Jump to content

Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Sub-article RM discussion

I have proposed that the sub-articles of this article be moved to be consistent with the new name of this article. See discussion at Talk:List_of_Sega_Mega_Drive_games#Requested_move. --22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

changing the faq

Does anyone want to take a first stab?LedRush (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Q: Why is the article at "Sega Genesis" rather than "Sega Mega Drive" or "Mega Drive" ?

A:The exact name of this article has been a source of controversy since the project's inception. The article was created as "Sega Genesis" in 2001 and as "Mega Drive" in 2005. They merged into an article titled "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis" the same year. In 2006, the editors reached consensus to move the article to "Sega Mega Drive" after a discussion found that the previous title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles are formatted, and elected to use "Mega Drive" as it was both the console's name at its initial launch and the name used in more countries/geographic regions. While there have been numerous debates since, no subsequent rename proposal achieved consensus until 2011. After consulting the policies WP:AND and WP:TITLEFORMAT in 2011, a new consensus was reached on using the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" to give equal weight to both console names. However, certain editors felt that the compound name was not in line with Wikipedia naming guidelines, and a new consensus was reached to rename the article "Sega Genesis" because (a)some editors felt that when there was a naming dispute of this type, the first non-stub name should be used; and (b) other editors read WP:Commonname to indicate that the name "Sega Genesis" had the most English language reliable sources, and therefore should be the name of the article."

My stab.LedRush (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good; some revisions...

A:The title of this article has been a source of controversy since separate articles about the two consoles were merged. The first article was created as "Sega Genesis" in 2001 and the second as "Mega Drive" in 2005. They were merged into one article titled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis later in 2005. In 2006, the article was moved to Sega Mega Drive after a discovery that the previous title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles are formatted, and "Mega Drive" was favored as it was both the console's name at its initial launch and the name used in more countries/geographic regions. For several years there were numerous debates about the title, but no proposal achieved consensus until a compromise was reached in 2001 to use the compound name Sega Genesis and Mega Drive to give equal weight to both console names. However, once the article was moved it was brought to the attention of more editors that objected to the compound title as being inconsistent with naming conventions, and a new consensus was reached to rename the article Sega Genesis because of (a) the principle of WP:RETAIN - use the title the article had when created; and (b) WP:Commonname because "Sega Genesis" arguably had the most usage in English language reliable sources."

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both versions are pretty good - but I definitely prefer User:Born2cycle's version. Could we at least use it to straighten out the FAQ today because now is the time when most people will want to know why the name was changed again? I have no problem with continuing to revise it - but the present FAQ is downright confusing/wrong. SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(I have WP:BB'ed and updated the FAQ per B2C - I'm happy to discuss further changes though - we just need to get something out there ASAP.) SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
B2C's is an obvious improvement, and it does make sense to have something up there now.LedRush (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The only problem I see, is that the compound name was simply unpopular due to being inconsistent. WP:And is clearly used fairly rarely, and no one was ever able to officially state that Sega Genesis and Mega Drive violated WP:And, instead we were able to make many arguments of why it was supported. So instead of "untenable" in point (a), I would state "unpopular".--SexyKick 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
People did make plenty of arguments as to how it violated WP:AND, you just disagreed with them. Arguments were made both ways. However, untenable is appropriate - what you're objecting to would actually be a statement that it was counter to policy or guidelines. It's untenable simply because of the degree of opposition. SamBC(talk) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

An edit notice either pointing to the FAQ or very briefly summarizing it would probably save us some grief. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the FAQ asserting that WP:COMMONNAME supports Genesis, as if that was part of the consensus. The consensus was to use Genesis, that I have no issue with - I was part of that consensus. However, there doesn't seem to be consensus that this is simply an application of commonname. The other reasons listed are enough, and are a pretty good summary of the actual consensus. SamBC(talk) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the opposite is true: Commonname was enough, but it was never shown that there was a violation of WP:AND (and in fact, the discussions on the article title talk page seemed not to have the problems with the name that the editors here had.) We've already hedged by putting the "arguably" there, and the makes the statement 100% true. Saying the other name was untenable, however, is less accurate than SK's suggest, in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I was just trying to be accurate. Perhaps "arguably untenable" is better? It's not a big deal either way.--SexyKick 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"Untenable" means the argument had no defense. Since the only conceivable defense was WP:AND, and consensus was clear that WP:AND did not apply in this case since the two topics were hardly distinct, "untenable" is exactly right. That was the main reason the objection to the previous title was so strong. To characterize it as "unpopular" is missing that point. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the FAQ answer opens with too much preamble; it'd be better to answer the question directly and then discuss the history rather than open with a huge chunk of history and then eventually get around to the answer. Such a change would make the most relevant information more accessible and hence make the answer more persuasive. So, working from the current text with minimal changes:

A: A consensus has been reached to name the article Sega Genesis because

(a) a compound title containing both Genesis and Mega Drive was untenable;
(b) WP:Commonname indicates "Sega Genesis" because it arguably had the most usage in English language reliable sources;
(c) "Sega Genesis" was the name used when the console was first released in an English-speaking market; and
(d) WP:NOCONSENSUS says... when all else fails use the title the article had when created.

The first article was created as "Sega Genesis" on November 30, 2001. Though the initial version did not mention the Mega Drive by name, it was added on February 17, 2002[1]. On August 20, 2003 coverage of the two brands was split into two articles... Sega Megadrive was changed into an article from a redirect [2], and the handling of both in the original article was removed [3]. Sega Megadrive was moved to Sega Mega Drive on August 21, 2004 [4]. They were merged back into one article titled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis in 2005. In 2006, the merged article was moved to Sega Mega Drive after a discovery that the previous title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles are formatted, and "Mega Drive" was favored as it was both the console's name at its initial launch and the name used in more countries/geographic regions. For several years there were numerous debates about the title, but no proposal achieved consensus until a compromise was reached in 2011 to use the compound name Sega Genesis and Mega Drive to give equal weight to both console names. However, once the article was moved the new title was brought to the attention of more editors that objected to the compound title as being inconsistent with naming conventions. A long discussion followed that included evaluation and comparison of many alternatives, leading to the current consensus.

— 83.244.247.185 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this variant ... it answers the question right off the bat, so if someone just wants to know that, they will find it without much reading. If they want the play-by-play analysis, they can find that next. --McDoobAU93 18:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's an improvement but suggest going even further and making it into a series of questions and answers, perhaps with follow-on questions. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and broke it up into 7 separate questions. Hopefully it reads like a reasonable dialog now. Some of the answers could be bolstered with more citations. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive should be used over Genesis

I think the title of the article should be Sega Mega Drive as it is the original name and used most widely in the world. Genesis is only used in 2 countries (USA and Canada) compared to the rest of the 196 countries in the world (not all of which of console was released in but nonetheless illustrates how many countries potentially use the original Mega Drive name opposed to Genesis). The Genesis name was used solely because Sega's could not secure the Mega Drive name in that region.

I particularly find it wrong for the article to state "also known as Mega Drive" when that name is both the original and most widely used.

I suggest either that the article uses the Mega Drive name in the article and title or at the very least that 2 separate versions of the article are made, so when somebody searches for "Mega Drive" they get that title and name in the article, and if somebody searches for "Sega Genesis" they get an article that uses that name.

It is highly dubios to use the Sega Genesis name in the title as that way it is presented like the Genesis is the original name and that Mega drive is an alternate name, which is very misleading.

Why this is even a discussion is beyond me, not only is Mega Drive the original name, but also used in the majority of the western countries and the rest of world. To use an alternate name used only in 2 countries as if it was main and original one is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacongull (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sega Genesis arguably the common name based on internet search results, console sales, and most available reliable sources refer to it as Sega Genesis as well. More over the brand that was originally introduced to English speaking consumes was Sega Genesis. The article was called "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", and there was a big debate, etc.--SexyKick 03:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Have you looked at the thousand of other articles on Wikipedia that have equally valid multiple names? I mean, how hard is the redirect system to understand? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please - we have already been through all of that debate. We looked at how the VAST majority of editors felt and went with that consensus. Unless you have some kind of NEW information that wasn't discussed before, you stand no chance of getting this debate re-opened - let alone changing the minds of the 15:3 majority. This is now a settled matter - and continuing to push it is unacceptable behavior if you don't have some kind of new and compelling argument. Quite honestly, it doesn't matter a damn which name we picked because people will discover that they are at the correct article after reading just 26 words into the lede. All that really does matter is that we don't continue to waste everyone's time by continuing to beat a dead horse. SteveBaker (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As stated in the FAQ (did you read it? it's at the top of this page), Genesis was the name used when this product was released in an English speaking country for the first time. Since this is the English speaking WP, that's what's relevant to determining "original" name. --born2cYcle 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

