Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 5

Article Rename
I think is should be renamed to Genesis instead of Megadrive because there were 3 different genesis' but there were only 2 megadirves if i recall and because this is the English wikipedia and it makes more sense that we call it what North America knows it as seeing that i would guess that most the people that access the en.wikipedia.org are from North America. Pocky09 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently there are more English speakers in China than the rest of the world put together. Anyway, the article was renamed to "Mega Drive" from "Mega Drive/Genesis" (or whatever it was before) because that's the original name of the machine, and what it is known as worldwide. "Genesis" was simply a region-specific rename for copyright or trademark reasons.  Mi re ma r e  17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yea i get that but i just thought that seeing that this is the english wikipedia then it would be formated for America and be named Genesis
 * Pocky09 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People in England invented English, and it was called the Mega Drive there too. :)  Mi re ma re  18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. The Mega Drive was not known as Genesis anywhere but the US. Mega Drive is the correct name, with Genesis as a redirect. Plkrtn 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is only known as the Sega Genesis in the United States and Canada. In the UK, Hong Kong, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, Ireland, Singapore, and New Zealand the machine's name is Sega Mega Drive, just like the Japanese console's name. WhisperToMe 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Truly amazing, "seeing that this is the english wikipedia then it would be formated for America", im staggered, do people in America *actually* think like that? I thought it was just a joke the rest of the world said at the US's expense? Im actually now a little frightened. - 60.241.95.42 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, people from the states don't all think like that, just the stupid ones... so only the majority of. Ha ha! I'm kidding, besides, I'm allowed to say that because I'm American and I love my country. Yoshiguy 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be nationalistic jerk for saying this, but I take the side of the Genesis. I grew up calling it Genesis.  I'm familiar with all of that.  If you guys really are dead set on calling it the Megadrive, then share it by all means.  But America alone has sold 44% of the total Genesis consoles, and it seems a little unfair to disregard that.155.138.3.20 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that if you type Sega Genesis you'll end up at this page. A bigger issue is how to referee to the Genesis from the text and other articles, where I agree that Genesis is just as relevant as Mega Drive. Problem is we have to choose one, and Mega Drive won by consensus some discussions back.
 * --Anss123 11:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If 44 % of the consoles were sold as Genesis then 56 % were sold as Mega Drive. Considering the facts that Mega Drive is the original name, and it was sold under it on several English speaking markets I can't see anything unfair here. The situation with only one manufacturer and two names is still quite simple if you compare it to car related articles like Volkswagen Jetta (several different names for different generations and different markets) or Opel Astra (different manufacturer names for the same car on different markets).
 * The situation with only two names makes referring to it quite easy: The first mentioning is Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive/Genesis, all following are either Mega Drive in general topics or Genesis in North America related topics. --87.234.94.195 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "If 44 % of the consoles were sold as Genesis then 56 % were sold as Mega Drive."
 * yes, but of that 56%, how many were sold to English speaking markets? freehunter 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A thought
We're always getting Americans saying this article should be called Sega Gesnesis. Perhaps we should put a big disclaimer at the top of the talk page explaining the situation so we can save all but the most ignorant of them some time?--Josquius 19:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sega Pirate.png
Image:Sega Pirate.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

