Talk:Sega Genesis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:40, 14 September 2012

Skip to table of contents

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

What is the naming history of this article?
- This article was started on November 30, 2001 under the name "Sega Genesis".
  Originally, the article covered only the North American console using the Genesis name.
  
  Coverage of the Mega Drive brand was added on February 17, 2002.
- The article was split in 2003 into two separate articles: "Sega Megadrive" and "Sega Genesis".
  "Sega Megadrive" was created from a redirect, then renamed to "Sega Mega Drive" on August 21, 2004.
- The two articles were later merged back into one in 2005, under the compound name "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis".
  A set of editors discovered in 2006 that this title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles should be formatted.
  
  At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis"[1], largely due to it being the console's name at its initial launch in Japan.
- The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis".
- In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.
  Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.^[1]
  
  A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title.
  
  This led to a new proposal to move the article to "Sega Genesis".
- The article was renamed to "Sega Genesis" after the proposal succeeded [2], and has remained that way since.
Why is the article's original, non-stub title important?
Because of the following title policy statement at WP:TITLECHANGES:
"[When a title] has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker".
The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years. Doesn't that mean it was stable there?
Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period. But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter. Many editors take this as a sign of instability.
It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period. By default, no action was taken.
So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)?
This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close.

The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name.
So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"?
As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected.
So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct?
That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion.

There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move.
Is the new title stable?
Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support have thus far been made.
What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"? (Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.)
- "Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES)
- "Genesis" was the first name given to the console in English-speaking markets. (Naturalness criterion)^[2]
- "Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME)
- Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name.
  - It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed.
- The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)
- The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
  - The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
  - U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.
- While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language.
  - The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR)
What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"? (Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.)
- "Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan.
- "Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON)
  - The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America, and should be considered an exception.
- Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America.
  - To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics.
- "Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT)
  - Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N)
- As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument).
Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?
Per Wikipedia's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but nevertheless the consensus favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons.

"Sega Genesis" was favored in November 2011[3], though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong.
Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?
This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:
Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;

This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)
Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again?
Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction.

Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Wikipedia, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate.

Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself.
Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic? What if I have something new to say?
The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily.

Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again.

That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Wikipedia policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ.

In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive.

Notes

^ While the compound title Hellman's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.
^
P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
- "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sega Genesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Sega Genesis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Sega Genesis was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Not listed
April 17, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
April 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 5, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Video games: Sega C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Article name

