Talk:Sega Genesis

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.[4], [5]
• 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)

RFC Title Survey

• I would like to point out that that the IP editor has incorrectly stated that the final 2003 version of Sega Genesis was a stub, and that this is the final version of the Sega Genesis article, and that this is the first version of the title it was changed to.--SexyKick 00:27, 8 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 : [6]

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[7] 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 [8], 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" [9] --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. [10] [11] [12]

You've also made a few edits that violate talk-page policy by removing the edits of other users. [13][14]

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 [15] 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)

No, it doesn't, but it does set precedence for the console's identity around the world. The fact that the name "Mega Drive" stuck in every region outside of Japan except the United States should have significant bearing on the notability of that name in specific. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does. We're not talking about a regular word or loanword that can have its meaning changed, but a name that was chosen for very specific reasons at a very specific time. The name "Mega Drive" had to have been chosen because Sega felt these two English words would make a great phrase for their product, or simply because they heard the phrase from someone and thought it sounded cool. Despatche (talk) 17:43, 7 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: [16] [17]

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[18] 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 [19] 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)

...Really? I'll admit I haven't read all of this, but last time I checked this was all about Google searches and sales numbers, and this was also apparently some kind of Wikipedia standard. I'll also admit that the weird loophole baffled me a bit, but I thought nothing of it, probably because I didn't really understand how Wikipedia's policies were supposed to work then. However, I'm very surprised people aren't treating this as a simple "more reliable English sources will use Genesis because America's too fucking big, QED". Despatche (talk) 17:43, 7 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)

• Comment - As you said, we're going to have articles like Variations of the Sega Mega Drive, so for consistency and common sense this article should be called "Mega Drive" as result. It's bad enough that this article is called "Genesis", but to try and rename related articles to titles like "Variations of the Sega Genesis" etc. is going to be even more inappropriate (since the Genesis is a region-specific version of the Mega Drive, rather than vice versa) and utterly impossible. It's just another argument as to why "Mega Drive" is the most suitable name, and the one that has the best chance of long-term stability. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:08, 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)

Just because the arguments aren't new doesn't mean they aren't valid or should be ignored. The fact is this article was at a variation of "Mega Drive" for the longest period of history and was only moved to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" after a failed attempt at changing it to "Sega Genesis". When it was decided this compound name ran foul of naming policy, the appropriate course of action would have been to revert back to "Mega Drive", but instead the same editors pushing for "Genesis" did it again and got their way this time due to a flawed straw poll. The FAQ (which is full of problems as others have commented) was then put on the talk page in an attempt to stifle further discourse (as you're attempting to do now) on the name - which has obviously failed since this talk page is full of nothing but title issues, to to detriment of the article's actual content. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:39, 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)

The thing is, your argument is simply incorrect though. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still flat-out factually wrong. "プレイステーション" is not the original name of the PlayStation, just as "メガドライブ" is not the original name of the Mega Drive. Both consoles were given their international names in English first, then rendered into Japanese script for region-specific marketing. The actual Japanese consoles themselves have "PlayStation" and "Mega Drive" clearly written on them, the Japanese television commercials again use "PlayStation" and "Mega Drive" (both in text and pronunciation), so I don't really see how you can honestly perpetuate this clearly flawed argument. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You're proving my point again! They chose English-based words for use for the name of the console in their home market, making it the Japanese name. When the consoles were first released in English-speaking markets, one was able to keep its English-derived name while the other was not. WP:CRITERIA does not make a distinction for how the first English name was derived, only that it was. Thanks for the assist! --McDoobAU93 19:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't your point though was it? You were saying the opposite before, but now you're conceding that the original name in Japan for the console was actually "Mega Drive" - in English words. Now you've changed your argument to try and nullify this fact by inferring this doesn't matter as it's a Japanese name for the console and that Genesis was the first English one. This is rather dishonest, as the reason "Mega Drive" was chosen for the console's name in Japan was because it was clearly intended as the international English name of the console, and the only reason this wasn't the case in North America was due to a copyright issue. Therefore it can be more honestly and accurately argued that "Mega Drive" was the first English name for the console, the fact it was released in Japan first (and the rest of the world later, with the Genesis inbetween) is purely incidental and not a valid argument that "Genesis" was the first English language name for the Mega Drive. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

McDoob, I'm afraid I don't follow your point at all. At one point you claimed that "Mega Drive" was originally just the romanization of the Japanese script for the console's name. That romanization would actually be something like "Mega Doraibu", as the intent of romanization is to show non-Japanese speakers how the Japanese script is pronounced. If the Japanese script existed first, and "Mega Drive" was applied based on that, then you have a translation, not a romanization, and the name is properly called an English-language name. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, this English-language name was applied to the console universally in all sales regions except the US, properly making it the worldwide name. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(Keep in mind also that the United States isn't the only English-speaking market where the Mega Drive was sold.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never once said that the words "Mega" and "Drive" didn't come from English. In fact, I made that exact statement here in response to one of 85.211's earlier IPs. For further proof of why it doesn't matter, please refer to my response to Despatche above. As to KeiferSkunk's points, again it doesn't change anything as the name remains Japanese, even if each and every word is derived from English. A good example in Japanese is the word "computer". They imported it for use as the name for an electronic calculating device and converted it into their language system as コンピュータ, romanized into "konpyuuta". At this point, the word is Japanese, not English, even though there is little doubt the term came from the English language. --McDoobAU93 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

See, that's what I don't get in your point: It is an English-language name, it is either the original name or a translation from a purely-Japanese name, and (most importantly) it is used around the world. No matter whether you call it "English" or "Japanese", that is the brand in all the world except the US. So then, why is Genesis (the "US" name) the only name that seems to matter in the "English-speaking territories" (of which there are many and the US just happens to be one)? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to try to illustrate this a different way: Let's say for the sake of argument that the Mega Drive's name was actually "Satsuki" (a Japanese proper name with no English derivation). If the Satsuki were released as such all around the world and was still renamed the Genesis in the US, we might still be having this argument about whether the title of this article should be "Sega Satsuki" or "Sega Genesis", because the core arguments would be the same. The derivation of the name "Mega Drive" is far less relevant than where the name has been used.

As a more relevant illustration, there is little debate about whether Nintendo Entertainment System should be renamed "Famicom" (consensus says no), mainly because Famicom is the name of that console only in Japan and a handful of other markets, whereas the NES brand is used in the rest of the world. And that decision also has very little to do with the NES/Famicom's sales figures or popularity. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is a dishonest and pedantic argument. To claim "Mega Drive" is a Japanese name for the console, derived from English words, and that "Genesis" is the first actual English-language name flies in the face of WP:COMMON - considering every other English-speaking territory also uses the name "Mega Drive", and that it was clearly intended as the international English name for the console, not just the name for the Japanese market. You're abusing a technicality in the order of releases to support a - in my opinion - categorically incorrect conclusion (that "Genesis" counts as the first English-language name for the Mega Drive) --85.211.130.47 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this ain't right. "Mega Drive" is a name, not a word. If a tech product puts down some kind of name involving the English word "COMPUTER" and stuffs some katakana somewhere, that name is definitely English. The distinction between a default English or Roman-based name versus a Japanese-based one derived from foreign words is small, but kinda important. I've always wanted to bring this to the Japanese Wikipedia, it means a lot more to them. Despatche (talk) 17:45, 7 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)
• Sega Genesis per FAQ, with a large helping of Notto Disu Shitto Agen. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The FAQ makes a number of unsubstantiated and outright incorrect claims though when it comes to why Genesis is the name being used and is in need of review. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mega Drive - As a few have said, the FAQ version of the move to the present title doesn't fit with my recollection of what happened, a move, that in my opinion, went against spirit of Wikipedia. The article should have moved back to its previous stable name of Mega Drive when the compromise name was deemed against policy. Instead a quick straw poll pushed through a second move. Common sense trumps all for me on this. Mega Drive was the original English name, Sega of Japan called it Mega Drive in English. The North American name was an alternative name for a single territory following a trademark dispute in the USA. The rest of the world knows it as Mega Drive.
  p.s. SexyKick; I will help with that GA/FA one day, when the article name is stable. - X201 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:Retain, WP:TITLECHANGES, and WP:Ties for its notability. Unfortunately I don't think the title is ever going to be stable. This discussion burnt me out on the subject last time. I'm disappointed that we've basically been strong armed into discussing it again, just when editors like RedPhoenix and myself are getting over our WP burn outs. 85.211, what if you had taken this energy to fix citations in the article? To find archived versions of dead links, replacements for dead links, and converting magazine or news sources to cite:news instead of cite:web because their online archive went away?--SexyKick 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• CommentI understand your frustration, SexyKick, but I do genuinely feel the current title has a detrimental effect on the entire article, which is why I'm so strongly in favour of it being changed. If it's any consolation it seems to me that we only arrived at the title "Genesis" through a series of poor decisions (firstly changing to a compound title, and then changing to "Genesis" rather than reverting back to title it held before when it was found out the compound title was problematic) and long-term stability will be much more likely under the "Mega Drive" name. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned that to another editor above. However past evidence has shown this argument repeatedly come up when the article was named Mega Drive. So how is one lack of stability better than the other? This is specifically what WP:TITLECHANGES addresses. To me it seems we arrived at Sega Genesis through a broad amount of wikipedia editors getting involved, having three+ months of non stop, organized, virtually mediated discussion/lists/straw polling/argument pooled, and getting the talk page so organized that someone came in and applauded the effort (I believe, thanks to the effort of Born2Cycle).--SexyKick 22:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the fact it was contested but repeatedly rejected when there was a proposal to move from "Mega Drive" to "Genesis" shows at least some level of stability and consensus on the name "Mega Drive". There was never a consensus to move from "Mega Drive" to "Genesis"; "Genesis" "got in the back door" so to speak by changing the name to a compound title to appease the pro-Genesis group (which was misguided) and then from there it got changed to Genesis as the compound title was untenable when the proper course of action would have been to revert to the last stable title (Mega Drive) and then, if necessary discuss another name change. That didn't happen and is why this current name is less stable than the article's title has been in years. Changing to "Mega Drive" would be revert to the last stable title, in addition to the other arguments mentioned. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So your definition of title stability, is people constantly trying to change a title, and always being told no?--SexyKick 22:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The current name is just as good as any other, and debating this further is just a waste of time and energy. I note that this long dispute made the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Seriously, folks, grab a drink, go out and get laid, whatever. Anything you do is time better spent than this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's worth reading the entry there for all involved editors. It's interesting to me, it maybe should even be added to the faq.--SexyKick 03:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - future people who are reading this thinking they can make a difference: abandon all hope. Do not waste your time trying to point out the obvious. Most people involved in this debate are either too blinded by bias or too jaded as a result of past efforts to even consider the facts or clear perversions of procedure which have taken place. I should know, I was once like you. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sega Genesis. I'm not a gamer. I never heard of this game under either name until I came upon the "compromise" title in 2011. I personally couldn't care less which name is the title.

