Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

Untitled

EDITED! Anarchy rules!

title debate etc

The RFC bot randomly selected to alert me of the RFC etc.

I have no opinion on the central facts - I think that getting jimmies rustled on how to name a piece of hardware is ridiculous - but I do care about the encyclopedia and been around the block more than once.

So I will comment on a couple of things:

1) I find it heinously disruptive and impatient to get outside of the RFC process by opening up additional polls etc while the RFC is still open. Of course, there is no ban on this specifically - people can do whatever they want. But there is a disruptive element to it that is worrying.

2) The discussion about consensus mistakes completely the meaning of consensus in wikipedia. Right now, there is a consensus that this page is to be named "Sega Genesis". This consensus was determined in a move discussion, which was closed properly after an appropriate process of discussion. Consensus can change, no doubt, but it doesn't change by magic, nor does consensus mean full agreement from everyone. There seems to be a lack of understanding of this principle.

3) Raising the issue repeatedly and constantly in the view of historical contention is in itself disruptive. The consensus will not change by expressing continuously the contrary opinion without regards to common decency.

4) So in my view, I would ask that an admin close the currently open RFC, open a new one, and ask that people do not disrupt this discussion process by opening new, related discussion. I would also like to call upon uninvolved admins to watch this discussion for disruptive behavior, because it is obvious there are some editors who are ignoring the closing commentary of the admin who closed the last move discussion: the encyclopedia is for the readers, not the editors. To be honest, both sides have good arguments, and there is no real "fact based" solution - all names have factual strengths and weaknesses that balance each other out. What matters then is that our readers get a stable information resource, the title being less relevant. I do not oppose the revisiting of this issue in a move discussion, but I do think this horse has been beaten enough. There are plenty of other topics that need improvement and there are plenty of other really move discussions more worthy than this one.

5) I also would like to point out that Wikipedia has an international audience, as that we must account to systemic bias in particular geographical bias, and the facile argument that this is irrelevant is a bad bias. A good guide in this respect might be cars, which are often named differently depending on markets, yet are more often than not named for the home country - even if most sales were in other places other the home country and under a different name. I am not arguing for or against Mega Drive (if anything, I am calling to stop discussion and let the current consensus remain) but if discussion is to happen in a non-disruptive manner, it seems to me that is the only valid argument for change. If it is persuasive or not, that should be determined in a potential move discussion but I think all other points are exhausted. --Cerejota (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just rename it to Mega Drive all ready and all you yanks who say you don't care and say either name is fine and there will never be consensus can just shut up and deal with it, the system is Called the Mega Drive, Sega had to change it to Genesis for your fail region because it fails94.172.127.37 (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice contribution. Certainly that sort of reasoning is going to settle month's worth of disputes. How could we all forget about the "fail region" effect? Thanks for that. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If your region didn't fail we wouldn't be having this dispute would we.... as an asside it's interesting to note that the Genesis Model 2 mainboard has MD2 printed upon it standing for Mega Drive 2 as it is a Mega Drive 2 with a fail name for a fail region due to fail patent laws belonging to a fail law system of fail. All Mega Drive hardware made is identical between regions with regional lockout being set with a series of jumpers, and every revision of hardware is labelled MD for Mega Drive including the fail Genesis. Here is an example wikimedia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Genesis-Model2-Motherboard.jpg 94.172.127.37 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your point about the motherboard is useful. The manner and tone with which you presented it is not. - X201 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

94.172: I don't think anyone has argued anywhere that the Mega Drive and Genesis are dramatically different consoles - the Genesis is, in fact, a rebranding of the Mega Drive, but the underlying hardware is nearly identical (the core parts are identical, and only parts related to regional lockout and NTSC/PAL, power management, etc. tend to be different). It would be perfectly appropriate to say somewhere in the article that the Genesis is based on, or uses, Mega Drive hardware. We have sources to back that up. That doesn't change the brand's notability in any way. The title arguments have been about the brand and the console it represents, not about the device's physical makeup. The Genesis brand in North America has particular notability, and that's been one of the strongest policy-based arguments made in favor of it. Regardless of your opinion about our "fail region", you haven't actually made an argument here that hasn't been brought up many times before, and I doubt you're going to have any better luck swaying consensus. (Keep up the attitude, though, and you'll probably get yourself blocked.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"The RFC bot randomly selected to alert me of the RFC "

Lucky You.

I guess I just don't see the value in RFCs about perennial proposals. (And then, when that RFC inevitably goes off the rails or doesn't satisfy, starting a new one!)

I have the feeling that if 85.201 had showed up and started an RFC about a higher profile long-running national-pride naming dispute like Association football or Aluminium, some administrator would have quietly shut it down as unproductive. APL (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it's possible that a more experienced editor than myself will let me know that I'm being naive here. That's OK. Happens all the time. :-) APL (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Here are my thoughts regarding this issue, for and against each name:

• The console's original and international name is "Sega Mega Drive", with "Genesis" being used in a single region - North America - due to a copyright issue.
• There's no definitive evidence one way or another as to which term is more commonly used, with reputable sources being available that show preferred usage for either term.
• The console sold the most units in North America compared to other individual regions. As a whole however, the regions where the console was known as the "Sega Mega Drive" outsold the North American "Genesis" variant of the console.[1], [2]
• The name this article has had for the longest period of time has either been "Sega Mega Drive" (or a variant of such as "Sega Megadrive" or "Mega Drive") or compound title including both terms. The article was only known as Genesis recently, and for a short period when the article was originally created and still a stub.
• The article was originally called "Sega Genesis", however at the point at which it ceased to be a stub it was known as "Sega Megadrive". Policy states then when consensus on article names can't be resolved then it is the name the article known as when it was no longer a stub that be reverted to, not just the first name used.

--85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC Title Survey

• I would like to point out that that the IP editor has incorrectly stated that the final 2003 version of Sega Genesis was a stub, and that this is the final version of the Sega Genesis article, and that this is the first version of the title it was changed to.--SexyKick 00:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The third point of your opening comment is actually in doubt. The North American sales of the unit were almost exactly 50% within the margin of error with some sources showing that the NA sales were just over 50% of the total.

(If you don't consider (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu) to be the same as "Mega Drive" then the North American sales were absolutely the majority.) APL (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

After I made this comment, 85.211, the user that started this RfC, added this source : [3]

It says :

The Genesis made its biggest gains in the Americas, which together represent over half of the Genesis' sales.

I want to reiterate that this source was added by user:85.211.203.66 even though it clearly disproves one of his primary reasons for starting this rfc. APL (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also this NY Times article[4] that puts US sales at 20 million. If true, that's over half the sales right there. APL (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we "Speedy Close" this? Its been discussed to death, and this is clearly a bad-faith discussion started up by a Single Purpose Account who's trying to get his way in another RFC about virtually the same thing. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ristar#RfC:_.22Sega_Mega_Drive.2FGenesis.22_instead_of_just_.22Genesis.22.3F) Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have a dynamic IP meaning every few days it resets, as a result only my most recent edit history is available. I am not a single-purpose account. Sergecross has been repeatedly hostile to my thoughts on this matter and I would argue therefore has a non neutral-POV on the validity of this RfC. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Every single edit from this IP has been POV-pushing Mega Drive, and no proof of any other contributions have been provided. "Hostile" is a bit much - just calling it like I see it...Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and every edit has been from the past three days, around the time I got assigned a new IP. Please assume good faith and focus on content not the contributor. I'd also note that when I made the RfC and discussed the changes on the Ristar article, you specifically said to go to the Genesis article and make the case there instead [5], now I'm doing just as you asked and you apparently have even more of an issue with it. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I've told you before, pointing out potential WP:SPA's is common practice and purposely acceptable. (That's why we've got the essay and the template, after all.) The closer of the discussion can make their own call with the information. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're not just pointing out a potential SPA though, you're attempting to use it as an excuse to shut down all discussion, even though you suggested I take my case to this article rather than Ristar. Your own words on the talk page of that article were "I suggest you take this to the Sega Genesis article" [6] --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Really, 85.211? You're calling out others on AGF? You've made a lot of edits in the past two days that are personal attacks that do not assume good faith. [7] [8] [9]

You've also made a few edits that violate talk-page policy by removing the edits of other users. [10][11]

I only mention it because you're calling an other editor out for AGF and "focus on the content not the contributor" APL (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see here [12] removing other editor's comments on the talk page was an accident and I immediately reverted it. Again, please assume good faith, APL. This discussion is about the naming issue, not individual editors. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• 85.211, I never instructed you to start this RFC. Never said that. I pointed to a consensus over here as part of my argument for the other RFC, you said discussions over here were still active/inconclusive. I said "If they were active, there'd be an RFC". Then you started this RFC. That's where my comment comes in when I say this was in bad-faith - you seem to have started this just to prove a point in the other RFC. Consensus on the Sega Genesis article talk page was clearly "Let's not start up these discussions again". Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I appreciate in hindsight that you may have meant that, but that's certainly not how it read, and the impression I was under was that you were suggesting I take the issue here rather than the Ristar article. As you did specifically say "This issue is far bigger than the single game Ristar, and this really isn't even the proper place to discuss this. I suggest you take this to the Sega Genesis article if you truly want to open this can of worms again." I'm trying to be civil and discuss the issue, and no bad faith is intended on my part. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Huh, I can't help but notice that I did not say that to you, but another IP. Interesting. Anyways, as the quote says, my point was that Ristar was the wrong avenue for that RFC discussion. (And I stand by that. Almost a weeks gone by, and very few people outside of that initial argument joined in.)Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, I'm on a dynamic IP, which is why your accusations of me being a SPA are invalid. If your point was that Ristar was the wrong avenue for that discussion and that Genesis was, then why do you want a speedy close of this RfC, when I'm doing exactly as you suggested? --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but even in these last couple days you've done nothing buy argue one singular point. Literally every single edit, except ones in regards to being an SPA, which is loosely tied. I think both discussions should be closed honestly. No more discussion is necessary, when the opening sentence explains the situation so clearly that no one could be possibly confused, it doesn't matter what the title is. So, keep it the same. Simple. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No you're not. User:Sergecross73 did not tell you to start an RfC. APL (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He didn't use the exact words "start an Rfc", but what he did say strongly implies I should take my arguments from the Ristar article to the Genesis one, which is exactly what I'm doing (to unwarranted hostility). --85.211.198.76 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. you took it here, and there was a strong consensus against you. Done.

