Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Total Mega Drive Sales

I ran into some info the other day so I thought I'd do a round up of the current situation.

Firstly, due to the lack of official sales figure's we have only the choice to rely on the drips of information filtering out of Sega, and the efforts of the bigger 3rd party sales trackers of the mid 90s

When looking at the Man!ac scan we not only have the fact that it is published by a well respected magazine, but it clearly states its sources as Robertson Stephens and Co, Computer Trade Weekly, GFK, and International Multimedia Company, (as well as Sega themselves), these are literally a selection of the most eminent sales trackers for each region of the world during that period, and this represents a concerted effort from these companies to provide a total figure for the Mega Drive. The Man!ac scan is a rock-solid source.

When looking at the Man!ac scan we see a number of worrying coincidences, what is the most widely spread total sales number for Mega Drive on the internet? 29 million, what is the total written in Man!ac for the end of 1994? 29 million, what is the most widely spread number for US sales on the net? 14 million, what is the number in the Man!ac scan? 14 million, what is the most widely spread number for Japan? 3.5 million, what is the number in the Man!ac scan? 3.5 million

Its my opinion that the end of 94' sales total may have been the last big effort from the 3rd parties to track Mega Drive worldwide sales, and its for this reason that I think most websites and publications have little choice but to use those 1994 numbers, take a look at the EGM Scan, its quite vague in its mentioning of "over 14 million" for the US.

We also know from sales reports in magazines that the Genesis was still managing to sell over 1 million units a year in the US even as late as 1996, Source, so clearly stopping off at the end of 1994 would miss out of a hefty amount of worldwide sales

Onto the sales numbers

North American sales Sega Genesis total - 20 million Source Source

Majesco didn't take over production of the Genesis in the US until close to the date of the New York Times newspaper report Source so its clearly not including Majesco sales

Majesco Genesis total - 2 million Source

Total for US - 22 million

European total 8 million Source CVG Magazine

Unfortunately the only figure for Japanese numbers I could find was 3.5 million, and the Man!ac scan dates that as only taking into account up until the end of 1994

Japan Total as of January 1995 - 3.5 million Source Source (Man!ac scan)

The Mega Drive achieved unprecedented success in Brazil, where it was one of the only officially released consoles to prosper

Brazillian Tectoy Mega Drive sales total - 2 million Source

There's no numbers for Australia, and the Korean Super Aladdin Boy at present

Add all of the separate regions together and we have an incomplete total of 35.5 million which is pretty close to the original Wikipedia figure in the first place which was 35 million

Jesus.arnold (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly, as we've all known for a long time, 29 million is again just thrown out of the window. I still see a total of 40 million going with the previously stated "Other - 3.5 million" and "Nomad - 1 million" - counting the Nomad that's also 25 million sold in the western hemisphere. --SexyKick 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here is the downloadable CVG magazine where it mentions Europe's 8 million on page 10 in the upper right hand corner [1]--SexyKick 06:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Did everyone reach an agreement about the Nomad yet? I can see your reasons for wanting to include it, but am not totally conviced that it belongs in the total myself. Jesus.arnold (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also what would the "other" mainly consist of? so far places we haven't got a total for I can think of (which may have notable sales figures) are Australia, and South Korea (there's also the post 1994 Japanese figures to think about, though that might not be notable) is there any other places I'm forgetting? Jesus.arnold (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

India, the whole rest of "other asia" basically. So, Other Asia, and Australia (because I think India, China, Mylassia etc. are all included in Other Asia.)

As far as the Nomad goes, I recall people agreeing that it's just a portable Genesis, since it didn't really add anything like GameGear did to make it its own system. The articles have even attempted merging at least once.--SexyKick 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't add source A to source B to come up with another figure it is against the Original Research policy. WP:SYN explicitly states; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This discussion of a theoretical figure that is higher than a citable figure is all well and good. But it must stay a theoretical discussion and not be used in the article unless a citable reliable source is found for the higher figure. - X201 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but we are permitted to use a source and say like "Europe - 8 million"(ref) and leave it at that. The way it is right now is pretty fine anyway.--SexyKick 09:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the rules and I think that they're a bit vague to be honest. The rule seems to be there to stop Wikipedia writers from putting the facts together and reaching their own conclusions, putting personal input into the article so to speak. All I think would come directly under that is my mentioning of dated sources, everything else is simple numbers, it takes no personal input to reach a conclusion other than maths. Jesus.arnold (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Either way, as Sexykick says there's nothing to stop all the separate figures getting into the article, the problem is that all these stipulations we are having to follow will result in a chaotic, contradicting sales section. Jesus.arnold (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it's good as is. It covers everything, from the 29 million number being old, to TecToy, Majesco, Nomad, and even mentions that no sales information from ATGames has been released yet.--SexyKick 13:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My only problem with it at the moment (apart from it being imprecise), is that a first glance it looks like the 14 million has two sources, when in fact the second source is contradicting the 1st. I would rather it said something like

"Some sources have claimed Sega sold 29 Million units worldwide, noting that 14 Million were sold in North America. [Source Islandnet] However, other sources state this total was already reached by 1994 [source Man!ac], and there are updated sales numbers for North America totaling 20 Million, [source NYTimes][source Electronic Times] presenting a disparity in the sales numbers."

I also think that the 8 million sold in Europe source could be added to the main article somewhere Jesus.arnold (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I think both of those ideas sound acceptable. I think this line "In Europe, the Mega Drive maintained support through 1998. It outsold all other consoles, including the Sega Saturn, in later years.[18] Brazil also saw success with the Mega Drive, where it held 75% of the market share.[18]" is a perfect place to edit in the 8 million. Perhaps overwriting "It outsold...in later years." However, you'll need to reference both cases with a magazine/newspaper/book style reference, rather than a cite web style reference. (I think.)--SexyKick 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The source 18 specifically says "The Mega Drive was still supported up until 1998 in Europe where it outsold all other consoles, even the Sega Saturn. Nintendo could not seem to get as strong a hold of the European market as Sega had." So maybe say something like "The Mega Drive was supported until 1998 in Europe,(18) where it managed to sell 8 million units,(CVG) outselling all other consoles up until that time.(18)" Maybe X201 has some better ideas for the wording.--SexyKick 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, replace the "outsold all other consoles" line, to be honest I've always disliked that line anyway, its too vague. Jesus.arnold (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't really know where we are with the sales figures issue as I haven't been following it, but if it helps there's a source for "estimated to be between 30-35 million units" in Retro Gamer's recent Videogames Hardware Handbook Vol 2. Thought it might help as it's citable for the fact that sales figures are merely estimates rather than anything official. Miremare 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wp:NOR#Routine_calculations wouldn't this allow us to write a total into the article based on the information that is the article?? I see 29 million assuming 14 million NA, with the 20 million updated North America that's 35 million, and then adding in the 3rd parties 2 million each, and Nomad's 1 million as 40 million. Keep the cn1 so people can read and understand that Nomad is included, etc.--SexyKick 03:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless all these numbers are from the same reliable source it's not a routine calculation, it's synthesis. Miremare 13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read both sections, to me the rules are saying a lot of this would fall under routine calculation, synthesis is there to stop people using the evidence to forward their own opinions, adding numbers together includes no personal input or opinion, you can't color the evidence because there is only one outcome. Saying that though, personally I don't think we should go along with SexyKick's idea, mainly because I think its a bit of a backwards way of putting forth the figures for those reading the article, but if we do ever manage to compile sales sources for every region I do think there's a possibility we could add them together under routine calculation. Jesus.arnold (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it'd be routine since we take Man!ac, which is first party only, add in the updated NY Times figure, add in the 3rd party sales, and Nomad, maybe even list them seperately. 1st party: 35 million, 3rd party: 4 million (as of August 31st 2005) and Nomad: 1 million - thus covering all bases.--SexyKick 22:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN is pretty clear on this. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". Miremare 23:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that you can add numbers from multiple sources, as long as they are reliable sources.--SexyKick 23:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN is the authority on this and it isn't a suggestion or an essay, it's a policy. Miremare 09:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I talked to other editors about it, and WP:CALC adding up numbers, so long as it's routine calculation (which it is, so long as we are going by Man!ac, with it's 1995 publication and not Island Net, which is not quite routine, or a backwards way of going about it as Arnold said) and the editors agree upon the math to be used, no matter from how many reliable sources is not wp:syn. There's nothing in WP:CALC that says the numbers have to be from one source, it just says editors have to agree upon math used, and that they have to be reliable sources.--SexyKick 20:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether the sources used are reliable or not is irrelevant (as WP:SYN explicitly says) because we're drawing a conclusion that isn't stated by any of them, that's the whole point of synthesis. Ultimately, we don't know how many were sold, we can only say what sources claim. The only thing we know for sure is that there are no official figures, therefore any totals we include are speculation, and we can't do that. Miremare 21:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You aren't applying the idea that this is for routine calculation. It is listed there as an exception, in the original research article. From the "no original research" page - This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. See here for some conversion templates.

It's true we don't know the true total, we can only reach a current total based on the reliable sources we have (totals to 40 million) and it is and should always be mentioned there are no official figures. We would list all the numbers we have in the article in the content note, slightly different from the way it is now, but without removing any information at all, and then simply add in the total, as this policy allows.--SexyKick 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the crux of it, due to the fact that nobody really knows the numbers, and the figures we have are from different sources and different times, adding them together isn't routine calculation. It's fine to say that 10+10=20 or that someone born in 1960 is 50 years old, because these things are self-evident, and routine calculation. The problem arises when the numbers themselves are suspect, which in this case they are because nobody seems to agree on what the sales figures are, none of the sources state where they got their figures, and that's because there are no official figures, there are only estimates arrived at by unknown means. Another problem is the Nomad and any other MD variations. Should they be included in the total? Do any of the sources already include them, and how do we know whether or not they do? Miremare 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well seriously now, all of the sources are reliable. Man!ac states where they get their numbers, as Arnold said. We replace NA's 14 million with NYT's 20 million, and then we add in the 3rd parties and Nomad. Very routine. We can even list separately, and then there's no question of should they be included in the total. We can do this...

Sega: 35 million

3rd Parties: 4 million (or list Majesco and TecToy separetely)

Nomad: 1 million

Also, as encyclopedic writers, we do not questions where a known-to-be reliable source like NYT gets their information for us to verify. If it wasn't a known to be reliable source, it's different, but NYT is completely legit.--SexyKick 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) They're all legit. Like I said, and like WP:SYN says, the sources being reliable is irrelevant. Of course the sources are reliable otherwise we wouldn't be using them at all. The point is that we are adding the sources together to come to a conclusion that isn't supported by any of them. That's what's synthesis is, and that's why we can't do it. All we can do with these figures is what we are doing now, cite them individually, with caveats. And the point I'm making about the Nomad is that we don't know it wasn't already included in the NA sales figure. Miremare 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you don't think it's routine calculation of adding numbers like I think it is then? As I said, I think it's fairly obviously routine. We have a set of sales numbers, we have an update to one of them, and then we have numbers for third parties and the Nomad. The Nomad isn't mentioned in NYT, so we know it's not included. Don't beat around the bush with irrelevant Synthesis talk when they have something in the WP:No Original Research saying adding numbers is OK. I'd like to know how routine the other editors think it is.--SexyKick 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image discussions 10/2010

I'm a few months late to this discussion (I took a close-to-a-year hiatus from any major Wikipedia editing to focus on personal matters) but here are my thoughts on the logo issue:

The article clearly discusses both the Mega Drive and the Genesis as related products. They are essentially the same product with different branding in different regions. A much older discussion led to consensus on the article's title being "Mega Drive", to reflect the brand name as it was distributed in the majority of the world.

But given that the Genesis brand not only sold a significant percentage of the total combined sales of both brands, but is notable in its own right, it is important to include the Genesis logo to properly identify it as a subject of the article. The article is in a bit of a grey area where there are essentially two nearly-identical products being discussed - not enough difference between the two to warrant two separate articles, but enough difference to make the two separately notable.

Having just one variant of the "Mega Drive" logo on the page is likely to confuse readers about the subject of the article - especially those from outside the US who may not be as familiar with the Genesis brand. This alone is an argument for including the "Genesis" logo under WP:NFC#Policy/8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

It is my belief (and my aim to reach consensus) that omitting the Genesis logo gives undue weight to the Japanese or European version of the Mega Drive (whichever one has the logo standalone) and does not accurately reflect the content of the article. The logo itself is not discussed at length in the article, but the brand is, and the infobox (together with the article lead) should tell readers at a glance what the article is about. Therefore, NFC 8 applies - omitting the logo is detrimental to the average reader's understnading of the article.

As for the several variations of the Mega Drive logo, I think the case for including them all (or at least both the JP and EU logos) is weaker. Aside from regional differences (PAL/NTSC/SECAM/etc.), logo differences and minor technical differences, the JP and EU Mega Drive models are virtually identical, and the brand name is the same in both areas. In this case, an average reader will actually likely have more trouble correctly identifying the "Mega Drive" brand if he is presented with two logos. Previous discussions have leaned toward the "more recognizeable", "more well-known" or "first" brand to be used, and every discussion I've seen on both Mega Drive and Famicom/Super Famicom has leaned toward "country of origin" (Japan). (You can look in the WT:VG archives if you're interested - I don't have any specific links handy at the moment.)

TL;DR: "Genesis" is different enough from "Mega Drive" (regardless of region) and has enough independent notability to warrant the inclusion of its unique logo in the infobox, alongside the Japanese "Mega Drive" logo. NFC 8 supports this, as omitting the Genesis logo may mislead readers as to the scope of the article and could cause brand confusion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should mention that whatever decision we arrive at here, we need to do the same thing with the logos on the Mega CD article - that article currently shows both the "Mega CD" and "Sega CD" logos. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the "Asian" logo with the official Mega Drive logo from http://sega.jp/archive/segahard/md/ as I think the official logo is what should be used instead of other variants. - If you want to add the American, European, etc. logos, I'd propose to add them in the text itself instead of the article's header. DCEvoCE (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument. I do believe everyone here apart from DCE believes all three logos should be included in the info box. I'm fine with just the Euro logo, and Genesis logo, or Asian logo, and Genesis logo (either works for me)

I do not agree about calling the asian logo with extra text from the JP box art the "Official" logo, since there's no grounds for it to be anything more than the "original logo" with extra text on the right hand side that even included most places the logo is shown.

I feel we should stick with the asian logo, as it's the original logo, but I could easily see a call for the PAL logo, since the MD sold 8 million in Europe, and the asian logo being relegated to 4.3 million in JP, and an "optimistic" inclusion of the entire figure of other's 3.5 million makes it only 7.8 million...but other does include Australia, where the PAL logo was also used, so clearly 7.8 million is about 2 million off (from guesstimate figures) making 5.8 million to 8 million.--SexyKick 03:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, sales numbers have little to do with the appropriateness of one logo over another. The question to be answered on logos is "What best represents the brand?" In addition to considering where the brand was sold, you also have to consider the company of origin, the country of origin, and whatever stylistic influences those factors impart on the brand. Even though the Mega Drive was much more commercially successful in PAL regions than in Japan, it still originated from Japan, and thus there's a strong argument for including the logo that first identified the brand.

My argument is that only one "Mega Drive" logo is needed in order to identify the brand name, and that the alternate logo for the PAL region doesn't significantly add to the brand identification. The "Genesis" logo identifies a different brand than the Mega Drive, even though it's technically the same console. And as I mentioned, I think the possibility for brand confusion is much greater between the Mega Drive and Genesis brands, than between "Mega Drive" in multiple regions.

