Talk:Sega Genesis/Archive 18

Article name
So this seems to be a very contenious issue. I have gone through the archives and it seems to me that an agreement over it will never occur :( it obviously should be called Mega Drive for the hundreads of reasons listed by other users above me so im not going to go into them what I would like to say is it seems to me that the consensus for the name Genesis is very weak, there was basically two American users requesting this article title and the other users while not for it agread to it to get them to shut up, also as only 10 users agread to the rename and since then there has been at least 50 users stating there opposition to this silly article name I feel there is no consensus at all and a new vote should be held. or alternativly there should be two articles, or the same article but with diffrent names, ie if you come from an American ip address you would be directed to the current erronious article title and if you come from anywhere else in the world you would be directed to the correct article title of Mega Drive this would probably be the best sollution possible as both sides would be happy, otherwise it just looks like a war is going to occur forever over the name and it will never be solved :( compromise is the way forward, regards, dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.146.209 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we changed the name, then we'd have even more people coming here to complain of the name "Mega Drive", for the hundreds of reasons listed above. Beyond that, all I can say is that your review of the discussion was inadequate and your summary of it is inaccurate.  Your ignorance of the basic facts of this dispute is clear by your chosen "compromise", and it's not really worthwile to engage you on a serious level until you have new ideas and understand the situation.LedRush (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

hello ledrush you were one of the two users pushing for this title against the will of everyone else so your above trollish comments hold no weight, regards, dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.146.209 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I argued long and strenuously against the name change in favor of the composite, compromise name and acquiesced after the people who had forged that consensus agreed to agree to this new consensus. This lack of review of the discussion is exactly what I was referring to above.  If you can't be bothered to review the past discussions or summarize them correctly, why should anyone listen to you present no new ideas here?LedRush (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I am more than happy to go through the archive logs again and copy and paste all of your comments arguing for the title genesis and your shooting down of everyone elses oppinion on the matter like you are trying to do to me now but that would not be very constuctive, dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.146.209 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would not be constructive as you seem not to understand simple writing. I do believe that "Sega Genesis" is better than "Mega Drive", but I also argued against the name change to "Sega Genesis" from the composite name that achieved consensus.  If you cannot be bothered to read and understand others' views, why bother comment on them?LedRush (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

More trollish comments and personal attacks :S I never disputed you prefered the composite name, I never disputed you argued for Genesis over Mega Drive... it is what I stated you did to begin with... and you are now trying to derail this section of the discussion as you have to many others above... if you have nothing constuctive to add or if you have nothing nice to say, then do everyone else a favour and do not say anything at all, regards dave175.107.146.209 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This goofy dual-named-article suggestion was actually briefly attempted to resolve the naming debate at Gasoline. You can find the discussion here : Talk:Gasoline/Archive_2 You can find the unanimous deletion !vote here : Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005 Ultimately these kinds of forks, even automated template-driven forks, would cause all kinds of problems for the Wikipedia project, and what are they good for? To stop a small number of people from being confused for the time it takes them to read a single sentence? Pointless. APL (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Got it. You (IP) attacked me personally, misrepresented my views, and said that my past positions make my opinion worthless, and somehow I'm derailing this conversation (which adds nothing new to the discussion).  It's all very clear now.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

you are the one throwing around personal attacks... here are a few you your quotes from the past hour alone "your review of the discussion was inadequate" "your summary of it is inaccurate" "Your ignorance of the basic facts of this dispute is clear" "you seem not to understand simple writing" "you cannot be bothered to read and understand others' views" and you are the one derailing the conversation and have not misrepresented any of your views...175.107.146.209 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC) There are no new points raised here and we have a solid consensus. Unless there are brand new and stunningly convincing arguments in favor of a change, this thread is going NOWHERE. The last serious debate and !vote was comprehensive, long-argued, quite convincingly decided in favor of the current name. Plus, there is a redirect from all of the other possible candidate names so none of our readers will be in the slightest bit confused by our choice.

It is a waste of time to discuss anything more on this thread because without new data, you can be well assured that nothing whatever will change as a result of it.