USA Official Launch Titles
Does anybody know what games should be considered the official launch titles? The ad I posted includes Super Hydlide (listed as Hollo Fighter) but the page for that says it came out in October. Conversely, Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle is missing from the ad but it looks like that was released in August before the launch. Does anybody have any insight? Apavlo 05:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Super Hydlide release date isn't sourced, so take it witch a pinch of salt. Mobygames claims it was released in 1990, so it's possible it was intended to be a launch title and was delayed, but I would go by what it says in the ad, and change it later if verifiable information to the contrary comes to light.  Mi re ma re  17:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Sega Megadrive/Genesis be considered 32 bit?
After all, if the N64 is considered 64 bit (because of its CPU), then so too should the Genesis. It has a 32-bit 68000 CPU. - Theaveng 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the 68000 is 32 or 16 bit isn't an issue for the Mega Drive page, it's an issue for the Motorola 68000 page. Sega consider it to be 16-bit, even going so far as to print "16-bit" in large letters on the top of the console. Every other machine to use this processor, such as the Atari ST and Amiga are also considered 16-bit, until the inclusion of the Motorola 68020 in the Amiga, at which point it was considered 32-bit. It's not helpful to keep adding the 32-bit claim to this article without citation or consensus.  Mi re ma re  00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay you win. It's a "16 bit console" per Sega.   But I find it ironic you use the Atari ST as an example.  ST means 16/32 to acknowledge the fact that the 68000 is 32 bit internally, and thus the 68000 software is forwards compatible with all 32-bit motorola CPUs.
 * Anyway.....


 * IT SHOULD STILL STATE how many bits the CPU has, as part of the technical breakdown. The N64 page states it uses a 32/64 bit processor. The PS2 page states it uses a 64/128 bit processor.  Intellivision states "16 bit processor" and the SNES page states 16 bit processor.    Even PS1 states it has a 32-bit processor (even though it was part of the 64 bit generation with the N64).  So too do the Xbox, Gamecube, NES, and Sega Master System articles state how many bits their CPUs have (32, 32, 8, and 8, respectively).  There should be consistency across all the consoles, such that their articles ALL state how many bits the processor actually has.   There's no valid reason to leave the Genesis as the sole exception that does not say how bits its processor has.  That's inconsistent and makes no logical sense.  -   Theaveng 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Being 32-bit "internally" doesn't simply make it "32-bit". The 68000 is described in its article as "an implementation of a 32-bit architecture on a 16-bit CPU", therefore the Mega Drive has, quite simply, a 16-bit CPU. As do the others - Atari ST included. Also, what manufacturers print on the front of their consoles may not seem particularly relevant technologically, but don't you think if they could credibly get away with it, Sega would have printed the twice-as-impressive "32-bit" on the Mega Drive, as Commodore did with their 68020-equipped CD32? Now, I don't particularly have an objection to noting the "32-bit" element in the tech specs bit, provided it's linked to the relevent part of the Motorola 68000 article and given a footnote to explain (and provided consensus to do so is reached on this page), but that's not what you're doing - you're adding this. You have also been adding statements elswhere in the article such as this. These edits are explicitly stating that the Motorola 68000 is a 32-bit CPU, which it isn't. These edits are, at best, misleading and confusing to people who don't know the intimate ins and outs of computer processors, or indeed this processor in particular. However, my preference is that it should be left as "16-bit", which is entirely correct, and leave the frankly irrelevent (to this article) details of the CPU's internals to the CPU's own page.  Mi re ma re  18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WIKIPEDIA RULE: Be Bold.  I'm following it.
 * Every other console of the 80s and 90s lists how many bits the CPU has. Give me a good reason why Sega Genesis should be different (not list the bits), and I'll delete it.   But I think it SHOULD include the number of bits.


 * Also I notice you once again listed Atari ST, and once again you missed the relevance of it being called Atari Sixteen Thirtytwo, as recognition that it's a 32 bit processor, even though its sitting on a 16-bit A/D bus. Look at the wiki article.  It clearly states, "As the first member of the successful 32-bit m68k family" as written by User:Potatoswatter.   I didn't write that.  Somebody else did.  -   Theaveng 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please actually take the time to read WP:BOLD before trying to use it as justification to do as you please or ride roughshod over other editors when they bring up legitimate concerns. I've asked you several times, I'll ask you once more: please do not keep adding this stuff without concensus.  Mi re ma re  22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, be bold. But don't be reckless. Wikipedia recommends a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle rather than being tendentious.
 * FWIW, I think trying to put "32-bit" all over the article is trying to prove some sort of point. I see you've been doing the same sort of thing to N64, 16-bit, and 32-bit … Anomie 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Miremare here. The CPU bitness is largely irrelevant to most readers and when simply injected into the article with (It's actually 32-Bit) is nothing but distracting.
 * --Anss123 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So should I go through all the consoles like 2600, intellivisin, nes, sms, snes, ps1, ps2, saturn, n64, xbox, gamecube, et cetera..... and delete the bits from their articles? For example where it the NES article says:


 * === Central processing unit ===
 * For its central processing unit (CPU), the NES uses an 8-bit microprocessor produced by Ricoh based on a MOS Technology 6502 core.
 * Should I delete that reference to the bits? Should I do that to all articles?  I'm very confused of what exactly it is ye want.  -  Theaveng 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mega Drive article included the bits (16) before your edits, just like the other articles. But no, you should not go making changes to other articles just to prove a WP:POINT.  Mi re ma re  17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. -  Theaveng 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

compatible regions?
i just wondered if different consoles and games from different regions were compatible. for example would a sega genesis game work on a mega drive console. i wonder if this could be be useful information to others also? and could be listed? i couldn't find anything obvious on the page. sorry if i missed it, or if this question seems irrelivant. but it's why i looked at the page. i expect others must have the same question(?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.138.161 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of games from any country would work on any Mega Drive or Genesis - and imported games were widely available. The main form of region protection Sega used was simply changing the shape of the cartridge slot of the Genesis and European Mega Drive. They added little "square bits" (for want of a better description) to the rear corners of the slot, the shape of which was inverted on those region's cartridges to allow a close fit while making it impossible to fit Japanese carts. The Japanese machine simply had a perfectly rectangular slot to allow any game to fit, which is why the Japanese machine is the one to go for, though converters were available for European and US machines to play Japanese games (and even a quick attack with a hacksaw to remove the "square bits" would do the job). That is, until they started building electronic region lockout into the carts themselves, but I don't think that was ever very widespread. Perhaps someone else can answer that? Anyway, to answer your question more concisely: yes, pretty much. :) Should it be mentioned in the article? I don't see why not.  Mi re ma re  21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

thankyou for answering my question, and so quickly too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.32.186 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul
I've done a complete (Yet uncomplete) overhaul on this article for the pure fact that I think it looked a mess. I tried to make it similar to the SNES article, not only is that at FA status, but it is from a similar time to the Mega Drive as well, it only makes sense to make them similar and keep some sort of standard in these sort of articles. Obviously it needs a lot of work still though.

I got rid of the old peripherals section because it was just a list and added a written one and added info boxes to the technical specifications but that's where I'm lacking. I'm not too hot on the technical side of things so I've put place holders for the time being. I'm appealing to anyone who could write sections for the technical area to do so and to fill in the blank info boxes. I feel this is currently the most important aspect of the article to improve. References as well, it's lacking a lot of them.

I also kept a lot of the information from before, just rearranged it a little to fit better sections.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Crimsonfox 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job. The only thing I'd have done differently is shove the Tech Specs to the very end of the article. - X201 20:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good - Apavlo 02:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The 68000 is a 16/32 bit CPU
No ifs, ands, or buts. It's 16/32: A 32 bit CPU sitting on a 16-bit external bus. I'm an electrical engineer who designs computer chips for a living. I know of what I speak. I backed-down before, but I will NOT back-down this time, because I know 100% certain that I am correct. (Even the Atari engineers acknowledged this, when they called their 68000-based machine the Sixteen-Thirtytwo; they knew exactly what they were dealing with.)