In this thread: An automatic forking of the page by geolocation was proposed by user:175.107.146.209, however consensus was against it. User:175.107.146.209 has let the matter drop so I've gone ahead and boxed this. APL (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So this seems to be a very contenious issue. I have gone through the archives and it seems to me that an agreement over it will never occur :( it obviously should be called Mega Drive for the hundreads of reasons listed by other users above me so im not going to go into them what I would like to say is it seems to me that the consensus for the name Genesis is very weak, there was basically two American users requesting this article title and the other users while not for it agread to it to get them to shut up, also as only 10 users agread to the rename and since then there has been at least 50 users stating there opposition to this silly article name I feel there is no consensus at all and a new vote should be held. or alternativly there should be two articles, or the same article but with diffrent names, ie if you come from an American ip address you would be directed to the current erronious article title and if you come from anywhere else in the world you would be directed to the correct article title of Mega Drive this would probably be the best sollution possible as both sides would be happy, otherwise it just looks like a war is going to occur forever over the name and it will never be solved :( compromise is the way forward, regards, dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.146.209 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we changed the name, then we'd have even more people coming here to complain of the name "Mega Drive", for the hundreds of reasons listed above. Beyond that, all I can say is that your review of the discussion was inadequate and your summary of it is inaccurate. Your ignorance of the basic facts of this dispute is clear by your chosen "compromise", and it's not really worthwile to engage you on a serious level until you have new ideas and understand the situation.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello ledrush you were one of the two users pushing for this title against the will of everyone else so your above trollish comments hold no weight, regards, dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.146.209 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I argued long and strenuously against the name change in favor of the composite, compromise name and acquiesced after the people who had forged that consensus agreed to agree to this new consensus. This lack of review of the discussion is exactly what I was referring to above. If you can't be bothered to review the past discussions or summarize them correctly, why should anyone listen to you present no new ideas here?LedRush (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to go through the archive logs again and copy and paste all of your comments arguing for the title genesis and your shooting down of everyone elses oppinion on the matter like you are trying to do to me now but that would not be very constuctive, dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.146.209 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would not be constructive as you seem not to understand simple writing. I do believe that "Sega Genesis" is better than "Mega Drive", but I also argued against the name change to "Sega Genesis" from the composite name that achieved consensus. If you cannot be bothered to read and understand others' views, why bother comment on them?LedRush (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More trollish comments and personal attacks :S I never disputed you prefered the composite name, I never disputed you argued for Genesis over Mega Drive... it is what I stated you did to begin with... and you are now trying to derail this section of the discussion as you have to many others above... if you have nothing constuctive to add or if you have nothing nice to say, then do everyone else a favour and do not say anything at all, regards dave175.107.146.209 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This goofy dual-named-article suggestion was actually briefly attempted to resolve the naming debate at Gasoline.
You can find the discussion here : Talk:Gasoline/Archive_2#Templates_to_the_rescue.21
You can find the unanimous deletion !vote here : Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#Template:Carfuel
Ultimately these kinds of forks, even automated template-driven forks, would cause all kinds of problems for the Wikipedia project, and what are they good for? To stop a small number of people from being confused for the time it takes them to read a single sentence? Pointless. APL (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. You (IP) attacked me personally, misrepresented my views, and said that my past positions make my opinion worthless, and somehow I'm derailing this conversation (which adds nothing new to the discussion). It's all very clear now.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are the one throwing around personal attacks... here are a few you your quotes from the past hour alone "your review of the discussion was inadequate" "your summary of it is inaccurate" "Your ignorance of the basic facts of this dispute is clear" "you seem not to understand simple writing" "you cannot be bothered to read and understand others' views" and you are the one derailing the conversation and have not misrepresented any of your views...175.107.146.209 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no new points raised here and we have a solid consensus. Unless there are brand new and stunningly convincing arguments in favor of a change, this thread is going NOWHERE. The last serious debate and !vote was comprehensive, long-argued, quite convincingly decided in favor of the current name. Plus, there is a redirect from all of the other possible candidate names so none of our readers will be in the slightest bit confused by our choice.

It is a waste of time to discuss anything more on this thread because without new data, you can be well assured that nothing whatever will change as a result of it.

WP:DONTFEED strongly applies here.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve, The consensus clearly isnt stong or solid as you put it, there were around 10 people who voted for it and most wern't even for it they just agreed to it so the article could move on and since then if one reads the archives you have had an endless stream of users complaing about the article name and offering new data as to why Mega Drive is the correct and proper choice, more people than ever voted for the weak consensus have expressed their discontent with the current title. What I am suggesting is also new and appropriate, I come from Austrailia, wikipedia see's my austrailian ip and names the article [Mega Drive] ledrush comes from America wikipedia should she his ip and name the article [Genesis] some user comes from Britain or India or New Zealand or Ireland or anywhere else realy and Wikipedia should see their ip and rename the article to [Mega Drive] keeping the article as Genesis is both incorrect and will keep this dispute ongoing ad infinitum... at least my compromise idea would end the dispute once and for all with all sides being happy175.107.146.209 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't classify content by IP address location ... this is the English Wikipedia, not the American English or the British English or the Australian English Wikipedia. Also, what about an American tourist visiting Sydney, or a British tourist visiting Los Angeles? They'll see the one for where their IP would be, not for who they are. Consensus was reached, and whining about it isn't going to solve anything. Come up with a convincing argument about why it should be brought up AGAIN (something you haven't done yet) and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, put down the stick. --McDoob AU 93 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not new. As I demonstrated above, The first steps of your solution was tried as a way to keep everyone happy with Gasoline, but it was soundly rejected as a bad solution. For reasons we don't need to rehash here.

Wikipedia already has a policy for dealing with name disputes and it's not that. We can't/won't implement a radically new policy on this one article. If you want to continue with this, you need to change the entire encyclopedia's policy on naming disputes.

