Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:08, 18 May 2014

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the article's name. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic.

	Sega Genesis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Sega Genesis is the main article in the Sega Genesis series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed March 22, 2008 Good article reassessment Not listed April 17, 2008 Peer review Reviewed April 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed July 5, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted October 11, 2013 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted April 14, 2014 Featured topic candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

Video games: Sega FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sega task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Buff Technologies (2 participants) Imakuni? (3 participants) Tetr.io (7 participants) Benedikt Johannes Hofer (6 participants) Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor (22 participants) RealFlight (2 participants) Gameplay of Dragon Quest (7 participants) Rainbow Computing (2 participants) Nebulae (video game) (2 participants) Double Fine Comics (3 participants; relisted) Westballz (2 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Console game (discussion) Atari Interactive (discussion) Nintendo DS Lite (discussion) Pokémon Essentials (discussion) Input lag (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Chris Redfield (nom) List of generation II Pokémon (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (nom) Good article nominations Dark Urge (start) Jeanette Voerman (start) Deathloop (start) Ridley (Metroid) (start) Blast Wind (start) Project Zero 2: Wii Edition (start) Barry Burton (start) Sea of Stars (nom) Pokémon Stadium (nom) Otogirisō (start) Bit Pilot (start) Tom Clancy's The Division 2 (start) Gardevoir (start) Cybermania '94 (start) Berzerk (video game) (start) Frostpunk (start) Cry of Fear (nom) Aperture Desk Job (nom) A Space for the Unbound (start) The Sims: Livin' Large (nom) DYK nominations Sun Haven Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Dragoon (rev) Appy Awards Anarchy Online (nom) Deus Ex (video game) (nom) List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (4) infoboxes (8) cover art (252) screenshots (9,024) photos (72) translation from japan (187) creation merging

view · edit Frequently asked questions What is the naming history of this article? This article was started on November 30, 2001 under the name "Sega Genesis". Originally, the article covered only the North American console using the Genesis name. Coverage of the Mega Drive brand was added on February 17, 2002. The article was split in 2003 into two separate articles: "Sega Megadrive" and "Sega Genesis". "Sega Megadrive" was created from a redirect, then renamed to "Sega Mega Drive" on August 21, 2004. The two articles were later merged back into one in 2005, under the compound name "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis". A set of editors discovered in 2006 that this title did not comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding how titles should be formatted. At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis", largely due to it being the console's name at its initial launch in Japan. The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis". In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names. Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions. A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title. This led to a new proposal to move the article to "Sega Genesis". The article was renamed to "Sega Genesis" after the proposal succeeded , and has remained that way since. Why is the article's original, non-stub title important? Because of the following title policy statement at WP:TITLECHANGES: " has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker". The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years. Doesn't that mean it was stable there? Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period. But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter. Many editors take this as a sign of instability. It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period. By default, no action was taken. So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)? This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close. The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name. So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"? As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected. So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct? That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion. There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move. Is the new title stable? Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support have thus far been made. What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"? (Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.) "Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES) "Genesis" was the first name given to the console in English-speaking markets. (Naturalness criterion) "Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME) Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name. It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed. The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS) The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N) The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap. While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language. The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR) What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"? (Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.) "Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan. "Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON) The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America, and should be considered an exception. Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America. To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics. "Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT) Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N) As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument). Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article? Per Misplaced Pages's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but nevertheless the consensus favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons. "Sega Genesis" was favored in November 2011, though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong. Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles? This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including: Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing; This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.) Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again? Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction. Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Misplaced Pages, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate. Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself. Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic? What if I have something new to say? The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily. Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again. That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Misplaced Pages policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ. In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive. Notes While the compound title Hellmann's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not. P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559: "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: Created as Sega Genesis, 1 December 2001; version as of July 2003 Dispute about title begins, August 2003 Fork created at Sega Megadrive, 20 August 2003 Created again, from a redirect, as Sega Mega Drive, 22 August 2004 Sega Megadrive redirected to Sega Mega Drive, 22 August 2004 Sega Genesis and Sega Mega Drive merged to Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis, 2005 Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis -> Sega Mega Drive, Moved, 17 August 2006 Sega Mega Drive -> Sega Genesis, Not moved, 15 July 2008 Sega Mega Drive -> Mega Drive, Moved, 17 April 2009 Mega Drive -> Sega Genesis, No consensus, 1 September 2011 Mega Drive -> Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, Moved, 21 September 2011 Sega Genesis and Mega Drive -> Genesis (Sega Mega Drive), Not moved, 11 October 2011 Sega Genesis and Mega Drive -> Sega Genesis, Moved, 1 November 2011 Sega Genesis -> Sega Mega Drive, Not moved, 26 June 2013 Sega Genesis -> Mega Drive, Withdrawn, 12 October 2013