Starting an RfC is not something you should automatically do every time you don't get your way. APL (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, I wasn't instructing anyone to start an RFC on this here, I just meant that the issue at the individual game article was bigger than the individual game article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Name per all the reasons in the FAQ. (And Speedy Close as trolling by a single-topic editor.) This is a long-debated topic. Debating it again is pretty pointless. APL (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Name per all the reasons in the FAQ (which all are based on prior discussions and policy, by the way.) Speedy Close is also necessary, this was clearly a bad-faith nomination from an WP:SPA. I'd close this in a second, but I am involved. Hopefully another Admin will do so shortly, and spare us more wasted time on this topic... Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sega Mega Drive As the reasoning in the FAQ is refuted in my original post on this issue. It is the more widely used name for the console internationally, the original name, and the name this article was first known as when it ceased to be a stub. The article has also been known as a variant of "Mega Drive" for longer than it's been known as a variant of "Genesis". --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Second the move for Speedy Close as RfC is based on flawed presumptions. First, the original name is メガドライブ, which in romanized form is Mega Doraibu or simply Mega Drive. First name in an English-speaking market is Genesis without question. Per the "naturalness" criteria, Mega Drive is a Japanese name that has been converted, not translated, into the English-style alphabet, and thus is not the name first used in English. Second, user is stating their personal opinion that the article ceased being a stub under the name Mega Drive; no proof has been presented of any consensus decision on article's status at the time it was called Genesis and before it was moved to Mega Drive. Lastly, concur with Sergecross that user appears to be a single-purpose account. --McDoobAU93 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• CommentThe Japanese packaging and console itself say "Mega Drive" on them. So it's a misnomer to claim the original name was メガドライブ and that the name "Mega Drive" was not used in Japan. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, because that's the romanization of the Japanese name, not the English name. Romanization does not translate a word; it only converts the characters of one script into Roman script (that is, the alphabet). --McDoobAU93 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue the reverse of what you're suggesting happened is the case though. Otherwise the Japanese Mega Drive would have said "メガドライブ" on it instead of "Mega Drive". The "Mega Drive" name was created first, changed to "メガドライブ" for marketing purposes, and then later "Genesis" was used due to copyright issues in North America. In any case "Mega Drive" is far more qualified as the console's original name, than "Genesis" is. Which was my point. --85.211.203.66 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your timeline is based on a flawed premise. Even if the words are from the English language, it's still Japanese, since Japanese (English, French and most every other language) uses words borrowed from other languages. It's a Japanese name, so again we go to WP:CRITERIA which defers to the first name used in the English language, not the one that uses English-language words. --McDoobAU93 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying that these are hard loanwords is going a bit far; Sega is simply using English words for the sake of naming a product. "メガドライブ" is a transliteration of "MEGA DRIVE"; semantics tell a lot more than people would think. Despatche (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The English-language word for a person employed to drive a car on behalf of another person is "chauffeur". The word comes from French, but that doesn't mean the term is French, intended to be French or intended to curry favor with French speakers. Sega choosing English-language words for their home market console that was later exported does not make the name English. --McDoobAU93 17:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually, it does. We're not talking about a regular word or loanword that can have its meaning changed, but a name that was chosen for very specific reasons at a very specific time. The name "Mega Drive" had to have been chosen because Sega felt these two English words would make a great phrase for their product, or simply because they heard the phrase from someone and thought it sounded cool. Despatche (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sega Genesis, Speedy close, and a trout for the nominating editor. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note to Closer - The IP has now been blocked. In addition to the consensus that this was a bad-faith discussion, he also started doing some obvious WP:CANVASSing, clearly selecting users who had sided on "Mega Drive" in the past.

• See this and then this, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, Not that I'm not happy for it, because I was beginning to suspect we were intentionally being trolled, but wouldn't it have been more proper to get an uninvolved admin to do that? APL (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I kinda agree with APL on this, although involved editors can act in clear cases, and votestacking would potentially qualify. Not the optimal case, but now that the anon has hopped to a new IP and is canvassing again .... --McDoobAU93 19:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He intentionally ip hopped and started doing the exact thing that got him banned? What a winner.

In that case I rescind my earlier concern. I guess Serge's admin-sense was tingling. APL (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

When it was just the disruptive posting, and bad faith comments, yes, I felt it was too subjective for me to make a call. But when it went into blatant canvassing, I felt it went into the any reasonable admin clause of it WP:INVOLVED. Pretty certain the IP knows he's in the wrong in violating this as well, considering he came back with another IP to continue his argument, not say "Hey guys, wait, I wasn't canvassing!" Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep First time it was released with an English name, it was called Genesis. Speedy close this is pointless, we having been through this too many times before, and the IP address was probably someone who didn't get their way last time. Dream Focus 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Sega Genesis and speedy close. Nothing new has been presented. Both titles are reasonable. Consensus supports the current title for reasons explained in the FAQ. I've requested a speed close here. --B2C 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mega Drive The current title represents an end-run around the spirit and letter of the rules:

Title was stable for 5 years as "Mega Drive", before being changed to a thoroughly unacceptable title. That change was universally accepted as a mistake and should have been reversed, not taken as an opportunity to switch to a different title.

Consensus was never reached that "Sega Genesis" is preferable to "Mega Drive", only that it is better than "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive".

The argument used by proponents of "Sega Genesis" that it should remain due to rule at WP:TITLECHANGES "if it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time... default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" is therefore invalid for two reasons, first it has been stable, and second that rule would equally support both names, because the only major contributor when the article ceased to be a stub (User:WhisperToMe) used both titles: [13] [14]

As per my arguments here, Mega Drive appears to meet WP:CRITERIA more thoroughly.

Additionally, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests Mega Drive because it would allow a more succinct opening paragraph to the article, and it is the most common & original release name for the device.

The fact that the change to the faulty title of "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" was preceded immediately by an attempt to move from "Mega Drive" to "Sega Genesis" (which failed for perfectly valid reasons) is very damaging. It gives a clear message that if you aren't happy with a stable title, just keep requesting that it be changed until you get an opening. The FAQ at the top of this talk page asserts that "Sega Genesis" was chosen as it is the better title, but here we see in black and white that this is simply not the case. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 18:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1. There was a LOT of discussion at that time, and, apparently, consensus did change because of that discussion.
2. Consensus may have changed again, of course, but the comments in the intervening years, and the way this discussion is going, so far at least, suggest not.
3. The straw poll[15] in October of 2011 showed strong consensus in favor of Sega Genesis over Mega Drive.
4. The closer of the proposal to move to Sega Genesis [16] concluded it with, Closed with clear consensus to move to Sega Genesis .

--B2C 23:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The talk pages show no change in preference from Mega Drive to Genesis, that I can see. If anything most people seemed to prefer status quo.
2. The FAQ goes a long way to shutting discussion down, especially as people tend to just reply to comments with "read FAQ point <whatever>", despite the fact that the FAQ contains demonstrable falsehoods.
3. A straw poll is no way of building consensus, it has a very "this is what I prefer" rather than "this is what is best" feel to it. Regardless, it should have never got to the straw poll stage in the first place, there was a stable title for 5 years.
4. Yes, to "Sega Genesis" from "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". If you see in the comments many of them say along the lines of 'anything is better than this', and I believe a few say they would prefer "Mega Drive" but voted yes anyway (I don't have time to check this right now so I could be wrong).

<Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 23:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are falsehoods in the FAQ please point them out (in a separate section), with support, and let's fix it. Or do it yourself. --B2C 01:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mega Drive. How could I have been so stupid? Google searches, sales numbers, and whatever else available is irrelevant; the original name trumps all. Anything else must automatically assume a bias for a particular country even against a "correct" bias (an article about a United States subject should be US-biased, or unbiased completely). This goes against very clear policies, and yet we can successfully support this for two reasons: 1. It is generally accepted that neither title is wrong and they would both be valid as article titles; and 2. the godly power of redirects. The idea is that you would have the article at its "correct title" while also supporting any other familiar title, getting the right people to the right place while also at least giving them the chance to comprehend this correct title. You could reasonably scrap a lot of the current policy in favor of this, and... well, I really should be opening this discussion over on places like WP:TITLE. Or not at all, never, because this is blasphemy, and quite a bit terrifying, really. Despatche (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to comment to point out that Google searches, sales numbers etc. are completely inconclusive, the two are so close together as to render the point moot. Additionally, switching to Mega Drive does not go against the letter or spirit policies, it is in fact the Sega Genesis title which is against the letter and spirit of some policies (such as WP:CRITERIA and WP:NPOV), so please don't allow that myth to perpetuate. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh and WP:UCS, I forgot that one. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that one for much of your discourse here in fact. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

...Really? I'll admit I haven't read all of this, but last time I checked this was all about Google searches and sales numbers, and this was also apparently some kind of Wikipedia standard. I'll also admit that the weird loophole baffled me a bit, but I thought nothing of it, probably because I didn't really understand how Wikipedia's policies were supposed to work then. However, I'm very surprised people aren't treating this as a simple "more reliable English sources will use Genesis because America's too fucking big, QED". Despatche (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close, title as it is - I've argued for Mega Drive before, and getting these names straight has been a pain every time. Despite the decision to leave this at Sega Genesis, we still have Variations of the Sega Mega Drive, List of Sega Mega Drive games, and Sega Mega-CD which use the international naming convention. Consensus before, I believe, is that these names don't need to fall in line with this article (though I would argue to the contrary of that, because I think it's important to be consistent). Even with that being said, how many times do we have to restart this debate? There is no clear consensus for one reason and one reason only: both names are in all actuality of equal validity. The only names used here that are not of equal validity are the synthesis names. Since this has been argued so many times to death, and with the same arguments every time, we're going to have to keep some stability at some point, or we're going to fight about this forever. I was okay with the consistency with Mega Drive before, and I would be fine with the consistency of Genesis as it is now. Adjusting the other articles is a discussion that can be had later. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - As you said, we're going to have articles like Variations of the Sega Mega Drive, so for consistency and common sense this article should be called "Mega Drive" as result. It's bad enough that this article is called "Genesis", but to try and rename related articles to titles like "Variations of the Sega Genesis" etc. is going to be even more inappropriate (since the Genesis is a region-specific version of the Mega Drive, rather than vice versa) and utterly impossible. It's just another argument as to why "Mega Drive" is the most suitable name, and the one that has the best chance of long-term stability. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mega Drive - The move to Genesis was one of the worst decisions made in the video game space, second only to the ridiculous compound stalking horse title at "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". Only in cases where there are no strong arguments either side are article names defaulted to the one-first-used-on-Wikipedia. Every single territory on Earth, bar one, refer to the console as the Mega Drive, its original intended name. The "sales" argument is a complete distraction and should not even be addressed, it doesn't matter how many units it sold in Europe, because every single European regardless of whether they bought the console or not, refer to it as the Mega Drive. - hahnchen 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More argument rehashing with nothing new ... need the speedy close speedily. --McDoobAU93 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because the arguments aren't new doesn't mean they aren't valid or should be ignored. The fact is this article was at a variation of "Mega Drive" for the longest period of history and was only moved to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" after a failed attempt at changing it to "Sega Genesis". When it was decided this compound name ran foul of naming policy, the appropriate course of action would have been to revert back to "Mega Drive", but instead the same editors pushing for "Genesis" did it again and got their way this time due to a flawed straw poll. The FAQ (which is full of problems as others have commented) was then put on the talk page in an attempt to stifle further discourse (as you're attempting to do now) on the name - which has obviously failed since this talk page is full of nothing but title issues, to to detriment of the article's actual content. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You make an argument above that "PlayStation" is the merely the romanization of the Japanese name, プレイステーション and not the other way around. I grant that's a novel argument that I've not encountered before, but the argument I "rehash" has more of a grounding in reality. - hahnchen 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, since プレイステーション is indeed the Japanese name of Sony's first gaming console and "PlayStation" is its Japanese name rendered in roman script. When it was released in the United States (an English-speaking market) in 1995, it was named PlayStation. Since that was its first appearance in an English-speaking market, "PlayStation" would be the name of the article on the English Wikipedia. --McDoobAU93 17:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mega Drive and NOT Sega Mega Drive and NOT Speedy Close - I believe this was my original opinion, based mostly on the fact that this was what the console was called in every region of the world except the United States, and Wikipedia is not US-centric. Also, I've been arguing that regardless of which version of the console we go with, the name should be "Mega Drive" or "Genesis", not "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis", because the product name does not officially include Sega (unlike "Nintendo Entertainment System"). Similar articles on consoles like PlayStation, Xbox and Wii are not named "Sony PlayStation", "Microsoft Xbox" or "Nintendo Wii", even when the manufacturer's name is printed on the console along with the brand. Finally: I don't think we should speedy-close this, because obviously even the people who think it should be speedy-closed can't agree on which version of the title we should use. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sega Genesis per FAQ, with a large helping of Notto Disu Shitto Agen. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mega Drive I'm Canadian and owned a "Genesis" as a kid. Back then, I'd have sworn it was the only name. But the Internet has cleared that up. In most of the world, kids had a "Mega Drive". Most of the world is bigger than North America, and Wikipedia is there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved admin

