Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Second model names consensus request

I'm looking to tackle the sections one at a time as part of the touch-up, as well as the content forks that make little sense (i.e. Sega Net Work System). First section I already have done, as the massive edition covering the Sega v. Accolade issue. Next section I would like to take on is the Variations section, which is sorely in need of a rewrite. I won't hide my intentions here; I am looking to obsolete List of variations of the Mega Drive, which I believe is a poor content fork, but regardless of one's perspective of that list, the Variations section in this article is in pretty bad shape and could be expanded and improved.

Here's what I want to know: can we establish an official consensus on the titles for the second model? It turns out that Sega has used official titles more often than we've realized; in Sega CD I found a source officially referring to the second model of the add-on as the "Sega CD 2/Mega-CD 2". Looking at the second model of the Genesis, we continuously refer to it over and over in the article as the "Genesis/Mega Drive model 2". My question is, should we not refer to these models by their official titles as well? I may have to find sources to back these up as necessary, but we can see plain as day on the Mega Drive models "Mega Drive 2" on the Japan version and "Mega Drive II" on the European version. For North America, we have "Genesis III", backed up by sources from Sega v. Accolade. Are we okay to use these on an official basis in the article, instead of the made-up "model 2"? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't be certain, but I'm beginning to wonder whether the Genesis III isn't what you think it is. Looking at the Sega v Accolade article, it suggests that this is the Genesis III. It also states that the Genesis III was released in 1990. That doesn't add up. The slimmer redesign of the console didn't come out until well after the Sega CD (which also received a facelift).

This is pure speculation, but is it possible that "Genesis III" was Sega's internal name for a console that looked precisely the same as the original Genesis, but with the technical protections added? I don't know whether that would be extra hardware or simply updated firmware, but to the untrained eye, there was no way of telling the difference. Legally, they needed to give it a distinct name, so they simply added "III".

Does that make any sense? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference in the hardware between the USA/JPN/EUR versions, the region and video modes were set trough a series of 4 jumpers (JP1, JP2, JP3 and JP4) and I oppose the proposal as it will lead to more confusion and talk page arguments. 82.37.210.221 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also fairly certain (though someone on Sega-16 would probably know better) that revisions of the Model 1 had the TMSS installed. The 32X manual (which I got off of a website using a google search) refers to the Sega Geneses models as "New Model" and "Old Model". I wish we could find a magazine article talking about the new model when it came out. Personally, I am happy with "Sega Genesis Model 2" - Amazon seems to call it both Sega Genesis 2 and Sega Genesis II (depending on the accessory). If the "Genesis III" really is the model 2, it was likely only called "Genesis III" internally, like Project Mars.--SexyKick 22:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal stricken. Humiliation noted. Why can't legal sources actually refer to things the way the rest of the world does? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 22:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's explore the article-split idea just a little...

It's been suggested a few times that one way to satisfy everyone in the ongoing Mega-Drive/Genesis dispute would be to fork this article into two separate ones, one that discusses the Mega Drive specifically, and the other focused on the North American Genesis. Since we're apparently doomed to argue about which of these titles is the "correct" one forever and ever, I propose we actually explore the article-fork idea.

The way I see it, here's the way content is likely to flow under the two respective titles:

Common to both titles

• Hardware specifications and technical capabilities
• Hardware development history
• Relationship to prior hardware
• General discussion of competition between Sega and its rivals
• Worldwide sales figures

Mega-Drive specific

• Release dates for Japanese, European and other worldwide markets
• Non-American software libraries
• Japanese/European/Asian sales and reception details

Genesis specific

• Copyright issue causing the name change in North America
• North-American software libraries
• North-American marketing campaigns (Console wars, primarily with Nintendo)
• US Congressional hearings into video game violence and sexual content (Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, etc.)
• North American sales and reception details

There are plenty more details that can be fit into these lists, but this gives a good idea of the general areas that are covered by the sources we have available. As such, if we were to do a content fork, we would either need to duplicate a lot of common prose between the two articles, or designate one of them to hold the majority of the content, and have the other either link to it or transclude it. The first idea would be difficult to maintain (the two articles would need to be edited in lockstep, or they would quickly get out of sync with one another), and the second would likely just result in more arguments about which article is the "primary" one. But it COULD be done.

Now, take a look at the article's history (described in the FAQ): It was, early on, forked to two separate articles just as described here. At the time, however, there was not nearly the same level of content as we have now, and it was decided that the articles would be best merged back into one. Perhaps the story would be different now - a lot more research, fact-finding and debate has happened since then, so perhaps we now have enough distinct content that two articles would be sustainable.

So the question becomes: Is it worth it? Are both topics equally and distinctly notable? The amount of argument from both sides would seem to suggest so. But I'll note that in all the debates I've either participated in or witnessed, it's primarily come down to just a few core arguments, much of which boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, only some of which is based in actual policy, and even less of which is backed by sources. When you strip out the persistent name-calling, accusations of regional bias, and straw polls and reliance on such, the actual substantive arguments are pretty slim and, for the most part, unconvincing. To be honest, I think we're just as unlikely to reach a consensus on a content fork as we are on which title the merged article should have.

Now, for my part: Yes, I live in the United States, where the console is called the Genesis. But I fancy myself a video game historian, and I have done a lot of personal research into a number of consoles (including the Mega Drive/Genesis) from a worldwide perspective. So I believe I can speak with some authority when I say that the Genesis has particular notability because of events that occurred in the United States (most particularly the Congressional hearings sparked by Mortal Kombat and Night Trap - the latter of which I have a personal connection with). I have so far not found anything in Japanese or European sources that give the Mega Drive anywhere near the level of coverage that the Genesis did in the US, mainly because most other markets were much more heavily skewed than the North American market (either the Mega Drive was wildly successful, or it did very poorly, but either way did not generate much press). The evidence has consistently pointed to North America as having been the most notorious market in the world for this console (even if not the physically largest, most successful or most lucrative).

I originally argued in favor of the Mega Drive name because of the fact that it was known as such in every geographical region in the world except North America. But that's pretty much the extent of my reasoning for that title - all of the other info I have available leads me to believe that "Sega Genesis" has more notable content.

