Talk:Sega Genesis

Article improvements?

Now that the naming situation is hopefully put to rest, what can be done to improve the article's ratings? It's categorized as a C-class article quality-wise, while it was delisted as a Good Article in July of 2010. What can be done to improve the article, possibly increasing the rating and maybe even renominate it as a Good Article? Wolftengu (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to create a list of areas that need improvement. Marketing is a biggie in my opinion. In Europe, Sega effectively broke the mould when it came to advertising; with the whole CyberRazor Cut/Pirate TV advertising concept. It was a foundation that Sony built upon when they launched PlayStation, and targeted it at 18- 29 year olds as a cool device rather than a console for kids. Obviously I've seen some of the North American marketing, but seeing it twenty years later via a grainy YouTube clip doesn't help get across the context - vice versa for NA users seeing EU footage, and they may not understand my zeal for it. I'll try and get all the info together, and hopefully write something up if I can squeeze it in in-between work/Uni. - X201 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how to move the article forward either...but I can say that seeing the Sega Pirate Sega CD commercial was actually very invigorating...I can really see why that would be an advertisement that broke the mold. Not to mention Peter Wingfield is probably my favorite British actor...and finding out about him being in Mega Drive commercials was very moving. I never saw these growing up, as I'm in North America...I saw Gotta Get Genesis, and Genesis Does of course, but for me, seeing Peter Wingfield and the Sega Pirate was nearly just as good as when I saw Genesis Does as a kid. IMHO it didn't get across the fact that "you can't do this on Nintendo" but some kind of context still came over for me. Getting a peer review or GA review is a probably a good next step.--SexyKick 23:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Some areas I see:

• 32-bit era - a number of small paragraphs intersperced with larger ones. That breaks the flow compared to the other sections.
• Emulation - a number of small paragraphs that could be condensed.
• Technical specificiations - a number of 1- or 2-paragraph sections that could be combined. Master system compatability also suffers from the same issues as 32-bit era.
• The table in variations imo would be better going up-and-down rather than left-to-right as it takes up 80% of the screen on my monitor.
• Legacy and revivial - those subsections should be combined and the short statements merged into 1-2 pragraphs.
• There are a number of items missing citation including stuff that looks like original research. This is mostly in the 32-bit era.
• The lead mentions that games continue to be produced, but nothing about later consoles. I'd go through and make certain every major section has at least something mentioned in the lead.∞陣内Jinnai 03:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll work on the citations. Can you write whatever needs to be written for the lead? Perhaps X201 could figure the best way to combine the emulation/32-bit sentences, and Tech Spec sections.--SexyKick 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've done what I can do for today. I can't find sources for the PBC stuff. So that should just leave the emulation sentence grouping, citations for the PBC section, and possibly grouping some of the tech spec sections??--SexyKick 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources need to be checked. I noticed a link to romhacking.net as a source in the lead and some of the sources noting 3rd-party console remakes are a bit dated.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually checked them first. Blaze Mega Drive is still on sale, Firecore/Gencore/Retrogen/Gen-mobile are still on sale...Mitashi is still selling its knock off, and of course TecToy still makes the Mega Drive 4/Guitar Idol. In fact, I think I should change the wording. So that's good. Don't know what romhacking.net is either, what tells us that it's not reliable?--SexyKick 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back in the article history it seems Anomie was okay with the reliability of that source (he's a stickler for that stuff) and edited it here.--SexyKick 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not reliablity in their case. It is what they link to it may be cause for copyright violations because they distribute ips patches. While we could link to an archived page of such presumably legally (such as through wayback machine), we shouldn't link to a fresh page.∞陣内Jinnai 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll change it to a wayback link.--SexyKick 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more on sources (since that's one of the most important aspects for GA)

• Linking to publishers: (we don't link to pubslihers directly. If it doesn't have an article it shouldn't be linked, especially when the previous link also links o the site.)
• Publishers need to be moved from work to publisher. This is standard practice across wikipedia that for some reason only this project doesn't seem to follow.
• Unlink the direct (non-archived) link to romhacking.net. Just use the archieved link for copyvio reasons.
  • Ditto for Zophar's Domain and any other source that could hold fan translations or other ips patches. If they just hold emulators, then that's fine.
• For now, I'll assume the book publishers are experts and the books not published by a vanity press without already being an expert.
  • There are a ton of sources here that will raise red flags based on being blog-like. I would try to find better sources in general or remove them if they aren't essential (ie another source says the same thing for that statement).
• Specific ones I'm wondering about reliability:
  • 55 - also doesn't appear to be by "Discount Store News"
  • 80 - specifically "the first" needs a secondary source as that's a controversial claim.
    • Other ones where the emulation site itself is the source claiming something like that should also use secondary sources. I didn't do a thorough check, but that one just stood out.
• Try to a better source for:
  • 43 - The youtube one will be a red flag so if we can find a better source...
  • 110 - ditto
• Other
  • 103 - remove the part about staff. Staff is assumed if no one is specifically listed. It is also inconsistent with other sources, such as 104 which don't not that it was the manual's staff.
  • Gaming Target listed twice.∞陣内Jinnai 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source 55 should be fine since I got it from the SNES article, it seems to be by Discount Store News when I go to the article. Not sure when I'll get to do this stuff since it's going to be a few hours of work. I hope I can find alternate sources than YouTube videos...there's more than those two videos used as sources too. Like GameTap and Controversy...--SexyKick 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