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Rename to Mega Drive

I removed these comments, based on the sentence at the top of the discussion page, Q13 of the FAQ, and that the IP making the comments is wp:duck the same one as the disruptive IP editor before. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazing how the jingoism is still so prevalent in all of this. It's pretty ridiculous and a shame some people just won't understand that the legitimate points of each have all been considered several times, including WP:WORLDVIEW and national bias, and the community has decided there's no consensus to say the article title should be changed. Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 21:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I put the {{round in circles}} template on this talk page for that very reason, and I would support the reverting of any new threads started by IPs or unconfirmed editors on the FAQ topics as disruptive. By the way, congratulations to all those involved in getting it to FA status. Ritchie333 09:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a pretty hard fight. Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 03:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hay, some of us IP's are quite helpful - I don't register because I fully believe in the "Anyone can edit" Mantra. How about changing "any new threads started by IPs or unconfirmed editors" to "any disruptive threads started by IPs or unconfirmed editors" I had nothing to add to the FAQ, but I'd like the ability to without people prejudicing against my registration choice. 188.39.82.139 (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair point - the comment is only that of an editor. The actual FAQ states "In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive." There is no mention of the editors status - it applies to all editors, whether IP, newly confirmed, or veteran. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You want to keep the name of this article as "Sega Genesis" because Misplaced Pages is USA-centric (not a surprise, since the main servers of the English Misplaced Pages resides in the USA and not in Great Britain) but I want also to point that the phrase "the Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive in most regions outside North America" is wrong. It should be changed to "the Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive in all the regions outside North America". Because in Asia, Europe, South America, and even in Africa everyone calls that console "Mega Drive". --79.10.243.5 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. It wasn't known as "Mega Drive" worldwide outside of North America - Korea knew it as the "Super Gam*Boy" and later "Super Aladdin Boy". If you're going to keep projecting nationalistic UK-based bias, at least read the article and put together two and two instead of insisting on a change just to try and prove yourself right on something. I'm pretty sure the FAQ above explains exactly why this article is at "Sega Genesis", and "because Misplaced Pages is USA-centric" is not on that list. Red Phoenix 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I was born in Britain and lived here all my life. My partner is from the US. Between us, I hope I can avoid a UK bias more than most. However, I mock and pour scorn on ignorant tourists who think Chiswick is pronounced "chizz wick" or Towcester is pronounced "toe chest hurr" (they aren't). So I happily hold my hand up and say "not US biased" too. Now, back to topic .... I recall the "Mega Drive" as a console that kids used circa 1990, and recall "Genesis" emulators for the PC appearing around 1998. I learned at that point of its US name, and thought "oh, fair enough". The bottom line is, at least in the context of the real world, and not just that on Misplaced Pages, is nobody really cares about your noble quest to change the name. Sorry, but there's far worse things going in the world, I cannot get excited about the name differences of a 25 year old obsolete gaming console. Ritchie333 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reference #54 is broken as videogames.yahoo no longer exists. EDIT: I made this edit request a week ago, then found out I had to add the edit request tag, and only THEN was I informed what needs to be put in edit request, so here I am editing this yet again. I know of no other suitable reference for this information so I officially propose that we replace reference 54, "Yahoo Playback. "Yahoo Playback #94". Yahoo, Inc. Retrieved 2009-12-13." and the newline character that follows it with the blank string "". The in the text of the article should then also be replaced with an empty string. Time and dedication permitting, the following references should have their reference numbers decremented by one to maintain the contiguous nature of the array of references. Is this description sufficient now?

