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.
Why does it list three places it is "Ongoing" in the Discontinued section? It says it was discontinued in North America in 1999 (Majesco) but is still being made in North America now by AtGames. How many are sold each year? Any way to find out? DreamFocus 11:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It is ongoing in Brazil, US, and Europe. There's not really a way that I know of to find out how many are being sold each year, but the consoles are all for sale on the manufactures homepages.--SexyKick 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this was the grounds that myself, and I believe Dissident93, were objecting on - it doesn't make sense to list "ongoing" status in the "discontinued" section. It doesn't make any sense. It clutters it, and it doesn't conceptually make sense to list there. Sergecross73msg me 12:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It was suggested in the FACR because the person reviewing specifically said "it says discontinued in the infobox, but the article then goes on to say it is still sold?" The involved editors were all fine with this solution - it makes sense to someone reading "Okay, discontinued in 1997. But I see it is still being sold now. Strange but interesting.". It wouldn't "clutter" it if the subject matter of the article wasn't so expansive. Do you have another suggestion for a way to satisfy what was brought up by the FACR? Certainly this "clutter" was of no consequence to FACR. So I argue it's not to be considered clutter - if it were to stop us from achieving a better article, I might agree. However we managed to nab the highest article grade we can get, and the reason it exists the way it does is because of the review process there. A process intended to make the article better. Of course not everyone is going to agree on what is or isn't going to make the article better, but we all worked pretty hard for months on that, and "cluttered" > dishonest.--SexyKick 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me think and see if there's a better way to express it. It just seems odd to list this off when its something that is literally the opposite of the definition of the field. (Listing "ongoing" in the "discontinued" field.) In the mean time, yes, we get it, you guys worked hard on it. But that that doesn't mean we keep it that way forever, and its nothing personal. It just looks a little busy as is, for infobox content, that's all. Sergecross73msg me 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe just a note that says something like "Ongoing through secondary manufacturers" without going into confusing detail? ApLundell (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd approve of that. It could be set up like how the notes are set up at the also FA SNES article - it can be explained in the "Notes" section, outside of the infobox, where it will look less cluttered. Sergecross73msg me 15:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Are these newer versions licensed by Sega, or are they considered clones/knock-offs? If the former, then we could say production has never really stopped. If the latter, then the solution would be along the lines of what ApLundell suggested. --McDoobAU93 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
They are licensed. You know, right now we don't go into confusing detail. It is no more cluttered than the Release Date section of the info box. Both the release date, and discontinuation sections are using the provided templates already; they go into no further detail than the other so it is simple, concise, and uncluttered. It would be silly to just maintain a commitment of that section to just JP for instance. Though perhaps we could use the "Retail availability" section to fit in the "Ongoing"'s.--SexyKick 17:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I do believe that would make more sense than listing it in the "discontinued" section as well. I'm fine with that. Sergecross73msg me 18:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yay! Alright. Hopefully speaking, the case, is Solv Ed!--SexyKick 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Its solved for me - I'm happy with this compromise. Sergecross73msg me 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Licensed or not, they're still clones, it seems odd to consider a system that was officially discontinued long ago as ongoing because of that. Is Intellivision ongoing because of the recent release of the officially licensed Flashback clone?22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
If there is one that allows legacy cartridges to be used, I would say yes. I have the Flashback IntelliVision unit (as well as their ColecoVision unit) and it does not allow you to use carts for the original consoles in the way that some of these devices do. --McDoobAU93 14:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
re: @Indrian, FACs are not infallible. WP:V instructs "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If the claim is widespread, it shouldn't be an issue to source it. As it stands, its closest reference is an interview, so the first part of the paragraph needs to be sourced anyway. It's common to add direct citations to contested claims, especially when using a turn of phrase like "unprecedented". – czar 06:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia an international archive, or an American archive? I was under the impression it was the former, but if so, the article should be titled "Sega Mega Drive", not "Sega Genesis". The article even states itself that it's known as the Mega Drive in "most regions outside of the USA". Therefore, it's known internationally by the name Mega Drive, not Genesis. Unless Wikipedia is formally declaring its website and archives to be US Centric rather than International, but it has never claimed to be in the past.