People seeing youtube will automatically raise alarm bells. That's why I say if you can find an alternative, it would be better. If not, then that's fine.∞陣内Jinnai 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to make the article GA would simply be to revert it back to its state in 2010, thereby removing all of the damage that's been done to it since then. Quite frankly the article in its present state is a mess, its so bad that I really don't see how anyone could even begin to fix it, and honestly I don't see anyone caring enough to try anymore. I ask you, are people expected to care about arguing the same case over and over for eternity here? There is never any conclusion on this talk page, its all meaningless, for instance the article name of "Mega Drive" has already been concluded multiple times, and yet every year it comes back up again and we're back to square one, nobody is going to keep arguing the same case over and over with no true conclusion, most (myself included) lost interest in repeating themselves a long time ago.

The article is bloated, confused, full of undue weight, and completely lacking in focus, revert it back to the last time it was GA, update the sales information in as clear, concise, and non commital a manner as possible, and then call it a day IMO Jesus.arnold (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more

• File:JP MegaDrive Logo.gif - rationale needs improvement.
• File:MD Sonic the Hedgehog.png - rationale needs to be improved for this article. "Typical gameplay" is pretty weak, especially since its not typical of the console as a whole (just Sonic games).
  • Related to that, the caption should give a better reason for being there that relates somehow to the text (preferably by it, but at least somewhere).
• File:SegaMegaDrive AudioComparision.ogg - will need to be updated and probably use a template (even if its not required, it seems its wanted now to make things clear).
• File:VirtuaRacing.PNG - is in bad shape.
  • Caption is just as bad.
• Finally, if I were reviewing this, I'd say all but the logo could be easily replacable with CC-created imagry/sound. Why? Homebrew. The article mentions how hacks were made to the game that allowed not only translations and hacks, but homebrew games as well.
• Reminds me, that section could possibly use some checking for any new info.∞陣内Jinnai 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to be archived yet.--SexyKick 16:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize I should have been putting a "Done" check mark thing under things I finished. I can't remember what I did and didn't do now! Wow.--SexyKick 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask what had/hand't been done. Part of the reason I sped up the archive was to clear out that huge discussion so there'd be less distraction to this particular one.∞陣内Jinnai 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

About the name

I know little of what happened in the past 3 or so months, but quick glances give me zero real arguments and even more ridiculous title suggestions, and what I see just above me is not helping in the slightest. So, with the "national pride" nonsense out of the way (of course, I'm American and was raised knowing only a "Sega Genesis" for a very long time), I should put down what actually matters:

• First off, (nearly?) every non-US/Canada release of the console is still the "Sega Mega Drive". "Arguably" nothing, random hopeful Google searches to determine anything is nonsense; they are not easily "trackable", and should be taken with a pound of salt. The actual releases of the actual subject are easily "trackable" and do actually make sense.
• The various related articles are still going to hang out at "Mega Drive", which is a big inconsistency no matter what.
• We actually had it at Sega Mega Drive once, and it was fine for a very long time. Yes, that's much better than "hey, let's just go back to the original title, never mind how old the article might be and what kind of standards we had back then".

None of this has anything to do with "fanboyism", or how much "no one cares" (which will work against you here). All of this has to do with avoiding the various misleading scenarios we have now. There really is no argument against this other than "stop arguing", which isn't even a great statement, especially not here at Wikipedia. Please, let's just move it back to Mega Drive.

Oh wait, this was a "vote", wasn't it? This is never supposed to be a vote. I am talking about the article's current issues. Despatche (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The constant fighting over the title is part of why it went back to the original title. Every non US/Canada release of the console makes up roughly 40% of the consoles sold. So that's a good argument for the current title. Basically all of the gather-able data indicates that Sega Genesis, Sega CD, Sega 32X, and Sega CDX are the common names, that plus the constant fighting got it back to the original article title.--SexyKick 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Plus, the 'go back to the original' was more a tiebraker than the main reason. As had been constantly said, having it at Mega Drive WOULD be fine, but in the end it was decided that Genesis was simply the slightly better choice. But I have to ask, what "misleading scenarios" are you talking about? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So we ignore reasonable consistency and actual fact in an attempt to get the kids to stop fighting? The Mega Drive series of articles now has issues that are confirmed to never be dealt with, and a large part of it is because you have reintroduced what should have been long-dead for--literally--"the sake of it". As for the "gather-able data", if it's just a bunch of Google searching, it's not very helpful due to the nature of the internet; the Google searching that can be done still cannot be considered decisive because of other facets of the nature of the internet; we know this all too well, so what happened? "Shutting the kids up". This is what I have seen you do and what I have been told by you. It's situations just like this that make me doubt the worth of WP:COMMONNAME.

Needing to find a "tiebreaker" to a situation that shouldn't provoke any real fighting (other than national pride) tells me that the whole process is pointless because everything is decided by whims (national pride) instead of any real facts, when a large part of Wikipedia is scrutinizing those whims as much as the facts and trying to avoid giving the former too much importance. Meanwhile, "Misleading scenarios" indeed refers to what I was talking about earlier in that edit: the fact that we can actually determine a "common name" beyond Google searches is being completely ignored for the sake of what may as well be "national pride" and "shutting the kids up"; the fact that there are now semi-permanent consistency issues that are confirmed to be so for some time; and that all this fighting only came up recently, probably started and definitely continued by--wait for it--national pride and friends.

