Talk:Sega Master System

Is the date for Brazilian release a typo, or are there conflicting dates? As TecToy's blog gives a date of September 4th. http://www.tectoy.com.br/tecblog/?p=359 Also SMS released at different dates across Europe, as early as 1986 in Italy and Germany, should we have separate details for each country, or just use the first country it released in EU? --Pirate Dragon 06:10, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Ideally we should have it for each country individually. One of the major problems with the internet when it comes to video game dates is that many sites (including Wikipedia which was a foundation for many of these articles) just treat "EUROPE" as one big region, when in reality the concept of "European" release dates didn't emerge until the mid-90s.

Release dates in general are a pain to manage. Dates are often likely to be wrong just down to human error (or unrecorded delays), and of course there are often many different models of consoles which shipped at different dates (often in different bundles) which we should really be recording somewhere. I don't know what the long-term solution for that is though -Black Squirrel 09:30, 11 June 2012 (CDT)

Just to settle things: Brazil never got the FM Sound Unit or built-in FM sound, correct? I'm sure I asked this a million times but I don't recall a definite answer; if there was then I'm sorry - Andlabs 03:59, 14 June 2012 (CDT)

Mark III never released in Brazil, so that should rule out the FM Sound Unit. AFAIK only Japanese and certain Korean SMS models had FM built in.--Pirate Dragon 07:35, 15 June 2012 (CDT)

Can we stop adding so many inaccuracies to SegaRetro by wholesale cut and pasting from other Wikis which are so often wrong when it comes to their Sega content. Take the SMS sales figures for example, as much as I wish SMS sales were that high they clearly weren't. The wiki which is used as a source (why are we using another Wiki as a source anyway?) in turn sources multiple different sources which contradict each other, mixing and matching different sources depending on which ever is highest for a particular period, then dismissing that very same source when ever they are lower than a contradicting source. It's clear bias to ensure the highest possible number. Incidentally, one of the sources which has been distorted is from my research. I really think we should just be editing stuff that we are either already knowledgeable about, or have actually done some research about rather than just assuming that pages on other wikis are accurate.--Pirate Dragon (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2015 (CDT)