Talk:Sega Genesis

Sega Mega-CD?

For what it's worth, I'd like to voice my disagreement with the US-centric title of the article. As has been mentioned before:

• To say the console is "also known as Sega Mega Drive" is simply backwards when regarding the history of the console

• So because the US is the single largest English-speaking country, they take precedent over the many other countries where English is spoken, regardless of appropriateness? Two small examples: Suede are a well-known British band who had to be renamed as The London Suede in the US, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone had to be amended to "Sorcerer's Stone" in the US. Following the above line of logic, those articles should be renamed for the US' benefit. Ridiculous.

I know the (obviously untrue) stereotype is that Americans don't have a world view, but this is impressively unilateral.

Which brings up another point: since the Mega-CD was renamed Sega CD for the sole benefit of the US, should that article be renamed too?

46.65.72.132 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not only that the US is larger, but that the userbase in the US (and Canada) is much larger than other English territories, on TOP of the fact that its origin is from a non-English speaking country. Note that Suede and Harry Potter are British in origin, so the comparison doesn't apply, even beyond the fact that in both cases the original title is likely better known. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"the userbase in the US (and Canada) is much larger than other English territories" – are there any numbers to back this up? Sorry for the pedantry, but I'd be genuinely interested to see how significant the difference is to weigh more importance to primarily one country over several others. Edit: Numbers found in original article – I'll concede this point.

"its origin is from a non-English speaking country" – but the origin name is with English words. Where it comes from shouldn't matter in this case. If the original name was in kanji characters, then it'd be different.

"Note that Suede and Harry Potter are British in origin, so the comparison doesn't apply" – please explain why? In all cases, a title has been renamed for the US market. Final Fantasy VI was renamed in the US as "Final Fantasy III", so why not retitle the article for VI as "Final Fantasy III", with a section nothing that it's "also known as Final Fantasy VI" for the vastly smaller non-US userbase? I'm being slightly facetious, but I hope you can see the point that's being made. 46.65.72.132 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FFVI is an even worse example as it HAS been released in the US as FFVI, multiple times even. On the other hand, we have articles under both the Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior names depending on if the game got released in the US under the DQ name or only under the DW name. As for 'English speaking words', that's pretty irrelevant given the large number of Japanese games that use them. We don't have an article at, for instance, Phantom Kingdom, it's at Makai Kingdom: Chronicles of the Sacred Tome. Stunt Race FX, not Wild Trax. Etc. etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

/facepalm ... OK, OK, if we need to be pedantic about it ... FFIV? That was released as FFII in the states, not sure if it got rereleased under its proper name since. Talking theoretically, what happens to the ones which never got a release at all, until much more recently? If we rename things retroactively, then a/ what would they then be called in a putative wikipedia where said retconning releases never happened (or had yet to happen), b/ if for some reason another version of the Genesis gets released in the US and is then itself called a Mega Drive, can this article be renamed and have the lede switched around? Cuz, yknow, there's a need for consistency... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course Final Fantasy IV has gotten US releases under that name. As for later renames, I think my post above shows what would happen -- the example I gave of Dragon Warrior VII is perfect, as it recently got a 3DS remake, and if that comes out in English the article should be changed to reflect the new name. If your theoretical example happened, then I imagine this article would also change, but it's not as if Sega just released the console and gave up on it -- to this day Sega uses the names (they sell collections called "Sega Genesis & Megadrive Classics", for example -- note which name is first). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why Suede and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone shouldn't be retitled, following the above logic. (I'll gladly accept any corrections to the following since your knowledge on the subject is obviously greater than mine) Even though Makai Kingdom: Chronicles of the Sacred Tome and Stunt Race FX weren't the original titles, only one country had the original title; so it makes sense for those articles not to use the Japanese title for the English-language Wikipedia, even if they're not the original titles. But for the Mega Drive article, it's the other way around: only in two countries was it known as Genesis – all other English-speaking countries kept the original name. If population is the overriding factor, why not rename this the North American Wikipedia?

The original point I was making was: if we're titling articles for the US' benefit (despite the rest of the world having a different name), shouldn't Sega Mega-CD and Sega_Multi-Mega be renamed Sega CD and Sega CDX?46.65.72.132 (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I already mentioned the fact that Harry Potter, for instance, not only originated in an English speaking country, but more people likely know it by its original name. This is simply not true with the Genesis. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"not only originated in an English speaking country" – once again, what's the specific point you're trying to make with this statement? The country's origin language doesn't affect the Mega Drive's product name in this case.

"more people likely know it by its original name" – Yes, only in two countries are the names "Genesis" and "Sorcerer's Stone" used. In every other country on the planet, they're known as "Mega Drive" and "Philosopher's Stone". So following your line of logic, more people likely know "Genesis" by its original name of "Mega Drive".

"This is simply not true with the Genesis" – How can fewer people be aware of "Mega Drive" than "Philosopher's Stone", considering the above? 46.65.72.132 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of two countries v. rest of world. The Genesis/MegaDrive wasn't sold in many countries. In many countries where it was sold, very few people bought it. More consoles were sold as Genesis than MegaDrive, so that hurts your argument as well. Furthermore, in many countries in most countries where it was sold as Mega Drive, English isn't their first language. So basically, there is no argument for this to be Mega Drive based on the number of reliable sources, the number of consumers that bought the consoles, or on usage in the English speaking world. Add to that the WP rules clearly state that this article should be Genesis as that was the original name and it meets naming criteria otherwise, this is a slam dunk.LedRush (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"This is not a matter of two countries v. rest of world" – yes and no. This isn't an anti-US and Canada argument, but the change to Genesis is solely for the benefit of those two countries.

"More consoles were sold as Genesis than MegaDrive" – indisputable, yes. But this brings me back to my repeated point which anyone has yet to counter: if population/ exposure is a deciding factor in titling articles, why isn't Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone retitled "Sorcerer's Stone", since more people (America) know the film by that name? This also applies to Mega-CD and Sega 32X.

"Furthermore, in many countries in most countries where it was sold as Mega Drive, English isn't their first language" – once again, the (original) name of the actual product itself is in English. The product name isn't and wasn't changed to match the local language to each country. In this case, the country of origin doesn't and shouldn't matter if the product name itself is in English.

"this article should be Genesis as that was the original name" – Wrong. Genesis was the first name given to the product in an English-speaking country, after it was changed from Mega Drive before release due to legal problems. There's a distinction between the two.