All that said, I'm sure I'm going to have at least a dozen people disagreeing with me, so here's your challenge before you argue: Provide sources. As you find sources that point to significant non-American coverage that lends increased notability to the Mega Drive title, we can make adjustments to the coverage areas to determine whether an article fork makes sense. I think that will be far more constructive than all the heated disputes we've had previously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Support APL X201 mentioned that earlier, and I think there is indeed something to work on. What we're basically saying is that the Genesis is notable in and of itself, not just as a renamed version of the Mega Drive. If we can establish that, and I think we have more than enough info to do that, that would warrant separate articles, in my opinion. --McDoobAU93 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So my question is: HOW do we split these articles in a way that doesn't lead to unnecessary duplication or disputes over which one should hold the common content? Do we perhaps have a third "Common details" article that we transclude into both titles? Is that something the WP community will accept? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I accidentally support this idea? (I say a lot of dumb things.) Could you point out where? APL (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, APL ... it was X201 who made the suggestion about separate articles here. I'm honestly not sure why I thought it was you instead. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth. --McDoobAU93 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No prob. APL (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reject Splitting the article because a few people object to the title and are determined to be trollish about it is ridiculous. If you completely ignore that issue - then splitting the article makes no sense whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, why does it not make any sense? I think at its core, it does make some level of sense - you have some common content and distinct, title-specific content that is large enough put together to make the topic somewhat unwieldy. I'd like some reasoning more specific than just "a few people are being trollish" - the above debates, unlike many in the past, are at least showing some promise for making progress. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"a few people object to the title" - You mean around 50% in every recurrence of the name debate, regardless of what the article was called at the time. When the article is known as "Mega Drive", "Genesis"-proponents complain, when it's known as Genesis it's the other way round. By your statement, everyone involved in any of the name disputes (which includes yourself) is being "trollish". --188.31.19.187 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Name-calling ('trollish') is not helpful to the discussion. Both sides accuse each other of being a few trolls who continually bring up the name debate - which shows that there is a genuine debate and lack of consensus. AFAICT the Genesis side of the debate really boils down to, "But I had a Genesis when I was 10!!!" - most of the 'reasons' advanced in the FAQ for the Genesis name are either heavily debated or simply not true (eg the suggestion that the Mega Drive name was principally used in non-English-speaking markets - how does that square with the Mega Drive name being used in 'every' English-speaking market except North America?) Unfortunately the Genesis-advocates know that they can just make a lot of noise whenever the argument comes up, call it a lack of consensus and so stick with the original name. There often seems to be no real reason advanced to keep the Genesis name - any debate is just squashed with 'there is no consensus, so we keep the original title.' I realise this might look like assuming bad faith. I don't think it is. I've tried to be constructive here and the utter lack of co-operation from some is disheartening. GoldenRing (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I don't even know what side of the name debate SteveBaker is on - it seems to me his comment could be coming from either side and he doesn't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I agree with every point you raised, and you put it far better than I ever could. I first wandered onto this talk page barely a week ago, and the general hostility and assumptions of bad faith are alarming! Very discouraging for someone new on the scene... 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the split, but I feel I need to pick you up on a particular point. I can tell you that there was intense, vehement press against Night Trap and similar games here in the UK, and I'm pretty sure that the issue got debated in parliament. There was also plenty of coverage of Sonic 2's release, even making the evening news on national television - a first for any game. But how in the world are we to judge which is the most "notorious" territory? Naturally, I know how heavy the press coverage was in the UK but can't comprehend what it was like in the US; vice versa for you (if I may make that presumption). Likewise, the US being bigger, it's generally going to have literally more of anything, but how do we adjust for size difference? (That is to say, if a game sold a million copies in the UK and a million copies in the US, pound-for-pound it did better in the UK, even though they sold the same number. Does the same apply for media coverage?) I fear a comparison is nigh on impossible for anyone who didn't spend considerable time on each side of the Atlantic. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And that's absolutely fair - I said I fancy myself a historian, but I'm nowhere near the level of real historians and people who have professionally studied the subject. :)

I was discussing with RedPhoenix how I think we really need a separate article on the US Congressional hearings (and the Parliamentary debates as well), since that's really its own subject and has little to do with the Genesis/Mega Drive itself. (That really has more to do with the companies and games involved, and the fact that the 16-bit hardware was capable of producing images realistic enough to trigger strong emotional responses.) I think if we were to successfully separate that aspect of the topic from the current article, there would be relatively little left to distinguish the Genesis from the Mega Drive in terms of individual notability... which unfortunately leads us back to the original dispute (which of the titles is the correct one?).

Do you know if the flap over Night Trap and the like caused the same kinds of significant policy/governance changes in the UK as it did here in the States? That issue led to the formation of the ESRB, which has been described as a thorn in the side of game developers ever since, but I'm not aware of what might have happened over there. If it did lead to similar ratings councils, that would be good to know, and more fodder for the topic article. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Night Trap ultimately had to be rated by the BBFC - the British Board of Film Classification - which meant it was illegal to sell the game to anyone under the age of 15. As their name suggests, they usually only rated films, and Night Trap may have been the first game to go through that process. I've got a load of old Sega magazines from the period, and I know they contain some good contemporary articles on the subject. I may dig them out if I find the time.

As for the issue of the "correct" name for the console, well, here's my argument, in a nutshell...

We should go with whatever Sega themselves call the console.

So what do Sega call it? Well, during the console's commercial lifespan, there were three major HQs dotted around the world: Sega of America in San Fransico, Sega Europe in London, and the original corporation in Tokyo, which we'll call Sega Japan. Of the English-speaking HQs, we know that Sega of America went with Genesis, and Sega Europe went with Mega Drive. Obviously, they don't speak English in Japan, but the English words "Mega Drive" appear - fully romanised - on the Japanese console packaging, the game box spines, the actual cartridges, and, yes, even the console itself. With two major Sega HQs going with "Mega Drive" and one going with "Genesis", to me it's strange to side with the odd one out. Add Australia and many other territories to the equation and not going with "Mega Drive" seems to me to be bordering on perverse.

That's my opinion, anyway. It's so basic an argument that I can hardly believe it's not addressed in the FAQ! Any validity in it? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Good info on Night Trap. Those magazines would be quite useful, if you have the time. :)

I've not seen the naming argument presented quite like that before, but there's one more specific argument and one more general that are covered in the FAQ:

1. The name given to the console in its home market (Japan) is Mega Drive, and
2. The "Mega Drive" name is used in all geographic markets except North America.

It follows logically that the Sega HQs in each major region were responsible for the naming, so I think that's just adding a layer of complexity to it. But the counter to both of those has typically been that both geographical distribution and sales numbers alone are not enough to sway the notability argument. First, nobody can agree on what threshold marks the "strong majority" for sales when considering US vs. worldwide sales - mainly because no official or exact sales figures exist (or have been found, at any rate). There's a lot of speculation and several major conflicting accounts for sales, so by definition that information isn't solid. There's also been a lot of debate as to how important those details are to the argument. I'm pretty sure that the current (admittedly weak) consensus for Genesis is based less on geographic distribution and sales figures, and more on the various notability arguments, combined with the predominance of sources discussing North-America-specific topics such as the ad blitzes and the violence controversy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that my argument removes several layers of complexity, rather than adding one. No need to go into sketchy sales figures or unquantifiable media notoriety - just a case of, "What do Sega themselves call the console?" And two major HQs out of the three say "Mega Drive". Problem solved.