  The only policy based reason I see to favor either title is that the current title was the original title of this article. This is exactly the type of situation that title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub rule of WP:TITLECHANGES is meant to settle. Everything else is noise. Enough, already. --B2C 19:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mega Drive for obvious reasons and reasons I have stated before, Genesis is a variant only used in North America and is not the common name regardless of what editors from that region choose to believe94.172.127.37 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mega Drive I'm Canadian and owned a "Genesis" as a kid. Back then, I'd have sworn it was the only name. But the Internet has cleared that up. In most of the world, kids had a "Mega Drive". Most of the world is bigger than North America, and Wikipedia is there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, June 19, 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)

The IP is off editing again under another address, and no one's pursuing his block anymore, so that part is effectively taken care of at least. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we are taking it seriously? Please point out any non-serious comments. I'll also mention that you're about as uninvolved in the debate as I am. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be now, but I think you misunderstood two of my points: First, "taking it seriously" means not trying to get the RFC speedy-closed and dismissed as "some IP address is pushing an agenda". And second, "uninvolved": That was in specific reference to the IP getting blocked. Of course I'm involved in the larger debate - I was one of the most outspoken debaters on this topic in several of the previous discussions. I'm not trying to claim I'm an outsider to this discussion at large - just that I was not involved in any decisions related to the IP user's actions, and therefore I'm in a neutral position with respect to both his actions and everyone else's reactions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, even though I said it too just wanting to maintain the consistency, I'd say "speedy close" is no longer a choice simply because there's so much riled up now that nothing here will be "speedy". So here we go again, and once again we're going to open this up for debate. I would strongly disagree with straw polling this if this is the way things are going to go, but perhaps it would help everyone if in a new section, I can put together a table featuring rationales for each name choice. That way, we can discuss the topics instead of just saying what we want, and working it out carefully and trying to find what are the best points. Then, we're also not playing "wall of text of arguments just to find out which argument is which". I'd be glad to help moderate if need be. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be noted for all the "sigh, not this argument again" responses, that are mostly in favour of Genesis, that the vast majority of previous debates over the title were a handful of American editors trying to change it from Mega Drive to Genesis, and only finally got their way via the backdoor and by first changing it to the compound title and then to Genesis when it was agreed the compound title wasn't suitable - when the proper course of action would have been to revert back to Mega Drive. Therefore this latest title debate isn't just another rehash of old arguments, it's in favour of a return to the status quo, after a series of poor choices (changing to a compound title, and then later changing from that to Genesis rather than reverting to the stable title) got us here. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if I may, here are - in my mind - the rationales for and against each name. I will try to stick to objective facts as much as possible and include my own personal rationale in parentheses.

• 1 - "Mega Drive" is the console's original name in Japan. Contrary to the views of some, this is the case. "Mega Drive" in English words, was the first name used, and not romanised from a Japanese name. (I'd also argue this qualifies it as the first English name, as this was intended as the international name of the console, and indeed was everywhere bar North America due to copyright reasons).
• 2 - "Sega" is not an official prefix to either "Genesis" or "Mega Drive", so it cannot be said that "Genesis" is more consistent in naming Sega consoles as "Mega Drive" can just as easily be prefixed with "Sega" to become "Sega Mega Drive" as easily as "Genesis" can. Furthermore not all Sega consoles use the prefix in the article title anyway- e.g. the Dreamcast (I'd personally argue a Sega prefix isn't consistent with naming policy unless it forms part of the official title anyway).
• 3 - It cannot be argued that one term is more prevalent than another - as some have tried to do in favour of Genesis, there simply isn't objective evidence for this available and attempting to do so is original research.
• 4 - Similarly there are no concrete sale records to make definitive conclusions on which territories sold the most units. I think it can be agreed that more consoles were sold in North America than in other native-English speaking countries, but whether or not North America outsold all the territories where it was known as Mega Drive is much more doubtful. (It should be noted that this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the English-native speaking nations Wikipedia, and that therefore all the territories where it was known as the Mega Drive need to be taken into consideration, regardless of native language, as many people of those countries speak English as a non-native language and are users of the English Wikipedia).
• 5 - The article has been at "Mega Drive" or a variation of, for longer than it's been at a variation of "Genesis". (I would argue, it's the more stable title long-term, and would also argue that although the article was first created as "Sega Genesis" it was known as "Mega Drive" at the point it no longer qualified as a stub).
• 6 - Other articles related to the console use the term "Mega Drive" and are much less straightforward to change to Genesis. i.e. Variations of the Sega Mega Drive. (It would be illogical and near-impossible to change the title of articles like that to "Variations of the Sega Genesis" for obvious reasons - the Genesis is just one variation of a console otherwise known as "Mega Drive" in all other iterations. Therefore for consistency this article should use the most widely used and international name).

--85.211.130.47 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The time for proof is at hand

All right, time for 85.211 (and anyone else who chooses to support their arguments) to prove their points. B2C brought up a great idea earlier when they suggested discussing the points of the FAQ that aren't correct instead of starting up yet another needless name discussion. So, here's your chance, 85.211.

Provide proofs that back up your claims that statements in the FAQ are incorrect, but be careful. For example, your cited IGN article makes no statement as to the number of consoles sold of a given name, so it doesn't back up the statement you attribute to it (that the Sega 16-bit console sold more units with Mega Drive on it than Genesis). Second, the Polsson article whose numbers you lean on so heavily was found out-of-date with additional and newer information added, as is shown in the article currently. Further, provide a diff indicating when consensus (not your opinion) determined that the article reached Start-class. The burden is on you for providing the proof that what you say is correct. --McDoobAU93 21:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I already began typing a comment doing just this above, before this edit was made. So I'll just paste it here for clarity. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if I may, here are - in my mind - the rationales for and against each name. I will try to stick to objective facts as much as possible and include my own personal rationale in parentheses.

• 1 - "Mega Drive" is the console's original name in Japan. Contrary to the views of some, this is the case. "Mega Drive" in English words, was the first name used, and not romanised from a Japanese name. (I'd also argue this qualifies it as the first English name, as this was intended as the international name of the console, and indeed was everywhere bar North America due to copyright reasons).
• 2 - "Sega" is not an official prefix to either "Genesis" or "Mega Drive", so it cannot be said that "Genesis" is more consistent in naming Sega consoles as "Mega Drive" can just as easily be prefixed with "Sega" to become "Sega Mega Drive" as easily as "Genesis" can. Furthermore not all Sega consoles use the prefix in the article title anyway- e.g. the Dreamcast (I'd personally argue a Sega prefix isn't consistent with naming policy unless it forms part of the official title anyway).
• 3 - It cannot be argued that one term is more prevalent than another - as some have tried to do in favour of Genesis, there simply isn't objective evidence for this available and attempting to do so is original research.
• 4 - Similarly there are no concrete sale records to make definitive conclusions on which territories sold the most units. I think it can be agreed that more consoles were sold in North America than in other native-English speaking countries, but whether or not North America outsold all the territories where it was known as Mega Drive is much more doubtful. (It should be noted that this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the English-native speaking nations Wikipedia, and that therefore all the territories where it was known as the Mega Drive need to be taken into consideration, regardless of native language, as many people of those countries speak English as a non-native language and are users of the English Wikipedia).
• 5 - The article has been at "Mega Drive" or a variation of, for longer than it's been at a variation of "Genesis". (I would argue, it's the more stable title long-term, and would also argue that although the article was first created as "Sega Genesis" it was known as "Mega Drive" at the point it no longer qualified as a stub).
• 6 - Other articles related to the console use the term "Mega Drive" and are much less straightforward to change to Genesis. i.e. Variations of the Sega Mega Drive. (It would be illogical and near-impossible to change the title of articles like that to "Variations of the Sega Genesis" for obvious reasons - the Genesis is just one variation of a console otherwise known as "Mega Drive" in all other iterations. Therefore for consistency this article should use the most widely used and international name).