I am so sorry for being so rude. Despatche (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is over. Don't whine because you didn't get your way. Most were in favor of this. Both names have a lot of links to them, over 500(I didn't bother clicking next 500 a few times to see exactly how many). The majority of the systems sold were in the American market, so most people that bought one did so in America and Canada, not other English speaking markets. That came up in the discussion. Its what most people who have one know it as. Its what most of these things produced have written on it as its name. Dream Focus 23:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree with Dream Focus. Why doesn't everyone stop arguing about it now; think of all the wasted time and energy that could have been directed towards improving this article. Considering that this article is WP:VG class C but of high importance it could certainly benefit from some enthusiam for its contents rather than its title. Mike 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed ... for as much effort has been put into arguing about what characters appear at the top of the article, we could have been dealing with all the other characters below it and bringing the article closer to GA-status, if not FA. --McDoobAU93 04:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It was delisted from GA for reasons that were all fixed literally right after. If I had known how to challenge the delisting at the time, I would have done so (way too late now). IMHO it only has a C rating because it was never actually reviewed. Mostly the master system section stands out because it needs sources. I've gone through much of Jin's list of ways to improve the article (listed above) but I couldn't find any good sources for the Master System section. I think we fixed all the original research, and moving of the 32-bit era into legacy. I'll get around to checking what I did and putting done tags up soon.--SexyKick 03:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any pre-existing discussion, because that discussion is over. This is an issue with the article and related articles that is currently still here, as I've said again and again. I'm tired of the forced inconsistency when it's uncalled for, and the forced consistency when it's completely unnecessary. Please fix this issue. Despatche (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to actually explain what said "inconsistency" actually IS. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That "pre-existing discussion" is far from over. Even most of the voters who supported the move were not completely sure about it, but only agreed because of personal preference. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so pointing to useless voting figures is pointless. As has already been mentioned before, the fact of the matter is that "Mega Drive" is the original name, it is the most common name used in most English-speaking countries, it is the most common name in nearly all non-English countries, and it even returns more Google hits than "Sega Genesis", an originally unintended name that only ever came into existence because of copyright issues. I have yet to see a single compelling reason why this article should be named "Sega Genesis" instead of "Mega Drive". Jagged 85 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, Sega Genesis was the original English name, it's the name on most of the consoles sold/produced, is the name used in most English sources, and it even returns more Google hits than Mega Drive.[4]--SexyKick 06:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now spanned two calendar years, and is just plain stupid. I would like to suggest a ratio, that every whinge & moan posted about the name requires two contributing edits to the article itself. And search/replace Megadrive with Genesis doesn't count. Hells Bells, Even the characters over at Talk:Muhammad/images have the decency to only post the once before disappearing again. And no - it wasn't a vote, it was a consensus. If you don't know the difference - go and find out. a_man_alone (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Google search engine I use returns far more hits for Sega "Mega Drive" than it does for "Sega Genesis". Maybe it's different in North America? Jagged 85 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It sure didn't seem like a "consensus" to me, considering how some did not agree on the move and how even some of those who did support the move stated "Mega Drive" as their preference over "Sega Genesis". Going further back, the majority did not support the move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis", but they did support the move to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". But then, all that ended up doing is making it easier to convince people that "Sega Genesis" is at least a better title than that compound title, so we end up with a less preferable title despite the previous vote in September initially opposing it. The only "consensus" I saw was in moving the title from a compound title to a single title, not a "consensus" preferring Sega Genesis over Mega Drive. Jagged 85 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to setup Google to search for the entire world, and not just your country.--SexyKick 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"The only "consensus" I saw was in moving the title from a compound title to a single title, not a "consensus" preferring Sega Genesis over Mega Drive." - check back through the archives. Just because there was dissent doesn't mean that consensus wasn't reached. No matter how much obstinate shouting and opposition goes on, it is still possible to reach a consensus when it becomes apparent that a tableau in argumentation has been reached and there is a preferation to use one title over the other. a_man_alone (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you normally enter a discussion by proudly proclaiming that you "know little" about the ongoing discussion and that you've only given "quick glances" to what everyone else has taken the time to write? If so, does anybody normally listen to you at all? APL (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, is this really worth arguing about? Anyone navigating to Sega Mega Drive will be redirected to the current article. The reason for the redirect is explained clearly and concisely in the first paragraph. Perhaps everyone could take a deep breath and have a glance at WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Perhaps you should also try reading WP:FUCK. Mike _talk 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would point to three facts:

1. The original name in the home market (Japan) was Mega Drive
2. The name in the most popular market (Europe) was Mega Drive
3. Most English speaking regions (UK, Australia, and even others such as Asia, Africa and Brazil) all know it as Mega Drive. In fact, all 35 of the alternate language versions of this article refer to it as the Mega Drive.

