Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments, especially about the article's name, being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic.
At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis".
The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis".
In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.
Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.
A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title.
"[When a title] has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker".
The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years. Doesn't that mean it was stable there?
Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period. But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter. Many editors take this as a sign of instability.
It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period. By default, no action was taken.
So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)?
This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close.
The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name.
So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"?
As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected.
So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct?
That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion.
There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move.
Is the new title stable?
Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support are ever made.
What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"?(Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.)
"Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES)
"Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME)
Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name.
It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed.
The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)
The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.
While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language.
The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR)
What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"?(Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.)
"Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan.
"Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON)
The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America due to a copyright issue in the United States, and should be considered an exception.
Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America.
To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics.
"Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT)
Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N)
As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument).
Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?
Per Wikipedia's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but never-the-less consensus strongly favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons.
"Sega Genesis" was strongly favored in November 2011, though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong.
Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?
This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:
Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;
This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)
Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again?
Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction.
Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Wikipedia, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate.
Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself.
Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic? What if I have something new to say?
The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily.
Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again.
That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Wikipedia policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ.
In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive.
^While the compound title Hellman's and Best Foods would seem to set a precedent for a compound title, it must be noted that those two products had truly distinct histories, while the Genesis and Mega Drive do not.
^P. Konrad Budziszewski, "Sega Genesis/Sega Mega Drive," in Mark J. P. Wolf, Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, ABC-CLIO, 2012, p. 559:
"The SEGA Mega Drive was a fourth-generation video game console. It was released in Japan on October 29, 1988; in North America (as SEGA Genesis) on August 14, 1989; and in Europe on November 30, 1990." The author thereafter refers to it as the "Genesis/Mega Drive."
This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions listed below.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I was wondering if you guys would be interesting in the Game Library section. Here's my brainstorm of it so far:
Paragraph 1: Early titles were arcade ports (Altered Beast/Golden Axe/Super Hang-On) and mascot titles (Castle of Illusion/Moonwalker/Quackshot). These games did well but enough to help Sega compete in NA.
Paragraph 2: Kalinske joins and wants a new mascot and more western development. Sonic replaced Alex Kidd. Sega Technical Institute was created, and they worked with Blue Skies and Apossola for Western-esque software.
Paragraph 3: Japanese 3rd party support was poor. Square and Enix skipped the system, and despite Sega having their own RPGs (Phantasy Star/Shining Force), Genesis couldnt compete marketshare-wise in Japan. Capcom initially didn't put SF2 on the system, but eventually got a port. Western support was strong, including EA Sports and Virgin Games. Mortal Kombat 1 was multiplat, but the Genesis version could allow you to bypass the censorship and according to creator Ed Boon played closer to the arcade version than the SNES version (I have a source for this).
I had most of this in the article a few years back, along with a section on European advertising as they had this awesome Peter Wingfield campaign that lead into this awesome Cyber Razor Cut promo. However mostly all of it was removed during the FAC process as superfluous. Many of the sources are probably still out there though.--SexyKick 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. To be fair, a lot of what is mentioned is said in the page, just spread around.
Hello, I've been doing a lot of research on the Mega Drive recently, and am willing to contribute to the library section. The Saturn and Dreamcast ones are several paragraphs long, so I think the Mega Drive one could work in that format to. I don't think the Japanese support was "poor," even though it missed out on Square and Enix's killer apps. I'd say it had decent 3rd party support (Namco, Konami, Koei, Taito, Capcom, etc.) not to mention a lot of developers who started out on it. I'll be doing an entire game library write-up in a few days.FightersMegamix (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, sorry about taking so long about this. I have a write-up written on Microsoft Word that I'm working on, but got distracted by the holidays. Just to be sure, was BlueSky Software ever owned by Sega? I'm trying to separate my write-up with Sega internally developed games and games that Sega just published. I've seen conflicting reports on BlueSky, so I thought I'd ask here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FightersMegamix (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Pretty sure they just had a publishing deal with Sega of America. They also made games for other, non-Sega systems around the same time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, but that's too weak of a claim in my opinion. More likely is that he is mistaken or misremembering something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you there. Here is what I have written so far. I'd like to know everyone's thoughts. I think I covered most of the defining games, and I imagine some of the link directions probably lead to the wrong Wikipedia article, but I'll be sure to look into that before I put it in the main article.
So where did the old paragraph go? Not all of its information seems to be integrated into the above. I would suggest keeping that original first paragraph, and trying to integrate your points into a second, maybe third paragraph. Also I'm not exactly keen on the lack of sources-to-information mentioned throughout the two new paragraphs. This is an FA and so when we try to improve upon existing content we have to do so with higher standards. To me, this kinda just seems like we're trying to name as many games in as short a space as possible - there's really not much we're saying apart from "this game, that game, the other game." The stuff I had about different games, the Cyber Razor Cut, more depth about MK (like talk of how impactful the blood code was, and the idea now that it was notable enough to have reliable sources discussing that is kind of notable to me personally - so often you want to talk about something, and there's just no sources) that information was removed during the FAC and actually went into a bit of depth, had quite roughly a dozen+ relevant sources, and I felt it was actually interesting and taught things not commonly known. Especially in the UK advertising area. Stuff about Moonwalker and Michael Jackson. But, I do think the article is better overall now and so I accepted the loss of quantity to the goal of quality. And truly I feel the one paragraph you replaced, actually tells us more than the two new paragraphs.--SexyKick 20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to add stuff about the advertising and Mortal Kombat being uncensored but since it was already covered in other parts of the article, I thought you guys would view it as redundant. I am willing to expand on that stuff if you want. I did find some sources on Kalinske and Joe Miller talking about the need of Western-appealing software, as as well as Ed Boon discussing the SNES and Genesis versions of Mortal Kombat. FightersMegamix (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you want, we could bring back the old paragraph and combine them.FightersMegamix (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I do want to bring back the old paragraph and, while I do rather wish we could bring back all the old stuff too, we can't / shouldn't because of the FAC review. I don't much mind whatever you add after the recently removed paragraph - except that thing you mentioned earlier with the SNES version of MK playing closer to the arcade isn't even close to true. That may be what he said, but in the SNES version you can't even have projectile wars because only one projectile can have a hitbox at a time on the SNES. And that's not the only thing...the SNES plays like a very handicapped Sega Genesis version, and the Sega Genesis version actually retains a ton of juggle combos from the arcade. "colors and sounds closer to the arcade" is the closest I could go with, because that's accurate.--SexyKick 06:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand. He said the Genesis version was closer to the arcade, not the SNES version. Also, I guess you could bring back he original paragraph then. FightersMegamix (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I misread that, twice!--SexyKick 08:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, changes done. Balls in your court now if you wanna bring back the old stuff. FightersMegamix (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
is there any reason that Mega Deive is being used first if the article itself is titled Genesis?--18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the top image is of the first version of the system's release, while the bottom is the revised version released years later, so I assume they're presented in chronological order of release, not according to the the name of the article. That's just my observation though, I did not take the picture or implement it into the article. Sergecross73msg me 17:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably just the order they appear in the image.
No point worrying about it. The very first line of the article explains the name thing, and also the very first line of the blurb. So there's not much chance for confusion. ApLundell (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Mega Drive's 25th year anniversary in the UK
Should this be added to the legacy section? I know some people are against adding stuff about the clone systems, but to be fair, I do believe this one does come with a Cartridge slot.FightersMegamix (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)