Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 15

More debates about article title
It seems like in the last day or so, all we are doing is arguing over the merits of the compound title. It looks like there are irreconcilably differences on this front. So what are we doing? Can we close this whole move request with a "no consensus" and move on? Are people going to force arbitration on us? What is the point of the current discussions?LedRush (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's valid concern that the current title is a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and is not a good way forward. It might be that there's no good way, and it's the least bad, though I personally think that unlikely. I couldn't care less if it's Mega Drive or Sega Genesis (or Sega Mega Drive), but the current title misleadingly suggests that they are two distinct items, rather than alternate names for a single product in different markets, like the car examples repeatedly brought up. SamBC(talk) 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've heard that hotly disputed opinion before. So, what do we do now?LedRush (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a valid argument for reconsidering the choice of the and'ed title, then we must look at the new consensus for/against the and'ed title...with a wider community of editors present. When we do that, we find that with that there is now absolutely no consensus for the new title after all.  In fact a substantial majority of people flat out don't accept it (on my unofficial count, we're at 8:3 against the new title).  On the other hand, there isn't a solid, overwhelming consensus to pick a new name either because the anti-AND community don't really seem to care which of the original two titles is chosen.  So we should simply revert to the previous title.  Sadly, this too will likely be hotly debated. SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like the most extreme option yet presented. Seeing as there have been several, that's quite an achievement.  That the current title achieved consensus seems undisputed.  That there is no consensus to revert also seems undisputed.  So why would we revert without consensus to do so?LedRush (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It did indeed achieve consensus - but that rapidly proved to be only a local consensus - and most certainly not one that the larger community could support. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."...as soon as wider consensus was sought at WikiProject VideoGames, the situation abruptly reversed.  You cannot simply hand-wave away WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - that's not how Wikipedia works.  So, unless you have some way to wiggle your way out of that issue, your former consensus is not valid and may safely be dismissed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no wider consensus, so there is nothing to dismiss. Case closed.LedRush (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I was thinking we could do next, once we agree the argument section is about done, is use the overall observations section to list a series of statements, and then encourage everyone to endorse which ever statements they agree with. The hope is to find a statement regarding the title decision for which we have consensus with such a process.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Go for it! SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's rotate! I know we're not supposed to do that, and this could set a bad precedent, etc., but I really do not see a way out this morass. So let's rotate. Move this article to Mega Drive on the 1st of November. Keep it there for one year. On the 1st of November, 2012, move it to Sega Genesis. Put a note on the talkpage explaining what's up. The great positive for this approach is that the article will always be at a recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent title. (It would also be a boon for editors of this page, and while readers are our topmost priority, happy editors are good for the encyclopedia, too.) I know there are downsides to this approach, but please, consider it in light of the past month's debate (as well as the previous several years' debates). What do we say? Dohn joe (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * . --Born2cycle (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC),  Mi re ma re  18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * . SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Crazy, but not a horrible idea. I fear that whichever name is chosen first will become the entrenched name. We came to an agreement on the current name and it didn't last 2 weeks. What are the chances we can agree not to move it until next year and that it should move on that date next year? I don't think they're great.LedRush (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, give it a chance. Bump the like count and add your sig to that line.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guarantee that someone will be paying attention come next November, and can point to this proposal if it gains consensus. Dohn joe (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would offer conditional support based on the following: (1) The majority of users who came to the last consensus support this proposal. I agreed to the last proposal, and to defend it, as a way out of a deadlock.  I won't go back on my word without their support.  (2) The article is named "Sega Genesis" for year one.  Call me skeptical, but the article has been called "Mega Drive" for 7 years or so, and if we come to this agreement and start with that name, it will be eight years.  When the inevitable fight comes around next year, it will be easier to move back to "mega drive" than to "Sega Genesis", in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if this solution is taken (and it's not a horrible one) then Genesis must go first. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * B3C - since you claim this page isn't based on policy, where do you get the idea that such a thing is allowed? Where is the precedent for this that you asked so many here to show with this title? If you can't come up with any, I'm not going to support it as it'll likely just cause confusion and problems at FAC/GAN as being "unstable". What happens when someone forgets? Move requests last I checked cannot be tied to bots (especially when you have to page delete to move first).


 * I like that you're trying to find alternatives, but I don't think anything short of this or 2 separate articles (even worse) will suffice. I could be proven wrong, but I don't think this is the proposal that will do so. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just fyi, this was my proposal, not B2C's. And I said upfront that this sort of thing is not usually (if ever) done. But if you're worried about FA/GA, I'd think that having a stable naming plan would be more favorable than the current nonstop debate. And as I also said, I doubt that anyone around here will forget about changing it back to their preferred name when it's time! Dohn joe (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Urgh! I hate this - it's an awful solution that's not supported by policy or precedent.


 * The practical problem is that there are close to 200 articles that link to this one (plus another 50 pages that link to this talk page). Since there are 'bots out there that seek to 'fix' articles that link to redirects - you'd be causing around 200 unnecessary article changes each time you 'rotated' the title.  Not good for stability - not good for Wikipedia's performance - a waste of disk space and Internet bandwidth...just generally a bad idea.


 * But there is also a conceptual problem. If (as an editor of Wikipedia) you're content to live with (say) "Sega Genesis" as the title for many months without fear that it's making the encyclopedia worse, then on what grounds can you say that this title cannot be kept around in perpetuity?  If you truly believe that only "Mega Drive" is acceptable without somehow damaging the quality of the article for our readership - then how could you tolerate having it not be the title for the next year?  Those who accept this proposal are saying "Compromise between editors trumps readership benefits" - which is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place - and that is an awful, untenable position.


 * All that support for this proposal admits is that neither of the two obvious titles is any better than the other (a fact well understood to a majority of the people who have been contributing to this discussion). That being the case, from the readers' perspective, using WP:RETAIN to choose one title over the other is just as good as this proposal - and doesn't result in those 200 unnecessary article changes every time the article revolves.


 * If you are able to put aside your demands for your 'pet' title for a year - then why can't you put it away forever?


 * I'm sorry but the editors who are on opposing sides of the choice between "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive" simply need to grow up and behave like adults and accept that they have a perfectly balanced position and that it doesn't really, truly matter a damn which title the article has. Accepting this proposal is a tacit admission of that.


 * Continuing to blindly refuse to accept the other title in the face of all evidence that they are equally valid is beneath you as rational people - you are a better person than that - you can suck it up and admit defeat. We have hundreds or thousands of other articles that were in the exact same position as this one, that none-the-less came up with a choice.  Why the heck do you guys have to stay buried in this ridiculous, intransigent position - to the degree that you'd accept this totally stupid idea rather than giving in and admitting defeat?   I've never seen such terrible behavior between editors in all the years I've been on Wikipedia...never!  So - WP:RETAIN...that's it...it's over...give it up.  (I don't even know which title is implied by WP:RETAIN - but that's the one...I don't care which).


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Impassioned theatrics aside, I don't see anything I've said as a tacit admission of anything. I've argued long and hard that commonname supports only one outcome, and that outcome is best for our readers (almost by definition).  However, it was obvious that my position was not supported by enough editors to create the overwhelming majority needed to overcome the dissenters. So the current compromise was borne, which is immediately identifiable and recognizable to any reader who would expect either one name or the other.  We came to this uneasy truce and decided to stick with it for the benefit of the readership and the benefit of the article.  This current discussion has ignored this and thrown the article into question yet again.  The ever-changing justifications and the inconsistent reasoning behind the attacks on the current name and the attacks on other solutions are frustrating, to say the least.  These is a current consensus in place.  If you don't like it, you can try and get a new one.  But you haven't.  So it's over.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we at least agree that WP:COMMONNAME is the best way to resolve this. But your "truce" isn't "for the benefit of the readership" - it's to avoid conflict amongst editors...and that's not acceptable.  Wikipedia needs consistency - and the consistent way to handle some object that's badge-engineered for multiple markets is to just pick one of the names for the title and redirect from the other names - we have a bazillion precedents for doing that.


 * I really don't understand why the editors who were involved in the previous rounds of this debate didn't do what thousands of other editors have done and said "Well, while I prefer title X, I can see that titles X and Y are about equally applicable - so let's just choose one of them and move on". Why, oh why can't you guys just do that?  Everyone else on this encyclopedia who has worked on an article about a badge-engineered product has managed to do this - why on earth can't you guys do it?  I'd really like to know (from everyone who was involved in those earlier debates) why you couldn't (and still cannot) just accept it and move on.  Why is that? SteveBaker (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it really isn't to the benefit of the readers. You have had people who do not know what a "Mega Drive" is question whether they were at the right article and previously (before Mega Drive existed) whether "Sega Genesis" was the the right article. By having one name and one name only it breaks one of the fundamentally important aspects of a title: to inform readers that they are at the proper article about what they wish to discuss. That's why COMMONNAME exists. Unfortunately in cases like this where the terms are radically different and where there's no clear choice, either one will fail a significant number of readers entirely. Most other things either have similar names, like the Harry Potter example that most readers can figure out its an alternate name. Others are have clearer data to show that a title is far more widely used in English and therefore is the best choice. This system isn't like those. Finally, what makes this different from other items that have name changes and aren't as clear as to which is the most common is that the changes to them are minimal to the point sometimes only the name, logo, cover, etc are different or for books a few words or passages that could be considered the same as any editing process for any kind of adaptation. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So why does EVERY other article that deals with this situation not have an identical problem? The reason is that in the very first sentence of the lede, you say something like Volkswagen Golf says:
 * "The Volkswagen Golf is a small family car manufactured by Volkswagen since 1974 and marketed worldwide across six generations, in various body configurations and under various nameplates – as the Volkswagen Rabbit in the United States and Canada (Mk1 and Mk5), and as the Volkswagen Caribe in Mexico (Mk1)."
 * Truly, of the hundreds and hundreds of other articles with the precise same problem as you guys have - not a single one (that we can find) has had to resort to these crazy approaches to naming the article. Yet there do no appear to be vast armies of Wikipedia readers who were confused to find themselves at Volkswagen Golf when they searched for Volkswagen Rabbit.  Heck, the MediaWiki software even tells you that it redirected you there.
 * This article is in no way special - and every other set of editors came to a more or less rapid conclusion - why the heck can't the editors of this article just pick one name and be done with it. All of this nonsense about reader confusion simply doesn't stand up - because we have hundreds or even thousands of articles that solve this in a very simple, standard way...just pick one name and be done with it.  So, answer my question:  Why can't you guys do what every other article about a badge-engineered product does? SteveBaker (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jinnai, that only makes sense if you equate "readers" with "idiots", which is an incredibly unfair thing to do. Someone may arrive at this article, look only at the title, fail to read the first few words of the lead (or notice the pictures!), and immediately leave in dumbfounded confusion, but frankly that person is too stupid to consider. We're not doing an encyclopedia for morons here, give the readers some credit!  Mi re ma re  18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as the unnecessary redirect argument is concerned, we already have hundreds of articles that link to both Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. That won't change, no matter what the title of the article is. And what do you say to the argument that under a title rotation, the article will always have a title that fits the naming criteria at WP:AT? Dohn joe (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that this encyclopedia has to have some semblance of order or it'll disintegrate. We have a 100% perfect way to handle the problem with this article's title.  We call it Sega Genesis and make Mega Drive be a redirect to it and in the first nine words of the lede we say "The Sega Genesis, also known as the Mega Drive..." (or vice-versa) - and the problem is solved in a way that nobody (outside to the Mega Drive fan boys) will ever give a damn about - it fits with what every other article about a badge-engineered product does, it's in line with policy and precedent - it's done, done, done.  What you're proposing will cause yet more megabytes of diatribe and grief over at WP:TITLE if you enact it.  Why will none of you original editors tell me why you can't just pick one name and be done with it?  (The why, I strongly suspect is that you've each become so wedded to your choice of name that you'll pull any kind of freaking crazy stunt to avoid losing an argument - and that's flat-out childish).  Why can every other article like this (Volkswagen Golf, to pick one of a zillion) sort this out and you guys can't?  It's just dumb. SteveBaker (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think most people could probably live with a rotating title, as it really wouldn't affect them, or the article itself, in any way whatsoever. It wouldn't even need any discussion when it's time to switch. It seems like a reasonable workaround in the spirit of the current title, but without its drawbacks. Given that the other options are reverting to "Mega Drive" and doubtless starting the discussion/s all over again, or deciding which of the two titles to use (which is never going to happen without arbitration), this is far more likely than either of those to settle the problem.
 * Steve: I can see your point, but it's not about "tacit admission", it's about compromise, at least personally speaking. All but the most blinkered of editors will freely admit that both titles are acceptable, and it's exactly because of that that it's proving so difficult to "just choose one of them". But it's also what makes compromising in such a way much easier to do than with a title that you view as totally wrong. It's simply the shortcomings of the current title that bother me, not the compromise, and this proposal nullifies those concerns. On that basis I support the proposal, with Genesis going first, and non-controversial swapping once a year until we're all dead and none of the young people care what the title is. Regarding additional server load, the bots only fix double-redirects, and as "Mega Drive" and "Sega Genesis" would redirect straight to each other, no bot action would be required.  Mi re ma re  18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last point is not true. Let's say the article is at Sega Genesis.  So Mega Drive, Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, Sega Mega Drive, etc. are all redirects to Sega Genesis.  Now the yearly change occurs, moving the article to Mega Drive and making Sega Genesis a redirect to Mega Drive.  Well, what does that do to Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, Sega Mega Drive, etc.?  Initially, they still redirect to Sega Genesis, which is now a redirect, making them double-redirects. But the bot will fix this, and it's not a big deal, especially if it happens only once a year.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still say we wait three months to see if any readers have a problem with the title, or even unprovoked editors who come to the article on their own, notice a "problem" with the title, and then come here to find this discussion. Not editors that run into the discussion at RFC, AT, or anywhere else. Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, whether you like it or you don't like it; learn to love it, because it's the best thing going today.-- Sexy Kick  19:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking that as a possible solution. Move it to Sega Genesis and see if anyone who hasn't been involved in the article comes along and wonders why it's at Genesis and not Mega Drive. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @SexyKick - That's precisely what already happened. You agreed on your compromise title - then after a little while you got a bunch of uninvolved editors (like me - completely uninvolved) come along and object strongly to it when we first discovered what you'd done.  Why should we have to do that a second time?  The truth is that a bunch of uninvolved editors already strongly objected to the choice.  You got your wish, you already know the answer. SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do happen to recall you joining up this fight at WP:VG, if I'm not mistaken.-- Sexy Kick  02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet somehow they can't muster up consensus for their opinion. If only there was an existing consensus we could fall back on...LedRush (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Born2Cycle: You're right, but that's surely a simple case of changing where those redirects point, just as we do when we move any page? SexyKick: not many readers will object as few will be aware of the intricacies of our naming policies - I would doubt any readers complained about "Sega Mega Drive/Genesis" either, but that doesn't change that a very significant number of editors object to it.  Mi re ma re  19:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I had hoped for since the beginning. See, outside of the people who have been discussing it since the move from Mega Drive => Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, have a problem and if so what it is. There is no clear consensus to pick one or the other title. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If readers don't object to the name, and aren't confused about what they're reading, then there's not a single problem with the title. Jinnai has communicated this fact very well, along with the fact that WP:Commonname doesn't equal WP:Title. They aren't one and the same, and the common name doesn't have to be a title. We should look at changing the "and" to "or" if there's actually confusion.-- Sexy Kick  02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here when I saw the title, principally as a reader (who also cares about what happens on wikipedia). I dislike the title as it implies that they are two different things when, in the terms used for cars (for example), they aren't. It's that straightforward. SamBC(talk) 16:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as batshit insane. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain why? I've explained why I think it's a workable solution. Dohn joe (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no way in which it is possible for one of these article titles to be appropriate during some arbitrary intervals and the other at alternating arbitrary intervals. The only reason this is not prohibited by policy is Wikipedia's general avoidance of prohibiting random things that anybody should have the sense not to do.  Further, the tendency of project consensus is to discourage the invention of craziness as a way of quieting down contention; one example is how WP:TITLECHANGES contraindicates invented names as a mechanism of compromise (which probably contraindicates the current article title, incidentally). —chaos5023 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand on this slightly from another angle: the solutions arrived at in situations of contention like this should follow the principle of least astonishment for users of the encyclopedia, meaning they should make sense to people who have not been embroiled in the intracacies of Wikidrama on the article's talk page for months or years. Solutions that cause a user who has no familiarity with the history of the article's maintenance to go "what the screaming hairy-eyed fuck?" should be avoided.  A periodic rotation of article titles fails this test. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't this just a trap for "Mega Drive" supporters? A year from now "Sega Genesis" will be the accepted name, and its supporters will point out that this alternating compromise is against policy, and besides there's been no complaints about the name for a whole year, so let's just leave it as is. The MD supporters will cry foul and bring in outside observers who will recognize that the "alternating compromise" is against policy and join the SG supporters in arguing that the name should be left alone.
 * (I say this as someone who would prefer the name "Sega Genesis".) APL (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Specific move-with-rotation proposal
Recognizing that there is no consensus to move this article to either Sega Genesis or to Mega Drive permanently, and agreeing that having it at Sega Genesis one year, and Mega Drive the next year meets naming policy, guidelines and conventions better than having it at Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, we, the endorsers of this proposal, hereby support moving this article, currently at Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, to Sega Genesis on November 1, 2011, and support moving it to Mega Drive on November 1, 2012, back to Sega Genesis in 2013, and so on, indefinitely, on November 1 of each year.