The name Mega Drive is more common and more well known by more people in more countries. How is it even an issue to call it "Genesis"?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.100 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and you'll see that each of those items was discussed and how the consensus was reached regarding the name. --McDoobAU93 00:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read the FAQ before entering this discussion and found it far too unsatisfactory. I've went through the archives and I just don't see where the so-called "consensus" is. All I saw was people preferring a single title (just Mega Drive or just Sega Genesis) over a compound title ("Sega Genesis and Mega Drive"), not over what that single title should be, as some of those supporting the move away from a compound title clearly stated their preference for Mega Drive over Sega Genesis. Going further back, an earlier vote to move from Mega Drive to Sega Genesis was even rejected by the majority of voters. I did not see any "consensus" at all to suggest that Sega Genesis should be preferred over Mega Drive, nor does the FAQ give any adequate explanation for it. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The results of a straw poll was the first suggestion that "Sega Genesis" was strongly favored over "Mega Drive" or the compound title. As a result, a proposal was made to move the article to Sega Genesis, and clear consensus was found to be in favor of that proposal. I'll add this to the FAQ. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you go back as far as you can possibly go, nearly the beginning of the project, you'll see that the article on the 16-bit Sega console was first started as Genesis (item 4 on the consensus explanation at the bottom of the FAQ). If you prefer something more recent, please review this most recent move discussion, in which the closing admin said there was "clear consensus" for the move to Genesis. Also, the above IP erroneously states that Europe was the system's most popular market, when roughly 50% of the consoles made were sold in a market where the system was named Genesis (please refer to the cited sales figures in the article). Then of course there's the issue of the console's first appearance in an English-language market ... again, that's North America, where it was known as Genesis (item 3 on the consensus explanation). --McDoobAU93 22:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all crap. It does NOT matter what name a wikipedia article was originally created under. We should be using the best name. The console is known as the Mega Drive by more people in more countries, and with more published/reliable sources. It really is not an issue for it to be called Genesis, a name used in only one country (and even then, only accidentally, due to an unforseen trademark error). This does not constitute a worldwide view in the slightest (look in the Languages dropdown on the right of the article - none of the other languages label it as such, including the NA languages French and Spanish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.125.130 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "more" means what you think it means.LedRush (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of countries where it is known as Genesis:1

Number of countries where it is known as Mega Drive: a number > 1, equalling the number of countries in the world -1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.125.130 (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to re-read your comment above. And then learn more* about the console.

• Note: the term "more" in this sentence has the standard definition, not one invented by anonymous users of Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

LedRush - what's your issue with the guy above?! No need to be a prick about it. He's just pointing out that one country calls it "Genesis", while the other 204 refer to it as Mega Drive, including major English speaking countries on 4 continents.