Noting a comment above about the original IP-user, I took a quick look at the history of this debate over at Talk:Ristar and believe that blocking the IP user may not have been completely appropriate. It looks like you guys got into quite the heated debate over this. In my opinion, though, the IP user skirted the line between canvassing and a more appropriate notice to potentially-interested parties about the RFC.

Unless something has changed in the rules since the last time this topic came up, any user is allowed to ask for an RFC regardless of the opinions involved. The process is there for a reason, and to my knowledge this discussion (Genesis vs. Mega Drive) tends to come up in one form or another about once every 2-3 years anyway. Perhaps it was due to come up again. From what I can see, it looks like several of you jumped all over the IP user and attacked him unnecessarily harshly because his opinion differed from yours. He had a point: This particular naming issue has never been fully agreed upon, and consensus has never been clear. He may not have used the exact right methods to argue his point, but that doesn't automatically make his point less valid.

My advice to the IP user would have been to sign up for an account - if his problem with credibility was due to having a dynamic IP that changes every few days, having a consistent username would get around that, AND would come with other substantial editing benefits, such as access to tools that IP users don't get. That could have alleviated any concerns about single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets.

My advice to the rest of you: Step back and take a deep breath. I know you're tired of debating this topic, but I was honestly dismayed at the level of WP:BITE going on here. The very fact that this topic comes up every so often (almost like clockwork, actually) speaks to both the cyclic nature of people's memories about such things, and the fact that this is a contentious topic with no clear agreement. In the RFC comments above, there are people voting "Genesis and Speedy Close" and others voting "Mega Drive and Speedy Close", both of which claiming consensus is on their side. That, by definition, means we don't have a consensus and perhaps this RFC is worth taking seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The time for proof is at hand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rationales for consensus-building purposes

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

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

Sega Genesis

Mega Drive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal of related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things

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

First, FAQ point 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second model of the Genesis

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

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

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

Merge discussion: Variations of the Mega Drive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed merge with Genesis 6-Pak

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

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

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

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

• Support This seems to make the most sense to me.--SexyKick 05:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there's been no move on this in a week, I went ahead and redirected it. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Flavour text

Following on from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_20#Google...

How does Google dicde what part to display for "Flavour Text"?

Searching for Mega Drive, currently gives:

Sega Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis‎ In Brazil, the Mega Drive was released by Tec Toy in 1990, only a year after the Brazilian release of the Sega Master System. Tec Toy also ran the internet ...

Which is OK, but not the most important part of the article to focus on if you're looking for Mega Drive.

Is there anything that can be done with the article or metadata so that a more relevent part of it is picked up, such as the opening secion:

The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a home video game console released by Sega in 1988 in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), North America in 1989 and in Europe and other regions in 1990 under the name Mega Drive ?

81.149.182.210 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pointless bringing up legitimate concerns, the users here are predominantly yank, bias and retarded unfortunately62.252.234.27 (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith has been noted and warned appropriately. You're free to discuss the question presented by the original poster without interjecting your thoughts of perceived bias. --McDoobAU93 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I may just be an unfortunately retarded yank, but at least I know the term you were looking for was "biased" not "bias". A person cannot be bias, he can either have a bias or be biased.76.226.143.85 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Return the title to Mega Drive

I'll make this short and sweet, and am aware of the history of the article's name, however it does not fit in context with the rest of the site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Tiida

Called Tiida everywhere in the world, except for Vera in the US. The Wiki article is called Tiida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis

Called Mega Drive everywhere in the world, except for Genesis in the US. The Wiki article is called Genesis.

This site should be uniform. Given that the majority of the world referred to it as the Mega Drive, this name should have dominance over the Genesis, as this name was only adopted to the US. Mixing and matching names this way is simply a mess, and it wouldn't be called Mega Drive if all the world except for US called it Geneis now, would it? I'm not going to straight out jump in and edit it, however I believe this deserves consideration to change the title back to something that fits more uniform with the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.35.133 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing new has been added, and per consensus this type of discussion without new, novel arguments is considered disruptive. Please see Item 13 in the FAQ located at the top of this page. --McDoobAU93 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• An IP address with zero other edits wishes to drag out a debate that has been beaten to death for months already. Stop being a coward and log in with your proper account if you have something to say. Dream Focus 19:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Context of the site is based on consensus and WP:N, not necessarily that every article must follow a specific style. See, for instance, Snow tire and Formula One tyres, which use two different forms. I argued for consistency across the Mega Drive/Genesis set because they are inter-related articles, but not in every application should every article follow the same naming conventions. In fact, if you read WP:PERENNIAL, you'll note that enforcement of American or British spelling, as one example, has never been agreed upon and the enforcement of one or the other for consistency across the site has constantly failed to gain any consensus. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:N Which has been used to argue that Genesis is more notable than Mega Drive is just plain wrong and relies on online sources only when there are countless offline reliable sources which support Mega Drive instead of Genesis. But there is no point arguing with these yank editors, their biased view was set long ago and no amount of valid points and rational arguments will change their warped and backward minds and these articles will remain in the cesspool of the encyclopaedia for ever62.252.234.27 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What if we were all Canadian?--SexyKick 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Canada is just America's hat, so in that fashion, you're just a Yank's hat. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok 86.11, you've found A article where the American variant was not used? So what? Every article has to have a name. On Wikipedia, decisions are region-specific names are made on a case-by-case basis with little regard for consistency. I guess this is the price we pay for having different nationalities all working together. I mean, Americans aren't happy about Maize and Brits aren't happy about Gasoline, but life goes on. APL (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll regret stringing this out, but the current naming results in a horrendous intro:

The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a home video game console released by Sega in 1988 in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), North America in 1989 and in Europe and other regions in 1990 under the name Mega Drive—the name "Genesis" was used only in North America because Sega had been unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name there.

Don't you cringe when you read that? Doesn't it tell you you've made the wrong choice? It was released as the Mega Drive, Sega wanted to call it the Mega Drive everywhere, Sega did call it the Mega Drive everywhere except in the USA because of a copyright conflict, and in Canada because it was easier to market it to North America than separately to the USA and Canada. If the article was titled Mega Drive, that intro would probably read:

The Mega Drive is a home video game console released by Sega in 1988 in Japan, 1989 in North America and in Europe and other regions in 1990. The console was renamed the Sega Genesis in the North American market because Sega had been unable to secure legal rights to the Mega Drive name there.

The current wording is palpably fighting against reality. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing ... the lede can be reworked without renaming the article against standing consensus (or lack thereof), and trying to change the title simply because of your opinion that the lede isn't working (personally, I don't like how the lede reads either) itself won't work. Let's focus on rewording the lede instead of trying to change the name ... again. --McDoobAU93 14:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, at what point does everybody just drop the WP:STICK and actually improve the article? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No one ever will. Neither name is "correct" and neither side will accept the other. The only solution is a North American focused article at Sega Genesis and a globally focused article at Mega Drive. There is enough content out there to warrant a forked article. Its just a matter of growing consensus and then making it happen. - X201 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Except every time anyone has ever tried to reword the lede to be more like the latter example GoldenRing gave, it's been faught against and reverted by the same proponents of having "Sega Genesis" as the title on the basis that the article name must be mentioned first. So it's impossible to improve the lede at present unless A) either the title is changed to the international name of the console or B) the Genesis-diehards concede that the opening paragraph has to forgo the convention of predominantly using the article name as it's completely inappropriate in this instance. However the Genesis-proponents (who aren't even a majority, as th elast RfC was a rough split) are - for some utterly unknown reason - stubbornly refusing to budge in any way, even though it's clearly to the detriment of the article. --94.197.138.83 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So the "improvements" you're interested in, all involve putting one name first and the other name second?

There's no possible way to write the lede in a natural, non-awkward way while keeping the article name upfront?

Even if we got the best writer in the world, the lede would still be ruined forever by the requirement of mentioning the article's name in the first sentence?

APL (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the improvements I'm interested in involve rewording the lede the way GoldenRing described so it isn't the contrived mess it is now. One part of that does involve using the original, most widely used name first yes, as to do otherwise does come across as awkward and confusing. Basically the only way to continue using "Genesis" in the first instance is to mention it first then add a lengthy caveat explaining that Mega Drive is the original term - which is what the lede does at the moment. When the obviously correct way to do this is the use The original and international name first, then add a brief caveat to explain why it had a different name for one territory. The sole reason anyone would be hostile to this change is because they're involved in the Mega Drive versus Genesis debate and don't want to lose any ground to their "opponents". It's really that simple and childish. --92.40.211.252 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why this wouldn't work for the lede (after adjustments to fill in critical details):

The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a home video game console released by Sega on August 14, 1989 in the United States and Canada. The console made its world debut in Japan in October 1988 as the Mega Drive; Sega was unable to secure the name Mega Drive for the console in North America and opted to market it there as Genesis instead. The console was later released in Europe in November 1990 as Mega Drive. As a fourth-generation console, the Genesis was Sega's second console to be released in North America (and third worldwide) and is the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed.

This should be a decent starting point for discussion on improving the lede instead of trying yet again to change the name of the article. --McDoobAU93 20:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically there are two ways to write the lead, depending on which name for the console you use first. The way it is now basically reads as:

The Sega Genesis (originally known as the Sega Mega Drive, and known in Europe/Asia/South America/rest of the world as the Sega Mega Drive, but then had to be named the Genesis in North America due to a copyright dispute)...