"this is a slam dunk" – that this discussion is taking place clearly shows it's not a 'slam dunk'. 46.65.72.132 (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think your "repeated point which anyone has yet to counter" is addressed by the FAQ itself, and one of the reasons that the article's name is Genesis: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was the name of the work when it was first used in an English-speaking country. So, in other words, the very reason that the article is at "Philosopher's Stone" instead of "Sorcerer's Stone" backs up one of the reasons why this article is at Genesis. Thanks for agreeing on that rationale for the name. Now, as to the name in Japanese being rendered into English, Japanese is loaded with "loan words" from other languages, just as English is, so just because the loan words originally came from English does not mean the name is English. Since we're rehashing the same arguments over and over, I think it is time for you to put down the stick. --McDoobAU93 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Even with an unnecessarily sarcastic comment and your incorrect claim that the name was "Japanese rendered into English" (the Japanese console and game boxes, and the article itself confirm it's actually the other way around and the product name is actually English), I take your point. 46.65.72.132 (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And, in case I didn't state it before, Mega-CD is where it is because all the sister articles of the Mega Drive were changed over automatically, the first time Sega Genesis became Mega Drive. I believe all their original names are at Sega CD, Sega CDX, etc. (If I recall. It has been a little while since I read through all the archives.)--SexyKick 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should. As Sega 32X is also named in conjunction with that naming scheme. In fact, the only reason the Sega Mega-CD article is at the name it's currently at (according to what I can find in archives) is because of this article having its name changed in the past.--SexyKick 13:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How does Sega 32X follow the naming convention? In the US, it was called the "Genesis 32X". As far as I'm aware it was never simply titled "32X" – the article itself explains there was always a prefix to "32X" in the product name; whether it was "Genesis", "Mega Drive", "Super" etc. With no single overriding product name, it's understandable for the article title to be simplified to Sega 32X (as it's known informally). 46.65.72.132 (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

46.65 said :"The country's origin language doesn't affect the Mega Drive's product name in this case."

That's correct. According to Wikipedia policy subjects that are inherently "British" or inherently "American" should be described with that language. That is why Harry Potter must use the British language variant. That policy does not apply to this article, because the console is from Japan, where English is not the major language.

Any argument that involves a comparison to Harry Potter (or Suede) is invalid here, because that policy does not apply to this article. APL (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried that this precedent - using the name that "most people" or "the biggest userbase" will find recognisable - enforces an institutional North American bias by default; the US and Canada have much larger populations than other English-speaking countries. Unless it bombs in North America, the original name of a globally-released product can almost never win this argument. CNash (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The primary argument for "Genesis" is that the Genesis name was used first on Wikipedia. (There was an article split then a merger, so the history is a little difficult to track.) This is the proper way to settle these issues according to policy.

The reason that counting the "units sold" keeps coming up is that many editors who want "megadrive" keep trying the argument "Two countries verses lots of countries!". Counting total units sold illustrates that the counting nations argument is illogical.

Either way, Wikipedia policy doesn't support either counting countries, or counting users, so those two points are really a side argument. (Unless it could be shown that one name was virtually unused, which is clearly not the case.) APL (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The inspiration for #15 (and #14) in the FAQ. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're incorrect, that is not the primary reason. That reason is ONLY designed as a tie breaker, if no consensus can be reached. What most people seem to want to know is WHY a consensus couldn't be reached. What reason is there to support Genesis? As you said the counting sales reason is invalid, so what is left? The original name is the only thing with a reason behind it, that's what the people who made it called it! <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 11:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliable resources, number of users using the name, the original name in English, the primary naming criteria, etc...basically what the FAQ says.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Point 15 in the FAQ

I don't want to rile anyone up, I've done that enough in the past, but why does the fact that 'Sega Genesis' was the original title of the article have any bearing on what the title should be now? Point 15 is saying this is the main reason the article is titled thus, but this makes no logical sense as the original title can easily be wrong. If you're going by the 'originality' logic, surely that means that Mega Drive, as the 'original' title of the console (as invented by the Japanese and then released in that region) should be the title of this article? Like I said, I'm not trying to start an argument, it just seems illogical to me. Andre666 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps that should be made clearer.

Basically, if we treat this purely as an issue with English variations, then the three ways to resolve the issue are (in this order) Commonality, nationality, "Retain"

-There's no hope of commonality without going to absurd names like "Fourth generation game console from Sega".

-The item's nationality is Japan, which is not an English speaking nation.

-WP:RETAIN says "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default"

Basically, this rule is an (only partially successful) attempt to stop people from wasting time arguing the matter in situations like this one, where neither option is better than the other. APL (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the manual of style also makes it clear that once a variation is decided upon, it's to be used through the whole article, so our friend User:82.41.107.134 is committing a confusing-to-readers error when he tries to change certain mentions to "Mega-Drive". APL (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand his frustration though, but thanks for explaining it all above, makes sense I suppose as we'll never reach a truly accepted conclusion! Thanks for replying :) Andre666 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN only applies to the variety of English language used, not to differentiate between two English language names of something. This and so many others appear to attempts by people to deliberately misinterpret WP policies to bolster the case for Genesis. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 07:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the point of issue of the original title is that it's just one extra point in Genesis's favor -- in fact were Mega Drive the original title on WP it probably would have been enough to put it in MD's favor. Because both titles are equally valid, it's kind of used as a 'tiebreaker' (see, for instance, color vs. orange (colour). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times; instead or arguing this tired, boring and completely resolved point over and over again why don't users like Andre666 (talk) use their time and energy to improve the quality of this article? Mike _talk 01:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "Mike". I don't care too much for this point. This is a talk page, for people to discuss things they'd like changed to the article. If YOU don't like it, then YOU don't have to join in. I'm trying to be nice, I'm following the rules, so back off and let me discuss things I want to discuss. We are told off for reverting, fair enough, but now we're being told off for doing exactly what we're told to do?! Can't win. Andre666 (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike, if this were someone piping up with an argument that's already covered both in the faq and a million times in the talk archive, I'd totally agree with you.

However, it seems rude to criticize someone who was just asking for clarification of one of the points the FAQ makes.

After all, a clear understanding of what has been said before is important for preventing the time-wasting discussions you mention. APL (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you APL, except that Andre's argument IS already address in the FAQ. See 3rd paragraph of #1. See also the new #16. I suppose we can expand on the point made in that 3rd paragraph of #1. --B2C 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to the memory map info

OK, I woulda already done this myself if it wasn't locked ... need someone with sufficient access to give it a go.

The current description of it is a bit confusing because of potential confusion over megabits vs megabytes and the like, and how it looks like the memory map size may be getting confused with the cartridge one (at first I thought that might actually be what was stated, until I realised that 16Mbit =/= 4Mbyte). At least, that was the case for me. Maybe I'm just being thick.

Basically all I was going to do was make it more explicit what was what. So, e.g:

"The console's memory map spans the 68000's entire 16 Megabyte address space, from the 4MB reserved for ROM cartridges at the "bottom" of the map (#0000.0000 - #0040.0000, or 0MB - 4MB), to the 64KB of main program RAM at the "top" (#00FF.0000 - #00FF.FFFF, or 15.94 ~ 16.00MB), with other areas reserved for VRAM, boot ROM, etc."