And as for the bit about more reliable sources - could it be that the only publications you've heard of are American? Europe has been publishing gaming magazines for longer than the USA, and there are more of them, that sell more copies (note "more" here is used in the conventional sense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.39.200 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of beating this horse anymore, let's try one more time, with the most undeniable fact. The majority (that is, a minimum of 50% plus one) of the Sega 16-bit consoles sold during its lifetime were named "Genesis". The sales info is sourced in the article, so I won't bother to re-list it here. The only way this discussion will get opened up again is if someone proposes a truly new reason why we should, and since everything mentioned thus far isn't new, it's unlikely there will be anything new. --McDoobAU93 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's between 58.5% and 60% of all the consoles that were named Sega Genesis.--SexyKick 20:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh, sales figures aren't part of this argument. It's known as Genesis to the 300 million people of the USA, out of some 6,500 million people worldwide. For those struggling with math, that's under 5%. THE OTHER 95%+ OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD CALL IT THE MEGA DRIVE. And this is regardless of whether they speak English or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.39.200 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes it is part of it, and one of the reasons why the name was selected. Unfortunately, this horse has been beaten enough. I am sorry to say that consensus appears to be against you. Again, if you have a truly new reason to re-open the discussion, feel free to offer it. As of yet, I haven't heard one. --McDoobAU93 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted I'm replying to a week old post but if you're wondering why people keep "beating the horse" it's probably because no-one's questions have really been adequately answered. There has been a disappointingly large amount of snide remarks for a wikipedia talk page though. Spinrad (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's summarize. Genesis and Mega Drive are both acceptable names -- in fact the article was at Mega Drive for a number of years. Incidently, during those years there were a number of discussions about how it should be Genesis instead. Last year there was a small discussion between a few editors that the page be moved to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", which it was. A couple people objected and noted it at a wider audience, then a LOOOOOONG discussion was help. The large consensus was that it needed to be one or the other. With the facts in place it was found that Genesis BARELY had a better reason than Mega Drive. The main reasons are that the Genesis sold more, there appear to be more reliable sources that use Genesis, and as an extra kicker WP:ENGVAR applied in this case. All in all, the article COULD be at Mega Drive and it'd be the "right" title, but it's no more "right" than it being at Sega Genesis. Feel free to ask more questions, and I will try to continue to answer without any snide. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I was referring to some of the flimsier arguments in favour of the change e.g "more google hits!" and "came out here first!" but if they ultimately weren't picked as reasons justifying the potential move then I guess that invalidates my point. Spinrad (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I really hate these kinds of discussions because in the end, the article suffers as a result. It happened over at fixed-wing aircraft where they could NOT agree on what the hell to call the article. Americans wanted airplane, brits wanted aeroplane, and the result was a stupid title that was a term that no one used. Sadly, bias enters a lot into these discussions, so lets keep it unbiased ok? I'm an American, and grew up knowing only the "Genesis" name, but even I know that this article should be called the Sega Mega Drive. Why? Because that's its original and true name. It was only renamed in America due to the name already being trademarked. It should be called Sega Mega Drive, but whatever happens, it should NOT have a composite name just to please the biased users here. Objectively, this article should be called Sega Mega Drive. ScienceApe (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the Faq, the above discussion, and the last discussion which led to the name change. Your opinion has been addressed so many times it's unfruitful to explain, yet again, why consensus was against it.LedRush (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Already did, why else would I be replying to this discussion instead of starting a new discussion? Think dude, it's not that hard. I'm adding my 2 cents to the new discussion, take it as you will. ScienceApe (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You're adding the same two cents that have been added before, and before, and before again. If you'd truly read up before posting - you'd see that. Think dude, it's not that hard. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually you're wrong. Think dude, it's not that hard. ScienceApe (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay - Chaheel Riens, which section of the previous discussions addresses the exact argument ScienceApe is making now? If there is one, post it, and perhaps ScienceApe can reformulate his arguments to take into account any new material. If such a section cannot be found, then ScienceApe is making a new argument and it needs to be addressed. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been a central theme of every conversation on this point. Despite ScienceApe's ironically confident declarations of fact, he is 100% wrong on this issue, as can be seen by simply clicking on the link to the FAQ above. You can also go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_14#Mega_Drive or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_13#Requested_move_.28September_1.2C_2011.29 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_12. And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_16#Mega_Drive_should_be_used_over_Genesis . And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_16#Mega_Drive_Vs_Genesis . So basically every discussion on this page in the last 5 months, and every discussion regarding the title of the page, has included ScienceApe's point regarding the original name of the console. We have examined it and recognize it's truth and value. But consensus was that the myriad of other factors and wikipedia policy made the name Genesis slightly better. You can disagree with the outcome. But merely pointing to one fact which has been mentioned literally hundreds of times is not only unheplful, it is disruptive (especially when no effort is put in to either read the FAQ or previous discussions on the subject). LedRush (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, if either ScienceApe or Whispertome would have bothered to actually read the FAQ (as was suggested), they would have seen the following: "When did the two articles merge? They were merged back into one article titled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis in 2005. In 2006, the merged article was moved to Sega Mega Drive after a discovery that the previous title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles are formatted, and "Mega Drive" was favored as it was both the console's name at its initial launch and the name used in more countries/geographic regions." I mean, even the lede of the damn article says it in the second sentence "It was originally released in Japan in 1988 as Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?), then in North America in 1989 as Sega Genesis, and in Europe, Australia and other PAL regions in 1990 as Mega Drive. The reason for the two names is that Sega was unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name in North America."LedRush (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok let's see, no, no, no, and no. None of those links proves that what I said has been stated before. The irony is, you're actually wasting more effort and energy trying to prove that what I said was already stated before (and trying to prove that I didn't read the faq which is even more stupid), instead of actually refuting my arguments. Not too bright I must say. Or energy efficient. ScienceApe (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Then what ARE you saying? You said a compromise title is stupid and consensus agreed, so the one that WAS here for a little while was changed (after no small discussion). Tht basically left two choices. Read my comment above about why the Genesis choice was made. Your original comment doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table, yet you insist it does without saying what that is. LedRush perhaps needs to stop making such biting comments, but the gist of what he says is right. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApe seems to be saying two things, one as a main point and was as a tangential one. (1) "but even I know that this article should be called the Sega Mega Drive. Why? Because that's its original and true name. It was only renamed in America due to the name already being trademarked." This point was referenced dozens and dozens of times in my links above and has accompanied every discussion on the name. It is addressed directly in the FAQ above, it is linked to in the FAQ above, and it is in the second and third sentences of the lede of the article. Quite simply, this view could not be more prominently displayed in the article or the archives, and has always been the strongest argument used by proponents of the name "Mega Drive" (2) "It [the article] should be called Sega Mega Drive, but whatever happens, it should NOT have a composite name just to please the biased users here." This has been addressed from about a couple of days after the composite name referenced above was agreed upon. Of course, the FAQ states that already ("Once the article was moved the new compound title was brought to the attention of more editors that objected to it as being inconsistent with naming conventions because of the compound aspect. A long discussion followed that included evaluation and comparison of many alternatives. ") Of course, the discussion doesn't center around Ape's odd contention that the title was pursued to appease biased editors, but there was much discussion around whether it was a conforming name or not, whether it was helpful or not, and whether it should be used or not. In the end, an influx of new editors joined discussions with the existing ones and it was decided that the combined title wouldn't be used. Seeing as the FAQ already states this as something accomplished and that it was forged by consensus, this second, "point" has also been beaten to death and serves no point (why say that you are emphatically against something that has already been emphatically dismissed as a potential alternative?). So, Ape, did you make points sub-textually that somehow contradict or augment your explicit words? If so, make the point. If not, stop your disruptive behavior.LedRush (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Led, the fact that you are trying so desperately to prove that my argument has already been stated is actually disruptive behavior. The talk section is the improve the article, you aren't improving it. You are sidetracking the issue into proving that my argument has already been stated which is quite frankly, stupid. ScienceApe (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I already said what I wanted to say in the first post I made here. I have nothing further to add, as I said before, take it as you will. This entire tangent came about because a couple of users wanted to prove that what I said was already said before instead of adding anything insightful to the discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You completely sidestepped my question. You DID say what was already said before, many times. Your denying it doesn't make it less true. I tried to assume good faith considering LedRush's pushiness, but you've pretty much shown your cards now. You clearly are either trolling or are putting fingers in your ears. I think we're done here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't. And I don't see what the point of you trying to prove that I did adds to the discussion. My only intention with my first comment was to add my 2 cents to the discussion. Your last remark is rather pointless, you could have ignored my comments right from the start. ScienceApe (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you added your two scents to the discussion. (word play to lighten the mood) Your fair points were previously addressed, though they did not come from you. Don't stress over it too much. The article could use citations for the master system stuff, and I still need to go through the references and change "work" to "publisher", the title is small pickings at this point. I realize that's the part most readers of this article are interested in, but for nearly everyone here, it's a "been there, done that, again and again". So try to not to worry too much about the other guys understandable reactions to your input.--SexyKick 04:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they weren't, and the fact that you are STILL trying to convince me (or yourself) that they were addressed is quite sad considering it's a pointless tangent that doesn't improve the article in any way. ScienceApe (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You started by saying that these discussions harm articles. Then why continue it by simultaneously arguing that your point is original, and that people shouldn't argue about whether or not your point is original?