Endorsers of this proposal

 * 1) --Born2cycle (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposed to this proposal

 * 1) Again, strong oppose as batshit insane.  Also, what the hell is up with setting up a proposal workspace designed so that only supporters have a place to register themselves and the language implies that only supporters should participate? —chaos5023 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *In the interest of building consensus, t would be nice to move away from the contentious support/oppose approach towards proposals that just accumulate endorsements... proposal with the most endorsements wins. But if you want to have an opposed section, so be it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: There are no other articles like this and it doesn't address the issue that the current name does: that using either MD or Genesis alone will confuse a signfigiant number of people which is contrary to what TITLE is suppose to do. If the issue is "and" it can be changed to "or". That has been proposed several times by different people. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) It's batshit crazy, sure, but it's actually better than what we have now, so I'm torn - and wanted to record that. SamBC(talk) 20:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but if there's a lot of support and no one can show that it's somehow prohibited, I can live with it. It's better than the current abomination. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements of current compound title
We hereby endorse the current compound title, Sega Genesis and Mega Drive because we believe it meets naming policy, guidelines and conventions better than any other proposed or discussed title.

Endorsers of compound title

 * 1) Support: It does not confuse the reader unnessarily, it complies with WP:AND and is a neutral way of ending a dispute resolution. There are other titles out there that use AND in such a way that have been found as well. There is also no clear consensus as to whether Mega Drive or Genesis is the COMMONNAME as it all depends upon how people slice the numbers. This title avoids POV pushing and makes both sides of the argument content while also not confusing the reader which is what TITLE was intended to do. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: -- Sexy Kick  20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Opposed to compound title

 * 1) This title is batshit nuts.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) It's wrong, do I really need to give my reasons again? To tl;dr it, the title only makes sense if they are considered two separate things, but they aren't (my opinions), and comparable situations (eg car models) aren't treated as separate things elsewhere on the 'pedia. It's also pretty unaesthetic, but that's not important. SamBC(talk) 20:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to change a title, but not to maintain the status quo. This section therefore seems utterly pointless: if consensus supported the title we wouldn't do anything (because no change would be needed), and if it didn't then we still wouldn't do anything (because we need a consensus that another title is better). Jakew (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be untenable to maintain the current title if the move were demonstrated to be based on WP:LOCALCONSENSU. This will demonstrate whether that was the case. SamBC(talk) 20:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if there is more consensus for MD or Genesis or that crazy and unprecidented continually name swapping proposal. However that latter could be considered to fall under WP:LOCALCONSENSUS since its only been talked about by people here and hasn't gone through an RfC. If there isn't the consensus for one other title scheme then that doesn't mean we revert. That means we keep the status quo. That is how all previous naming discussions have gone here and elsewhere. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly asking the same question over and over again just causes people to become exasperated and exhausted. It doesn't establish anything about the result of a previous discussion.  This "local consensus" theory is imaginative, but ultimately irrelevant.  Jakew (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus is also not a poll count; its based on the arguments and there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that the title violates anything exception being unusual for naming scheme for console games. However taking itno account the history and other controversial titles have unusual names, its not unprecedented to have a compromise title. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of undisputed evidence about what the compound title violates. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The assertion that it doesn't violate any policy is no more supported than the assertion that it does. To be frank, the closed debate above for the current name reads like several users asserting that any opinions other than their own are just opinions, that their own views are absolutely solidly fact, and there not really being a consensus. That's just my opinion of course, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it. SamBC(talk) 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements of Sega Genesis
We, the endorsers of Sega Genesis as the title of this article, agree that is a reasonable and appropriate title for this article.

Endorsers of Sega Genesis

 * 1) --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements of Mega Drive
We, the endorsers of Mega Drive as the title of this article, agree that is a reasonable and appropriate title for this article.

Endorsers of Mega Drive

 * 1) --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll
It seems like we are experiencing a bit of swirl, with almost as many proposals as we have editors editing here. I have no idea what process is supposed to be taking place or why that process would be chosen. While I was against this idea before, I think it may be helpful to have a completely non-binding poll about what name the editors here would prefer. The choices as I see them are:


 * 1. Sega Genesis and Mega Drive (or "Sega Genesis or Mega Drive")
 * 2. Mega Drive (or Sega Mega Drive)
 * 3. Sega Genesis
 * 4. Rotating Schedule
 * 5. Sega 16-bit Console

If you think there should be more choices, let's hear them. Personally, I think this is enough. We can award 4 points to the first choice, 3 for the second, 2 for the third, 1 for the fourth, and 0 for the fifth.

I've add the option for choice #1 to deal with arguments that people could be confused by that title. I've added the option for choice #2 in case anyway was swayed by consistency arguments related to whether "Sega" was in the title.

Every poll has a bias, and this one is no different. Acknowledging that, do we want to see where we are or no?LedRush (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Added quotes around the "OR" option to make it clearer)SteveBaker (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have sections for 1 and 4. I've added sections above for 2 and 4.  Based on previous discussions, I presume 5 is a non-starter, but someone else can add it if they want.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aiming to make things more complicated or is it just a natural talent?-- Sexy Kick  21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, like an instant runoff-type deal? Keeping it concise and in one place? I'm up for it. I'll start it. Dohn joe (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've added my !votes for the fun of it, but 1 and 4 I wouldn't support at all. My dislike of 1 is what brought me here in the first place, 4 is worse for various reasons. APL (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. IMO the only acceptable alternatives per policy are 2 and 3.  WP:TITLECHANGES contraindicates 1 (i.e. it should never have been used), WP:COMMONNAME blows away 5, and I'm extensively on record as to my opinion of 4. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-binding straw poll

 * 3, 2, 4, 5, 1 --
 * 3, 1, 2, 4, 5 -- Sexy Kick  21:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, 4, 5, 1 --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2, 3, 4, 5, 1 --SamBC(talk) 22:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, 5, (1, 4) --APL (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume the parentheses mean to allocate 1/2 point to each of 1 and 4, rather than giving 1 point to 1 and 0 points to 4.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they mean "I don't actually support either of these at all", and so to allocate 0 to each if permitted. I've modified my entry the same way below. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the thinking behind such votes, but such voting skews the outcome of the poll, in my opinion. Let's imagine a world in which you must choose between 1 and 4 (a Sophie's choice with video game names); how would you choose?  I think you have given your answers below.LedRush (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. The parentheses indicate that I would prefer to offer no support, but that if I must offer support, it goes in the order given. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guess I should have made my intentions clearer. My parens indicated that I wouldn't actually support either of those options, but if that ruins your !vote-counting please count them in the order given. APL (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1, 5, 3, 2, 4 -- ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1, 3, 4, 2, 5 --LedRush (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, 4, 1, 5 --ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, 1, (5, 4) —chaos5023 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, (5, 1, 4) -- Numbers in parentheses should really get no support whatever from me, 3 and 2 should rank equally - but if forced to choose an order, this is it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3, 2, 5, (4, 1) — Really a tossup between 3 and 2. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2, 1, (4, 5,) 3 -- WFC— 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Poll-related discussion
Hopefully my use of brackets strikes a balance between accurately communicating my view and expressing my opinion of this poll. My observations are that neither side has made a compelling argument, that the current solution is a relatively good reflection of the consensus (it favours neither polar opinion and is unambiguous) and that any pure vote will inevitably default to the usage favoured in the United States. —WFC— 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's acknowledged up front, that any poll will be biased etc. Hopefully any final action taken will take account of the pretty much built-in US-centric bias on wikipedia (and quite often the English-language internet). SamBC(talk) 11:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weighting neutral parameters to negatively influence majority views is in itself a bias. And WFC's vote is already gaming the system as it is.LedRush (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we shouldn't be picking a choice based on this "non-binding" poll either. Vote counts aren't what decide what to do; it's arguments. This poll is generally just a good way to see where people stand and maybe what points not to pursue. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by a view that puts either 2 or 3 in first priority, and the other in last. Regardless of which of the two one favours, if one of them is recognized as being the best choice for the title of this article, on what grounds does one deny that the other is not also a reasonable choice? I suggest the desire to counter a perceived built-in US-centric bias on Wikipedia is itself a WP:NPOV-violating bias, especially considering how laughable that claim is about an encyclopedia with article titles like Yoghurt, Public house, and Segregated cycle facilities, and in which Corvette and Plymouth are not articles about cars. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the laughable thing would be if those were articles about cars. Why on earth would they be? An assumption that an article should default to being about whatever US-based subject happens to share the name, and that it's some kind of act of graciousness to everyone else if it doesn't, is exactly the kind of bias you're claiming doesn't exist, and one that I'm sure 95% of non-US editors have encountered at some point. I'm not sure what those other articles mentioned do as examples against this. I'd also remind you that MD/Genesis isn't country vs. country, it's country vs. rest of world, so it is entirely reasonable for someone to favour the worldwide one most and the national one least.  Mi re ma re  11:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as I understand the history, it's one region versus the rest of the world, not one country - my understanding is that it was Genesis in the US and Canada (not sure about Mexico, the other country commonly included in "North America"). Just to be fair. I agree with you on the bias thing, though. SamBC(talk) 13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * True. It's commonly cited as just the US and Canada (though someone in the discussions above questioned whether Sega did in fact restrict themselves to selling only Genesis branded machines in Canada). Not sure about that, or Mexico, though the Mega Drive trademark problem would have been a US specific issue, so it's possible.  Mi re ma re  14:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the RotW either because it wasn't sold in everywhere around the world. You're inflating Japan, Braziland Europe to equal RotW especially when countries like Korea also released it under another name you just lump it with the RotW figures. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whereas you've just done the opposite. :) Very few things are released in every country in the world, I think it goes without having to say "every country in the world except the ones it wasn't released in" every time. You're lumping in the continent of Europe with two single countries, forgetting the continent of Australasia, and neglecting the east-Asian countries other than Japan (sources of all the grey-import so-called "Japanese" PAL machines that were widely imported into Australia and Europe) as well as India (how could you, after all the India-mentioning this page has had!), and more than likely others too. Also, Samsung's Korean version very much still had the Mega Drive branding, (as seen in the source) and as we established a while ago on this page, Sega later distributed the MD themselves in Korea anyway. While we may not have an exhaustive list of every country the Mega Drive was released (another reason the sales figures OR is OR), we do know that the Genesis was released only in NA, which is the point here.  Mi re ma re  22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Miremar, why would the articles about Corvette and Plymouth be about the respective American cars? Because of your alleged U.S. centric bias at Wikipedia.  The fact that they and countless other articles are not about the topic that they would be about in an encyclopedia with a U.S. centric bias is my point... the U.S. centric bias argument is hokum, and is itself used to justify an anti-U.S. bias, as is revealed here in prioritizing a reasonable title for this article at the low end simply because it is U.S. usage.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those last few words are an obvious strawman. :P Anyway, not every Wikipedia article is on a US subject, but that does not mean there is no bias on WP. Yes of course those articles shouldn't be about the cars, yet we see in the talk page archives of both those articles attempts to appropriate the titles for the Chevrolet Corvette and various uses of "Plymouth" relevant to the US. And you're almost lucky if you can find a talk page discussion about anything else on a subject like Orange (colour) or Maize or Armour or any number of articles written in other varieties of English, for it's the non-country specific articles that are the worst for this kind of nationalistic nonsense. And some of it can get pretty nasty. Quite recently I had cause to read part of the Aluminium/Aluminum article and as soon as I saw the title I just knew what had been going on on the talk page for the last seven years or so... and it wasn't pretty. So I dare say there's no apparent bias if you're expecting to find things a certain way, but if you're not it becomes more apparent. Try something: every time you happen across a reasonably visible country-neutral article with a title that would be different in US English, take a look at the talk page (and/or archives) and read the fun, and if you happen to watchlist any of those articles, try counting the "spelling corrections" they attract. This kind of thing, while irritating, does not engender an anti-American bias in me - on the contrary, I have close relatives there and have a great affection for the country and its people, who I find to be unusually charming - en:wikipedia is full of people of all nationalities who think that their way is automatically the right way, I've seen it from the Brits, Russians, Poles, Czechs, Martians, it just happens that the Yanks are by far the most numerous, and as such an American systemic bias is all but inevitable - and not just here but on the internet as a whole as SamBC says. But bias IS something that should be challenged rather than tolerated, no matter who's doing it. Having a bias against bias is a good thing. :)  Mi re ma re  22:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting to your bias, albeit you think it's a "good thing" since it's a "bias against bias". When I look at all those arguments I mostly see arguments in favor of the American spelling/usage based  on objective criteria like most common usage, and arguments opposed to the US spelling/usage laced with "bias against bias" simply because it is the US spelling/usage.  And, again, call it a straw man if you wish, but how else do you explain this particular prioritizing of the usage outside of the US in first place, and the US usage in last place, if not with that?  That's not decision-making based on applying objective criteria and  principles, that's blatant anti-U.S.-usage bias.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for admitting your bias"? Oh dear. Perhaps "anti-bias" would be a better way to look at it than a "bias against bias", as the latter obviously allows opportunities for misinterpretation, though I think it's quite clear what I meant from the context. Now, what you see as objective arguments about "common usage", just confirms the point I was making (in an admittedly roundabout way). You're an American expecting to see American things take precedence on account of "common usage". Why are things so-called common usage? What makes them so? A dominant American influence on the internet, that's what. That's what makes systemic bias. That's what makes Genesis appear in Indian Google hits, and indeed anywhere outside of North America - this stuff isn't revelatory or controversial (or offensive to Americans, so don't take it that way), it's simply a consequence of the situation on the internet as a whole. Don't blame me! :)  Mi re ma re 
 * Yes, what you meant is quite clear from context - you're biased against American usage, because you see it as pro-American bias, regardless of the reasons given for going with that usage. In the French WP I would expect a bias that favors French-French usage over Canadian-French usage (when there is a conflict) simply because there are far more French-French users (editors and readers) than Canadian-French users.  In the case of titles, we're supposed to use titles that are most expected and least surprising to as many of our readers as possible.  In the French WP that means favoring French-French titles over Canadian-French titles because there are presumably many more French-French readers of the French WP than there are Canadian-French readers.  In the case of Genesis vs Mega Drive that's Genesis because in the English-speaking world many more know it as Genesis than as Mega Drive.  And yes, that's largely because more Americans bought these things than other English speakers.  So what?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We all really need to calm down and assume good faith here. You are tarring every one of the (large) majority who opted for (3) over (2) with the same brush - and it's most unfair to do that. I (for example) am British - and I !voted for (3) as my first choice. I certainly don't have a pro-US bias - but I am prepared to back the US version of article names where they are more appropriate (eg, Tire...which is not named Tyre (wheel)). I'm not going to go into my reasons for picking (3) over (2) because these reasons have been re-re-re-hashed too many times already and a coin-flip is my preferred way to choose between them - but I do find unfounded accusations of bias to be both irritating and personally offensive. There was demand for a straw poll - we had one - and the answer is an overwhelming majority for (3). Now, instead of admitting that (3) is the choice we should be seeking a consensus for, you start slinging mud at innocent editors who have sat back and carefully reasoned about their choices. There are many reasons to prefer (3) that do not relate to some horrible pro-US bias. SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Steve, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about anyone who prefers 3 over 2 or anyone who prefers 2 over 3.  I'm talking only about those who make either one of those their FIRST priority, and the other their LAST priority. That is,  I contend anyone who votes 2, x, x, x, 3 or 3, x, x, x, 2 is revealing a strong pro-U.S.-usage or anti-U.S.-usage bias because there is no reasonable basis for preferring one of those first, but not accepting the other as a reasonable alternative, except for such a bias.  And people operating in good faith can still be biased (most are!) - no conflict there!  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't misunderstand. Someone who !votes 3,x,x,x,2 or 2,x,x,x,3 is certainly exhibiting a strong preference for one name over the other (unreasonably strong, IMHO!) - but you have no way to know whether that's a US bias or a bias towards names that begin with the letter 'M'.  There are a dozens of possible reasons to prefer 3 over 2 or vice-versa - the fact that someone put one at the very top of the list and the other at the bottom merely speaks of an incredibly strong preference - not of some inherent bias.  So we have to AGF and presume that they do indeed have a good reason that is not merely a matter of bias.  SteveBaker (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think making the assumption that they prefer names that begin with the letter "M" is a strawman argument. The only other reasonable argument that could be made is that it was because the page was previously named that (and all the while a contentious name). Everyone else either has 2/3 or 3/2 or 1 space inbetween (ie a compromise position). To that extent is is a more extemeist viewpoint than the others. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Steve, it's true that my argument is based on the assumption that there is no other reasonable basis for !voting 3,x,x,x,2 or 2,x,x,x,3 other than a strong pro-U.S.-usage or anti-U.S.-usage bias. But your example -- it could be a bias towards names that begin with the letter 'M' -- makes my point.  That, and all other conceivable alternative bases, are unreasonable.  Again, I agree there are many reasons to merely prefer 2 over 3 or vice versa, but nothing other than a strong anti/pro U.S. usage bias reasonably explains that preference being so strong as to rate one FIRST and the other LAST. Now, I won't deny that I might be wrong.  There may be a good reason to prefer one over the other so strongly - but if true that should be easily refuted.  Suggesting "it could be a bias towards names that begin with the letter 'M'" certainly does not do that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously my suggestion that it might be a preference for the letter 'M' was a silly one. But it could very well be that someone might have reasoned that (say) because the Google hits comes out: Sega "Mega Drive" - 6.9 million and Sega Genesis - 10.3 million (or whatever the heck reason) that the word "Genesis" must be in the title - and chooses to vote 3,x,x,x,2 because of that.  You can't be sure whether it was this particular reading of the ghits and that particular interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME....or whether they are rabid flag-waving republicans who can't stand to see some "foreign" name for this iconic machine be at the top of this article.   You have absolutely no way to know which it is - so you must AGF and assume (until proven otherwise) that this is a good-faith choice. SteveBaker (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It need not be a strong bias even. It may just be strategic voting. If you preferred 2, even if 3 was your next best choice you might notice that 3 is winning and decide to put 3 last so that your second choice wouldn't compete with your primary choice. That's just a weakness of this particular kind of polling and doesn't necessarily reveal any unreasonable bias in the voters. APL (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Steve, you're just strengthening my point each time you try to refute it, so thanks! Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a way that one can reasonably argue that A is preferable to B because of some criterion like common name, and also decide that C, D, E,  which are clearly much worse than B by that same criterion, are preferable to B.  If that's not a red flag for a lame attempt to rationalize an irrational bias, I don't know what is!   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * APL, that's a reasonable explanation for such voting, but also reinforces my point that there is no reasonable justification (outside of game playing like that) for actually prioritizing like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C: It is perfectly reasonable for someone to vote 2 at the top and 3 at the bottom if they favour a worldwide perspective, and are absolutely against a regional perspective at the expense of that worldwide one. If only more people did.  Mi re ma re  01:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I pretty much feel like B2C and SB are both arguing against Miremare's assertion.-- Sexy Kick  01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha! My part of the world is "Global", yours is just a "region". APL (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Miremare - it is NOT reasonable at all "for someone to vote 2 at the top and 3 at the bottom if they favour a worldwide perspective, and are absolutely against a regional perspective at the expense of that worldwide one" because 2 (Mega Drive) is just as regional as is 3 (Sega Genesis), and favors a worldwide perspective no more than 3.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * B2C, ok, but my point was that that kind of strategic voting is practically a natural consequence of this type of poll. Nothing to get too worked up over. APL (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And my point was not to get all worked up but to just point out that prioritizing like that is highly suspect and probably does not accurately reflects the person's actual priorities (whatever they may be). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * tl;dr: WFC, the rest of us voted in good faith, you gamed it, you're the reason we can't have nice things, DARN YOU TO HECK. hth, hand. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with tactical voting is that this isn't a vote - it's a call for honest opinions. Wikipedians very rarely actually vote - we aim for consensus. Giving us an opinion that is not your true position helps nobody. We're not going to vote our way out of this mess - if we could, then it would be a clear win for "Sega Genesis" and this would be all over. We have to understand why the relatively few people who don't want Sega Genesis as the title are objecting - and what compromises might be widely acceptable. If people express their opinion' tactically - then all they are doing is reducing the chances that we can solve this problem. If it came to an actual binding vote, then I might very well choose some other position - but this is opinion gathering. SteveBaker (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, if something looks like a vote then it tends to be treated like a vote. It shouldn't, as you state, but human nature is what it is. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So what does the poll tell us?
We haven't had any new !votes for the past several days. Remembering that this is not voting - but an opinion gathering/clarifying matter, what do we have? The final numbers were:

3, 2, 4, 5, 1  -- Dohn joe 3, 1, 2, 4, 5  -- SexyKick 3, 2, 4, 5, 1  -- Born2cycle 2, 3, 4, 5, 1  -- SamBC 3, 2, 5, (1, 4) -- APL 1, 5, 3, 2, 4  -- ∞陣内Jinnai 1, 3, 4, 2, 5  -- LedRush 3, 2, 4, 1, 5  -- ButOnMethItIs 3, 2, (5, 1, 4) -- chaos5023 3, 2, (5, 1, 4) -- SteveBaker 3, 2, 5, (4, 1) -- ErikHaugen 2, 1, (4, 5,) 3 -- WFC

Twelve people contributed their opinions, and we don't have a consensus. (Well, duh!).

The most popular first choice (Eight) was '3' (Sega Genesis). Of the four who did not choose '3' as their first choice, two had '3' as their second choice, one had '3' as the third choice and one put '3' last...but in the thread above, WFC admits to "tactical voting" - and that casts strong suspicion on his ordering of '3' and the various compromise positions.

So if not '3', what about the alternatives?

By far the second most popular choice was '2' (Mega Drive), with two people putting that in first place and seven putting it second, with one third place and two last places.

The third most popular was '1' (Sega Genesis and Mega Drive) with two first places, two second places, one forth place and a bunch of people who bracketed their low-end choices to indicate that they couldn't/wouldn't choose between them.

Conclusions
 * 1) Unsurprisingly, the weirder compromise solutions are not remotely likely to gain consensus.  Nobody actually wants either '4' or '5'.
 * 2) There is something of a split between the two most obvious titles ("Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive")
 * 3) There is much less support for the compromise title that the article currently has than either of the original choices.

If we stick with '1' then only three people could stomach it in first/second place, one in third place and eight people completely hate it...which is why we're having this massive discussion about overturning the present title.

So now what?

So what happens if we clarify matters by simply eliminating the 'no-hope of consensus' candidates (4 and 5) from the poll? If instead of asking people their opinions about the two junk options, if we'd asked people to choose between 1,2 and 3 only - then the !voting then would have looked like this:

3, 2, 1  -- Dohn joe 3, 1, 2, -- SexyKick 3, 2, 1  -- Born2cycle 2, 3, 1  -- SamBC 3, 2, 1  -- APL 1, 3, 2  -- ∞陣内Jinnai 1, 3, 2  -- LedRush 3, 2, 1  -- ButOnMethItIs 3, 2, 1  -- chaos5023 3, 2, 1  -- SteveBaker 3, 2, 1  -- ErikHaugen 2, 1, 3  -- WFC

What does that do to the three candidates?


 * Picking '3' (Sega Genesis) would give eight people their first choice - and all but one person (WFC - who admits to tactically !voting) their first or second choice.
 * Picking '2' (Mega Drive) would give two people their first choice - and nine people first or second choice.
 * Picking '1' (Sega Genesis and Mega Drive) would give only two people their first choice - and satisfies only four people to the first or second degree.

Given that only four people choose '1' as even their second choice and eight put it flat out last - it's clear that we can't get a consensus for the present article title.

If you eliminated (1) from the list on the grounds that it can't command even a simple majority - let alone an overwhelming one (66% of us put it last out of the three leading contenders) - then the obvious, straightforward choice between '2' and '3' results in:

3, 2  -- Dohn joe 3, 2, -- SexyKick 3, 2  -- Born2cycle 2, 3  -- SamBC 3, 2  -- APL 3, 2  -- ∞陣内Jinnai 3, 2  -- LedRush 3, 2  -- ButOnMethItIs 3, 2  -— chaos5023 3, 2  -- SteveBaker 3, 2  -— ErikHaugen 2, 3  -- WFC

...only two out of twelve actually prefer "Mega Drive" - WFC and SamBC...and if we look back at the original !votes, then even SamBC admits that Sega Genesis is a better title than all of the compromises ('3' is is second choice, '1' is flat out last):

2, 3, 4, 5, 1  -- SamBC

Sadly, we don't know what WFC honestly thinks. We know that he wants '2' and is prepared to tactically vote for garbage like '4' and '5' just to avoid '3' - but who knows?

Truthfully, when we eliminate the totally unacceptable compromise options - we come out with a 83% majority for "Sega Genesis". I'm not sure why that's better than "Mega Drive" - but at this point it really doesn't matter because we've run out of arguments and patience to discuss it.

Moving on? I respectfully request that ∞陣内Jinnai and LedRush do the community a favor by dropping this "compromise" solution of "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". It isn't even a good compromise because far more people hate '1' than hate '3' - and they do so with (mostly) far greater passion (as reflected by more second choices being '2' than '1' - and '1' being more often in last place than '2'). "Mega Drive" would actually be by far a more popular solution than "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive". Also, both Jinnai and LedRush prefer '3' over '2' - and that's likely that if they drop '1' and switch to '3', then we'll gain a rough consensus and be able to move on.

I also respectfully request that SamBC accept that while "Sega Genesis" is only his second choice - he admits that what we have now is much worse (his last choice!) - and in the interests of consensus, I plea that he should agree to disagree and allow us to move forward with what will probably be an 83% majority.

I'd also request that WFC admit his/her true preferences and admit defeat in order that we can get on with our lives. None of the compromise solutions stand a hope in hell of surviving - and quite honestly, the majority needs to rule here.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Motion for "Sega Genesis"
The preceding straw poll suggests that "Sega Genesis" is overwhelmingly preferred to the present title, any of the compromise titles and even "Mega Drive" - and should clearly be the title of this article. Can we now get consensus (or at least a 'rough consensus') rename the article and move on? SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure would be to make a requested move to that title; subsequent discussion would reveal whether there is consensus for such a move. Jakew (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure someone will come along and bitch about how wrong this all is and how there's really no consensus for it (because 'it's not how many it's what they say blah blah blah blah') but yeah, at this point it does seem like the weight leans toward Genesis. As I said above, I'd love for it to be changed to that, and see how many NEW people -- if any -- come along and complain its at that title. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's always people who complain. But honestly I'm still in opposition to the move. I want this compromise title to last. I'm with LedRush, if the other people who agreed on the compromise title can agree on going with Sega Genesis, then I'll go with them. I'm not turning my back on them.-- Sexy Kick  15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:RM request active right now. We're last in the back log.  I presume this discussion and the results of this strawpoll will be considered by the closing admin. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That request was for an option not currently on the table. I have no idea what proper process is, but just thought I'd point that out.LedRush (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having done this for other contentiouss articles they almost always request you close out the other one (the nominator withdraws it) and open up a new one so it gets a fair amount of time for review and commentary and that there aren't 2 active at once for 1 page. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, as the nom of the previous one, I'll do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just no way to decide
The above move request is an entirely slanted, bordering on bad-faith way of doing this. The choice is between Sega Genesis and Mega Drive, yet that choice has already been made for us by the nom. We either stay at a title that has already been overwhelmingly rejected, or we move to "Sega Genesis". That's not a choice. The majority of the supports above specifically say they don't care which of Genesis or Mega Drive it moves to as long as it moves away from the current title, and as the nom has decided that he wants to move to Genesis, that is the one and only choice on the table. And this as the result of a "non-binding poll"? Utter nonsense.  Mi re ma re  15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As the conversation goes on, and I review other guidelines and policies, I'm leaning more and more towards a purely descriptive title. It would perhaps fail the principle of least surprise, but redirects mean that no-one would be really lost. Sega 16-Bit Console gets more attractive by the day... but I'm not going to stand in the way of either Genesis or Mega Drive. Isn't there a saying about letting the perfect get in the way of the good? SamBC(talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That title was suggested in the straw poll and nobody liked it...not even you! The biggest problem with it is that we do not have reliable sources to show that this is a name by which the console was commonly known. SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a name that's been used for it at all, as long as it's a neutral description, per WP:TITLE SamBC(talk) 18:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Voltaire. "Do not let the great be the enemy of the good", and various other translations.  Sorry, off-topic, I'll shut up now. Jakew (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the question is simply: "Do you want to rename the article to "Sega Genesis" - if you don't want it to be called "Sega Genesis" then you should vote against the move and if/when it fails, you can start another WP:RM to suggest renaming it to "Mega Drive" (or whatever). The reason we're asking the question this way is that the straw poll produced strong evidence that this proposal is the most likely one to gain substantial support. SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's entirely legitimate to use a "non-binding straw poll" to figure out which option is most likely to gain consensus and then you use that "best option" to start the next discussion.
 * What did you think it was going to be used for? APL (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. We enumerated the pro's and con's to ensure that everyone can clearly see all the arguments for and against each option.  Then we did an informal/non-binding poll to see where people have their heads.  That poll was certainly non-binding...you know that because the polling is over and we haven't renamed the article to Sega Genesis in response to it's clear results.  The function of the poll was to find out where people stand (and now we know) - and now we must use that information to (hopefully) move forward with something that will be binding (vis, the WP:RM you see right above here).  The results of the straw poll showed a clear preference for Sega Genesis, and an even more clear anti-preference for Sega Genesis and Mega Drive.  So now that we know what the majority of people here prefer, the logical next step is to propose a binding !vote to determine whether or not those informally expressed preferences can be translated into a binding decision.  That's what's in progress right now...and the results at time of writing (3 oppose, 1 neutral and 11 support) are more or less in line with what the straw poll predicted...but not 100% so. SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the function of the poll has been to remove all naming options, leaving just one possible outcome. That was not what the poll was for. And regarding your first reply above, I am quite aware what the question is, the point is it's the wrong question. The question should be "Option A or Option B", not "Option A or nothing".  Mi re ma re  21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A while back, I wrote a short essay on "The Big Mess" - basically a small diatribe I wrote in 2008 in which I expressed my frustration with the Wikipedia community. At the time, there was a Sonic the Hedgehog character article being debated where people incessantly accused one another of acting in bad faith, nobody could agree on anything, and all it really succeeded in doing was driving numerous good editors away. Looking back on it, though, I think the last three months of discussion on this talk page serves as a MUCH better example of what I was talking about. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. I see a lot of good hard working people trying to resolve a difficult and challenging solution (largely caused by a lack of clarity in the policy and guidelines that are supposed to help us in deciding titles, but unfortunately there is consensus support at this time for having them be so vague... see discussions at WT:AT).  At any rate, there seems to be very little incivility and lack of AGF in all this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my rant was more aimed at incivility issues at the time, but in a more general sense it highlighted how the policies and processes here on Wikipedia, for all the wonderful things they do, can exacerbate the "too many cooks in the kitchen" problem that we often have here. In contentious issues like this, arguments become protracted, tempers inevitably flare (they did so multiple times in these specific debates), accusations of bad faith (such as those from Miremare above) happen, and eventually people (like myself) just throw up our hands and walk away.  That's why I recused myself - frankly, I was getting sick of it, and I'm disappointed to see that it's still going on two months later. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just no way to decide? What, then, is a way to decide? As others have noted, through extensive discussion and straw polls we believe we've established consensus for what is being proposed here, and we're just trying to verify that. What should be done instead, and why haven't you done it? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I note also that Miremare chose to not even participate in the above straw poll. That's his prerogative of course, but to then complain about how the RM proposal is structured based on the results of that straw poll in that straw poll, when he could have participated and possibly influenced others, seems, I don't know, kind of lame. I will add that while I know Miremare's position -- favoring Mega Drive for the title, and opposing the compound title as well as Sega Genesis -- despite reading all of his comments multiple times, I don't understand his argument. The objection to Sega Genesis seems to be based on it not being the most common name, but there is no explanation that is clear to me on why Mega Drive should be favored over Sega Genesis, much less so vigorously. Personally, I think the argument section above - finished or not - clearly shows that neither is the obvious choice, and so we are left to decide which of the two should be the title by consensus. That's why we did the straw poll... but now I'm repeating myself. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view, the straw poll was a good faith effort to determine how the people most involved in the debate (and thus arguably the most passionate about the issue) felt about the topic. It does show a pretty significant majority of those editors favor the Genesis name, and I think it was done in a fair manner - the pro/con arguments listed above the straw poll did a good job of presenting each title in a neutral, unbiased manner.  I have to agree with Born2cycle on this one - the "This is just no way to decide" statement really sounds more like "I didn't get my way" and wikilawyering than it does a legitimate argument against the process. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What is 'special' about this debate is that for 99.9% of articles about a badge-engineered object, there is really very little to win or lose depending on the name choice - so there is a quick vote and then a decision is made - and basically it's all over. Here that hasn't happened (yet) - people are extremely entrenched over the utterly stupid question of whether we should have:


 * Sega Genesis
 * (Redirected from Mega Drive)
 * The Sega Genesis or Mega Drive is...yadda yadda.
 * ...or...
 * Mega Drive
 * (Redirected from Sega Genesis)
 * The Mega Drive or Sega Genesis is...yadda yadda.


 * The arguments have shown that it isn't a simple matter to say which of these would oh-so-mildly inconvenience a teeny-tiny fraction of readers the most. I've listened to a dozen arguments for each name - and I've reproduced various Google searches to get ghit counts, etc, etc.  There really isn't a damn thing to choose between the two.


 * Ordinarily, Wikipedians (such as at Volkswagen Golf would debate the matter for a day or two, realize that it's not a slam-dunk, do a quick !vote and then agree to disagree and go with a simple majority decision. That good-grace acceptance results in a consensus to go with the majority verdict - and the problem is solved.


 * Here, that doesn't seem to have worked - and I'm at a total loss to understand why. It truly shouldn't matter a damn to the protagonists which is the title because we have this really good redirection service - plus automatic placement of "(Redirected from...)" notices - and a policy to mention both names in the first sentence of the lede.   Truly, who gives a rat's arse which title is used?  It simply doesn't matter.


 * But then, in most cases, a lack of consensus to pick one of those two names should result in the title not being changed from however the article was first created...but instead, some very well-meaning editors come up with this compromise title - which seems to get rid of the problem. Sadly, in the eyes of the vast majority of experienced Wikipedians, this compromise is unacceptable.  Just look at the straw poll.  Why should this article be different from all of the hundreds of others like Volkswagen Golf?   It's ridiculous.


 * But the trouble lies in the initial failure of people who don't get their personal choice to shrug their shoulders and move on...unfortunately, that relatively simple, resolvable issue is now horribly entangled with the compromise title...which only a tiny minority actually want.


 * The way out is for the minority in the Mega Drive/Sega Genesis debate to politely back down and allow us to remove the carbuncle that came out of compromise. That leaves us with Sega Genesis - and truly, honestly, nobody should really give a damn that Mega Drive is the redirect.  It truly won't matter to even one of our readers...just like it doesn't matter to Volkswagen Rabbit owners when they discover that their car is called a 'Golf' in some parts of the world.


 * It really just needs the people who want Mega Drive to act with a little maturity and realize that (a) they are in a tiny minority and (b) their arguments are failing to convert people to their side of the debate. That being 100% crystal clear - they should just give it up with good grace.  SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is precisely what I was trying to say above - thank you for saying it in a different and more direct way. The fact that we have redirects makes it easy for anyone to get to the correct article, regardless of its official title, and read the information they need to know.  Frankly, a discussion this heated and protracted should only have ever occurred if we didn't have the ability to redirect.  I tried to push for what seemed a reasonable compromise a couple months ago, but it apparently resulted in even more trouble.