I suppose a good place to start would be the Village Pump, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. APL (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mcdoob (the second user along with ledrush who pushed for genesis when no one else was for it or cared) No one is ever going to "drop the stick" while this article is incorrectly named, if you don't like my suggestion that's fine but all that will happen is an infinite amount of users in the future come and complain because the current name is just dumb. APL if wikipedia isnt willing to evolve and improves itself then it is a real shame :( having seperate pages for US English and everywhere elses English would be a huge improvement in my opinion. I've said my peace and offered my suggestions which you have rejected so I will leave you guys to your inaccuracies rather than argue, peace, dave175.107.146.209 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even get your insults right. Wow.LedRush (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is crazy

In which User:82.139.5.13 says the article should be renamed Sega Mega Drive because more English-speaking countries call it that. Consensus does not support that reason, and since no further comments have been added in almost three weeks, it would appear the matter is closed. --McDoob AU 93 19:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If this article is named FIFA 13 (international name) instead of FIFA Soccer 13 (US/Canada name), why we can't do the same. Wikipedia should be universal, acceptful and tolerant for everyone.

Those articles I mention use the name Mega Drive:

- Variations of Sega Mega Drive

- List of Sega Mega Drive games

-

- Sega Mega Drive Classic Collection

- AX-1E (this article features the name Mega Drive in fragments of it)

- Menacer (also features the name Mega Drive in article too)

Article about CD add-on for it Mega-CD uses international name instead of US/Canada name (Sega CD)

It's the same thing with Sega Multi-Mega it uses international name instead of Sega CDX (US/Canada name).

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no it isn't ... software titles get tweaked all the time for various markets. If we go with the argument that FIFA 13 is the most common name for the software, then that actually proves that Sega Genesis is indeed correct, since by both sales figures and by Subsection 3 of Item 7 in the FAQ, Sega Genesis is the most common name for the device in the English-speaking world. --McDoob AU 93 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and India where the console was named Mega Drive are also part of English-speaking world and always there is named. BTW those "English-language reliable sources" that name the console also can be from the countries I've mentioned. USA and Canada aren't the only countries in the world. The name Mega Drive isn't a monster and it wouldn't eat you. Believe me. Naming the console Mega Drive isn't bad idea by "5. When did the two articles merge" of FAQ. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't discounted then when this was last discussed here, and haven't been discounted now. When you come up with a new, novel argument for why the article should be renamed, please let us know. --McDoob AU 93 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how naming it Mega Drive is "more tolerant". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He probably means "more tolerant ... to people just like me". APL (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my comment "Wikipedia should be universal, acceptful and tolerant for everyone". For EVERYONE. Not only me. Also for British, Australasians, Nigerians, Indians and European and Asians that know English. Do you think Wikipedia is only for Americans??? --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We covered all this last time you brought it up. APL (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't matter --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? They discussed to rename the article, not because how much units were more sold in a territory, but rather by geolocation. This that more Mega Drives or Genesis units (Genesises?) were sold in North America or more popular there, it doesn't mean that console/article must be named Sega Genesis. Don't forget about British, Australian, New Zealandish, Indian people that name the console Mega Drive. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all this has been discussed before. One last chance ... do you have a new, novel argument for why the article should be renamed? Otherwise, the thread will be closed to let the horse rest in peace. --McDoob AU 93 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's say we "don't forget about British, Australian, New Zealandish, Indian people that name the console Mega Drive". Then we should also "not forget" about all the American and Canadian people who call it Genesis. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You had won. So i'm forced to leave it all. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) BTW What about "new, novel argument" here it is: In google search there are 52 million points for Mega Drive, meanwhile Sega Mega Drive has 8 million points, but Sega Genesis has 11 million points. This that Sega Genesis has more points that Sega Mega Drive. it doesn't mean that Mega Drive has less than Sega Genesis. What about this. About the lone word Genesis. If you would look at the opening page at google search, you will see that's about whole different things, about Phil Collins band, about some nightclubs and others. I don't see any reference to Sega Genesis. It would be likely only 1/9 of Google points mentioning the console, so it's still less than 52 million points for Mega Drive. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google results are different in different parts of the world. They adjust the results to favor hits they think are most relevant to you, personally. If you're in (for example) England, it would not be surprising that British naming conventions return more hits. (And, if you're in mainland Europe, you're probably getting a lot of non-English results, which are not relevant to this discussion at all.)