Getting in the last word will not have any impact on anything ever.

Suffice it to say that you've made your point, and the consensus did not noticeably shift when you said it.

APL (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope my latest addition to the FAQ is a satisfactory outcome of this discussion to all. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

people keep saying stuff like "It's known as Genesis to the 300 million people of the USA, out of some 6,500 million people worldwide." but that's irrelevant since most of those 6,500 million people aren't English speakers, so what they call it is only relevant to what it's called on the wikipedia versions of their native languages. The number sold in English language countries under each name is far more relevant, and there it's clearly Genesis as the more common name. You can't count Brazil, Japan, France, Germany, etc when talking about the overall picture here on what to call a page on the English language wikipedia. Further, it's not just ONE country calling it Genesis. Shame on you people saying that, have you forgotten Canada? So you've basically got, among countries that primarily speak English, US and Canada calling it Genesis, and UK and Australia calling it Mega Drive, you've got ones labeled Genesis selling more, and finally you've got the US and Canada which have the far larger population (even if you take out Quebec since they speak French) 76.226.96.1 (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only that, but the argument assumes that the proportion of people in North Armerica who have heard of and are interested in the console is the same as everywhere else in the world, which is nonsense, since the console was far more popular in North America. I myself was inclined to favor "Mega Drive" for the article, but the editors endorsing "Sega Genesis" have made the point that it is the more common name for the console; this tallying of nations is just a case built on technicalities which don't even exist in WP policy.

Anyway, the revised FAQ looks great, so hopefully people will let this rest. Above all, the thing to remember is that both "Mega Drive" and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable names for the article - so why waste time arguing that it should be moved from one to the other.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If somebody found sales figures from India (English is one of its official languages) which show a significant number of people in that country bought the console, (and if pressed, proof that the console packaging was in English) would you believe that it would sufficiently change the dynamic and warrant a new discussion? If the console was sold as the "Mega Drive" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and/or Pakistan with English on the boxes/manuals/etc. perhaps that could help make a case too? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, no it wouldn't. It wouldn't change the reasons that consensus formed around. It's well documented that the system was known as Mega Drive in just about every English-speaking market except for North America, so that fact was considered and no additional proof would be needed. --McDoobAU93 06:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it would be worth discussing. Especially if it could be shown that there were a proportional number of Indian sources that also referred to the device as "Mega Drive". (Indian gaming magazines, Indian newspapers, and such.)

However I would be astonished if that was shown to be true. Even today the Indian video game market is market is almost inconsequential compared to USA, Europe, and Japan. Back then it was an even smaller market. Here is a 2007 article that describes the Indian video game market as "nascent $30-million gaming industry". In that same year USA's sales were around $14-Billion. (450 times larger!) And again, this is 2007. India's middle class is growing steadily. I'd bet money that the numbers were even more lopsided in the 1980s. APL (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Our consensus was not only driven by the "predominance of users of the term" argument, there were many other reasons. But I suppose that if strong evidence were to emerge that we were incorrect in saying that the majority of english-speaking console owners called it "Genesis" then perhaps that might be sufficient justification for re-opening all of those old wounds and launching into another bruising three month mud-slinging session. But (as APL points out) this is clearly not going to happen unless there were an utterly astounding number of Indian sales with the "Mega Drive" name on them - and even then, we'd have to argue that only ~11% of the population of India speak English at all - and a vanishingly small number (less than a quarter million) use it as their first language, so very, very few of them would be likely to come to en:Wikipedia to search for information about the console. Add to that the likely result that there were a thousand times more consoles sold in the UK and US than in India and I honestly don't see this as grounds for re-opening such a hard-won consensus. We need compelling new information - and tiny numbers of sales in a country with almost no game players and a small percentage of English language speakers is unlikely to be a compelling argument. SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the specific question of countries like India in which English is used but not primarily and in which the console was sold as the Mega Drive needs to be addressed in the FAQ. Not sure how best to do that, however. Suggestions? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