Now you Miremare may not like that "inconvenient fact" of a 16/32 bit CPU sitting inside the Genesis, but you can't just change facts to fit your preconceived notions. An encyclopedia's job is to report reality, and the reality is a 32 bit CPU sitting on a 16 bit external bus. (Similar to how the N64 is a 64 bit CPU sitting on a 32 bit bus.) These are the facts and I'm sticking to them. - Theaveng 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia's job isn't truth, it's verifiability. If you want to introduce "facts" to an article, you have to provide sources to support them. "I design computer chips so what I say goes" holds no water as an argument - especially as you were claiming the 68000 to be a true 32-bit CPU not so long ago - I could claim to be the Pope and use that as an excuse to write what I wanted in the Vatican article, but I wouldn't expect anyone to believe it, and I wouldn't expect it to go unchallenged. Like I said before, internal details of the CPU are for the article on the CPU, not here, and not on the Atari ST or Amiga pages either. Unless you can provide a reliable source specifying that the Mega Drive is 32-bit, then anyone is perfectly within their rights to remove it. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Asserting in edit summaries that "it is NOT a 16 bit CPU" is far from enough, I'm afraid. And no, that source you added doesn't clear anything up - the fact is you're claiming that "internally" takes precedence over "externally", which apparently the rest of the world, including the manufacturers of the products in question, don't seem to agree with.   Please don't add this until you can prove it unequivocally.


 * Strawman argument.... I didn't claim "internally takes precedence over externally". As evidenced by the fact my change says "16/32" and thus accounts for both internal & external bits, and thus treat both equally.  -  Anyway I added a citation to back the 16/32 distinction for the 68000, so that should satisfy wiki requirements.  -  Theaveng 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK then, replace "precedence" with "parity" and my argument stands.  Mi re ma re  18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If only I knew what you mean by "internally takes parity over externally". I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.  -  BTW, how many Nintendo consoles do you own?  How many Segas?  Atari or Sony consoles?  -  Theaveng 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attempted misinterpretation aside, thank you for adding those sources, that's all that's required. And if you're implying that I want sources because I'm a Nintendo fanboy, you're wrong. It's because this is an encyclopedia, and anything in an encyclopedia has to be verifiable.  Mi re ma re  22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, please don't do this. I changed that section for a specific reason, which I explained in the edit summary, and undoing it with no explanation is both uncivil and unhelpful. What exactly was the problem with it?  Mi re ma re  16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what the article originally said, followed by your change:
 * Sega set about creating a new machine that would be at least as powerful as the then most impressive home computer hardware on the market – the Commodore Amiga, Atari ST, and the Apple Macintosh II.
 * Sega set about creating a new machine that would compete technologically with home computer hardware of the time.