--85.211.130.47 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

McDoob, this kind of call for proof is inappropriate for this type of debate. To properly prove points on either side of this debate would require access to information that simply doesn't exist (that anyone knows of, at any rate). We've already proven the lack of definitive information on this - that's a very large part of why this debate is ongoing. I don't think your demand here is fair. The approach the IP editor is taking here, as well as RedPhoenix's table-based approach below, will probably serve us much better. (I've already made it clear which side of the debate I'm on, but I say this with no intent of saying your opinion is necessarily wrong - just that your approach to arguing your point is inappropriate.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rationales for consensus-building purposes

To help organize discussion on the matter, since it appears we are headed for another drawn-out discussion and re-establishment of consensus, I've started a table with rationales editors have provided for either "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive". I would argue that per naming convention, these are the only two we really should be considering for this reason: Sega Genesis is needed if the Genesis end is preferred to keep it simple avoid becoming Genesis (video game console), and Mega Drive is best used if the opposite side is preferred because it does follow naming conventions in terms of product name. Combined names have never met with consensus, so I would say we're realistically down to two. Here is what I have been able to surmise so far from reading through the table:

"Sega Genesis" vs. "Mega Drive" - Reasons to favor each name

Sega Genesis

Mega Drive

Is the original title of the article Is used in the North American region, where sources may indicate was the console's best-selling region in the world Is the current name of the article, and continued use would maintain consistency Has specific notability because of the heated console war with Nintendo in the US market. A significant portion of the console's reliable sources refer to the "Genesis" by name in reference to this event when discussing the console's popularity and historical significance.

Was the name of the article for a long period of time Was the first name used in reference to the console, upon its initial release in Japan Is used worldwide, with the exception of the North American region, and is thus better globalized Matches up with add-on and list articles, and would be consistent with other Wikipedia articles on similar topics Is the name of the majority of different variations of the console, see variations of the Sega Mega Drive

Editors, feel free to help expand this table as more reasons are given for both sides, but please maintain a neutral POV about it and use this table only to establish facts. I'll help watch as things go forward. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I've yet to see any sources that properly indicate "North American region, where sources may indicate the console sold better than anywhere else in the world", as in North America outsold everywhere else put together. The sources for sales figures are sketchy and conclusions can only be made based on conjecture (original research) rather than hard data. North America may have outsold everywhere else on a region to region basis, but there's nothing to indicate that more units of the console were sold as "Genesis" in North America than there were ones sold as "Mega Drive" everywhere else. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's been an unfortunate problem that's also been debated half to death, and that's coming from one of the editors that helped make this a good article in 2008. I think the same argument could be made the other way too; since Sega never released their sales numbers, not even by region, none of the numbers on reliable sources are consistent. It could be, and it couldn't be. I hate to play devil's advocate here, but it is that way with these sales numbers. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but that's why I feel including "sources may indicate the console sold better than anywhere else in the world" is conjecture and not-neutral, and thus shouldn't be included in the table as is. If it was reworded to indicate that North America was the best selling region, but not better selling than the rest of the world at large, then I'd accept its inclusion. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a minor, semantic edit in the table to try and reflect that more clearly. I hope you find it acceptable. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the change. That's part of why I'm glad to let editors edit the table as long as it stays to the facts. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the blip - I was trying to see if I could format that table with bullet-points in mind, but I couldn't seem to get it to do what I wanted, and I hit "Save" instead of "Preview" prematurely. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, want to address one thing at the top of this section: You mentioned that if we stick with "Genesis" as the title, it should be "Sega Genesis" to avoid a disambiguation title ("Genesis (video game console)"). I don't think that should figure into it - the title should be properly named as the product's correct name, and the disambig would follow naturally because there are several other things also named Genesis (the band, the book in the Bible, etc). To do as you suggested would open the door to naming those other articles "The Band Genesis" and "Bible Book Genesis" for similar reasons (though obviously that's a stretch, but you should be able to see my point). :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty ridiculous, but you've made your point. Though it wouldn't fit naming convention, I'd probably claim WP:IAR in that "Sega Genesis" is the title better suited to the improvement of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia on the whole, if consensus leans that way simply because it's easier and better understood that way, in my opinion. That being said, I'm going to start another new section shortly below, which will have my ideas, as well as a proposal. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In USA the common name is definitely "Sega Genesis". Even in casual conversation it's less common for someone to just say "Genesis" (Why "Sega Genesis", but just "Dreamcast"? I have no idea.) So that's not really a problem. APL (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The console is colloquially referred to as the "Sega Genesis" in part because of the big console war between Sega and Nintendo, in which Sega had saturation-level advertising for its own company name somewhat independent of the console; and in part because many prior consoles more directly incorporated their manufacturer's names into the name of the console (eg. "Atari 2600", "ColecoVision", "Nintendo Entertainment System"). Therefore, it stands to reason that people applied the company name to the console somewhat unconsciously due to factors that were independent of how the console was actually branded and marketed. If that's enough to qualify for WP:COMMON if consensus decides on "Genesis", then that's cool - it was just my understanding that the article's title should reflect the actual name of the console whenever possible, and WP:COMMON applied more to resolving disputes such as "Should we call it 'Nintendo Entertainment System', 'NES' or 'Famicom'?". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yea, you're right. All the previous consoles had the brand-name baked right into the console name, I'd never thought about it like that before. That explains why it seemed a perfectly natural way to describe the console.

Funny how that's changed. Nobody would say "Microsoft X-Box" or "Sony Playstation Three" unless they're reading from an overly formal press release or something. APL (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For most of its run, the first PlayStation was commonly called "Sony PlayStation", mostly because people continued to follow that convention. But that was about the time where that convention started falling out of favor as the market changed and (in particular) younger buyers who didn't have that history with older consoles started becoming a big factor. Today, Nintendo is the only console manufacturer I'm aware of that still tends to put its own name on its consoles (most recent one I'm aware of is "Nintendo DS/DSi", but the 3DS, Wii and Wii U don't continue it). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb here might be to ask if you can break apart the name and have it mean the same thing, like this: "Sega Genesis", vs. "Genesis (by Sega)". At least to me, that works - the two are exactly equivalent. But you can't do that with the NES: "Nintendo Entertainment System", vs. "Entertainment System (by Nintendo)". Since Nintendo's console's official name in fact included the company name, "Sega Genesis" might be equivalent to "Nintendo Nintendo Entertainment System", if you were to strictly apply the same convention to both.

That said, you have a point that if "Sega Genesis" was in fact much more common than "Genesis", it may be the more appropriate name for the article, abiding by WP:COMMON and WP:IAR. Article naming policies are not so rigid and inflexible. :) I do think, though, that it should only apply to "Sega Genesis", not to "Mega Drive" (eg. "Sega Mega Drive"), nor to any derivative articles. The fact that other "Sega Something" articles exist seems more to me an oversight that should be corrected independently of this debate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only was North America the best selling region, it was approximately 50% of all sales, and the large majority of English-language sales.

I don't think that sales figures is the correct way to name an article, but if that's going to be part of the debate, this should not be downplayed. There's no basis to the suggestions the Mega Drive was a more "widespread" name, except in a strictly geographic sense. APL (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no concrete sources that indicate this is the case. As I said above, it's conjecture and original research and thus can't be used as an argument one way or the other. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

BS! There are a number of sources. Many of them linked in this discussion. The fact that they disagree slightly, or are not "official" is not a problem, it is normal. They all show North American sales at between 19-21 million, and global sales between about 35-41. I have no problem saying that's "approximately 50%". APL (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm perfectly happy with the claim that North America was the best-selling region, but trying to claim North American sales of the Genesis outsold the rest of world's sales of the Mega Drive has no basis whatsoever (around 50% is not over 50%). You'll note, I'm not trying to claim the opposite and state that Mega Drive sales outsold Genesis ones, even though by your logic I could (since the Mega Drive also sold around 50% according to those sources). --85.211.130.47

You're either making a strawman to paint me in a dishonest light, or you're not reading what I wrote. I don't appreciate it either way.

I said that Genesis was approx 50% of all sales, and the majority of English-Language sales. Which is true. (In fact, if the first is true then the other must logically be also true.) APL (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)(talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@APL: No, he's not making a strawman, and he's not trying to paint you in a dishonest light. He's debating with you (and he's being quite civil about it), and you appear to be the one going on the offensive. Please tone it down.

And I posit that "majority of English-Language" sales has no bearing on the argument. This article is not centered around English-speaking countries. The part of this argument that is relevant is that the brand name "Genesis" apparently accounted for approximately 50% of worldwide sales. And has been pointed out, there is significant disagreement among even our most reliable of sources on this statistic, since authoritative records were apparently never published. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

He implied that I was conflating "approximately 50%" with "majority" which I wasn't, and then argued against that position. I don't understand why that is not either a strawman or a misunderstanding. APL (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the reason I assumed that was what you were trying to infer was because you what you apparently (to me) took issue with was my arguing against and editing of one of the bulletpoints in the table where what I did was specifically clarify that the North American region sold the most units compared to other regions as opposed to outselling the rest of the world put together (which is how it originally read). If you took issue with me making those changes (which is what I assumed you were doing, but in fairness and hindsight you may not have been) then that's the only conclusion I can come up with. If not, then I don't see what your problem could be, as the current table reflects the facts perfectly accurately. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I read your earlier arguments the same way 85.211 did - it looked as though you were trying to claim that because the Genesis accounted for ~50% of all worldwide sales (which is disputed), and that it also followed logically that the United States market was the single highest-selling one in the world (which is true based on those statistics), that you had a strong basis for claiming the Genesis was the majority seller. It wasn't until you clarified "English-Speaking" territories that your argument became clearer, so I can see how it could be misunderstood. (And then, when you did clarify that, I jumped in and said that portion of the argument wasn't relevant.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well, ok then. Perhaps I was unclear. I simply was amplifying the bullet-pointed list above.

I only meant to point out that saying that NA was the region with the strongest sales was a significant understatement. I didn't intend to imply anything else. APL (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

At the heart of this branch of the dispute was this statement: "Not only was North America the best selling region, it was approximately 50% of all sales, and the large majority of English-language sales." The first part of this statement is mildly disputed, only because clear sales numbers were never published. The second part of this statement is more heavily disputed because of the same lack of reliable data. The third part of the statement is most certainly true (the variance in sales figures does not contradict this particular statement), but has two other problems: One, people on both sides have been misconstruing the "English-speaking region" bit in various ways to mean we're taking a US-centric view, and Two, it's not actually as relevant as most people think. It doesn't really matter what language any other country speaks - if the console was sold there, it figures into the console's geographic distribution.