WP:DONTFEED strongly applies here.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Steve, The consensus clearly isnt stong or solid as you put it, there were around 10 people who voted for it and most wern't even for it they just agreed to it so the article could move on and since then if one reads the archives you have had an endless stream of users complaing about the article name and offering new data as to why Mega Drive is the correct and proper choice, more people than ever voted for the weak consensus have expressed their discontent with the current title. What I am suggesting is also new and appropriate, I come from Austrailia, wikipedia see's my austrailian ip and names the article [Mega Drive] ledrush comes from America wikipedia should she his ip and name the article [Genesis] some user comes from Britain or India or New Zealand or Ireland or anywhere else realy and Wikipedia should see their ip and rename the article to [Mega Drive] keeping the article as Genesis is both incorrect and will keep this dispute ongoing ad infinitum... at least my compromise idea would end the dispute once and for all with all sides being happy175.107.146.209 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't classify content by IP address location ... this is the English Wikipedia, not the American English or the British English or the Australian English Wikipedia. Also, what about an American tourist visiting Sydney, or a British tourist visiting Los Angeles? They'll see the one for where their IP would be, not for who they are. Consensus was reached, and whining about it isn't going to solve anything. Come up with a convincing argument about why it should be brought up AGAIN (something you haven't done yet) and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, put down the stick. -- McDoob  AU  93  21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But it's not new. As I demonstrated above, The first steps of your solution was tried as a way to keep everyone happy with Gasoline, but it was soundly rejected as a bad solution. For reasons we don't need to rehash here.
 * Wikipedia already has a policy for dealing with name disputes and it's not that. We can't/won't implement a radically new policy on this one article. If you want to continue with this, you need to change the entire encyclopedia's policy on naming disputes.
 * I suppose a good place to start would be the Village Pump, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. APL (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello mcdoob (the second user along with ledrush who pushed for genesis when no one else was for it or cared) No one is ever going to "drop the stick" while this article is incorrectly named, if you don't like my suggestion that's fine but all that will happen is an infinite amount of users in the future come and complain because the current name is just dumb. APL if wikipedia isnt willing to evolve and improves itself then it is a real shame :( having seperate pages for US English and everywhere elses English would be a huge improvement in my opinion. I've said my peace and offered my suggestions which you have rejected so I will leave you guys to your inaccuracies rather than argue, peace, dave175.107.146.209 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't even get your insults right. Wow.LedRush (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

this is crazy
If this article is named FIFA 13 (international name) instead of FIFA Soccer 13 (US/Canada name), why we can't do the same. Wikipedia should be universal, acceptful and tolerant for everyone.

Those articles I mention use the name Mega Drive:


 * Variations of Sega Mega Drive
 * List of Sega Mega Drive games
 * Category: Sega Mega Drive
 * Sega Mega Drive Classic Collection
 * AX-1E (this article features the name Mega Drive in fragments of it)
 * Menacer (also features the name Mega Drive in article too)

Article about CD add-on for it Mega-CD uses international name instead of US/Canada name (Sega CD)

It's the same thing with Sega Multi-Mega it uses international name instead of Sega CDX (US/Canada name).