SexyKick: It is false that Sega Genesis has more search results. Googling for "Sega Genesis" yields 10,5 million hits, while searching for "Sega Mega Drive" yields 16,1 million hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacongull (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not if you use quotes (8.5 vs 3.5). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to pretend that it means something, what about all the other reasoning?--SexyKick 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Moses wept, just give it up Bacongull. You're too late for the party, and those who are left are picking up the empty beer bottles and abandoned games controllers. At best you're misguided, at worst a troll. (PS - Please sign your posts.) a_man_alone (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it is my belief you are misguided to believe so. To support an unoriginal and biblical name that is not as widely used as the original just because you for some reason are partial to it, is wrong in my opinion (you are used to it, think the U.S is the center of the world etc.) Me on the other hand is highly impartial and logical and support the original intention, just as I support the use of the orange original Dreamcast logo over the blue one, as it is the original and more widely used (even though I live in Europe) but to ask others to have an neutral and logical view based on common sense, is of course too much to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacongull (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"an unoriginal and biblical name" !! Hahaha! The word "genesis" means "The origin, start, or point at which something comes into being" and I'm sure Sega meant it to mean that this was a new beginning in video games. The idea that the word is "biblical" is laughable - it comes from the Ancient Greek word γένεσις and is more than 6,000 years old - which not only pre-dates the bible but also the events that the bible claims to tell! I think you are clutching at straws here! SteveBaker (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the argument that "Genesis" was first used in an english-speaking country, one might just as much use the same logic and say that the language of english is originally from England, where the console is known as "Mega Drive", thus this name should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacongull (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What? Are you being serious here? Have you even bothered to check any of the previous topics and arguments regarding the change from Megadrive to Genesis? Granted, they're archived, but even so you ought to at least familiarise yourself with your firearm before shooting yourself in the foot with it.
If you had bothered to read up, you'd see that I was (and still am,) fervently opposed to renaming the article to Genesis, and believe that the US term is not the most prevalent common name, although I concede that it is a common name. I opined that this is a glitch in the common name logic, and managed to annoy several of the other editors here with my arguments against renaming.
However, even more than I believe in Megadrive, I believe in consensus, and that was against me (and the other pro-Megadrive editors - this was hardly a one man last stand) so Genesis it is. a_man_alone (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree to the decision to change the name to Genesis and I do get the arguments about that it was the name of the original article, there was a vote etc. but I still wanted to express my opinion about the topic. I think this issue can be summed up quite easily with Wikipedia is obviously a site made primarily for the U.S and considers it to be the center of the world, and will favor any name or term used there, over that used in any other country regardless of the circumstances. It's just the way it is.Bacongull (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person who gets the irony here: "...considers it to be the CENTER of the world, and will FAVOR..." a_man_alone (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's more that there are more US editors, so they had a more likely change to get there 'first' as it were, and thus there's more cases where the US version 'wins' where there's equally valid choices. However there's PLENTY of articles that don't show a US bias, association football for instance -- how many people know what that is referring to without going to the article? As I've said above, there's even Orange (colour) despite the fact we have the article at color rather than colour. And believe me, I've VERY often seen British people who consider the British varient to be better because "the language of english is originally from England" after all, right? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Bacongull has failed to come up with a single new argument for his/her position. We've seen all of these points before - it's well covered in the archives and we don't need to re-discuss it. Please, let's end this pointless thread. Continuing to complain about a recent, well-established and overwhelming consensus without a single new argument is "trolling" - which is considered to be disruptive editing - and that can get you into a lot of trouble here. I strongly suggest you give this up before some admin decides to block you for doing it.