About: "we'd have to argue that only ~11% of the population of India speak English at all" - Out of curiosity, where do the figures on that come from? Also since India is so large, small percentages can still result in lots and lots of people. India's Muslim population is a small percentage, but due to India's size, India has a large Muslim population. - Also the packaging would be a good indicator of whether the company that sold the Megadrive in India expected its clientele to know English or not. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did I get the 11% and quarter-million numbers from? There is this massive online encyclopedia...er Wiki-something. :-)

List of countries by English-speaking population

SteveBaker (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! At the article, I haven't figured out which source supports the "11.38%" figure. - The source cited for the number of native speakers is http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.htm - The source for clarifying the distinction between English "users" (people who read English) and "speakers" (people who speak English) is at http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://tesol-india.ac.in/EnglishTeachingIndustry/en/india-worlds-second-largest-english-speaking-country - but web.archive.org is giving me trouble in accessing the archives - I wonder if many of the Indians who used the Sega Megadrive were "users" but not "speakers" (especially if the console boxes were in English) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how many Indians speak or use English. The simple fact is that not everyone who speaks English would even know of the Genesis/Mega Drive seeing how unpopular the system was there. We would need evidence of units sold and reliable sources discussing the system to put any information in context. Otherwise, I might simply state that most Chinese learn American english, and therefore attempt to end every discussion about English usage with that statement, instead of a careful analysis about the specific usage and how to put it into context.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware that sales figures are needed, but in case they are found, it's possible somebody may try to marginalized them by claiming that English doesn't matter in India WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And it seems that those people would be correct to the extent detailed above.LedRush (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that in much of India, English is a lingua franca and is quite important:

"India and world literature." Frontline (The Hindu). Volume 14, No. 16, August 9-22, 1997.

"(In many parts of South India, people will prefer to converse with visiting North Indians in English rather than Hindi, which feels, ironically, more like a colonial language to speakers of Tamil, Kannada or Malayalam than does English, which has acquired, in the South, an aura of lingua franca cultural neutrality. The new Silicon Valley-style boom in computer technology that is transforming the economies of Bangalore and Madras has made English, in those cities, an even more important language than before.)"

Now, to calculate Genesis v. Megadrive one would have to compare sales figures and/or prevalence in Magazines of PAL countries versus NTSC countries which use English as a lingua franca (assuming all PAL countries use Megadrive and all NTSC countries use Genesis): On the Genesis side, it would be (assuming all use Genesis) the U.S. (including territories), Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Philippines, Belize, British Caribbean territories, other English-speaking Caribbean islands, and Bermuda. On the Megadrive side, it would be the (assuming all use "Megadrive") UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Ghana, Malta, Gibraltar, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, and any other countries I missed which use English as a lingua franca. If you can't find sales figure, assume none were sold in that country.

English did not become an official language in Sudan until 2005, and South Sudan did not yet exist; sales figured would likely be low there. At the time, I do not believe English had yet been introduced to Rwanda, but it's probably a moot point since sales figures would likely be so low, and Rwanda still uses SECAM (different electrical standard)

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see above. This has been done for sales figures ad nauseum, with the results largely undisputed. India, (and the many countries in which the console didn't launch) will not play a significant role in this conversation.LedRush (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the article itself and the info above. McDoob does say "roughly 50% of the consoles made were sold in a market where the system was named Genesis (please refer to the cited sales figures in the article)." - The question, is/are Mexico, Central America, and/or other non-English speaking NTSC countries involved? If so we would have to subtract those, and/or find figures that are only US and Canada (and/or other English speaking territories). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)With all due respect to Whisper's hard work and research, I would be completely shocked to find anything even remotely suggesting that more than 20 million consoles were sold in India. If it were the case, I wonder if it'd be possible (a) for investors to sue Sega for gross malfeasance for not knowing how many units they're producing/selling, even under license, or (b) to chalk it up as one of the most dunderheaded gaming-business actions of all time, ranking with Atari burying all those E.T. cartridges and saying "no" when Nintendo asked them to market the Famicom in the US as an Atari console.

At the same time, for what it's worth, Japan also used NTSC at the time. Also, regarding the consensus points, such a discovery (however unlikely) wouldn't trump all five points listed in the FAQ, and would hardly be classified, in my mind, as "compelling". LedRush is right ... it's time to let the poor horse rest. --McDoobAU93 22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting point that Japan uses NTSC. Unfortunately it is not an English speaking country.

Different points on the FAQ have different relations to the idea of uncovering sales figures. In regards to point 2, no compound title is being proposed, so there is no relation. No new information could possibly trump 4 or 5. With No. 3 I have seen the "number of sources" concept disputed, and evidence of sales figures could influence people to uncover additional publications. I'm not quite sure why it is found to be better in point #1, unless it has to do with overall "recognizability" with sales figures of Genesis v. Megadrive. I haven't read all of the discussion, and it may be good to, in the FAQ, link to various points in the discussion.

In any event, I started Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Sales_figures_of_the_Megadrive.2FGenesis_in_various_countries - If it results in no change to the current naming situation, that's fine, since we have more info to add to the article anyway.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)~

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by pinning down these numbers more precisely. The relative sizes of the markets in question make it clear that you're not going to demonstrate that some minor market like India or South Africa will swing the English-language sales totals in favor of "Megadrive".