Ironically, right at the start of this branch, you and 85.211 were actually arguing the same point. It's kinda funny now that I look at it again to see you two arguing with each other over this. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, "English-language sales" are irrelevant as this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, not native English-speaking nations Wikipedia, and we have a user audience from all over the world, including continental Europe, Asia, etc. where English is not the native language, but where the console is known as the Mega Drive. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really, if sales figures are relevant at all (and I still don't think they are) then they're only relevant in establishing a "Common name" which would give priority to English use.

Personally, I think that both names are well established as acceptable "Common names" and all talk of number of sales and number of regions is a pointless diversion. APL (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMON has been brought up so many times it's starting to sound as worn-out as the sales-figures argument. :P The fact is, regardless of number of units sold in any one place, the console is known across the world as the Mega Drive, except for in the United States alone. The fact that many other countries are even aware of the Genesis name has much more to do with the notoriety the console got during Sega's famous advertising war with Nintendo, again in the US. But that doesn't mean "Genesis" is a common name in those countries.

The name "Genesis" was used as a brand in only one English-speaking market: The United States. But there are at least two other major English-speaking markets where the console was sold as the Mega Drive: Parts of Europe, and Australasia. I'm beating this particular dead horse because I've seen quite a few people argue for "Genesis" as though the United States was the only country in the world that speaks English. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

NO, IT WAS NOT ONLY USED IN THE US. Canada used the Genesis name as well, stop trying to act like this is just the US vs the world. It's US and Canada vs UK and Australia and a bunch of non-English speaking countries that shouldn't be relevant to this English language wiki anyway.76.226.131.138

That's exactly where you and a number of other edits are completely wrong. This language Wikipedia is not just for users from countries where English is the native language, it's for all users that speak English (including as a second/third/whatever language), so all the other regions where it was known as Mega Drive, such as Japan, Asia, Brazil, continental Europe, etc. are relevant to the debate. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk) 19:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Across the world" is a deceptive phrase, though.

To apply Reductio ad absurdum for a moment "known across the world" would hold true even if the term was known by just one person in each nation.

Obviously, that real situation is not that lopsided, but geographic distribution of a name does not automatically make it more "common", which is typically understood to mean "commonly used", not common to many landmasses.

However, I want to stress, that I still believe that counting people and nations is pointless. I believe that each name has clearly been demonstrated as qualifying as a "Common name", ENGVAR rules do not require us to go around the world polling people about which word they use, merely that we use a word that is Common in at least one ENGVAR.

If this debate is to move forward, it must move past' trying to prove which is "more common" because the term is open to interpretation enough that reasonable people could disagree forever.

If this were treated as an "EngVar" debate, neither number of users, or number of nations would be considered valid arguments. It's unfortunate that because this is about a brand-name, people feel that reopens those lines of argument. APL (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I should go ahead and make clear my point of view. As this clearly is no longer an issue of just simple resolution and the debate is going to happen anyway, I would have to say I think Mega Drive is the way to go here. It has previously been a stable title and in my opinion as someone who's edited this article off and on for six years, tends to have the slight edge in consensus each time, but only just. Even though there may be more sales in North America, that figure is only marginal at best, and I believe the points for Mega Drive outweigh those for Genesis, that the more globally recognized term is more likely to be recognized on the whole for the entirety of the English Wikipedia's reading base than Genesis is. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the "Reasons to favor each name", the following have no support in WP policy: "Is the original title of the article", "Is used in the North American region, where sources may indicate was the console's best-selling region in the world", "Has specific notability because of the heated console war with Nintendo in the US market", "Was the first name used in reference to the console, upon its initial release in Japan", "Is the name of the majority of different variations of the console, see variations of the Sega Mega Drive" <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal of related articles

This time, may I also suggest that whatever discussion is held here is also held to terms on the related articles as well? I specifically refer to:

• Variations of the Sega Mega Drive
• Sega Mega-CD
• List of Sega Mega Drive games
• List of Sega Mega-CD games
• Anything else related to the Genesis/Mega Drive.

The only set I don't have on here is Sega 32X and List of Sega 32X games, because that's another story all together, where there are four different names for the console (Sega Super 32X in Japan, Sega Genesis 32X in North America, and Sega Mega Drive 32X in Europe, and Sega Mega 32X in Brazil, though I wouldn't object to a move to just 32X and List of 32X games in those cases). The last few times we've had these debates, these articles were left out, and I believe that whatever we decide here, the remainder need to fall in line to maintain consistency. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If we decide here to go with "Genesis" it would be a project to change all those others. A project that would cause much hue and cry. Is an RFC at this article justification to overturn long-held consensus at the other articles?

Perhaps the issue could be decided "Once and for all" (Or at least a year) by a project-wide RFC held at the Video Game wikiproject.

If we're going to go that route we should probably move the debate there sooner rather than later, because it would invalidate any decision made here. APL (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Variations of the Sega Mega Drive can't possibly be changed to "Variations of the Sega Genesis" for patently obvious reasons. The article is international in scope and deals with multiple versions of the console known as the Mega Drive and only one variation known as the Genesis. It would be a huge mess, listing things as the "Mega Drive 2" as a variation of the Genesis, which is obviously false. That didn't stop the same people who had this article changed to Genesis to try and change that article as well, but it was rejected. In order for all the related articles to be consistent, the obvious answer is to rename this article to "Mega Drive", rather than awkwardly trying to rename multiple other articles to suit this one. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The "long-held consensus" there has only been because Mega Drive did last for quite a while, and after Sega Genesis was made the consensus here, there was not really any movement to change the rest. Regardless, this is a project I wouldn't mind undertaking, as the sole really remaining active member at the Sega task force. I was going to be rewriting Sega 32X anyway this week, and I've done such projects before for the betterment of Sega coverage on Wikipedia. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For once I agree with 85.211. "Variations of the Sega Genesis" would be, not wrong exactly, but certainly awkward. If there was to be a project-wide move to "Sega Genesis" we should consider exempting "Variations..." from such a move. APL (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why if you can see the reasoning for that to be the case you can't see the obvious advantage in having this article be called "Mega Drive" as well. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We should make up a new name. "Megasis" would be a cool name for a console. Perhaps with a 'y'. APL (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If only Sega had actually done that, we might have had an easier time writing articles. Then again, Sega might not have sold so many of these. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It would have been a lot simpler if Sega had simply chosen a different name to use internationally that didn't have the copyright issues that Mega Drive did. But now if we use Genesis as the article name, it creates a whole load of grammatical and syntax problems in the article similar to in the variations article that are easily avoided by using the more widely used term (and I don't mean widely used as in sales, people, etc. etc. - I mean "Mega Drive" covers more variations and is more likely to be correct in any given sentence than Genesis would be). For example, if you were to say "The Genesis was released in Japan on..." it's incorrect already, because it was released in Japan as the Mega Drive, so you have to highlight that with parenthesis or further sentences, etc. And that issue just comes up again and again, when you want to mention anything region specific. Whilst if you use Mega Drive as the article name, then you only have to do that in relation to North American issues, which ends up being much less often, and as a result makes the article a lot more readable and higher quality. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't really matter which name you go with - the same issue exists in both cases anyway: The article has to account for the fact that the same physical device is called by more than one name in different parts of the world, so we have to add appropriate verbiage to the parts of the article that have to care about it. (eg. if we call the article "Genesis", then somewhere near the top we'd have a line, "It was originally released in Japan as the Mega Drive", and later "The Mega Drive was released in Japan on (date)". The NES article already deals with this exact issue, appropriately referring to the Famicom when talking about the Japanese market. So frankly, my thought is that any argument based on how much work would be involved to refactor an article because its title changed (a momentum argument, in other words) shouldn't factor into the decision on a name change. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I still think with the multitude of different versions of he console called either the "Mega Drive" or "Mega Drive 2" etc. and only the small number called "Genesis" it requires a lot more added clarifications in the article when you use "Genesis" as the article title. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, part of that belongs more to "Variations on the Mega Drive" (and keep in mind, the US market saw a Genesis 2 and even an independent Genesis 3 as well). At the heart of this particular point though is notability: It is true that there are more reliable, published sources that talk about the Genesis in the US (largely due to the console war with Nintendo) than about the Mega Drive in virtually any other part of the world, including Japan. The Genesis has particular notability in the US specifically because of that console war - in fact, the console war was directly responsible for a significant portion of both Sega's and Nintendo's successes during that era, and the majority of it happened in the US. So I can see a strong argument in that alone to go with "Sega Genesis" - notability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (another one being verifiability, not truth).