Like I said, that's just my opinion, but there does seem to be a secondary issue at play here: some people consider "Genesis" and "Mega Drive" to be different names for the same console, while others see the Genesis and Mega Drive as separate consoles all together. Despite region locks, a number of games are fully compatible with all three territorial variations - and in that sense at least I'd be against splitting the article. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support This is the perfect compromise which all sides can be happy with 62.252.234.27 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not the perfect compromise. I'm all for anything that will finally settle this debate once and for all, but I don't think it's the proper solution to write two separate articles about something that is ultimately the same subject and try to maintain them both. It'd be like trying to separate NES and Famicom into two articles just because they're from different regions; bear in mind these two started as separate articles and were merged together before. Per WP:UNDUE as well, I don't feel there's enough due weight in each title to validate a content fork between Genesis and Mega Drive. All we're going to do here is make two very incomplete articles that don't fully encapsulate the subject rather than a complete one that grasps the subject as a whole. I think it's almost a violation of WP:WORLDVIEW to do so because it will create biased articles as a result, not to mention lower-quality ones which could never satisfy Wikipedia's standards for completeness while separated. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the spirit of the proposal not necessarily being right for the article, I do think we could accomplish it from a technical standpoint without too much trouble. In programming, if you have two functions that do nearly-identical things but, say, print out different titles with the same text below them, you usually move the common code into a subroutine, and call that subroutine from the two main functions. Using transclusion, you could do the same thing here on WP - create a common-content article (eg. "Common hardware of the Mega Drive"), and transclude it into the two individual articles. If you make a change in the common article, it automatically takes effect in both main articles, so then there's not necessarily any need for content to become stale, biased, or out of sync.

What I don't know is if that kind of article structure would jibe with WP policies, nor would many editors necessarily understand how it works. It could also make discussions more difficult to follow. So I totally agree it's not an ideal solution technically. But the more important thing to answer is whether forking makes sense at any level. My inclination is no, but I wanted to make sure we gave the idea a proper discussion since it's been brought up a few times and pretty much immediately discarded without much thought. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And actually, more to the point, my purpose in going into such depth here was to try to illustrate what would be required to make such a content fork work, and what (at least from my POV) the articles would end up looking like at a high level. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My belief is definitely not. I will admit that personally I tend to object to content forking unless it's a worthwhile fork that can potentially become an outstanding article in its own right and holds enough due weight and notability to do so; otherwise, it's not worth it. Sega CD and Sega 32X are great content forks, for example, while I would honestly disagree with Sega Net Work System and List of variations of the Mega Drive being worthwhile of them. The problem here with making a fork is that doing so will require cutting depth from each new article. Neither one, then, would in my opinion ever be capable of passing a featured or good article candidacy because neither one would meet the broad coverage requirements of high-quality articles (WP:UNDUE, again, applies), all because neither article covers the worldwide view of this one console. That's my opinion, at least, but I'm glad to see we're looking at any way possible to settle this. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(nod) And like I said, I'm inclined to agree on that front. Assuming I haven't forgotten or overlooked any major aspects of the Mega Drive side, the "tree" at the top of this section looks pretty heavily skewed toward Genesis content, in both breadth and depth. If we were to fork, I'd guess that the Genesis article would end up being larger and more complete than the Mega Drive one, but you're right that neither one would be as complete as the merged article. I think it does generally support where we are right now, though, so I hope it will help explain the situation from another POV that might help the debate in general. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki articles are not software. We don't have #defines. Even if we could address this by transcluding common code, we'd have to write stilted prose that never referred to the topic by name since we don't have a way to to refer to X as "Sega Genesis" in one transclusion and as "Mega Drive" in another, not to mention the complications that arise in certain contexts regarding whether you want to say "Sega Genesis" or just "Genesis" in one, or "Sega Mega Drive" or "Mega Drive" in the other. It's just not practical. --B2C 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Sadly this is not a good idea. It would give the USA folk and the others their own playgrounds so that they can each be happy, but that's really only good for them. For readers it makes sense to have a single article. For instance, the stuff bullet-pointed as Genesis-specific is an important part of the machine's history. Most if it would wind up in both articles for the sake of completeness.

Splitting this article would be like splitting Gasoline and Petrol. (I'm not going to click through, but I assume those both go to the same place.) APL (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

They do. Ironically, I suggested a lead sentence opening above similar to how that article handles the duality of its names. I think it actually gives equal weight as a lead sentence and would help to balance out the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would be akin to forking Volkswagen Golf and Volkswagen Rabbit. Or Best Foods and Hellmann's. Marketing differences (including targeting a different region) of the same fundamental product do not justify separate articles. --B2C 16:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support It seems to me that common sense is overwhelmingly in favour of using "Mega Drive" as the article name and the sole arguments in support of using "Genesis" (that the console caused particular controversy in North America compared to other regions - which is still semi-disputable, a la the Night Trap issue in the UK) are actually arguments better reasoned for the creation of a separate article to deal specifically with those North American issues. The added benefit of this separation would be the ability to keep the main console article (which I would vehemently argue should be "Mega Drive") clean of clutter relating to one specific region of the console, and a much more neutral and international POV.

I feel we should maintain the primary article as a broad coverage of the console, covering the technical aspects, multiple variations, add-ons, history, later third party iterations, global reception and legacy, etc. Whilst the Genesis article would specifically focus on the console's North American issues - from the trademark reason for the North American specific name, the ESRB issue, noteworthy marketing campaigns, etc. That way we could improve coverage of both aspects of the console. The Mega Drive article could be brought up to a much higher standard without having to balance out the importance of the North American issues place in a subject of international scope, whilst the North American issues could be addressed in much better detail in an article specific to the Genesis. --188.31.19.187 (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The thing is the same thing, market with two different labels on it. I'm trying to think outside wiki-politics and instead think about what makes most sense to a general reader who comes to the article. Any split would necessarily include so many cross-references between the two articles that it would seem very strange to someone who didn't know the politics that had made it that way. GoldenRing (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Support for obvious reasons. I think the idea has got legs and can work. Each console has lead a different life, enough to warrant a separate article. Separate articles would end the never ending "wrong"-ness of whatever the article title happens to be at any given time in the future. But even more importantly than that, it will allow the people who want to improve the articles to actually do it. - X201 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should we give the article a compound name?

