainly the 6-game cart article can.--SexyKick 04:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Withdraw
I put a few days into the article after some inspiration from the unearthed print sources and I'd say it's pretty full now (and possibly GA-worthy at 15 kB of prose, but I'm going to give it a few weeks to simmer). So I withdraw my merge nom, even though that more or less counts for an oppose until this is closed, though I doubt anyone would dissent at this point. Thanks to all who contributed sources czar♔ 07:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Geez laweez, man! My jaw dropped when I saw 46 sources listed. That's pretty ridiculous. I'm going to say it's not quite GA-worthy yet just because of some sentence and paragraphing issues, but I can go through and sweep that out when I have time. With that much coverage, a subsection in this article is certainly justified one way or another, much as how the merged Sega Virtua Processor article got one in the Game library section - although a merge doesn't necessarily have to proceed to make that happen. I'm still going to insist as well, though, that Menacer 6-game cartridge be merged in. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
6-game cart should be redirected to the Menacer article, yes. This article doesn't need a sub section. Though peripherals could link over there as a main article perhaps? And yeah, see what less than five minutes of searching did for that article? I found the Sega-16 interview by actually caring about the article. I was actually the reason there was a whole big discussion about it because I pointed the article out in the video games project as one I thought should be brought to GA. Czar should totally be the one to nominate it for GA too. I'll do my best to help with any tweak suggestions they give, but really all the credit for it being the article it is now goes to him.--SexyKick 05:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that with the new interview unearthed to create a real development section, this article is good to go and no longer needs to be merged. I certainly don't mind being proven wong on this one. Well done! Indrian (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I was about to say, oh please no. Just the last thing we need, to go around again with the Activator. But you watch, someday I see the same scenario playing out with it. There's almost two categories of video game peripherals - ones with good support and its own major place in the console history, (i.e. the Kinect) and ones that don't, like Menacer. Realistically, I'm not sure how this article plays out, though, without having the strength of information about the 6-game cartridge to lean on, though certainly the development has helped quite a bit, not to mention Czar's diligence and seemingly endless resource bank. I think that for a while I'll be watching the Sega CD FAC and List of Sega Genesis games FLC, but probably won't contribute much in the area for a little while... I'm a little tired of the inclusionist/deletionist debates that keep getting riled up over this subject, whether it's Menacer or the Variations article a while ago, or the debate I had with someone over redirecting Gens (emulator). Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
We have the featured topic ready to go though. We can have Menacer hit GA now, it just needs to be nominated and have the process looked after, and I'm fairly certain after a month or so the List of Genesis games will pass FLC, and we're done. It was an awesome project and you should be focusing on all the good you've accomplished.--SexyKick 02:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. The featured topic may actually be challenged by the precedent we just set here. My biggest concern has always been with this topic, where do you draw the line for completeness? Even WPVG member and featured topic candidates delegate GamerPro64 wasn't really sure and suggested I pursue more feedback. Consensus has been fairly unanimous that each individual game didn't need to be worried about as long as the lists were all at FL status - a project I've invested a lot of time in. Thoughts were mixed about Menacer, though, and if it's to be included, the line will have to be redrawn again. Does it mean that to be complete, we now need an article for Activator and have it in the status range? Given its review history, do the Genesis controllers need an article? Does Sega TeraDrive need to be in, or can it be gotten rid of? What about Amstrad Mega PC or Pioneer LaserActive, as third-party devices with Genesis hardware? Does the JVC Wondermega need an article too? Does the variations list come back? (I hope not, it's adequately taken care of in the article's subsection). This is where my worry with the subject comes in; I felt as though we had a good featured topic with the console, add-ons, internet services, and games lists. Now, the addition of Menacer will mean peripherals and possibly variations have to be considered for topic completeness as well, especially considering how insignificant Menacer is on the Genesis—it has nowhere near the cultural legacy of the Super Scope; and neither success nor failure matters on impact if the Sega 32X is any example. Before a featured topic candidacy can even be considered, the community will have to get together and discuss it again, and that'll likely set the project back by some time. I'm not saying I haven't done a lot for the articles, but it does get on my nerves that I feel I had an adequate solution to the problem and now we've changed all the questions entirely. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's break the featured topic talk to its own section, since this is getting off-topic again czar♔ 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to wait until late February to nom Menacer, if that's all right. I have a few more sources expected to come in between now and then. czar♔ 03:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate that. I'll let you know when czar♔ 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I think if the Activator weren't so ridiculous to use, it could have been really fun. Siskel and Ebert seemed to think so. And the Activator manual shows us that games supported special inputs from the activator in order to let moves happen. Like, Johnny Cage's Shadow Kick, instead of doing back forward kick, like the IGN mention of Activator claims, it's just putting a hand and foot at the correct position over the Activator. Many special moves were like this, so it was like having one button specials. No articles have really talked about this, and no review on youtube talks about it. It's like no one read the fine print. The whole idea of playing a game with the activator fascinates me, but it's still kinda dumb...--SexyKick 03:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Mega Jet
Could we get a picture of a Sega Mega Jet? It doesn't appear to have an article, pictures, or any mention on WikiPedia apart from here and on the Sega nomad article. As both say the Nomad is a spin off of the Mega Jet, having a picture of one would be good context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.182.210 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If anywhere, it belongs in the Sega Nomad article (if it is worth picturing at all). I made a few requests for Flickr users to relicense, so at the very least we will have the option of considering its addition. czar♔ 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Voilà! and added to the Nomad article. czar♔ 21:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Czar. That makes things much easier to understand. I've changed the Sega Mega Jet Redirect to the Nomad article instead of the Mega Drive one, as it has more content now: I think if we did want to keep it pointing here, it should redirect to the variations section, and the picture should be added to the table. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Apparently not yet, but after you have 10 edits. Do you have an edit to request? czar♔ 06:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The Good, the Bad, and the Bogus
I interlibrary loaned this (apparently scarce) book, The good, the bad, and the bogus: Nathan Lockard's complete guide to video games. It covers SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD reviews, if you'd like a lookup for an obscure title on your to-do list. The linked Google Books page lets you do a search for the book's contents. I'll have it for the next week or so, so let me know if you can use a ref or two. czar♔ 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it any good? I enjoyed Game Over, despite its obvious slant. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It isn't. The book is mostly short reviews of games in a book form, replete with ratings for whether adults and kids would enjoy each game. Very 90s. czar♔ 13:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha! Cheers for that - I'll not bother. Although given your description, it could be useful as you say to source reviews of some games. I would venture that it would be helpful with games at either end of the scale - the exceptionally good, and catastrophically bad. Maybe List of video games notable for negative reception for a start? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't go out of my way to add it to an article, but wanted to announce that I had it, if someone was interested for one of the articles they're working on. I'm sure it had its use in its day, but I only picked it up because it was one of the few Google Books "Menacer" hits. czar♔ 00:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to remove "however"'s!
71.59.200.171 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow. I'm counting 13 "however"s. I can reword them myself, unless one of the original editors wants to give it a go. czar♔ 17:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's so wrong with it, personally. Granted there may be a few grammatical instances that aren't quite up to snuff, but I've always used "however" as a transitional word to improve sentence fluency and make text less choppy to read. Is there an issue here? Red Phoenixlet's talk...check out the Sega task force 14:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It's somewhat distracting and isn't necessary in much of its current usage. Not that it's normally a rule, but I'd restrict the word to something like once a paragraph. czar♔ 15:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Done I've removed 10 which seemed unnecessary, leaving 3, which seem pertinent. Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reference #54 is broken as videogames.yahoo no longer exists. EDIT: I made this edit request a week ago, then found out I had to add the edit request tag, and only THEN was I informed what needs to be put in edit request, so here I am editing this yet again. I know of no other suitable reference for this information so I officially propose that we replace reference 54, "Yahoo Playback. "Yahoo Playback #94". Yahoo, Inc. Retrieved 2009-12-13." and the newline character that follows it with the blank string "". The [54] in the text of the article should then also be replaced with an empty string. Time and dedication permitting, the following references should have their reference numbers decremented by one to maintain the contiguous nature of the array of references. Is this description sufficient now?