If you have new information - or some new angle that we missed previously, then you're welcome to talk about it - but merely rehashing the stuff we've been going over and over again for the past month is disruptive. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Was the discussion actually advertised on the main page? It doesn't seem to be mentioned on the revision of 7th November that immediately precedes the most recent rename, for example. If not then might I suggest that (i) subsequent complaints were probably foreseeable; as (ii) there's a real risk that the 'consensus' was achieved through a self-selecting survey whereby only those unhappy with the name would bother to look at the talk page to find out if there's a logic behind it. — 91.125.91.247 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It was linked to multiple times on the VG Wikiproject. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a smart place to try to achieve consensus, but it might be worth creating some sort of template to put on the article page itself in future, to attempt to cut down on arguments after the fact? It's also a shame Wikipedia doesn't publish any sort of record as to how people are reaching different pages — if you could demonstrate that, say, 70% of people were reaching a page through a redirect from another name that doesn't itself infringe Wiki style rules then you'd have a firm statistical reason for a name change. I think a lot of the debate here is because the point is almost moot and the end reasoning ends up being wishy washy whichever way it goes. Those are issues to raise in a more appropriate forum though, clearly. — 83.244.247.185 (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive Vs Genesis

Sorry for creating yet another section for this, but I feel that the others have become too cluttered and off topic.

I don't find the arguments raised in the FAQ for the name change to Genesis to be any stronger than those against.

When the FAQ cites WP:Commonname it does not give any evidence that Genesis is the most commonly cited name (for example it could cite the number of sources in the article that refer to the Genesis), it instead relies on vague wording to simply imply that this is the case.

Whilst it is true that "Sega Genesis" was the name used when the console was first released in an English speaking market, this isn't any more relevant than the fact that it was originally released under the name "Sega Mega Drive" and continued to use this name in every other market; including all other English speaking regions.

The refered section of WP:NOCONSENSUS isn't directly applicable, as this was article was originally two articles merged together, rather than a simple renaming of one. I would also argue that Under WP:NOCONSENSUS#When_there_is_no_consensus Mega Drive qualified as a long-standing title.

I would also point out that the vast majority of hardware related to the console (as well as it's online service, Sega Meganet) was either named or had it's name derived from Mega Drive.

Examples of hardware based on the name Mega Drive (excluding modern remakes): Sega Mega Drive Sega Mega Drive 2 Sega Mega CD Sega Mega CD2 Sega Multi-Mega Sega Mega Adapter Sega Mega Jet Wondermega Amstrad Mega PC Sega Mega-Tech (Arcade) Sega Mega-Play (Arcade) Mega CD Karaoke Sega Mega Anser

Examples of hardware based on the name Genesis (excluding modern remakes): Sega Genesis Sega Genesis 2 Sega Genesis Nomad --Kjarl Dreadnought (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, consensus was that the arguments favoring each were very close. No one claimed either was clearly the best title. This is a case where a coin toss would have been appropriate. But for a variety of reasons SG was slightly preferred to MD by local consensus, so we went with that. To rehash the arguments that everyone agrees are strong on both sides is missing the point.

That said, in a situation with an article merge in its history, when applying the principle of going back to the usage of the first contributor, don't you think the only reasonable course is to look at the article that was created first, prior to the merge? --born2cYcle 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Or to put what Born2Cyle said another way, Mega Drive would be a perfectly valid title that would fit commonname, etc, but Genesis just was ever so slightly considered better. The majority of people decided it had to be one or the other, so the slightly better one was chosen. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
One more time: We have 15 to 3 in favor of the present title. That's a pretty excellent consensus. We've seen all of these points before - they are well covered in the archives and we don't need to re-discuss them. If you have new information - or some new angle that we missed previously, then you're welcome to talk about it - but merely rehashing the stuff we've been going over and over again for the past month is disruptive. SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think I've seen the argument that first contributor does not apply because of the merge, but maybe I've missed it. Anyway, that's why I addressed it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Another new user, who creates another new thread, and seems to know wikipolicy anyway.--SexyKick 14:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
People are still arguing over this? Read the FAQ at the top. The debate should be dead by now. Stop poking the corpse. Dream Focus 08:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The first contributor doctrine would prima facie appear to violate both the principle in favour of authoritative sources and the concept of Wikipedia as a democracy — it gives undue weight to the unsourced opinion of a single contributor. The debate is dead and the issue is decided, but I'm quite surprised at the weight being given to that one isolated aspect of the decision. — 83.244.247.185 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It only applies when there's equally valid names, as here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


