Talk:Sega Genesis

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

 Done [4]. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the FAQ lists plenty of reasons as to why "Genesis" is favoured, but barely any as to why "Mega Drive" should be given equal consideration. To me, it makes the debate seem one-sided. However, I don't want to "rock the boat" by making edits, as it's been a while since I've trawled the archives of this debate. There's also the issue of "Mega Drive" being referred to as "a marketing variant", when "Genesis" is a marketing variant of the Mega Drive, not the other way around. CNash (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Both are marketing variants of the same product, just as yogurt and yoghurt are two spelling variants for the same thing. If a product is marketed under two different names, then each is a variant of that product. A variant is simply a form of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing. In this case, that applies to "Sega Mega Drive" just as much as it applies to "Sega Genesis". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do see a pattern of pro-genesis editors here who try to stifle discussion. Chaheel Riens response seems indicative of that. I am not convinced that the current name is appropriate nor does the FAQ actually reflect Wikipedia policy. ScienceApe (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Constructive discussion is not being stifled. What is inappropriate in the current title (that is not adequately addressed in the FAQ), and how is the FAQ contrary to policy? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover ScienceApe, you'll see if you bother to look through the archives that I am in fact a British editor, and a pro-Megadrive supporter. I have stated several times that my personal take is that both Megadrive and Genesis are the common name, and that the arguments should be on which of the two is the correct common name, and disregard the arguments of which is a common name, as there is a subtle but important difference. Due to the sheer geographical mass and userbase Genesis ultimately has a greater percentage of the slice, which again I think is a flaw in the common name argument as Megadrive clearly has a greater global presence.

However, tempered by that are two powerful arguments against having Megadrive as a title:

• I am in a minority to think so, and (again due to the userbase) Genesis editors have the majority. I, like Wikipedians should, go by majority and strength of argument - which brings me to the next reason:
• Frothy mouthed rabid slanging matches annoy the hell out of me, and I am prepared to put aside any national pride to exorcise such infantile gibberings from the project. If an editor really feels strongly enough to propose changing the name from Genesis to Megadrive, then they have a duty to do some research first - which includes reading through archives to check if their arguments and reasons have been brought up before, and to gauge the success (or lack of) that they may have had at the time.

Failure to meet the second point is grounds for removal, and ironically the above mentioned editors are the reason such a lengthy FAQ is necessary in the first place, yet very few of them seem to realise this, and include it as part of the attack on the page, and contributing editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Sega Mega Drive games, If it is named Megadrive there, it should be here aswell. and according to the article itself more units were sold outside of USA than inside and outside of USA it was caleld megadrive. TheZelos (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, according to the cited sales figures in the article, Sega sold roughly 35 million consoles during the Gen/MD era. Of that number, somewhere over 22 million were sold in North America (I'm using the most conservative estimate). If my math is correct, that means 62.8% of the Sega 16-bit consoles sold worldwide carried the Genesis name. --McDoobAU93 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know there's no way to have this opinion in the domain without it being removed, but that is just a ridiculous way of measuring it. Who cares if over 60% of sales carried the Genesis name? For almost A YEAR it was out as Mega Drive and in no way as Genesis! If someone released an album, then released it in another, more popular territory under a different name, would you use the second name? No, you wouldn't, and you shouldn't here. It is literally that simple. Just another way for Americans to show they're "the best" because they bought the most. Andre666 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the article itself 14 million in US, 29 million worldwide, it means 15 million outside. and I agree with Andre, the initial name should be the dominant name. This is not an issue that majority vote should settle because it is a matter of principle. If Wikipedia will change every article the moment sales increase somewhere with a different name then keeping it as Genesis makes sense, if it goes by original name (or closest to it) then Megadrive is the name to go. TheZelos (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Andre666: For what it's worth, the sales figures weren't really an issue in the main discussion cited in the FAQ, and even if they were, it wasn't the sole issue. Again, as a reminder this is not a forum to voice displeasure about what has previously been discussed and settled. The surest way to not get deleted is to offer a novel argument for a name change, something that hasn't been done since the current change has taken effect.

@Zelos: It appears you're cherry-picking out of the notes for the "Sales numbers" subheading, instead of reading the explanation of that number ("However, this data was originally released in 1995 before production and sales of the console ended") and the citations provided by other reliable sources that place the sales numbers higher than that. --McDoobAU93 18:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe how stricken with corruption this discussion is. I know it's a trivial issue, but what you're basically saying is that even if every single Wikipedian used a reason already apparently dealt with in the discussion (please...) the name would still not be changed. What a monopoly a few are having over this. You ought to be ashamed, this is meant to be the people's encyclopedia. Andre666 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey McDoob, how come you didn't go on my main point? Personally I care none for the sales, my main issue is. What is wikipedias policy? Change names when it gets more popular in areas with other names or retain original name? it should be the sole deciding factor. TheZelos (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@Andre666: I would encourage you to read this essay, which applies perfectly to this discussion.