Done For now, I've tagged it with {{Dead link}}, as the site itself says "The site that used to be located at "videogames.yahoo.com" has been turned off for the time being." which suggests that it will be turned back on or relocated at some point. — {{U|Technical 13}}(t • e • c) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize that in my earlier frustration I forgot to re-sign my post. Sincerely, OP KhazWolf (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and pulled it entirely for now. That's not normally the solution to a dead link, but what was being cited was a video that is no longer available and less likely to be so in the future, and in this case the material being cited is already cited by at least three or four other sources, so we ought to be good in this case. Given that this is a FA, I would very much like to keep it that way and prevent any tagable issues from coming up. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Rename to Mega Drive
I removed these comments, based on the sentence at the top of the discussion page, Q13 of the FAQ, and that the IP making the comments is wp:duck the same one as the disruptive IP editor before. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Amazing how the jingoism is still so prevalent in all of this. It's pretty ridiculous and a shame some people just won't understand that the legitimate points of each have all been considered several times, including WP:WORLDVIEW and national bias, and the community has decided there's no consensus to say the article title should be changed. Red Phoenixbuild the future...remember the past... 21:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I put the {{round in circles}} template on this talk page for that very reason, and I would support the reverting of any new threads started by IPs or unconfirmed editors on the FAQ topics as disruptive. By the way, congratulations to all those involved in getting it to FA status. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hay, some of us IP's are quite helpful - I don't register because I fully believe in the "Anyone can edit" Mantra. How about changing "any new threads started by IPs or unconfirmed editors" to "any disruptive threads started by IPs or unconfirmed editors" I had nothing to add to the FAQ, but I'd like the ability to without people prejudicing against my registration choice. 188.39.82.139 (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair point - the comment is only that of an editor. The actual FAQ states "In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive." There is no mention of the editors status - it applies to all editors, whether IP, newly confirmed, or veteran. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You want to keep the name of this article as "Sega Genesis" because Wikipedia is USA-centric (not a surprise, since the main servers of the English Wikipedia resides in the USA and not in Great Britain) but I want also to point that the phrase "the Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive in most regions outside North America" is wrong. It should be changed to "the Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive in all the regions outside North America". Because in Asia, Europe, South America, and even in Africa everyone calls that console "Mega Drive". --79.10.243.5 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. It wasn't known as "Mega Drive" worldwide outside of North America - Korea knew it as the "Super Gam*Boy" and later "Super Aladdin Boy". If you're going to keep projecting nationalistic UK-based bias, at least read the article and put together two and two instead of insisting on a change just to try and prove yourself right on something. I'm pretty sure the FAQ above explains exactly why this article is at "Sega Genesis", and "because Wikipedia is USA-centric" is not on that list. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I was born in Britain and lived here all my life. My partner is from the US. Between us, I hope I can avoid a UK bias more than most. However, I mock and pour scorn on ignorant tourists who think Chiswick is pronounced "chizz wick" or Towcester is pronounced "toe chest hurr" (they aren't). So I happily hold my hand up and say "not US biased" too. Now, back to topic .... I recall the "Mega Drive" as a console that kids used circa 1990, and recall "Genesis" emulators for the PC appearing around 1998. I learned at that point of its US name, and thought "oh, fair enough". The bottom line is, at least in the context of the real world, and not just that on Wikipedia, is nobody really cares about your noble quest to change the name. Sorry, but there's far worse things going in the world, I cannot get excited about the name differences of a 25 year old obsolete gaming console. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Note
It might be wise to mention successful later Genesis titles, such as Vectorman, instead of focusing entirely on SNES games in discussion of the 1995 market. To put in perspective the lack of supply which Kent claims was caused by Nakayama's focus on the Saturn, more than 2 million Genesis units were sold in 1995, but Kalinske estimated that "we could have sold another 300,000 Genesis systems in the November/December timeframe."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I had posted a Vectorman newspaper source in one of these talk pages at some point. There are newspaper sources about Vectorman. What other 1995 titles did you feel were standout releases? There was probably a couple for 96/97 as well.--SexyKick 22:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Only those discussed in the article I linked to, which mentions several holiday best-sellers. Of course, it might be unwise to rely on a single source. I could try to do some research, but that's part of the reason I left a comment here rather than editing the article directly: I'm not as well-versed on the Genesis as I am on the Saturn. The "Changes at Sega" section of Sega Saturn originally borrowed heavily from this page, but I revised it to eliminate extraneous detail and attribute POV. I did not, however, copy my text into this article because some of that added detail may be more germane here. I think it's clear that a great many industry figures underestimated the continued resilience of the 16-bit market, and I believe the raw figures should be included along with Kent's interpretation of them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, games like Ranger X and Ristar do come to mind when I think of good later Genesis games, but that's all irrelevant until I can produce sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