Also, for the sake of reducing argument, I don't think anyone's going to dispute that the JP Mega Drive logo is copyrighted (and copyrightable). The EU MD logo is a bit more questionable because of its use of simple geometric shapes, but IMO Wikipedia is not in a position to decide that - that's what copyright lawyers are for. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(Editing the above - I got down with the sickness this morning. The JP logo is the one with the geometric shapes. The EU logo is the one I was thinking of, that looks more like the Genesis logo. I had their regions reversed.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO the images in this article are still a little back to front. We now have one logo, but it's the one that's least recognisable to English speakers, and we once again have screenshots of three game, none of which are at all representative of Mega Drive games in general. As for the free images, there's the screenshot of Gens which doesn't seem justified by anything other than the questionable claim that it's the "best Mega Drive/Genesis emulator around", and the image in the "launch" section seems a little superfluous - all it shows is what the console looks like, which we already know from the infobox. Miremare 17:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I removed all the screenshots in question and added a screenshot from Sonic The Hedgehog which I think we all agree does represent the Mega Drive's library like no other game.

The model 1 Genesis was initially added to illustrate the audio differences between model 1 and model 2 hardware. People keep moving it around, so I fixed it again. DCEvoCE (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@SexyKick: Stop reverting edits without good reason ! I can't believe that you keep doing that ! I don't remember how many many times I asked you to stop vandalizing Wikipedia by reverting other people's edits for no reason. DCEvoCE (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(Moved Gens image discussion into its own subthread to keep the discussion on-topic.)

Wanted to try clarifying my earlier statement about brand confusion - I don't think I did a good job explaining my position this morning. (Being sick can really do wonders for one's ability to think straight.) I think that we just need one "Mega Drive" logo in the infobox, alongside the Genesis logo. Whether that's decided to be the orange/green JP logo or the silvery EU logo, I think only one of them needs to be included since they both identify the same brand. I do agree that if we go with the orange/green logo, just the geometric portion with "Mega Drive" below it is sufficient - the extra text to the right doesn't significantly add to the brand identification. If we go with the EU logo, that's a moot point.

That said, priority in precedent has been to go with "most recognizeable" first, keeping in mind a world view and not just "in a specific region" in cases like these, and then "country/region of origin" if there's no clear winner in "most recognizeable". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the Gens interface added little to the article. I had only added it based on my research into FA's on video game consoles, and since it was a free image. Gens certainly wasn't the best emulator around either.

I suppose the only thing to do now is to see if User:JMilburn disagrees with Kiefer or not???--SexyKick 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is quite a precedent for not including images (free or not) if all they do is clutter the article. So whether he agrees with me or not, we do have some policy and plenty of guidelines to work from. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I did not read my sentence before posting. I meant Jmilburn in regards to the logos. Gens screenshot is gone and we're all fine with that I think.--SexyKick 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideally I think we should use the PAL and Genesis logos in the infobox. The MD may originate from Japan, but the logos should be there to aid recognition of the subject and as we're catering to English speakers it doesn't make much sense to use the JAP one to the exclusion of the PAL one, especially given the relative success of the console in these regions. We could always include the Japanese logo in the "history" or "launch" sections. Miremare 20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking the history, coincidentally that's where the JP logo originally was.--SexyKick 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I agree that the Genesis logo should definitely be in the infobox, there must be a sizeable amount of Americans out there who are not familiar with the "Mega Drive" name and the Wiki guidelines seem pretty clear that the article subject should be clear and recognisable.

Secondly the guidelines mentioned earlier seem to state that the only reason for the addition of a logo is to aid recognition for readers of the article, in this way the article should either use the North American, and PAL logos, or all three. The PAL and Genesis logo's are the indispensible ones because this is the English speaking varient of Wiki, and as such is used by North Americans (Genesis) British (PAL) and Australians (PAL), the Japanese have their own version of Wikipedia they use which can cater to their region more specifically. I agree that it would be nice to include the original Japanese logo, and that it is important for the sake of posterity and heritage but Wiki rules don't seem to take this sort of thing into account.

Onto the other images, I feel that we're now going from one extreme to the other, before there were too many images, now too much is being removed.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, in regards to the 32X, Sega-CD, and Virtua Processor pictures, I personally feel that they do help to illustrate the material. For newcomers reading the article who are not familiar with the Mega Drive they clearly show exactly what the add-ons did, they do this better than any amount of technical jargon ever could, and can be easily compared to the 2D sprite based picture of Sonic for the base system (as before though I think the 32X picture should be Virtua Fighter, because the main feature of the 32X was its polygon pushing)

The picture of someone's kitchen floor should not be in the article, at the very least it should be replaced with a zoomed in picture which actually shows the high definition system properly, at the moment you have to click on the picture and leave the article entirely just to look at it at a decent size, though honestly in the grand scheme of things I don't see what real use that picture has at all. Jesus.arnold (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. The kitchen floor picture is nice and all, and it's free, so it doesn't hurt anything to use it, but your points still stand IMHO. When I read about the add ons, I feel they're represented as worthless accessories that didn't let you do or play anything cool at all. Showing what they could actually do greatly increases reader understanding, and is of great notability to the sections. On the logos, I've moved the Asian logo to Wikimedia commons, where they'll decide its licensing sooner than later. This lets us at least have the Genesis and Asian logo for now without any NFC dispute. Me, Alphathon and you all feel that the three logos gives the best representation. Kiefer and Miremare prefer two logos (to my knowledge) and I am fine with two logos as well. However, everyone who wants two logos has a different opinion on which two to use. I'd personally rather the Asian logo plus Genesis logo, but it is not important to me, so count me in as supporting both sets of two.--SexyKick 21:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As said before, I'd go along with all three logo's, or Genesis + PAL, but Genesis + Japan is unnacceptable, if one of the logo's has to go then I'm afraid it clearly has to be the Japanese one as that logo is not covered by wikipedia rules, Japanese users would not be using the English language wikipedia as their primary source of information, and the Japanese logo does not help anyone in the English speaking world identify the product, nobody has ever even seen that logo before in the past. Looking around at the other language Wikipedia's none of them include the Japanese logo, they all have one logo, their native branding, of course being the English language Wikipedia we have the problem of dual territories, therefore the only logical solution is Genesis + PAL.

On the topic of the 32X picture, I don't feel as though Doom is really that representative of the hardware, its just a multi-format game with scaling, the picture used should be a polygon based game, I said Virtua Fighter earlier because it is not only a good representation of the hardware, but is also a Sega made game.

So yeah, in closing my thoughts are -

1. Genesis + PAL Logo's

2. Swap 32X picture for something better

3. Remove High Definition picture

In my personal opinion that would lead to an article with a good amount of useful pictures that isn't bogged down by too much stuff, this is all I really have to say on the subject. Jesus.arnold (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

French, Hrvatski, Hebrew, Latviešu, Russian, and Chinese all have two logos. And the reason we have JP+Genesis logo right now is because I've uploaded it to Commons, where they'll figure out its licensing, as I said above. Star Wars Arcade probably suits the 32X better for polygons, as it was also the best selling 32X game I believe. But I think the 32X shined most when not focusing on polygonal games. Doom was also the second best selling game for the 32X, and a hot topic in system to system comparison. Doom lets us show it was a poor mans entry into the 32 bit era, since PSX Doom looks better, and since SNES Doom looks and runs much worse.--SexyKick 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting the article

When I first clashed with SexyKick in June, I attempted to rewrite the article to give it a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. I think it reads like some badly written fan's blog with lots of rumors and speculation. I will try to attempt the rewrite in public this time, which means that I will try to get feedback from other contributors. I don't think it will be possible with SexyKick around, but what can you do? DCEvoCE (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't need a rewrite, it was a GA before when it was virtually the same as this. None of those things you removed were added after it became a GA. Removing any of them would not make this a nuetral article, none of them are bias, and I don't understand how removing any of them makes it a more encyclopedic tone. The NES was aging, Tom believed in giving the razors away to sell the blades, and the Sega Anser paragraph is about how Sega was trying to innovate to sell the Mega Drive. Removing any of those makes no sense. They're all sourced information too, even the "aged NES."--SexyKick 06:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive bot not working properly?

It's supposed to archive topics 30 days old, yet doesn't seem to be archiving them. Would certainly help clean up around here.--SexyKick 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it at all. It's been told to leave three threads on the discussion page and that's what its doing. Also the big thread at the top won't be archived until 21st November (30 days after the last post in it. ie Today in 1.1.4). - X201 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nov 20th will be the archive day for the Weasel words thread - It would have archived tonight... points at KieferSkunk ;-) - X201 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: We could move the 1.1.4 thread to its own thread and then mark the main 1.x thread as closed to speed up archiving. Anyone support this? - X201 (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this.--68.81.89.124 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well.--SexyKick 23:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it working properly leaving the discussion there?--SexyKick 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It will be there until 20 November, 30 days after the last post in it. Closing the thread was to stop anyone else adding to the thread and then delaying the archiving by another 30 days. Nearer the date I'll check the date on the other threads, and see if I can trim the 30 days limit down a bit, without having too much impact on other threads. - X201 (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened. Oh the madness...lol--SexyKick 09:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To pre-empt questions about last night's archiving - Yes its fine. Tomorrow. ;-) - X201 (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

NFC tag should stay on article page until issue is resolved

Just a quick note: I'm officially stepping in and putting the NFC tag on the page, and recommending that it stay there until the issue about the possible existence of excessive NFC logos is resolved. This is apparently quite the contentious issue, and it's causing a disruptive edit war that is likely to start getting people blocked if it continues.

Read the text of the tag: This article may contain excessive use of NFC images and logos. This does not necessarily mean it does - it just means that the issue should be reviewed and a consensus reached on whether the use of images IS excessive.

At the moment, there is no clear consensus on these three issues:

1. Is the Asian "Mega Drive" logo copyrighted or public-domain, per "textlogo"?
2. Is the inclusion of the NFC "Genesis" logo excessive, or should the Genesis logo be included in the infobox?
3. Which, if any, of the gameplay screenshots (Sonic the Hedgehog, Virtua Racing, etc.) should be included in the article?

My personal opinions on the items above are:

1. The Mega Drive logo is not "textlogo" - it is properly copyrightable and copyrighted by Sega of Japan, and thus is NFC.
   1. Amending that: Whether the Mega Drive logo is copyrighted or not (and thus NFC or not) is not really as important as whether having both logos in the infobox constitutes excessive clutter. See point 2.
2. The "Genesis" and "Mega Drive" logos should both appear in the Infobox since the article is about both brands.
3. Sonic the Hedgehog and Virtua Racing both illustrate the Genesis's graphics and provide valuable context about how this console competed in the market. These are central points in the article,.

However, I am just one participant in the discussion. I think at this point, the issue should be escalated to WP:3O, WT:VG, and/or WT:RFC, since we have been unable to resolve the issue by ourselves. I will take care of at least one of these when I have time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edited 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

I guess I'll weigh in here.

1. I moved the MD logo over to Commons so the admins there could decide if it was textlogo or not.
2. You spoke before about the Microsoft logo not being text logo, however it is listed in Wikimedia under text logo Commons:File:Microsoft_wordmark.svg up to 2000px no less. They also had a debate over the Sega CD logo, (where the C and D seem to form a CD) and it remains on commons. Commons:File:Sega_CD_Logo.jpg It is up for deletion, and most likely will not be deleted, as it's been up for deletion since June. Point being, stylized text, is still simply text. From this link"it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." I think this clearly applies to the two red triangles, and D with partial spatial variations.
3. The Genesis logo and at least one, if not both Mega Drive logos should appear in the infobox since the article is about both brands. I think the way it is now is perfect.
4. Jesus.Arnold and I have both weighed in on the screenshots, he feels all of them are relevant to the article, and greatly increase reader understanding of the graphics. I'm on the fence when it comes to the Sonic 1 screen shot, but I can see how it's relevant. So I agree with keeping all of them. The screenshots show what the add ons were capable of in a way that text can never express. This article would certainly be lacking without them.--SexyKick 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More on textlogos, I was told neither the Genesis nor PAL Mega Drive logo are text logo because of complex bordering, which is copyrightable, in addition to very complex shading over both the Genesis and PAL Mega Drive letters.--SexyKick 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, then. Whether the Mega Drive logo is copyrighted or not is probably not as important as whether or not having it AND Genesis on the page constitutes excessive clutter. The point of the tag is to review whether or not the NFC use is appropriate, but what it doesn't also say is that regardless of which items are NFC, images should be used sparingly and appropriately in all cases.

As for the screenshots: The third screenshot being debated was the Genesis Doom screenshot, am I right? IMO, Doom looked pretty much the same on every platform it appeared on - minor graphics variations, but overall the game is virtually identical on the Genesis, SNES, 3DO, PS1 and PC. Therefore, the screenshot itself isn't particularly valuable to the Genesis article, since it kinda falls in the "Well, yeah, but any console could have rendered that image" category. Virtua Racing is a much better demonstration of how the Genesis sought to compete with the SNES in particular - the technology directly competed with Super FX, and the game competed with Star Fox. Doom on Genesis, on the other hand, is more of a "Nice, I didn't know the Genesis could do that" rather than "Here's why you should own a Genesis rather than any of these other systems". (Also, if I'm not mistaken, Doom was enabled through the 32X, right? That makes it more relevant to the 32X article.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One other minor point about the Doom screenshot: If there are significant gameplay, effect or experience differences in Doom on Genesis compared to on other platforms, these are things that are very unlikely to be captured in a single screenshot. The screenshot I saw in the article history could have been taken from a PC or even an Xbox port of the game, and I probably wouldn't have been able to tell the difference. Such differences are probably easier to explain in a couple sentences than to try to make sense of them in a vague screenshot. This is why both Sonic and VR are much better candidates in my opinion - they immediately illustrate something unique to the MD/Gen. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a huge graphical difference between the PC, 32X, PSX, 3D0, Jaguar and SNES, ports of Doom. While 3D0, Jaguar, and 32X are all slightly similar, there is actually quite a gap in the difference between SNES, 32X, and PSX.

More on the logo "clutter," the SNES has both the NFC, and PD-textlogo logos featured in its info box, and is a FA, so is among the best articles on the subject of video game consoles. The PS3 was a FA (delisted for stability issues) and features three PD-textlogos in its info box. The NES article was also a FA (delisted for many reasons) and includes both a NFC Famicom logo, as well as a PD-textlogo for the NES brand. I would say this more than justifies the use of two logos, where one is NFC, and the other is PD-textlogo.

Also, once again, the NFC tag was originally placed here because having 3 NFC logos seemed extreme. J Milburns comment when he placed the tag was "Three logos?!"

No; none of them are purely text, none of them could be considered public domain. If they were, there would be no problem. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That was what was said before we entertained the idea of textlogos; JM said there would be no problem if they were. He had also previously clarified himself on the screenshots here...

Will the template on the Sonic CD image and Mega Drive article be removed for now then?--SexyKick 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC) You are welcome to remove it. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully it seems we're making good progress, and I hope and feel this will shortly be drawn to a close.--SexyKick 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn did _NOT_ add the tag just because of the three logos.