 * The problem I see with your statement, Steve, is that previous move discussions did end with what appeared to be consensus and precedent (eventually resulting in the article being titled "Mega Drive"), and I think any reasonable editor at the time would have thought that would be the end of it - future editors would surely see that there had already been a lot of discussion and debate on the topic, and that had all led to a decision that everyone could live with. Obviously, that didn't happen - two years later, it got opened again, and even though half the editors pointed out that we'd beaten it to death before, that wasn't enough to keep it from ballooning like it did.  I firmly predict that, FAQ or no, whatever we decide on this time around is just going to be challenged again in another year or two and we're going to have yet another long, contentious debate and probably a few more interim moves in the process. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be lovely if we could be done with the hipster fanboy "I'm l33t because I know what it's really called" bullshit, and a nice cup of dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass is the next step there. Kiefer, that's pretty much how Wikipedia contention goes.  Editors learning about policy is an ongoing process, policy developing is an ongoing process, bizarre compromise formations being brought into coherence with project standards is an ongoing process.  There's no easy out.  I've just now made redirects for various of the alternate titles, though, which at the very least inhibits the ability of non-administrators to move the article to them without gaining consensus for it first. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, patting yourself on the back for this is not helpful. Your arguments about naming conventions are a worse example of the arguments on commonname.  At least with commonname we can do research and present evidence which way the article should be named.  For your argument you're equally intractable, but there is no way to resolve it other than intellectual masturbation regarding the reading of a policy, when multiple readings are obviously plausible.  I'd rather see commonname properly enforced than worry about whether or not a specific title breaks implied rules of naming because a pursuasive amount of "other stuff" on Wikipedia argues against it.LedRush (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you know whether I'm intractable? It's not like you've tried to convince me of anything.  Does "intractable" mean "clearly stated position I don't agree with", now?  As to my arguments about naming conventions, I'm at a loss to figure out what you're talking about with it being, as far as I can parse, "worse [than] commonname", since my whole position is that we should use something that is remotely plausible as a common name of the topic (for example, not "Sega 16-bit console" which nobody in the world calls it) and, not that this is any more than a reiteration, should not make up random things that are also not anything anybody calls it, per WP:TITLECHANGES. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've stated my opinions and reasoning for the "and" title several times. You're not changing your opinion.  You've stated your opinions and reasoning against the "and" title.  I'm not changine mine.  The is an intractable disagreement...at least as much as the choice of which console name is the commonname.  You shouldn't be proud that you're in one ridiculous argument and not the other.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think you're both being ridiculous. Talk about nit-picking! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whee, more trying to figure out what people are talking about when they don't actually say. Am I nit-picking because I think an "and" construction between two names for the same thing isn't okay, then? —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but only one is acting hypocritically. LedRush (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * !?!?!? —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Put more simply: STOP ARGUING OVER SEMANTICS AND GET BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. Geez. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, this really hasn't been an argument over semantics. As far as I can tell at this point, it's been an argument over how I'm a hypocrite for having a position and arguing it, implying that I want to convince people, without having the good grace to be pre-emptively convinced by others' arguments. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, y'know, that kinda goes to the "how would you know?" again. As it turns out, I'm willing to consider that the current title may be a valid WP:AND formation if the Genesis and Mega Drive are meaningfully not the same thing.  Not that that's an unambiguous matter or anything, but I only recently saw someone seriously assert it (I hope you'll understand if I haven't pored through every bit of the enormous wall of text that is this talk page), and I'm perfectly willing to modify my opinion if it holds water.  As far as I can tell, your support of the current title is based on 1) it not being clearly contraindicated by policy 2) it quieting down contention.  I only agree with #1 if Genesis and Mega Drive are distinct, which I'm not sure about.  #2 seems to me to be in the spirit of doing the wrong thing to shut people up, which I don't like to support. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments have been made over and over and over and over again. The horse is dead.  Nothing new has been said with this regard in at least a week.  At least on the commonname front evidence can be collected and analyzed, though, I admit little progress has been made on that front (though, there has been some progress).  I disagree with your reading of "and".  That's fine.  You seem to value the importance of commonname differently than I do.  That's also fine.  I just don't see why engaging in teh former, completely beaten to death conversation is better than the latter, almost completely beaten to death conversation.  It only means that you value and judge different WP policies differently.LedRush (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) My two cents on the "distinct vs. same thing" argument: I think any reasonable person can agree that we have two separate names, each of which applies to separate iterations of the same overall machine. Mega Drive and Genesis are not identical, to be sure - there are both major cosmetic differences and minor functional differences (NTSC vs. PAL, regional lockout, etc.), but they are based on the same hardware and their similarities far outweigh their differences.  And as meta-concepts, the two console names have very different histories, but even then they are not completely separable.  This would seem to fit the definition of "Distinct but closely related" that WP:AND includes in its statement.  I considered that point very carefully before formalizing the compound name proposal. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Just to interject a mostly irrelevant point which I mentioned above, the NTSC vs PAL argument is wrong anyway, as the Japanese Megadrive is also NTSC). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, y'know what, I buy that. I've modified my straw poll and move proposal entries accordingly. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. :) To be clear, my own opinion is that we should retain the compromise title, and specifically because this is such a clear special-case that doesn't really have a strong precedent in other articles (despite comparisons to Volkswagen Golf and Pokemon Blue and Red).  But I've always said that I would go along with, and help to enforce, community consensus, so if the consensus is for either of the atomic titles, so be it.  And I mean that with no malice or sarcasm. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that if I had done as yelled at and stopped presenting my views, I would have simply maintained my position and never encountered the train of thought that changed my mind. Insert your own moral here about the value of shutting other people up because you've stopped listening. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy, when you miss a point, you REALLY miss a point, don't you? I was not trying to get you to shut up.  I was trying to get you and LedRush back on topic - you were pointlessly arguing about what the word "intractible" means and about the nature of each other's positions, and it was stepping into incivility.  Arguments like that are part of the reason this talk page is so freakin' long. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 14:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * {edit conflict] Kiefer, he was talking about me (and we weren't arguing about a definition (at least I wasn't). I was annoyed that Chaos was so proud that he didn't enter into the argument on commonname, while perpetuating the argument on "and", like one was morally superior to the other.
 * Chaos, we're all very proud of you. Of course, nothing was said to convince you that wasn't said a dozen times before.  Insert your own moral about not entering into a conversation without knowing what you're talking about or conducting a minimal amount of due diligence.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See, this is what I mean when I say this is stepping into incivility: You two are STILL taking jabs at each other and attacking each other's character instead of dealing with the topic at hand. As I said to you on my talk page, LedRush, I am so SICK of this and have lost my patience, and I see no reason to continue trying to be polite to either of you.  If you need to keep trading barbs, do so on each other's talk pages, but take it off this one, please.  It's pointless crap like that that makes this talk page the laughingstock of the Wikipedia community, and it needs to stop. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you keep your personal insults, incivility, and swearing on your talk page, where I've already opened up a conversation about this.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, Mr. LedRush. How dare I say something that insults you?  You win, of course.  Congratulations.  Have fun continuing to prove your point, because you most certainly missed mine. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush, my good man, the antics of the little version of me that lives in your head continue to educate and amuse. If I were you, though, I'd be a bit concerned that I was getting upset over others' behaviors that are purely imaginary.  I mean, it's possible, if unlikely, that the due diligence that you have no actual way of knowing whether I performed was not up to a reasonable person's standards, but the thing about my pride in not entering into an argument on commonname?  Literally has nothing resembling a referent in reality.  Though apparently I'm the insane one!  Oh, Wikipedia, will you ever fail to delight? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on other articles that use AND, like Fish and chips and Laurel and Hardy, and others about two distinct things that are slight variations of the same thing, like Volkswagen Transporter (T4) (not Volkswagen Transporter and Eurovan), which do not, it's quite clear that distinct in this context means significantly more than slight variations of the same thing. Apparently the wording of WP:AND should be clarified on this point to more accurately reflect how we actually title articles when this is an issue.  But actual examples of how other articles are actually named should guide us when the policy wording is vague, and that clearly indicates not using a compound name in this case.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be overly nitpicky myself, but I think both of the first two examples you gave don't actually fall under WP:AND at all. "Fish and chips" is the name of a common dish, and the compound title is treated as a singular item that refers to exactly one thing - if you were to treat the terms separately, you would in fact be referring to two unrelated items.  Similarly, "Laurel and Hardy" is the name given to a pair of comedians, and while it's true that the individual names also apply to the individual people, the compound name also refers to their singular act and their singular group.  Neither of these examples are in the same realm, and I'd argue that other semantics in the English language apply before the WP:AND policy does in those cases.
 * More to the point: There are numerous arguments already present that state that "Mega Drive" and "Genesis", as meta-concepts that include both the physical devices AND their identities, their game libraries, their marketing and other portions of their histories, are different ENOUGH to warrant being treated as separate things. They certainly are not identical and differing only in name - they are almost different enough to be able to sustain their own articles.  I discussed above how the advertising blitz and the Mortal Kombat controversy could conceivably be split into an article about Genesis-specific (and thus US-specific) events, and I posit that the remainder of this article would then more properly describe the base hardware in a way that would lend itself MUCH better to being called "Mega Drive".  But I also posit that such a split would not be easy, since the Genesis history is so much a part of the console's identity worldwide. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO controversy over individual titles (if it's about the violence in games released in the US) is far more relevant to the corporate side than to the console side, unless sources cited that increased hardware in the Genesis contributed to the controversy. Based on a look of the section, I argue that the controversy has more to do with Sega the company than the Genesis as a console, since it involved the company's rating system. The games involved happened to be on the Genesis. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The game controversy is very much a Sega issue, yes, but many of our reliable sources link the console itself (as a representative force of the company) with the controversy in such a way as to add to the Genesis's notability (or notoriety, if you will). While the decisions that led to those games causing controversy were corporate ones and had essentially nothing to do with the hardware, at least one source (namely, Ultimate History of Video Games, Kent) states that the Mortal Kombat controversy increased public awareness of the console and influenced its sales (and, consequentially, dealt a blow to Nintendo's reputation because they tried to portray the blood as "sweat").  That is a more direct influence on the Genesis's specific history, as well as on Sega's as a whole. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it beggars belief that sensible people, whatever their preferred title, can see nothing wrong with taking a "completely non-binding poll" (direct quote, emphasis not mine) and using the result of that to remove all options other than Sega Genesis as possible article titles. The question isn't, and never has been "should we use Sega Genesis and Mega Drive or Sega Genesis" - it has been clear for weeks if not months that there is no support for the current title and it was going to be moved - the question is, and always has been, which of the two proper names to move to. That question has been answered by simply not offering one of them as an option. Of course people are going to prefer Genesis to the current title! Would the same happen if we were still at the previous title as we should be? It never did before. The appalling thing here is not which name is chosen, but the method of this nomination. And B2C, it is not "lame" to complain when someone uses the result of a non-binding poll to get their preferred title through without offering any alternatives, so kindly keep such idiotic remarks to yourself.  Mi re ma re  21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Miremare, I'm calling you out on "I didn't get my way" because the straw poll established a very clear preference for "Sega Genesis" OVER "Mega Drive", and that was then used as the basis for a new move request. I don't honestly see what the problem with that process is, but you're making it sound like nobody's given any thought about "Mega Drive" as a valid option.  And that just isn't true.  Given that other forms of debate on this have failed to show any real direction, I think that straw poll was so far the best move I've seen in this whole fiasco.  At this point, you appear to be the only one crying foul over that particular process (though as you can see, I'm separately calling out LedRush and Chaos5023 on arguing about the definition of the word "intractible"). &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * EXPOSED!!!-- Sexy Kick  03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Miremare, I dunno what to tell you but "believe it". There really isn't any reason to suspect that the proposal was opened in anything but good faith.  Proposing a specific action is how Wikipedia proposals normally work, and the whole move request structure is built on that basis.  Proposals designed around a selection among multiple alternatives are way trickier, would not necessarily make sense to a closing admin, and frankly, specific-action proposals are hard enough to get right.  Conceivably it might even be worth it to try one in this case, but there's no call to reprimand anyone for not choosing the difficult, confusing and unsupported path right out of the gate.  But given the results of the straw poll, I also don't see what reason we have to believe that a multiple-option proposal is going to go any differently. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Miremare, for better or for worse, the current title has to be one of the options. An RM proposal is by definition of the form  Current Title → Proposed Title . By the way, I don't prefer Sega Genesis to Mega Drive.  I proposed it here as the Proposed Title because most people preferred it in the non-binding (which does not mean totally meaningless) straw poll.  I did give SG the slight edge over MD in the straw poll, but that's not due to a personal preference (I really couldn't care less about whether the title is SG or MD), but because WP:RETAIN says the "first non-stub revision is considered the default".  One can dispute that WP:RETAIN, a subsection of ENGVAR, is not intended to apply here, but I think the underlying principle makes sense and is a better arbiter in this case than is any other.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The non-binding poll was to determine where we stand with the current options. Determining the best single answer has always been the goal here. That's what this discussion is about! So, of course when one option seemed to have overwhelming support, someone proposed it as the answer. Why wouldn't they?
 * Just because the poll was "non-binding" doesn't mean that everyone is going to ignore the results. That would be ridiculous. APL (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As the closer of the previous move request (and as the rare person who has never seen either a sega genesis or a mega drive), I thought I'd add a comment. I think this is an excellent example of how consensus should be determined on wikipedia. A move request was closed (by me) that was not satisfactory to a group of editors. A discussion ensued in the form of an alternative RM, a straw poll was conducted, the intermediate RM was closed and the results of that straw poll were used to create a new RM request so that the broader community can comment. Can't, imo, get any better than that. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's hard to jump into this, as there is so much endless arguing going on here, but some thoughts:
 * I strongly oppose the current name. It's long, awkward sounding, and confusing because, as I've seen it be mentioned before, seems to infer that the product was called a "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", like it was literally called that on the box or something, which isn't true.
 * I strongly oppose the name "Sega 16 bit" or any close variation, because people seldom if ever call it that, and it would be very confusing for people unfamiliar with video games, the "bits" and "generations", etc, and we're supposed to write these articles for general audiences. Sergecross73   msg me   14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The RM discussion is still open. If you haven't participated already, your !vote there won't get lost in the noise like a comment here will.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Clearly what's happened here is that I've gone completely stark-raving insane and nothing that I said in this section is actually true. I also evidently don't know what non-binding properly means, so I'll just have to go ponder on those two things for a bit if you'll excuse me from the discussion/s. Apologies for the wasting of everyone's time again, and the raising of tempers. Cheers,  Mi re ma re  20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Non-binding" means that the results of the poll cannot be used to force a change. They can be used to call a specific action which can have a binding result, but that action needs to be taken on a seperate discussion. In this case, an RM request. The page did not immediatly move to Sega Genesis, however the action presented was to move it towards there. If the RM were to fail, they something else might be decided. The reason why the action could be taken is because the community generally agreed with the summarized results. If they had not, the RM would probably have not occured.
 * Non-binding also means that just because you voted there for something does not mean you need to agree to it at any later point in time. It is a tally of what people think at a given time with the knowledge they will not be held to task for what they say and are free to change there position in a more binding discussion such as the RM above. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To beat a dead horse and echo Jinnai's statements, I put the current title as my number one choice in the straw poll, yet I have conditionally supported the RM based on my reading that the people who engaged in the compromise generally seem ok with abandoning it for "Sega Genesis". If the poll were somehow binding, I wouldn't have been able to do that.LedRush (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Closed with clear consensus to move to Sega Genesis 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. Mike Cline (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sega Genesis and Mega Drive → Sega Genesis – As part of the discussion in the previous compromise title proposal, all of the pro/con arguments for each of the candidate titles with some significant support were collaboratively developed in one place. A straw poll conducted after that effort suggests a strong consensus preference for the title Sega Genesis, as well as a strong opposition for the current title, presumably because of those arguments. Let's find out. Please comment on why you support or oppose this proposal relative to the pro/con arguments and straw poll results so the closing admin can make a well-informed closing decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. As nominator, I support this move because Sega Genesis answers our principal criteria questions as well as or better than any other title, is strongest among all the titles with respect to the pro/con arguments, clearly has consensus support in the straw poll, and the current title is simply unacceptable because it combines two names for the same topic in one title. I reject the argument that there are actually two topics sufficiently distinct to warrant a compound title like this.  This is much more like Volkswagen Golf (not Volkswagen Golf and Rabbit) than Fish and chips.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Obviously, and yet again. This move would be an egregious transgression of Wikipedia's aim to provide a neutral worldwide perspective. There is no answer to that, only the strength of numbers of editors who know it as Genesis. Also, the pro/con stuff was meant to be in preparation for arbitration and is unfinished, full of holes and embellishments, and wasn't to convince ourselves which sides to take in yet another poll and yet another move request. It's interesting to see all that go out the window as soon as a "non-binding" poll throws up a majority. While I am opposed to the current title, I agree with the spirit of compromise which brought about its suggestion, so taking this retrograde step is a very disappointing development, and the result, whichever way it goes, will solve none of the underlying problems, just postpone them again.  Mi re ma re  19:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, Miremare's position on NPOV is only true if you believe that in evaluating WP:Commonname you have to weight reliable sources by their country of origin, apply some unspecified "plus" or "minus", and then make your decision based on those non-neutral evaluations. However, seeing as the policy at WP:Commonname doesn't mention this at all and otherwise appears neutrally drafted, I support what many others have stated: Miremare's view is one that is itself based on being biased and imposing a POV where NPOV is otherwise possible.  I prefer to simple read and enforce WP:Commonname as written (and as intended and implemented), which means that the Sega Genesis is easily the most common name as it appears by far more frequently in english language reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I would welcome this move, as my !vote suggests, I think Miremare makes good points. This is something of a bait-and-switch in the ongoing discussion, although it was never clear how this mysterious arbitration would happen. We can't take the collaboratively-developed pro/con stuff as evidence because it's hardly finished and widely supported. I also agree on the general point of the numbers and such, but I've explained how I see that already. SamBC(talk) 19:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Miremare, have you considered that your argument is not with the name "Sega Genesis" but with Wikipedia's naming conventions in general? There is absolutely no consensus that Commonwealth English or naming should be given priority over American English or naming. In fact, policies like WP:ENGVAR flat out say that "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other."  In light of that, arguments about which region is "Bigger" or more "international" are completely moot. WP's policies specifically say that the two languages should be treated as equals and not debated over.  (I assume you respect such naming policies, since you were the one who first brought the current non-complying name to the attention of me and a number of other editors.)APL (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Several things: Firstly, it is not an egregious thing to pick one of the two regional names and redirect from the other. There are literally thousands of other articles that do just that and essentially zero that we could find that do this.  Secondly, the straw poll was not and is not binding.  If it were, we'd have renamed the article already.  It was an effort to see whether consensus might be reached.  The conclusion of the straw poll was that yes, consensus is within reach and the clear front runner for such a consensus is Sega Genesis.  That lead to this WP:RM request - and this is where the actual consensus-reaching decision must be made.  Thirdly, I think the pro-con discussion was done.  We were seeing no further improvements to the list after several days.  Furthermore, all that it did was to list arguments that had already been made.  Let's be honest here - there is no prospect for reaching consensus for Mega Drive and even less support for the current title.  We need to end this discussion (because it isn't going anywhere) and pick the most popular name.  We need for you to suck it up and admit that - and put your support behind this less-favored title in order to present a more unanimous view when someone else comes along in six months and tries to rename the article again. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ledrush: We have of course been through that several times, and your inability to get your head around the concept of there being TWO common names is still apparent. Also cut the crap about "many others" stating things just because that happens to be what you think. That's also something we've been through several times isn't it? If you think something that's fine, but don't bring along imaginary people to support you.
 * APL: But this isn't about languages or varieties of English, just the name of the subject. I'm not arguing about the relative sizes of regions, but yes, taking one region out of a worldwide equation (as Sega did with the console's naming) does leave the rest as "more international" as you put it.
 * Steve: It's not by definition "egregious" to choose one hypothetical thing over another, but it depends on what those choices are the reasons for making the choice, and I stand by 100% what I said. And you know very well that I am not in favour of the current title either, so there's no point preaching to the converted about that. As for the straw poll not being binding, it was binding, and I've started a section below to explain why. The Pro/con stuff wasn't for us to reach a consensus, it was for the arbitration that was apparently going to happen, and there's certainly things I would change about it, and suggested were changed about it, before it was submitted to the arbitrators. So yes, it is very disappointing that this whole thing has been U-turned back into the original move request, but in a way that can't possibly fail to result in the move (see again the new section below).  Mi re ma re  15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of 'arbitration' you are thinking of. Wikipedia doesn't have a group of people who will decide what title an article should have.  You may be thinking of:
 * WP:ARBCOM - but their page says: Arbitrators are not subject experts and the Arbitration Committee avoids ruling on content disputes. In practice, they are likely to be very cautious about basing a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute....and...Almost no ArbCom cases have actually required careful attention to content issues to get the necessary result..
 * Mediation - but they don't make rulings, they merely guide existing editors through a process that's supposed to end up with agreement. However, we've been through that process ourselves - and it didn't get us anywhere.
 * Third opinion - but that only applies when exactly two editors are involved.
 * Requests for comment - will bring in more voices, but it won't impose any kind of decision. We already brought in outside voices...I'm one of them.
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard - Though conduct issues sometimes arise in the course of content disputes, this noticeboard is not for resolving conflicts which are primarily conduct disputes.
 * I tried to suggest a mechanism for voluntarily agreement to be arbitrated by a group of outside experienced editors - but that was rejected.
 * Basically, there isn't a way to break this deadlock in binding arbitration - no such mechanism exists. So I don't know who/what would handle the results of the pro/con work - but it could never have lead to a binding conclusion. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Disappointed to see this again. I understand that everyone is genuinely trying to get the best title for the article, but I think that there will never be a consensus to choose either "Sega Genesis" or "Mega Drive". I just read over as much of the above discussion as I was able and I think that "Sega 16-bit console" would be the best outcome. Sorry for not simply supporting or opposing :) Jenks24 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the inevitable issue of future efforts to change the name back to Mega Drive - and the consequent disruption that this will likely incur. However, what's different this time is that the preference for Sega Genesis that has been expressed here is overwhelming.  Of the 12 people who expressed an opinion, ten preferred it over Mega Drive and of the two who remain, one is Supporting this move.  I would hope that in future, the editors of this article - and those like myself who joined the discussion to bring some outside views - will stand together to snuff out such debates quickly and not let them flare up into massive new problems.  When someone comes here in the future and proposes Mega Drive we simply have to say "That title was proposed in October 2011 and it didn't come close to achieving even a simple majority - let alone consensus - so unless you have overwhelming new evidence from reliable sources (unlikely!), the name isn't going to change again."...and then you don't prolong the debate by replying further...don't feed the trolls.  That's what happens at the hundreds of other articles that have the same naming issue - and generally, it all works out OK, so long as people don't get into long discussions with the trolls who come to upset things. SteveBaker (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Or Mega Drive—either is fine with me; slight preference for Sega Genesis. These are the names by which the subject is known, to be consistent with other articles in this situation, we should just pick one. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditionally Support: Unless others who have come to the compromise above leading to the current title come out against this proposal, I support the move as "Sega Genesis" clearly fits WP:Commonname far better than any other candidate; it is the name referred to in english language reliable sources more than any other (it It generates hits of between 700% and 1000% more in google scholar and google books than "Mega Drive", is used more by the sources in the current article, is found more on general google searches, and it has by far more consoles sold under this name than any other in the English speaking world (and more than Mega Drive even if including non-English speaking countries)).  It's as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this situation.  Furthermore, any reading of WP's neutrality pillar to discount reliable sources based on their country of origin does not find support either in Wikipedia's policies on the matter, in WP:Commonname, or in pure logic.LedRush (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I really don't care whether the article is named Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive, but anything that allows us to move forward is a good thing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats This is infinitely preferable to the current title. However, I feel I must put a voice of caution against taking either weight of editor preference or weight of online sources as determining WP:COMMONNAME in this case, as a lot of sources exist pre-internet and more of those (due to US being the first place to have mass access to the internet) are outside the US. I'm not saying we should discount US sources by some fixed amount, and I'm not saying we can tell for sure that mega drive is more common overall - I'm saying we can't tell, unless someone wants to raise a few hundred grand to fund a multi-year research project or something. I have no personal preference between the two names, I'd just rather it be stated that we're picking this one "because we need to pick one", rather than because of some asserted concrete good reason. SamBC(talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the books and published articles on the subject somehow not "written"? I don't see how internet usage affects results based on google books and google scholar (or more units sold, more RSs used in article, etc.).  I also don't see the part of Commonname which asks us to take into account these issues...it merely asks us to "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" and even gives us directions on how to use google books and other similar search engines.LedRush (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a step backwards. "Sega Genesis" is unrecognisable to those unfamiliar with the console of that name, a serious failing in comparison with the current title, which should be recognisable to anyone who has ever heard of either console.  Furthermore, it's almost misleading to title an article about two consoles using the name of only one; it's certainly less natural and precise.  The proposed title is shorter, certainly, and may be consistent with other groups of closely-related products.  However, I don't find those arguments particularly strong.  WP:AND seems ideal for a situation such as this, and it would not make sense to change from the present title to an inferior name.  Jakew (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * it's almost misleading to title an article about two consoles using the name of only one. It's no more misleading than to title an article about two cars using the name of only one - as in Volkswagen Golf (which is also about the Volkswagen Rabbit).  There are countless other examples like this on WP.  Are you opposed to those titles too?  I don't see you proposing a move of Volkswagen Transporter to Volkswagen Transporter and Eurovan.  Why not?  That title would be much more recognizable to anyone who has ever heard of either Volkswagen Transporter or Volkswagen Eurovan.  A sure sign of a weak argument is when its proponent will not apply it in other similar situations. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If somebody were to propose such moves and were kind enough to notify me about it, I'd certainly consider lending my support if I judged it to be appropriate in that particular situation (I don't have sufficient information at present to make such a decision). I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to do anything more than that. Jakew (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one else is going to make such a proposal because it's absurd, for the same reasons that it's absurd here. I'm just saying the argument you're making is a contrived rationalization for this particular article, and no one else including you applying it in any other similar situation is strong evidence of what I'm saying.  Prove me wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I respect Jakew's position that we should be able to use 'and' with multiple names in the case of things like this article and Volkswagen Golf - but the problem is (and Jakew clearly sees this) that Wikipedia doesn't currently work that way. If he wishes to propose this approach to naming articles about objects with multiple names - then that's a matter to be debated over on WP:TITLE talk page...not here.  If indeed it were decided that such 'and' titles were a good idea and WP:TITLE changed appropriately - then I'd be first in line to rename this article back the way it is now.  But that decision hasn't (yet) been made - and until/unless it is, we should be bound by the precedent of a gazillion other articles.  So the correct thing is to allow this article to be renamed per the nomination - and then to go to try to change WP:TITLE.  If/when you succeed - come back here and we'll rename it back to where it is now. SteveBaker (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that argument, Steve. This comes up often enough that I cover it in my FAQ.  See User:Born2cycle/FAQ.  In short, anyone should be able to argue "policy/guidelines is/are inhibiting improvements to WP for these good reasons", and try to achieve consensus support for that position.  But I've seen no such argument in this case.   --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, Steve, that's rather like being invited to lobby parliament to legalise potatoes. Since they're already legal, it would be an utterly pointless endeavour.  Similarly, since WP:AND already supports the current title, nothing needs to be changed.  Jakew (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It supports "and"-constructed titles where the topic is two closely related, distinct entities.  That is not what we have here.  The case isn't analogous to W and Z bosons; it's analogous to if Top quark were called Top quark and truth quark.  Which is nonsense and WP:AND does not justify it. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "no it doesn't!" "Yes it does!".  Enough.  You've made your opinion known.  Not everyone agrees with you.  Nothing new on the subject is being said.  Stop egging each other on.LedRush (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, is there some reason one of the people in this subthread isn't entitled to talk here? My vague belief about the matter is that the construction of a valid analogy to contrast with a previously used false analogy is, in fact, something new being said. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The difference, of course, is that a top quark is exactly the same thing, whatever you call it. You can call one "Bob" and another "Jenny", but you can't tell them apart because they are literally the same thing. In contrast, you can easily tell the Genesis and Mega Drive apart, because they're not the same thing. They look different: they have different case designs and different logos. A three year old can tell that they aren't the same thing! They're closely related, certainly, in that they share virtually the same circuitry, but they're not the same. In contrast, consider, say courgettes and zucchinis. These are two different names for the same vegetable, and it's exactly the same vegetable. There is no test to determine whether something is a courgette or a zucchini; they literally are the same thing. Jakew (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to risk combinatorial explosion on the problem space here or anything, but... any particular reason we wouldn't want them to have separate articles, then? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have thought about proposing that, actually. I can't see any compelling reason why we shouldn't use separate articles.  Indeed, for some parts it would be more logical.  The principle argument against doing so would be that some parts of the article (generally technological aspects such as the Emulation and Technical specifications sections) have so much in common that it makes sense to combine them.  A possible solution might be to spin out such material into a third article. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I pointed out in a previous discussion that the two machines are essentially identical, except for trivial cosmetic differences and the regions they were marketed in. There are relatively few notable differences in the game libraries between the two names, and in fact there are more overall regional differences that are independent of naming.  The main two things that set the Genesis apart from the Mega Drive are events that happened solely in the United States: The marketing blitz against Nintendo, and the video game violence controversy that resulted in the formation of the ESRB and centered around the Genesis version of Mortal Kombat, as well as the Sega CD game "Night Trap" and a few others.