Plus maybe something about space not reserved in the default map being usable by add-ons that use the system bus edge connector, such as the Sega CD? I presume that's the case anyway. Not written it in there as it's not something I know for definite, and particularly if it's the case I don't know what the ranges are, but it would be a fairly normal way of doing things. There's enough space, indeed, that all the memory in the 32X and Sega CD could be mapped in as directly accessible RAM and ROM (between, say, 4MByte and 5MByte, maybe 4.5 - 6.0MB if my maths proves to be a bit off...), and still leave plenty of room for memory-mapped IO to interface with the additional chips and the CD drive... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Title does not meet policy

WP:CRITERIA states an article title should have consistency. No other gaming console article I can find includes the name of the manufacturer unless it is part of the console's name, therefore a change seems to be in order. The only alternatives I can think of are 'Genesis' and 'Mega Drive'. You only have to look again at WP:CRITERIA and the Genesis disambig page to see that 'Genesis' is not suitable. 'Mega Drive' has no issues that I can see, as it meets all policy requirements. Any objections? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 11:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Genesis is already taken. Genesis (video game console) isn't an improvement over Sega Genesis. And people do call it the Sega Genesis. Same reason we have Sega Saturn instead of calling it Saturn or Saturn (video game system). Dream Focus 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Sega Saturn actually has Sega as part of the official name. We don't however title the articles Sega Dreamcast, Sony Playstation etc even though people also call them by those names. Why the exception here? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 16:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME rears its head here, which states "When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above." One thing (and about the only thing) that all the battling editors here do agree on is that the console title should be "Sega xxxxx" Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you bring up WP:COMMONNAME, it can't possibly apply to titles which don't meet the basic criteria for a page title. "Sega xxx" fails the consistency test. If you are saying console manufacturers should always be included in the title then we have a lot of articles to rename. I note that in essence this decision has already been made. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I bring it up because - as has been discussed many, many many times over the last few years - the one thing that everybody here is happy with is including "Sega" in the title, regardless of what else it may contain. Even the bastardised "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" contained the term - twice no less.

I don't see anywhere that I'm "saying console manufacturers should always be included in the title" - I'm quite obviously referring only to this article in my discussion and saying that there is nothing wrong with the title "Sega Genesis" Or "Sega Megadrive" - but that's an argument I'm not going to poke (again). Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is covered in the backlogs somewhere. It is mostly referred to in sources as "Sega Genesis" where Mega Drive was mostly referred to as "Mega Drive". Since it's not the only Sega system to do this, it's not a big deviation--SexyKick 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

And today i stopped believing in the AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA. Congratulations, you lost a non-english reader with your US-centrism. 177.177.207.58 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the American Wikipedia, so your loss of faith should be a good thing. Try adding in "Sorcerer" to any Harry Potter article, or changing "tyre" to "tire" in the Mclaren F1, or Bugatti Veyron article. See how quickly you get shot down as a Decadent Yankee Overlord™. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Choosing which rules apply and which don't simply so you can title an article using a name only known in North America is pretty much the definition of an American Wikipedia. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 11:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's get some things clear. Is your argument to remove the term "Sega" from the article "Sega Genesis" and leave it as "Genesis" - with a necessary suffix, such as "Genesis (video game console)", or are you saying that once we remove "Sega" from "Sega Genesis" the article name "Genesis" would be no longer appropriate, so you wish it to be renamed to "Mega Drive"?

Please also clarify why you think the article name "Genesis (video game console)" or similar is "not suitable"? I can see no reason why this would be the case. If you manage to convince me that the term "Sega" should be removed, (which you have not yet - but I am willing to listen to your arguments,) I will support you in your effort to rename to "Genesis (video game console)", much in the same way I was convinced to change my preference from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis".

So far I have seen no argument (convincing or not) that we should follow the renaming logic of "Sega Genesis" -> "Genesis" (unsuitable, ergo an alternative must be sought) -> "Mega Drive"

I have no preference based on geographical location. My decisions are based on the intelligence and how the arguments are presented - so please - convince me as I'm listening. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about following a chain from Sega Genesis to Genesis to Mega Drive, it's about choosing the most suitable from the myriad options. Sega should not be in the title because I see no evidence that it is part of the official name, sure it is often referred to as Sega Genesis, but many other systems such as the Playstation often have the manufacturer included when referred to in media.

It is true that the same has happened to the Saturn with Sega added to the front, but that is a concession, there is no 'good' alternative (other than "Saturn (gaming system)" or similar, which is equally unpleasant imo).

The same is not true here, there are several potential titles: "Genesis" fails on precision, "Sega Genesis" fails on consistency, "Genesis (blah blah)" fails on conciseness. Sure many (most?) articles on WP have to make some kind of concession, giving up one of the ideals, but we don't have to here because the only failure of "Mega Drive" is that the majority of editors are from North America. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 13:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that based on your arguments, "Genesis (video game console)" is the best of the lot. It may not be the most consise, but it is the most descriptive and accurate. Fortunately, WP:CRITERIA takes this into account with:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

Ok, so it falls down somewhat on the last point of consistency, but luckily for us criteria takes this into account as well:

• It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.

And really, whether you like it or not, the Yankee American Decadent Capitalist Western Pig Dogs still have the consensus - and with this latest challenge a welcome exception, they are far more polite, restrained, and intelligent in their arguments. (Which is one of the reasons I personally favo(u)r "Genesis", as I refuse to be associated with the "Genesis suks man, rename to Meggadrive coz i dont know genesus and you yanks think you own the wurld" mentality.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I still feel Mega Drive has no pitfalls/therefore no reason to favour one goal over the others, but I agree the consensus will never agree. I don't mind so much if it stays with Genesis, what I can't stand is when people pretend the reason is anything other than the 'Murican majority. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a few comments regarding some of the statements above.

First, the "official" name of the topic is unimportant. What matters most in terms of deciding WP titles is what is used most commonly to refer to the topic in reliable sources - this is the essence of WP:COMMONNAME (and also the recognizability and naturalness WP:CRITERIA). A proposal to move to Genesis (video game console) needs to be supported with evidence that this topic is referred to as "Genesis" more often than as "Sega Genesis" in reliable sources. I have not seen such evidence.

Second, "Genesis (blah blah)" does not fail on conciseness. WP:CRITERIA such as conciseness mostly applies to the part of the title that does not include parenthetic disambiguation. If the most common name is "Genesis", then that's the concise name we use, then we disambiguate that per WP:D.

Third, the primary reason this title was restored to Sega Genesis has little if anything to do with "'Murican majority", and everything to do with that being the original title of this article. Restoring the original title is a common way to settle disputes about which of two reasonable titles to use, and that was a significant factor in this case. See FAQ #1. --B2C 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This was in fact brought up by KieferSkunk during one of the previous move discussion.

"Comment: As it turns out, I can't find anything that definitively backs up my earlier comment that the North American name is just "Genesis" and not "Sega Genesis" - most of our official sources use the latter name and only shorten it to "Genesis" afterwards, just like they tend to shorten the full name of NES to the acronym after its first use. Even Nintendo's Virtual Console service, which offers Genesis games in North America, uses the title "Sega Genesis"."