I totally agree, I think that their wasn't a consensus for the change and if you disagree with what some editors then you are labelled as either a sock puppet or a troll, which is totally unacceptable. Often throughout the debate we heard WP:NoConsensus being used and the article was to be changed to Genesis as it was it's original article name. Obviously a compromise title is necessary such as "Sega 16-bit console" that is a reasonable compromise because both Genesis and Mega Drive are common use names, both sides have stong feelings about it and a compromise title is totally reasonable, puts the issue to bed and stops these discussions which have been going on for years and will continue to go on for years. The facts don't preclude either title being the article name but the facts of the debate were that their was no consensus to change and their clearly is not any consensus to use Genesis rather than Megadrive rather than Sega 16-bit console.Bobert902101 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How many people have come on here after the change to say they believe it to be wrong? I registered because I think it's wrong. That doesn't make myself a troll, it doesn't make other people trolls or sock puppets and to suggest that is bad faith. Also SteveBaker keeps mentioning this 15:4 figure, clearly that isn't the case anymore since more people are commenting that the name change is wrong, was done for the wrong reasons and a compromise title should be considered. To sum up, just because you disagree with an editor, you have no right to call them trolls or sock puppets, if you can't do that then you don't belong in Wikipedia, frankly.Bobert902101 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Seriously. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No, bad faith attacks need to be acknowledged SteveBaker, they need to be condemned and you need to apologise. You called me a troll on this Talk Page and on another editors talk page merely because I disagreed with you (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Melodia#Re:_Talk:Sega_Genesis) and you didn't apologise. That isn't what Wikipedia is about and it is against the rules. You broke two rules, you personally attacked me and you reverted edits made to a discussion page. I broke a rule by not reporting your personal attacks to an administrator, although I certainly will in future. Bobert902101 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The question is, then, if you "registered because I think it's wrong", why didn't you participate in the debate before it was changed? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the change until after it had happened although I had been following the debates in the preceeding years, I had edited wikipedia although I didn't use a registered name except I wanted to contribute to this talk page so I created a username. However that is beside the point and the answer isn't to suggest that I felt I had to provide one to you but I instead gave you one in good faith which is clearly deficient amongst some of the editors here and it certainly doesn't detract from the truth that some editors on this article are corrosive to wikipedia and routinely engage in bad faith attacks on new contributors whilst many encourage those attacks by their silence in not condemning them. The article should be changed to a compromise title because this is not going to go away; when it was called Mega Drive editors wanted it changed to Genesis, now it is Genesis editors want it changed back to Mega Drive. A neutral third party was called into the recent debate who said that both names are equally valid and s/he felt it should be called Mega Drive since that was it's original name and it was only branded Genesis in the US due to trade mark issues. I support that but I give greater support to a compromise title since that ends this debate.Bobert902101 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if we can steer this in a more constructive direction. Do you have an NEW arguments or reasoning as to why the name should not be Genesis? Please be sure to read through the most recent discussion, at which the overall 5-to-1 support for Genesis was reached, before posting your thoughts. --McDoobAU93 15:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not 5:1 since many new editors have now spoken, it was the consensus that the article was to be changed to Megadrive, then the consensus that it should be kept at that, then it was the consensus that it should be changed to Megadrive and Genesis and the most recent consensus was it should be changed to Genesis due to naming conventions, my point is that the preceeding consensus no longer applies since more people are aware of the change and are against it. I have already outlined, as have others, why we feel it is incorrect that it should be called Genesis and I think we should adopt a compromise title for the same reasons as were given when it was originally changed from Megadrive to Megadrive and Genesis, a compromise title which ends this debate because until a compromise is adopted then the talk pages will be littered with titles such as "Why is it called Genesis?" - "It should be changed to Mega Drive" etc. I think I and others have outlined our points reasonably and the points of the original contributors in the Megadrive and Genesis compromise title stand today as they did last month.Bobert902101 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It was 5-to-1 at the vote that established consensus to name the article to its current name. The only reason I've seen for opening up this discussion YET AGAIN is that you (and "more people [who] are aware of the change") missed the last vote and don't like the result. That's like not voting in a general election and then griping because you don't like the person who got elected. Not participating in the vote is not a reason to request a page move for the third time in as many months. Aside from that, every argument you've made was made then. Can consensus change? Yes. But to do so, you'll need new arguments, not new voters. --McDoobAU93 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really because the arguments for the original compromise title "Megadrive and Genesis" still stand of course, just because the article is now Genesis instead of Megadrive doesn't mean those are null and void. The compromise title was accepted and the article name was changed. For