I just tried the experiment here in USA and (of course) got the opposite results. (9 to 4 million in favor of the North American name.)

What does that prove? Nothing. Google results are not useful measures of how common a word is. Maybe they were back in the 90s, but their algorithms have changed a lot since then. APL (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also i have a question : Is Wikipedia only for North Americans and jingoists??? Let's answer yes or no

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* Please remember the key part of Subsection 3 of Item 7 in the FAQ: "English language reliable sources". How many of those hits are reliable sources and not fan posts, forum posts, etc.? Again, this was discussed before as noted previously, hence it appearing in Item 7 of the FAQ. So much for that "new, novel argument".

And to answer your question, a number of those who chose Genesis over Mega Drive in the consensus reached last November are not located in North America. So the answer is No. --McDoob AU 93 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McDoobAU93, before you'll write something, read this. This is a reliable source: BBC News (UNITED KINGDOM) UNITED KINGDOM = Mega Drive. Here's a English reliable source that names it Mega Drive. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some English-speaking markets do call it Mega Drive was not lost in the discussion that ultimately resorted to this name. Please refer to Subsection 4 of Item 7 of the FAQ and please quit rehashing old arguments. --McDoob AU 93 18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia belongs to whole world, not only USA/Canada. REMEMBER --82.139.5.13 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, we know, heard it all before. You're not saying anything new. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't heard the news yet, but in the 16th century explorers discovered that America was actually part of the world.

One of the interesting consequences of this fascinating fact is that British names for things aren't always used in an international context like Wikipedia. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

That's normal. APL (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "...international context like Wikipaedia."? Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FAQ

In the discussions above, I see a repeating pattern of pro-Genesis editors unwilling to engage in any discussion other than repeating the same old cop-out mantras of "nothing new" or "we've heard it all before" (now how many times have we heard that before?), "go read the archives" (yeah, like every user's going to go read dozens of pages), "it's the consensus" (which is why there's so much opposition against it, right?) or "go read the FAQ" (which apparently represents the so-called "consensus"). Well, some of us did already challenge the FAQ some time back, after which the FAQ seems to have been updated (which I applaud to whoever was responsible). However, the FAQ still has serious glaring flaws, so I've created this new section to write out my response to the current updated FAQ. And for those who have nothing to contribute other than the "it's already been said before" cop-out, I'm either going to just ignore them, or just give them the following response: Why isn't it covered in the FAQ if it's already "been said before"? Anyway, onto my response to the FAQ:

1-4. These points contradict point 7.4 ("WP:NOCONSENSUS says... when all else fails use the title the article had when created"). How? Because it's referring to a single article, not a merger between two articles. Just because the Genesis article was created before the Mega Drive, no where does the FAQ (or WP:NOCONSENSUS) say that we should go with the title of the article created first before a merger.
5. This also contradicts point 7.4 ("WP:NOCONSENSUS says... when all else fails use the title the article had when created"). Point 5 states that the original title of the article after the merger was "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis". Since it's a compound name and therefore unacceptable, then logically, we should go for the first non-compound name used after the merger. And since the first post-merger, non-compound name for the article was Sega Mega Drive, that's the closest thing to the "title the article had when created" (not "Sega Genesis" like the FAQ later claims).
- Also, point 5 fails to address or even mention the reason cited by User:DavidHOzAu when proposing the move to "Sega Mega Drive" back in 2006: "The rename for the US is a part of the Mega Drive's history: the rebranding happened to the Mega Drive not to the Sega Genesis." This is a hugely important point to overlook, because it highlights how the Mega Drive (which covers the entire history of the Mega Drive, including the Genesis) meets the WP:CRITERIA of "Precision" and "Conciseness" far better than Sega Genesis (a title that only covers the history of its North American iteration).
6. And how exactly is the article anymore stable now as "Sega Genesis"? Ever since it's been moved to Sega Genesis, it's become much more unstable, if anything, since every discussion since then seems to be about almost nothing other than the title. In contrast, as "Sega Mega Drive", the article had remained with that title for five years from 2006 to 2011, the longest period of stability the article has ever had (despite ongoing discussions to move it to a compound name), therefore meeting the WP:NOCONSENSUS criteria of "the long-standing article title is kept."
7.
- 7.1. Not really. See my response to point 5 above. DavidHOzAu's reasoning back in 2006 demonstrates that the Mega Drive meets the WP:CRITERIA of Precision and Conciseness much better than Sega Genesis (i.e. the Genesis falls under the Mega Drive's history, not the other way around). As for Recognizability, it's already been repeated many times before that "Mega Drive" is recognizable in more English-speaking nations (not to mention a larger population overall) than "Sega Genesis", so no point in me going there again (and no, sales figures do not equate to recognizability). As for Naturalness and Consistency, they could go either way. Overall, Mega Drive is more precise, concise, and recognizable... but even if (and that's a huge if) "Sega Genesis" was more recognizable, it should not override the criteria of precision and conciseness.
- 7.2. No argument there.
- 7.3. And how was this determined? A Google Scholar search? How many of those articles are US-based and how many are based in other countries? Did it take into account dedicated gaming publications? And if so, what about all the (especially British and Australian) gaming magazines that are out of print? A simple Google Scholar search simply isn't good enough to determine which name is used in more reliable sources. All it does show is that more US English scholarly articles on the subject are available online than non-US English ones (not to mention it completely ignores most of the dedicated gaming publications). If any method other than Google Scholar was used, then please do tell (instead of the usual "go read the archives" cop-out).
  - Anyway, we have something even better than Google Scholar that's much more game-specific: our own Google Custom Reliable Sources for Video Games search engine created at WP:VG/RS. When I type in Mega Drive, I get 31 million search results, yet when I type in Sega Genesis, I only get 3.84 million search results. It could be different for others, so I recommend others to confirm for themselves whether they get similar results in their own regions.
- 7.4. So? Mega Drive was the original intended name for the North American market even before release (which I'm sure everyone knows by now, right?). I really don't see the relevance of this point. Care to link it to one of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies?
- 7.5. See my response to point 5. Also, that's not quite what WP:NOCONSENSUS says, but what it states is "If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." I don't see anywhere where it says we should go back to the original title when the article was first created... And in this case, it was definitely a stub when first created.
8. No point responding to this point since my responses above should already cover it.
9. "Mega Drive" is also used in most countries where English is the primary language. And again, sales figures do not equate to recognizability. If anything, market share/penetration would give us a better representation, and the Mega Drive most certainly had a higher market share in other English-speaking countries (especially the UK) than it did in the US (for reference, see Screen Digest. Screen Digest. 1995. pp. 60–1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)). North America simply had more sales by virtue of having the world's largest gaming market. Simply having a larger population does not mean its language usage should be favoured over a smaller nation like the UK, but rather, the US and UK (and other English varieties) should be given equal weight according to WP:National varieties of English. In this case, we have more English-speaking nations that use "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis", so using the title "Mega Drive" would fit the criteria better than "Sega Genesis".
10. Uh, "Mega Drive" was fine for a whole five years before it was needlessly moved in 2011... And oh yeah, see my response to point 5 above.
11. No problem here.
12. Ah, good old censorship... How convenient.

...And that's pretty much it (for now).

Jagged 85 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Nothing new here either. Actually, that's not completely true - you do turn a neat phrase here : "North America simply had more sales by virtue of having the world's largest gaming market." I think that's a pretty good argument for having the name as Genesis, not Megadrive, so thanks for that little nugget. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which also follows that it's in fact NOT, necessarily, recognizable to "a larger population overall"...of people who speak English anyway. Number of nations shouldn't matter. If 20 nations have 10 million people total versus 3 nations that have 600 million people total (I know this isn't the case here, but it proves the point) why should the 20 nations take precedence because there are more individual nations? The issue of WP:National varieties of English isn't relevant when trying to decide which something is more known by, what it really means is that the US shouldn't be the default for everything because it's the biggest (thus the article on Soccer redirects to Association football, for instance). If it were the ONLY consideration then perhaps yes you'd be right, but really the end result of Genesis over Mega Drive was a slight one combining MANY points, and the Genesis just edged out Mega Drive. I'm pretty sure that most everyone would agree that the article COULD be titled Mega Drive without it being a problem, but just that most of us feel Genesis is /slightly/ better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the phrase "Pro-genesis editors". I'll bet it's used in a lot of POV debates on Wikipedia.