@Zelos: Wikipedia's policy is WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus was found to set the name at Genesis. --McDoobAU93 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So if I get consensus of calling it Hey-barberiba we will change the name to it? TheZelos (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to try it out and see what happens. If the policy arguments are sound and other editors agree with said arguments, then it just might happen. However, I would encourage you to read this section first. --McDoobAU93 20:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Humerous, I have no intent wasting energy on something that redicolous when it is obvious Argumentum ad populum, whim of the majority, oppression by the masses and not truth or reason is the ruling form as you already sp elegantly stated. TheZelos (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not intending to disrupt Wikipedia to continue your argument. That said, I'm sorry you can't accept that others (both in Genesis and Mega Drive markets) decided your variation of the truth wasn't the best or that you feel "oppressed". --McDoobAU93 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Truth and reason cannot and will not ever be decieded by majority vote which is why consenssus is not the way to go. TheZelos (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was a vote. I said it was consensus. There is a difference; please read the two sections provided and you'll see what I mean. --McDoobAU93 16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case my question returns to the status of unanswered, what is the consensus on the question of does wikipedia change article name when it becomes more popular on other areas with different names or retain original name? and the fact you said I could rename it hey-barberiba with a consensus already tells it is a vote thing because if consensus is truth/accuracy and whatnot the possibility of my proposition is null. TheZelos (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus depends on what the editors of the given article discuss and agree to based on relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you'll refer to the discussion from November 2011 cited in the FAQ, you'll see that the discussion was rather lengthy. When the discussion is closed after a certain time (either after a specific number of days, after the conversation has naturally died down or when it's very clear what everyone wants), the closing administrator gives their decision and the rationale for the decision. In the case of this article, the arguments for Sega Genesis were shown to be better than the arguments for Sega Mega Drive, but only slightly so.

Yes, you could potentially get consensus for a name completely unrelated to the subject, but it's unlikely. Let's take your hypothetical name. It would immediately fail WP:COMMONNAME because the device has never been known as that and there are no reliable sources even suggesting it was, has been, or ever would be. Even editors who prefer Mega Drive would oppose such a name simply on those grounds. Those same editors agreed that, in English-language reliable sources, "Genesis" was used more often than "Mega Drive", another reason why the name was set at Genesis.

Lastly, you said something about "original name". That's yet another reason why Genesis was selected ... because when the article was first written 11 years ago, it was Genesis. When the article surpassed Stub-quality for the first time, it was Genesis. See Item 1 of the FAQ above for more details. All things considered, there were several reasons why Genesis was selected over Mega Drive, but it was not a landslide victory. That said, it was enough to consider the conversation settled pending a new, truly novel reason to start yet another move discussion. In the year since the discussion was closed, there hasn't been one; just people rehashing old arguments, exclaiming their belief in a pro-America bias in Wikipedia, etc. --McDoobAU93 20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As stated in FAQ #8, the original name of the product is but one of many considerations in deciding the article title. The consensus was that other considerations favoring using another name outweighed this and others favoring the original name. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See also FAQ #9. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

McDoob, the fact that the original article was named Genesis has zero to do with the debate; something might've been wrong from the start, and being there from the start doesn't make it right, obviously. Anyway... when was this consensus reached? Is it not time for another discussion of it to be had, a formal debate of moving the article? Andre666 (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, raping women or killing people was alright at the start, because no one really thought it was wrong; but now we do, so they are outlawed. Extreme example I know, but it illustrates my point. Andre666 (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The name the article had originally is relevant when consensus cannot be otherwise reached - it is favored in such cases. Consensus can change, but there is no hint that has even started to occur here. Nothing not addressed in the FAQ has been raised. No new points have been made. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

Okay, so this source best supports 1996. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Question 10 in the faq.

I propose a tweak to question 10 in the FAQ:

"After all factors were given due consideration, Sega Genesis was preferred by a strong consensus, but it was also generally recognized that a title of Mega Drive would not be wrong."

I'd like to remove the term "strong" - it wasn't a strong consensus, merely a consensus. Plenty of arguments on each side, some good, some bad, but it wasn't overwhelmingly decided to call it the Genesis. If the consensus had been strong, we wouldn't be in this continual renaming lunacy at all.

Just a comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The admin who closed that discussion said "clear consensus", so I've changed it to that, along with a link to that discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Super duper. Happy with that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)