those reasons and the reasons above many editors believe it should be changed, I think it shouldn't be either Genesis or Megadrive but a compromise title. Their is nothing that anyone can say that will convince those who support Genesis for the article to be called Mega Drive and their isn't anything that can be said to make others accept Genesis. That is obvious from the amount of discussion that this change has generated and the heated environment that it has created. The arguments for changing it to Mega Drive aren't any less valid just because others disagree with them and the arguments for the original compromise title aren't any less valid now the article is called Genesis. Wikipedia is not a democracy but I think their isn't consensus for the current title as their was in the past and I think that both sides need to compromise because both are correct, not that one name is valid and the other invalid and the related arguments invalid. Both sides accepted the compromise title so those arguments are correct. A compromise title is totaly reasonable and it draws a line under this endless debate, I suggest redirects from Sega Genesis and Sega Mega Drive to Sega 16-bit console, with a short sentence at the start acknowledging both titles.Bobert902101 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The analysis of "Sega 16-bit console" is provided here, so this has already been discussed. Per the admin who closed the previous vote: "No evidence provided to support contentions that our 10s of 1000s readers will no longer be able to find this article--redirects solve that problem. WP is for the readers, not the editors." Do you have any NEW evidence that contradicts this finding? If you do, please provide it. If you don't, please put down the stick. --McDoobAU93 16:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
"Their [sic] is nothing that anyone can say that will convince those who support Genesis for the article to be called Mega Drive and their [sic] isn't anything that can be said to make others accept Genesis." - you stand corrected sir. I still believe that Megadrive is the correct title for the page, but I have been convinced by all the arguments that it is not going to happen - hence I accept the Genesis title. Now I'm off somewhere more relaxing for some relative peace and quiet. a_man_alone (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that everyone coming here to express their opinions after the debate is done is "like not voting in a general election and then griping because you don't like the person who got elected". In my mind it's more like turning 18, going to vote for the first time and being told that you can't vote for a different candidate because "everybody voted for the other guy last time". Which does sound a little bit like an enforced single-party state. That said, I believe that there's a problem with this debate as a whole, namely that there's a bias towards the American name due to the larger numbers of American editors on the site. The mitigating argument is, of course, that if there's more American editors, then that's representative of the number of American users, and if there are more American users, the American name should be preferred. But see Lynx (grooming product) - despite a similar (yet less fervent) debate on that article's discussion page, the eventual name favours the original name of the product (Lynx), which is the name used in its country of origin (the UK). CNash (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The election analogy is a good one - except that in the real world, elections happen years apart. If you fail to vote in the 2011 election - then you can certainly vote the way you want in the 2015 election - but coming back a week or a month after the election and complaining that this huge majority voted against what you wanted...that is nothing more than pointless whining. I don't think it's right that "America rules" in Wikipedia - but in this specific case, it really doesn't matter a damn which of the two names was used for the title of the article...truly, nobody outside of a handful of fanboys gives a rat's ass which of the two titles is at the top because we have a great #REDIRECT feature and both names are clearly explained in the first paragraph of the lede. From a practical readers' perspective it truly doesn't matter which title we picked. What everyone DOES care about is that the article be stable and this continual, ridiculous and quite utterly pointless debate should end. It really, truly, deeply doesn't matter which title we picked - what mattered was that we did actually pick - and did so decisively. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
That last is an important point. Most people who look something up by name and then get a redirect will just say "Huh, I didn't know it was also called that.", or even "Oh, It's under the other name." and move on. Extremely few people will see the title and give up in confusion, or become angry that one name was chosen over the other.
If I need to know about Corn, I type "corn" into the search field and wind up on that article. I think "Oh yea, The Brits have a crazy name for it." and then scroll down to the part of the article I'm interested in. Because that's what I came to wikipedia for! I don't, as a reader, start thinking "Wait a moment, corn is a new-world crop, why are they using the british name? Surely this website must have a policy that would support giving this article a better name!" That would be silly. As a reader, I just get the information I need and go do whatever I was going to do with that information. It's only the hardcore editors of the encyclopedia that view EngVar issues as some important point of national pride.
All the nitpicky points of policy being brought up here are primarily dispute resolution tools, not things that readers will know or care about. No reader will think "Wow, I was expecting the other name because based on the release dates of the consoles I calculate that...." No. They expect to see the name used in their home territory, and will briefly be mildly surprised if they see the other. So the worst case scenario is that some people will see the title they expect, while others are mildly surprised, and the best case scenario is that some people will see the title they expect, while others will be mildly surprised. APL (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Probable error