Basically, the point is, if a single name is notable enough to warrant being the official name of an article, then the article should be centered around that name, and variations and alternates for that name become parenthetical. Obviously, this debate wouldn't be happening if we all agreed on how much more or less notable "Genesis" is, compared to "Mega Drive", but I think if people keep Notability in mind, it might guide the discussion a little more. (eg. "What makes the console notable? What contributes to its notability? Sales? Marketing? History? News coverage?") — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I do think that notability pushes towards Sega Genesis. Not only was there the heated console war (sometimes still referenced as "the first console war" though it really isn't, and sometimes considered the most notable console war), there was also the Mortal Kombat blow up, the Sega vs. Accolade case, and the congressional hearings about video game violence as well. I don't know if this would be considered notable, but also how the Sega Genesis was undercut by Sega Saturn's early release just because Mega Drive hadn't been as successful - and then greener pastures as Majesco got licensed for the Sega Genesis 3 - this is the only limelight console I know of where a third party tried to revive (successfully no less) a discontinued system, officially licensed, and while there was still direct competition from the main competing console (Super NES).--SexyKick 06:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason you're aware of all the big news stories regarding the console in the US and apparently none of them outwith the US is because.... you're in the US? It's not as if the console didn't attract any significant news coverage in the markets that make up the other ~50% of its global sales. To pick one at random, its popularity in Brazil for over a decade after the rest of the world had moved on is of great significance in one of its important non-US markets. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The Sega versus Nintendo war was an issue in other countries where the console was known as the Mega Drive, not an exclusively North American phenomenon. Same goes for violent games such as Mortal Kombat. I also suspect you're simply not as aware of this due to living in North America. You also mention the Gensis 3, but fail to note there was an independent Mega Drive 3 in Brazil as well. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Brazil's Mega Drive was never discontinued. You missed the point. The Mega Drive dominated in Europe, and only made a splash in Japan. Don't call me out on North American bias, please. Just like I'm not calling you out for your lack of a neutral point of view, canvassing, and bias to the point you pick and choose certain statements in the IGN article and ignore the others, and the fact I didn't type in speedy close when everyone else was should be evidence of that for you. If you want my full view of this subject, go read the entire article.--SexyKick 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of North American bias, and I feel your comments on this issue have been much more measured than those by others, so please don't take what I'm saying as negative criticism. I was only suggesting that your opinion the Mega Drive/Genesis had particular notability in North America is due to a natural response of having lived in North America and recieved all your exposure to the Genesis in that region, whilst not being exposed the relevance it had in other countries. As you said the Mega Drive wasn't discontinued in Brazil which is an example of it's notability in that region, and dominated in Europe - again evidence of it's notability there. I really don't feel that the Genesis was more notable in the US, than the Mega Drive was in Europe or Brazil. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability would mean something significant that generates a lot of discussion. The success of the console in Europe isn't any more notable than its lack of success in Japan. The dead heat, intense dramatic battle, and faking of sales numbers by Nintendo in the United States (a fact even taught in college in context of how market perception can affect sales) on the other hand, is very notable - as pointed out by other editors before I chose to say something. Since the Sega Genesis specifically was involved in a lawsuit, and a congressional hearing, and sparked major controversy with the US developed Mortal Kombat, it is further more notable. That's four to six categories (arguably - two of which I didn't repeat) of notability in respect to the Sega Genesis side. No, competition is not native to North America, that's simply where the fire was - and references reflect this.--SexyKick 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems like reason to have a segment of the article dedicated to those controversies, rather than a reason to change the title to the name of the variant in that specific region, at the cost of the name used in the rest of the world. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're still approaching this as if those stories demonstrate unique coverage in the US. The Mortal Kombat story in particular was a big issue in the UK and across Europe as well. I rather think it's demonstrative of further systematic bias to make a big deal out of controversies which only occurred in the US. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poll: Can discussion about changing title be productive, or is it disruptive?

Just to be clear, please indicate whether you Agree or Disagree with the statement below. Feel free to clarify your answer however you feel may be necessary.

If we have consensus agreement about this statement, then we can deal with any further discussion about changing the title as engaging in behavior that disrupts the encyclopedia.

Any further discussion about changing the title of this article cannot be productive as there is no objective correct answer. Please see the FAQ. Therefore, anyone engaged in discussion about changing the title is disrupting the encyclopedia and should be prepared to face the consequences accordingly.

• Agree --B2C 19:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree Years and years of debate has shown us that the two names are basically equal on merit. Anyone still fighting over this is only concerned with 'winning' and not improving the encyclopedia. --SubSeven (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - per B2C and Subseven. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - with the caveat that in order for us to make progress on this topic, we either need new reliable sources of objective information to back up one side or the other, or a major shift in policy that will definitively answer the as-of-yet unresolved questions. We can "interpret" policy however we want, but the current state of this discussion pretty well reflects the fact that the policies aren't clearly addressing this issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - BTW, the above statement would be useful to put in the finalized FAQ once this closes, with a small suggestion on my part: "The community has agreed that further discussion about ..." - helps reinforce the community's opinion, assuming that statement captures it correctly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - Though potentially one or two good things came out of it this time, one example being the better FAQ.--SexyKick 20:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - with caveats - We can't label all possible future debate on this issue "disruptive" - that won't fly. I agree that further discussion on the presently available factual information is unproductive in terms of forming a consensus. I agree that engaging in prolonged and repetitive discussion of these same points constitutes disruptive editing and should be handled accordingly at the admin level. However, if someone comes along to the Talk: page and presents another argument for changing the title - then:
  1. If they have a new and substantively different fact to add to the title debate that is overwhelmingly likely to produce a consensus -- this is useful and NOT DISRUPTIVE. However, if a reasonable number of people make it clear that they are not convinced by this new fact - then further pushing of it against a clear lack of consensus is definitely disruptive.
  2. If they back off from pushing their POV after being clearly informed of the past history in this matter (eg by telling them to read the FAQ) -- then this is a simple lack of information which is NOT DISRUPTIVE unless it continues after fair warning.
  3. If they wish to point out a policy/guideline change, a new ArbCom decision or a recent ProjectVideoGames ruling that substantively changes the choice of title that has come about since the last time we discussed it -- then this is useful and NOT DISRUPTIVE'.

  SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I second SteveBaker's notes on this. I wasn't sure how I felt about the "disruptive editing" part either, as WP:AGF would have us approach new instances of this discussion as someone having not read the FAQ or otherwise having good intentions. It should only be considered disruptive when the person in question has made it clear they are aware of the standing consensus, has not brought anything new to the table, and intends to keep pushing the matter anyway (which I believe many of us can agree is what happened this time). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In general I agree with you, Steve. But in this particular case, where so many editors have already been discussing the title of an article about a long discontinued product, with a current title that is extremely unlikely to attain another use in reliable sources, I think it's reasonable to conclude that nothing "new and substantively different" enough to persuade consensus to change the title will ever be raised here. It's definitely a matter of opinion, and that's why I'm polling those involved, but agreement here implies agreeing that relevant facts are not going to change or be uncovered to a degree sufficient to change the situation about what this article's title should be.

    Of course, in the extremely unlikely event that all those in agreement here are wrong, and something truly new, different and significant enough to change consensus is raised, it goes without saying that that would be fine.

    In fact, I have no problem with anyone raising any legitimate issue in good faith that is not already covered in the FAQ - but that should lead to an FAQ update to cover it. Of course, that's exactly how and why the FAQ has evolved.

    But re-raising anything already covered in the FAQ is definitely disruptive. --B2C 21:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I Agree with the statement as amended by SteveBaker. APL (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I support Steve's amendments also. Shutting down discussion on naming in a wholesale manner is wrong. One of the key aspects of Wikipedia is that anyone can challenge anything, the original statement as written sails a bit too close to WP:BITE for my liking. Anyone should be able to ask about and challenge the article name - at any time - that is how you test the strength of a consensus. When those enquires/challenges about the name do arrive (and we all know they will) the person making the challenge/enquiry should politely be pointed towards the FAQ, and it should be made clear to them that they need a new fact that has a good potential to strongly challenge* the consensus if their challenge is to be continued. *(I say "good potential to strongly challenge" rather than "overturn", because debates change and develop and people are swayed by points of discussion. Stating that the new fact must be able to overturn consensus before the debate starts could be perceived as stacking the deck.) - X201 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

    Understood, but the original statement watered down by this amendment is essentially no different from how we've been operating here, and the result has been way too much pointless disruptive discussion. How do you suggest addressing that? --B2C 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

    Well, that's the real question. What if someone shows up, reads the FAQ, disagrees with it, then decides it's time for a new RFC? If that person doesn't bring anything substantially new to the table, do us previously involved editors have the right to speedy-close the hypothetical new RFC on the grounds of this consensus we're forming right here? Is there policy to support such closures? APL (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

    Not specifically. But with this poll to reference, especially once it is covered in the FAQ, anyone can point it out to such a person. Then, if the person continues, we have a strong case of disruption. We're not trying to squelch legitimate arguments of course, it's just that we're dubious that anything significant can be brought to the table for consideration that has not already been covered ad nauseum. If something new is raised, that's great. We can address it, and add it to the FAQ. I think all this is consistent with what everyone is expressing in this poll. --B2C 00:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree - I'm not sure this will ever be resolved with a solid consensus. Both names have equal validity, while the compromise names have none. As I've said before, I slightly prefer Mega Drive myself, and that IS coming from an American, but honestly I'll be fine with anything that provides stability, and in this case I'd say the less we argue, the more stability we have. Now, do the related articles fall in line? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't think that the related articles have to follow this article's name in complete lockstep. The oft-referred-to "Variations of the Mega Drive" article is one case where I think it's acceptable to refer to the Mega Drive by name since it demonstrably has a much larger world view than the Genesis/Mega Drive article itself. On the other hand, I think "Sega CD" and "Sega 32X" should follow "Sega Genesis" rather than "Mega Drive", since the peripherals' scopes are basically identical to that of the base console. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Variations and Sega 32X should remain the same. The others can change.--SexyKick 04:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, Variations could use a change... at the very minimum, to "Variations of the Mega Drive". It is right now at Variations of the Sega Mega Drive. I think we've pretty well established by now that in the case of the Mega Drive name, the Sega tag isn't necessary. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree. I was thinking about that as I fell asleep last night, glad to see it was pointed out. ^^ SexyKick 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Question for you: Is there likely to be any controversy over that name change? I kinda doubt it, but want to be sure I'm not going to ruffle more feathers before I go ahead and do it (assuming someone hasn't already beaten me to it). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
            • I highly doubt any controversy will result from that name change.--SexyKick 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Alrighty, I went ahead and just moved it, updated the redirects and references, and updated a fair-use rationale on one of the images there. Since I figure people are more likely to object to a similar change in Sega Mega-CD, I started a new discussion on Talk:Sega Mega-CD there, stressing that the proposal to move to "Sega CD" is purely to maintain consistency with the "parent" article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
                • How have we come to a point where consistency is reason enough to change Sega Mega-CD but not reason enough to change this article? <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 06:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • "Mega-CD/Sega CD": Being consistent with the "parent" article (this one). This article itself: What are we being consistent with, aside from community consensus? (I'm avoiding addressing consistency with policy at this point because you and I already disagree on whether the current name is consistent with policy, and it's clear from past discussion that we're not likely to agree on that, so I'd rather just not go down that road again.)