 * Your explanation "(unless there's a source to say Sega intended to compete with these home computers it seems unlikely)" does not make any sense for why you made this change. -  Theaveng 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you thought it didn't make any sense you should have said so in the edit summary, that's one of the things it's for. The reason I made the change is that the sentence is weasel wording implying that Sega specifiacally intended to compete with the Amiga, ST, and Apple II. If this is the case it needs sourcing or removing.  Mi re ma re  18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well don't blame ME. I didn't put the original sentence there.  AND there's no reason to delete it; all you need to do is put (citation needed) after it.  That's proper wikiquette.  -  Theaveng 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not "blaming" you, or anyone, and please don't lecture me on Wikiquette - I'm not the one being confrontational with practically every editor I meet, or reverting people's good-faith edits with no explanation as if it's vandalism. Please read WP:Wikiquette and for that matter WP:BRD. I removed the sentence about the Amiga, ST, and Apple because it was unsourced and I don't agree with what it implies. This is the correct proceedure, as per WP:V. The burden of evidence is on the editor adding or re-adding information to prove it. "Citation needed" is for if you don't disagree but a source is still required to prove it. Ditto for the other removal that you reverted for no apparent reason. That Altered Beast and Phantasy Star II represent targeting a more mature audience is debatable, and I'm debating it - as far as I can see they're just regular games with no apparent reputation for this, and unless there's a source to support it, it has to go. Remember I'm debating the use of those two games as examples, I'm not debating that Sega were aiming at a more mature audience, as I agree with that.  Mi re ma re  22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By your own logic, that means we should delete EVERY sentence that has a "citation needed" after it. I could probably understand your point if you were consistent, but you're not consistent.  Somethings you delete, and other things you leave intact, even without citation.  I do not comprehend the inconsistent application you are you.  -  Me, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, wait a month, and give them time to find a source.  I think that's more polite than saying (or rather implying), "What you contributed is trash; I've deleted it; don't ever contribute again."  -  Theaveng 15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what "my logic" impies at all. It's perfectly simple: If someone disagrees with an unsourced statement they are entitled to remove it. I don't disagree with anything I added "citation needed" to, and neither has anyone else, or they would be within their rights to remove said statements too. That is the difference. You, as the editor adding this back, have to provide a source to support it.  Mi re ma re  16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 Mi re ma re , I do agree with you that official specs should take precedence when dealing with vague specs such as CPU bitness. But... the current tech-specs is a mess. Multiple tables, some I believe are from the SNES article, with overlapping information make the 32/16 bit issue seem negligible. Someone has to write that into prose, feel up to it ? ;) --Anss123 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The technical specifications problem is described in the "Overhaul" section about and both on the WP:VG and WP:Computing talk pages. The infoboxes on the right were taken from the SNES article, but none of the information was compied, just the tables. Crimsonfox 22:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. Can't help you with Viz Magazine, never hear of that, but I might help out with the overhaul later if I suddenly feel up to it. I assume you're bringing it inline with the SNES article, you don't need to get that technical but it's a good template for how it should be.--Anss123 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great, it's a big article and I was hoping I wouldn't have to do it all on my own. And yeah, I want to make it similar to the SNES article mainly because the SNES is roughly Nintendo's counterpart to the Mega Drive and the SNES article is a FA. Crimsonfox 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, despite the addition of sources to prove that the CPU can indeed be considered 32/16-bit, I still don't necessarily think it's appropriate for us to do so here. To all intents and purposes it's 16-bit, and certainly considered so by Sega, not to mention the manufacturers of other machines that used it. I really think this is an issue to be covered in the Motorola 68000 article rather than here, and we should stick to the official statistics. And umm... no, I think I'll leave prose-ifying the stats section to someone else! :)  Mi re ma re  23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and Nintendo called its N64 console a "64 bit" even though, in reality and as verified by many engineering articles, it is a 32/64 cpu. A 64-bit CPU sitting on a 32-bit-wide die (to save costs).  There's a difference between what Marketers say, and what the truth is.  Look at how Sony claimed its PS2 was 128 bit, but once the engineers/technicians got their hands on it, they discovered, to nobody's surprise, that Sony was lying.  It's just a plain-jane 64-bit processor.  POINT #1:  I prefer the truth, and the truth is the 68000 is a 16/32 as verified by not 1, not 2, but many 5 citations I provided.
 * POINT #2: Don't confuse marketing with specifications.  A marketing brochure is just about worthless.  The REAL information is found in the data sheets.  Your comment that "it's 16-bit...considered so by Sega" is marketing, not a specification.    Sales brochures are not valid sources of technical data; data sheets are.   - Theaveng 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mega CD/32X sections
Personally, I don't think they need their own sections. They have their own articles elsewhere and it looks incredibly untidy because of their stub-like quality. There's no need for the amount of information that would increase the quality of the sections to be in the Mega Drive article. Crimsonfox 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved them out of the "peripherals" section because they were buried away in the midst of light guns and baseball bat controllers despite being far more important to the Mega Drive than those things. Feel free to change it, though I'd suggest still giving them sub-headings within the "peripherals" section and keeping the "main article" templates with them. Cheers,  Mi re ma re  22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like the best idea, then they don't need as much information as they would do if they were main headings. Crimsonfox 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How's this?  Mi re ma re  23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm gonna say that works nicely. Fits in pretty well as they were main peripherals to the system. Crimsonfox 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)