And EVEN IF he did (which HE DID NOT) it is completely IRRELEVANT now that (me and) KieferSkunk added the NFC tag back. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AND regarding what others think let me remind you of a post that you removed from your talk page just a few minutes ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SexyKick&action=historysubmit&diff=392113175&oldid=392108980

The PS3 article has six NFC images, four of which are screenshots, two of which are logos. It was an FA delisted for stability issues. The Mega Drive article covers a much wider range of discussions, with things like add ons, revival, controversial ads, at least five regional logos (Brazil and Other Asia,) etc.

Thus I believe we're within the range of normal, since we have four screenshots, one controversial ad, and one logo.--SexyKick 23:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the NFC back in. It was initially added by User:J Milburn but removed by SexyKick.

I think we don't need any of the non free content aside of the logo(s), and maybe the Sonic 1 screenshot. Why do we need a copy of an advertisement ? Why do we need a Sega CD screenshot in a Mega Drive article ? Why do we need a screenshot of a bonus round in Sonic CD ? What does that screenshot say about the Mega Drive ? And, no, I don't want answers to these questions, I want you to think, SexyKick.

I propose: Keep one Genesis logo, get rid of all other NFC. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will see if I can get the official "MEGA DRIVE" logo pic uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so we could use that instead of the bookend logo we're currently using. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How about you wait until consensus changes in your favor for once? The logos are fine the way they are. I've already told you, the right half is not actually part of the logo.--SexyKick 22:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to tell SEGA] and me what is part of the logo and what not ? How about THIS for a proof? or THIS ? or THIS from SEGA's own website ? DCEvoCE (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, apparently I'm an expert on logos. Neither of those boxes have the logo together with the name of the console like in the image you showed me. The image is clearly a logo, with the name of the console next to it. Show me some games that feature the logo like that. Clearly a choice of the style of the website, rather than the logo itself.

I can easily show you that the majority of the time, the logo is used without the right hand text (which is just the name of the console in special font) and that the logo is even used in other Mega Drive logos like this one.--SexyKick 23:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sonic CD bonus round screenshot shows the added graphical capabilities added by the Sega CD. Showing users what the Sega CD can do. The Virtua Racing shot shows what the SVP can do. These screenshots communicate not only what the add ons are truly capable of, but the reason the Mega Drive got add ons in the first place. We need more than one logo, as the article represents more than one brand.--SexyKick 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, a question, if I may (and I don't suppose you'll entertain the idea, nor do I want you to)

Why aren't you over at the SNES, NES, or PS3 articles trying to get their NFC removed?? All have more than one logo, which you are against, and both the SNES and PS3 have multiple screenshots in their articles, which you are also against. Also, having a quick look through, only one of those articles NFC seems justifiable from my opinion, so I think it'd be really easy to get rid of it all if you felt like it.--SexyKick 22:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - Why aren't you spamming the SNES, NES, or PS3 articles instead of the Mega Drive article ? DCEvoCE (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise would wisely be used there as well. I do contribute to the other video game/console articles as well. I like how I can't make a post without it being "spam."--SexyKick 23:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the Sonic CD screenshot to the Mega CD article (which is in bad need of some improvement) and the Doom 32X screenshot to the 32X article.

Next I'll remove the print ad.

That means only the logos, the Sonic the Hedgehog and the Virtua Racing screenshot remain. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I really always have to tell you again to please wait for consensus? When did debating the controversial ad come into play?--SexyKick 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus had been reached months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SexyKick&action=historysubmit&diff=392113175&oldid=392108980

- We got two admins and several experts on the subject debating this for months now, and ALL agreed that these things have to go - the only one that still isn't on board is YOU.

"When did debating the controversial ad come into play?" - .......... - Let me try to sum it up for you: This is a FREE encyclopedia. You keep adding NON-FREE content. The ad is non-free content. We ARE discussing non-free content right now so that the article is freed from non-free content and the non-free content tag can be removed (like for real, not just you removing it by editing it out). DCEvoCE (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only did I not add the Nintendont image, it's been in the article for years. Also I'm not the only one who has supported keeping the images, if you had been paying attention to anyones posts apart from yours and mine, then you would notice. So long as there is a fair-use rational that is justified (there is,) and all NFC criteria is met (it is,) and there is not excessive NFC content (there isn't) then it is fine. When JM added the NFC tag to the article there were eight NFC images in the article. Excessive. Now there are six. Six NFC images; four screenshots, one ad, and one logo, all showing different, notable, relevant things.

SSBM has six NFC images, and is a FA. The images are of much less relevance, and arguably don't even meet criteria there. While here, all of our images now meet the criteria, and there is no longer excessive amounts of them either. Going from eight to six is fair.--SexyKick 02:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - a good read. DCEvoCE (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It would've been nice to have retained the three logo's, but seeing as this is such an issue now we clearly have to remove the Japanese logo as it has absolutely no grounds for inclusion at all, it does not help anyone in the English speaking world recognise the brand, and is not helpfull at all, the logo is completely unrecognisable to virtually everyone reading the article, if the PAL logo is not re-added in then I will start editing it in myself.

In regards to the other wiki's, yeah, the French one had two logo's under the infobox which I didn't notice, the PAL and Genesis logo's, however, none of them use the Japanese logo at all.

I don't see that we should be aiming to make the article into a wall of text with no pictures, yeah its wrong to base everything we do on other articles, but they can be used as a guideline, and presently we seem to be in no way going out of bounds with picture use, I did feel that it was too messy before (and still feel the SNES page is a mess with too many pictures) but with the way it is at the moment I don't feel that there are any problems with the Sonic screenshot, the Sega-cd screen shot, a 32X screenshot (I'd rather it wasn't Doom though), or the SVP screenshot, a case can be made for all of them being useful and valid. I don't like the kitchen floor photo though, its amateurish looking and not useful at all, who cares if its free, a photo of my garden is free that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Where it comes to the Genesis Does picture I personally don't see it as particularly useful (though the section would look fairly bare without it) and push comes to shove I would put it in the realms of expendable. Jesus.arnold (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the JP logo, as

1. Technically it's the original Mega Drive logo
2. The PAL Mega Drive logo is NFC (the asian MD logo is not)
3. We need a Mega Drive logo as well as Genesis logo

I think you're right though, push comes to shove, the kitchen floor (lol,) and the ad are the most expendable. We could also move the GenesisComplete into the info box if we needed to clear images, but we don't. We have less images than the SNES article (by one, counting free pictures here btw) and that's pretty impressive considering the sheer number of things to talk about, and free pictures available for them. We could have a picture of the modem in the inputs section, a picture of the Activator in the peripherals, and a picture of my garden in the Revival section. I'll get on it right away. (not) (seriously though, if someone has a picture of the Brazil Mega Drive 4 Guitar Idol, that'd be an awesome free picture for revival)--SexyKick 04:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

dont know much about non free pictures, but I think the screen caps add to the article and are relevant.--BeastSystem (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems you guys aren't keen on the ad, so I removed it, and added a video citation, which will show the ad off way better anyway. This brings our NFC down to five, which is below a few FA's I've been seeing. I don't see how we're using any excessive, or improper NFC now.--SexyKick 07:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the points about the JP logo above: "Technically it's the original Mega Drive logo" Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make it the most suitable for us to use in the infobox of this article. We include logos for the express purpose of identifying the subject to the reader, and given that we're the English Wikipedia we should be using the one/s most recognisable to English speakers. The non-free status of the logo/s makes no difference to that, and given that the Genesis logo is also non-free, that's not really an argument. If the JP logo really is copyright free, we can include it elsewhere in the article anyway, but it shouldn't be in the infobox either way. Miremare 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I think an option we really should consider is to exclude _all_ logos. I really think having the consoles itself in the info box might be enough, and it certainly would help with the non free content issue. DCEvoCE (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes from previous discussions:

Every non-free image has to meet the NFCC- like I say, there is a common belief that one logo is acceptable in an article (but you will note that no policy, anywhere, says this; there's just a general consensus that a single logo meets NFCC#8) but that does not extend to multiple images. You can say that it's my word against yours, but that's irrelevant. The burden of proof lies with you, and that is written in policy. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On the question on which logo to pick:

Well, which logo do you suggest we pick?--SexyKick 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Simple,Judgment of Solomon = None of them. - X201 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) X201 is right. If we cannot have all of them, none is the only other acceptable option IMHO, since without them all it is biased toward whatever remains and unrepresentative. AlphathonTM (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

DCEvoCE (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not such a bad idea. Miremare 22:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't stand for that. Logos go in the info box, if we can for some weird, odd, first time ever reason, we can only use the JP logo in the article, it's going to be in the infobox. That's where the logo of subject of discussion goes. I'd love to have all three logos in the infobox again, consensus here is a bunch of people saying they want their specific regions logo in the article+a bunch of people saying two logos is fine. The Asian textlogo debate is over. Thankfully it didn't have to happen in this talk page, or it never would have been over. We get to have one other logo, and undo weight dictates it's the Genesis logo.

If you want to have two NFC logos, go talk to J Milburn, and see what he thinks. If he says OK, then yay, we can get rid of the non-free tag, and put the PAL logo back in.--SexyKick 00:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

SexyKick, you are contradicting yourself by citing undue weight while insisting that the JP logo must be in the infobox. Also J. Milburn, no offence intended to him, is no different from any other editor and is not an arbiter of article content. We go by consensus not by what certain editors held in high regard by certain other editors might want. It's up to consensus to decide how many nfc images is too many. And regarding the JP logo, how many articles include a logo in their infoboxes because it was "the original" logo and exclude later more recognisable ones? The whole point of including a logo is to aid the reader in recognising the subject. That is why the JP logo simply isn't a reasonable alternative to the NA and PAL ones because, again, we are not the Japanese Wikipedia and it was not used in English speaking countries. Please feel free to debate this point as it's one I have made before to you. Miremare 10:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a free alternative. It was even used on some PAL games (that were released in PAL Other Asia.) If it was up to us to reach consensus, then we could have taken down the NFC tag at any time we wished, without having DCE throw it back into the article. Consensus, if you recall, was that nearly all of us agreed all three logos were needed in article. JM and DCE kept insisting we needed this tag, and that it was too many logos. Alphathon, me, and you (I'm pretty sure) thought we needed all three for grounds of identification. DCE thinks having only the original is the way to go, no one knows what JM thinks since he's not clear with anyone, and KieferSkunk thinks two logos is the way to go. I'm sure, though I can't speak for him, that he'd rather have three, than none, especially if it helped consensus.

If that's how wikipedia really works, really, and the policies aren't really here for a reason, as JM told us, then we can have all three logos right now, and call it a day, because that's really where consensus stood until someone said that there were too many logos.

And that's certainly what I would prefer.--SexyKick 11:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is technically a free alternative but the fact that it's free is all it has going for it. As far as its inclusion in the infobox to aid the reader's recognition is concerned, it's not fit for purpose in an article for English speakers. But leaving that aside for a moment, if the JP logo is free because it's just text, then surely the PAL logo (in this later form at least) is also free? Miremare 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Look if the consensus is to put them all in, and that's how it's supposed to go down...let's put them all in. OK?--SexyKick 16:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's use them all then. If we can agree that the PAL logo (the later text-only version without the surround that I linked above) is free, just as the JP one is free, then the NA Genesis one is the only non-free version and I don't think there's ever been any objection to having one non-free logo. I propose that we use the PAL and NA logos in the infobox and include the JP one in the "History" section, where the naming of the console is discussed. Miremare 17:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's enough room in this infobox honestly. I'm checking on the logo now.--SexyKick 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think for recognition the original PAL logo would be preferable, but I guess the fact that its probably free makes the revision logo a very good alternative.

In regards to "consensus here is a bunch of people saying they want their specific regions logo in the article" no, what we have here are some people arguing that if in doubt, we should follow the Wiki rules to the letter, and others arguing for the Japanese logo's priority when it clearly has no grounds for being included in the article in the 1st place. If we have to go back to all three logo's, then I think we should go back to the long JP Logo that DCE has been pushing, the short one looks crappy and doesn't fit in very well.

In regards to having no logo at all, I think it would be a shame to do that, but I'm not opposed to the idea, if we can't reach a agreed upon conclusion then I guess that would be our best bet, a lot of the other Wiki's are also using that style Jesus.arnold (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think consensus is largely that the EU logo is needed for the recognition, so I will be adding in that logo tonight. Can't hurt anything since we already have these banners on the article...--SexyKick 02:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So where do we think the JP logo should go really? As it is a logo used for brand identification, I can't see any place for it other than the infobox. It's also free, so there's no reason to remove it from the article. I also see that removing the JP logo, when we can include it at no expense to the article is WP:Systematic Bias, so we know it's going to be in the article.--SexyKick 15:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no actual reason to have it in the article at all, but still I think Its fine putting it in the History section, as the logo is part of the Mega Drive heritage. Whom is the Japanese logo's removal biased against? its sure as hell not biased against the Japanese who have their own version of Wikipedia to cater to their territories specific differences in depth, in fact, the Japanese haven't felt the need to add the JP logo to their Wiki anyway.

We have already brought this up and you have still not defended the inclusion on the Japanese logo in the infobox, it is clearly useless as a reference tool, and helps nobody finding the article know that they are in the right place, all it does is needlessly complicate the article, an article which is already having to cater to two separate regions as it is. Jesus.arnold (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

SexyKick, I think what you were trying to link was systemic bias, not systematic bias.

Jesus.arnold, I think you may need to read the page I just linked; nothing is reduced in importance just because it is not primarily related to an English-speaking country. What if someone from Japan wants to read the English language page? I don't know that that necessarily means it needs to be in the infobox, but your argument is fundamentally flawed I'm afraid.

Alphathon™ (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What if I want to read the Japanese Wikipedia?!, my god that article is biased, it should be written in both Japanese and English just to cater to people who aren't going to be reading it anyway. This is the entire point of the multiple different versions of Wikipedia in the first place. To all the people going on about "what if someone who's first language is Japanese stumbles across the page and doesn't understand what's going on" your argument is paper thin and I think you know its paper thin, how many of you have ever decided to read through the Japanese version of Wikipedia for instance? none, thats right, we have as little reason to go there as they have to go here, zero. Look through any English language commercial gaming book or encyclopedia out there and you will virtually never see any instance of the Japanese Mega Drive logo, look through any of the other language versions of Wiki and you will never see any instances of the Japanese logo.

The idea that having a different logo is confusing, and biased against Japanese users when the entire article is written in a language they can't understand is completely and utterly ridiculous. The article title being "Mega Drive" is good enough for the literal handful of people straying here from Japan that can read English, and the Japanese logo is fine where it is in the history section as its part of Mega Drive heritage. Jesus.arnold (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"What if I want to read the Japanese Wikipedia?!, my god that article is biased, it should be written in both Japanese and English just to cater to people who aren't going to be reading it anyway. This is the entire point of the multiple different versions of Wikipedia in the first place."

You have missed the point entirely. Every piece of information is applicable to every version of Wikipedia (as long as it is verifiable). That does not mean that it muct be written in every language. The point of multiple Wikipedia languages is so everyone can read it, not so it can deal with "local" information. Seriously, read the link I posted.

Have I ever been to the Japanese Wikipedia article for the Mega Drive? No. However, I have browsed the German one and logos/pictures of items are incredibly useful. Not everybody is unilingual (especially outside of the English-speaking world) and may wish to browse an article in their non-native tongue.

As for the "it's inherently biased because it's not written in Japanese", that's just plain wrong. Bias, in the case of Wikipedia, is either giving undue weight to an item (talking about it but not other things or vice versa) or not showing the true nature of something (making it look better or worse than it actually is). Being written in a different language is not biased towards or against anything, at least in the case of Wikipedia. That is why there are multiple language Wikipedias, so that the infomation is available to you regardless of language, not so that English-centric topics can be discussed in the English Wikipedia etc.

