- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to made this collection of moves, since rationales vary among individual move, editors should consider individual moves so that consensus can be clearly stated and assessed. Mike Cline (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
-Relisting.--Aervanath (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC) – Now that the title issue of the main article about this console has been settled, we can bring these sub-articles into alignment. The current names of all these articles are consistent with the old name of the main article, Sega Mega Drive. The proposal is to make them consistent with the new (and original) article title, Sega Genesis. The main reasons for the recent move of the main article are in the FAQ at the top of Talk:Sega Genesis. born2cYcle 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - The sub-articles don't need to be brought "into alignment". They should each be considered on their own merits and it's entirely possible that non-US names are more appropriate. Specifically, I suspect that Multi-Mega is more widely recognized than CDX. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Partial strong oppose, partial weak support. First I should preface this by saying I was unaware of the discussion about the naming of the main article, and would have vehemently opposed it had I known it was there. Given its past history though, I gave up on arguing (it could hardly be called discussing in many cases) that page a long time ago. With that in mind, here is my view.
- If the main article is called Sega Genesis, then the other articles should probably fall in line (although ButOnMethItIs has a good point above, and I don't think it is a policy that it must be the case), as much as I disapprove of it. However, Variations of the Sega Mega Drive should absolutely not be moved to Variations of the Sega Genesis. The Genesis itself is a Mega Drive variant (Mega Drive being the original name for the console). The original Japanese models (of both the MD1 and MD2) are what the Genesises (Geneses?) are based on, as is the case with the PAL models. This is one reason I would have opposed the move of the main page, but in this case it would make the title factually inaccurate, which is against Wikipedia policy.
- P.S. Something tells me that the name of the article will never be "settled". It was just as "settled" before with the name Mega Drive.
- Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the same may also apply to this page, but in a slightly different way. Many Japanese-only games exist, and those were never Genesis games. That being the case, perhaps renaming this to List of Sega Mega Drive/Genesis games may actually be appropriate (while it wasn't/isn't really for the main article). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I don't know. I didn't even know of the Multi-Mega until recently, but I've heard of CDX.∞陣内Jinnai 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Was that supposed to be a reply to ButOnMethItIs's post? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh, my entire reply got destroyed in an edit conflict. Here it is again. Consistency has never been an important issue on Wikipedia, but individually here are my views:
- Neutral on List of Sega Mega Drive games - I don't see an impetus to change this, but I am not opposed to it either.
- Oppose on Variations of the Sega Mega Drive - This article deals predominantly with the international market where the device is known as Mega Drive, and almost every source in the article uses the term Mega Drive. This should stay where it is.
- Oppose on Mega-CD - The device was known as Mega-CD for almost a full year before it was known as Sega-CD, and most of the source (4/6) refer to the device as Mega-CD.
- Neutral on List of Mega-CD games - same rational as on List of Mega Drive games above.
- Oppose on Sega Multi-Mega - for now. The article is in a bad state and should be improved and properly sourced before any decisions are made on the correct title for the article.
- - TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Individual votes for me:
- Neutral on List of Sega Mega Drive games - no strong reason to change to Genesis. However, I would support a move to "List of Mega Drive games" (without Sega in the title), as this version matches the correct branding for Mega Drive and is consistent with other past moves, including that for Mega-CD.
- Oppose on Variations of the Sega Mega Drive - Agree with TechnoSymbiosis - the variations listed in this article are almost entirely non-US and do not carry the Genesis brand. (Again, I would support "Variations of the Mega Drive", removing Sega from the title.)
- Neutral on Mega-CD. Sega CD has strong notability in the US for similar reasons as the Genesis itself does (and mostly because of the game Night Trap, and the general commercial failure of FMV games), but those reasons are not to the same extent as for the Genesis itself.
- Neutral on List of Mega-CD games - same reason as for the list of Mega Drive games
- Oppose on Sega Multi-Mega - similar reasoning for Mega-CD, and I agree with TechnoSymbiosis's reasons.