 * If we could find an elegant way to split these topics off into their own article, then we'd be left with an article that solely describes the hardware and its origins, and then it might be a little easier to decide on "Mega Drive" since the Genesis was the US variation that was built FROM the Mega Drive. However, as it stands right now, the Genesis-specific history and the controversy surrounding it in the US gives it such a high level of additional notability (as well as having influenced its sales figures and its citing in reliable sources) that it's difficult to separate this information from the console itself.  And that is, at least in my opinion, at the heart of why this is such a contentious issue. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't this have to do with the games on the system rather than the console's hardware itself? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To some extent, yes. But this article discusses both the hardware and the software that was designed and marketed for it (and that fits the general format of pretty much every game console article), so the topics aren't that easy to separate.  The games are representative of the console, and much of the marketing centered around the console's capabilities rather than simply what software was available for it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be a step backwards for the priority of "making sure Genesis and Mega Drive both make it into the article title", but for the purpose of compliance with project-wide Wikipedia policy on article titles it's a step forward, because the current title is starkly out of compliance. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I believe it meets policy better, as I explained. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's two separate consoles, then it would make sense to have two articles or to have two clearly separate coverages within one article; if that doesn't make sense (and the current state of the article suggests it doesn't) then they are, for all intents and purposes, a single console that happened to have two different names in different English-language markets. SamBC(talk) 21:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, by that argument, the W and Z bosons must be the same... Jakew (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * W and Z bosons are different things that are fundamentally connected. Genesis and Mega Drive are the same thing called by different names in different places. The differences between them are no more than those between US SNES and European SNES. Put another way, there's a group of particles that mediate the Weak Force - two have charge and are called W, one hasn't and is called Z. The only reason the article is called that is that there isn't a generally used term to refer to the group of them, other than "W and Z bosons". SamBC(talk) 21:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive" are not completely separate and distinct consoles the way W_bosons and Z_bosons are completely separate and distinct bosons. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I say that Genesis and Mega Drive are different things that, similarly, are fundamentally connected.  But we've allowed ourselves to be sidetracked.  The point is that there is a single article about W and Z bosons, which indicates that a single article does not imply a single subject.  Similarly, much of the coverage in that article is dedicated to both particles, further indicating that the tests that you proposed above are inadequate for determining whether there is a single subject. Jakew (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said that it would be plausible to write separate articles, not that it would make sense - make sense is a very imprecise term. However, you could write separate articles for W+, W- and Z without it being fundamentally ridiculous. Put another way, the 'and' implies that they are distinct things - and Mega Drive and Genesis are not sufficiently distinct; as evidence, I suggest that separate articles about them would have to either have one largely just point at the other, or reproduce significant amounts of material. W+, W- and Z could exist as equal partners by pointing to a further article, one on the Weak Nuclear Force (I suspect W+ and W- would really want to be a single article in that case). That they are a single article now is because it was felt to better serve the encyclopedia and readers that way. That is not applicable in this case. SamBC(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For that matter, as B2c illustrates, the bosons have clear and separate coverage within their articles in a way that would not make sense for this article - as the only differences apart from name are true of pretty much every console released in multiple regions. SamBC(talk) 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just about all titles that have English Variant issues will be unrecognizable to some group of people. (What the heck is Maize? Never heard of it.) That's just a fact of life of having a single encyclopedia try to span two different sub-languages without giving priority to either. APL (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; the "two consoles" are essentially the same subject and so we choose a single title and leave it there. Powers T 19:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral: While I support Sega Genesis over Mega Drive I believe this is ultimately a bad decision that will just continue to cause bitter discussions to arise in the future and confusion upon the part of readers. IMO the process by some members to try and wikilawyer that COMMONNAME is the end-all-be-all in TITLE and that all other aspects and evidence that shows there are exceptions can be damned has seriously tainted the previous discussions. However, I'm not going to oppose this change and leave it to the others to decide since it seems that most here have decided to actually make a choice between the two instead of just telling editors here to "just pick one" and complain when we decide to come up with an alternative. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of us, at least, complain when editors "decide to come up with an alternative" because policy directly contraindicates that. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that people complained; it's the accusatory and presumptive top-down manner that only those who watch TITLE know what policy means while also continuing to tell editors here to "just pick one". Since finally some of those who said to essentially "just pick one" actually decided to weigh in, that's partially why i'm not voting. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The current "compromise" title is a clear violation of WP:TITLECHANGES.  WP:COMMONNAME indicates that the article title needs to be either Sega Genesis or Mega Drive.  Arguments have not shown a clear preference in policy or guidelines for either over the other, but I'm happy enough supporting the one that appears to have more support, Sega Genesis. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)  Modified: I've been convinced that the current title is a valid WP:AND formation, so withdraw my objection to it.  I continue to prefer an atomic title to a compound one, so mildly support this proposal, but no longer contend that it has a policy mandate. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Has there been any evidence at all that Mega Drive is the commonname? All I've seen is an argument that all the evidence that indicates that the Sega Genesis is the commonname (700-1000 percent more usage in google books and google scholar, more units sold, more general hits, more RSs used in article, etc.) is inadequate because it improperly doesn't discriminate against RSs which come from the United States, and that after we discriminate against such overwhelming evidence, the evidence is somehow more equal.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The current name is in no way a violation of WP:AND. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that others have given their reasoned explanations why they disagree, it hardly seems to be following WP:AGF to insist on only your view possibly being correct. SamBC(talk) 21:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll note I'm not opposing either. My point being is that there is no "clear violation". That chaos believes there is one does not make it "clear". It means that he and others believe there is and I and others believe there isn't by reading the same words and using examples for both sides. That is not the definition of "clear". ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  23:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the same token, you not believe there's a violation doesn't it isn't "clear" that there is one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Perfectly good title. Just as good as Sega Mega Drive, really. All the other alternatives are mind numbingly bad. I would rather this issue be decided by impartial, uninvolved editors though. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - It's one of two perfectly good titles, and as the original title of the original article it has the advantage if you look at it as an WP:ENGVAR question. APL (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to amplify my !vote by saying that even if you don't look at it as an EngVar issue, but instead as a WP:CommonName issue, Genesis is still my preferred title as the majority of sources seem to use the American name, a large minority use the commonwealth name, and very few refer to the two as a pair as does the current compromise. Whether this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, or a WP:COMMONNAME issue, the proposed move is far superior to the current compromise. APL (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - The compromise title is not only the best title we can have, it's the only title that will make readers happy. We have a FAQ here on the talk page to explain, and if there's really a problem with And, we can use Or, or Sega Genesis (Mega Drive). That being said, Sega Genesis is the clear common name unless you start saying "what about what's not on the internet from fifteen-twenty years ago???" You can say that about anything. What was Jesus called when he was alive? I've honestly heard countless arguments that he was actually called Issa or Isa while he was alive, and not surfing the web under his user account ThereWillBeAnother, and I'm sure his article isn't Isa Christ. If a fair share of the other compromise supporters come over to support Sega Genesis, then I'll support them, but I'm convinced the best Title for this article, is not the common name.-- Sexy Kick  02:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The trouble with Sega Genesis (Mega Drive) is that it's not the way Wikipedia works. It has 100% of the problems that the present title has - and would fail as a name change for the exact same reasons.  We don't have "Volkswagen Golf (Volkswagen Rabbit)" - the parenthetical part of some article names is to remove ambiguity between Earth (the planet), Earth (chemistry), Earth (element), Earth (novel) and so forth.  We could imagine Genesis (game console) to distinguish between that and the bible story of the same name - but Wikipedia just doesn't name articles: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) - so you'd fall into the same policy trap that has resulted in the overwhelming dislike for the present title of this article. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Per my detailed analysis, above, the straw poll results make it clear that 'Sega Genesis' is by far the most acceptable title and that the present title is hated by an even larger majority. The present title is not the way Wikipedia works - we have thousands of articles about things that have multiple names, they are all titled after just one of the names with the others being redirects.  Even articles about things that are badge engineered like cars with different names for the same object in different markets follow that pattern.  There is simply no precedent for this approach, and I have not seen a single argument to explain why this article is any different from those.  The present title was an effort to break a log-jam between 'Sega Genesis' and 'Mega Drive'.  The straw poll clearly shows that the log-jam is no longer an issue.  I would also support 'Mega Drive' in preference to the present title - but (a) that's not what's being discussed here and (b) the straw poll shows a clear preference for 'Sega Genesis'.  We've had more than enough discussion on the topic - the present title has no consensus and is clearly the least popular of the three 'reasonable' options.  Search for a fourth or fifth option has clearly failed.  It is (IMHO) unreasonable for the 'Mega Drive' proponents to dig their heels in and back this compromise title over 'Sega Genesis' - there are hundreds and thousands of other articles with this precise same dilemma where the choice of which name happens to be at the top of the article has been swiftly and (mostly) amicably resolved in favor of one or the other name.  The fact that when you type 'Mega Drive' into the search box, you wind up at an article named "Sega Genesis" is just how Wikipedia works.  The text "Redirected from Mega Drive is right beneath that title - and we say that "Mega Drive" is an "also known as" right there in the article lede.  If our readers are still confused then they are going to have a hard time using Wikipedia because this kind of redirect is insanely common.  Continuing to obstruct this name change and refusing to come to a consensus is now just a matter of stubbornness and fanboy-ism.  Let's end this. SteveBaker (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as fanboyism to try to work with the editors who actually edit the article. I don't see you helping the article, I just see you fighting over its name. X, Skunk and I all have helped this article tremendously. Jin has recently started helping out more as well. This naming thing has pissed off Skunk and X, and they both wanted the article to remain at Mega Drive until the WP:AND was mentioned, and this article title is not in violation of WP:And. If there is something in policy that clearly (not ambiguously) states this article is in violation of WP policy, please show us all. WP:AND clearly supports the title, and there's nothing that says the 60-40 common name has to be the title.-- Sexy Kick  13:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OWN. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can go ahead with WP:OWN when you can actually provide some non ambiguous evidence that Sega Genesis and Mega Drive is a title that violates policy. You're just getting editors sidetracked, who could be helping the article get better. Think of all the words you've written here, and now think of how all that energy could have gone into fixing some of the problems in this article. It's not even like there's big problems. Jin was even nice enough to make a helpful list. We could have also got another GA review going to get more ideas of things to change, but no...you want to worry about semantics. WP:AND lists Acronym_and_initialism as a valid form of and in a title. It is very comparable to Sega Genesis and Mega Drive in that they're both the same thing. There are also many move requests and debates at that article as well. We'd all be better off if you just tried to understand the WP:AND policy more.-- Sexy Kick  14:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it doesn't violate actual policy, but no one has ever found another title that works in the same way. If WP:AND were actually applicable, then we'd have articles called Football and soccer, Volkswagen Golf and Rabbit, etc. etc. Yes there are titles that fall afoul of guidelines, but when there's a very easy solution that works here that's used in thousands of other articles, it makes no sense to make this one unique. Acronym_and_initialism is being used as an example of a "closely related" concept. This is NOT that -- it is the SAME thing, and no matter how many times you try to argue casing and other differences, it doesn't make it any less true. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is no different than the hundreds to thousands of others about badge-engineered objects - and consistency is a very important principle in writing an encyclopedia.  I would argue that WP:AND doesn't support this name and that WP:TITLE does recommend picking one of the common names and using that.  We've been through those arguments many times before.  SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Sega Genesis" is an unknown term to people in several big English-speaking countries (e.g. UK, Ireland, India, Australia and New Zealand), where "Sega Mega Drive" is used. The term "Sega Genesis" has as far as I know only been used in various North American countries which have a smaller total population than the mentioned countries. Appears to fail WP:COMMONNAME since the total combined population of the UK, Ireland, India, Malta, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand is greater than that of the United States and Canada. If anything, WP:COMMONNAME would suggest the title "Sega Mega Drive" instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things: (1) WP:Commonname does not mention population being a factor at all. Seeing as others have opposed using "Sega Genesis" because the population of N. America is greater than those of other english-speaking countries in which the console was launched, your argument seems even odder to me.  (2) Your attempt to through India into the conversation to make your point is a bit transparent (otherwise the population of the countries you talk about is massively smaller than N. America).  The only evidence we've found that India had the counsole as an official launch is not from a reliable source.  Even if it was, using India search engines actually finds more hits for the term "Sega Genesis" than for "Sega Mega Drive" (search conduced in two different ways for each name).  So in short, WP:Commonname points not to population but to english language reliable sources, and the use of India is not necessarily a help to the name "Mega Drive" and actually appears, at least facially, to support the name "Sega Genesis".LedRush (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Even if it was, using India search engines actually finds more hits for the term "Sega Genesis" than for "Sega Mega Drive" (search conduced in two different ways for each name)." - That is not a viable conclusion since:
 * it likely picks up Indian mirrors of US websites - those ones do not count
 * Because India is under the PAL electronics system, it would not be possible to market NA-made consoles over there
 * Now, you say "(1) WP:Commonname does not mention population being a factor at all." - I argue that there are other factors (covered through the arguments section).
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to use Google to establish a common name is pretty pointless. But I can't help pointing out that it doesn't really matter what hardware runs in India. What matters is if people over there talk about the system, and if they do, what do they call it. If four-thousand Indians bought a MegaDrive system, but Four-Million of them know it as Genesis because they read American magazines, then in India the common name would be Genesis. However, trying to figure out the math is madness. Unending madness. Suffice it to say that very large groups of people know it exclusively by each name. APL (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "But I can't help pointing out that it doesn't really matter what hardware runs in India. " Yes it does. The product branding entirely depends upon the hardware. The "Genesis" uses NTSC hardware, so branded Genesis systems will only be sold in countries which use NTSC hardware. Since India is a PAL country, it will be justifiably presumed that systems sold there will be called "Megadrive" and that people there will call it as such. Therefore the burden of proof is on the persons who say that Indians best know the system as the "Genesis."
 * You said: "If four-thousand Indians bought a MegaDrive system, but Four-Million of them know it as Genesis because they read American magazines, then in India the common name would be Genesis." - But how would they get American magazines? And American magazines are meant for America. In terms of online content it could be true in theory that Indians read American magazine content, but they could just as easily read British magazines too (remember India has colonial ties with the UK)
 * You CAN make the presumption that people in the Philippines may know the system as the "Genesis" since the Philippines uses NTSC. I will take a look online and see if that's correct
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:Commonname which allows you to presume what large pockets of people call anything. It merely asks us to look at how the term is used in english language reliable sources.  Of course, that answer is quite clear, which is why you and Miremare completely ignore or misread the guidelines.LedRush (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "It merely asks us to look at how the term is used in english language reliable sources." Article titles - WP:COMMONNAME redirects there. But it's inappropriate to say "Genesis is the most used by reliable sources" with no qualifiers. 1. No matter how many google news/books reliable sources searches, analyses, etc. you do, you won't find a lead on Genesis vs. Megadrive that is significant. BOTH names pass the criteria at WP:COMMONNAME. So you are now forced to rely on a new set of criteria. The process I described is the BEST solution. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sega Genesis gets 700% to 1000% more hits on google scholar and google books. If that ain't significant, I don't know what is.  (Also, Commonname directs us to the name "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", not the several names most frequently used.  It is true that if no choice has a "significant majority" we go to the general questions.)LedRush (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking up Google Scholar the first give hits I see are stuff on Google patents (U.S. patents) - NOT scholarly articles. Those are NOT the secondary sources that count. So you can't rely on the lone # of Google Scholar hits, so you have to filter them yourself. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As is true for Mega Drive as well. Assuming that these aren't RSs for the name of system (I'm not sure why they couldn't be reliable primary sources, but, whatever) and that there are an approximately equivalent number of hits for both, the percentage advantage for Genesis would jump even higher than 1000%. Add to this that many of the Mega Drive hits appear to be in foreign languages, and you're creating an even more astronomically lopsided case for the Genesis. Furthermore, it appears that many of the "Mega Drive" hits are explanations in an article that primarily discusses the Genesis (explaining that some number of units were sold under the "Mega Drive" name, though the article calls it the Genesis).  This is as open and shut a case as I've seen regarding a disputed WP:Commonname.LedRush (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "As is true for Mega Drive as well" - "Sega Megadrive" gets 108 Google scholar hits. The first five hits are not US patents. They are Understanding digital games, 2006 - Sage Publications, M Froggatt - IEE Review, K Collins - Film International, and J Newman - M/C Journal, 2009 - Those are the kinds of things that would be indicators.
 * " Assuming that these aren't RSs for the name of system (I'm not sure why they couldn't be reliable primary sources, but, whatever) and that there are an approximately equivalent number of hits for both, the percentage advantage for Genesis would jump even higher than 1000%" - There would NOT be equivalent numbers of those on the Megadrive side. The five hits I see are **US patents** - There could not possibly be any **US patents** for the Megadrive side, because the name "Megadrive" was not adopted in the US. And patents from other countries don't seem to be listed.
 * " Add to this that many of the Mega Drive hits appear to be in foreign languages" - For Google Books, there should be a way to filter it out - Go to http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search and select English
 * Also remember to search "Sega Mega Drive" and "Sega Megadrive" and add them up together. Some sources may spell it like "Megadrive" and some may spell it as "Mega Drive" - Also keep on the lookout for "Books Llc" as those are Wikipedia mirrors
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "" - US patents are primary sources. We are trying to use secondary sources as indicators
 * Did you look at the Mega Drive results...there are a many patent hits. At least look at the results before criticizing them.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They weren't in the first five results. Kindly copy and paste the patent names, or provide a URL for me to look at. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hits number 3 and 4 in the link above (copied here lead to US patents here and here.
 * Is see. So when I searched "Sega Megadrive" no patents appeared but when "Sega Mega Drive" is searched patents do appear. The first patent is stating that "Mega Drive" is the name that Sega sells its console as in Japan.
 * But what I meant is that in order to state definitively that "Genesis has way more hits than Megadrive" on Google scholar, one has to work to filter out the results. Even though searching "Mega Drive" brings up a few patents, it's a demonstration that one can't use Google Scholar to back up that assertion unless you manually filter through the results.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Secondly, Google Books is an effort from a U.S. company. Since the name divide is on geographic lines, it's easy to explain why Genesis has disproportionate hits; because it got more US books than commonwealth books. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is, it's goofy to use what is almost certainly a small number of sales to count an entire vast region of people. Obviously, you couldn't point to some village in rural India that has never been wired for electricity and say "All these people prefer the name 'Megadrive' over 'Genesis'." Clearly if you're counting heads, you can only count the heads of people who are aware of the product. And like I said, that's madness.  You could never come up with a number that was even remotely believable as anything more than a wild guess. APL (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even a small number of people in India is still a number wise large amount. While I can imagine that rural Indians don't have access, Indians in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, etc. do have access. As of 2001 72.2% of Indians lived in rural areas. Assuming India has about 1 billion, and all rural people are poor (so all urban people arr rich) that stil lleaves 27% of Indians - About 270 million people. So, my point is, one cannot dismiss India as an insignificant country in determining the worldwide scope of the name "Megadrive," and one must assume that Indians know it as "Megadrive" rather than "Genesis" since India is a PAL country. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is no evidence that Indians use the term "mega drive" in preference to "genesis" in english language reliable sources (and some imperfect evidence that the opposite is true), and seeing that WP:Commonname doesn't care where the reliable sources come from, this argument is beyond irrelevant.LedRush (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, of course. Even if every single Indian would identify the system, in English, as "Megadrive", it still has no direct bearing on this naming. WP:Commonname is about sources, not the consumers themselves. APL (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let's see if the wider Wikipedia community agrees with your assessment: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that some commonwealth readers might not recognize the name if they haven't read a gaming website in about a decade. But so what? Lot's of articles have names that would be unrecognizable in some regions. That's why we have redirects and a lead sentence that explains the situation. (That lead graphic will help too!) I mean if I went down town and asked where I could by "maize" people would look at me like I had three heads. Trying to buy "Petrol" would be almost as bad. I don't take this as some sort of conspiratorial evidence of British imperialism, just an awkward consequence of doing an encyclopedia in two closely related, but separate languages. APL (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: I honestly have no strong opinion on which title should be the definitive title for this article. But if it would get you all to shut up and start actually improving the article, I'm all for it.  I read over the enormous discussions that occurred since I recused myself from this article a couple of months ago, and I can agree that the compound name I originally helped to propose and argued for is not as good a solution as I originally thought it would be.  I really gotta ask you, though: How important IS this, anyway?  We have redirects for precisely this reason - it's not like having "Sega Genesis" as the title completely precludes the world from searching for "Mega Drive" and getting useful information. :P &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there you have it, from the originator one of the original proposers of the compound title. Bravo!!! Going back through the archives, I really understand and appreciate where you and those who supported this title were coming from. But I think what happened was that in the excitement of apparently finding a compromise solution you all neglected to really consider this title from a broad perspective in terms of overall naming policy, guidelines and conventions. Very little time transpired between the time you proposed it and it was quickly adopted. From my perspective it's very important that the title of this article not be "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" so that it sets the proper precedent. If it remains "SG&MD" then it can be used as a precedent to name other articles similarly. If you think there has been too much discussion about this title, imagine multiple discussions like this; it several times more discussions like this. On the other hand, if we are successful in moving it away from this title, then this can be used as a precedent to inhibit and quickly argue against this happening again elsewhere. That's why this particular discussion and move is particularly important. It allows us to establish - as much as anything can be established with regard to the process of deciding WP article title -- that combining two names for the topic in the title is not acceptable practice. The last thing we need in article naming is yet another way to title articles. There are plenty already... --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Correction made. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are assuming that (1) everyone agrees that it sets a bad precedent; and (2) that everyone will come in and try and disruptively deconstruct consensus on any such other titles. I see no reason for either, but then again, I thought this argument should have ended when Kiefer exiled himself after the hard fought compromise.  Please, let's not hash this out again.  Just let people state their opinions and preferences and not turn every comment into a knock-down drag out fight.LedRush (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @BornToCycle: I just want to make it clear that the compound title was not originally my idea - another editor (I forget who now) originally proposed it, but it would have been lost to the tidal wave of Google Results and Sales Numbers arguments that were going on at the time. I formalized it and thought it had merit.  I just don't want to be seen as its originator. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @BornToCycle: To your point about "Imagine multiple discussions like this": This is I think the fourth time overall that this topic has come up. Maybe the fifth.  And within this particular round (the 2011 edition), this is, what, the fourth or fifth move request that's been proposed?  Oh, don't you worry about whether there'll be multiple discussions.  No matter what we decide today, this argument is just bound to happen again in another year or two when all of this is sent to the archives and future editors neglect to check them. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush, I'm not make any assumptions about what "everyone" agrees on, or "will come in and try". And I have no idea what I wrote that gave you the impression that I have assumed anything like that. To clarify, (1) I believe the current compound title sets a bad precedent, and that's why I believe the title needs to be changed. Others may well believe it needs to be changed for other reasons, or not changed it all. That's just why I believe it's important. (2) As to whether and how much others will use this title as precedent (if it does not change) to argue for using this kind of approach, I of course have no idea. I just believe it's a distinct possibility, and believe it's important to show there is clear consensus against it, so that it is nipped in the bud. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, thanks; I misunderstood about you being the original proposer. Hopefully my correction above is good. I also believe, based on other similar situations, that if this particular RM proposal succeeds, and the FAQ is updated accordingly, and the arguments section is marked to not be archived (perhaps incorporated into the FAQ)?, future attempts to move it will be inhibited, and there well be no more protracted discussions.  Only time will tell if Sega Genesis turns out to be a stable title, thanks to all these efforts.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this means that Jinnai is the original proposer, possibly myself (not sure). Keifer moving to support this is a big step towards my conditional support, and I guess Jin is neutral...so Led, should we go ahead and support the title change?-- Sexy Kick  03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless people come forward who were part of the previous compromise, yes.LedRush (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Same page.-- Sexy Kick  16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – “Sega Genesis” is certainly better than the current name, which implies two different consoles. Though “Mega Drive”, as the English name that Sega intended for it and released it under in many countries, should be preferable to the alternative name they were forced to give it for the US release. MTC (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."LedRush (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” “Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit.” In addition, I can’t help but wonder whether the common names guideline still has consensus… &lt;_&lt; MTC (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not advocated for mindlessly following anything. In fact, I've spent thousands of words on giving my opinions on why the proper Commonname is best under the spirit of Wikipedia, for our readers, and for the project as a whole.LedRush (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – I believe that the current title is overly long and not consistent with other article titles. It's an interesting and close call whether or not wp:and applies such that this a correct title.  I don't think it does, even if the two consoles are slightly different from one another (a matter on which I know nothing).  Even if the two consoles are slightly different, as a practical matter it seems like they're not, because Sega never released both of them anywhere simultaneously.  For this reason, it seems like this is an article more about a single thing -- Sega's 16-bit console -- than it is about two different things -- the Genesis and Mega Drive as distinct but related items.  Also convincing in my view is that there are no other articles with similarly composed names, like Football and Soccer (where the rules may be slightly different?), for instance.  With regard to which title is appropriate, it seems like Genesis since that was the original title, and it's sort of like a wp:engvar issue with different countries using different names.  To the extent it's a wp:commonname question, I express no opinion on which title is best.   AgnosticAphid  talk 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, "Football" is the word used by British English speakers to mean the precise same sport that US English speakers mean when they say "Soccer". The rules are therefore identical.  Hence that is a poor analogy for this article where there are some noticeable differences between the device shipped in the US as "Genesis" and the one shipped everywhere else in the world as "Mega Drive" - although those are largely superficial diffences.  A much better example (and the one we've been using throughout most of this discusssion) is the Volkswagen Golf - which is a car that is known as the "Volkswagen Rabbit" in some markets.  There are actually even better examples of that in various automobile articles where the two vehicles have different names - and slightly different body styles and trim levels - analogous to the different case designs for the Genesis and Mega Drive.  At any rate, there are at least hundreds - perhaps thousands (if you include plants with multiple common names and books and movies with alternate titles) of much closer analogies to the naming issues in this article - and not one single one of them (that we have yet found) uses both names with 'and' in the article title. SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would ask that the closing admin move protect this page as its similar to any other page-name dispute. While we've all been disciplined here and not attempted to subvert the rules by claiming a non-contriversial move request, it feel its probably more likely for this page than any other i've worked on recently (save vanaldism moves). ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe admins take reactive rather than proactive action in cases like this. In other words, if there are shenanigans, then ask for a move protect.   Besides, most likely destinations of this page are unavailable as move targets to non-admins anyway.    --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be an assumption of bad faith to move protect a page before any move warring - anyway, I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening on this page (amongst the current participants, that is). Either way, a properly closed move request is more than enough reason to revert a move so I wouldn't worry about this. --regentspark (comment) 02:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a bit premature - we're still three or four days from closing this !vote. But as of this post, the count stands at 3 oppose, 1 neutral and 14 support - even stronger than the previous straw poll.  So if the outcome is as one might predict, the current opposers are all perfectly reasonable editors - not crazies who are likely to go and try to rename the article against consensus if/when their preferences are overridden.  I certainly wouldn't impose a page-move lock just yet.  Really, the only remaining question is whether a subsequent WP:RM might be filed to move to "Mega Drive" once this one is closed...but I strongly suspect that the resulting "Oppose" vote would be overwhelming in that case. SteveBaker (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I think others have already put it better than I could. Quietbritishjim (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, Sega Mega Drive as first preference, Sega Genesis as second preference, and the current title should be burned and salted. The current title is not supported by WP:AND, which says 'sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article' (emphasis mine). The Megadrive and Genesis are not closely related or complementary concepts, they are different names for the exact same device. We don't name articles UFO: Enemy Unknown and XCOM: UFO Defense, nor Star Wars: Rebellion and Star Wars: Supremacy. The use of 'and' in presenting two names for the same subject is patently absurd. The current name is awful both in terms of Wikipedia's consistency, and as a clear misreading of the intent of WP:AND. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to justify salting the current title, especially when so many editors disagree with your assessment of AND. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are far fewer people supporting your use of 'and' than you imply. This was obvious in the straw poll above, as well as in the reactions of people after the last name change went through. There simply aren't 'so many editors' agreeing with your interpretation of WP:AND, though I can see from the conversation above that there are plenty that disagree with you. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The original and current variety of English in this article is US English
The variety of English used in this article by the original contributor,, who is American (lives in Louisiana per user page) when it was first created in 2001 is US English. Any change from that variety would have been a violation of WP:ENGVAR and per ENGVAR we should consistently use the same variety of English throughout the article. I do note that the spelling of "color" is currently in the US variant, which is correct. --Born2cycle 18:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because the change was a violation of ENGVAR doesn't mean it can be reverted. Can British spelling correctly be described as established? If so, I think WP:RETAIN supports the established spelling regardless of how it came to be established. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that British spelling was ever established in this article.  I haven't looked, but I haven't seen anyone even argue that.  In any case, it was clearly US English originally, and it is clearly US English now, so a change to any other variant now would be a violation of ENGVAR, no matter how you slice it.  --Born2cycle 19:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I was sure there was a notice about spelling on this talk page. Now I'm confused as to why we're having this discussion. If it was US English and it is US English, then I don't think anything more needs to be said on the matter. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but there isn't one now, except I just added the AmericanEnglish tag. --Born2cycle 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Bacongull (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Name change?
I know that their has been a rather involved discussion about this topic throughout the years and I suspect that this article will have it's name changed sooner or later. However whilst that isn't for today I think it's worth pointing out that I have often read that Wikipedia is not a democracy and yet I have read editors stating that "frankly, the majority needs to rule here.". I have read that before and whenever I do I always think, how absurd would it be if 20,000 flat Earthers opted to change the article describing the geometry of the Earth to suit their majority opinion! It is absymal that the name has been changed like this. Absymal. It's original name was Megadrive. It was known as Megadrive in every region of the world except the US and surprise surprise, the article is now called that. This will just continue because as many have objected to the article being called Megadrive and not Genesis many yet will object to the article being called Genesis. The only solution is a compromise title because this title is not consensus amongst the community and is a product of democracy which, for the above example, has no place in Wikipedia. Bobert902101 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is this user's first and only post. As it would be highly unlikely for a newbie to make such a post, I suspect Sock puppetry. That said, this article about both console makes was originally titled Sega Genesis, not Megadrive as claimed by Bobert. Also, the previous combo title was rejected, and the current title accepted, through WP:CONSENSUS, not majority voting.  See the FAQ at the top of this talk page.  --Born2cycle 23:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need to find a new hobbie as Jimmy Wales sometimes says, accusing someone of sockpuppetry because they have created a username to comment on the talk page of an article is bad faith, bad faith in the extreme. Wikipedia and article talk pages don't exist merely for veteran editors, how can wikipedia be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit except if you contribute to a discussion you are assumed to be someone else? How do I know that you aren't a sock puppet? I don't know, although I assume that you aren't. I think it would be better for you, in fact, for everyone here if they actually adhered to the principles of Wikipedia instead of treating this as your own private club. That's precisely what you are doing here.Bobert902101 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should read the above-mentioned FAQ, the policies of WP:Retain and WP:Commonname before you start making broad generalizations about Wikipedia and insulting the editors on this page.LedRush (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So i'm accused of being a sockpuppet and you say I am being insulting? Do you even know what bad faith actually is or do you just troll the Genesis article?Bobert902101 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think you should say to Born2cycle that assumptions of bad faith to new editors and accusations of sock puppetry aren't welcome in Wikipedia. If you simply can't bring yourself to criticise him for insulting a new editor and continue to imply that I am being insulting then you are proving my point that certain editors of this article are treating it like their own private club. It isn't. It's wikipedia. I could argue that you are Born2cycle's sock puppet considering how quickly you responded to what he had to say, I wouldn't argue that because it's bad faith.Bobert902101 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not a sock puppet of LedRush or of any other account. --Born2cycle 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry, I said I suspected sockpuppetry. That said, I note you don't deny being a sock puppet, and you do exhibit several signs of sock puppetry, including:


 * Signs_of_sock_puppetry. For your supposedly first and only posts to WP, you exhibit a lot of knowledge about WP, including familiarity with WP decision-making regarding "consensus" and not being a democracy, referring to Jimmy Wales, being familiar with what Jimmy Wales sometimes says,  use of the term "bad faith", being familiar with the notion that editors should not treat an article as "their own private club", and being familiar with the WP goal of being "an encyclopedia anyone can edit".  Especially when all combined, this would be very odd for a newbie.
 * Signs_of_sock_puppetry. Of course your account has only been used briefly since you just created it, but that the first edit of a newbie is to challenge a decision like this is suspicious.
 * Signs_of_sock_puppetry NOTE: "If the single-purpose account appears to be used for editing that is not that of a WP:NEWBIE, this will likely raise suspicion that it is the bad hand of someone with a good hand and bad hand account. This includes accounts that are being used only to vandalize, propose articles for deletion, comment in existing deletion or other discussions..."


 * I suggest I have reasonable grounds to suspect. Shall I request a sock puppet investigation?  --Born2cycle 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt an admit would approve it unless he started using the account to !Vote or edit war. APL (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The unusual timing of Bobert's post aside, it's nothing new. There's no particular reason that the "First" or even the "Global" name of a product should matter. (Many products are better known by names other than their original name.)
 * The consensus here, and I'll admit that's it's not a unanimous consensus, is that one of two things is true. Either the item is slightly better sourced by the American name and therefore using the American name would be slightly better. Or that it's a regional English issue in which case either name would be equally acceptable, but the article's first name ("Sega Genesis") would be preferred.(As per Wikipedia's special rules on regional English variations.)  The obvious solution, given those two points of view is to use the American name.
 * Compare this to your ridiculous flat earther straw-man. Flat Earth is not better sourced than round Earth. In fact, in modern writing you'd be hard pressed to find a single reputable source. Flat Earth is also not a special case in Wikipedia's rules (Like regional English variants are) that gives equal standing to both possibilities.
 * Your suggestion that a "compromise title" is the only possible way to go is, frankly, ignorant. Many existing articles have had much more serious and involved naming disputes, but they eventually settled on a single name. (For example : Gasoline or Maize)
 * I think for the most part, while editors consider it a matter of pride, readers don't care much. If they type in "Megadrive" and wind up at "Genesis" they just think "Huh, I didn't know it had more than one name." and get on with their lives. APL (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To "Bob2cycle", firstly what does it say at the top of the talk page: "Be welcoming", "Be kind to new editors" and "Don't assume bad faith". As you have broken all three I think that is clear that you are in the wrong here and not I. As to your "Shall I request an investigation to sock-puppetry" - Do that and give me an apology for that accusation and apologise for not being welcoming, for being unkind to a new editor and assuming bad faith. Although I know I will be found not to be a sock puppet, because I am not, I suspect your apology won't be forthcoming.Bobert902101 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well now that you finally assert you are not a sock, I will accept that on good faith, and I do sincerely apologize for being so rash. --Born2cycle 00:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you're only the second person in these discussions to say the Mega Drive was only the Sega Genesis in the US.-- Sexy Kick  00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These edit conflicts are a pain. I accept your apology Born2Cycle, I detest insularity and I apologise for the vociferousness of my replies. I don't contribute to wikipedia although I have a fascination with the minutiae of the debates which sometimes occur on the talk pages of various articles, so that is why I created an account to contribute to it. Although I am more than happy for you to request an Administrator to verify that I am not a sockpuppet, merely someone with a dynamic IP address......okay that last part was a joke!Bobert902101 (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'know I do actually apologise, this has been a very negative exchange and I don't care much for things like that. If it was not for all of you people then we wouldn't have Wikipedia. None of you are paid for your contributions, it's a very noble act because so many people have access to the largest single resource of knowledge in the entire history of mankind, you all do it essentially for self-less reasons and I do deeply admire that. So profuse apologies from me to many of you. Bobert902101 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop this right now!
@User:Bobert902101 if you are indeed a non-sock and if you believe that you are not trolling - then you need to go and expand out every single section in this talk page and read through all of the discussions. Yes, really. There is a solid month of intense debate behind the present move and unless you've been following it - you are in no position to express an opinion. When you've listened to every point of view, then if you still have something new to add that will somehow change a 15:3 majority into something big enough to overturn consensus - feel free to tell us. However, it is frankly inconceivable that you'll succeed in doing that. Simply rehashing existing arguments is trollish behavior - and we're not going to be responding to that in the future. WP:DFTT applies here. However, if you have an entirely new, fresh argument for choosing a different name - one that nobody has previously thought of - one that is in harmony with Wikipedia policies - and one that is so fiendishly cunning that 15 people will immediately smack their foreheads and say "Duh! I was *so* wrong to !vote for Sega Genesis!"...then by all means explain it to us. Otherwise please don't bother us because we've heard it all before.