Or the more natural way of putting it as some people have tried to in the past and been shot down because of the stupid name argument

The Sega Mega Drive (known as the Sega Genesis in North America due to a copyright dispute)

It's entirely obvious to any reasonable and neutral person which of those options makes more sense. --92.40.211.252 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You're free to discuss your points, but please back off from suggesting that editors who disagree with you are anything other than reasonable and neutral themselves. That is assuming bad faith and is not constructive. --McDoobAU93 20:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

McDoob, that lede you've proposed is still an absolute disaster for the reasons I've mentioned above. It's chronologically mangled, misleading, contrived and overly lengthy, when there's a far simpler way of putting it that you're refusing to consider due to your position on the naming debate. --92.40.211.252 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, as has your continued assumption of bad faith of other editors. Let's see what other editors think and what suggestions they might offer instead. --McDoobAU93 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've started a new section below with my suggestion (so it doesn't get buried). Any good? Let me know what you think. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought; why even mention the copyright dispute in the lead? It's worth a mention in the development section, but there's nothing that says it has to be in the lead. Something like this, perhaps:

The Sega Genesis is a home video game console released by Sega in 1988 in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ Mega Doraibu?)), North America in 1989, and in Europe and other regions in 1990, also under the name Mega Drive. As a fourth-generation console, the Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed.

There, problem solved. Now, can we please stop beating the WP:DEADHORSE about the title? There was no consensus, there will never be consensus because each side thinks they're right, and the title is where it is because of WP:TITLECHANGES and no consensus to move from its current title. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's still poorly written because you're mentioning the one instance where it's called the Genesis first and then having to list everywhere else where it's called the Mega Drive. Also in addition to being badly written, you're now removing important information (the copyright dispute) from the lede in order to try and make it less unweildy, when again there's a much more elegant solution which is to put the names the other way round, where "Mega Drive" is used first and then the "Genesis" name is mentioned secondly and in the correct context. --94.197.134.131 (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the version McDoobAU93 posted. It does not seem awkward or forced at all.

It introduces the topic briefly and clearly. It explains the confusion of the names as quickly as possible. And it's logically and grammatically correct.

APL (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Red Phoenix's version is at least as bad as what's there. The problem is not that the copyright problem is mentioned or not. The problem is that the intersection between the convention of mentioning the article title first and the decision not to use the original name of the product results in a lede that is necessarily written in a non-chronological order. McDoob's version reads more naturally, but has a North American bias that isn't appropriate in an article about a global product. IMO it is not possible to write in the most natural way without either changing the title or making an exception to the convention of mentioning the article title first. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, if someone can see how to do it well. But I can't see how presenting chronological information non-chronologically satisfies that. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the praise and constructive criticism offered thus far. I agree that the sentence starting with "As a fourth-generation console ..." does bias the discussion more to North America, and I think it might read better this way, putting the global nature of the console first:

As a fourth-generation console, the Mega Drive/Genesis was Sega's third console and is the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed.

I am leaning towards APL's line of thought, that maybe there is a need for separate Genesis and MD articles, which probably drove how I wrote the sentence the first time. My goal is more to improve the article, though, so I'm more than willing to offer other ideas and accept more suggestions. --McDoobAU93 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that works well, but I gather there are objections to the 'Mega Drive / Genesis' formulation - it doesn't use the article title as the beginning of the lede. GoldenRing (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I echo GoldenRing's sentiments. That opening sentence is much, much better than what we have, but there may be a slight issue using the slash juxtaposition. To those unfamiliar with the subject matter, slashes leave open the possibility for ambiguity due to the various uses of slashes in punctuation (technically; anywhere else it would be fine, but as this is an encyclopaedia, these minute details matter).

I'm not sure what the best alternative to that is, which is still going to keep everyone happy. We could use parenthesis instead of the slash, e.g. "the Mega Drive (Genesis in North America)" as one option. Alternatively, we could use the second sentence to explain the naming of the North American variant so it's still immediate enough in the lead to provide clarity, even though we're using the Mega Drive name in the first instance. Yes, generally it's preferable to use the article title in reference to the subject first, but in this particular case I don't think that's a tenable option, for the reasons discussed. --188.30.128.138 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In times like this, when we're worried about such things...it's good to look at featured articles of the same subject manner. So what does the Super NES article lead look like? I like RedPhoenix's version really, and it would barely change at all to match it to the Super NES style, and it cuts out all un-naturalness, and so since it matches a featured article for similar subject material, I'm good with that, and anyone arguing against a featured article's style has no interest of this article at heart and I don't want to hear it from them any longer.--SexyKick 18:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But the SNES article uses the international name first, and the regional variant second - which is the exact opposite of what you've been arguing. I quote the article:

The Super Nintendo Entertainment System (also known as the Super NES, SNES[b] or Super Nintendo) is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1990 by Nintendo in Japan (as the Super Famicom (スーパーファミコン Sūpā Famikon?, officially adopting the abbreviated name of its predecessor, the Family Computer) or SFC for short), 1991 in North America, 1992 in Europe & Australasia (Oceania), and South America in 1993.

So the equivalent of that for this article would be:

The Mega Drive is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan, 1989 in North America (as the Genesis), and Europe and other regions in 1990.

That reads fine, and I have no problem with that. What I suspect your take on the SNES comparison was (correct me if I'm wrong), was that we should word it like this:

The Sega Genesis is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan (as the Mega Drive), in North America, an in Europe and other regions in 1990 (as the Mega Drive).

Clearly, the latter example is messier than the former, and I feel it's not in the same spirit of the way the SNES article deals with its naming issue either. --188.30.128.138 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So the SNES article does not open with the machine's original launch title?

Instead it opens with the article name? APL (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Mega Drive is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan, 1989 in North America (as the Genesis), and Europe and other regions in 1990."

That just seems perfect to me - clean, elegant, to the point, no chance of confusion. I'm 100% behind changing the article name to "Sega Mega Drive" and using that as the opening sentence of the article. Can anyone offer a sensible reason not to do this? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For an article with multiple names, it's usually considered good form to put the article-name first.

The guidelines for opening sentences suggests that the alternate names should follow the article name.

In my opinion, the idea that doing it this way is somehow "impossible" is just culture-waring. A good writer can make it work in any order. McDoobAU93's version seems to be just as clean and to the point, with no chance of confusion. AND it leads with the article name. (Which makes it better, even if you are angry about the article name.) APL (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The proposed opening sentence does indeed start with the article name - if it were changed to "Sega Mega Drive" (which is the central purpose of this thread, after all).

And while I'm going to have to completely disagree that McDoobAU93's version is "clean and to the point" - to me, it's just about the opposite of that - I never suggested anything was "impossible" and I'm not culture-warring. I genuinely believe that the intended name for the console was always "Mega Drive", and "Genesis" was Plan B due to a trademark conflict. I don't think that's a particularly controversial belief - is it? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just going around in the same old circles. The IP editors have said their piece, and (unsurprisingly) no new consensus has formed as a result. APL (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can all reach a consensus if we keep trying. Now, you seem to have ignored my question, so I'll ask it again, slightly rephrased. Here's a simple, one-sentence statement:

The console in question was intended by Sega to be named "Mega Drive", but was renamed "Genesis" in North America due to a trademark conflict.

Is that true? Would you - or anyone else reading this - care to refute that? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So? That point has been addressed for a long time.LedRush (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is the main thrust of my argument for changing the page title (that "Mega Drive" was used by Sega before and after "Genesis", making the latter the anomaly rather than the primary name). I know from the FAQ that it has been raised previously, but I'm trying to ascertain whether it was accepted as true or not. If it wasn't accepted as true at the time (due to a lack of evidence, for example), then if somebody can prove it to be the case, it would constitute a new argument. Now, would anyone mind helping me ascertain this, please, because no-one here has attempted to refute the statement so far? Many thanks. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Same old circles. If you want an answer to your questions, go read the FAQ. APL (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read the FAQ, and it doesn't answer my question at all. It shows that it was previously raised, but not whether it was accepted or disputed. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction, please? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone of the last point on our 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.". There is nothing new here. If you're still planning in participating in this continued disruption, we need to find an admin and start blocking people from editing here. Disruptive editing is not well-received here. SteveBaker (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I stepped away from this discussion for a while, because it was both boring and embarrassing. I'll just comment here that I doubt an admin would block editors for any of the above unless personal attacks were involved - which is not unknown, and that the best course of action (IMO, of course) is to simply revert any additions that don't provide new arguments.

I would also personally be against blocking editors, because (usually) they are editing in good faith, however they are also editing from an ignorant point of view in that they have not read the faq, nor read any of the previous arguments - especially those that have long since been archived. The process, (again - IMO) should be:

• Non-new argument added
• (Revert)
• Editor reinserts same argument
• (Revert and warned of consequence)
• Editor reinserts same argument - usually with some kind of derogatory anti-US comment tagged on, if history is anything to go by.
• (Revert and 24 hour block)
• Editor comes back with new argument
• (Discuss)

Something like that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You never had consensus SteveBaker... and the user is bringing up a new issue, which is the lead is written arse backwards. Chaheel Riens advocating censorship on a talk page is beyond abhorrent... wtf is wrong with you????62.252.234.27 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we did have consensus. Go back and read the debate...that's why it's in the FAQ. This isn't a new argument - it's one we've seen many times before. Wikipedia "censors" talk pages all the time - you aren't allowed to be rude to people, you're not allowed to violate copyright - there are MANY reasons why your posts may get censored. One reason is "Disruptive editing". This is a tough one to pin down - but editors of this page overwhelmingly agree that continually rehashing the same arguments over this naming issue without bringing new and compelling arguments to the table is DISRUPTIVE to our work here. We don't mind people bringing up the issue with brand new, compelling arguments - but when someone rehashes old arguments - we warn that continuing to push the issue is disrupting our work here...and that's something that the admins will happily defend us from. So how about we all Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass - OK? 216.136.51.242 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you exactly what the fuck is wrong with me - it's the constant banal, immature and jingoistic arguments that have been heard time and time and time and time again. I suspect that many of the argument makers here don't really care about the title, they simply don't want the all-crushing American influence to be present - and consider "Sega Genesis" to be a personal affront to their own particular nationality. If all you pedantic editors feel so strongly about the "correct" title, why don't you all go and have a field day over at the スーパーファミコン article? You'll note that it is also called "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" - shock horror - another Americanism?

I'm not advocating censorship - which implies removal of any comment that goes against the current title. I'm more specific than that, and advocating the purging of unhelpful comments made by those who do not consider it necessary to research their arguments before making them, and thus waste everybody's time. Either that, or statements that offer no argument at all and just state "Megadrive is correct!" without giving any indication of why such a claim should be taken on board and discussed. As you can see, I invite discussion over any new arguments that may be made.