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

You have to be right about this. I would either (a) change it immediately as you suggested; or (b) delete the quotation immediately (making the statement purely factual) and let someone add it back in per your comment when someone reads the book.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Sega presented the 32X with plans to make the Saturn. I remember Sega saying things like the 32X would be the best selling 32-bit machine because of how cheap and accessible it would make the next generation of gaming. It always seemed like Sega presented it as the poor mans entry into the 32-bit generation, even if they maybe did or didn't use that specific quote themselves.--BeastSystem (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is this: did Sega actually say it was "the poor man's entry into 'next generation games'"? If they did, and it's sourced, it belongs. Otherwise, it's either (a) someone else's words, and should be listed as such or (b) it's someone's interpretation of Sega's intent, thus making it original thought and inappropriate. --McDoobAU93 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A simple google books search turned this up and it claims Sega themselves referred to it that way. So now we have two book sources. Stephen's book also comes up in the search, but with pages removed.--SexyKick 00:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What page is it on? The link you provide just takes me to the start of the book.
Also, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I'm not questioning that "poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" appears in Kent's book; indeed, my suspicion is that the phrase comes directly from Kent's book, rather than merely being quoted in it.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed ... I revised it to indicate that critics (not Sega) had made that statement, and found it had been undone just now. Again, if there is proof that Sega ITSELF called the 32X "the poor man's entry into 'next generation' games" and not a critic or writer adding his own opinion, then it needs to be shown that way. The question is not that the statement was made (the source clearly indicates that), but who we say made it. The evidence does NOT indicate that Sega made that statement. --McDoobAU93 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That's odd about the link. When I click on it, the link takes me straight to page C44 with "poor man's" highlighted. The reference shows Sega themselves called it that. Stephen's book also claims the same thing, he didn't say it himself, he said Sega said that, and so does this book. That's two sources that have nothing to do with each other showing the same fact; Sega presented the 32X as the poor man's entry into the 32-bit market. Otherwise why introduce a new 32-bit system after you've already announced the Saturn??? They tried to pincer the market by taking the rich half and poor half of the 32-bit market at the same time. ie compete with themselves to make more money the same way other corporations do. Critics did not make this statement, nor did authors. Sega themselves said it. How is this confusing? McDoob, did you perhaps miss my comment above with the reference to another book claiming Sega themselves said this???--SexyKick 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
After re-checking the provided link, I do stand corrected, to a point (a very stretched one, though). I revised the paragraph and sentence and included the EXACT quote from the book you linked to. I also re-arranged the citation footnotes to make it easier for editors to know what source that statement came from. I believe that resolves the issue for now, and thanks SexyKick for providing that information. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources

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

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

May need to try again ... I've tried Bing and Google with those exact terms and nothing is coming up. --McDoobAU93 04:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I found the URL via Google News, but it's true that Bing and Google isn't returning anything... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements?