                  Incidentally, if you want to be involved in that discussion, please contribute to it at Talk:Sega Mega-CD instead of here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

                  • • "This article itself: What are we being consistent with, aside from community consensus?" - Well, aside from the factor of the name of the manufacturer not being included (see Dreamcast, Playstation, Xbox etc) unless it's part of the name (Sega Master System, SNES etc) or is used to avoid messy disambig (Sega Saturn), the most obvious would be Variations of the Mega Drive. Primary concern should surely be for consistency between this article and the variations one, you obviously can't name the other one Variations of the Genesis, and it makes no logical sense for the parent article to be named for one of the variations. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • More than half of Variations of the Mega Drive covers third-party models based on or incorporating Mega Drive hardware, something that (to my knowledge) was never officially done in North America. As such, it covers a much broader range of topics that have their own notability outside of North America, and it's appropriate to name it after Mega Drive in that case. It has a broader scope, and the topics that make the Genesis notable in North America don't have a place there. I think there's very little disagreement that it should remain at its current title, and that its title has a specific reason for not being named after the parent. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • Oh I completely agree. I just don't see how it's possible to reconcile the two without them using the same name. It's simply nonsensical for that article to be called "variations of thing" and this to be called "one of the variations of thing" instead of "thing". <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 13:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • I guess we're just going to have to disagree on that. I totally understand your point, and I'm not saying it's invalid, but from all the walls of text here, it's clear that there isn't a strong enough consensus either direction, and there isn't likely to be. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed Just let it end already, and don't start it up yet again for endless walls of text no one is going to read, where the same exact things get repeated time and time again. Dream Focus 10:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed As someone who (on an entirely personal level) slightly prefers Mega Drive as a title, I'd much rather stick with Genesis if it means reclaiming the talk page. This issue has dominated all discussions here for far, far too long, and the amount of effort being used by all parties to either change or maintain the situation could be far, far better expended on other matters. Aawood (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree People can always come along with new evidence which may change opinion. Additionally, pre-judging people is not how WP works. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 06:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I agree with you on this - but perhaps you can agree with the similar caveats that I did (several other people have added an agree !vote on that basis). SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  By the time you include enough caveats to make the statement reasonable, all you have is a reiteration of policy. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 06:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed that further discussion cannot be productive, but there is definitely a better answer based on policy. That's why the name is what it is, and the FAQ clearly explains it.LedRush (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment see my comment below. Also, I think this poll is in itself disruptive. The consensus process is open ended and depends on an assumption of good faith. A blanket prohibition is dangerous - rather than treating this on a case by case basis. This seems to me like wikilawyering it too much. Futhermore, with an open RFC, I think it also skipped process, which is also disruptive. Its incredible that a poll intended to wholesale declare any editor who tries to change consensus as disruptive is in itself done in a disruptive fashion.--Cerejota (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree - As per the points I made above. - X201 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly agree not only is it disruptive, but I firmly believe for the most part it's not done in good faith, trying to get the page at the proper title (if such a thing even exists, which it appears not to) but rather to get it at their preferred title that they grew up calling the thing. This goes for both sides, if the page was currently at Mega Drive, the Genesis people would be being just as disruptive and potentially in bad faith as the Mega Drive people are with the page at Genesis. Basically, there's never going to be an answer that doesn't majorly torque someone off, so to continue discussing is beyond pointless.76.226.123.160 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The whole point of discussion is to inform one another and build a consensus. This proposal seeks to shut it down. If the next discussion about the article name brings everyone out of their trenches to unite behind one of the existing names, or to open up to a compromise name, then the discussion will have been far from pointless. - X201 (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • These arguments have been going for over a month now (and are still on going.) Look back to where the discussions started up, about a month ago now. All sorts of long winded rants, people losing their cool, etc etc. And it closed as "No Consensus". It boggles my mind that this could have been perceived as "constructive", and not "a massive waste of time". Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That's pretty much irrelevant. The poll talks of deeming all future discussion a massive waste of time, not the discussion which just happened. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not true. The poll, and the FAQ, assert that future discussion in the absence of any new information would be disruptive and a waste of time. HOWEVER: Should some new reliably-sourced info, a new policy change, or an ArbCom decision, come along that would change the course of discussion, then future discussion would be welcome. I'm not sure how much clearer we can make this, really. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Er, you're missing the point. I see no reason why it would ever go any differently in the future either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not what the original statement says. Granted, the discussion has lead to a revision to what you describe, but at that point all you have is a statement of policy already in evidence. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 05:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Fair point, but sometimes restatements of standing policy are useful in directing people's attention. I was kinda hoping that you would take into account the fact that the majority of editors in this particular fork of the discussion have agreed that the original statement would be modified to include the "new information" bit. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree I do however find the North American bias highly disruptive94.172.127.37 (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, we all know how willing you are to accuse people of being biased. Got anything to actually back that up? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The articles title alone is evidence enough of yank bias94.172.127.37 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Honestly, the title was unchanged for 5 years. Most people will argue both titles are equally valid, yet the title changed. How does that not scream bias to you? The only question is whether the bias is local or systemic. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Google

Not really anything that can be done about it, but a side effect of this article's name is that the number 1 Google search result for Mega Drive is now Sega Genesis. Just an interesting and sad observation. 188.39.82.139 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(Moved this comment down to the bottom rather than the top since it was new.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Its terribly sad when one correct name is used over another correct name? Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think his point is it's terribly sad when once correct name gets replaced with another. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

See, I thought it showed how fruitless all these arguments truly are; regardless of the article's title, when your average person goes and uses a search engine, its pretty clear that they're the same thing, which is the ultimately thing we need to express. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the English language has a rich set of synonyms for almost anything you can say. The beauty of the web is that you can have many-to-one mappings at almost zero cost - which makes handling synonyms very easy. People who think that the world should be synonym-free are going to have a hard time of things! SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the neutral name option, which everyone (WP policies and guidelines included) is against for various reasons. - X201 (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a neutral name would be a good way to end the unending debate - but as you say...WP policies and guidelines are quite clear that this isn't acceptable. SteveBaker (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR makes it quite clear that it could be acceptable. But we'd have to open up a whole new discussion over it and there'd probably still be enough holdouts for us to not reach consensus so... yeah I don't think it's worth it personally :P <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral names have drawn a lot of fire in the past, even if WP:IAR were applied. While the concept of equal weight to each name is a nice one, the combined name in itself is less desirable not just by policy, but by consensus past and present, too. In fact, I would reason to say if an RFC or move proposal were opened to move it back to a combined name, there would actually be consensus against that idea. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Combined name is not the only option. - X201 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What are the names you're thinking of? Aside from "Sega fourth-generation video game console" or something along those lines, I'm not sure how you could reasonably get away from "Mega Drive", "Genesis" or some combination of the two. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of any name in particular, I just want to use the talk page energy for putting the article at a name that will end the disputes. If the same amount of effort had been put into that, that has been put into Name vs Other Name, I think we'd have got somewhere a long time ago. - X201 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Things

Ay up. I've been resisting the temptation of posting in this... well... frankly wacky discussion about this console for a while, but the sheer number of factural errors and dubious claims (not just in this article, but in that FAQ above and throughout the many, many talk pages) has convinced me to put out my view. I'm a frequent editor of the lovely Sega Retro wiki and so have obsessed over Sega-related stuff for few years now.

First, FAQ point 8

"Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets"

You don't really know that, because with staggered release dates it's very difficult to judge the modern situation. We know, for example, that this console was released as the Mega Drive in India in the mid-90s (of which English is an officially recognised language) - how popular the console was is unknown, but there's the potential for hundreds of millions of English-spreaking people exposed to the name "Mega Drive". There's also modern issues - have more Americans been exposed to "Mega Drive" in the last few years than Europeans to "Genesis"? I don't know if anyone could make that call... so it's surprising somebody has.

"The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world."

You don't know that either. More North American promotional material has survived over the course of twenty years, but I know for a fact there was extensive coverage of this system in the UK and there's a very real chance of this happening elsewhere. Also some of this older coverage between late 1988 and mid-1989 would have been covering the "Mega Drive" because the localised name wouldn't have been formed then. There were significantly more UK magazines covering the Mega Drive than in the US at the time. Circulation and reach might be a factor (though isn't that covered in the above?) but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more physical journalists whose job it was to cover the Mega Drive than those who covered the Genesis.

There's lots of awkward factors to all of this. Scanners cost less in the US, thus more scanning of documents happens. Video recorders and VHS cassettes cost less in the US, so more adverts have survived. But it doesn't mean people weren't exposed to the happenings of the console - Nintendo didn't compete very hard in a lot of these markets - there will be situations where the Mega Drive was recognised as the only video game console available to the public.

Secondly, the "stop discussing this name" thing - come on guys. Surely people should be able to come to this page and fight for change at any point in time - and you shouldn't really be worried about that. I don't think there's anything wrong about millions of polls - I guess if you tire of it... don't take part or something, idk. It might be wasteful and pointless, but a million times more friendly than just throwing discussions away and telling people to be quiet.