If an editor really, truly feels that they have a valid point to make, and wishes to be neutral and intelligent about it, then they have a duty to research it first. Indeed, research into a topic which is so volatile should be an obvious requirement for any editor. If they fall at that hurdle, then they should have the common decency to accept that their argument has already been heard. If it didn't work before, then it's unlikely that presenting the same argument but tagging "Stop being retarded yanks" on the end will yield positive results. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what the title is called, and have long since become bored with the whole thing - what I do still care about is how arguments are presented for the title. I will go with and support whichever is presented in the most mature, intellectual and researched manner. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Can I remind everyone of the last point on our 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."." - I don't recall this having ever happened. Unless by "near-unanimous" you mean the roughly 50% of editors who were in favour of Genesis over Mega Drive. All the arguments used previously are perfectly acceptable to bring up again in my opinion, as there was no consensus during the last debate and the arguments used were never refuted. To re-iterate there was no consensus during the last debate that "Sega Genesis" was the preferred article title, or that further debate on the title would be considered disruptive, anyone claiming that was the case is mistaken. There was a roughly 50/50 split over the title, and the final result was a consequence of Wikipedia tie-breaker policies specifically intended for use when no consensus can be reached. --94.197.137.92 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are a little confused here I think. Consensus politics in Wikipedia means that you need a consensus to overturn the status quo. Without consensus, nothing changes. So we don't have a consensus for Sega Genesis - that's for sure...but it doesn't matter because it's the status quo. We'd need a consensus to CHANGE it - and we don't have that either. So things stay the same and roughly half of the folks here are going to be unhappy...if we changed the name then roughly half the people here would still be unhappy - so that's not an entirely unreasonable solution.

HOWEVER: What we did get overwhelming consensus for was that (a) that continued debate in the absence of incredibly strong new evidence is not going to change enough minds to achieve consensus and (b) continuing to rehash the old evidence is disrupting our ability to make a better article. The consensus for those two assertions was made clear HERE and formalized HERE.

That's why the continued pushing of the debate without strong, new evidence is "A Very Bad Thing". We can't agree on what the answer is - but we do agree that we don't want to argue about it anymore because it's pointless.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not pointless and while it continues to have this erroneous name, people will continue to debate. If you find it pointless you can leave the debate and do something else instead we won't miss you. 62.252.234.27 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of how consensus works. However your second link is a !vote that consists entirely of people of the pro-Genesis persuasion, bar one, who was the sole editor to disagree. That affirms my earlier point that your consensus on further debate being disruptive consists purely of people from one side of the argument, with the other side abstaining. Therefore I don't feel that qualifies as valid consensus, and that attempting to shut down further debate by labelling it as disruptive is itself disruptive. The fact we have a reasonable number of people now entering another debate on the topic, as opposed to a sole individual would indicate consensus has changed in any case. --94.197.137.92 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line is that:

• To change the title you need consensus to do so...that's a Wikipedia rule...you're stuck with it.
• "Consensus" doesn't mean "majority" - so one or two more !votes doesn't help you in the slightest.
• To get consensus you need to change the minds of at least a couple of dozen people who've clearly stated their position already.
• ...who have all seen a mountain of evidence on both sides.
• ...who have explored that evidence from every possible angle and in microscopic detail.
• ...who have picked through every single Wikipedia guideline, policy, rule and ARBcom outcome.
• ...who have all debated this until their eyes bleed.
• ...who made up their minds YEARS ago.
• ...whose minds will never be changed...
• ...unless (maybe) some totally ASTOUNDING and most definitely 'NEW piece of WP:V/WP:RS-compliant data appears from some amazingly deep archive that has mysteriously gone untapped before - that makes everyone slap their foreheads and go "Wow! I never thought of that before - that's incredible - how could I possibly have been wrong for all these years!"
• ...and you and I both know for 100% sure that no such evidence exists because the MegaDrive folks have been searching for it for years.
• So if you have nothing more than a mildly different twist on stuff we've already discussed - just save your breath because it's not going to create new consensus - positions are far too entrenched for that to happen.

• Continuing to beat on the dead horse carcass just upsets everyone involved...including a good number of people who are actually sympathetic to your point of view. (I'm one of them - I think Mega-Drive is actually (marginally) the better title - and I still think you're being a total pain in the ass and am even more convinced than I was before that the title will never get changed.)

• Doing what you're doing distracts editors from creating a great article here because every discussion point turns into yet another round of Genesis-versus-MegaDrive.

Doing what you're doing here is utterly disruptive editing. It's called "trolling" and it's covered by WP:DISRUPT - and it needs to stop...preferably without administrator action - but with it if that's necessary.

SteveBaker (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

By stating users are "trolling" you are NOT assuming good faith, and by threatening users with administrator action for discussing how to improve the article you are the only one being disruptive...62.252.234.27 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The only reason Genesis remains the article title is because Wikipedians have yet to agree on the issue of enforcing consistency in regard to U.S. / U.K. cultural biases, differences in orthography, etc. You guys need to direct your concerns to Wikipedia policy itself rather than fighting over specific article content. As far as current policies are concerned, editors can't "correct" someone else on a variation in spelling if that variation is recognized within a (any?) dialect of English. The same kind of logic applies here - if something is called something else in another region, then you can't dispute it, despite whether or not it may be used only by a minority of people.

I've tried to push for more consistency in orthography at least, but it always dissolves into a cultural holy war. In-fighting among Wikipedians is not an uncommon phenomenon, if only for this reason. 98.86.117.127 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that since "Mega Drive" was the original and international title (since "Genesis" was only used in the U.S., a single country) that it would be the more suitable title. Although it wasn't used in Korea and...can someone please sort all this out? Magicperson6969 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

<shameless plug>

Always seems to be a lot of passionate people here discussing the article and name issue. Regardless of whichever side of the issue you're on, anyone here ever heard of WP:SEGA? It's the Sega Task Force of the Video games WikiProject, and we're looking to really revive it with editors like those here who are passionate about all things Sega. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

It's described above as being a "disaster", and I happen to agree. Here's a rewrite, retaining what I think are the most important points and removing what I consider fluff: (EDIT: please scroll down for second draft)

The Sega Genesis - known as the Sega Mega Drive outside of North America - is a home video game console released by Sega in 1988. A fourth-generation machine, it was Sega's third home console and the successor to the Sega Master System. Two years later, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System was released, and the intense competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming.

The console entered production in Japan in 1988, and the last new licensed game was released in Brazil in 2002, ending the Genesis's commercial life with it as Sega's most successful console. Several hardware add-ons were created down the years, including the Sega CD (known as the Mega-CD outside of North America) and 32X, which extended its technical capabilities.

The Genesis and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, emulation enthusiasts, and throughout the fan translation scene. Licensed third-party variations of the console are still being produced to this day, along with the output of several indie game developers. Many games have been re-released in compilations for newer systems, with some offered for download on online services such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.

Improvement or not? Needs work, but it's a start. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's much better than what we have. It does just get right to the crux of the issue and state clearly that the console is known as the Mega Drive near-universally outside North America, which is what the current lead skirts around and doesn't make explicit. Obviously I feel it makes much more sense for it to be worded as "The Sega Mega Drive - known as the Sega Genesis in North America -" is the more natural and correct way to word it, but the pro-Genesis group (almost entirely North Americans) would never stand for that for reasons that I don't entirely understand, frankly. --94.197.137.92 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: "The Sega Mega Drive - known as the Sega Genesis in North America -" is the more natural and correct way to word it, but the pro-Genesis group (almost entirely North Americans) would never stand for that for reasons that I don't entirely understand, frankly." is unacceptable while the title of the article is Sega Genesis. You can't have the title as Genesis, then in the very first sentence give the console a primary name of something different - in this case "Megadrive". Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is one of the multiple reasons one could argue we're using the wrong title for the article, when we're forced to make decisions like this that negatively affect the article's readability. However, Wikipedia allows leeway to ignore guidelines when there's good reason to do so and this may be one such example. There's just no way to use Genesis as the first term in the article with it being as naturally readable and making as much rational sense and there is when using Mega Drive as the first term. --92.41.220.84 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - that line you say is unacceptable wasn't part of what I was proposing for the re-written lead anyway. Do you think what I wrote above is an improvement on the current version? Or have I removed too much? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I, like you, am massively in favour of changing the name of the article - but I'm not going to hold my breath in anticipation of that! In the meantime, I hope this version of the lead I've written is an improvement on the current version, and if consensus is ever reached for "Mega Drive", the opening sentence is easily flipped like you suggested. Are you in favour of this new lead, in principle? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of an article where the subject matter has more than one recognised name, and the article title is not used first, and instead an earlier/more official term is used initially instead, which aids the article's readability. There is no reason this cannot be done with this article as well. --92.41.220.84 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't help you, because WP:NAMEPEOPLE establishes guidelines with regards to biographical articles, where an individual's common name is the name of the article (since it would be the most likely name to be used in a search) while their full name is included in the lede. This explains why, in the example you gave, the article name is at "Vlad the Impaler" while that was not the individual's full name. This guideline does not apply to inanimate objects, such as Sega's 16-bit console. --McDoobAU93 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We're getting sidetracked here - I created this section with the genuine intention of improving the lead, and I think my re-written attempt above fits that bill. Do you think we're better off keeping the article how it is at the moment, or do you think the proposed changes would indeed improve matters? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it works for a couple of reasons, but I might recommend reading MOS:LEAD to get the idea of what a lead section really needs. Saying the competition between it and the SNES isn't accurate without a source (TurboGrafx-16 and 3DO, anyone?). Also, might I suggest rewording to "The Sega Genesis - known as the Mega Drive in Japan and PAL regions -"; "Sega Mega Drive" doesn't sound nearly as natural and I think we made the point in the last RFC why it should be "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", not "Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive", etc., and it helps to explain where is "outside of North America" without getting POV-ish on the debate over the article name. Lead should also really encompass the gist of the article, basic points, and glaze over the article's subsections better than the sample does. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input! To address your points...

1) The stuff about the competition with the SNES is actually already in the lead (without a source) - it's no skin off my nose if it goes, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a reference.

2) I'm not sure I follow any of these arguments about "Sega Mega Drive" not sounding natural - that's precisely what we outside of North America have been calling it for the last two decades! That said, on reading it back, five "Sega"s in the first two sentences is probably too many, so I'm not against that specific alteration.

3) Do we really need to specify where in the world is "outside of North America"? I'm not aware of any other territory using the name Genesis. Were there any? If not, I don't think it's POV to describe countries not in North America as "outside of North America".

4) I was really more concerned with removing redundant fluff and making the lead more straightforward and focused than adding much. What basic points do you think should be added?