A few things about this stand out to me. It's pretty normal to consider an article's history to be the combined history of the two articles that merged to form it. I think most people would consider that reasonable.

Secondly, people coming here and complaining should not be taken as a sign that the article is "unstable". If the article were changed to "Mega-drive" it would undoubtedly get even more confused and angry comments, would you take that as evidence that it should be changed back to Genesis? Of course you wouldn't.APL (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how is the article any more stable now as "Sega Genesis"? The article was called "Mega Drive" for five whole years from 2006 to 2011. The name change in 2011 was completely unnecessary. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that it doesn't matter which name we use because it will be unstable either way?LedRush (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For years I argued that one of the reasons Yoghurt should be moved to Yogurt was because it would be stable once it was moved. But that wasn't my entire argument. I argued it would be stable because there would be no reasonable arguments to move it back to Yoghurt once it was at Yogurt, but as long as it remained at Yoghurt, there would be reasonable arguments to move it (and these were all listed). I turned out to be right, in that case.

But that's not what you're arguing here. You're not arguing that it will be stable if moved, or even that it will more stable if moved. The argument that the first title ever used for this topic was Sega Genesis will forever remain. There is no avoiding that, and countless people will raise it if this article is moved to something else; anything else. Because of that, this article might not be perfectly stable at Sega Genesis, but it is more stable here than it would be at any other title. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the same argument being used for the name 'Sega Mega Drive' name, it was "first title ever used". But the system had that name long before the article was made. (Floppydog66 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The name the system had is not relevant to the issue of determining what title the article had when edited by the first major contributor, which is the title which is relevant to determining the "default" when consensus cannot be reached. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all these points in a series of updates to the FAQ now. Let me know if I missed something or if there is more. Some very good points, by the way. Thanks for the input. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for updating the FAQ to address the concerns I raised above. However, there is still a big problem with point 9.2, which claims that "the console was far more popular in North America than in other English speaking countries." Like I pointed out above, the console's market share was arguably larger in the UK than it was in the US, therefore point 9.2 is highly misleading, as it's a pretty doubtful abstract claim. I would instead recommend updating it to point out that the console sold more units in North America than other English-speaking countries. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent date edits?

Can someone please check the sudden, unexplained edits by this ip editor to this article and a few related ones?

They seem like misinformation to me, but I'm not 100% sure they're not some sort of correction. APL (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is going to be a pain. For the first one, the cited source is a dead link. When I Google for the article title, I found this, but it does not provide any information about anything being discontinued, much less whether the Mega-CD was discontinued in 1996 or 1997. This (reliable?) source says Sega "announced" the discontinuation in 1996, but doesn't really say whether it actually occurred in that year. I would say that since the source was not checked and corrected as part of that edit, it's probably a bogus edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"While the company recently announced it will dispose of all remaining 16-bit peripheral inventory, specifically the Genesis 32X and Sega CD products, it will continue to sell Genesis hardware and software in the coming years."--SexyKick 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Hellmans-1] While the compound title Hellman's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.

[2] P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
"The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

[3] "The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 :I think I've addressed all these points in a series of updates to the FAQ now.  Let me know if I missed something or if there is more.  Some very good points, by the way.  Thanks for the input.  --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
+::Hi. Thanks for updating the FAQ to address the concerns I raised above. However, there is still a big problem with point 9.2, which claims that "the console was far more popular in North America than in other English speaking countries." Like I pointed out above, the console's market share was arguably larger in the UK than it was in the US, therefore point 9.2 is highly misleading, as it's a pretty doubtful abstract claim. I would instead recommend updating it to point out that the console ''sold'' more units in North America than other English-speaking countries. Regards, [[User:Jagged 85|Jagged 85]] ([[User talk:Jagged 85|talk]]) 03:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 == Recent date edits? ==