- (votes concluded) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Tentatively opposed to all five moves. Is there a policy that says so called "Sub-articles" should be named in accordance to the "main article"? I thought they were to be considered separately? Why move around a stable article? It's very bad form to go around trying to do EngVar moves for no very good reason, and as the device's name is a US/Commonwealth split it feels like it fits into the spirit of the EngVar rules, if (perhaps) not the letter of it. (I'm not alone in this feeling. Some people argued along EngVar lines and not CommonName lines in the move discussion for the console's article.) Unless there's some sub-article naming convention I'm not aware of, I don't see any reason to stir up naming debates all over 80s gaming. The default action should be to leave things the way they are. (I say tentative, because there could well be some sub-article naming convention that I'm not aware of.) APL (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one of the naming criteria at WP:AT is "consistency". The way I would apply it here is all other factors held equal, we should try to be consistent with the main article. But if there are compelling reasons also based on that criteria to keep a title where it is that outweigh just consistency, by all means, let's not move. --born2cYcle 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- The whole reason these articles (apart from the variations article) are at their Mega variant, is because of the main article being moved in the past. If you look at the history and change reasons, it says stuff like "Sega CD to Sega Mega-CD due to Sega Mega Drive/Genesis to Sega Mega Drive" and then later "Sega Mega-CD to Mega-CD per Sega Mega Drive to Mega Drive" - same thing with the Sega CDX article. The only one that got away was the Sega 32X, I imagine because it was called something different in all three regions, so they just left it at the articles original name.--SexyKick 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose all. Breaking it down:
- List of Sega Mega Drive games - this title is acceptable and descriptive. So long as Sega Genesis appears in the first sentence or two of the lede, it's OK.
- Variations of the Sega Mega Drive - there is a good reason to use the first name of the product here, since everything else was a variation of that. "Sega Mega Drive 2" is not a variation on the Genesis, it's clearly a variation of the Mega Drive. On the other hand, "Sega Firecore" is a variation on Sega Genesis which in turn is a variation of the Mega Drive - so we're still OK with the original title.
- Mega-CD - again, the title is acceptable and descriptive - I see no reason to change it.
- List of Mega-CD games - this title is acceptable and descriptive. So long as Sega CD appears in the first sentence or two of the lede, it's OK.
- Sega Multi-Mega - again, the title is acceptable and descriptive - I see no reason to change it.
- SteveBaker (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support all but variations article for which I'm Neutral on the variations one.∞陣内Jinnai 21:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support all but the variations article, for which I'm Neutral. The variations article is the only one that seems to have a unique argument to keep the name. Otherwise, all the arguments of the main article move (commonname, retain, etc) are applicable here, but they are made stronger because now we factor in a desire to be consistent.LedRush (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support all, but variants should go to variants of the mega drive (drop the Sega)--BeastSystem (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose each move:
- Variations of the Sega Mega Drive - Since it is referenced within the article that the Sega Mega Drive was only called the Genesis in North America and it's original name was Mega Drive then Genesis is a variation of Mega Drive and not the other way around. Article name change implies that Mega Drive was a variation of Genesis rather than the other way around and it is hence misleading.
- List of Sega Mega Drive Games - I think this is a valid article name, the North American branding of the Mega Drive is already referenced within the article.
- Mega CD - Console was originally called the Sega Mega CD and I see no reason to change it because it was branded as something else in North America. Sega CD branding is already referenced within the article.
- List of Mega-CD games - Essentially for the same reasons as List of Sega Mega Drive Games, North American branding is already referenced and it was originally named Sega Mega CD around the world with the exception of North America.
- Sega Multi-Mega - I think this article name is reasonable, it isn't ambigous, it was it's name and the North American branding was just a derivative name. Bobert902101 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
So, it seems to me that we have consensus on:
- List of Sega Mega Drive games → List of Sega Genesis games
- List of Mega-CD games → List of Sega CD games
It also appears to me that we have consensus on:
It seems to me that we don't have consensus on:
- Variations of the Sega Mega Drive → Variations of the Sega Genesis
- Sega Multi-Mega → Sega CDX
Does anyone disagree with my assessment/summary of the discussion above?LedRush (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- While there seems to be slightly more support (in terms of head count) for the moves that you feel "have consensus", remember that consensus ≠ majority support; move discussions are not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Thus far I haven't seen much support for any of the moves beyond "it should be like the main page", which technically isn't a criterion for moving a page. Indeed, all of the oppose "votes" and most of the neutral ones seem to have some kind of argument behind them, while many (not all) of the support "votes" simply state support. However, it's probably safe to assume that what is meant by this is the move is supported for the same reasons that the main article was moved.
- I would agree however that there appears to be a consensus against moving Variations of the Sega Mega Drive.
- Given that the consensus for the move of the Mega Drive/Genesis article was so loose, and that that seems to be a commonly cited reason to move these articles, I would suggest that the discussion for the movement of any of these pages be handled separately and moved back to their respective talk pages. If this is not done but further discussion does take place then it will likely get very confusing very quickly. If further discussion doesn't take place then I would suggest that WP:CONSENSUS#No consensus applies, and since these articles have been stable (as far as I can tell) for a decent amount of time then they should remain at their current names.
- Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree about the variations article. However, as there is yet no consensus this page can run longer and perhaps be advertised again before its closed. I would also point out the move change was not loose and had only a couple of opposes who did more than drive-by oppose with an overwhelming support and myself as the only neutral. Therefore suggisting they all be moved to their indivisual talk pages for this based on that should not be done. I do agree though a better reason may have to be had if things stay the way they are.∞陣内Jinnai 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Two points of contention: (1) as mentioned above, the 15-3 majority and (and far stronger policy points) were an overwhelming consensus for the main article move. This cannot be called loose by any stretch of the imagination. (2) I feel the exact opposite about the move reasonings than you: the people who support the moves have done so on two strong basis: (i) all the plethora of reasons stated in the main article move discussion; and (ii) conforming to the current main article. Many oppose votes have basically said (nah, we don't need to move it because it's common enough). This argument is not based on policy (and was thoroughly defeated in the main article discussion). So, basically we have a majority of editors asking for the moves I highlight, and they do it based on extensive policy grounds and discussions, unlike the oppose votes.LedRush (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There is also the reason that if the video game naming convention which supports consistancy throughout articles without a good reason for an exception. Probably should have been brought up earlier. The only one that made an attempt at a reasonable explanation as to why it shouldn't be is the variations article. NM, seems it only applies to games. Should probably be brought up after this is resolved.∞陣内Jinnai 19:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies. Having not been part of the main move discussion I may have got the wrong end of the stick (given how extensive it is, I probably read the wrong bit or something; it is a tad overwhelming). If it is indeed the case that the Genesis (vs. Mega Drive) arguments apply here then they should be made here (or at least briefly reiterated) and not just assumed - I for one (as already mentioned) was not part of that discussion and it seems unreasonable to be expected to read through an entire talk page archive to find out what someone's point is on a separate issue. (As I said, this need only be a brief summary - if a point is too detailed to be worth re-outlining or whatever then perhaps a link to the appropriate section or similar might be more useful.)
- I don't actually see anyone making the "not common enough" argument, and most "we don't need to move it" points seem to be neutrals, no opposes. Unless there is a good reason to move an article, it is supposed to be left where it is (assuming it has a stable name), so "no good reason" is valid (especially given that most of the "supports" came after most of the "opposes" were put forward - at that point there was little to refute/argue against).
- Consistency may well be a good reason to move them (I'm not sure) but I'm not sure how it applies to moves (rather than article creation). Also it may be worth considering that since the variations page (and according to you the Multi-Mega page) are probably not going to be moved the "series" will not be consistently named regardless, and cannot be unless all the articles use their international (non-US/Canada) names, so may negate its use to move the other articles (I am unsure as to the specifics of this, I'm just throwing out an idea).
- As I am unsure of the full reasons for the move from Mega Drive to Genesis (see above) I cannot be sure if this matters, but it seems that WP:Commonname is being argued (either implicitly or explicitly). While this may well apply to the Mega Drive/Genesis, this doesn't imply that it applies to the others, and assuming that the consistency argument doesn't hold, the "commonality" status of each name would need to be demonstrated.
- Regardless, this is about consensus, which as far as I can see has not been reached (consensus implies agreement, not majority, although they can be heavily linked), and I don't think there has been enough proper discussion to do so (discussion ≠ statement of positions).
- Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that not everyone here was a party to the main article move, but the strong consensus to move was based, at least in part, on the following summary, which was edited as part of a collaboration of all editors that were discussing the potential moves:
"Sega GenesisSega Genesis WP:CRITERIA QnARecognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic? *Yes, "Sega Genesis" is a recognizable name of this console in much of the English speaking world', however it is not universally recognized as it still causes confusion for those who know it as "Mega Drive".
- Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. There is no consensus on whether "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive" is the title readers are most likely to look for in order to find this article, but it is one of the two. Editors are also likely to link to this title, and it conveys what it is often called in English, though perhaps not usually.
- Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. This title is clearly precise, but no more precise than necessary to identify this topic..
- Conciseness – Is the title concise or is it overly long? This title is as concise as possible given disambiguation considerations with Genesis.
- Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Yes. This title does follow the same pattern as those of similar articles (other articles about Sega consoles also follow the pattern Sega Name).