• Done For now, I've tagged it with {{Dead link}}, as the site itself says "The site that used to be located at "videogames.yahoo.com" has been turned off for the time being." which suggests that it will be turned back on or relocated at some point. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize that in my earlier frustration I forgot to re-sign my post. Sincerely, OP KhazWolf (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and pulled it entirely for now. That's not normally the solution to a dead link, but what was being cited was a video that is no longer available and less likely to be so in the future, and in this case the material being cited is already cited by at least three or four other sources, so we ought to be good in this case. Given that this is a FA, I would very much like to keep it that way and prevent any tagable issues from coming up. Red Phoenix 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Note

It might be wise to mention successful later Genesis titles, such as Vectorman, instead of focusing entirely on SNES games in discussion of the 1995 market. To put in perspective the lack of supply which Kent claims was caused by Nakayama's focus on the Saturn, more than 2 million Genesis units were sold in 1995, but Kalinske estimated that "we could have sold another 300,000 Genesis systems in the November/December timeframe."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I had posted a Vectorman newspaper source in one of these talk pages at some point. There are newspaper sources about Vectorman. What other 1995 titles did you feel were standout releases? There was probably a couple for 96/97 as well.--SexyKick 22:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Only those discussed in the article I linked to, which mentions several holiday best-sellers. Of course, it might be unwise to rely on a single source. I could try to do some research, but that's part of the reason I left a comment here rather than editing the article directly: I'm not as well-versed on the Genesis as I am on the Saturn. The "Changes at Sega" section of Sega Saturn originally borrowed heavily from this page, but I revised it to eliminate extraneous detail and attribute POV. I did not, however, copy my text into this article because some of that added detail may be more germane here. I think it's clear that a great many industry figures underestimated the continued resilience of the 16-bit market, and I believe the raw figures should be included along with Kent's interpretation of them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, games like Ranger X and Ristar do come to mind when I think of good later Genesis games, but that's all irrelevant until I can produce sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We used to have raw year to year figures. It is what it is. I do think it's pretty awesome how the Sega CD outsold the Saturn in the US.--SexyKick 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

EA's reverse engineering...

...is an important topic this article should cover. I'd suggest something like the following:

Shortly before the North American launch of the Genesis, American video game publisher Electronic Arts (EA) approached Sega about releasing its games for the platform. EA had previously focused on PC development on the assumption that consumers would lose interest in inferior console technology, but the overwhelming popularity of the Nintendo Entertainment System convinced the company to change direction in 1988. According to former EA chief creative officer Bing Gordon, "We said, 'You're coming out with this system and you're nowhere, but we have games' ... you have to give us a different license than Nintendo because you're nowhere.'" At that time, Nintendo required third-party developers to sign agreements not to develop for any systems other than those made by Nintendo, and retained the sole authority to determine which third-party games were manufactured and in what quantities. Sega executives were reluctant to negotiate terms with EA, insisting that "We're going to be as important as Nintendo and we're not going to back down." As recounted by EA founder Trip Hawkins, "Sega was trying to clone almost everything about Nintendo." After almost a year of discussion between the two companies, a Sega executive told Gordon "If you want a different deal you're going to have to reverse engineer the system, aren't you?"

EA technicians reverse engineered both the NES and the Genesis in 1989. The clean room reverse engineering of the Genesis was led by Steve Hayes and Jim Nitchals, lasting several months before EA secretly began development of Genesis games. Hawkins finally confronted Sega Enterprises CEO Hayao Nakayama one day prior to the 1990 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), noting that EA had the ability to run its own licensing program if Sega refused to meet its demands. Sega relented, and the next day EA's upcoming Genesis games were showcased at CES. EA signed what Hawkins described as "a very unusual and much more enlightened license agreement" with Sega in June 1990: "Among other things, we had the right to make as many titles as we wanted. We could approve our own titles ... the royalty rates were a lot more reasonable. We also had more direct control over manufacturing." After the deal was in place, Gordon learned that "we hadn't figured out all the workarounds" and "Sega still had the ability to lock us out," noting "It just would have been a public relations fiasco." EA released its first two Genesis games, Populous and Budokan: The Martial Spirit, within the month. The first Genesis version of EA's John Madden Football arrived in the fall of 1990, and became what Gordon called a "killer app" for the system. Taking advantage of the licensing agreement, Gordon and EA's vice president of marketing services Nancy Fong created a a visual identifier for EA's Genesis cartridges: A yellow stripe on their left side added during manufacturing.