It would have been crazy for all the amount of information we covered in those naming to discussions for this to have not been addressed before, and it has, and was concluded on. So Sega Mega-CD, Sega 32X, Sega Saturn, and Sega Genesis.--SexyKick 11:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Factual Error in opening sentence "Japan and PAL"

The sentence:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) in Japan and PAL territories"

should really read something more like:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside of North America"

Which sounds kind of backwards to me given the original and most widely used name is Mega Drive, it seems to me it would make more sense for it to be worded:

"The Sega Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?), known as the Genesis in North America"

I should stress this isn't intended as a debate regarding the article title, it's simply the fact that the information as it is misleading and awkwardly worded. Parts of Europe use SECAM, not PAL; the Brazil version was PAL-M, which is a distinctly different system; and both PAL and NTSC versions were sold in Asia.

--85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The goal is usually to phrase the sentence as describing the article name. Otherwise it's a confusing intro.

"most widely used" is open to tedious debate anyway, unless you mean it in a strictly geographic sense. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but unfortunately the sentence as it is right now is simply factually incorrect for the reasons I mentioned and needs re-worded one way or another. This is an encyclopaedia, and facts can't be glossed over just to make the wording roll off the tongue better. I'll admit I do think this is a consequence of the bizarre decision to name the article after a region-specific name for the console rather than the most widely used name (and yes, I do mean "most widely" as in geographical and in the sense it covers the majority of different iterations of the console, whilst "Genesis" only refers to one specific variant). But that's neither here nor there, I'm not arguing that the title be changed (I imagine I'd be wasting my time) but I am suggesting that the opening sentence needs to be edited to reflect actual fact. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not "factually incorrect" - the sentence doesn't necessarily claim that one name originally came first or anything like that. You're reading into it too much. Either wording works in theory, I'm pretty sure the main reason it is the way it is because it uses the article's name first. It would be awkward to use "Mega Drive" first if the article title is "Sega Genesis". (In almost every article, the opening word(s) are the article title... Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I said before commenting, Sergecross. As I said, and I quote: "Parts of Europe use SECAM, not PAL; the Brazil version was PAL-M, which is a distinctly different system; and both PAL and NTSC versions were sold in Asia." whilst the article merely states "The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) in Japan and PAL territories". Therefore the article is currently factually incorrect as the implication is it's only known as the Mega Drive in Japan and PAL territories, when it's known as the Mega Drive in SECAM, PAL-M and as as the Asian NTSC model in addition. If you actually read what I was saying, my suggestion was therefore to change "in Japan and PAL territories" to "outside of North America" (the only problem with that is it then sounds awkward and backwards, but that was a side issue). What part of that do you not grasp? --85.211.134.202 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand how your proposed change addresses this though? Your proposal only changes the order of the systems. It seems like the more logical solution to your issue would to merely add more regions that use Mega Drive or something. (On the assumption that something needs to be done. I don't see any need for action personally, it's merely covering the major regions as it is typically done on VG related articles.) And again, like I, and the IP who first responded to you said, it would be rather confusing to have the very first item mentioned in the article not match the article's name. That's a project-wide consistency thing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, please try reading what I said more carefully before jumping the gun. I quite clearly stated in my original comment in this section that my suggestion was

The sentence:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) in Japan and PAL territories"

should really read something more like:

"The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside of North America"

I'm really struggling to make it any more clear and concise to you, so that you'll actually understand. It's also quite shocking that you don't have an issue with the way it's written at present when it's literally incorrect and misleading. I can't believe your preference for the name "Genesis" over "Mega Drive" apparently trumps all other issues, including accuracy and factual correctness. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you haven't so much explained three times as you've just copy and pasted the same thing over and over again. Additionally, your point is confusing, because as soon you propose what you said above, you add in your bit about "Which sounds kind of backwards to me given the original and most widely used name is Mega Drive, it seems to me it would make more sense for it to be worded: "The Sega Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?), known as the Genesis in North America". That makes it look like the one where you say "Mega Drive" first is your proposal. Then you fill the rest of your posts with all these "OMG this guy don't get it!" type garbage and before you know it, your whole point is lost. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had to copy it three times because there really is no way to put it more clearly. I really don't think it's my failing here that's the reason for your lack of understanding. It's quite obvious that my suggestion is to change "Japan and PAL" to "outside North America", and the awkward wording that results is a further side issue that may or may not also need addressing by putting "Mega Drive" first. Am I safe to assume you get it now, and are satisfied with the suggestion we change "Japan and PAL" to "outside North America" (as that's clearly more accurate and straightforward)? --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was pretty clear and acceptable to me. I didn't quite understand what the confusion was. ^^--SexyKick 23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't ignore the point just because the IP editor is being a bit hostile.

I've changed it to "outside of North America", which, if nothing else, is an easier read that has less jargon in it. APL (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, APL. My only remaining concern is that the syntax now seems bizarre - to place a single variant as the primary subject of the sentence then all other versions secondary - but I realise that it may have to remain that way as an unfortunate consequence of using "Sega Genesis" as the article's title, rather than the international name "Sega Mega Drive. At least the article is now factually correct, which is the main issue, and what was bothering me most. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the "of" as it seems to break the flow of the sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Another minor niggle but the article now reads "The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside North America, is a home video game console released by Sega on October 29, 1988." That makes it sound as though it was released on that date under the name "Genesis" because the sentence is essentially saying "The Genesis was released on [this date]" with the "known as" forming a sidenote within the wording, if you follow me. There wasn't actually any console released by the name of Genesis until August 14, 1989. The best rewording I can come up with would be along the lines of replacing:

The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside North America, is a home video game console released by Sega on October 29, 1988. The reason for the two names is that Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name in North America.

with:

The Sega Genesis, known as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?) outside North America, is a home video game console released by Sega. Initially on October 29, 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive, and then later in North America as the Genesis (as Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name in North America), and finally in Europe and Brazil as the Mega Drive.

--85.211.134.202 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That information is all available elsewhere in the article. We shouldn't try to cram too many details into the opening paragraph.

The paragraph as written, is factually correct. The system (Known as different things in different territories) was first released on October 29, 1988. The details of the roll-out are just that, details. APL (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

True, but if we can address this without making it worse, it would be an improvement. I tried[4]. --B2C 00:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I realise that, but I still think the edit I've suggested is sufficiently succinct whilst being a lot more precise and less misleading than what's currently there. It's not ideal though, I know. I still think it's a bordering on being incorrect to state "The Genesis was released on October 29. 1988" when no console by that name existed until later. It's also not quite "known as different things in different territories" really, that implies a larger deal of variation when it's known as the Sega Mega Drive everywhere except one territory, that's an important distinction, I feel. Obviously the most precise and straightforward way to word it would be something like:

The Sega Mega Drive (known as the Genesis in North America, where Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name) is a home video game console released on October 29, 1988.

Of course, the problem with that is it puts the Mega Drive name before the Genesis one, which given the article's current title isn't really tenable. The obvious solution would be to just change the article's heading to the console's original and international name - "Sega Mega Drive"; but there's a lot of hostility towards that for various reason. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence, to me, is still awkwardly long. We're trying to get too much information into the lead sentence, where short and simple may make better sense. I think a potential solution that eliminates the order discussion would be as follows:

The Sega Genesis is a home video game console designed by Sega. First released in 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ, Mega Doraibu), the console was exported to North America in 1989 where it was renamed Genesis as Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name there. When the console entered new markets in 1990, Sega began using the Mega Drive name again.