Alphathon™ (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Systematic Bias is clearly about topic content and coverage, there is nothing wrong with the non-English content of the Mega Drive article, it consistently brings up what was happening in all parts of the world, from Japan, to Brazil, to even India in some cases. The infobox is for user reference, which is a completely different thing, Logo's in the infobox are only allowed because they help users reconise where they are, which the Japanese logo does not do. Jesus.arnold (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

…unless you are Japanese or are familiar with their logo (importers etc). Regardless of that though, I did say that "I don't know that that necessarily means it needs to be in the infobox, but your argument is fundamentally flawed", the argument in question being "its sure as hell not biased against the Japanese who have their own version of Wikipedia to cater to their territories specific differences in depth".

Also, as said above, it's systemic bias, not systematic.

Alphathon™ (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By Your argument every article about a brand should have every logo from every part of the world. Jesus.arnold (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world, yes. In almost all cases this is irrelevant as the same logo is used worldwide, or at least a variation of it (i.e. the same basic logo but with text in a different language). The Mega Drive is an exception, not a rule. Also bear in mind though, as I said, I wasn't saying that the JP logo necessarily needs to be in the infobox, but that your argument against it was flawed. Alphathon™ (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that how it is now (NA and PAL in the infobox, JP in the history section) is ok? Miremare 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the JP logo in the History section should be the square one, in respects to where it is at the moment, the square one would fit better, and would be clearer (as opposed to being long and thin)

I wanted to note something else, whilst we actually have a PAL logo, and a NTSC logo in the infobox presently, we actually have Japanese revision pictures, therefore, I put forward that in its present state the infobox represents all three territories equally anyway. Jesus.arnold (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. And yes, the current wide version of the JP logo is fine for the infobox, but would be better in just its square form when used elsewhere in the article. Miremare 18:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so where does everyone stand here? I think the logo should be in the infobox. Square version if included in history, yes. Arnold is for history, I'm for infobox...what do you two think? It's obvious you're both fine with either.--SexyKick 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think infobox, but if it must be history, then the squarish version it is. Alphathon™ (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Square version, history. Miremare 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK then, we have two and two...if only we had an odd number of people here right now.--SexyKick 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) But this isn't a vote, let's have some reasoning instead. Logos are used to aid the reader's recognition of the brand, and rarely is there more than one in an infobox. The Mega Drive is a justifiable exception as in the two English speaking regions it not only had different logos, but different names too. But what's the justification for using the JP logo as well? Using two isn't a free pass to use as many as we want, there should still be a compelling reason to use each one. It was the original logo, but as a logo from a non-English speaking region where the console was relatively unsuccessful, it doesn't aid recognition of the subject to English speaking readers. It should therefore stay in the "history" section. Miremare 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's justifiable reasoning for both points of view, which is why it basically needs to come down to a vote. I understand the reasoning for both.--SexyKick 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But what is the reasoning for having the JP logo in the infobox? And we use consensus on WP for a good reason. If we can't agree among ourselves we'll have to get some more input. Miremare 08:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning is that it's in the infobox for brand recognition for importers and non-english speakers who come the english wiki. I thought that was said? Both arguments are good, and don't really have any way around them, so that's why I think it should go to editor vote. I agree we should discuss more often than not, I just think a vote is the simplest, fairest, fastest way to do it here since the reasoning is good from both ends.--SexyKick 12:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But we don't cater to non-English speakers, we're the English Wikipedia. We also don't cater to a small minority of owners of imported machines (of which I am one), but for readers who potentially know nothing of the subject at all. Therefore there's very little to be gained from having a third logo in the infobox. If we can't agree on which way to go then we need to ask for further input at WT:VG or something. Miremare 13:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK that sounds fair to me : ) SexyKick 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For the time being, since I don't feel like going to WT:VG just yet, and I assume Miremare isn't going to do it himself, I've put the square version into the article. I think the caption needs much shortening if possible. But Miremare, please bring this up on WT:VG so we can be done with this awful mess and have the NFC tag removed.--SexyKick 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so you all know, the JP logo has been tagged as a copyright violation on commons (and as such is up for deletion), so it would seem its "textlogo" status is still in dispute. Alphathon™ (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed.--SexyKick 03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Best wait until this is decided then before bothering other editors with where it should go. Miremare 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is it being discussed? Miremare 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems it's OK now?--SexyKick 20:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm good with it in the history. I think it's time we removed the NFC tag...--SexyKick 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it definitely free then? Also we still have all the Virtua Racing/Doom/Sonic CD images, which are very much part of the NFC problem. Miremare 20:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's free until wikimedia decides otherwise. I don't think there's an NFC problem anymore, all pictures have justified fair use rationales (all checked by JMilburn,) our NFC numbers are now below, or tied with other FA's I've been looking at, and consensus on the logos appears to be reached.--SexyKick 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't "free until wikimedia decides otherwise" - that's not how copyright works. It can be considered free (which I think is probably what you meant), but for the actual status it either is free or isn't, and that status can only be decided by a court or government. Alphathon™ (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from NFC concerns (and we still have SIX, possibly seven if the JP logo counts), the appropriateness of at least two of the images is still questionable. Specifically, the Doom and Sonic CD ones, which are not even Mega Drive games. I and at least two other editors have already voiced concerns about the pertinence of these images to this article, as opposed to the Mega CD and 32X articles. Miremare 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful translation Alphathon. Mire, yes, we have six, and if the JP logo is ever deemed to not be free, it will most likely be gone, so we don't have seven. I and at least two other editors have voiced that we feel the screenshots are very appropriate, relevant to the Mega Drive, and that it expresses what text can not. Do you have another problem with them being there?--SexyKick 21:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, in a quick look through NFC of featured articles, I found Only Fools and Horses to have 10, Crazy Taxi (series) to have 7 (or 9,) Grim Fandango to have 6, Ōkami to have 7, and Super Smash Bros. Melee to have 6, many had 5, that's not worth linking. This was just a quick look, so there is certainly more with 6 and up. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that our NFC numbers are well within the definition of normal. Now, when J Milburn marked the article with the NFC tag (for having three logos specifically as the reason) the Mega Drive article had 9 pieces of NFC, which is high. We're now at 6, and that is well within the realm of normal.--SexyKick 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Weight of coverage, for one. Of course they illustrate what text can not, most images do, and many things are relevant to the Mega Drive, but not everything needs to be, or should be, illustrated. You say that you are "on the fence about the Sonic 1 screenshot ... but can see how it's relevant", whereas you think the others, two of which aren't even MD games, are "very appropriate"? I find this rather puzzling. The concept of upgrades allowing such "better" games is all very well and good, but it doesn't need illustrating three times. NFC needs to be used appropriately, not just sparingly. Miremare 22:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting me from weeks if not months ago is not a good idea, as I've changed my mind since then. The upgrades let different graphical games become possible. In the Sega CD's case, mode 7 like graphics and FMV, in the SVP's case, heavy polygon pushing, and in the 32X's case, quite a bit more. It's not three different things that let the same upgrade happen.--SexyKick 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know what the images represent, but why is it necessary to show an image of them? The upgrades that the hardware allowed can be explained more than well enough in words, so using an image of any type (especially non-free) to illustrate them is extraneous at best. Then there's the fact that if any elaboration on the capabilities is made using images, it is better off in the Mega CD and 32X articles, since any coverage here is supposed to be nothing more than a summary (otherwise they wouldn't have separate articles). Also, I don't really think either of the images do a very good job of illustrating the improvements. Alphathon™ (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How does the Sonic CD image not demonstrate the enhanced graphical capabilities of the Mega CD??? I agree possibly a more colorful image could be used to represent the 32X (Blackthorne perhaps,) but I thought a 3D game that actually ran good compared to its 16-bit version would be a better choice, as that was the 32X's prerogative.--SexyKick 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It does demonstrate the enhanced capabilities of the Mega CD, but the point is that this is the wrong article for that. Images demonstrating the capabilities of other machines (even related ones) aren't appropriate ways to use non-free content in this article. In the same way that an image of a Master System game to illustrate the capabilities of the Power Base Converter wouldn't be appropriate, because the reader can go to the Master System article if they want to know what the games look like, we have articles on the Mega CD and 32X in which to discuss and illustrate their capabilities. The Virtua Racing image is relevant, being the only one that's actually an MD game. Also, Doom and Sonic CD are not directly discussed in this article, they're just being used as general examples, which is another inappropriate use of NFC. Miremare 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Although initial sales were good, thanks mostly to Doom" and "While it became known for several games, including Sonic CD" seems like they're there, specifically mentioned.--SexyKick 19:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Mention ≠ discuss. A simple mention of something is not justification for it to be shown in an article, especially when the image is non-free. Similarly, there are several people mentioned in the article; would you say it would be appropriate to show head and shoulder shots of them all? The main reason why their use is inappropriate is that there are specific articles about both the games shown and the add-ons. If they were free images it wouldn't matter that much, but the fact that they aren't means they must be well justified. Alphathon™ (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the article does discuss the Sega CD and 32X, and it's screen shots of Sega CD and 32X effectiveness.--SexyKick 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* "The main reason why their use is inappropriate is that there are specific articles about both the games shown and the add-ons". They are not discussed in-depth enough to warrant a non-free image as extra demonstration, and if they were discussed enough, then the article would be going unnecessarily in-depth because such discussion belongs in the respective article. What is written here is only an overview, so detailed descriptions and images are not appropriate; that is why they have their own articles. Alphathon™ (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(tldr) I went ahead and removed all three logos (we don't really need them anyway), two photos and two of the four screenshots. I think it looks MUCH better now. Let me know what you think of it. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks unfinished, unprofessional, and empty. Sorry DC, but I personally think that if you're not going to read the talk pages you probably shouldn't be doing anything with the article at all, we came to a relative agreement about the logo's last week, the only thing up for debate now is the 32X/Mega CD screenshots Jesus.arnold (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that a discussion is long does not give you free license to ignore it. Either participate in the discussion (or at least read it and go with the consensus) or don't edit the page (at least in relation to the discussion). Alphathon™ (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we can agree on having 500 non-free images or not, but us having 500 non-free images. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's whether or not the images are justified. On their own, each image may or may not be justified, the question is whether they are justified in the context of the other images. The idea is to keep non-free images to a minimum but there is no upper limit (at least not explicitly). The reason it is termed as "too many" is because J Milburn is/was arguing that it was unjustified to use more than one non-free logo, since it isn't explicitly covered in the policy (except for historical logos that have some special notability for some reason), essentially saying that they were redundant (i.e. they represented the same thing).Alphathon™ (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, we all need to just make some concessions here and come to some sort of agreement otherwise we'll be doomed to repeat this ad infinitum.

I honestly feel that the Logo's we had last week are as good as they are going to get. Lets be realistic here, if we use no logo's it'll be just a matter of time before someone adds the Genesis logo, soon after a European will start a discussion on here about bias and then add the PAL logo, it'll just go round and round in circles. The prior state had a logical argument we could use (the European and America territories are represented by logo's, the Japanese territory is represented by hardware pictures) it didn't clog up the info box too much for those users who disliked all the pictures, the two logo's can easily be defended under fair use rationale, and personally, now that its been there for a while, I definitely feel that the Japanese logo works in the in the History section very well (it has yet to be reinstated).

Where it comes to the 32X/Sega CD pictures I did feel that they were useful, and that their absence would be felt, but honestly I don't see that removing them would really do that much damage to the article all in all, and if it helps us make some progress here then i'm fine with going along with the majority and agreeing with a removal. After the Kitchen floor picture was zoomed in I didn't have any problems with its inclusion, so unless anyone protests against it we could add it back in seeing as its free (presently its still absent) Jesus.arnold (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned before I don't really have any problems with the 2+1 logo suggestion (I still think it's better if they're all in the infobox but I don't really care that much either way TBH). I'd also be fine with having the "kitchen floor" pic (it is non-free after all so doesn't really need a particularly strong rationale). My only worry is that we probably can't get rid of the non-free tag unless we get a second opinion from an admin who deals with a lot of non-free issues (J Milburn thinks that it's unjustified to have two concurrent non-free logos at all). Alphathon™ (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So we now have fewer images, but with the logos back. I hope we can all agree that this is a reasonable compromise. Personally I don't think the likes of the kitchen floor image added anything to the article anyway and as such shouldn't have been there, despite being free. The article now looks less cluttered and much better for it, IMO. Miremare 01:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, although the JP logo should be brought back in the history section as well (as per previous discussion). Alphathon™ (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If we don't have the pictures here, I think all of our consensus can be to remove the NFC tag, as I do believe all of our consensus is that there is a Mega Drive brand, and a Genesis brand, and this article covers both brands, so therefore justifies a logo for each brand.--SexyKick 01:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if anything the article looks more empty than cluttered, and I don't see why a section about the audio of the Mega Drive which contains a section about the superiority of certain models can't have a complimentary picture of what said superior variations look like for reference purposes (seeing as its free anyway) Jesus.arnold (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Non-free tag is still there, honestly it was pretty ridiculous it being there even before the cull, let alone now, when we only have two non-free logo images, two NFC images seems to be under half the status quo of most featured articles of this size on Wikipedia. Jesus.arnold (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The non-free tag is still there because in the past when we have "fixed" the problem and removed it, J Milburn has come along and said "no, that's still not good enough" and put it back (and since he has issues with there being multiple logo full-stop, I doubt he'll have changed his mind). Don't get me wrong, I don't it still needs to be there, but I don't think it should be removed until we are 100% sure. Alphathon™ (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Kiefer did try to talk to him about it, and was 100% ignored. JMilburn understands Wikipedia is about consensus, and the consensus is that this article about two different brands. I think that since the time has gone by, and he's had nothing to say, that he now he has begrudgingly changed his mind, since he obviously ignored us all.--SexyKick 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Videogame Rating Council

Personally, I don't see the point in tagging the article willy-nilly when you haven't even tried talking about the problem here in the talk page. I agree the section could use some help, I contacted KieferSkunk about rewriting it. Since I wrote it, I figured it may be fragmented etc.

However, why do you not see the importance? A similar section is included in the SNES article as well, and it bears the same relevance here. Sega created the first video game ratings system, it was a very big thing, and talked about in many Genesis articles. It only made sense to be included in this article. I didn't feel the article would be complete without something discussing the VRC.--SexyKick 01:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is not relevant to the article at all. The article is about the Mega Drive hardware, not about the console wars or video game ratings.

I propose to keep a reference to the introduction of the ratings system, but one sentence is more than enough.

As for the SNES article: It doesn't matter.

Also, remember that not everyone has the time to spend several hours a day debating the Mega Drive article with you. Please stop reverting the tags until further discussion took place and consensus has been reached. Thank you. DCEvoCE (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have some misconceptions about what the entire article is about. The article is about the history of the Mega Drive, not simply just its hardware. This article is not written with fan blogs, or rumors, anything like that. I don't know why you feel that way. There's no where that says "it is rumored that" or "it is speculated that this." Everything has legit source.