This post was removed originally, but I request that it be re-examined by multiple moderators (both American and non-American, but with particular inclusion of the latter) before subsequent removal - it was claimed that my query is not constructive, but I disagree. I am asking for clarification on whether Wikipedia is US Centric (in which case, more care needs to be taken to explain this across the site, and the article should remain unchanged) or if it is an International archive (in which case the title of the article should change to "Sega Mega Drive"). This is very much a constructive and necessary question to ask, as it has an effect on the naming conventions being adhere to. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the FAQ as requested by the person who removed your post? The answer you seek is already provided. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ towards the top of the page, it covers the naming in great detail. I removed your comment because its rather obvious you're leading into trying to start another article title debate (which your reinsertion/expanded comment shows that I was correct on this assumption.) The consensus is that, unless a new argument is proposed (Hint: Your stance is one that has been re-proposed over and over again.) then no more debates on the title should happen, as far too much time has been wasted arguing on this already. Please do not go against this consensus, or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Sergecross73msg me 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What is commonly ignored in these posts is that there already was an examination conducted by editors worldwide, including American editors who favored Mega Drive and European editors who favored Genesis. As both Izno and Sergecross have noted, no new rationale has been presented and the FAQ goes into great detail explaining the timeline for the name of the article, which explains why the statement was removed. Along with the consensus on the name, consensus was established that simply starting up the discussion again (thinking sentiment or a new "cast of characters" might result in a different outcome, even though it's never about the vote tally) goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing and thus should be nipped in the bud on sight. It is also worth noting that since the naming issue was settled, the article as been improved substantially and is now considered a featured article, identifying it as one of the best available on the project. --McDoobAU93 16:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies then, I'm not very adept at wiki's behind-the-scenes stuff, so I didn't really know which talk page I was supposed to go to (I believed it to be the one for the user/moderator, as that's sometimes been the case on wikia pages), and as it wasn't linked, I went with my incorrect initiative.
Even so, had a conversation like this been left on the talk page, I wouldn't've assumed the discussion hadn't come up before, so perhaps keep this one around? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hence the reason when Sergecross73 removed your comment previously, he directed you to the FAQ on the page. That said, a link to the FAQ in the edit summary might have been more of a direct indicator of where to look. Beyond that, retaining this thread doesn't appear to be necessary. --McDoobAU93 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we un-collapse the FAQ maybe, so it doesn't blend in with all the WikiProject and GA boxes? Its awfully big, but at least people wouldn't miss it... Sergecross73msg me 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No, because it will outweigh the other conversations that need to take place on the talk page. I think, in future, a link to the FAQ in the edit summary when removing a potentially non-constructive thread will suffice. --McDoobAU93 17:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This is pathetic! How many times has this same single purpose IP address showed up and made the same exact arguments time and time again? No matter how many times they get blocked, they just show up with a different IP address and start the same argument. Its clearly the same guy as always. Its only been 20 days since the last time. Special:Contributions/22.214.171.124 Since the only time an IP address edits the talk page, it is always the same guy, who has been blocked multiple times on different accounts, can we just protect this page from IP addresses editing it? DreamFocus 21:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
While this new IP is also from the UK, where the other more argumentative editor is located, so far this one isn't passing the duck test. I'm willing to go on good-faith for a bit until something changes. If it does, then I think that is something to consider. --McDoobAU93 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we really assume that it's the same guy? Not that it matters though, as it doesn't happen every day, so I don't think protecting this page is needed, specifically as a lot of people are watching the article and revert anytime it comes up again. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It is obviously the same guy. His first statement says so. Complaints about it being America not international, and makes the same argument as he has done a dozen or so times already. DreamFocus 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not that I disagree, but he isn't the only one with that sentiment. (not that it matters at all) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, its hard to say. It could be that original guy, doing a bad job at taking a slightly different approach, or it could just be another person who has an attachment to the "Mega Drive" name. Either way, it seems like he's stopped for now, and if he starts back up, whether its him or not, he's blocked, so we're all set here. Sergecross73msg me 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
So, I wanted to get some consensus on this edit. I don't find it to be necessary. CD's are not compatible with the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive itself, and we've got a specific article for the Sega CD tech specs - at Sega CD. I assume that others probably agree on this, as I can't imagine this was an oversight with the article becoming a featured article relatively recently, but its been re-added twice now, so I figured its time to discuss. Sergecross73msg me 15:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Powerbase Converter allows use of Sega Cards, but we don't include them as part of the Media used. I'd be against inclusion for the main reason above - it's a peripheral, and not a base part of the Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, I'd be fine with adding it if there wasn't an article specifically for the Sega CD. But there is, and there should, and there likely always will be, unless by some crazy scenario, someone gathered a consensus to merge two separate FAs together into one article. Sergecross73msg me 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
When you say "base part of the Genesis," do you mean what comes in the Genesis package? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what he means. Since the Sega CD has it's own article, any info/specs particular to that should go there instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree, that belongs in the Sega CD article, not here. --SubSeven (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The Genesis may not play CDs in default but it can through the Sega CD which is designed to be connected to it. It's kinda like putting a hard drive onto an Xbox 360 to achieved backwards compatibility with some original Xbox games. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's a very good analogy; the Sega CD playing CDs as a media isn't any form of backwards compatibility, nor did the 360 get access to a new form of media (like DVD) in your example either... Sergecross73msg me 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
What I mean to say is connecting a Sega CD to a Genesis or putting a hard drive onto an Xbox 360 allows those consoles to play games that are normally not playable on them. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, just not how it would be a reason to include CD as a media here. I can remote play ps4 games through my Vita, but that doesn't mean I'd put blu-rays as Vita compatible at the Vita article. Sergecross73msg me 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)