As per WP:AND Compound titles are acceptable in some circumstances, this is a better solution than a split as it keeps all content in one article and better than the name Sega Mega Drive or Sega Genesis alone as it suits all sides, this was once agreed by all sides before but was deemed against policy, but WP:AND makes compound names perfectly acceptable in instances like this one. So I am proposing either the name Sega Mega Drive and Genesis or Sega Genesis and Mega Drive what does everyone think? 62.252.234.27 (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)— 62.252.234.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Title change proposals are normally discussed and listed via WP:RM, not WP:RFC. --B2C 02:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. OK, fine. First, there seems to be enough unrest about the title to warrant applying the WP:Yogurt Principle (essay written by yours truly) here. Second, there is precedent for this: Hellmann's and Best Foods. Third, this article is about a product that Sega marketed with two distinct names and a few distinguishing characteristics. Finally, if this article is given a compound title, I think it should be Sega Genesis and Mega Drive because that flows better than Sega Mega Drive and Genesis. --B2C 02:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Persuaded by APL to oppose --B2C 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Just want to pick at something here: Based on the discussion in Talk:Hellmann's and Best Foods back in 2011, it looks like the (again small) consensus there about that article's name is that it should be considered an exception to the rule and that it doesn't actually meet WP:AND (which didn't exist at the time the article was first written with that title). I don't think we can point to it as a precedent for supporting a compound title here - the circumstances are different. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not have precedents, and you are citing a discussion you had with one other person in a different article. Also, the essay you link to is something you wrote which isn't even in mainspace, it just something on your personal user page. Dream Focus 11:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. We did this before and tons of editors went up in arms about it.--SexyKick 02:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Do you have a policy based reason to oppose it? --B2C 03:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well it won't be speedy closed if others don't agree with me. Precedent just shows that this won't work. There's not absence of evidence of this one.--SexyKick 03:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • "I expect everybody else to oppose this so I will too" is not in and of itself a very compelling reason to oppose. Again, do you have a policy based reason to oppose it? --B2C 03:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I thought doing something we know to be disruptive and cause outcry had a policy against it? (also that was a strange way for you to interpret my statement, which meant "everyone 'did' hate this", not "I expect..." anything)--SexyKick 03:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
        • It has been a long time. What's different now is that we've given Sega Genesis a lot of time and the talk page is still filled with discussions and discontent about the title. And, frankly, the proposal is right. There is some room in WP:AND to support the compound title in this case. I've never cared about the title. I just want a stable solution. --B2C 04:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Please assume good faith. There is an actual disagreement and debate about the name of this article and there has never been a consensus on it; the status quo is there precisely because no consensus has been reached and in that case the original name of the article stands. Attempting to reach that consensus through discussion is not disruptive. GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral: I was one of the editors that proposed and then implemented this exact change back in 2011, resulting in an enormous firestorm over the fact that the title was inconsistent with naming policies and was confusing. Hence this entry in the FAQ:

  In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.

  Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.

  I think you're going to have quite an uphill battle on this one, considering history was not kind to this proposal last time it was seriously considered. Personally I think it would be a fine solution, particularly if it would bring this ongoing dispute to a close. But all I can really say is "Good luck." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, pending consensus on name: I oppose on two grounds. Firstly, a compound name would almost certainly simply lead to arguments about what compound name to use, specifically whether to place Mega Drive or Genesis first. I note that the RFC here doesn't suggest one or the other, and I'm concerned we may get people stating their support for making such a change in concept, who will not be happy once a change is made in practice.

This brings me to my second point: I would oppose any change to the title (barring compelling new arguments), as whether the change happens or not the debate is not quelled, the embers are stoked, and more topics are opened ad infinitum. As far I can see the only solution with any chance of success is to stick with the current name until everyone finally get bored of constantly debating it so we can move on to something constructive, perhaps related to the other ~7000 words in the article below the title. With that said, if there can be consensus on which compound name to use (which I feel would require a miracle at this point), then I fully support changing it to match; whatever allows us to all move on from this. Aawood (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Aawood and per previous established consensus that name change discussions without new arguments are disruptive. The compound name idea isn't new, and per SexyKick there's not much hope that this discussion will wind up any better than the last one. Lastly I do agree with Aawood that we would probably just be trading one argument form (Genesis or Mega Drive) for another (Genesis/Mega Drive or Mega Drive/Genesis). --McDoobAU93 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I could with some effort manage to care less what the article is called, but to me it does seem nutty to rename an article unnecessarily. We have things called redirs that permit us in effect to give an article as many names as we like to prevent people failing to find what they want because of having failed to type in the correct name. "Sega Genesis" seems harmless as it stands and is crisp and inoffensive. If you happen to like " Sega Mega Drive and Genesis "; go for it! Create a redir with that name and stop worrying yourselves and other people about it. JonRichfield (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

People are offended by the name Sega Genesis Jon 82.47.189.182 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) contribs) (talk)has made no other edits outside this topic.

Offense, or lack thereof, will not ultimately decide what the article is named, 82.47. --McDoobAU93 17:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If they are offended they don't have to use that form of the name. They can use the names of the redirs, individually or in rotation. If they really, really can't stand the name then let them feel free to explain in encyclopaedic terms in the lede to the article what they perceive to be the source of their offence; thereby they can spread the awareness of its intrinsic evil till everyone wanting to look up the article will insist on typing in "Sega Mega Drive and Genesis" every time they wish to refer to it, and speaking of the "Sega Mega Drive and Genesis" instead of speaking of the "drive" or "Meg", or even (horrors) the "Seg". Let's get real folks, you can't legislate what people will call things when the Disrespect Inquisition isn't breathing down their necks. Good Lord! Next people will be calling Xeroxes "copiers" or something! Just drop it for Heaven's sake, add as many redirs as anyone is in a mood for, and forget it, say I! JonRichfield (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is how you feel Jon then name the article Mega Drive and add a redirect for the erroneous name Sega Genesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.189.182 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jon: I would honestly like to know why "people" are so offended by this name. It's not like we named it after Adolf Hitler, right? (Oh shoot, I just lost the debate, huh? :)) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@anyone who cares. I had thought I had put it plainly that I cared very little which option(s) got chosen, and that what offended anyone could be worked around, and that what mattered was that we went for some reasonably constructive, useful and "encyclopaedic" action. I am only here because RFC rattled my cage. If Mega drive plus redirs suits a lot of folks, go for it. If not, go for something that does. In 8e13 years, approximately 1e9 Chinese couldn't care less. JonRichfield (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you don't really have an argument either way, and your original comment about people being "offended" should just be considered a snide, sarcastic and utterly pointless jab? Okay, I can buy that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You like it? You can have it free. You want to buy something, then rather spend your money on a course on reading English and responding constructively. Spend lavishly. JonRichfield (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons I mentioned the last two times it came up. WP:AND does not apply here. It is for two complementary concepts. Ying and Yang, Big-Endian and Little-Endian, that sort of thing. It is not for situations where there are two names for a single thing. Worse, it implies that the two things are two separate but complementary items, which is needlessly introducing confusion. APL (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Consensus can change, but I can only see this one ending badly and not remaining stable. What we really have to do here is pick one and stick with it; and yes, some editors are going to be unhappy one way or another because they feel that one or the other is the "right" name. Here's the answer: both are the right name. Neither "Mega Drive" nor "Sega Genesis" is an erroneous name. That is exactly why we've had these naming disputes over the years; because there are two right names and in each case editors have argued that one is right and disregarded the other as incorrect but in reality both are right. I happen to slightly prefer "Mega Drive" myself if we had to pick one (and I am American, just wanting to establish that here for those who haven't already stalked my user page from this discussion), but for the sake of consistency, something these Sega articles badly need to be improved properly, I don't see a combination name being stable at all and I think it will get changed if it goes through, and we'll be doing this all over again instead of working on the article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. With respect to all of the Opposes above, I don't see a policy-based reason to oppose the compound title. Hellmann's and Best Foods has been stable eight years. The belief that Sega Genesis and Mega Drive will not be stable because it was rejected before (including by me) is not a strong reason to not try it again, especially now that we know that Sega Genesis has not stifled controversy. --B2C 18:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not understanding this argument, honestly. What does policy have to do with any of our opposes? Is there a policy that makes them invalid? The only "policy" I can think of that applies is "learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it".--SexyKick 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    You’re asking the wrong question—Is there a policy that makes them valid? —Frungi (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Please read WP:JDLI. It is unhelpful to participate in such discussions without supporting your position with policy-based reasons.