As per being from the same time, and competing directly against each other, this article is written with an extremely similar style to the SNES article. If it doesn't matter that the SNES article talks about console wars, changes in censorship, and legacy then it certainly doesn't matter if the Genesis article talks about console wars, add ons, 32-bit era and beyond, revival, SVP, or the VRC.--SexyKick 00:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I do plan on taking this tag away soon.--SexyKick 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section for it got nothing to do with the Mega Drive. You can add back a sentence or two with a link to the Video Game Council article but more than that is overkill imho. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The video game rating system of the US was based around the system created by Sega for the Mega Drive so it is a fairly important part of Mega Drive history, though I'm not really sure where I stand on how much space should be dedicated to it, one thing I do feel though is that it needed nothing short of a total re-write anyway (all the dates and information was mixed up, and some of the wording was unclear) Jesus.arnold (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said I was against mentioning it. A whole section is way too much though. Let's have one or two senteces and be done with it. It's nothing of any importance whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up yet another thing for debate, but I feel that if we're trying to cut down on un-needed information the emulation section is a bigger problem, I don't really see that information about emulators and their coders belong anywhere in a Encyclopedia in the first place, when it was a cusory mention it seemed alright but now I feel there's too much. Jesus.arnold (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, yet I got another idea for the emulation section: Cut it down to a few sentences at best and migrate some of the "Revival" crap I read in the artcile. All these new MD releases actually are emulation based, whether on Wii, PS3 or the AtGames/Firecore crap. So let's cut it down and merge these sections. (if I find the time I'll do a draft) DCEvoCE (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, in my opinion doing that would be a little unclear (although logically its true that the new systems are emulation, everyday people wouldn't think to look in the emulation sections for that information about new commercial variations) however, maybe we could do the opposite? seeing as emulator's do kind of come under "revival", in that they're bringing dead consoles back to the masses in a way that is easily accessible. I do think that more than a few sentences would be acceptable though (say 1/3rd or 1/4th what it is at the moment, not including the revival part). Either way don't rush to do anything yet DC, wait for a proper concensus :) , if general opinion is to keep the section how it is, then I'm not pursuing the issue (we have enough problems as it is). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus.arnold (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with not doing anything until consensus has reached. I don't need anyone's permission to edit Wikipedia. Other than that, I agree with you in that I think that it doesn't matter if we merge Emulation into Revival or vice versa. Both sections are horrible and gotta go. DCEvoCE (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"I don't need anyone's permission to edit Wikipedia." No, you don't, but it's Wikipedia policy to discuss potentially controversial edits. Anything that is already being discussed would come under that banner. In cases where no clear consensus is reached, the status quo remains (i.e. it stays as it was pre-edit). Also, bear in mind that nobody else needs permission to edit either, so unless you want to start yet another edit war, please do not just jump in. Alphathon™ (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you threatening me ? Reverting edits done in good faith is not acceptable. I couldn't help but notice that you participated in this quite a bit. DCEvoCE (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You may want to review Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is quite acceptable to revert good-faith edits if they need discussion. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not threatening you (sorry if it came off that way), I'm trying to avoid disruption to the article by getting you to talk rather than just make the article how you think it should be and see if it sticks. What I'm trying to do is encourage WP:AVOIDEDITWAR.

Reverting good faith is not always unacceptable - what I am intending to do (perhaps unsuccessfully) is use BOLD, revert, discuss (as Anomie pointed out); that is, you (or someone else) make a bold edit, I (or someone else) revert it and we discuss it to reach an agreement on how to proceed. Being bold is fine (in fact encouraged generally) but that does not mean that a reversion of a bold edit is bad (although it can be of course). It is not a challenge or an attack on you.

From Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing: "Discussion is, however, called for if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus".

What you did specifically with your last lot of edits was ignore the discussion (tl;dr) and in doing so edited against the consensus. As such, reverting said edit (which was done by the anon IP) was appropriate, as was reverting your revert of it. As far as I am aware the only times in which such a revert would not be appropriate would be if the edit and consensus in question involved an unambiguous violation of policy or law (such as if a bunch of anon IPs found a consensus that it was a good idea to fill the page with profanity or something equally stupid).

Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. Basically, if there is a discussion, take part or at least take head of it. If you make a bold edit and are reverted, discuss it. Simply bold editing is no way to get a stable page, as if you are bold but against consensus you are fairly likely to be reverted.

On a more general note, seeing as how edits on this page almost always seem to be controversial, how about we adopt a policy of talk first, edit later, rather than being bold and reverting? Some things, such as spelling/grammar corrections, adding new info (as long as it's sourced) etc would obviously be exempt, but since there is no deadline any other concerns (re-writes, usage of images, section merges etc) can wait until we're sure they are right (or at least until we are sure we most agree with the changes). We could even leave the current discussions as they are and set up separate section for each individual dispute so that we don't have to troll through a heap of discussions to find a consensus one something.

Alphathon™ (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk frist, edit later. That's what I've been doing since July. The time spent talking about the same two images and three logos would have been MUCH better spent elsewhere. DCEvoCE (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that is so; I'd certainly agree that it's taken far longer than it probably needs to have done. The problem is that there are a lot of us involved in this discussion and it isn't a simple "should we do this or not?" conversation. It is many different, often interrelated, issues, that (generally) don't have yes/no answers. If you think it is a waste of your time to take part in or read the discussions, please just leave the bits that are being discussed alone; otherwise, it'll just cause is conflict. Remember, there is no deadline so we should at least try to do it properly rather than rushing to a solution just so it can be finished with. The vast amount of time spent is part of the reasons I suggested the re-organisation above. Alphathon™ (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion yes, but it's easy on WP to become engaged in lengthy discussions at the expense of actually getting things done. Sometimes it takes someone to actually do something, and DCEvoCE's edit/s have resulted in what I think all three of us can agree is a positive change to the article. Miremare 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it probably has been a net positive. This really is more about specifically removing the logos, since there is a vague consensus on that which was ignored. It doesn't really matter if you talk before editing, as long as any discussions are taken into account. Alphathon™ (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a short section, and while both me and Arnold agreed it needed a rewrite, removing it is not what we agreed upon. There is no clear consensus on removing the pictures either from what I can see, but speaking in votes, it's like, 4 to 3 to remove them, so the pictures are removed. I don't see why we need the NFC tag now.

I also heavily disagree with a rewrite on the emulation section, or the revival section. Honestly it just seems everything you want to take out of the article, or rewrite is anything positive said about the Mega Drive. Nothing negative needs to be rewritten? How about we got to the SNES article and take out positive things said about it???? That's insane.--SexyKick 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, I'd like to know everyone's consensus for the cleanup tag at the top of the article. I just don't see this article as in need of cleaning up. It was a GA that was delisted because of the things listed in the delist discussion, all of which were corrected. (dead links, citation neededs, small stuff) I don't think there's really anything to cleanup apart from the VCR section.--SexyKick 03:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think we do all agree that DC's edits were positive (sorry), half of them had to be reverted anyway and the only reason they weren't all reverted was because too long had passed before anyone noticed. I said before that I was fine with the 32X/Sega CD pictures being removed in the interest of moving things forward, that does not mean that I think their removal is positive, the article looks worse than before, but concessions need to be made otherwise we'll get nowhere.

I didn't want to be the bad guy here, but the posts regarding "positive action" are not helpful, and not constructive, writing TL:DR and then ignoring everyone and changing everything is not on. The logos were all removed even though we had agreed to keep them, no decision had been reached on what to do with the removed rating system section (I felt a re-write and shortening could've been better) there was no discussion on removing the kitchen floor picture (now that its zoomed in I have no problems with it), or the Mega Drive mouse picture, and at least three people on here felt the "Add-ons" pictures were fine anyway.

In regards to the changes which were made, my opinion is to keep the logo's as they were before (2+1), re-instate the kitchen floor picture, leave the add-ons screenshots out (seeing as they are so unpopular with some people), leave the rating council section out (at least for the time being as a re-write doesn't seem to be happening any time soon), and remove the non-free content note, I don't have an opinion either way about the Megamouse picture. Jesus.arnold (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can completely remove the NFC tag (seconded) as well as the cleanup tag. I've tried to rewrite the VCR section once, but I think it needs Kiefer's, or Alphathon's help.--SexyKick 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussions

Discussions relating to this article have been started at WP:ORN#Mega Drive/Genesis sales and WT:VG/RS#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Please comment there if you have any useful input. Anomie⚔ 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Direct competition" with the SNES?

The lede states that the Genesis was in direct competition with the SNES. While this is true for a period, for an almost similar period and, more importantly, at its release, it was in direct competition to the SNES.http://retro.ign.com/articles/965/965032p1.html I believe the lede should be altered to state that. Perhaps something like: at its release it was in direct competition with the TG16 and the NES, and later in its life it competed with the SNES.LedRush (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead is just a short summary up of the rest of the article, the "console wars" section is where it's covered in more detail. While the MD was released a while before the SNES, the two machines dominated the fourth generation console era so it makes sense to mention this pairing in the lead rather than the NES or PC Engine, which for reasons of age or popularity weren't really important competitors of the MD. Miremare 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Its also clear based on their Genesis does what NIntend'nt commercials that Nintendo was seen as their primary competition not the TG16.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The NES is also Nintendo. The early marketing of the Genesis was directed at the NES, not the SNES. The Genesis was created to unseat the NES, not the SNES. We currently mention the TG16, which wasn't really competition in the west (but was in Japan), while the NES was the "direct competition" (according to sources already included in this article) of the Genesis at launch. I am not looking for a dramatic overhaul, merely a very small correction.LedRush (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at it from the context of the current generation of machines. When the Xbox 360 was released it had no "direct competition" because it was the first of its generation to be released. It's competition wasn't the outgoing consoles of the previous generation, but the upcoming ones of its own generation. From the direct competition article, "products which perform the same function compete against each other. For example, one brand of pick-up trucks competes with several other brands of pick-up trucks. Sometimes, two companies are rivals and one adds new products to their line, which leads to the other company distributing the same new things, and in this manner they compete". Miremare 16:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the direct competition article seems to support my positions, as the NES and Genesis were performing the same function and competed against each other. Regarding comparisons to this generation of games, I am not sure that this is the best comparison. The last two generations of systems have competed on a much more even and equal launch schedule in a much more mature market. Realistically, there were no serious challengers to the NES until the Genesis, and our article already clearly states this. I just want the lede to more accurately reflect the article (and to decrease the innaccuracy of the lede).

Instead of talking in generalities, I think I will be bold and make some changes. I would prefer if people wouldn't revert out of hand, but would try to amend to better reflect your view. However, if you revert, I will continue the discussions here and we will at least have something more concrete (and less theoretical) to discuss.LedRush (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All consoles (or trucks in the example) perform the same basic function, but they are not all in direct competition with each other. The SNES, and arguably the TurboGrafx-16, were in direct competition with the Mega Drive, but the NES (or any other machine from an earlier or later console generation) was not. But even so, the lead shouldn't be a reproduction of every detail of the article, it's a summary of the most important points, and the most important point of competition between the MD and SNES are each other. If we weren't mentioning the NES in the article body it would be right that we change that, as it was the most popular machine at the time of release, but it should still be mentioned in the relevant section, and not as a product providing "direct" competition. Miremare 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The NES and the Genesis were in direct competition for over two years and the reference above verifies that (and our article implies this as well). This is a non-controversial point. Additionally, I've never stated that the lede should be a reproduction of every detail of the article. I'd appreciate it if you address my points and not exaggerate them.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the tone of my previous post, but I was exasperated with what I thought was an unnecessarily confrontational tone in yours. Perhaps I read your post wrong, and I apologize.

I have made some edits to the lede. I have not expanded the lede to include more details (in fact, it is more concise than before) but have given it the context to demonstrate both the importance of the 16-bit era competition and the situation in which the Genesis was introduced. I can include the source above to verify the statement, but per WP policy, the source is not needed if supported by sources in the text. I will happily defer to others on this point.LedRush (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

While I don't agree that the NES and MD were ever in direct competition (out of interest, which source says they were?), I don't have a problem with the wording in the lead as it currently stands. And don't worry about the tone of your post - tone is all in the reading. ;) Miremare 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"I'M NOT BEING CONFRONTATIONAL!!!!!!!111" ;) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Miremare, the IGN source at the top of this section says "Timing is everything, and the 1989 launch of the Genesis put it in direct competition with the NES, which still had wonderful games, but was looking creaky." http://retro.ign.com/articles/965/965032p1.html LedRush (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

KieferSkunk, I appreciate that your edit made it more clear that the defining bit of the 16-bit wars was an SNES/MegaDrive showdown, but my edit I thought flowed better by dividing the sentence into two and by removing the parenthetical (I love using parentheticals in informal writing like this, but I believe it should be avoided in formal writing). I will take another stab at fixing what I see as flow/writing issues while keeping your addition which further emphasizes the direct competition of SNES/MegaDrive.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I lied. I just changed the parenthetical to an apposative.LedRush (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

article title

This is the American Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia. Please change the name to Genesis, the proper name.--D3st1ny (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before ad nauseum, but regardless of that, this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, and it was known as Mega Drive everywhere in the world except the US and Canada (and maybe Mexico, I don't know), including many English-speaking countries. Also, no everyone who speaks English is a native speaker (second/third language etc). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But America is THE English speaking country? Just like how France is the French speaking country, China the Chinese speaking country, so on and so fourth.--D3st1ny (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, what? That makes absolutely no sense. There are several other English speaking countries, such as Canada, The UK, Eire (Ireland), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc. If you meant the main English speaking country, that is arguable, but irrelevant anyway - America has no ownership over the content of en.wikipedia. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 04:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, if any country is "the" English speaking country, it should be England surely (the clue is in the name). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Article Contradicts Itself

Either the Sega Genesis (Mega Drive) was the best selling Gaming Console of it's era in North America or it wasn't. This Wiki first describes it as "the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in Europe and North America" in the introductory section. Followed by not being successful in North America in the History section i.e. "Although the Sega Master System was a success in Europe, and later also Brazil, it failed to ignite much interest in the North American or Japanese markets, which, by the mid-to-late 1980s, were both dominated by Nintendo's large market shares" and later in the Console Wars section it is described as beating out Nintendo very soundly i.e. "Sega began in 1992 with a number of advantages: a 55% to 45% market share over the Super NES" as well as "with Nintendo's share of the 16-bit machine business dipping down to 37% at the end of 1993,[55] and Sega accounting for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales during 1994" . You can't have it both ways, it may not have been as successful in North America v.s. Europe when it was first released, which was largely due to the price tag, but it definitely dominated the market in North America overall.--75.17.215.115 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

None of that is inherently contradictory as far as I can tell - I can see why it would appear to be (so some rewording may be in order) but it doesn't actually contradict itself.

"the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in Europe and North America"

This is a tad confusing - I'm fairly sure it's saying it was the first 4th gen (16-bit era) console to have a significant market share (compared to the previous gen - NES etc - presumably). This is probably to contrast it with the Turbografx-16, which didn't gain a significant share.

"Although the Sega Master System was a success in Europe, and later also Brazil, it failed to ignite much interest in the North American or Japanese markets, which, by the mid-to-late 1980s, were both dominated by Nintendo's large market shares"

This is talking about the Sega Master System (the predecessor to the MD), not the Mega Drive/Genesis. Either you have misread it or thought it was relevant due to misunderstanding the previous quote.

"Sega began in 1992 with a number of advantages: a 55% to 45% market share over the Super NES"

All this says is that in January 1992 Sega was in the lead. (Not surprising considering it launched ≈2 years earlier than the SNES.)

"with Nintendo's share of the 16-bit machine business dipping down to 37% at the end of 1993,[55] and Sega accounting for 55% of all 16-bit hardware sales during 1994"

All this means is that by December 1993 they had been significantly overtaken by the SNES in terms of total units sold to date, and that 55% of 16-bit consoles sold in 1994 were MDs.

it definitely dominated the market in North America overall

What justification do you have for this assertion?