We used to have raw year to year figures. It is what it is. I do think it's pretty awesome how the Sega CD outsold the Saturn in the US.--SexyKick 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Development
Having done work on the "Development" sections of Sega Saturn and Sega CD, I am surprised there is not much discussion of the Genesis' development in this article. Are there simply not enough sources? Even one of the sources cited has some interesting tidbits that might merit inclusion, for example: "The designs for the graphics parts had already begun, and we had an issue regarding the cost, as it was quite a late stage when we had decided on the main CPU...The reason we used two CPUs was because we believed that the load would be too heavy, had we used one to handle both sound and visuals. Due to that reason, we used the Z-80 as a sub-CPU to handle the sound." Just a thought.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
...is an important topic this article should cover. I'd suggest something like the following:
Shortly before the North American launch of the Genesis, American video game publisher Electronic Arts (EA) approached Sega about releasing its games for the platform.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/ EA had previously focused on PC development on the assumption that consumers would lose interest in inferior console technology, but the overwhelming popularity of the Nintendo Entertainment System convinced the company to change direction in 1988.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"Bertz, Matt (July 2011). "Reverse Engineering Success". Game Informer. 21 (219): 96–99./ref ref name="Electronic Arts Does">Kent, Steven L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World. Roseville, California: Prima Publishing. pp. 408–410. ISBN0-7615-3643-4.</ref> According to former EA chief creative officer Bing Gordon, "We said, 'You're coming out with this system and you're nowhere, but we have games' ... [but] you have to give us a different license than Nintendo because you're nowhere.'"ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/ At that time, Nintendo required third-party developers to sign agreements not to develop for any systems other than those made by Nintendo, and retained the sole authority to determine which third-party games were manufactured and in what quantities.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/ Sega executives were reluctant to negotiate terms with EA, insisting that "We're going to be as important as Nintendo and we're not going to back down."ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/ As recounted by EA founder Trip Hawkins, "Sega was trying to clone almost everything about Nintendo."ref name="Electronic Arts Does"/ After almost a year of discussion between the two companies, a Sega executive told Gordon "If you want a different deal you're going to have to reverse engineer the system, aren't you?"ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/
EA technicians reverse engineered both the NES and the Genesis in 1989.ref name="Electronic Arts Does"/ The clean room reverse engineering of the Genesis was led by Steve Hayes and Jim Nitchals, lasting several months before EA secretly began development of Genesis games.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/ Hawkins finally confronted Sega Enterprises CEO Hayao Nakayama one day prior to the 1990 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), noting that EA had the ability to run its own licensing program if Sega refused to meet its demands. Sega relented, and the next day EA's upcoming Genesis games were showcased at CES.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/> EA signed what Hawkins described as "a very unusual and much more enlightened license agreement" with Sega in June 1990: "Among other things, we had the right to make as many titles as we wanted. We could approve our own titles ... the royalty rates were a lot more reasonable. We also had more direct control over manufacturing."ref name="Electronic Arts Does"/> After the deal was in place, Gordon learned that "we hadn't figured out all the workarounds" and "Sega still had the ability to lock us out," noting "It just would have been a public relations fiasco."ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/> EA released its first two Genesis games, Populous and Budokan: The Martial Spirit, within the month.ref name="Electronic Arts Does"/> The first Genesis version of EA's John Madden Football arrived in the fall of 1990,ref name="Electronic Arts Does"/> and became what Gordon called a "killer app" for the system.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/> Taking advantage of the licensing agreement, Gordon and EA's vice president of marketing services Nancy Fong created a a visual identifier for EA's Genesis cartridges: A yellow stripe on their left side added during manufacturing.ref name="Reverse Engineering Success"/>
1.Bertz, Matt (July 2011). "Reverse Engineering Success". Game Informer. 21 (219): 96–99.