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no it isn't ... software titles get tweaked all the time for various markets. If we go with the argument that FIFA 13 is the most common name for the software, then that actually proves that Sega Genesis is indeed correct, since by both sales figures and by Subsection 3 of Item 7 in the FAQ, Sega Genesis is the most common name for the device in the English-speaking world. -- McDoob  AU  93  16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and India where the console was named Mega Drive are also part of English-speaking world and always there is named. BTW those "English-language reliable sources" that name the console also can be from the countries I've mentioned. USA and Canada aren't the only countries in the world. The name Mega Drive isn't a monster and it wouldn't eat you. Believe me. Naming the console Mega Drive isn't bad idea by "5. When did the two articles merge" of FAQ. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They weren't discounted then when this was last discussed here, and haven't been discounted now. When you come up with a new, novel argument for why the article should be renamed, please let us know. -- McDoob  AU  93  17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how naming it Mega Drive is "more tolerant". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He probably means "more tolerant ... to people just like me". APL (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my comment "Wikipedia should be universal, acceptful and tolerant for everyone". For EVERYONE. Not only me. Also for British, Australasians, Nigerians, Indians and European and Asians that know English. Do you think Wikipedia is only for Americans??? --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We covered all this last time you brought it up. APL (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC).
 * It doesn't matter --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What about this? They discussed to rename the article, not because how much units were more sold in a territory, but rather by geolocation. This that more Mega Drives or Genesis units (Genesises?) were sold in North America or more popular there, it doesn't mean that console/article must be named Sega Genesis. Don't forget about British, Australian, New Zealandish, Indian people that name the console Mega Drive. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, all this has been discussed before. One last chance ... do you have a new, novel argument for why the article should be renamed? Otherwise, the thread will be closed to let the horse rest in peace. -- McDoob  AU  93  15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so let's say we "don't forget about British, Australian, New Zealandish, Indian people that name the console Mega Drive". Then we should also "not forget" about all the American and Canadian people who call it Genesis. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, You had won. So i'm forced to leave it all. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) BTW What about "new, novel argument" here it is: In google search there are 52 million points for Mega Drive, meanwhile Sega Mega Drive has 8 million points, but Sega Genesis has 11 million points. This that Sega Genesis has more points that Sega Mega Drive. it doesn't mean that Mega Drive has less than Sega Genesis. What about [http://www.google.pl/search?source=ig&hl=pl&rlz=&q=genesis&oq=genesis&gs_l=igoogle.3...0.0.0.1826.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac. this]. About the lone word Genesis. If you would look at the opening page at google search, you will see that's about whole different things, about Phil Collins band, about some nightclubs and others. I don't see any reference to Sega Genesis. It would be likely only 1/9 of Google points mentioning the console, so it's still less than 52 million points for Mega Drive. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Google results are different in different parts of the world. They adjust the results to favor hits they think are most relevant to you, personally. If you're in (for example) England, it would not be surprising that British naming conventions return more hits.  (And, if you're in mainland Europe, you're probably getting a lot of non-English results, which are not relevant to this discussion at all.)
 * I just tried the experiment here in USA and (of course) got the opposite results. (9 to 4 million in favor of the North American name.)
 * What does that prove? Nothing. Google results are not useful measures of how common a word is. Maybe they were back in the 90s, but their algorithms have changed a lot since then. APL (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And also i have a question : Is Wikipedia only for North Americans and jingoists??? Let's answer yes or no

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * *Sigh* Please remember the key part of Subsection 3 of Item 7 in the FAQ: "English language reliable sources". How many of those hits are reliable sources and not fan posts, forum posts, etc.? Again, this was discussed before as noted previously, hence it appearing in Item 7 of the FAQ. So much for that "new, novel argument".


 * And to answer your question, a number of those who chose Genesis over Mega Drive in the consensus reached last November are not located in North America. So the answer is No. -- McDoob  AU  93  17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

McDoobAU93, before you'll write something, read this. This is a reliable source: BBC News (UNITED KINGDOM) UNITED KINGDOM = Mega Drive. Here's a English reliable source that names it Mega Drive. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that some English-speaking markets do call it Mega Drive was not lost in the discussion that ultimately resorted to this name. Please refer to Subsection 4 of Item 7 of the FAQ and please quit rehashing old arguments. -- McDoob  AU  93  18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia belongs to whole world, not only USA/Canada. REMEMBER --82.139.5.13 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, we know, heard it all before. You're not saying anything new.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you haven't heard the news yet, but in the 16th century explorers discovered that America was actually part of the world.
 * One of the interesting consequences of this fascinating fact is that British names for things aren't always used in an international context like Wikipedia. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.
 * That's normal. APL (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean "...international context like Wikipaedia."? Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent date edits?
Can someone please check the sudden, unexplained edits by this ip editor to this article and a few related ones?