On a side note, your use of "i.e." is inappropriate (I think you meant "e.g."). "i.e." is essentially a way of saying "in other words" or "to clarify:". Sorry, it just really grinds my gears when people mis-use it (along with things like "they're"/"there"/"their" and "its"/"it's").

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 19:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First, if the article seems a tad confusing, then yes it needs to be cleaned up. If you need to use terms like "fairly certain" and "probably" for your argument it is obviously vague.

As for your explanations, first yes I was mistaken on the master system vs mega system... Taking that into account does change the context of my argument.

I.e. stands for "that is," which in Latin is 'id est'. "I.e." is used in place of "in other words," or "that is."

As for what justification I have for saying Genesis/MD dominated in North America? It is strictly by the numbers of units sold vs NES and SNES. Worldwide the numbers are considerably different, but not in North America.

--75.17.215.115 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"If you need to use terms like "fairly certain" and "probably" for your argument it is obviously vague."

I wouldn't disagree there (although I don't think I'd have used the word vague… unclear perhaps). However, I didn't use the term "fairly certain" once and only used "probably" in relation to the comparison with the TurboGrafx-16, which was not part of an "argument" (I wasn't arguing anything but mearly speculating on what the original author intended it to mean - I cannot say that it definitely was the intended meaning so I said probably). This does not make the point that was made (that you had misread it) any less valid. Of course, it probably should still be reworded to make it clearer.

""I.e." is used in place of "in other words," or "that is." "

That is (more or less) what I said (""i.e." is essentially a way of saying "in other words" or "to clarify:"."). Regardless, "that is" doesn't really make sense where you have used "i.e.". I don't want to get into an argument about grammar though - here is certainly not the place and it doesn't really accomplish anything. I only brought it up because it is misused so often (to mean "for example") and I thought that's what you were doing (since "that is" doesn't fit).

"As for what justification I have for saying Genesis/MD dominated in North America? It is strictly by the numbers of units sold vs NES and SNES. Worldwide the numbers are considerably different, but not in North America."

According to the SNES article, it sold 23.35 million in "the Americas" while the Genesis sold 22.3−23.8 million in North America (including 1 million Nomads and 1-2 million Majesco Genesis 3s, which probably shouldn't be included). Even taking the highest value for the Genesis (incl. those variants) it hardly wiped the floor with the SNES. Of course "the Americas" includes south and central America as well, so it's number may be inflated, but even including all the 2 million sales in Brazil, that only puts the Genesis/Mega Drive a maximum of 2.45 million ahead in "the Americas" (I don't even know if the SNES was released in South/Central America). Considering that these numbers are far from clear and likely incomplete, I don't see how you can assert that it "Dominated" in North America. If you have better figures, please provide links to them (since they would be most beneficial to both articles).

As for the NES, I don't think it's really all that relevant, but it sold 34 million in "the Americas" (according to the NES article), so totally dwarfed both the SNES and the Genesis/Mega Drive.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk)

Yes, the SNES was released in Central and South America. There's at least one article I know of, touting the success of the SNES in "Latin America," which consists largely of South America.

"with Nintendo's share of the 16-bit machine business dipping down to 37% at the end of 1993,[55]"

All this means is that by December 1993 they had been significantly overtaken by the SNES in terms of total units sold to date

That statement actually means the opposite.

This study of NPD numbers for the US shown in table one (page 24,) shows the % of market share of each console for every year. The SNES is only ahead in 1997, 5.11% of the market, to the Genesis' 4.12% of the market. This is not surprising, since Sega had discontinued the American Genesis that year.

Note that this article does not state the sales numbers of the years 1994 through 2002, only market %, however, it does state that going into 1994, Genesis was leading the Super NES, but it has conflicting sources for this information. (Page 12) One source claims Genesis to have sold 7.6 million vs. SNES 4.8 million, while the other source claims Genesis has sold 10.6 million vs. SNES 8.5 million. Either way, the SNES never actually had a lead in the USA according to this NPD data.

Kent does claim that SNES would go on to eventually outsell the Genesis (American market,) which is true according to this data. They outsold the Genesis in 1997, but did not continue to outsell the Genesis. This allows Kent to make this dubious statement.--SexyKick 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"That statement actually means the opposite."

Oops, I misread Nintendo as Sega *blushes*. My mistake. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at that page and noticed something - it lists the media type for the Genesis as CD-Rom. I'm guessing that this is either just an error, the result of the CDX or they have combined all variants and add-ons into one category; all seem fairly likely*. Still, given that they are NPD numbers and not official sales figures I would take them with a grain of salt (at least round them to the nearest 1%, not that it changes the outcome much).

*This would certainly account for at least some of the Genesis's continued popularity - I don't see how else it could maintain that high a market share through until 1999. Heck, according to that they sold more Genesises in 2000 than Dreamcasts in 2002, which is either wrong, inflated or just depressing.

On another note, perhaps it is simply that the US was the anomaly (rather than the whole of North America/the Americas). I know Canada has nowhere near the purchasing power of the US, but it is conceivable that they are influential enough to balance things out. Still, if there is such a disparity then perhaps yet another re-write is in order.

Also, I feel like I might have come across a tad aggressive earlier - not intentionally, but I tend to write in a way that can sometimes come across as aggressive or argumentative online (due to lack of voice tone, facial expression etc) and I feel that this might have been such an occasion - so sorry if I did.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

hm thats just quarter 1 of 2002--BeastSystem (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I've done it again *slaps forehead*. I really need to stop reading/posting at 4 in the morning :/. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Still, assuming sales stayed at the level throughout 2002 (they probably didn't, but still) that only puts them at 0.2% of total sales. Even if there was a jump later in the year, (lets say it got up as high as 0.5%) that's still less than the Genesis's 2000 figures buy a large margin. Of course, that's just speculation. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of the table it lists total millions of consoles sold, and then you can multiply the total by their listed market share % to get a sales number guesstimate. I got 3.95 million Dreamcast. Plus the Dreamcast was discontinued in March 2001, so there's no way it could actually account for much in 2002 at all, with little to no consoles on the shelves. I feel like VGChartz!--BeastSystem (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Plus the Dreamcast was discontinued in March 2001" Yeah, but the Genesis (discounting Genesis 3, Firecore etc) was discontinued in the US in 1997 according to the article, so the same applies really. I don't see how it could be selling so many unless the Genesis 3/CDX etc are counted as Genesises (Geneses?).

"I feel like VGChartz!" Lol!

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, we should include Mega/Sega CD & 32X sales in with Mega Menecis/Sega Genesis sales.--BeastSystem (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why‽ CDX sales perhaps, but 32X and Mega CD don't make sense since they require a MD to function. Basically, if you count all the Mega CD & 32X sales, you count everyone who bought one twice, if not three times. If you mean they should be included in the comparison of sales for market share comparison etc, perhaps, but I'm not sure I see the relevance. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, by "Mega Menecis" I assume you mean "Mega Drive" (how on Earth did you manage to mis-type it as that?). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't even notice those numbers down there. Interesting.

Now that you mention it, we should include Mega/Sega CD & 32X sales in with Mega Menecis/Sega Genesis sales.

No way! Whoa...those things don't play Mega Drive games, so we shouldn't be counting their sales onto Mega Drive & Genesis sales.

If you mean they should be included in the comparison of sales for market share comparison etc, perhaps, but I'm not sure I see the relevance.

Hm, well, I am planning a legacy section that would mention market share, and top ten lists. Not unlike the SNES articles same section. I'm not sure how I'd go about stating this though.

And I do remember in 2000, going to EB Games and seeing Genesis 3 for like $20 new, and tons of Genesis games for a special deal, "$5 for any three Genesis games." Tons of people were buying those things. I bought a Dreamcast in October 1999, and whatever money I got until GameCube went to the Dreamcast. Quite a few of my neighbors picked the Genesis 3 up between 1998 and 2001, and I was the only person I knew at the time, who bought a Dreamcast. I even got made fun of for owning one..."It's just the same thing as PlayStation 1, except PlayStation 1's graphics are like, four times better. Dreamcast isn't even Y2K ready." Yes, it's depressing, but in 2002, Dreamcast systems were unfindable at stores. People snatched those up the second they found out you could burn games for free, no mod chip required.

Anyway, my point is, why wouldn't Genesis 3 sales count? Any licensed variation of a Genesis would make sense to count towards market share, and NPD clearly didn't have any prejudice for Majesco's model.

As for the CDX (and JVC X'Eye,) perhaps that's why media type is listed as CD, but according to Sam Pettus, only 5,000 CDX unitx were produced for North America, and only 10,000 JVC's were sold.--SexyKick 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I found out what "Mega Menecis" is, and why it sounded so familiar to me (even though it's not actually said in there).--SexyKick 02:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how the embedded sample relates to the reference, and it seems rather dubious.

As usual, trying to get some clarification and accuracy on Wikipedia has been a waste of time.

The citation for this whole 'the sound is completely different in different revisions' thing has no relation to the claims.

But like I say, as usual it's a complete waste of time trying to get any reasonable response from the sort of people who 'maintain' articles in this 'encylopedia'.

I abandon you to your fate, and no I won't be 'donating'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.68.79 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the edit history, you've only changed it once and that change was reverted by someone else. If you think its wrong change it again, or create a section on the talk page stating your intention to remove it and ask for clarification from the person who added it, or from other users who see the edit from a different angle. Having a rant on here just because you've been reverted once won't get anything done.

Oh and "the sort of people who 'maintain' articles in this 'encylopedia'" that would be people like you and me then, seeing as how we've both made edits to WP.

We all get edits reverted by other editors, but we don't rant, we either accept that others see it differently or we fight our corner on the Discussion page which is what you should do. - X201 (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But I don't have time to "fight my corner" against people who simply revert edits and claim against reality that their citations make any sense. It's not a matter of "seeing things differently" if an assertion is backed up by meaningless, irrelevant citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.68.79 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. The source fails WP:SPS - X201 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty sad IMHO. This article is what taught me I needed to mod my Genesis model 2 with that mod because of the distorted audio. I can't even google up a more reliable source than that page or some forum post/blog. I don't get what was dubious, apart from the samples in the source being different than the ones in the article.--SexyKick 02:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a Self Published Source. We can only use SPS references if the person publishing it is an acknowledged expert in the field. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I was searching for another source (which I can't find). Hopefully one can be found, as it's a very notable piece of information.--SexyKick 06:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Its been re-added and I can see no point starting an edit war over it. But you'll need to find a better source in order to get the article to FA status. As it stands, it is an SPS with no statement of who the person is and why they are reliable. You need (must) either find a more reliable source, or add corroborating material showing why the person is reliable. If you don't it will just get bombed out during an FA assessment. - X201 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is as legit as it could possibly be. It's the very first place on the web to actually document the difference. Just because some people don't know / believe / can't hear the difference doesn't change anything whatsoever. DCEvoCE (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Policy about what is or is not a reliable source has been developed by consensus of the Wikipedia community, its not about people's personal experiences. Its about verifying that the person in the self published source is reliable enough to speak about the subject. I'm merely pointing out that unless it is backed up by further information then it is very likely to be rejected by an FA review. If it is backed up with references like "X is a TV sound engineer and has had numerous technical manuals published in country Y", then his personal webpage becomes a reliable source. Without it, its just a webpage put up by someone on the internet and will be jumped upon by FA reviewers. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So he has to have previously published work? Or he has to just be mentioned elsewhere as an expert?--BeastSystem (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

If the writer of the piece is the person mentioned on that website, and he's the same one that popped up in a Google search, then it might have legs if you can find a reliable third party source about him/his career. But there appears to be a bigger problem, the site is coming back as a dead link for me at the moment. Hopefully its just a temporary glitch. - X201 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that citing sources which were released by major publishers double checking their publications usually is preferable to linking to some website containing whatever bullcrap some idiot made up.

In this context however I do question whether there exist ANY publications that would meet this criteria on this kind of field at all. The subject is way too specialized as there'd be any print media or other commercial media interested in it. Plus we are not talking about political interpretations of historic events but something that can be proven with even the most basic tools available: All you would need would be one model 1 Mega Drive / Genesis console, and more than one model 2 consoles. Even though there are different variants of both models in circulation, the vast majority of model 2 consoles do produce vastly inferior sound in comparison with the model 1 consoles. This affects high and bass frequencies, dynamics, the tuning of the PSG channels, and the volume relation of FM channels to the PSG channels in the mix. DCEvoCE (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Offsite linking to the ads?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mega_Drive&action=historysubmit&diff=413497219&oldid=413489528 I found this edit intriguing. Currently we use citations for the ads we talk about in the article, such as "Genesis Does" and "Blast Processing," but wouldn't it be better if we had the links like this??? Then people could click to see the ad, instead of hopefully clicking to see the citation (which IMHO most people don't do,) and then clicking to see the ad.--SexyKick 18:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there is a policy against offsite linking like this. Citing the key sentences like "Genesis Does" or "Blast Processing" is the appropriate way to handle this. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another image discussion (Genesis + 32X + CD)

Yet again a potential edit war is braking out about images. I really hope we don't have to discuss it every time an image is added or changed, but it seems there are too many arguments about it for that ever to be the case.

Anyway, this time it is the "Complete Genesis" (Genesis + 32X + Sega-CD). As someone who works with photos on a daily basis, I can say that pretty much everything about the new image itself (Evan-Amos's) is superior to the old/existing one (BeastSystem's). The lighting is better, the level of detail is better, it hasn't been artificially desaturated, it doesn't suffer from lens distortion (which gives the old one a poor sense of scale) etc. Most of this should be immediately obvious to the untrained eye as well. Additionally, it is a shorter image that takes up less room in the article (fairly minor overall, but it is another point in its favour) and it is more consistent with other images of consoles on Wikipedia in terms of view-point etc (especially those also taken by Evan-Amos).

BeastSystem has claimed the old one is better because it shows the six-button controller and is "from a worse angle etc". The first argument is irrelevant, as the six-button controller has nothing to do with the section in question (add-ons). The second is debatable, but I personally disagree, since it makes the Genesis itself (and the controllers) the focus rather than the add-ons. After all, the picture is there to show the add-ons, not the Genesis or controllers. I'm not quite sure what the "etc" is referring to (care to elaborate?).

Apart from anything else, the old image is simply not very good (distorted, too dark, too contrasty, poor detail, low resolution* etc) so isn't a good representation of the add-ons.
* lower-res images tend to suffer more from scaling as they have less information to begin with, i.e. the scaled down version is less detailed than an one of an image that is identical apart from the starting-res.

AFAICT, everything is objectively better on the new one, and the only thing that is in the existing images favour is the "angle" thing, which is subjective/personal opinion (and IMHO is also in the new one's favour). Also, there seems to be a loose consensus (2-1 in favour) towards the new one (Me + Evan-Amos for, BeastSystem against). As such, unless a consensus is found that the old one is better (by other users supporting the old one or by Me/Evan-Amos being convinced that the old one is better or whatever) I will change it back to the new image in 1 week.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I too think the older image is distorted, but I don't think it's too dark/contrasty, and resolution doesn't matter much since it's being resized for the article.

I think BeastSystem's picture is taken from the better angle, the aspect ratio is better, and it makes the system appear much larger in the article (using the same 250px). As for the controller, you need a 6 button controller for nearly every 32X game, so I can see how that's related to Beast's reasoning. A 3 button controller alone makes no sense. So, ultimately I feel the current picture is better for the article.