      I can't speak for others, and I haven't looked in the archives, but as I recall my objection to the compound title originally was that it was a novel approach for which there was no precedent (I don't think I knew about Hellmann's and Best Foods then), that the compound title failed on naturalness, conciseness, and consistency, and because I presumed we could achieve a stable and non-controversial title by using either name.

      That last assumption has proven to be false. Further, I think the compound title does meet WP:CRITERIA reasonably well, arguably better than the current title. It's certainly recognizable, and arguably meets recognizability better than either name alone. It is certainly precise and, it turns out, consistent with other titles of similar topics (topics about a product marketed and named differently in different regions, like Hellmann's and Best Foods). It's not even clear that the current title is better on naturalness; certainly not for those who are familiar with Mega Drive name and unfamiliar with Sega Genesis.

      Agree or disagree, this is an example of what I mean by supporting your position with "policy-based reasons". --B2C 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

      • Respectfully, I must submit to you, was there a policy-based reason to prefer "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive"? The fact is that just because policy says an option is acceptable doesn't mean it's "supported" by policy - it's just permitted. Reading over WP:AND, "Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased." Are we now conceding that this article has a neutrality problem? The right answer here is to improve the article, hammer that out, and then pick and stick with a title. Honestly, it's my thought that "Mega Drive" would be that title once the article is finished, but I'm not too particular to one or the other as long as we're consistent. Part of the problem here is that the article is still quite choppy and, honestly, in pretty sorry shape (no offense to SexyKick, I know you're trying, but it's a long article and it does still need a lot of polish). I'd be glad to jump in here more soon; I just added over 9000 characters a couple of days ago for a section I'm shocked wasn't already in here. Also, per WP:TITLECHANGES, "titles for articles are subject to consensus", and I would say that a stability concern in an oppose is a policy quote of this policy, per this quote: "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
      • Furthermore, where do we go from here? Does Sega CD become Sega CD and Mega-CD? Sega 32X become Sega Genesis 32X, Sega Mega Drive 32X, and Super 32X? Okay, the last one's blatantly ridiculous, I know, but you get my point. Suddenly the consistency of these articles all becomes about compromise titles and everything just gets confusing for the content forks spreading out from this main article. Which title do you prefer in each article? Do we keep having to use "Mega Drive/Genesis" when not referring to one in a particular region? WP:IAR's spirit of the policy is that we should do what it takes to improve Wikipedia. Does introducing all of these naming issues really improve these articles?
      • I just don't see this being a good thing for the articles. It's imperative that this article have one title, a stable title, and a simple title. While one way or another someone won't be happy whichever way it goes, it's what will lead to the best quality of articles, this and its content forks included. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 04:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, no offense taken at all. My English isn't top tier, (especially in regards to structure and flow) and I haven't been really tidying up any sections for a couple years now at least. Your presence alone has been a breath of fresh air and has had me feeling really positive emotions about potentially doing real work on the article again. I don't know why talking on the talk page is so much easier...but for some reason, it just is. (And it's a real time waster too.)--SexyKick 08:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
          • And it's nice to have an editor who hasn't given up on the article while all of these debates rage on. I'd love nothing more than to rebuild this into a GA again, and progress toward a Sega Genesis Featured Topic. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 11:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - We have the best name under WP policy, and while I accepted this compromise in the past, it seems clear that changing the article to a compound name will not end the fights over the title.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• COMMENT... It often helps in these discussions to clarify the difference between a things NAME and the TITLE of our article about the thing. They are not necessarily the same. The machine that is the subject of this article has two NAMES ("Sega Mega Drive" and "Sega Genesis"), and either NAME could be the used as the TITLE of this article (at the moment we do this - using the NAME "Sega Genesis" as the TITLE of the article) ... However, we don't have to use either of the subject's NAMES as the TITLE of our article... there is another option... we can come up with a descriptive TITLE for the topic. I think that is what is being proposed here... to move the article to a descriptive article TITLE that in some way combines the two NAMES for the machine. That is allowed under policy. So... the only question left is, do we want to do this or not. That isn't a policy issue, but simply a matter of consensus. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support over either name individually, since each name is and was used in various parts of the English-speaking world. (And strongly oppose the bickering between the two sides.) —Frungi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support A compound title would certainly be preferable to using "Sega Genesis" alone. I would still argue that "Mega Drive" is the most suitable name, but if there's a strong enough feeling that the "Genesis" variant was notable enough to be worth of inclusion in the title in addition to "Mega Drive" then I don't really take issue with that and think it's an acceptable compromise. The compound title has failed before, but as Born2Cycle has pointed out, that seems to have been due to erroneous reasoning on the part of those involved in the decision to scrap it. Born2Cycle makes a very sound argument as to why a compound title is more suitable and in line with policy, which I personally wouldn't have been in favour of before reading his argument. Whilst the opposes don't seem to have made any real argument at all besides WP:JDLI.--94.197.144.52 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)— 94.197.144.52 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

That's not true at all. A number of policy-based arguments have been made against the compound name, both this time, and in greater depth the first time around. APL (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a substantive (non-procedural) policy-based oppose argument in this discussion yet. Have I missed it? Can you point one out, or refer to one? --B2C 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to read one of the previous discussions where this dragged on for months already. No one wants to waste time repeating themselves and having the exact same long drawn out conversation yet again. Dream Focus 23:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor should they. For a perennial proposal it's the burden is on the supporters to demonstrate that they're covering new ground. I haven't seen that. All I've seen is editor-centric arguments that this will stop the debates. (Last time it attracted new participants! Incl, myself.), appeals to WP:AND that are ... questionable at best, and some obscure WP:Otherstuff. All this is ground that has been trod at least twice before.