Sega Genesis pro
- It is the most commonly used name in English sources to refer to this topic, so it meets WP:COMMONNAME better than any other candidate.
- It is the first title used in Wikipedia for this topic back in November 2001 , and remained there for four years until September 2005. (then it was merged with the new Sega Mega Drive article, creating a compound name for the article until August 2006). When a company has marketed a product under two different names and no other reason can be found to choose one or the other for the title of the article about that topic, instead of combining both names in the title, apply the WP:RETAIN principle and use the product name which was first used as an article title in Wikipedia.
Is the name first introduced in an English-speaking country. Is the name used for the majority of consoles sold (though sales figures are unreliable, and precise amounts cannot be considered 100% accurate).
- When a company has marketed a product under two different names and no other reason can be found to choose one or the other for the title of the article about that topic, instead of combining both names in the title, choose the product name for the title which is first in alphabetical order (Genesis comes before Mega Drive).
- The argument is that it is the most country-neutral title, as it is the name used by the most reliable sources, regardless of country of origin."
These arguments seem as valid for at least the three titles which appear to have consensus for a move (this is a discussion, regardless of your opinion as to the quality of the reasoning), and I would argue that the there is enough relevant there to justify a move for the others as well. Seeing as several of the articles exist only at the current locations as a result of the renaming of the main article, it makes sense to make the move again. That the actual policies of naming support the move this time (and I don't believe they did the earlier moves, which a consensus of editors feel was not properly policy-based), these really should be no-brainers.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- The way I see it, it makes the most sense to move the four articles (and not move Variations) based on the fact that the only reason they have the Mega name is because of the main article being changed around. They were always kept in concurrence with the main article. When Sega Genesis went to Sega Mega Drive, Sega CD went to Mega-CD, and Sega CDX went to Sega Multi-Mega, and the game lists as well. There weren't even RM discussions, they were just plain moved. The same "barely common name" circle jerk stuff that applies to the main article applies to the four other articles here as well, Sega CDX, Sega "Multi-Mega", "Sega CD", "Sega Mega-CD" It's also not even close on Google Books.--SexyKick 00:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding LedRush's post, I don't see that most of that is relevant - most of it seems to apply to both current and proposed names for the add-ons. The only bits that seem to be relevant are WP:COMMONNAME (which doesn't necessarily transfer - common name status for the add-ons is independent of that of the main console, although SexyKick seems to have shown it to the be case), the "first name" bit (which again would need to be shown for those articles, not just the main one) and possibly the "naturalness" bit. I don't think anyone is suggesting that one set of titles is better than another on recognisability, precision or conciseness grounds (to do so would be like having a preference for a type of car based on the fact it has wheels; it is an argument that applies to both sides and can thus be ignored from either side), and consistency is a separate issue (for the console's article, it referred to whether or not "Sega 𝑥" was used, rather than just "𝑥"; there is no pattern established for whether the same regional name is used as far as I can tell). In a nut shell, only the "common name", "first name" and "naturalness" bits seem to apply to the add-ons, and are not necessarily true just because they were for the console.
- @SexyKick: that seems good enough for me, although google results aren't the be-all end-all. However, you might want to negate the "Datel CDX" in your CDX search by adding
-Datel to the search terms (such that they look like this:
"Sega CDX" -Datel). If you don't, you run the risk of poisoning your results with additional results for an unrelated item. I have done this and it doesn't seem to affect the number of result a great deal, but you should probably bear it in mind in future. For more info on what the Datel CDX is (if you're unaware), see the Multi-Mega/CDX page.
- Still, it's not me that needs to be convinced; we're looking for a consensus here and I was already tentatively on your side (for the add-on articles anyway; the lists are a separate matter).
- Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it was actually for everyone to read. Not you specifically. : )--SexyKick 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose – and object to the assertion of some consensus above; sorry I'm so late to notice, just saw it in the backlog. If Born2Cycle wanted consistency in naming, he wouldn't have put up such a fight to move the main article to where he did, rather than back to where it had been consistent. He continues to stir up trouble by his over-reliable on counts and COMMONNAME when it pleases and consistency when it pleases. I think a bit more stability is in order when things are this contentious. Just leave it. Consistency is not required here, and these move attempts are disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - it seems disruptive to oppose a move without mention of policies or guidelines, but with an attack on another editor.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - for what it's worth, I take no position on this proposal. I only made it because I was asked to do it, and it seemed reasonably possible that there would be consensus support for it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems doubly disruptive to stir up such a mess about something you don't even have a position on. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Responding on your talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.