I love Evan's stuff too though. He's been improving so many articles recently, and he deserves some awards IMHO.--SexyKick 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Evan's is clearly better in composition and for the article. The angle is much preferred as it adds the emphasis on the add-ons rather than the system/controller. Let's put both images up on this talk page and vote.LedRush (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@SexyKick: The too dark/contrasty bit mostly effects the add-ons - the Sega-CD is barely visible (other than as a dark blob with white logos floating in it) and it's very difficult to the the cart-slot on the 32X, let alone details. Also, this will be accentuated on poorly adjusted (or simply not very good) screens. This is more to do with the lighting than anything else. For the controller thing that's fair enough I suppose (I see where he was coming from now) but it's still fairly irrelevant (not something to choose a picture over). Honestly it'd probably be better if Evan-Amos re-shot his one without the controller since it is part of the reason for the aspect ratio difference and it adds nothing to a users understanding (and is just as irrelevant as the 6-button one).

@Everyone: Voting seems fine to me (if nothing else it makes opinions more obvious) but votes must be changeable otherwise there's no point in discussion. (One can always strike-through and replace one's vote using <s></s> tags if need be.) I have added thumbnails below. I have made them roughly the same scale (not size) - while the shape of the pic is not an advantage in itself, it artificially makes everything in BeastSystem's bigger (simply because it is stacked vertically rather than horizontally). Since there is no need to have fixed-size images, such a point is almost moot (unless in an infobox or something, which this isn't). If Evan re-shoots it without the controller it almost goes to that scale anyway (if Evan's pic is made 250px wide, the console + add-ons in it are roughly 200px wide). If this is seen as unbalanced we can always include ones which are the default width as well (which is 220px not 250px btw).

EDIT: Actually, we may not even need to get it re-shot - a combination of Photoshop and File:Sega-Genesis-Model2-32X.png should be sufficient. I'll have a go tomorrow (it's 4am here - I really need to go to bed :/ ).

Evan-Amos's version - 220px

BeastSystems's version - 220px

Assuming we are voting in such a way, here is mine:

• Evan-Amos's version Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Evan-Amos's version - Better composition, better lighting, better contrast, better quality. Angle is better for this purpose (showing off add-ons).LedRush (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Evan-Amos's version - No controller = win.--SexyKick 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Evan-Amos's version - Agree with the the artistic and technical merits of Evan-Amos's photos. My only negative point is that they are all Genesis based, and I feel it would be nice to have Evan-Amos take some Mega Drive photos of the same quality. - X201 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Evan-Amos's version - You're doing a fantastic job with these! btw DCEvoCE (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even realize that there was all of this discussion going on for the image. But I do have a picture of the set without the controller. I'll go ahead and edit and upload that one, since I wasn't aware that the 32X and SegaCD apparently need the six-button controllers. (I never played these systems.) Also, I don't have access to the systems again so that I can't retake them.Evan-Amos (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize my own bias clouds my opinion on this, I still think my picture is better, it must be my personal bias. I apologize, Evan is just as much of a Beast as me. I wish him well. The main pic appears to be reverted now though...--BeastSystem (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I also got a message on my talk page from DCEvoCE about the 32X picture. I'm sorry. It won't happen again.--BeastSystem (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The "main pic" was a photo of a model 2 Genesis. This console is already perfectly represented in the 32X+CD photo. Having the Japanese model 2 photo up there makes much more sense as it shows the original design of the model 2. It also does a perfectly fine job at representing Japan as an important region (Sega's HQ, origin of the console itself and the vast majority of its most notable games), seeing as it were the American and European logos that were agreed upon by you guys. So having the original Japanese designs up there does a fine job at bringing balance to the force so to speak. DCEvoCE (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, so this is who was reverting the photo. I think Evan's picture is better, and there should be a Genesis in the infobox. The add ons picture focuses on the add ons, as everyone said.--BeastSystem (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is not a question of whether you like Evan's picture better but of what is actually depicted. And as I already mentioned: There already is a picture of a Genesis 2 featured in this article. DCEvoCE (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we need a Genesis in the info box. It addresses undue weight. Genesis model 2 was the most common model of the Mega Drive. Alphathon even gave Evan a Barnstar for the picture...hm, you took out the JP Mega Drive logo as well? We reached consensus to keep it in the history section, as it was the original logo of the Mega Drive, therefore fits in history. It's a public domain image anyway, so there's no reason for it to not be there.--SexyKick 23:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I gave him the Barnstar for his continued efforts to improve the pictures on Wikipedia (both video game related and generally), not for that pic specifically. Unless you do something exceptional, Barnstars aren't usually given for individual acts (especially ones like the photography Barnstar which is specifically "awarded to those individuals who tirelessly improve the Wikipedia with their photographic skills and contributions", not "awarded for those who make a good picture for Wikipedia"). Also, the consensus was that having a Genesis 2 represented in the add-ons image was sufficient, and that the regional variations of the consoles (unlike the logos) are similar enough that recognition is achieved. If on the subject of undue weight, having the Genesis 2 in the infobox and add-ons image but no JP MD 2 or any PAL consoles at all featured in the article (when such images are available) is biased towards the Genesis, not alleviating bias against it. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well since the barnstar was in that section, it gave me that impression. Also, I do not recall reaching a consensus that having Genesis 2 in the add ons image was sufficient at all. In fact, I remember the consensus being that since add ons were attached, it confused the reader as to the actual core system, and that's why it wasn't in the infobox. As far as PAL revisions go, the Multi Mega is in the article...and there is also a link to the Variations article for all the rest of the revisions. The Super NES, and NES article show the different regions in the info box. The model 1's all look virtually the same across regions, so it makes sense to go with the Genesis 2 here. It also lines up well with the title of the info box.--SexyKick 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make (Barnstar). I had assumed that's what you thought when you mentioned it, so I just thought I'd put you right, that's all.

I'm fairly sure that was the consensus that was reached, but it was months ago so I wouldn't be surprised if we are both mis-remembering something (and probably remembering it as what conforms to our current opinions - human brains are fairly bad at doing that). As I recall we had decided that a good compromise was Japanese consoles and PAL/North American logos (to have full representation in the infobox). I think the fact that the JP ones were the original versions of each version also had something to do with it. Anyway, in terms of recognition, I think all three major regions are acceptable (the only differences are minor and mostly just colour differences other than the slide-switch for the JP MD2). I'm not at all saying that we need a PAL one or anything like that, just that since there is already a Genesis 2 (for the add-ons) in the article it should probably be one of the MD2s in the infobox (that way the article shows both versions without doing so explicitly i.e. having a pic of every version). Anyway, I'll have a quick look through the archives tomorrow and see if I can find where the decision was made (we may need to make a list of these things with links since there are so many people involved and they keep cropping up). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is what I meant about the barnstar, you did it perfectly, but it should have probably been in its own section to help me avoid the confusion. Either way, the article is about both systems, and it's only by a close margin that the article is even named Mega Drive to begin with (reasons to name it Sega Genesis far outnumber the reasons to name it Mega Drive, but that's besides the point, and not a discussion I wish to get into or be involved in ATM - especially since I don't know which side I stand on) so both Mega Drive and Genesis should be represented in the info box if possible (and it is possible, and perfect the way it is now thanks to Evan). We have a bigger Mega Drive, and a smaller Genesis, it lines up nearly exact with the title of the box, it seems right. I was the one who asked for the picture, and the fact another editor rushed over to put it in for me (and or for Evan) is proof that it makes sense.--SexyKick 00:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"the fact another editor rushed over to put it in for me (and or for Evan) is proof that it makes sense."

I don't know if this was simply a poor choice of words or not, but all that proves is that the user (I think it was BeastSystem) thought it should be used - it says nothing for the logic behind that opinion (or even if there is any). To put it another way, just because someone agrees with you doesn't mean you are right (see argument from popularity). This is a trick often used in advertising (usually of the form X number of people can't be wrong, when if you think about it it is fairly obvious that they can be - there are a lot of stupid/misinformed/emotionally driven people in this world). Anyway, I'm getting a bit off topic here. Proof is a strong word and should be used lightly, as using it incorrectly can cause misconceptions. Also, - people know what proof is, but don't always understand what level of evidence constitutes proof (as evidenced by things like conspiracy theories and pseudo-science), so use like this should be avoided if possible as it can perpetuate poor understanding of proof thresholds.

As for the balance thing, first, you are treating it as two different things which need equal representation (Mega Drive and Genesis) which is not actually the case - there is either one (the whole line regardless of region etc) or 3+ (JP MD, PAL MD and Genesis, as well as possibly other variants like the Asian PAL, Brazilian etc). The PAL MDs are as different from the Japanese ones as the Genesis is - the only difference between the levels of difference (if that makes sense) is the name. The different branding is covered by the logos, so that is fairly irrelevant.

The pics in the infobox are there for recognition (i.e. so a visiting user knows they are in the right place). In an ideal world, we'd have all possible versions shown, but since this isn't practical we limit it to the two main version (v1 & v2). Beyond that it doesn't matter what's in there, be it PAL1+JAP2, GEN1+PAL2, JAP1+GEN2, JAP1+JAP2 or whatever - the differences between the various MD/Gen 1s is minor and mainly colour based, with the same being true for MD/Gen 2s, so for recognition it doesn't matter. However, the point of an encyclopædia is to inform, and as such we should show as many different variants as possible where it doesn't detract (i.e. images for the sake of images or when there is a significantly better version available that is of an existing region). For example, if a PAL Mega Drive with add-ons image (such as this one) were used instead of BeastSystem's, then it's replacement by Evan-Amos's would still be fine (despite the loss of the PAL representation) due to improvement in other areas (quality). However, if the same PAL + add-ons image were replaced with BeastSystem's Gen + add-ons (no real improvement in quality etc) and a Gen 2 was already pictured elsewhere in the article, then the change would be a negative one since the scope of what is covered by the images is reduced with no benefit gained. As such, since Evan's images are so good (the add-on's one + Master Base Converter one [which is a Genesis 1]) and will be used, this leaves the remaining images to be PAL, Japanese or one of the other variants where possible (with preference on PAL and Jap as they are the two other major regions). It should probably be noted that the current infobox image is not an improvement over the previous one. The Genesis pictured (taken by Evan-Amos presumably) has clearly been taken in such a way (lighting, lens used etc) as to make it look like the existing Japanese (and PAL for that matter) ones, and as such the only real difference is the region portrayed.

You also brought up the SNES article - that is a completely different situation as there are is only really one major version in each region (with the junior versions being more like the Genesis 3 I believe), and the PAL and Japanese ones are identical but for the branding - as such, there are only really two options for the infobox - North America and one of PAL or Japanese (which at that scale makes little difference anyway).

Incidentally, as I said on Evan's talk page, if I manage to get hold of a Mega Drive (probably model 2) for a good price from eBay or something, I intend to photograph it using my dad's DSLR, so hopefully should be able to get something decent with a bit of practice.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 03:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't want to speak for him, but I think Evan would like a Genesis in the infobox too based on his past edits. Based on recognition, the Genesis 2 makes the most sense, as it was the most common variation of Mega Drive. Why I think it's perfect the way it is now, is we have the original Mega Drive, as well as the most well known one as well. The article used to actually be named Mega Drive/Genesis (if the past discussions I've read is correct, it was changed because that name violates wiki-policy) and IMHO that conflict will always be with the article. Perhaps in the variations section, instead of just showing the Multi-Mega, we could do the small horizontal picture thing, with the 7 main revisions shown down there, as well the Multi Mega, Nomad, and CDX (if we have one?). But then again, that's why there's a link to the variations page. Maybe we could put that link in the info box too?--SexyKick 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether Evan wants it in or not (argument from popularity?); nor does it matter what you want, what I want or what anyone else wants. What matters is community consensus based on reasoning (if it were simply consensus then trolls would be rife). Regardless, as I said, from a recognition point of view any of the regional variants would do, since the differences are minor. I am pretty sure if an uniformed American were to see a Japanese or PAL Mega Drive, they would be more likely to wonder "why does that Genesis have funny buttons" or "I thought those has black buttons" than "what on earth is that thing" - especially where the MD/G 1 is concerned, but also the MD/G 2. If there were no other images in the article, then sure, the Genesis would probably be the best choice for the infobox (both because of numbers and because Evan-Amos has photos of them ), but all things considered I think we need to use the opportunity to represent as many versions as practically possible. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 04:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

[My goodness.] As far as my opinion about the infobox pictures, I only want to replace them because I think the Japanese Mega Drive ones are poorly taken and distorted, and had to take a terrible picture to match it. I didn't put up the revised infobox picture I just did when I made it, because I don't really care for it. In a perfect world, I'd have access to the Japanese Mega Drive and a PAL Mega Drive and be able to take better pictures of them all for the articles. As far as what should go in the infobox, it's not something that I'm concerned with anymore, because it's a hard call. Based on how the page is now, I'd probably want some weight thrown to the PAL and Japanese versions, actually.Evan-Amos (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Well, I am not convinced at all. I disagree for the reasons already stated during this and previous discussions. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being thick, but what are you not convinced by/do you disagree with? Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously one of you took the above statement of mine out of context. It was a direct reply to a post by SexyKick with zero arguments other than that "all model 1's all look virtually the same across regions, so it makes sense to go with the Genesis 2 here. It also lines up well with the title of the info box."

The reasons I stated in above post include that this console is already perfectly represented in the 32X+CD photo. Having the Japanese model 2 photo up there makes much more sense as it shows the original design of the model 2. It also does a perfectly fine job at representing Japan as an important region (Sega's HQ, origin of the console itself and the vast majority of its most notable games), seeing as it were the American and European logos that were agreed upon by you guys. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mega Drive model 1 reps importing enough as is. It's not our fault the articles used to be separate, and are merged. Merged articles = merged main pic. I agree with SexyKick, we should have a Genesis in the info box, however I disagree that the current implementation is perfect, it's a compromise. I think my picture was perfect for the info box, it showed everything the Genesis winds up being. Both controllers, both add ons, most recognizable variations, etc. that's what was perfect.--BeastSystem (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@DCEvoCE: Yeah, I thought something like that must've happened. As you can probably tell from my posts above, I agree with that sentiment.