APL (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close This is ridiculous. WP:HORSE How many times will the same discussion be had? Dozens of people participated previously. Consensus was clear. Repeating it time and again hoping for different results, arguing nonstop until most people give up bothering with it, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No substantive (non-procedural) policy-based reason for opposing the compound title is given in the FAQ, nor has been cited in this discussion. Somebody has to provide it at least once before others can claim there is no need to repeat it. --B2C 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You can read the long discussion in a section above, or check through the archives for the long discussions of the past. Whenever a debate is started by a SPA with an IP address, time and time again, then its probably the same stubborn guy anyway. Dream Focus 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to point out that this matter was discussed at the talk:Hellmann's and Best Foods page around the time that the 2011 "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" move discussion had concluded, and provided reasoning why the compound title was acceptable for that title but not this one, the most important point being that these two brands were both developed independantly for years with neither being distinguishable from the other. Also worth noting is that User:Born2Cycle had commented on this and agreed at the time. Whether something has changed since then, I could not say. Benach (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I recall that as well, but I don't like to write things without checking, and I didn't feel like checking. I fought for the compound name back then as well, and I know that since those arguments didn't keep the title there then, they wouldn't keep it there now. It will bring wiki users who have user names, and they'll want to change the title, and they won't just be shouting "yank bias" or whatever it is Americans shout when an article is stuck in original English either.--SexyKick 09:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What difference does it make if a total of two people discussed something a year and a half ago about a different article? We've had dozens of people discussing things previously here in greater detail. Dream Focus 10:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'm new to the debate, but AFAICT the only consensus to ever develop was for the Mega Drive name - which the article retained for five years. The compound name was tried and obviously didn't result in consensus. The current name is only there because there was no consensus and so the original title was retained. That's not a clear consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  The current name is because of overwhelming consensus, not just because it was the original title. Dream Focus 10:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Okay, I've gone through the archives. I still can't find a policy-based argument against the compound title. What I do find is a bunch of WP:JDLI arguments, like this jewel:

  This title is batshit nuts. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  Unless someone can explain why a compound title is against policy or guidelines, I really think it's time to file the move to Sega Genesis and Mega Drive via a formal WP:RM proposal/discussion. --B2C 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, all right. (I don't claim this list is complete. It's just what I remember off the top of my head.)

• • "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."

A compound title is not natural. Nobody has called the device "G and MD" or "MD and G", and nobody would be likely to link to it in that form.

• • "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."

A compound title would be longer than necessary to distinguish the article from other subjects.

• • "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles."

This was the biggest bone of contention, and probably the one G&MD proponents are calling "WP:JDLI", but this is a real concern that's completely policy based. There are LOT's of products with more than one name, and even more articles with engvar titles, but they don't do this compound name business. They choose one and go with it. Even if it causes people to complain on the talk.

In addition there are concerns that G&MD is confusing because it implies that it's two separate devices that are used together. Communicating clearly is always a primary goal on WP, and describing that as WP:JDLI is disingenuous.

APL (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• • THANK YOU. I'm striking my support. --B2C 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per APL's policy-based argument just above. --B2C 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question: I agree with APL's analysis ... if we think about the compound as being a NAME (as a NAME the compound is not natural, concise, or consistent), but what if we think of it as being a DESCRIPTIVE title? The compound "X and Y" does strike me as being a natural and concise description of the device (although descriptively it might be better to have it read: "Sega G or MG".) Not arguing in favor... just raising the question. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That would imply that the noun/description choice came before the name guidelines I mentioned. I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to consider all that while you're deciding on whether to use a proper noun or a description, not just when you're deciding which proper noun to use.

Looked at in that light, I suppose you could make the argument that the description is as natural as a proper noun (I would personally not agree with that, though.) But it's still not the concise choice or a choice consistent with other articles of this type.

(If, for some reason, a compound name had to be chosen, I do agree that "G or MG" is less confusing than "G and MG".) APL (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mega Grive"? ;-) 86.4.242.105 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Mega Grive". It's my new compromise title proposal. APL (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Descriptive titles are for topics contrived by WP editors that don't have names. Yes, Airplane and Aeroplane once redirected to Fixed-wing aircraft, but even that title was a commonly used name for that topic, not a descriptive title. I know of no precedent for using descriptive titles on articles about named entities. The closest example is Hellman's and Best Foods, but those two products had truly distinct origins, which justifies the compound name in that case. That is not the case here. --B2C 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Counterproposal: We're doing this whole thing backwards...

I'd like to make a counterproposal in this RFC, per my comments above. We keep arguing about the notability of one title or the other, the concepts of giving equal weight to both, and whatnot. Has anyone here, aside from myself and SexyKick as the top two contributors to this article, ever actually read this article to find out? Nope, instead we're all just bickering about what we believe on our own knowledge of video games. Wikipedia doesn't work that way; it works based on verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. Part of the issue here is that there's still cleanup to be done, and WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues are included in that.

So, I respectfully submit a counterproposal on the name. Let's stick with Sega Genesis for three more months. In that time, I'll be busting my tail on this article when I'm not working or busy with other life issues (i.e. I just self-published a fiction novel and I'm trying to maintain it and get ePublication formats ready, etc.) I'm sure SexyKick will be doing the same, and anyone else who's actually willing to help contribute to the article itself can help, too, of course. We can collaborate on any particular section, as need be, as the IP editor has done above about the lead - and no offense to the IP editor, I love the good-faith effort and what's come out of that will help in the future, but it's my honest take the lead should be done last, once the rest of the article is done so the lead may accurately sum up the whole article.

The reason I ask we stick with Genesis during that time frame is because a consistent title is important for several sections. Any section that does not refer to a region-specific model will need to use the version in the title. The only exceptions one way or another would be in areas that refer to the console in a region, such as when talking about sales in Europe, Mega Drive would be what we use to describe the console, but when talking about Sega v. Accolade, Genesis would be what we use because that was a case in the U.S. My aim here is to create a worldwide article that covers all the bases and removes any WP:WORLDVIEW violations before we ultimately decide on a title. If it's "Genesis", fine. If it's "Mega Drive", fine. If it's a combination, we'll deal with that when the time comes. What I'm suggesting, though, is that we allow the article to be improved in the next three months, have some editors from the Video games WikiProject review it for standards (i.e. similar to an A-Class review, skipping the GA process temporarily because of lack of title stability).

What do you think? Is it a fair request? Investing the time into this article it needs instead of investing all of this time into the naming discussion will help us to clear up some of the issues we're arguing over and allow us to make a better choice that truly fits the notability criteria. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Things are going against what you wanted, so you are suggesting we stop the discussion and wait three months, then you can start it up again? No. That's ridiculous. Keep it at Sega Genesis, respect the establish consensus from all the long debates of the past that had high participation and months of discussion already, and stop beating a dead horse already. We shouldn't have to repeat this every few months. Dream Focus 12:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Erm, what things were going against what RedPhoenix wanted? In fact, they very much went towards what he wrote in...however, he does want to take a break from these debates popping up. I agree with this. It's kind of clear that with the IP editors and their constant talk of "yank bias" and other terms that only they've used, that it's a big issue to only one or two people, and they're going to abuse anonymous to constantly start up move discussions that aren't really in the spirit of Wikipedia.--SexyKick 20:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of any proposal to put some sort of "cool down period" on the non-stop debates here. Three months is would be a start, anyway. I think revisiting this issue more than once a year is dumb as a pile of rocks.