@ Everyone else. If you don't want continual whining about the naming of this article off into the infinite future - then you have to cut off this kind of discussion abruptly - and in a manner that will end further debate. WP:DFTT.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh so it's alright for you to have an opinion but you insult other people who have a different opinion by dismissing them as being a troll if they defend themselves against accusations of sock-puppetry? An administrator left me some advice on my talk page about civility, I think you should read it as well as the general point that people wanted the name changed to a compromise title of Megadrive and Genesis, then it became Genesis when it was found to not adhere to Wikipedia naming standards. I have as much right to say that I think it isn't correct that it's called Genesis as others did to say it's not correct that it's called Megadrive. I don't have anything else to say to you except that you don't have a right to just dismiss a what someone has to say when you disagree with it.Bobert902101 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first tone was pretty harsh and accusatory. While not truly trolling, it still came across as a rant rather than a true confusion or disagreement. As the note on your talk page said, it was a very heated discussion before and once again, it was found that most of the people discussing agreed that 1) The 'compromise' title went against WP's standard, and there was no example of any article being named similarly; and 2) Genesis was the better name, even if only marginally so. You cite one reason that Megadrive is better (and I would have agreed before this debate, despite being American), but that's just ONE reason, and unless you put forth some new evidence that hasn't gone back and forth 100 times already, your arguments aren't going to go anywhere. If you're on Wikipedia, you simply have to live with the fact that we have articles called color and Orange (colour). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and I apologise for the vociferousness of my replies however a neutral administrator has said that I contributed in good faith and with civility, so why are you not reprimanding SteveBaker for bad faith when he accuses me of trolling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobert902101 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bobert, despite your good faith and civility in the Sega Genesis talk page discussion" - Mike Cline, you can check my talk page. I am not trolling and it is against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to delete peoples contributions as you are doing.Bobert902101 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly it is pretty jarring when the article on Color is actually called Color and then when you go to Orange and it's called Colour, and you go to Gold and it's called Color...that's just very weird.-- Sexy Kick  15:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is - but the early decision not to have a us.wikipedia.org and a uk.wikipedia.org (not to mention versions for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and every other dialect) means that we're going to have dialectic differences - and these have to be resolved. Without some kind of a rule, we have edit wars everywhere between well-meaning British and American editors who seek to "correct" what seems to them to be errors.  In retrospect, it might have been better to pick just one dialect for en.wikipedia.org - or perhaps have some clever way to alter spellings and word choices depending on some user preference...but that's not how it turned out.  And just as here, we sometimes have to make ugly decisions and work hard to stick to them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't care if it's color or colour, it should just aim to keep consistency.-- Sexy Kick  15:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple decision really. Surely the rationale for calling this article Sega Genesis means that it is an USA article and USA english spelling should be applied? It would be best if all the spellings were "color". - Mike   15:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm back again, and pleased to see that the discussion page is just as frothy mouthed as when I left it. I was (and still am) against the change from Megadrive to Genesis, but as the change has been made, then as Mike states, we should aim for consistency and take the US spellings of any geographical differences.  If people think that's unreasonable, then they should initiate a discussion to change the page back to Megadrive, whereupon it wouldn't matter.  Oh God, I can't believe I've just typed that - I bet somebody does now.


 * If the difference between "color" and "colour" bothers people on different pages, then the pages to bring them up are those pages, not here. This page has a very definite geographical focus, unlike the aforementioned colo(u)rs, which are global.  Although frankly, I'm beginning to suspect that some editors are only capable of seeing in black & white.   a_man_alone (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick search of the article shows that the article contains only the US english spelling 'color'. - Mike 17:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't make assumptions like that about the rationale behind consensus. I certainly didn't !vote for Genesis because I thought it was primarily a US topic (which is what I think you would need the prevailing rationale to be if you want to change spelling). ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't intend to, but you did. Your vote was instrumental in changing the geographical centre center of the article from the rest of the world to America, which by default makes it a US topic, and entails a change of use of language.   a_man_alone (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel so strongly about it, make a proper proposal and tell the dozen or so people who !voted for Genesis about what they did or didn't do and now what they must logically follow through with. I'm sure everyone will see the light. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (If you want to see a REALLY serious naming dispute - check out Tree shaping. That dispute has resulted in most of the participants getting blocks and bans - with ArbCom getting involved and blocking the protagonists from even talking about the subject for an entire year!  There were COI's involved and at least one admin lost his/her adminship over it...an unbelievably bloody and protracted fight!  Makes this one look like a tiny ripple on an otherwise calm pond.) SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This one doesn't quite hit the range of gasoline for me, and that one has an entry on WP:LAME. Didn't see one for tree shaping, though ... may have to look at that one. :) -- McDoob  AU  93  17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah - gasoline was a pretty impressive blood-bath too. What I don't understand is why people fight so hard over titles when both alternatives are commonly used and both meet WP:TITLE and we have such a good redirect mechanism in place.  I can understand disputes over the actual content of articles - but when it comes to alternative titles...it's really "Meh". SteveBaker (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it has to do with the way Commonname is written. Users assume common name = title, and if they see an article where they think the common name isn't being used, they try to change it. More on that is original name, some people want the articles to go by the original name if it's almost as common as the common name. Scorpion Deathlock vs. Sharpshooter for example. The Sharpshooter came long after the Scorpion Deathlock, and the Scorpion Deathlock is still in use today, unlike the Sharpshooter, yet that article is still named Sharpshooter because if I recall correctly, Sharpshooter is the common name.-- Sexy Kick  17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take issue with that. I don't think the reason people fight so hard about use of the most common name in titles has anything to do with the way COMMONNAME or anything else at WP:AT is written.  I think it has everything to do with the quite obvious convention that WP has had from day one, applied whenever reasonably possible,  to reflect in the article title the name of that article's topic that is most likely to be familiar and recognizable to most WP users.  People don't learn this from reading WP:COMMONNAME.  They learn this inherently simply by being  exposed to a handful of articles.   That's how I learned it, at any rate.  That's why they try to change it -- to be consistent with how most other WP articles are titled -- when they see a title in which the most common name for the topic is not reflected.   --born2 c ycl e  20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)