The sentences are factual and in chronological order, while keeping the key information in place (that it was first released in Japan as Mega Drive, first exported to North America as Genesis and later released again as MD). I agree that the lead should be a summary, hitting high spots but not covering every detail.

--McDoobAU93 18:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, McDoobAU93. Would I be right in assuming you're talking about my proposed edit? It sounds like you're talking about the existing article, but what you're describing is what my edit would do (state the basic key information, and clear up the ambiguity of the existing sentence). --85.211.134.202 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of both ... it addresses the current format of the lead sentence and your point as well about keeping the information factually accurate, yet not setting up the article for yet another name change discussion. --McDoobAU93 19:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Per my edit from yesterday, this is the latest revision of the lead sentence:

The Sega Genesis is a home video game console released on October 29, 1988 by Sega as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ, Mega Doraibu), the name it is known as outside North America.

Is anyone seeking to change this? If so, why? --B2C 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fine with that. --85.211.134.202 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Rename Suggestion

I propose we rename the article to "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis" this should suit all parties and is an accurate title, what do you all think? 94.172.127.37 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was already had. Check the archives. A large number of people already participated in the discussion, consensus was established. Dream Focus 10:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well reading over the archives we have had years of people disagreeing with the current name, so a small minority reaching a consensus at one point of time is outweighed by the amount of people who have disagreed with such a decision94.172.127.37 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's how ENGVAR issues go. If the American version is used, the Americans don't even notice that there's a debate, and the Brits all come and complain. If the British version is used, the brits don't notice there's a debate and the Americans show up to complain.

That's why the policy is to use the first variant used. Because if you open if for debate it'll keep going back and forth for no good reason.

(Hybrid names like "Gas/Petrol" are also not used.)

You have to remember, that there are lots of articles with name disputes. There's nothing unusual about this article's naming issues. APL (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an ENGVAR issue though, nor an issue of Americans and "Brits", or anything comparable to gas versus petrol. It's about a product's actual name. Not just a preference over a common term. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus actually, which is why the reasoning for changing it to Genesis relied on the revert back to what the article was originally called argument. All the other arguments in favour of using Genesis(no. 7 in the FAQ) are bunk. I'll address them:

1) It's claimed that "Sega Genesis" is better than "Mega Drive", as it follows the pattern of Sega consoles being named "Sega [something]". However the Mega Drive was always commonly known as the "Sega Mega Drive" just as much as the Genesis was known as the "Sega Genesis". So that argument falls flat, and if the article were to be named using the Mega Drive name, then the obvious think to do would be the name the article "Sega Mega Drive".

2) "The compound title was untenable". I fail to see why. I don't have a problem with a compound title if people feel the North American name is significant enough to be worthy of inclusion in the heading, but if people are really against a compound title, then "Sega Mega Drive" (the original and international name of the product) gets priority over "Genesis".

3) No evidence for Genesis having higher amount of usage in English language sources. Most Sega websites/wikis/etc. use the "Sega Mega Drive" term over the Genesis one.

It should also be noted that although this is the English Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it only applies to English-speaking nations - it applies to English-speaking people regardless of country. And the English Wikipedia still gets far more visitors than the localised versions do, even in the country of the language the localised version is catering for. In short, the English Wikipedia is the international Wikipedia, not just a localised version of English speaking countries, and with that in mind this article is catering not just to people in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and North America, but also to people in continental Europe, Japan, Asia, Brazil - all of whom will know the console as the "Sega Mega Drive". --85.211.203.66 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of busy this morning, but one thing jumps out at me straight away:

3) Stop looking through rose-tinted glasses. Where are your sources to back up such a claim? You are aware that Wikipedia relies on sources aren't you? For example, Gamefaqs - one of the oldest and largest gamers resources around, refers to the console as "Genesis" The exact opposite of your claim was one of the over-riding factors in the naming convention staying with Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Gamefaqs - a US-based website calls it the Genesis - whilst CVG and sega.wikia, for instance, call it the Mega Drive. We could both go back and forth quoting sources all day, but that isn't going to be conclusive proof either way of what the most common name is. I still highly suspect it's Mega Drive, and in my experience most websites call it such. If this was one of the over-riding factors in calling it Genesis then it just supports my point that the arguments in favour of Genesis are bunk, since trying to prove which term is more commonly used either way is nigh-on impossible. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we're all glad that you don't have a problem with the compound name. However a large number of previously uninvolved editors felt it was against policy and a bad precedent.

85.211 said : "We could both go back and forth quoting sources all day, but that isn't going to be conclusive proof either way of what the most common name is."

Exactly. What waste of time that would be. APL (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Right so if we can't conclude which name is more commonly used, then we have to discount that as an argument in favour or either "Mega Drive" or "Genesis", agreed? So my point about the arguments in favour of Genesis not standing up are valid. I'm also quite happy not to use a compound name, but only in favour of "Mega Drive", not "Genesis". I'm willing to be reasonable and compromise either way on this as long as the console's original and international name is included in the title. It's the hardheaded proponents of calling the article "Genesis" and nothing else that are being unreasonable and illogical here. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

According to policy, if a "common name" can't be determined, you just leave it where it is, or change it to the article's oldest name.

The policy is not designed to find the "Best" name, it's designed to find a name that works, and then discourage people from wasting time changing it. APL (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But as I said in another section, the oldest non-stub name was "Sega Megadrive" not "Sega Genesis". In any case you keep switching the subject; my point was merely that the arguments in favour of Genesis in the FAQ are invalid and should be discounted. So the sole reason in favour of "Genesis" is the fact it's the oldest used title, although again that was as a stub. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES states:

"Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it 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."

The last revision of Sega Genesis, prior to being moved to Sega Megadrive certainly looks like a stub to me [5], and was very early in Wikipedia's lifetime, having only had a handful of edits made since its creation. After that, the article remained at "Sega Megadrive", "Sega Mega Drive", or simply "Mega Drive" for several years, during which time it ceased to be a stub. Since those three names are simply minor variations of one another I would suggest that WP:TITLECHANGES actually specifies that one of those names should be chosen for the article, as that was the first name used when the article ceased to be a stub. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're really stretching.

It's long enough to be non-stub, especially back in 2003 when lots of articles were that short.

It contains technical information, and background material.

Only one source, true, but back in 2003 that wasn't uncommon.

The reason everyone doesn't want to reopen this issue is because it would be a giant pointless debate with no easy way to settle it except by voting (USA would win that, of course.), so how does this help? Trying to declare that the 2003 article is a stub would not be uncontroversial, so you haven't simplified the debate at all, you've just made it more complex, which makes us even less eager to reopen the naming issue!