Sadly, I'm not sure if a consensus on such a cool-down period would be within policy. APL (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone is here again now paying attention. This hasn't been seriously discussed in two years. Now is the time, not 3 months from now. --B2C 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was just seriously discussed in July. It's only August. That discussion occurred when everyone was paying attention, and it's only been a month and this same IP editor calling out yank bias on everything (check his edit history) has made another RFC. Big surprise right? ;p - We just revisited the discussion two months ago, and that discussion went on for a month, and it's only a month later. "Now" might be the time to find a way to halt that persons pattern.--SexyKick 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. How did I miss that? Well, no one can blame me for fueling any of that! Anyway, I'm not a big fan of stifling discussion. I think this will die out soon on its own accord. --B2C 01:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That falls on all of us here. One important matter that played into each discussion is the notability of one title over the other, but until the article thoroughly covers all major points and is of a good caliber, how can we know for sure? We all do have our worldwide perspectives and know quite a bit about it from where we're from - mostly because, I presume, those of us who were here owned a Genesis or Mega Drive at some point in the past. If we can cover all of the points with sourcing and make sure to thoroughly explain every aspect, something I'm intent on doing (as well as others, I know), then by having built a neutral, world-encompassing article that covers matters everywhere, we'll all be able to read the article and make a better evaluation of what the name should be, and changing any of the in-article lingo shouldn't be too hard to match it. I'm not saying we still won't get people passionately fighting for "Genesis" or "Mega Drive", but perhaps it will make the situation more clear, and at least we'll then have improved the article instead of just bickering on this talk page. Some good can definitely come out of it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to "what's notable", I put together a quick list of main points in my original exploration of the article split. For convenience, I'll repeat it here:

Common to both titles

• Hardware specifications and technical capabilities
• Hardware development history
• Relationship to prior hardware
• Console wars, primarily with Nintendo
• General discussion of competition between Sega and other rivals
• Worldwide sales figures

Mega-Drive specific

• Release dates for Japanese, European and other worldwide markets
• Non-American software libraries
• Japanese/European/Asian sales and reception details

Genesis specific

• Release date
• Trademark issue causing the name change in North America
• North-American software libraries
• US Congressional hearings into video game violence and sexual content (Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, etc.)
• North American sales and reception details

Please feel free to edit this list with anything I've missed that's covered by sources (current and proposed). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the convenient copy; it's quite helpful. I think we could strike software libraries out of both, though, as realistically they did share the same library for the most part and specifying which goes where is a job best handled in a rewrite of List of Sega Mega Drive games.

Now, sliding off topic but without any intent to start the naming debate again just yet; while working on Sega CD and Sega Game Gear, I've found both some of the marketing campaigns used in Europe as well as a little bit about the controversy Night Trap caused in Britain as well. It's not a lot so far, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe that too might become a neutral point. However, let's complete the article and the research before we make a call on that; once the article is done, we'll have the sources to know for sure. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, why are the North American marketing campaigns deemed as worthy of their own section, but no others? The console wars raged here in the UK, too, and Sega came up with some extremely memorable ads. Type "Cyber razor cut" into YouTube for some notable examples. They may actually be more notable in the UK, in fact, given that the Mega Drive won the console war over the SNES here. (Also, I've asked this a couple of times but no-one's answered it: how big was Sonic Twosday in the US?)

Regarding Night Trap and the like, I've been digging into my old Sega mags and have slowly pieced a few things together. In the run-up to the aforementioned Sonic Twosday, video games suddenly became big news. Naturally, certain sections of the media decided to be moral guardians and ran a lot of scare stories. There was a tragic case of a young epileptic lad who died while playing games - resulting in the infamous headline "Nintendo Killed My Son" in The Sun. Then there was an episode of TV show World in Action, bearing the subtitle "Welcome to the Danger Zone", which aired on 15th February 1993. I can't find a copy, but it seems it was an all-out attack on games in general. The next day, The Daily Star ran an article under the headline "Breeding a Nation of Monsters", which drew unfounded links between teenage murderers, schoolboy rapists, and games.

So far, that's not specific to Sega, but then entered Night Trap. What we're looking for is a copy of The Daily Mail from 28th April 1993 - that's the one that started it. "The Sega Sickener" was the headline, and the strapline read, "Outrage at video nasty that makes a game out of 'real life' women being mutilated". It's reproduced in part in an issue of Sega Power I have in front of me right now, and it quotes Terry Dicks, Tory MP for Hayes and Harlington: "The manufacturers are evil and ought to be punished for promoting this game... [Parents] should be forced to give their name and address if they buy it."

And then it was open season on games in the media for the next year or more. Any number of Members of Parliament were forever giving their opinions on things they'd never even seen, Sega submitted Night Trap to the BBFC for rating (usually only reserved for films), and at some point in late 1993 or early 1994 (I think), the ELSPA system of age classification came in. That may have been linked to Mortal Kombat, but it's difficult trying to piece this all together.

Hope that's helpful. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one example of why I feel like you haven't really read the article.--SexyKick 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any need for such a disparaging comment directed at me as a person. Nevertheless, would you mind enlightening me as to what I've done wrong? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll understand once you've read the entire article. ;p SexyKick 18:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's two extremely unhelpful - not to mention unnecessary - comments. Have you got something against me personally? If you're not going to justify your first reply, I can only suspect so. My post provided plenty of information that I thought would be useful to KieferSkunk, including names and dates of publications which could be significant sources. Some was background, some could actually be used to improve into the article. I really don't know what part of it suggested that I "haven't really read the article", and you're refusing to enlighten me.

Three bullet points at the top of this page read:

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks

Pretty good advice, in my opinion, and I'm following it the best I can. Are you? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression SexyKick has a feeling of ownership over this particular article, making him oblivious to how bad it is. It's written from a very slanted North American POV, and the article title is simply the most obvious symptom of that. I feel a certain group of editors want to keep it that way - they want it to be about the North American Genesis, with anything of international scope as an aside. If that's the case then the argument for making a separate article specific to the North American Genesis, as opposed to the International Mega Drive has merit. Wikipedia deserves a well-written article about the Mega Drive, written from an international perspective, covering all regions, and at present we don't have that. It may well also be the case that we should have an article specific to the Genesis as well, if editors feel that's a particularly notable variant - but this should be in addition to a good Mega Drive article, not instead of one. --188.29.95.44 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

86.4: The list I gave above was based on the current state of the article and the sources we have listed in it - it's not necessarily a statement of what's "deemed" to be noteworthy, just what currently is based on our current set of sources. That's why I've been asking people to contribute to that list with sourced information. Unfortunately, "I remember..." or "I'm pretty sure that..." aren't good enough to contribute to the article, but "In this copy of X magazine, there was coverage of..." definitely is. As we gather more sources like that, the list of noteworthy items in all three categories will likely grow, and some of them will likely become neutral. Overall, that will go a long way toward improving the article and hopefully settling the long dispute.

I can't speak for SexyKick, but I have to agree somewhat that if you give the article itself a good reading in its current condition, you'll probably see what we mean. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a second - you and SexyKick both seem to have missed the point I was making: The stuff about the extensive UK marketing (including the Cyber Razor Cut ads and all that) is in the current article, and seems to be sourced. So I'm questioning why "North-American marketing campaigns (Console wars, primarily with Nintendo)" is listed under "Genesis specific" in your bullet points. Well, obviously "North American" = "Genesis specific", but you know what I mean.