Personally I think the amount of requests to move it back to "Sega Mega Drive" probably suggestst that poll to move it to Genesis didn't last long enough or wasn't publicised properly. I don't think it really works if these sorts of pretty obvious changes are decided in a back-room somewhere. You need this stuff up in lights!

Alternatively, an update to the MediaWiki software which lets users switch between different forms of English, and thus different titles. Surely you could create something that automatically substitutes "color" for "colour" and vice versa - seems like the more ideal solution and not outside the realms of possibility... and you wouldn't need an entirely new language variant of Wikipedia either.

Thirdly there are general naming errors which mainly come from people not really reading things. There is officially no such thing as a "Genesis 2" - in North American markets it was always called "Sega Genesis" or "Genesis" and the name wasn't changed for the redesigned model. There's a "Genesis 3" which only aims to confuse, but no "Genesis 2". Any European/Australian models would be known as "Mega Drive II", not "Mega Drive 2".

Likewise there's no such thing as a "Sega Firecore" - "Firecore" is the name of the operating system, and the unit was manufactured by AtGames, not Sega (and distributed under tons of titles). And you must be more careful when discussing "PAL Mega Drives" - there are Asian PAL models which look very different to their European counterparts. And the PAL release date is totally wrong - you didn't have the modern "European release date" in 1990, you just had a "release period", where things would be available whenever retailers got the stock. Also it differed between countries - France got their Mega Drives after the UK for example -Black Squirrel 2 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First, RSs favor the name Genesis by a wide margin. This argues strongly against your first points. Also, as an aside, it is false to say the Mega Drive is the known name anywhere but NA. The machine didn't launch everywhere, and there is good evidence that the name Genesis was popularly used by RSs in places like India, despite the official launch of the name being Mega Drive.

Second, I think the point is that if you don't have new evidence or if there hasn't been a policy change, the discussions are more likely to be disruptive than useful.

Third, good to know. If you have the RSs to back this up, we should make the changes.LedRush (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"First, RSs favor the name Genesis by a wide margin." - Nobody has ever provided reasonable evidence of this, yet it gets repeated ad nauseum. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess you weren't here the first time when this was conclusively proven. The only arguments against the empirical evidence were (1) the internet is biased; and (2) there's a ton of RSs that aren't on the internet and these overwhelmingly favor the Mega Drive. 1 is a stupid argument that doesn't deserve discussion, and no evidence has ever been found to support 2.LedRush (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A Google Books search of "Sega Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive" is not 'conclusive proof' for several reasons. First, it ignores the possible variations. Second, the number of results returned by Google is an estimate. Third, even flawed as they were, the results did not show a 'wide margin' as you said. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No one said google books alone is conclusive proof, but your deliberate misinformation on the results demonstrates that you don't even want to discuss this honestly. See archives 13 and 14 if you actually care to know the facts.LedRush (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the only evidence presented, it just strikes me as the closest thing to proof. What else has more weight, eBay? That's just sales again not RSs. Your own argument on straight Google hits? That was disproved, despite your refusal to believe it. At the end of the day, the fact that you prefer attacking me to supporting your case says it all. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, both of you. You've already seen that we have a consensus that this kind of debate is no longer productive and is therefore disruptive. Please knock it off. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If people are going to use falsehoods to counter somebody's argument, I'm going to point it out, regardless of what the topic of conversation is. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As consensus was reached on this point, and no counter evidence was provided other than the two arguments I've referenced above, I'd love to see any evidence that the consensus was "disproved".LedRush (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it more directly, Karl: You are violating WP:AGF and are continuing to argue a point that the community has already said is not adding anything new to the conversation. We don't have a strong consensus for either title, but we do have a strong consensus that continuing to argue about it with no new info is disruptive. Do we need to refer this to an admin board? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry what? How am I the one violating AGF? He's the one who attacked me. Additionally, I stand by my point. You can't shut down somebody else's argument with a falsehood and then when somebody points out the falsehood hide behind "we shouldn't be talking about this anyway". <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 07:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you hope to gain by fighting with these people right now? (also an aside, as I did a search for the word falsehood to find the correct place to leave my comment, I think the results were pretty interesting)--SexyKick 09:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fact-based discourse, the most important thing imo. Not sure what you're getting at with the search thing, if you object to the word I mean it as in something that is wrong but not a deliberate lie. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any other way to interpret your repeated assertions that people are using "falsehoods" to assert and enforce consensus as anything but bad faith. It's getting tiresome. You can see that virtually everyone who's left more than one comment in this dispute has agreed that we're not going to get anywhere without new data, yet you seem hell-bent on continuing the discussion, and continuing to claim that the entire discussion should be considered invalid because of these "falsehoods". — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well now you're just strawmanning me. I have not made repeated assertions, I have said that this one statement is a falsehood. I'd also like to mention I have no interest in continuing the title debate as you assert, I've long since given it up as a lost cause. What I haven't given up on is other editors' rights to present evidence without being shouted down by the local populace just because they're tired of talking about it. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not just telling people to shut up because we're tired of hearing about it. SteveBaker told Black Squirrel very politely (despite your assertion of incivility) about the consensus we all had just reached, that we don't have a strong consensus either way about a title, that we weren't likely to make any progress either direction without new information, and that we would consider continued arguing about it disruptive when no new information is presented. Well-reasoned as his points were, Black Squirrel's argument did not bring anything new to the table - especially given how fresh the recent debate was.

What I'm accusing you of is taking every opportunity you can to keep this debate going, whether you're directly arguing your own points or accusing other editors of embracing "falsehoods" to get their way. Since I can't read what's going on in your mind, all I can figure is that you're being intentionally stubborn, and given the context, I doubt you would be anywhere near as stubborn about this had the article's title been changed.

And need I point out that if the title actually were "Mega Drive", there would probably STILL be people arguing about it? We'd still be trying to bring this dispute to a close, we would still very likely have come to the same conclusion that further debates without new info would be disruptive. Where would the falsehoods be then? Do you get the point now? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Your comments are not adding anything new to the debate - all of your points have already been expressed, debated, countered, clearly, coherently, multiple times.
2. We have overwhelming consensus that without the emergence of dramatic, new, verifiable, information on the naming controversy (which we all agree is highly unlikely at this point), no new consensus will ever be formed.
3. We have overwhelming consensus that continuing to beat this dead horse is disrupting the general work of maintaining and improving this page.
4. Disruptive editing is a serious matter that gets people blocked and banned here at Wikipedia.

Probably, you were unaware of all of these things - so we give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you don't want to be labelled "disruptive" and now that you know the current consensus, you'd be well advised to let the matter drop. You say:

"Secondly, the "stop discussing this name" thing - come on guys. Surely people should be able to come to this page and fight for change at any point in time - and you shouldn't really be worried about that. I don't think there's anything wrong about millions of polls - I guess if you tire of it... don't take part or something, idk. It might be wasteful and pointless, but a million times more friendly than just throwing discussions away and telling people to be quiet."

The reason we're not going to let this pointless behavior continue is that it is disruptive. When a new debate is opened, everyone has to jump in and dump the same set of tired old arguments into the thread. This causes hundreds of posts to this talk page - with absolutely zero possibility of forming a consensus to change the title. It's incredibly wasteful of everyone's time - so it is disruptive - incredibly disruptive. Pretty much everyone now agrees on that point. Telling people to "not take part" won't work because if the majority of the people here simply ignore the new debates that flare up then that just opens the door for a tiny minority to repeatedly overturn the name choice. That's what makes this so disruptive. The majority have to get into every stupid little discussion just to avoid this rapid ping-ponging of names.

So - make no mistake. There is near unanimous agreement that we consider continued re-opening of this point without substantively new arguments as WP:DISRUPT - and now that you've been told about that, further pushing of this will result in you facing disruptive editing charges. So just drop it - it's very, very over.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing is a serious matter that gets people blocked and banned here at Wikipedia." Do you think this doesn't apply to you? Perhaps you should read WP:CIV <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, do tell us what was uncivil about SteveBaker's response. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? I thought it would be obvious. It's the failure to assume good faith, the out of hand dismissal of everything Black Squirrel said as "not adding anything new" when in fact some of it is new, the threat of punishing somebody for getting involved in the discussion when as far as I can see he's never been involved before. As an aside I find his stance quite contradictory given he was the first to argue for moderation at Talk:Sega_Genesis#Poll:_Can_discussion_about_changing_title_be_productive.2C_or_is_it_disruptive.3F. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was most certainly assuming good faith. I did not accuse the OP of disruptive editing - only that pushing it further would be disruptive. I did actually say "Probably, you were unaware of all of these things - so we give you the benefit of the doubt." - which explicitly assuming good faith by assuming that the poster was unaware that the near-unanimous consensus is that this is disruptive.

The "contradictory" post to the poll on this matter entailed me stating four situations in which I would not regard further discussion as disruptive. To quote my own words from that statement:

1. If they have a new and substantively different fact to add to the title debate that is overwhelmingly likely to produce a consensus -- this is useful and NOT DISRUPTIVE. However, if a reasonable number of people make it clear that they are not convinced by this new fact - then further pushing of it against a clear lack of consensus is definitely disruptive.
2. If they back off from pushing their POV after being clearly informed of the past history in this matter (eg by telling them to read the FAQ) -- then this is a simple lack of information which is NOT DISRUPTIVE unless it continues after fair warning.
3. If they wish to point out a policy/guideline change, a new ArbCom decision or a recent ProjectVideoGames ruling that substantively changes the choice of title that has come about since the last time we discussed it -- then this is useful and NOT DISRUPTIVE'.