• 1.Bertz, Matt (July 2011). "Reverse Engineering Success". Game Informer. 21 (219): 96–99.
• 2.Kent, Steven L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World. Roseville, California: Prima Publishing. pp. 408–410. ISBN 0-7615-3643-4.

Before I add this, any comments? Did I make any mistakes? Is there more EA information we should cover? (We could also add something about the saga of Joe Montana Football, which EA "scaled back" due to fear it surpassed Madden.) Any thoughts about where I should put this?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Only a tiny one. Don't use season names like "fall" use Q4 or "the end of 1990" etc - X201 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The article's mighty long already and while this is important to mention, the mention can be much, much smaller, like two or three sentences in "North American sales and marketing" smaller. That'd be my suggestion. The whole story with quotes and all would be better off in a longer Genesis history article broken out summary style or in the companies' respective articles. czar ♔ 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice research, TTAAC. It does seem a bit quote-heavy and anecdotal, but very nice and informative. In a quick response to czar, I would strongly oppose a spinout article as being excessive; I'm even looking to get rid of History of the Dreamcast when I work on Dreamcast in the next few months. My return suggestion would be to add it as a full paragraph in the North American sales and marketing (because it should precede the Sega v. Accolade bits) and to reduce it to one paragraph by trimming up the quotes and anecdotal bits. I'm not terribly concerned with longer articles as long as they're not excessive, and very rarely do I see spinouts as being needed (in this case, Sega CD and Sega 32X are definitely needed ones). However, with some expansion about Nintendo and EA reverse-engineering it as well, might this worth a section in History of video game consoles (fourth generation)? Red Phoenix 14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Development

Having done work on the "Development" sections of Sega Saturn and Sega CD, I am surprised there is not much discussion of the Genesis' development in this article. Are there simply not enough sources? Even one of the sources cited has some interesting tidbits that might merit inclusion, for example: "The designs for the graphics parts had already begun, and we had an issue regarding the cost, as it was quite a late stage when we had decided on the main CPU...The reason we used two CPUs was because we believed that the load would be too heavy, had we used one to handle both sound and visuals. Due to that reason, we used the Z-80 as a sub-CPU to handle the sound." Just a thought.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I added a sentence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Massive Lede section

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

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

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

Sega-16.com

I should preface this by saying that I added Sega-16 interviews to Sega Saturn, and suggested one for use in Sega CD, which was subsequently added by User:Red Phoenix. However, I always had a sneaking suspicion that Sega-16 might not have editorial oversight up to Misplaced Pages's standards (although I wasn't too keen on checking), and WP:VG/RS lists the site as unreliable. Perhaps Horowitz is sufficiently reliable that his interviews with primary sources can be cited, but it would be quite hard to individually justify all eight references to Sega-16 in this FA. Note that numerous Sega-related articles, even Good Articles like Sega Channel, continue to use Sega-16 as a reference.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I would contest quite the opposite. As much as WP:VG/RS doesn't say that it is, I wasn't there to debate it with them at the time. I did my homework on Sega-16 before I ever used it for any information, and surely Horowitz's contributions can be considered reliable as he is an established video game journalist. It's also worthy of note that his work specifically on Sega-16 has been cited by Retro Gamer. Red Phoenix 01:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sega-16 could certainly help flesh out Sega CD's "Library" section if that is so, but I think it would be nice to have a broader discussion and establish a new consensus about the site if it is reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, honestly. Part of the thing here is that Sega-16 has had a changing face over the years. It used to host a lot of comment from Sam Pettus (Eidolon's Inn, which is a thoroughly unreliable site) and did have a lot of issue. In the five years I've been gone, though, it appears that Horowitz' involvement in the site has heavily increased. He removed the unreliable content; it's literally nowhere to be found there. Their game lists are gone, all of that is gone, and their features are rock solid with most being written by Horowitz himself (a few others are written by members of his listed site staff). Red Phoenix 03:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Bertz, Matt (July 2011). "Reverse Engineering Success". Game Informer. 21 (219): 96–99.
2. ^ Kent, Steven L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World. Roseville, California: Prima Publishing. pp. 408–410. ISBN 0-7615-3643-4.

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• FA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics Sega Genesis featured content
• Top-importance Featured topics articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• FA-Class video game articles
• High-importance video game articles
• FA-Class Sega articles
• Sega task force articles
• WikiProject Video games articles