Thanks again. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't use "in PAL regions" because there were NTSC and SECAM regions where the console was called the Mega Drive as well. "Outside North America" really is the most concise way of summing up where it was known as the Mega Drive, otherwise you're just going to have to list every other territory other than US, which is going to be even more ridiculous and unweildy. I agree that "outside North America" still isn't ideal, which is why I believe the Mega Drive name should be used first with the "Genesis in North America" caveat instead, but there's no real point exploring that line of thought while a proportion of editors are so hostile to the idea. I agree with the IP above that using the term "outside North America" isn't POV. It's entirely accurate and the most concise and straightforward way to put it, whilst still using Genesis as the first term used. --188.29.151.78 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In terms of length, MOSLEAD does recommend that lengthy articles do have lengthy lead sections, so I don't necessarily think the section should be trimmed down. Honestly, I think the only major point of contention that I've had with the lead section is the very first paragraph, and that also seems to be where most everyone else is focusing. How would you rewrite just the first paragraph, if consensus was the rest of the lead was acceptable? --McDoobAU93 01:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reading. When it comes to length, the main thing I trimmed out was the paragraph about the Mortal Kombat controversy. To me, it doesn't feel that this belongs in the lead, but I'm willing to be talked around. Bear in mind, though, that outside of North America we're not affected at all by the ESRB, so it probably doesn't fit the "world view" ethos.

If you want to extend the lead, perhaps we could mention some highly notable games released for the machine. Let's not forget that Sonic the Hedgehog - Sega's flagship mascot to this day - debuted on it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree about the opening paragraph. In all honesty, I really don't see how I can get that first sentence any more neutral and straightforwardly factual than that. I've quickly gathered it's a touchy subject around these parts, so am wary of opening this can of worms, but what specifically about it do you dislike? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly like this a lot better than what's there, but agree that 94.197.137.92's suggestion improves the readability further. I'd appreciate if ChaheelReins could come up with some constructive suggestions that match this level of readability instead of just pointing out why everyone else's suggestions are wrong. And while the question of the article title obviously impacts discussion of the lede, I think comments such as 92.41.220.84's which try to reopen that debate here are not going to lead us towards improving the article, at least in the short term. If we're going to have that debate (again), have it elsewhere - let's try to keep this section on how to improve the lede within the constraints currently in place. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - and agreed on all points. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like my comments, stop giving me reason to make them. Or, as the irate IP editor suggested above - you could always leave as nobody will miss you. All my comments regarding the naming convention and article title are in the archives, as I stopped responding to troll posts when it became obvious that there was nothing new being discussed, and that my time would be better spent actually editing articles rather than playing ring-a-ring-a-roses on pointless and never-ending discussions.

You would do well to note that you are confusing two different topics however - I am critical of those who bring nothing new to the naming convention, but supportive of those who wish to edit the article itself constructively - again you can see this from both my edit history and the archives. For what it's worth I agree that the above "lead" section is an improvement, but disagree with the terminology, and section that suggests Megadrive should take priority when the article is called Genesis. I stated that clearly and such a comment is no more or less constructive than many of the others that are visible on this page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that aimed me? I hope not, but the way you've indented, it looks like that's who you're replying to.

Anyway, which terminology do you disagree with in the new lead? I'm going to attempt a second draft in due course. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the reply was directed primarily at GoldenRing, but by proxy at many other editors who happen to read and contribute here.

The terminology I refer to was not in your suggestion, but contributed later by 94.197 here where he suggests changing the order of Genesis and Megadrive.

I'm kind of busy right now, and will respond a bit more later, but thought I'd comment quickly to let you know I wasn't having a pop at you or your efforts. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would Propose this, "Sega's 4th generation system called the Genesis in North America and Mega Drive elsewhere was released in Japan in 1988, North America in 1989 and in Europe, Australasia and Brazil in 1990. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. The console is Sega's third and the direct successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when the separately sold Power Base Converter is installed." 62.252.234.27 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Here's what I think:

1) With a bit of work, that opening sentence may be a decent compromise, if it's acceptable not to immediately start the article with "The Sega Genesis...". It's not as punchy as my original proposal, but if people aren't happy with that, this could be the way to go.

2) Hmmmmm... Someone's added that stuff about the South Korean console to the main article since I started this section and presented my first draft. I'm sure it was done with the right intentions, as otherwise it would have been quite mischievous to do so while we're clearly working on it, but to be frank, I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. There have been plenty of second- and third-party hardware releases that played Mega Drive/Genesis games - such as this Samsung console - and it seems odd to highlight only one. Just my opinion - does anyone disagree?

3) The information about backwards compatibility is important, but not opening-paragraph-of-lead important. Again, if anyone disagrees, let's discuss it.

Keep the feedback coming, folks! 86.4.242.105 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me so long as there's no problem with "4th generation". I've seen people complain that the "generation"s are jargon, and mostly a western phenomenon. I'm actually not sure if those complaints are valid or not.

However, I think you need to get "video game console" in there somewhere. Some people won't know that, and it's really the most fundamental fact the lead needs to get across. APL (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's jargon. Also, what's actually wrong with the current lead again????--SexyKick 06:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully? It's a mess. It's all over the place. A couple of days ago, I was idly browsing Wikipedia when I stumbled across this entry for the first time, and I was immediately horrified at how badly it's written. I actually think the whole article to do with a complete re-write, but I'm only an occasional editor. At the very least, though, I can help improve the confused, meandering lead section - so I'm making the effort. These were my first impressions, and I think my coming at it fresh is something of an advantage. Ultimately, though, nothing will be changed if it's not seen as an improvement. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Fourth generation" was actually already in the lead of the article when I wrote the above draft, but was removed yesterday while these discussions were taking place - without consensus. I think it's proper to ask for other opinions: should we describe the Genesis/Mega Drive as a "fourth-generation console" or not? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"16-bit" wiki links to the fourth gen article, same as in the Super NES article. I don't think the lead is a mess; from what I see in here, it's another IP editor who happens to be unhappy that Mega Drive isn't the first thing mentioned in the article. In the Super NES article, no one complains that the Super Famicom isn't the first name mentioned even though it's chronologically the first release. The Korean release is noted in their lead as well - featured articles are examples. You said you're concerned with removing "redundant fluff"; well, we have to make sure each section gets a bit of a mention in the lead, and since the video game violence has its own section in the article, it was said to put it in the lead by people who were actually working on the article, and not just complaining about a name (section above). You started with "the lead has been described as a disaster" but a quick search of that word on the talk page shows it hasn't been called that. I'll point out your first lead proposal did not try to put Mega Drive first, but you quickly changed your tune on that. Yes, it removed too much, and no, the entire lead doesn't actually need a rewrite from people who don't seem to actually care about this article, or to even read MOSLEAD before trying to change things.--SexyKick 14:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a pity you feel that way. Am I the only one who thinks this post is out of order, to say the least? I'll leave it to more experienced Wikipedians to decide whether it's acceptable behaviour or not. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

""the lead has been described as a disaster" but a quick search of that word on the talk page shows it hasn't been called that." Incorrect. I described McDoob's proposed rewrite of the lead as "still a disaster" which implies I felt the existing lead is a disaster - which I do. 86.4 was perfectly correct in interpreting what I said the way he did. I think you're in the minority here in thinking the lead we have is fine, consensus seems to lean towards it needing work. --188.29.92.61 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've taken into account everyone's feedback, and here's my second draft, as promised: (EDIT: Please scroll down for third draft)

Sega's 16-bit video game console, known as the Genesis in North America and the Mega Drive in other territories, was first released in Japan in 1988. It was Sega's third machine - succeeding the Master System and preceding the Saturn - and following its debuts in America in 1989 and Europe in 1990, it went on to become Sega's most successful home console.

The Genesis's perceived rivaly with the SNES played a major part in the so-called console wars of the 90s. Notable games include ***********. The final new licensed game was released in Brazil in 2002.

Several hardware add-ons were created for the Genesis, including the Sega CD (known as the Mega-CD outside of North America) and 32X, which extended its technical capabilities. The Power Base Converter made it backwardly compatible with the Master System, while peripherals such as the Menacer light gun and Activator movement-detector added novelty value.

The Genesis and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, and emulation enthusiasts. Licensed third-party variations of the console are still being produced to this day, along with the output of several indie developers. Many games have been re-released in compilations for newer systems, with some offered for download on online services such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.

I've left some asterisks where we can name some of the best-known or critically-acclaimed games. Obviously, Sonic the Hedgehog certainly deserves a mention, but what else? Should we stick to only first-party games, or include a range across the board? Also, some games are better known in one territory than others, so we need to be careful.

Please also compare and contrast with both the first draft (above) and the current lead - are we heading in the right direction? Because if this isn't an improvement, it's not worth changing. All feedback welcome. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're really trying in good faith, but I also think you're trying to fix segments of the lede that aren't considered broken. I do think there is general agreement that the opening paragraph needs work. However, I don't believe the remaining three paragraphs are at issue here. They are concise, summarize the contents of the article, and hit high points in the console's history. So maybe we should focus on Paragraph 1 instead of reworking the entire lede section? Just a thought, and thank you for your contributions. --McDoobAU93 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that, coming at it with a fresh perspective as I am, I think that there are some pretty glaring problems with the whole lead, but I agree that the opening paragraph is the worst culprit. So what do you make of the two that I've suggested so far? Neutral enough or not? Do either of them read well? (Or, more to the point, better that what we've got at the moment?)

Things currently in said opening paragraph that I don't think belong are mention of the Samsung third-party (or is that technically second-party?) console in South Korea and the Power Base Converter. The latter I've moved elsewhere in the lead, and the former wasn't even there in the main article when I posted my first draft yesterday. Do you agree or disagree with either of these points? All other changes are for the sake of readability, and omitted facts can easily be incorporated into the body text.

As for the rest of the lead, it may not be considered broken, but the fact that Mortal Kombat is the only game named at all seems extremely odd for what's supposed to be an overview of the console. I consider it a glaring omission, in fact. Think of the Mega Drive/Genesis, and many people would immediately think of Sonic the Hedgehog. I really believe that at least one critically-acclaimed game should be mentioned in the lead. Agree or disagree?

In a previous reply to you, I acknowledged that I removed the paragraph about the ESRB because it's only relevant to North America - but I also stated that I was "willing to be talked around". Is it an issue that defined the Genesis to such a level that it deserves a full paragraph in the lead? More defining than Sonic the Hedgehog? I genuinely don't know, because I'm not in North America. But even if it was, does it fit in with the world view ethos? Personally, I'd limit it to a sentence, if it must be mentioned.

Just my opinion, and thank you for yours. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this proposed lead is far better than what we currently have. Much more of a international POV, rather than concentrating primarily on North American issues regarding the console (i.e. mentioning the Mortal Kombat controversy whilst failing to mention the console/brand mascot Sonic the Hedgehog). More succinct and accurate, and a more natural read. --188.29.92.61 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not intrinsically against mentioning the whole ESRB thing, but in all honesty things like Sonic Twosday define the Mega Drive era for me where I live. Night Trap was our big controversy, but that doesn't belong here. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

All steps backwards. It was already decided by groups of editors who used to maintain the article, within the archives, to not have games in the lead, with specific exception to the congressional hearings over MK/VRC and how it lead to the ESRB. Also, maybe a couple months ago I would have agreed the first paragraph needed work, however multiple editors have already worked to improve it, and it really is just fine now. Why isn't it good right now? Is it because it's modeled after a featured article and this article should be unique because we don't have to try to hold ourselves to a high standard?--SexyKick 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take you seriously, despite your final question. Even if we're not going to mention specific games - though I don't think it's a bad idea, and consensus could change - not mentioning Sonic the Hedgehog is akin to Walt Disney's lead not mentioning Mickey Mouse in my opinion. He's the mascot that debuted on and ultimately in many ways defined the Genesis.