APL (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems unequivocally to be a stub to me, especially when compared to later revisions under "Sega Megadrive" only a few months later. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, looking like a stub "to you" doesn't count for much, just as if I were to say it looks like a Start-class article doesn't count for much. In the reach for some reason to get the article renamed, editors keep forgetting that the console's first name is not Mega Drive, but メガドライブ. In romanized form, it is more accurately presented as Mega Doraibu, but it is just as accurately romanized into Mega Drive. Even if the name is derived from two English words, the name is still Japanese. Thus the COMMONNAME criteria, the name of the object the first time it was released in an English-speaking region, would hold, and that's Genesis. --McDoobAU93 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah. Too bad we can't leave the article at its original name of メガドライブ, thereby frustrating Americans and British equally. APL (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting one thing - it was stable for many years, as Mega Drive, before it was changed to the last compound name. The only reason proponents get around that rule is because they have managed to change the definition of stable from "not changing" to "not debated". <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

85.211, Think about what would happen if we agreed with you. We wouldn't just change the article on your say-so. We would re-open the debate. Gamers from all over Wikipedia would be invited to participate. Unless one 'side' or the other had a really convincing argument, and I don't just mean a correct argument, I mean an argument that's so correct that everyone agrees instantly, it would just come down to a popularity contest and a thinly veiled vote. How do you think that vote would go?

Now think about the consequences of having a "wrong" title. Searches still work. Everyone finds the article they're looking for. The only negative consequence would be that some people would be confused for the length of time it takes them to read the first sentence of the article.

What you're proposing is that we spend a lot of time and energy on a debate that probably won't change anything to fix a problem that has almost no negative consequences anyway. APL (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If you were as nonchalent about the article's name as you pretend, then you wouldn't be objecting to it on that principle, because you simply wouldn't have to participate if you had no interest in the outcome. The fact is you have a personal interest in seeing the article remain at "Sega Genesis" why is why you're so hostile to a debate on the topic, even when there's a very good argument to be made for changing it, and the fact most of the arguments in favour of Genesis are flawed (as I pointed out). --85.211.203.66 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the contributions of the two IP addresses in this discussion [6] [7] you'll find their few edits involve this issue. Most likely someone didn't get their way last time, so are trying to distort things and start this argument all over again, as often happens on Wikipedia. Probably the same guy with both IP addresses. Dream Focus 01:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that - certainly not to a quack quack level. The ip's locate to Bradford and Mauchline - and are operated by Virgin & Tiscali. I suppose it's possible it's a tag team effort, but even so I think it's just more likely to be coincidental Stiff Upper Lip Imperialism vs Decadent Yankee Pigs. As usual. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never been involved in the Mega Drive versus Genesis debate before, not do I have any affiliation with the other IP. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, you're not exactly impartial or espousing a neutral POV when it comes to matters like this yourself[8], Dream Focus. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Less letters in words give our office workers an advantage over you, since they have less letters to type, and thus get things done faster." Obviously I was joking there. Dream Focus 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" as the article title?

Here are my thoughts regarding this issue, for and against each name:

• The console's original and international name is "Sega Mega Drive", with "Genesis" being used in a single region - North America - due to a copyright issue.
• There's no definitive evidence one way or another as to which term is more commonly used, with reputable sources being available that show preferred usage for either term.
• The console sold the most units in North America compared to other individual regions. As a whole however, the regions where the console was known as the "Sega Mega Drive" outsold the North American "Genesis" variant of the console.[9], [10]
• The name this article has had for the longest period of time has either been "Sega Mega Drive" (or a variant of such as "Sega Megadrive" or "Mega Drive") or compound title including both terms. The article was only known as Genesis recently, and for a short period when the article was originally created and still a stub.
• The article was originally called "Sega Genesis", however at the point at which it ceased to be a stub it was known as "Sega Megadrive". Policy states then when consensus on article names can't be resolved then it is the name the article known as when it was no longer a stub that be reverted to, not just the first name used.

--85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The third point of your opening comment is actually in doubt. The North American sales of the unit were almost exactly 50% within the margin of error with some sources showing that the NA sales were just over 50% of the total.

(If you don't consider (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu) to be the same as "Mega Drive" then the North American sales were absolutely the majority.) APL (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

After I made this comment, 85.211, the user that started this RfC, added this source : [11]

It says :

The Genesis made its biggest gains in the Americas, which together represent over half of the Genesis' sales.

I want to reiterate that this source was added by user:85.211.203.66 even though it clearly disproves one of his primary reasons for starting this rfc. APL (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also this NY Times article[12] that puts US sales at 20 million. If true, that's over half the sales right there. APL (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we "Speedy Close" this? Its been discussed to death, and this is clearly a bad-faith discussion started up by a Single Purpose Account who's trying to get his way in another RFC about virtually the same thing. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ristar#RfC:_.22Sega_Mega_Drive.2FGenesis.22_instead_of_just_.22Genesis.22.3F) Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have a dynamic IP meaning every few days it resets, as a result only my most recent edit history is available. I am not a single-purpose account. Sergecross has been repeatedly hostile to my thoughts on this matter and I would argue therefore has a non neutral-POV on the validity of this RfC. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Every single edit from this IP has been POV-pushing Mega Drive, and no proof of any other contributions have been provided. "Hostile" is a bit much - just calling it like I see it...Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and every edit has been from the past three days, around the time I got assigned a new IP. Please assume good faith and focus on content not the contributor. I'd also note that when I made the RfC and discussed the changes on the Ristar article, you specifically said to go to the Genesis article and make the case there instead [13], now I'm doing just as you asked and you apparently have even more of an issue with it. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I've told you before, pointing out potential WP:SPA's is common practice and purposely acceptable. (That's why we've got the essay and the template, after all.) The closer of the discussion can make their own call with the information. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're not just pointing out a potential SPA though, you're attempting to use it as an excuse to shut down all discussion, even though you suggested I take my case to this article rather than Ristar. Your own words on the talk page of that article were "I suggest you take this to the Sega Genesis article" [14] --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Really, 85.211? You're calling out others on AGF? You've made a lot of edits in the past two days that are personal attacks that do not assume good faith. [15] [16] [17]

You've also made a few edits that violate talk-page policy by removing the edits of other users. [18][19]