Anyway, if you can get this to work (it seems temperamental at my end), someone somewhere has digitised a bunch of retro UK video games magazines. Could be good for sources. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidently I missed that - thanks for pointing it out. Feel free to amend the list above as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem - now done. Also added "Release date" under Genesis, for the sake of symmetry. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

He missed it because he is blinded by bias and is stuck in denial 77.97.141.75 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, these personal attacks are getting old. Next one gets an instant report to WP:ANI, no exceptions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Easy, guys. Let's just focus on the article instead of going back and forth. On the topic of an article rewrite, I can already see several glaring issues, namely as I look at the article's sourcing. Let's face it; we might as well go for broke, make the article stable, and go for an FA. I'll give some specifics later on; I have a project in real life I have to complete first. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Am I late to the party? I didn't bother to read over the numerous comments preceding mine, so I'm not sure if anyone has closed the discussion yet. Personally, a compound name wouldn't bother me. It seems like the only way to be equally inclusive. I'm sure some editors would still be up-in-arms over the article naming issue, but wouldn't a compound name possibly appease most people? I say it's at least worth a shot, assuming it hasn't been tried already. If the change upsets too many editors, we could always revert back to the previous title. 98.86.114.181 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Repairs I'm seeing needed

Apologies I haven't been around in the last few days; as I've said to some before, I work an abrasive schedule. Anyway, I'll be back on in a couple of days to edit the page, but let's talk article repair, shall we?

Regardless of your take on region naming, here's what I'm seeing needs fixed:

• LOTS of unreliable sources. We need to use sources from WP:VG/S wherever possible, and fill in with better quality sources.
• Lead does need a rewrite. Part of this will be dependent on the eventual outcome of the article, so this should be saved for last.
• "Console wars" main article needs redirected to the main article History of video games, and segments on its discontinuation needs to be removed because that's better off for the "decline".
• VRC section; should that lead into the section about Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, the US congressional hearings and the controversies in the UK Parliament? It's funny the controversies aren't covered better here; though it's not really a Genesis-exclusive issue, there's no denying how crucial it is to the history of the Genesis.
• Should sales figures over the course of time be mentioned? At least in the decline they should be mentioned there; it gives an important comparison of how the Genesis performed against its competition, including the SNES.
• Emulation is short, choppy, and full of useless cruft. How many of these emulators are actually noteworthy of mention aside from the fact that they exist? Combining it with information about plug-and-play devices that emulate Genesis hardware and the release of Genesis titles on newer consoles might be worth a mention in the same section, and all together with the "Legacy and revival" section, putting together one section about the survival of Genesis/Mega Drive games and software years after the system was discontinued.
• Tech specs are a bit long and crufty, and appear to contain original research.
• Peripherals section could be expanded, or a new section added, about the internet services Sega Channel and Sega Net Work System, and then those articles can be redirected to those sections.
• Variations definitely needs expanded. I can see this comprising a couple of subsections, with maybe a sentence or two about each variation. Then, List of variations of the Mega Drive would also be obsolete, but that's okay because that list is full of cruft and OR, anyway.
• Article could definitely use a reception section. Not only does it play into the console's legacy, but it helps to convey more about how the console was seen during its lifetime.

Thoughts? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this is going to be one of the longest articles of all time. x.x

• What sources are we considering unreliable right now?
• Emulation surely is crufty. Kega Fusion, and to a much lesser extent, Gens are the most used emulators right now.
• Sega Channel I would think would be long enough and contain enough sources on its own to be its own article. I don't feel that is the case with the latter. Sega Channel had multiple exclusive games for instance, I don't know...
• I would think (though I'm not an expert on this matter) that the List of variations of the Mega Drive would just be easier to rework and link to.
• Reception I think just plays into Legacy and revival. There wasn't a Reception section in the SNES article until CaseyPenk just did this huge rework of the article. (and pending on what Anomie feels about it, we might revert all of that because such drastic changes to a featured article seem unwaranted)--SexyKick 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sure it'll be that long. There is some expansion needed, but a lot of cruft also needs to be taken out in emulation and tech specs. Sources, I'd have to do a full source review as in featured article candidates, but from just skimming the list, I have my doubts about several of them... not the factual information itself, but the sources have to be reliable to establish credibility. As for the variations, I actually disagree that it'd be easier to rework the list because having read it several times, I feel that the list is crufty with excessive unnecessary detail and also contains original research (read the section on the Firecore? Saying it's "crudely" emulating Genesis software is pretty pointy.) I believe, though, that I can successfully work it into a couple of subsections (First and second models, alternate variations by third parties, and post-lifetime releases), with each subsection only taking a couple of paragraphs each. If desired, I can put this together in my sandbox in the next week or two to show a proof of concept. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 12:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I do feel like the List of variations of the Mega Drive needs to be completely wiped and redone. The proof of concept idea would be an improvement to what's in there ATM.--SexyKick 12:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Still working on it, I had a rough week at work. I did, however, get rid of the emulation section by condensing it into Legacy and revival, and adding subsections to that part. I think it also makes more sense that way, as emulation of the system is really a matter of the system's legacy and later releases, too. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose making this article overly lengthy by having details on each of the different variations of the Mega Drive, if you feel a specific variation is particularly noteworthy then it should have it's own article, but tbh I get the impression you are just trying to wind up proponents of the name Mega Drive who now only have one article/list without a gimped title77.97.141.75 (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm more of the disposition that if it could never be a featured list or a good article, it shouldn't be an article or list on Wikipedia. You're also forgetting List of Sega Mega Drive games, which I've said nothing about, and furthermore I've argued for Mega Drive before and honestly believe it is the better title. At this point, looking at repairs has nothing to do with the article name, except that removing bias in the article in the cleanup will help to better direct the naming debate if it fires up again; not to mention, of course, I'm a Sega enthusiast who wants good articles and not crap. Also, I'm not talking about having lots of details; if we wanted that, we'd redo List of variations of the Mega Drive, which is absolutely ridiculous and an original research dumping ground. If I can find some time to make that concept, you'd see that each variation really only has, in my concept, a sentence or two to it, and the entire section would be a couple of paragraphs total. That's all it really needs. Lastly, like I said I favor Mega Drive myself, but "gimped title", really? The problem's that we have two equally valid titles, and that's why this debate has raged since 2003. No reason to talk about the naming until the article could stand as a good article and meets all Wikipedia policies, especially WP:WORLDVIEW. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, variations with their own articles already: Pioneer LaserActive, Amstrad Mega PC, Sega TeraDrive, Sega Nomad. LaserActive couldn't be merged in because it's quite a diverse system that ran both Mega Drive/Genesis, as well as TurboGrafx-16 and was an audiovisual system; Sega Nomad I think has enough as the successor to the Sega Game Gear to warrant its own article as well that needs rewritten. The two computers, I'm not sure on yet. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)