In this case, we were in the realms of (1). I do not believe that there is a single "new and substantively different fact" in Black Squirrel's post. I very much doubt that anyone here, on either side of the debate, would agree that their minds have been changed by what was written there. I also very much doubt that anyone here thinks that what Black Squirrel said will change anyone else's mind either. Hence, this is yet another pointless discussion-starter - which we agree (by strong consensus) to be disruptive. I moved to make this clear to Black Squirrel - and warned that pushing it further is "definitely disruptive". That is in no way a contradiction with what I said before...to the contrary: I stated my position, most people seemed to agree with me - and now I'm acting on that. Having issued a clear warning per (1), we're now at (2) - where I'd expect Black Squirrel to understand that these arguments are considered to be disruptive and that (s)he should now back off and drop the argument. I recommend that you do the same.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Point 8 in the FAQ, quoted in Black Squirrel's original post, is a collection of common arguments, not statements of fact. In other words, the "naturalness" argument about the Genesis has been frequently argued, whether or not the argument is actually a true statement. That portion of the FAQ is intended to inform people as to what arguments have been made on both sides of the debate so that, hopefully, people will stop repeating them ad nauseum. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thirdly there are general naming errors which mainly come from people not really reading things. There is officially no such thing as a "Genesis 2" - in North American markets it was always called "Sega Genesis" or "Genesis" and the name wasn't changed for the redesigned model. There's a "Genesis 3" which only aims to confuse, but no "Genesis 2". Any European/Australian models would be known as "Mega Drive II", not "Mega Drive 2".

^ That's incorrect, actually. Sources I used for Sega v. Accolade have shown that the second model of the Genesis was referred to as the "Genesis III" (and yes, that's three, not two, and I double-checked all of my sources to verify their accuracy). Printed on the Japanese Mega Drive picture we have is "Mega Drive 2", and the European one has "Mega Drive II" on it. Sega's naming consistency gets even more bizarre when you start reaching out to the Sega 32X, where there are four different names for the console depending on region (Japan, North America, Europe, and Brazil), and the project started as "Project Jupiter" and was going to be a "Genesis 2" as an all new console before being converted into an add-on, which also then became "Project Mars" instead... anybody following me? Here's the main idea: Sega's naming consistency just doesn't exist, but the names are out there and available. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Second model of the Genesis

All right, so there's been some confusion on the second model of the Genesis and what it's called. The Mega Drives each have numbers printed on them (Japan has "2", Europe has "II"). If you take a look at the sources for this article, there's evidence to suggest the second model of the Genesis in North America was called the "Genesis III", not to be confused with the "Genesis 3". Might this be what we want to refer to it as in the article? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've personally never seen a "Genesis III". The smaller, square-shaped unit that was 95% compatible with the first version was always still called the "Genesis" wherever I saw it. (The 95% compatible bit stems from the memory controller fix that broke a few games that had been exploiting the bugs in the first version.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's explicitly labeled as such, but it's fairly apparent from the court case that the redesigned Genesis was referred to as the "Genesis III" in at least some standard, by Sega. This is the official opinion given by the Ninth Circuit in Sega v. Accolade, and if you read the background, the court refers to the most recent version of the Genesis console as the "Genesis III", and it's worth noting that the court opinion was written in 1992. I'm not saying it's an absolute, but it's something to be considered if we're looking for a term specifically for the Genesis' second model, which also incorporated the famed Trademark Security System (TMSS). Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Variations of the Mega Drive

I'm officially proposing we merge the Variations article into this one. It's about time we did this, for the following reasons:

• The Variations article is largely unsourced and unreferenced.
• No independent notability has been established for the multiple versions that has not been covered by this article.
• Much of the information in the Variations article is, at best, trivial. I doubt it's very encyclopedic to note that there's a new shape to every console that one couldn't already discern from the pictures in the main article.
• Currently, the Variations section in the main article is quite short. A paragraph for each main model change (original, Mega Drive 2 (JP)/Mega Drive II (PAL)/Genesis III(NA), Genesis 3, Firecore, etc., there's really not a lot) I think would do the job in prose rather than a bulleted list, and I can find sources for each unit. See Sega CD#Models for an idea of how I would tackle this, as I did there.
• Recent knock-offs are likely not notable enough for entry here, anyway; those that are could go here in Variations or even with Emulation into a new combined section, "Emulation and reproductions"
• Would eliminate a lot of WP:OR that is in the Variations article.

About the only real problem I can see is that there would be a lot of complaints from the heavily-Mega Drive people that this is their last grip on the name Mega Drive as an article name, and I'm going to suggest that List of Sega Mega Drive games be moved for the same reason "Sega Mega-CD" is now at Sega CD. Thoughts? I think this article can be strengthened by the move, another poor one that won't get any better will be eliminated, and I'd be willing to make it happen with consensus. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As you say, consolidating it into a subsection of this article would be a great way to trim out all of the WP:OR or trivial unsourced bits. Great idea. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. If you've seen Sega CD, Sega 32X, and Sega v. Accolade lately, you'll know I'm on a mission to get all this cleaned up. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I have looked over them some. You've done very good work on them. I've thought at times it would be interesting to revamp some of these sorts of articles, but I always find that its too hard to find proper sources when the topic is largely rooted in the 1990s. So, good job on that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a valid content fork. There is no reason to merge all of that into this article. Its fine on its own. You'll probably just end up erasing 90% of it anyway. The game list article is 186,250 bytes. Surely you can't think you are going to merge that anywhere. No valid reason to merge either of these valid content forks. Dream Focus 20:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Per my reasons listed above, I would argue I do have a valid reason because of violations of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA in the Variations article, which means it's not fine on its own because it's full of policy violations. While I do agree that it could be a valid content fork, that is not what I am contesting. I'm contesting that merging the content and getting rid of the trivia will improve the situation on the whole; a poor article without notability gets zapped and a developing main article gains more content in a section that it is sorely lacking. And yes, I would probably erase about 90% of it, but the 10% I keep would be what is notable, further benefitting the main article. You're still free to oppose, and I'm willing to accept that, but I just wanted you to know why I disagree with the content fork validity. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There is a lot that needs to go from that article though. Seriously, almost all of the various bullet points should go. So many of are pointless factoids like :"AV INTELLIGENT TERMINAL HIGH GRADE MULTIPURPOSE USE" printed around circle on some models, omitted on others." or detailing the "color of the reset button" on every model. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Support Oppose w/ Alternative: On the one hand, I totally agree that as you're cleaning up the Variations article, less and less of it seems noteworthy enough to keep there. On the other hand, people have made valid points that, if you exclude the Sega first-party console releases (Genesis models 1 and 2, Genesis 3, Mega Drive equivalents of each), the vast majority of all the variations occurred in Mega Drive territories. It seems that combining them all here could cause a bit of pollution and confusion about WP:WEIGHT, especially given the article's current title. As an alternative, is there any reason we can't change Variations into a "List of" article? Just naming the variations that aren't notable enough on their own to warrant full articles or sections should work as a good compromise, methinks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support compromise: I support Kiefer's list idea. That should eliminate the original research, and keep the valid fork as it's a bit much, it would be a huge section in the main article.--SexyKick 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's what is necessary to get this rectified, I will accept the list conversion and probably ramp it up to FLC at some point. However, I still disagree that this couldn't be simply merged over. I see it only taking a couple of paragraphs, as there's no need to get in-depth with the trivial factoids of every slight change between variations. It kind of sickens me that the article title is getting thrown in as a reason against this; we should be focusing on the content of the article instead of the constant tickytack issues of the name, and I don't think each variation really warrants more than one or two sentences about it in the main article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not that I have any intention of stirring up the coals on that dispute again - it's more a matter of general weight: How notable are those variations? Do they put undue weight on one side or the other? Personally, I think the first-party variations (Model 2, etc.) do belong in this article, but if we wanted to specifically mention any significant number of the third-party variations, they'd end up taking more room and drawing more attention than just a couple of paragraphs - they'd look more like a list, and at that point we might as well have a separate list. (If we decided to pare it down to just one or two examples, then I imagine there'd be a fair amount of research, discussion and probably arguing about which of those are the representative sample.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I think the last part is where we disagree. I honestly don't believe the third-party variations warrant more than a couple of sentences about each of them, essentially noting their existence, something unique about them, etc. Those that are that complex and offer more than simple Genesis/Sega CD compatibility do already possess their own articles (see Sega Nomad, Pioneer LaserActive, Amstrad Mega PC). In the cases of each of those, the articles already do exist that can go into depth about such units. An example of how I see each mention would be similar to the first paragraph of the section for the Mega Drive Handheld: two short and sweet sentences that describe a little about the variation and hit the most important points. As I read over all of the paragraphs, hardly any of them really require much more than that, and such a list made from that would be a pretty short list, in my opinion. To me, although I know a list can be more than 5 items to be okay, it seems to be too short to me and the amount of actual necessary and notable content too short to warrant that. I guess that's just the way I see it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
          • There are some new licensed variations not added to the article yet that came out in 2012. AtGames just keeps pumping new stuff out. I've just been so -_- when it comes to adding more sourced information lately.--SexyKick 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support compromise <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Stop being retarded yanks62.252.234.77 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice violation of WP:NPA. I don't think stereotyping is the proper way to get what you want. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Genesis 6-Pak

Genesis 6-Pak doesn't appear to have any independent notability from a search engine test, though it could be worth a tiny mention in the Genesis article (as a console pack-in), if appropriate. czar · · 21:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just delete it, personally. I'd recommend PRODding it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge: Yep, no notability on its own. The individual titles contained in it have their own notability, but this thing's only claim to fame was that it was the pack-in for Genesis Model 2. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Multicart#Sega Mega Drive/Genesis. It's a multicart that has no notability on its own. --107.206.152.174 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)