@BeastSystem: I could take your comment apart, but there's no point everything has already been said. To put it simply, there is no more of a compromise between Genesis and Mega Drive than there is between PAL and Japanese, and the add-ons have no place in the infobox, since they are not what the article is about.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

They're part of the Genesis. The article is about the Genesis.--BeastSystem (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No they're not - they're optional extras. They have their own games and their own articles. This article is about the Mega Drive/Genesis, not the Mega Drive/Genesis + 32X + CD. It's mention (as done in the add-ons section) is appropriate, but they are not part of the subject of the article - that's what 32X and Mega CD are for. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't see eye to eye about their inclusion in the info box, therefore it's a compromise. This implementation is better than the two JP consoles, as it comes closer to satisfying my idea.--BeastSystem (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems a little arrogant - this is not a compromise between you and me, it is a group decision based on the opinions of many editors (you, me, SexyKick, DCEvoCE, X201, LedRush… I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting Anomie perhaps [I don't remember if he weighed in at any point]). It is not necessarily better because it is closer to your personal view - that is not how a group compromise works. Basically your argument seems to be "It should be in there, therefore it should be in there". Can you give any justification for your opinion? Generally, when people simply assert their position without arguments they should be ignored, not compromised with, with some cases (such as a significant majority etc) being exceptions. SexyKick seems to think it should be in the infobox, and has provided arguments (which do make sense even if I disagree with them) to back up his position; you don't seem to have done this (I may have just missed it though). Further, if a significant enough majority (which I am not claiming exists) disagrees with you and SexyKick, then a compromise is not made and the majority view is implemented. As I said above, I will have a look to see if I can find where the decision on the infobox pics was made before, as I am pretty sure consensus was found that it should be both Jap models. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being arrogant. I just think we should do what would make everyone happy, which would be catering to both crowds. One crowd wants only Mega Drives in there, and the other wants only Geneses in there, therefore it makes the most sense to have one of each.--BeastSystem (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a straw-man - as far as I can tell, no-one (other than you apparently) wants only Mega Drive or Genesis represented. As I have said, I want as many variations represented as possible. I am not anti-Genesis in the infobox, I simply think it is better to use some form of Mega Drive as there are already Geneses in the article. If there were no other pics, I don't think I'd care that much either way, and would go with whatever the best pics were (which given Evan-Amos's involvement would probably be Geneses). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 17:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There. Now everyone gets love. Way more work than it needed to be for that table though...wow. Though, not nearly as bad as when I went through formatting and correcting and adding dates and authors to every single reference back in the summer.--SexyKick 01:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This article now shows undue weight towards the US in the infobox, for what reason is the US Genesis in the infobox? reader recognition? ok, this is the English speaking Wiki so you can add a PAL Mega Drive into the infobox too, so that Europeans can also recognise the already obvious. The article was already balanced, Europe and US were represented by the brand logo's, Japan was represented by the hardware picture, all three were equal, we have already argued over this to infinity over a period of months and then you actually go back to the start again! now the other editors will go back to arguing for the Japanese logo being in the infobox again. Jesus.arnold (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Non Free Content debate #99999999

reposting relevant part of SexyKick's post on this topic + relocating replies to this post:

hm, you took out the JP Mega Drive logo as well? We reached consensus to keep it in the history section, as it was the original logo of the Mega Drive, therefore fits in history. It's a public domain image anyway, so there's no reason for it to not be there.--SexyKick 23:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This image was designed by someone at Sega. Therefor this work is intellectual property of Sega. How could it possibly be public domain? 00:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent question, from this link "it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations."

Of course, trade mark/(R) still apply.--SexyKick 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So, here we go again. We're still stuck with 3x copyrighted logos when there should be none (0) to comply with Wikipedia's licensing policies. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can someone explain to me this issue?--BeastSystem (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, if I'm understanding the problem correctly, there are too many copyrighted logos in the article? The JP logo file says this "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." It seems that you miscounted the copyrighted logos??--BeastSystem (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DCE, this is a similar predicament with the one you're in discussing the source of the audio differences. It seems to me that you don't understand that the Asian/JP Mega Drive logo is public domain, not copyrighted, simply trade marked. This does not make the image count as NFC. It is listed on Wikimedia Commons, and was even discussed very lightly there, and left alone. There's no need for the tag.--SexyKick 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, SexyKick is right on this one. To explain it better, lets say you draw a purple triangle. Would it be illegal for someone else to draw another purple triangle? Now you draw a purple triangle next to a blue square - is that copyrighted? Hopefully you can see the point - the original logo for the Mega Drive, like the purple triangle and the blue square, are not complex enough to be copyrighted. Any images that are not copyrightable are by law available in the Public Domain, since anyone is legally allowed to reproduce them (due to lack of complexity/originality). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

gallery added by sexykick

i don't think this is a good idea, as there is already a whole page dedicated to the different systems. posting a whole gallery like that is overkill.Evan-Amos (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Units sold ?!

There's an inconcistency between the lead and the infobox. The lead guesstimates it from 29 million to over 40.8 million while the infobox states Estimated from 37.3 to over 40.8 million. I guess someone updated one without the other, but I'm not an expert so I let someone more knowlegeable fix it. :) -- Luk ^talk 13:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It says that to appease the people who would rather write in 29 million and act like the rest of the information doesn't exist. The info box lists the most up to date estimates.--SexyKick 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It says that to appease the people who would rather add up their own numbers from questionable sources instead of using what verifiable, reliable sources actually say. Anomie⚔ 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional Images in vector

Hey Guys, I was trawling the 'images that should be vector bit and uploaded a vector megadrive 2, its fairly realistic and neutral, so anyway, if there's any need or desire for this resource, here it is

Add caption here

Hope it can be of some help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazedesign (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could use the original Mega Drive logo in vector.--SexyKick 13:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Something that bothers me: Doesn't this sort of thing constitute synthesis? The image here is essentially a vectorized photo - it's not a blueprint, or a logo, or any other form of diagram that would normally be presented in vector form. It requires an artist to go reconstruct a pseudo-3D view of the game console, ostensibly using either a photo or the real item as a source, and no matter how accurate it might be, it's still an interpretation of the real thing rather than an authentic representation of it. Not to mention the thing being represented is still copyrighted. Why would we want to use a vector over a photo of the real console? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it would be free content instead of fair-use NFC.--Cerejota (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Images of consoles aren't NFC. But the JP Mega Drive logo, as a non copyrightable image, is fair game to make an exact vector duplicate.--SexyKick 03:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My (admittedly limited) understanding of copyright law is that an artist's rendering of a copyrighted work (including a 3D image of a manufactured object that includes the company's trademark) is considered a derivative work, and thus not free content. Is there a policy that the vector image falls under that specifically states it qualifies as free content? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A derivative work of a non copyrighted content is still non copyrightable. That being said, there's no point in using vector images of the consoles...photographs work just as well and are free content. The reason a vector image of the JP Mega Drive logo would be nice is because it would a very high quality representation of that logo. Similar to the two SNES logos used in the SNES article. Both are vector graphics.--SexyKick 20:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so a photo of the console is acceptable and preferable to the vectorized rendering of the console, then? That was my thought. I can agree on the vectorized logo, so long as it's visibly accurate AND doesn't constitute copyright infringement. I'm not convinced that our interpretation of copyright law is correct on what defines a non-copyrightable image, though - why would a company deliberately brand its stuff with a logo it couldn't copyright, especially if there were a precedent for it? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question; ask Microsoft. Their logo isn't copyrightable either. Neither is Dell, IBM, or Lenovo, even Sega/Nintendo/Sony...the list goes on. But basically, if it's on Wikimedia Commons, it can be replicated to a 100% identical variation in SGV. This is also why Trademarking exists, the images are all still trademarked.--SexyKick 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Then how come all of those logos are registered trademarks? And why is it that if I slap one of their logos on some random object, they can sue my pants off? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, they're still trademarks. Copyrighted and trademarked aren't the same thing. You can learn about it all here on Wikipedia.--SexyKick 02:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Common Name - Response to Sceptre

We aren't supposed to edit the archive, so I'm responding here.

I understand your point now. Thanks for the clarification. I would note that CommonName has us look for a "significant majority" of english language reliable sources. It seems now our disagreement focuses on the definition of the term "significant". I would think being used 10% more than the other term is significant, while you seem to believe that being used 50% more often is not significant. (based on your example above - 40% times 1.5 equals 60%) Once we get to a 67% to 33% split, the majority name is being used twice as much as the minority (a difference of 33% points). There seems to be general consensus that the Genesis shows up more in RSs than "mega drive". How do we quantify this? One thing that CommonName directs us to do is use google books or google scholar to help with this assessment. Under google books, 'Sega Genesis' gets 6930 hits [2] and 'Sega "Mega Drive") gets 828 [3]. For google scholar, 'Sega Genesis' gets 2870 hits [4] and 'Sega "Mega Drive"' gets 287 hits [5]. That is an indication that RSs use the term Genesis 700% to 1000% more often than the Mega Drive. Perhaps the difference in sales numbers isn't significant (I think it is, but...), but CommonName has us look to english language RSs, and the Genesis is definitely used significantly more than mega drive.LedRush (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Using Google hits alone has long being considered a poor argument in Wikipedia debates. Indeed, when using reliable sources, an editor must first understand what, and more importantly, why, the RS is saying that. Those thousands of hits could be from just cursory mentions, which, by Wikipedia standards, are useless (try making a claim for notability, or citing facts, using them). I haven't seen any indication that this is not an ENGVAR issue; American publications use Genesis, and non-American publications use Mega Drive. And with ENGVAR issues, the status quo should be preserved absent a very good reason to move. I'm not disputing the fact that RSes use "Genesis" more; I'm disputing the opinion that that fact is an indication of anything more than cultural variations. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is discouraging to see that you have misread my statement (I'm talking about google scholar and google books, not google) and my history of points on the matter (in which I explicitly state that we should not be looking to search results alone). RSs overwhelmingly point to the name Genesis, and WP:COMMONNAME explicitly has us look to google scholar and google books as two ways (not the only ways, please see above) of quantifying this.LedRush (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It never is more than an Engvar issue when it comes to these video game naming issues. The problem in this case is that there is no solid status quo here. The article wasn't originally named Mega Drive, and basically everyone has been fighting about it the entire duration of the articles existence. The earliest lead in for this article's history states "The Sega Genesis is a 16-bit video game console released by Sega in North America in 1989". So therefore, there has never been a status quo here, and it's never really been a quiet issue either, with new people bringing it up every few months, and reasons to name the article Sega Genesis are all low hanging fruit. Personally I would have just preferred the article have a hybrid name now that Wikipedia has that capability. Mega Drive/Sega Genesis, but apparently that's still against the rules.--SexyKick 23:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that the article's history is all over the place (in three places, no less). Still, Wikipedia policy is designed to be inertial, and the MoS is clear that an established variation (as Mega Drive has been) should be retained. If it was at Sega Genesis, I'd say the same. Let me do a bit of digging and write a FAQ question... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the quality of the FAQ question, but it also makes me realize that the hybrid name Mega Drive/Sega Genesis is still the best answer to the issue. The FAQ doesn't explain why it isn't possible.--SexyKick 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I take a crack at a revision? (See below) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Proposed FAQ write-up:

Q: Why is the article at "Mega Drive" rather than "Sega Genesis"?

A: The exact name of this article has been a source of controversy since the project's inception. The article was created as "Sega Genesis" (as an US-centric article) in 2001 and as "Mega Drive" in 2005, and merged into an article titled "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" in the same year. The article was moved to "Sega Mega Drive" in 2006, after a discussion found that the previous title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles are formatted, and elected to use "Mega Drive" as it was the system's global name. The title has since been a subject of sporadic debate since that move. Due to the inertial nature of Wikipedia guidelines on variations of English, and the lack of an overwhelmingly common name that transcends cultural boundaries, editors have been historically resistant to change.

Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Added template and FAQ, I am not entirely sure the ENGVAR issue is the sticking point, but it seems like FAQ worthy stuff. Bottom line: there is no consensus to change, and is we had a way to have two titles we would use it, but we don't, so we have to choose and have historically chosen "Mega Drive".--Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR was part of the compromise when the article moved to Mega Drive. The article was left with US spelling, date format, etc, as part of a plan to handle the "principle of least astonishment" that KieferSkunk mentioned above. May be worth explaining that in the FAQ as well. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my proposed revision of the FAQ question:

Q: Why is the article at "Mega Drive" rather than "Sega Genesis"?

A: The exact name of this article has been a source of controversy since the project's inception. The article was created as "Sega Genesis" (as an US-centric article) in 2001 and as "Mega Drive" in 2005, and merged into an article titled "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" in the same year. After a discussion found that this title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles are formatted, editors elected to use "Mega Drive". This consensus was established with the rationale that no firm data (such as official sales figures) existed to declare either name as the most globally common (as contrasted with Super Nintendo Entertainment System), and "Mega Drive" was the original name for the console. This topic continues to be debated.

-- I'm not sure I like the bit about editors being "resistant to change", as I don't think that's an accurate reflection of how consensus works. IMO, it's not so much that we resist change, but rather that once a consensus is established, we want to make sure that if we're going to change it, we're changing it for a good reason (ie. we won't just end up having this same argument again in another year to change it back). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@Sceptre: This is not an ENGVAR because its not "non-American publishers use Mega Drive". If you look at countries like India where the system wasn't released they use Genesis far more than Mega Drive. That to me does not sound like what ENGVAR is.∞陣内Jinnai 01:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I think we could get away with a dual title article if we didn't use special characters. There is nothing against a title such as Mega Drive and Genesis or Genesis and Mega Drive at WP:TITLEFORMAT. In fact WP:AND would support this as they are two closely related subjects where no clear common name can be found. Likely Genesis and Mega Drive because its not clear which is more common (it depends upon how you read the numbers and policy/guidelines) and in that case alphanumeric ordering takes precedent. Everyone wins (except those who think Mega Drive should come first).∞陣内Jinnai 02:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the policy that would specifically prevent us from doing this, actually - it seems like a decent compromise. And actually, now that I look more closely at it, the use of a forward-slash isn't strictly prohibited either, but I can see arguments against both:

• "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" (and the inverse) - the policy probably regards this as implying that "Sega Genesis" is a subset or specific instance of "Sega Mega Drive" as a larger concept, which is not the case here. Their example in the policy is more clear-cut (Azerbaijan/Transportation, where Transportation is a sub-topic of the main topic Azerbaijan), but I can see how that could apply similarly here, in a way that causes confusion.
• "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive": I have two problems with this:

(1) I can see us sometime in the future getting into another argument over which one should be listed first, since the ordering may imply any or all of chronological precedence, popularity/commonality, and/or importance; and

(2) To me, at least, this title implies that either the single product's full name is "Genesis and Mega Drive" - as in, any single instance of the console would be called that exact phrase (which is incorrect) - or that the article pertains to two products that are markedly different and only peripherally related (which is also incorrect). The reality is that, technically, a Genesis IS a Mega Drive and vice versa - they are the same hardware with trivial physical differences and different branding. Unfortunately, with a compound title, I don't know that there's really a good way to satisfy both the need to give both consoles roughly equal representation AND satisfy the policies and issues of reader confusion all at the same time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is Pokemon Blue and Red which both games are essentially the same product with only trivial differences between them. That is no difference here. Both Pokemon games have minor differences just as the Genesis has minor differences from the Mega Drive, but they are fundamentally the same product.

It is also much easier to defend naming order on alphanumeric ordering when there's no clear consensus than completely not mentioning a name when there is enough evidence to put the current title in doubt and make it appear as though there is no uncertainty that that the vast majority of the populace agrees that it is the "Mega Drive". The "and" title reflects the fundimental split nature of this which is that to some of us, Genesis is the clear winner while to others Mega Drive is the clear winner and to others, it's more murky. Finally they are still different products on a fundimtal level. This isn't Yogurt and Yoghurt.∞陣内Jinnai 02:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 (Huh, I wonder why that shows up as a red link? I see it redirects to the correct page, tho.) Good point. However, I think the main difference there is that the two products share almost exactly the same level of notability, development history, etc. - they really are virtually identical. While the Genesis and Mega Drive are virtually identical hardware-wise, they do have significant differences in their histories, and they have separate and independent notability for various reasons. As I mentioned, the controversy surrounding things pertaining to the Genesis in the United States is possibly worthy of its own article, but since it's currently contained in this article, it does enough to distinguish the Genesis from the Mega Drive that I'm not sure we can treat the two in the same way as the two Pokemon games. (And noted on the alphabetical justification - I'm just trying to keep in mind how people not familiar with the policy will interpret it.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)