If the ESRB thing must be mentioned, I've already stated I'm open to that - but I stress again that this is an issue specific to only one region. In my opinion, it doesn't warrant a full paragraph in the lead. Does the Mortal Kombat controversy really define the 16-bit era to that extent? On the same tack, coming at this afresh, sentences such as "The success of those games eventually forced Nintendo to join the ESRB" ruin the whole flow and focus of the text. It's barely relevant on this page as it is, but in the lead?

To answer your question regarding why I don't think the lead is good enough right now, I think it's a jumbled list of facts that doesn't have much flow to it. There are major things that haven't made it in there at all, while less important matters such as the Power Base Converter and Super Aladdin Boy get a mention in the opening paragraph. It's a mess, and I'd like to improve it. I'm not the only one.

Finally, I don't follow the logic of not making objective improvements to something for fear of causing inconsistency. That's putting the cart before the horse and throwing them all out with the bathwater, to mix too many metaphors. If this article's lead turns out unique, that may be because it's achieved a higher standard, as opposed to one lower than similar pages. That's what I'm hoping for, with everyone's help. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the first paragraph of 86.4's version better than the existing lead. (The rest I'm less sure about.)

I like 86.4's first paragraph better because it states the important parts quickly (Video game console, Genesis/MegaDrive, Sega, 1989/90.) without sounding a little bit like a list of details like the current one does. APL (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I appreciate that. It seems we're on the same wavelength as to what's wrong with the current opening paragraph and what would make it better. It's still a work in progress, and I'm convinced we can improve the rest of the lead, too, even if only with a rigorous copy edit. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Break 1

Here is my third draft. Please read it side by side with the current lead, and compare and contrast.

Sega's 16-bit video game console, known as the Genesis in North America and the Mega Drive in other territories, was first released in Japan in 1988. It was Sega's third machine, succeeding the Master System and preceding the Saturn, and following its debuts in America (1989) and Europe (1990) went on to become the corporation's most successful home console. The final new licensed game was released in Brazil in 2002.

The Genesis was Sega's last home console to have its games released on cartridges, and the first to feature Sonic the Hedgehog as its mascot. The system's intense competition with the SNES played a major part in the so-called console wars of the 90s, with the Genesis being heavily marketed as a "cooler" alternative to Nintendo's rival platform. Some games featured more mature content, and the controversy over the graphic violence depicted in Mortal Kombat ultimately led to the formation of the ESRB in North America.

Several hardware add-ons were created for the Genesis, including the Sega CD (known as the Mega-CD outside of North America) and 32X, which both extended its technical capabilities. The Power Base Converter made it backwardly compatible with the Master System, while peripherals such as the Menacer light gun and Activator movement-detector added alternative control methods.

More than two decades after its initial release, the Genesis retains a significant fanbase amongst retro gamers, emulation enthusiasts, collectors, video game music devotees, and the fan translation scene. Licensed third-party variations of the console are still being produced, along with the output of several indie developers. Many games have been re-released in compilations for newer systems, with some offered for download on online services such as the Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.

That's 289 words. Just for reference, the current lead clocks in at 373, and the SNES lead 265. In my opinion, the above is far easier to read, is better focused and more succinct, is as close to territorially neutral as we can hope, and fills in some pretty embarrassing omissions (the fact that it's a cartridge-based console, was marketed as "cool", and Sonic the Hedgehog as a mascot). I've also added a couple of peripherals, as they have their own subheading but no mention in the current lead, and pretty much the only thing I've removed all together is the mention of the South Korean Samsung release. That last thing was only added a couple of days ago, and in my opinion is better off integrated into the body text. It may still need work, but I genuinely feel that this is already better than the current lead. Thoughts, opinions and feedback all welcome. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've placed in an arbitrary break above with a subheading to help break up this discussion and make it easier to navigate. Interesting way to start the article, although I don't think it quite fits with the ideals of a lead section just yet. Let me give you a brief breakdown on what I'm seeing could use some tweaks:

• Biggest thing catching my eye here is that we have four paragraphs, and they're all quite short and choppy. Lead paragraphs should really have depth, and I wouldn't use four unless the article is quite long (this one is close, but remember, quality and not quantity when it comes to paragraphs). Three is probably a good number for this article; one introducing the system and basics of it (including maybe just a dabble of tech specs, but only the basics such as its use of ROM cartridges and being a 16-bit system), to help show the reader exactly what it is we're talking about), one briefly glazing over the history, and one talking about the legacy, which would also sum up the Emulation section. First three of your paragraphs could be combined, another added glazing over the history of the Genesis, and the last one expanded just a touch as well.
• Though introducing the article as "Sega's 16-bit video game console" would be territorially neutral, a factor not necessarily a bad thing considering the raging name debates that'll never stop, bear in mind that this actually violates WP:BEGIN, which is a subsection of MOS:LEAD. Perhaps a better way to deal with this issue might be the way Gasoline deals with its issue of whether or not "Gasoline" or "Petrol" is the correct term. Same issue there, no real stability and the same naming convention questions applied (with Gasoline being noted as a mostly North American term). That article addresses the issue by starting with "Gasoline, or petrol, is an..." Maybe this one could do the same? I have a suggestion and I'll copy it below, just to visualize:

The Sega Genesis, or Mega Drive, is a 16-bit video game console released by Sega in Japan in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe in 1990. Though initially released in Japan as the Mega Drive {{nihongo|INSERT JAPANESE TEXT HERE}}, the name "Genesis" was used in North America due to a licensing dispute, while the name "Mega Drive" continued to be used worldwide.

• Lead definitely needs a history section that touches on major points, i.e. release, console wars, success, the 1993 congressional hearings and the Videogame Ratings Council, Sega v. Accolade, and the eventual decline of the system. This is important information, and certainly should be covered in the lead.

I appreciate that you're trying to make progress with this, but it still reads quite rough. I'd be glad to suggest a lead of my own today or tomorrow, but I'm not trying to undermine your efforts, hence my resistance to do so just yet. I might suggest, though, that for some ideas you might read the leads for a couple of articles I worked extensively on, such as Sega v. Accolade, which is good for general ideas, or you might look at, coincidentally enough, Sega CD and Sega 32X. Both of these two articles are good articles, and in the case of Sega CD we had to deal with the same naming issue during the review process. Both also take two different approaches to the situation, namely because the Sega CD had two names (Mega-CD), and the 32X had four, none of which were just "32X" (Super 32X in Japan, Sega Genesis 32X in North America, Sega Mega Drive 32X in Europe, Sega Mega 32X in Brazil). In any case, both have solid leads but only two paragraphs because neither add-on has a long enough article to warrant a third paragraph. Good luck and hope this helps. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input! If anyone else has similar feedback, that would be great, but I wonder whether this all should be put on hold, given what's just been posted below... 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's worth trying, trust me. Might I take a crack at this? I actually feel the lead currently in the article itself isn't bad save for a couple of details, but that first paragraph could definitely use a reworking.

The Sega Genesis, or Mega Drive, is a 16-bit video game console released by Sega in Japan in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe and Australia in 1990. Though initially released in Japan as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ, Mega Doraibu), the name "Genesis" was used in North America due to a licensing dispute, while the name "Mega Drive" continued to be used worldwide. As part of the fourth generation of video game consoles, the Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when a separate accessory known as the Power Base Converter is installed.

The Genesis was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including both dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. The console began production in Japan in 1988 and ended with the last new licensed game being released in 2002 in Brazil. Several add-ons were created, including the Sega CD and Sega 32X which extended its capabilities, as well as Internet-capable services such as Sega Channel and the Sega Net Work System. During the lifespan of the Genesis, the system also endured through controversy over games such as Mortal Kombat and Night Trap which resulted in Congressional hearings on violence in video games, as well as a lawsuit with video game publisher Accolade over the right to reverse engineer the system's software.Although firm sales figures were never published, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console.

The Sega Genesis and its games continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, retro gamers, emulation enthusiasts and the fan translation scene. Licensed 3rd party variations of the console are still being produced to this day, and there are also several indie game developers continuing to produce games for the console. Many games have been re-released in compilations for newer consoles, offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.

I see some improvements in that draft over my suggestions and the current lead, but I think you've also introduced (or re-introduced) some issues. I'm not in any way advocating change for the sake of change, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to nit-pick.

I'm under the impression that the first paragraph should be as clean and clear as possible, stating the basic facts about the subject and establishing its most notable features. In that sense, the last sentence of the second paragraph - "Although firm sales figures were never published, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console" - should really be in the first. Likewise, there are things in the first paragraph that just aren't important enough, in my opinion. In my drafts, I moved mention of the Power Base Converter to the bit about the add-ons, and I think that makes sense.

I also feel that your opening paragraph is rather more meandering than my attempts (though they're all an improvement on the status quo). We can make it a lot snappier and less verbose. I think that the different names for the console should be established there, but the reasons why can be saved for the body text. Are you still dead against using "The Sega Genesis - known as the Mega Drive outside of North America - is a..." for the opening? I think that's as succinct as we could ever hope. Going into the trademark dispute so early makes the article instantly lose its focus. I'm not sure about referring to the console as "Fourth-generation", either, as some people are calling that jargon.

Other things that I think could do with being added to your draft are the fact that it's a cartridge-based system and Sonic the Hedgehog (as mascot). I was going to bring up the subject of the various download services, as I gather the Sega Channel was the first of its kind in the world. Is that right? The thing is, it's seems not to have been deemed notable enough for mention in the body text at all, so perhaps it shouldn't be making the lead. Am I missing something, or have I stumbled upon another embarrassing omission? (One more, while we're at it: the Mega PC.) But we need to be careful to be neutral across the territories, and Congressional hearings, the Accolade lawsuit, and said download services don't necessarily fit that bill.

To really nit-pick, "The Sega Genesis and its games continue to be popular among fans" is a redundant statement. Most things are popular amongst its fans. I altered it to say that it's retained a large fanbase, so recommend something along those lines. (In fact, my final paragraph was nothing more than a re-write of the current one in better English.) And a copy edit to trim the number of "Sega"s, "console"s, and a few other repetitions would be of benefit - but that comes later.