I only mention it because you're calling an other editor out for AGF and "focus on the content not the contributor" APL (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see here [20] removing other editor's comments on the talk page was an accident and I immediately reverted it. Again, please assume good faith, APL. This discussion is about the naming issue, not individual editors. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• 85.211, I never instructed you to start this RFC. Never said that. I pointed to a consensus over here as part of my argument for the other RFC, you said discussions over here were still active/inconclusive. I said "If they were active, there'd be an RFC". Then you started this RFC. That's where my comment comes in when I say this was in bad-faith - you seem to have started this just to prove a point in the other RFC. Consensus on the Sega Genesis article talk page was clearly "Let's not start up these discussions again". Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate in hindsight that you may have meant that, but that's certainly not how it read, and the impression I was under was that you were suggesting I take the issue here rather than the Ristar article. As you did specifically say "This issue is far bigger than the single game Ristar, and this really isn't even the proper place to discuss this. I suggest you take this to the Sega Genesis article if you truly want to open this can of worms again." I'm trying to be civil and discuss the issue, and no bad faith is intended on my part. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Huh, I can't help but notice that I did not say that to you, but another IP. Interesting. Anyways, as the quote says, my point was that Ristar was the wrong avenue for that RFC discussion. (And I stand by that. Almost a weeks gone by, and very few people outside of that initial argument joined in.)Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, I'm on a dynamic IP, which is why your accusations of me being a SPA are invalid. If your point was that Ristar was the wrong avenue for that discussion and that Genesis was, then why do you want a speedy close of this RfC, when I'm doing exactly as you suggested? --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but even in these last couple days you've done nothing buy argue one singular point. Literally every single edit, except ones in regards to being an SPA, which is loosely tied. I think both discussions should be closed honestly. No more discussion is necessary, when the opening sentence explains the situation so clearly that no one could be possibly confused, it doesn't matter what the title is. So, keep it the same. Simple. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No you're not. User:Sergecross73 did not tell you to start an RfC. APL (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He didn't use the exact words "start an Rfc", but what he did say strongly implies I should take my arguments from the Ristar article to the Genesis one, which is exactly what I'm doing (to unwarranted hostility). --85.211.198.76 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. you took it here, and there was a strong consensus against you. Done.

Starting an RfC is not something you should automatically do every time you don't get your way. APL (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, I wasn't instructing anyone to start an RFC on this here, I just meant that the issue at the individual game article was bigger than the individual game article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Name per all the reasons in the FAQ. (And Speedy Close as trolling by a single-topic editor.) This is a long-debated topic. Debating it again is pretty pointless. APL (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Name per all the reasons in the FAQ (which all are based on prior discussions and policy, by the way.) Speedy Close is also necessary, this was clearly a bad-faith nomination from an WP:SPA. I'd close this in a second, but I am involved. Hopefully another Admin will do so shortly, and spare us more wasted time on this topic... Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sega Mega Drive As the reasoning in the FAQ is refuted in my original post on this issue. It is the more widely used name for the console internationally, the original name, and the name this article was first known as when it ceased to be a stub. The article has also been known as a variant of "Mega Drive" for longer than it's been known as a variant of "Genesis". --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Second the move for Speedy Close as RfC is based on flawed presumptions. First, the original name is メガドライブ, which in romanized form is Mega Doraibu or simply Mega Drive. First name in an English-speaking market is Genesis without question. Per the "naturalness" criteria, Mega Drive is a Japanese name that has been converted, not translated, into the English-style alphabet, and thus is not the name first used in English. Second, user is stating their personal opinion that the article ceased being a stub under the name Mega Drive; no proof has been presented of any consensus decision on article's status at the time it was called Genesis and before it was moved to Mega Drive. Lastly, concur with Sergecross that user appears to be a single-purpose account. --McDoobAU93 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• CommentThe Japanese packaging and console itself say "Mega Drive" on them. So it's a misnomer to claim the original name was メガドライブ and that the name "Mega Drive" was not used in Japan. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, because that's the romanization of the Japanese name, not the English name. Romanization does not translate a word; it only converts the characters of one script into Roman script (that is, the alphabet). --McDoobAU93 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue the reverse of what you're suggesting happened is the case though. Otherwise the Japanese Mega Drive would have said "メガドライブ" on it instead of "Mega Drive". The "Mega Drive" name was created first, changed to "メガドライブ" for marketing purposes, and then later "Genesis" was used due to copyright issues in North America. In any case "Mega Drive" is far more qualified as the console's original name, than "Genesis" is. Which was my point. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your timeline is based on a flawed premise. Even if the words are from the English language, it's still Japanese, since Japanese (English, French and most every other language) uses words borrowed from other languages. It's a Japanese name, so again we go to WP:CRITERIA which defers to the first name used in the English language, not the one that uses English-language words. --McDoobAU93 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying that these are hard loanwords is going a bit far; Sega is simply using English words for the sake of naming a product. "メガドライブ" is a transliteration of "MEGA DRIVE"; semantics tell a lot more than people would think. Despatche (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The English-language word for a person employed to drive a car on behalf of another person is "chauffeur". The word comes from French, but that doesn't mean the term is French, intended to be French or intended to curry favor with French speakers. Sega choosing English-language words for their home market console that was later exported does not make the name English. --McDoobAU93 17:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sega Genesis, Speedy close, and a trout for the nominating editor. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note to Closer - The IP has now been blocked. In addition to the consensus that this was a bad-faith discussion, he also started doing some obvious WP:CANVASSing, clearly selecting users who had sided on "Mega Drive" in the past.

• See this and then this, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, Not that I'm not happy for it, because I was beginning to suspect we were intentionally being trolled, but wouldn't it have been more proper to get an uninvolved admin to do that? APL (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I kinda agree with APL on this, although involved editors can act in clear cases, and votestacking would potentially qualify. Not the optimal case, but now that the anon has hopped to a new IP and is canvassing again .... --McDoobAU93 19:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He intentionally ip hopped and started doing the exact thing that got him banned? What a winner.

In that case I rescind my earlier concern. I guess Serge's admin-sense was tingling. APL (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

When it was just the disruptive posting, and bad faith comments, yes, I felt it was too subjective for me to make a call. But when it went into blatant canvassing, I felt it went into the any reasonable admin clause of it WP:INVOLVED. Pretty certain the IP knows he's in the wrong in violating this as well, considering he came back with another IP to continue his argument, not say "Hey guys, wait, I wasn't canvassing!" Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep First time it was released with an English name, it was called Genesis. Speedy close this is pointless, we having been through this too many times before, and the IP address was probably someone who didn't get their way last time. Dream Focus 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Sega Genesis and speedy close. Nothing new has been presented. Both titles are reasonable. Consensus supports the current title for reasons explained in the FAQ. I've requested a speed close here. --B2C 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mega Drive The current title represents an end-run around the spirit and letter of the rules:

Title was stable for 5 years as "Mega Drive", before being changed to a thoroughly unacceptable title. That change was universally accepted as a mistake and should have been reversed, not taken as an opportunity to switch to a different title.

Consensus was never reached that "Sega Genesis" is preferable to "Mega Drive", only that it is better than "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive".

The argument used by proponents of "Sega Genesis" that it should remain due to rule at WP:TITLECHANGES "if it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time... default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" is therefore invalid for two reasons, first it has been stable, and second that rule would equally support both names, because the only major contributor when the article ceased to be a stub (User:WhisperToMe) used both titles: [21] [22]

As per my arguments here, Mega Drive appears to meet WP:CRITERIA more thoroughly.

Additionally, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests Mega Drive because it would allow a more succinct opening paragraph to the article, and it is the most common & original release name for the device.

The fact that the change to the faulty title of "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" was preceded immediately by an attempt to move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis" (which failed for perfectly valid reasons) is very damaging. It gives a clear message that if you aren't happy with a stable title, just keep requesting that it be changed until you get an opening. The FAQ at the top of this talk page asserts that "Sega Genesis" was chosen as it is the better title, but here we see in black and white that this is simply not the case. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 18:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1. There was a LOT of discussion at that time, and, apparently, consensus did change because of that discussion.
2. Consensus may have changed again, of course, but the comments in the intervening years, and the way this discussion is going, so far at least, suggest not.
3. The straw poll[23] in October of 2011 showed strong consensus in favor of Sega Genesis over Mega Drive.
4. The closer of the proposal to move to Sega Genesis [24] concluded it with, Closed with clear consensus to move to Sega Genesis .