2.Kent, Steven L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World. Roseville, California: Prima Publishing. pp. 408–410. ISBN0-7615-3643-4.
Before I add this, any comments? Did I make any mistakes? Is there more EA information we should cover? (We could also add something about the saga of Joe Montana Football, which EA "scaled back" due to fear it surpassed Madden.) Any thoughts about where I should put this?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The article's mighty long already and while this is important to mention, the mention can be much, much smaller, like two or three sentences in "North American sales and marketing" smaller. That'd be my suggestion. The whole story with quotes and all would be better off in a longer Genesis history article broken out summary style or in the companies' respective articles. czar ♔ 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Nice research, TTAAC. It does seem a bit quote-heavy and anecdotal, but very nice and informative. In a quick response to czar, I would strongly oppose a spinout article as being excessive; I'm even looking to get rid of History of the Dreamcast when I work on Dreamcast in the next few months. My return suggestion would be to add it as a full paragraph in the North American sales and marketing (because it should precede the Sega v. Accolade bits) and to reduce it to one paragraph by trimming up the quotes and anecdotal bits. I'm not terribly concerned with longer articles as long as they're not excessive, and very rarely do I see spinouts as being needed (in this case, Sega CD and Sega 32X are definitely needed ones). However, with some expansion about Nintendo and EA reverse-engineering it as well, might this worth a section in History of video game consoles (fourth generation)? Red Phoenixlet's talk... 14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to read. I'm really glad I noticed this. It doesn't matter how long an article is, as long as its all interesting. This is an important part of the game console's history, the successful EA games being released on it, and how it all came to happen. DreamFocus 00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Sega-16.com
I should preface this by saying that I added Sega-16 interviews to Sega Saturn, and suggested one for use in Sega CD, which was subsequently added by User:Red Phoenix. However, I always had a sneaking suspicion that Sega-16 might not have editorial oversight up to Wikipedia's standards (although I wasn't too keen on checking), and WP:VG/RS lists the site as unreliable. Perhaps Horowitz is sufficiently reliable that his interviews with primary sources can be cited, but it would be quite hard to individually justify all eight references to Sega-16 in this FA. Note that numerous Sega-related articles, even Good Articles like Sega Channel, continue to use Sega-16 as a reference.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging, I would contest quite the opposite. As much as WP:VG/RS doesn't say that it is, I wasn't there to debate it with them at the time. I did my homework on Sega-16 before I ever used it for any information, and surely Horowitz's contributions can be considered reliable as he is an established video game journalist. It's also worthy of note that his work specifically on Sega-16 has been cited by Retro Gamer. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 01:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Sega-16 could certainly help flesh out Sega CD's "Library" section if that is so, but I think it would be nice to have a broader discussion and establish a new consensus about the site if it is reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, honestly. Part of the thing here is that Sega-16 has had a changing face over the years. It used to host a lot of comment from Sam Pettus (Eidolon's Inn, which is a thoroughly unreliable site) and did have a lot of issue. In the five years I've been gone, though, it appears that Horowitz' involvement in the site has heavily increased. He removed the unreliable content; it's literally nowhere to be found there. Their game lists are gone, all of that is gone, and their features are rock solid with most being written by Horowitz himself (a few others are written by members of his listed site staff). Red Phoenixlet's talk... 03:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources would be a good idea if there is a belief that the situation has changed since it was initially deemed unreliable. Taking a closer look the last recorded discussion was over two years ago so a new discussion could very well come up with a new consensus. I would however suggest that some solid evidence be provided as to what is different now since that would make overturning the previous consensus a more plausible outcome.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
czar ♔ 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
For those working on related Sega articles, this new art book could be a potential ref 
.jpg)
Done For now, I've tagged it with {{Dead link}}, as the site itself says "The site that used to be located at "videogames.yahoo.com" has been turned off for the time being." which suggests that it will be turned back on or relocated at some point. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