Anything you intrinsically disagree with in what I've just said? Thanks again for taking this (and me) seriously! 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I feel as though doing some lead repair may help to quell the debate. I do disagree with a few points, which I'll list below and explain my rationale as such:

• I actually agree with your first point fully, it's definitely worth a mention.
• It is a bit jargon-like to say it's fourth-generation, but bear in mind we have a whole series of articles outlining the generations of video game consoles, and the link to the respective generation is there. It's also not too uncommon in video game articles to use that, and helps by adding a link to an article about the era of that console and surrounding situations. If there were no respective article as such, I would say it's jargon and have not included it.
• The problem with Sega Channel and Sega Net Work System isn't in the lead at all; it's in the fact that they've been forked off of this article but really don't deserve separate articles. I get the idea that it's like PlayStation Network, but neither of Sega's services was actually big enough or notable enough to have enough users or relevant coverage to really warrant separate articles - a factor of the era between 1995 and 2013. How do we solve that problem? Merge those two articles in, source them, strip out any excessive and irrelevant detail, and add it into the lead. Voila! Simple fix if no one objects to getting rid of all of these unduly weighted content forks. Mega-PC is also worth a mention in the Variations section, but then again that whole section needs a bad reworking. I've been very determined to get rid of List of variations of the Mega Drive and make a decent section here, but have faced surprisingly stiff opposition to getting rid of the list and its technical cruft.
• In regards to the opening: no, I'm not dead against "known as the Mega Drive outside of North America", but I feel as though that sentence in itself is just another rally cry for those claiming a WP:WORLDVIEW violation, and honestly I tend to agree with them because it does make the article seem to be written from a biased point of view. My suggestion is simply an attempt to take a neutral approach that doesn't immediately differentiate the two titles and gives equal weight to both names.
• I copied the last paragraph outright from what's there already, so I'm not bent on that one in any way.

That's what I've got. Any ideas? Thoughts? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we're actually moving towards an improvement now. I agree the success of the console should be moved to the first paragraph, and that the power base converter could be moved to the second. I previously agreed with RedPhoenix that we could save the copyright issue for the main body, and it's important that we keep the South Korean release in the first paragraph, not only because of the example of the Super NES (featured article), but because it's important for the world view of the console as well. I think it's hard to make progress with this because the lead has mostly been written by people like KieferSkunk, X201, and RedPhoenix already, who have all been very good at helping articles become both Good Articles, as well as Featured Articles. Should the second paragraph now start with how this is Sega's second console and the successor to the SMS with which it has backwards compatibility? I figure we're going to merge in the Sega Channel and Sega Net Work to this article? I also agree with IP.numbers that...of course it continues to be popular among its fans, but the others deserve to be pointed out, so maybe a slight tweak could be workable...here's another draft built off of RedPhoenix's last draft. I don't know though, I still rather like what the current third paragraph says (VRC and violence), because it illustrates some of why that information is relevant and important.

The Sega Genesis (often shortened to Genesis) is a 16-bit video game console that was released in 1988 by Sega in Japan (as the Mega Drive (メガドライブ, Mega Doraibu)), 1989 in North America, and 1990 in Europe, Australasia, and Brazil, under the name Mega Drive. In South Korea it was distributed by Samsung and was first known as the Super Gam*Boy and later as the Super Aladdin Boy. Although final sales figures were never published, the Genesis was Sega's most successful console.

The Genesis is Sega's third console and the successor to the Sega Master System with which it has backward compatibility when a separate accessory known as the Power Base Converter is installed. was the first of its generation to achieve notable market share in continental Europe and North America, where it competed against a wide range of platforms, including both dedicated gaming consoles and home computer systems. Two years later, Nintendo released the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, and the competition between the two would dominate the 16-bit era of video gaming. Game production began in Japan in 1988 and ended with the last new licensed game being released in 2002 in Brazil. Several add-ons were created, including the Sega CD and Sega 32X which extended its capabilities, as well as Internet-capable services such as Sega Channel and the Sega Net Work System. During the lifespan of the Genesis, the system endured through a lawsuit with video game publisher Accolade over the right to reverse engineer the system's software, as well as controversy over games such as Mortal Kombat and Night Trap which resulted in Congressional hearings on violence in video games, and the creation of the first content rating system for video games, the Videogame Rating Council.

The Sega Genesis and its games retain a significant fan base, and continue to be popular among fans, collectors, video game music fans, retro gamers, emulation enthusiasts and the fan translation scene. Licensed 3rd party variations of the console are still being produced to this day, and there are also several indie game developers continuing to produce games for the console. Many games have been re-released in compilations for newer consoles, offered for download on various online services, such as Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network and Steam.

SexyKick 23:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive input. You're going to hate me for this, but I'm afraid I think that that opening paragraph is a quantum leap in the wrong direction. Red Phoenix's version handles the naming differences much better, and I'm really not sure about mentioning a third-party Samsung release in the lead at all.

In the second paragraph, I'd mention the Power Base Converter in between the 32X and Internet services. We could probably do with using the phrase "console wars" in relation to the SNES, as that's one of the most memorable things about the system. The final sentence of the paragraph is a bit of a whopper, and is pretty specific to North America, so I think could do with some trimming. Just a thought: should we be mentioning Night Trap at all, being a CD game?

The final paragraph is virtually there, but if you scroll up to my third draft, I happen to think I've re-written it slightly better (even if I say so myself). Same info, just more polished. Though in hindsight I think I'd prefer "fan-base" to be hyphenated, rather than one or two words.

Other things I believe are important enough to be mentioned are cartridges and Sonic the Hedgehog. Also, all the marketing pointed in the direction of the console being "cool", which I think is pretty significant. Again, I managed to incorporate these into my third draft, so with a bit of work...

Looking at the list of headings, we don't seem to have covered the Virtua Processor or peripherals - but I'm not too fussed about that. Or should we? Other than that, I'm glad you feel things are improving. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For the issue with Night Trap, I've addressed that in the Sega CD article thoroughly, but though it's a CD game, it's a CD game for this system, and the Sega CD is more or less a peripheral. Perhaps in this case Night Trap isn't covered as in-depth as I did in Sega CD because of that, but there's nothing wrong with a mention of it.

Now, sliding off topic just a little bit, ready for me to absolutely blow your mind? Here is just how convoluted Sega's naming system is:

• The original model is the Mega Drive (Japan, Europe, Australia, Brazil), or the Genesis (North America).
• The second model released is the Mega Drive 2 (Japan, printed right on the console), Mega Drive II (Europe, printed right on the console), or Genesis III (North America, and yes, that's three and not two, verified through sources used for Sega v. Accolade)
• Sega released a combination Mega Drive/Genesis and Sega CD/Mega-CD, called the Genesis CDX in North America and the Multi-Mega worldwide.
• JVC did the same with better audio capabilities, called the Wondermega worldwide, but the X'Eye in North America.

Confusing, isn't it? This isn't an easy issue to deal with article-wide, regardless of the title. It's much more complex than just Mega Drive vs. Genesis; it's very convoluted how many names are actually used. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not against mentioning Night Trap - I was only raising the question just in case. No problems with it going in from me.

I fully appreciate that the numerous names cause a big headache for the article as a whole, but my whole reason for getting involved here is to try to streamline what reads at first glance as a very convoluted lead section. The article title is "Sega Genesis", so, naturally, we need to explain in which territories that name is used. We also need to state that the same console bears the name "Mega Drive" in other territories. As far as I'm concerned, that's as far as the lead needs to go on the subject, and all other names, reasons and details could be incorporated into the next section (and for the most part they already are). I genuinely think that would improve readability 1000%, and give a much clearer overview of the console for people with no prior knowledge.

And was there really no Genesis II? How bizarre... 86.4.242.105 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised too... but it's even in the official court record of Sega v. Accolade as the "Genesis III" (which is different than the "Genesis 3" by Majesco). Also, to make matters worse, according to Sega executive director Michael Latham, the Sega 32X, before becoming an add-on, was conceptualized as "Project Jupiter", and supposedly was going to be a "Genesis 2"... yeah, never before have I actually been grateful there was a 32X until I heard that. And I hate to say it, but I think we have to get this title thing hashed out before the lead can be done, though it's certainly a good idea to kick around ideas now and get it ready. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(I've added indents to your post to keep it clear who's replying to whom - hope that's all right.)

I don't anticipate a name change or article split, but agree we should probably wait until anything is rubber-stamped either way. In the meantime, changing tack slightly, here's a list of points that I think simply must be covered in the lead, in rough order of priority:

• Genesis/Mega Drive naming difference
• It's a video game console
• 16-bit
• Years of release
• It remains Sega's most successful system
• "Console wars", specifically rivalry with SNES
• Debut of mascot Sonic the Hedgehog
• Games released on cartridges
• Add-ons, such as Sega CD and 32X, possibly Power Base Converter
• Controversy over Mortal Kombat and Night Trap (and not just in North America, incidentally)
• Final game released in 2002
• Compilations and downloads still sold on current consoles

That list is by no means exhaustive, but I'm of the opinion that a lead that omits any of those points falls short. Do you (or anyone else) consider any of those items as controversial inclusions?

In addition, I think a case can be made for the following, in no particular order:

• The Accolade court battle, but I have little knowledge of the subject. I'll happily leave it to the judgement of others, but once again point out that it's very specific to one region, even if the verdict did have a knock-on effect elsewhere. (On a side note, I'm pretty sure Micro Machines faced something similar, and was briefly taken off shelves before being resolved.)
• The modems and download services. Again, these never really affected where I am, but I was going to include the Sega Channel in one of my drafts - until I realised it wasn't mentioned in the body text of the article. I'm pretty sure it was the first (and possibly only) of its kind, so it's worth working into the body text at least.
• Sonic Twosday. This was monumental in the UK, with news reports on the TV showing people queueing up and a story about the tiny indie shop that broke the worldwide embargo. The level of coverage was unprecedented. It really defines the 16-bit era of gaming, to an extent, and was possibly the moment video games first entered mainstream culture for good reasons. Was it as big elsewhere? If so, it could possibly be worked into the Console Wars section of the article, and perhaps mentioned in the lead.
• The marketing of it as a "cool" console. I think that that's pretty defining, but am willing to hear arguments to the contrary.
• Some critically acclaimed games. It's a pity that the only ones to be named in the lead are those notable for causing controversy. Of course, this opens a can of worms as to which games to mention... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.242.105 (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you reckon? Anything you disagree with? Any points you'd like to add? There are many other issues regarding readability as far as I'm concerned, but that's for later. Once we have a nice list of main items that need covering, we can shape it into nice, succinct prose and end up with the perfect lead section. At least, that's the theory! 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I get it, IP.numbers wants to trim away anything that happened in specific countries that is mentioned in the lead. No South Korea, no America - only things deemed important in their own mind. It's not a third party remake of a console either, it's still the real, licensed console.--SexyKick 03:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"I get it, IP.numbers wants to trim away anything that happened in specific countries that is mentioned in the lead."

I'm doing my very best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that statement is simply outright false. I respectfully ask you to moderate your opinions of me as a person and focus your replies rather more on the topic at hand.

"No South Korea, no America"

I didn't say that, and it's alarming that you're suggesting otherwise.

"It's not a third party remake of a console"

I didn't call the Super Gam*Boy a "third party remake" - I referred to it as a "third-party Samsung release". I wonder why you'd alter my words in such a fashion. I stand by my description, and the opinion that it doesn't need to be in the opening paragraph. In fact, it wasn't in the opening paragraph when we started this discussion. It was added within the last week, while the lead section was under debate, without any sort of consensus. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)