--B2C 23:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The talk pages show no change in preference from Mega Drive to Genesis, that I can see. If anything most people seemed to prefer status quo.
2. The FAQ goes a long way to shutting discussion down, especially as people tend to just reply to comments with "read FAQ point <whatever>", despite the fact that the FAQ contains demonstrable falsehoods.
3. A straw poll is no way of building consensus, it has a very "this is what I prefer" rather than "this is what is best" feel to it. Regardless, it should have never got to the straw poll stage in the first place, there was a stable title for 5 years.
4. Yes, to "Sega Genesis" from "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". If you see in the comments many of them say along the lines of 'anything is better than this', and I believe a few say they would prefer "Mega Drive" but voted yes anyway (I don't have time to check this right now so I could be wrong).

<Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 23:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are falsehoods in the FAQ please point them out (in a separate section), with support, and let's fix it. Or do it yourself. --B2C 01:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mega Drive. How could I have been so stupid? Google searches, sales numbers, and whatever else available is irrelevant; the original name trumps all. Anything else must automatically assume a bias for a particular country even against a "correct" bias (an article about a United States subject should be US-biased, or unbiased completely). This goes against very clear policies, and yet we can successfully support this for two reasons: 1. It is generally accepted that neither title is wrong and they would both be valid as article titles; and 2. the godly power of redirects. The idea is that you would have the article at its "correct title" while also supporting any other familiar title, getting the right people to the right place while also at least giving them the chance to comprehend this correct title. You could reasonably scrap a lot of the current policy in favor of this, and... well, I really should be opening this discussion over on places like WP:TITLE. Or not at all, never, because this is blasphemy, and quite a bit terrifying, really. Despatche (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to comment to point out that Google searches, sales numbers etc. are completely inconclusive, the two are so close together as to render the point moot. Additionally, switching to Mega Drive does not go against the letter or spirit policies, it is in fact the Sega Genesis title which is against the letter and spirit of some policies (such as WP:CRITERIA and WP:NPOV), so please don't allow that myth to perpetuate. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and WP:UCS, I forgot that one. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that one for much of your discourse here in fact. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close, title as it is - I've argued for Mega Drive before, and getting these names straight has been a pain every time. Despite the decision to leave this at Sega Genesis, we still have Variations of the Sega Mega Drive, List of Sega Mega Drive games, and Sega Mega-CD which use the international naming convention. Consensus before, I believe, is that these names don't need to fall in line with this article (though I would argue to the contrary of that, because I think it's important to be consistent). Even with that being said, how many times do we have to restart this debate? There is no clear consensus for one reason and one reason only: both names are in all actuality of equal validity. The only names used here that are not of equal validity are the synthesis names. Since this has been argued so many times to death, and with the same arguments every time, we're going to have to keep some stability at some point, or we're going to fight about this forever. I was okay with the consistency with Mega Drive before, and I would be fine with the consistency of Genesis as it is now. Adjusting the other articles is a discussion that can be had later. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mega Drive - The move to Genesis was one of the worst decisions made in the video game space, second only to the ridiculous compound stalking horse title at "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". Only in cases where there are no strong arguments either side are article names defaulted to the one-first-used-on-Wikipedia. Every single territory on Earth, bar one, refer to the console as the Mega Drive, its original intended name. The "sales" argument is a complete distraction and should not even be addressed, it doesn't matter how many units it sold in Europe, because every single European regardless of whether they bought the console or not, refer to it as the Mega Drive. - hahnchen 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More argument rehashing with nothing new ... need the speedy close speedily. --McDoobAU93 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You make an argument above that "PlayStation" is the merely the romanization of the Japanese name, プレイステーション and not the other way around. I grant that's a novel argument that I've not encountered before, but the argument I "rehash" has more of a grounding in reality. - hahnchen 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, since プレイステーション is indeed the Japanese name of Sony's first gaming console and "PlayStation" is its Japanese name rendered in roman script. When it was released in the United States (an English-speaking market) in 1995, it was named PlayStation. Since that was its first appearance in an English-speaking market, "PlayStation" would be the name of the article on the English Wikipedia. --McDoobAU93 17:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mega Drive and NOT Sega Mega Drive and NOT Speedy Close - I believe this was my original opinion, based mostly on the fact that this was what the console was called in every region of the world except the United States, and Wikipedia is not US-centric. Also, I've been arguing that regardless of which version of the console we go with, the name should be "Mega Drive" or "Genesis", not "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis", because the product name does not officially include Sega (unlike "Nintendo Entertainment System"). Similar articles on consoles like PlayStation, Xbox and Wii are not named "Sony PlayStation", "Microsoft Xbox" or "Nintendo Wii", even when the manufacturer's name is printed on the console along with the brand. Finally: I don't think we should speedy-close this, because obviously even the people who think it should be speedy-closed can't agree on which version of the title we should use. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved admin

Noting a comment above about the original IP-user, I took a quick look at the history of this debate over at Talk:Ristar and believe that blocking the IP user may not have been completely appropriate. It looks like you guys got into quite the heated debate over this. In my opinion, though, the IP user skirted the line between canvassing and a more appropriate notice to potentially-interested parties about the RFC.

Unless something has changed in the rules since the last time this topic came up, any user is allowed to ask for an RFC regardless of the opinions involved. The process is there for a reason, and to my knowledge this discussion (Genesis vs. Mega Drive) tends to come up in one form or another about once every 2-3 years anyway. Perhaps it was due to come up again. From what I can see, it looks like several of you jumped all over the IP user and attacked him unnecessarily harshly because his opinion differed from yours. He had a point: This particular naming issue has never been fully agreed upon, and consensus has never been clear. He may not have used the exact right methods to argue his point, but that doesn't automatically make his point less valid.

My advice to the IP user would have been to sign up for an account - if his problem with credibility was due to having a dynamic IP that changes every few days, having a consistent username would get around that, AND would come with other substantial editing benefits, such as access to tools that IP users don't get. That could have alleviated any concerns about single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets.

My advice to the rest of you: Step back and take a deep breath. I know you're tired of debating this topic, but I was honestly dismayed at the level of WP:BITE going on here. The very fact that this topic comes up every so often (almost like clockwork, actually) speaks to both the cyclic nature of people's memories about such things, and the fact that this is a contentious topic with no clear agreement. In the RFC comments above, there are people voting "Genesis and Speedy Close" and others voting "Mega Drive and Speedy Close", both of which claiming consensus is on their side. That, by definition, means we don't have a consensus and perhaps this RFC is worth taking seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad grammar

"lays flat on the floor" should be "lies flat on the floor". I can't edit the article so please fix. 86.147.75.228 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)