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

We need to create a list of areas that need improvement. Marketing is a biggie in my opinion. In Europe, Sega effectively broke the mould when it came to advertising; with the whole CyberRazor Cut/Pirate TV advertising concept. It was a foundation that Sony built upon when they launched PlayStation, and targeted it at 18- 29 year olds as a cool device rather than a console for kids. Obviously I've seen some of the North American marketing, but seeing it twenty years later via a grainy YouTube clip doesn't help get across the context - vice versa for NA users seeing EU footage, and they may not understand my zeal for it. I'll try and get all the info together, and hopefully write something up if I can squeeze it in in-between work/Uni. - X201 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know how to move the article forward either...but I can say that seeing the Sega Pirate Sega CD commercial was actually very invigorating...I can really see why that would be an advertisement that broke the mold. Not to mention Peter Wingfield is probably my favorite British actor...and finding out about him being in Mega Drive commercials was very moving. I never saw these growing up, as I'm in North America...I saw Gotta Get Genesis, and Genesis Does of course, but for me, seeing Peter Wingfield and the Sega Pirate was nearly just as good as when I saw Genesis Does as a kid. IMHO it didn't get across the fact that "you can't do this on Nintendo" but some kind of context still came over for me. Getting a peer review or GA review is a probably a good next step.--SexyKick 23:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Some areas I see:
  • 32-bit era - a number of small paragraphs intersperced with larger ones. That breaks the flow compared to the other sections.
  • Emulation - a number of small paragraphs that could be condensed.
  • Technical specificiations - a number of 1- or 2-paragraph sections that could be combined. Master system compatability also suffers from the same issues as 32-bit era.
  • The table in variations imo would be better going up-and-down rather than left-to-right as it takes up 80% of the screen on my monitor.
  • Legacy and revivial - those subsections should be combined and the short statements merged into 1-2 pragraphs.
  • There are a number of items missing citation including stuff that looks like original research. This is mostly in the 32-bit era.
  • The lead mentions that games continue to be produced, but nothing about later consoles. I'd go through and make certain every major section has at least something mentioned in the lead.∞陣内Jinnai 03:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'll work on the citations. Can you write whatever needs to be written for the lead? Perhaps X201 could figure the best way to combine the emulation/32-bit sentences, and Tech Spec sections.--SexyKick 12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I've done what I can do for today. I can't find sources for the PBC stuff. So that should just leave the emulation sentence grouping, citations for the PBC section, and possibly grouping some of the tech spec sections??--SexyKick 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources need to be checked. I noticed a link to romhacking.net as a source in the lead and some of the sources noting 3rd-party console remakes are a bit dated.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually checked them first. Blaze Mega Drive is still on sale, Firecore/Gencore/Retrogen/Gen-mobile are still on sale...Mitashi is still selling its knock off, and of course TecToy still makes the Mega Drive 4/Guitar Idol. In fact, I think I should change the wording. So that's good. Don't know what romhacking.net is either, what tells us that it's not reliable?--SexyKick 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Going back in the article history it seems Anomie was okay with the reliability of that source (he's a stickler for that stuff) and edited it here.--SexyKick 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue is not reliablity in their case. It is what they link to it may be cause for copyright violations because they distribute ips patches. While we could link to an archived page of such presumably legally (such as through wayback machine), we shouldn't link to a fresh page.∞陣内Jinnai 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, I'll change it to a wayback link.--SexyKick 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

People seeing youtube will automatically raise alarm bells. That's why I say if you can find an alternative, it would be better. If not, then that's fine.∞陣内Jinnai 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The easiest way to make the article GA would simply be to revert it back to its state in 2010, thereby removing all of the damage that's been done to it since then. Quite frankly the article in its present state is a mess, its so bad that I really don't see how anyone could even begin to fix it, and honestly I don't see anyone caring enough to try anymore. I ask you, are people expected to care about arguing the same case over and over for eternity here? There is never any conclusion on this talk page, its all meaningless, for instance the article name of "Mega Drive" has already been concluded multiple times, and yet every year it comes back up again and we're back to square one, nobody is going to keep arguing the same case over and over with no true conclusion, most (myself included) lost interest in repeating themselves a long time ago.
The article is bloated, confused, full of undue weight, and completely lacking in focus, revert it back to the last time it was GA, update the sales information in as clear, concise, and non commital a manner as possible, and then call it a day IMO Jesus.arnold (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more

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

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

I realize I should have been putting a "Done" check mark thing under things I finished. I can't remember what I did and didn't do now! Wow.--SexyKick 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I was going to ask what had/hand't been done. Part of the reason I sped up the archive was to clear out that huge discussion so there'd be less distraction to this particular one.∞陣内Jinnai 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_16&oldid=1257878774"