If you could show that to be true, forget a minor article naming issue, I'd want you to write a book describing whatever extraordinary cultural phenomena allowed those minor markets to have sales more than half-again as large as the United Kingdom's! I'd buy that book. APL (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

One minor market alone may not swing things in favor, but multiple minor markets together could possibly do so. And on top of that subtracting Mexico could impact North American figures in the other direction. It wouldn't be a bad idea to write, maybe not a book, but article sections about the sales phenomena in these minor markets. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason they're called minor markets ... the system didn't sell there, or what sales were there were either (a) inconsequential or (b) already factored into another region. Again, I think you're scouring haystacks when nobody has said "there's a needle missing". If you're bound and determined to find sales information, knock yourself out, but please do it with the right intentions; that is, with the intent of finding new information, not attempting to overturn consensus (which, based on what you're looking for, simply isn't going to happen). --McDoobAU93 17:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry - I do intend on adding new information if I find it. As I said above, if it doesn't change the situation, that's fine as it further clarifies the existing situation and it adds new information to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just another example of American cultural imperialism, who cares what the majority of the world calls something lets just force our way on them.--188.223.14.24 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the anti-Americanism on this site can be quite disgusting.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably going to regret bringing this up, but if the consensus has settled on Sega Genesis for this article, Should the Multi Mega article be changed to Sega CDX, and Mega CD be changed to Segs CD to maintain consistency across Sega's 16 bit consoles? I Don't see a problem with the mis-match, but know some people seem to care about this kinda thing. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Probable error

The "Add-ons" section currently states 'At June 1994's Consumer Electronics Show, Sega presented the 32X as the "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games."', with a footnote citing Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Video Games. Although I was not at the 1994 Consumer Electronics Show, the very idea that Sega themselves would introduce the 32X as "the poor man's entry into next generation games" seems manifestly ludicrous. Without having read the book, I can only assume that the quoted description actually comes from Kent himself, not Sega's marketers, in which case the article's statement should be changed to 'At June 1994's Consumer Electronics Show, Sega presented the 32X, later deemed the "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" by Steven Kent in his The Ultimate History of Video Games.' Can someone please confirm or deny the accuracy of this?--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to be right about this. I would either (a) change it immediately as you suggested; or (b) delete the quotation immediately (making the statement purely factual) and let someone add it back in per your comment when someone reads the book.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Sega presented the 32X with plans to make the Saturn. I remember Sega saying things like the 32X would be the best selling 32-bit machine because of how cheap and accessible it would make the next generation of gaming. It always seemed like Sega presented it as the poor mans entry into the 32-bit generation, even if they maybe did or didn't use that specific quote themselves.--BeastSystem (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is this: did Sega actually say it was "the poor man's entry into 'next generation games'"? If they did, and it's sourced, it belongs. Otherwise, it's either (a) someone else's words, and should be listed as such or (b) it's someone's interpretation of Sega's intent, thus making it original thought and inappropriate. --McDoobAU93 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A simple google books search turned this up and it claims Sega themselves referred to it that way. So now we have two book sources. Stephen's book also comes up in the search, but with pages removed.--SexyKick 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What page is it on? The link you provide just takes me to the start of the book.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I'm not questioning that "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" appears in Kent's book; indeed, my suspicion is that the phrase comes directly from Kent's book, rather than merely being quoted in it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed ... I revised it to indicate that critics (not Sega) had made that statement, and found it had been undone just now. Again, if there is proof that Sega ITSELF called the 32X "the poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" and not a critic or writer adding his own opinion, then it needs to be shown that way. The question is not that the statement was made (the source clearly indicates that), but who we say made it. The evidence does NOT indicate that Sega made that statement. --McDoobAU93 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's odd about the link. When I click on it, the link takes me straight to page C44 with "poor man's" highlighted. The reference shows Sega themselves called it that. Stephen's book also claims the same thing, he didn't say it himself, he said Sega said that, and so does this book. That's two sources that have nothing to do with each other showing the same fact; Sega presented the 32X as the poor man's entry into the 32-bit market. Otherwise why introduce a new 32-bit system after you've already announced the Saturn??? They tried to pincer the market by taking the rich half and poor half of the 32-bit market at the same time. ie compete with themselves to make more money the same way other corporations do. Critics did not make this statement, nor did authors. Sega themselves said it. How is this confusing? McDoob, did you perhaps miss my comment above with the reference to another book claiming Sega themselves said this???--SexyKick 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

After re-checking the provided link, I do stand corrected, to a point (a very stretched one, though). I revised the paragraph and sentence and included the EXACT quote from the book you linked to. I also re-arranged the citation footnotes to make it easier for editors to know what source that statement came from. I believe that resolves the issue for now, and thanks SexyKick for providing that information. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources

1UP.com had a feature, but the URL is giving me internal server errors.

• Name: Post Christmas Retro Blogisode #3 (assuming it's by an IGN staff member, it should be an "RS")
• URL: http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9067278
• Date: December 26, 2010

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

May need to try again ... I've tried Bing and Google with those exact terms and nothing is coming up. --McDoobAU93 04:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the URL via Google News, but it's true that Bing and Google isn't returning anything... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)