They seem like misinformation to me, but I'm not 100% sure they're not some sort of correction. APL (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is going to be a pain. For  the first one, the cited source is a dead link.  When I Google for the article title, I found this, but it does not provide any information about anything being discontinued, much less whether the Mega-CD was discontinued in 1996 or 1997.  This (reliable?) source says Sega "announced" the discontinuation in 1996, but doesn't really say whether it actually occurred in that year.  I would say that since the source was not checked and corrected as part of that edit, it's probably a bogus edit.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "While the company recently announced it will dispose of all remaining 16-bit peripheral inventory, specifically the Genesis 32X and Sega CD products, it will continue to sell Genesis hardware and software in the coming years."-- Sexy Kick  23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so this source best supports 1996. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Question 10 in the faq.
I propose a tweak to question 10 in the FAQ:

"After all factors were given due consideration, Sega Genesis was preferred by a strong consensus, but it was also generally recognized that a title of Mega Drive would not be wrong."

I'd like to remove the term "strong" - it wasn't a strong consensus, merely a consensus. Plenty of arguments on each side, some good, some bad, but it wasn't overwhelmingly decided to call it the Genesis. If the consensus had been strong, we wouldn't be in this continual renaming lunacy at all.

Just a comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The admin who closed that discussion said "clear consensus", so I've changed it to that, along with a link to that discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Super duper. Happy with that.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to FAQ
In the discussions above, I see a repeating pattern of pro-Genesis editors unwilling to engage in any discussion other than repeating the same old cop-out mantras of "nothing new" or "we've heard it all before" (now how many times have we heard that before?), "go read the archives" (yeah, like every user's going to go read dozens of pages), "it's the consensus" (which is why there's so much opposition against it, right?) or "go read the FAQ" (which apparently represents the so-called "consensus"). Well, some of us did already challenge the FAQ some time back, after which the FAQ seems to have been updated (which I applaud to whoever was responsible). However, the FAQ still has serious glaring flaws, so I've created this new section to write out my response to the current updated FAQ. And for those who have nothing to contribute other than the "it's already been said before" cop-out, I'm either going to just ignore them, or just give them the following response: Why isn't it covered in the FAQ if it's already "been said before"? Anyway, onto my response to the FAQ:


 * 1-4. These points contradict point 7.4 ("WP:NOCONSENSUS says... when all else fails use the title the article had when created"). How? Because it's referring to a single article, not a merger between two articles. Just because the Genesis article was created before the Mega Drive, no where does the FAQ (or WP:NOCONSENSUS) say that we should go with the title of the article created first before a merger.
 * 5. This also contradicts point 7.4 ("WP:NOCONSENSUS says... when all else fails use the title the article had when created"). Point 5 states that the original title of the article after the merger was "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis". Since it's a compound name and therefore unacceptable, then logically, we should go for the first non-compound name used after the merger. And since the first post-merger, non-compound name for the article was Sega Mega Drive, that's the closest thing to the "title the article had when created" (not "Sega Genesis" like the FAQ later claims).
 * Also, point 5 fails to address or even mention the reason cited by User:DavidHOzAu when proposing the move to "Sega Mega Drive" back in 2006: "The rename for the US is a part of the Mega Drive's history: the rebranding happened to the Mega Drive not to the Sega Genesis." This is a hugely important point to overlook, because it highlights how the Mega Drive (which covers the entire history of the Mega Drive, including the Genesis) meets the WP:CRITERIA of "Precision" and "Conciseness" far better than Sega Genesis (a title that only covers the history of its North American iteration).
 * 6. And how exactly is the article anymore stable now as "Sega Genesis"? Ever since it's been moved to Sega Genesis, it's become much more unstable, if anything, since every discussion since then seems to be about almost nothing other than the title. In contrast, as "Sega Mega Drive", the article had remained with that title for five years from 2006 to 2011, the longest period of stability the article has ever had (despite ongoing discussions to move it to a compound name), therefore meeting the WP:NOCONSENSUS criteria of "the long-standing article title is kept."
 * 7.
 * 7.1. Not really. See my response to point 5 above. DavidHOzAu's reasoning back in 2006 demonstrates that the Mega Drive meets the WP:CRITERIA of Precision and Conciseness much better than Sega Genesis (i.e. the Genesis falls under the Mega Drive's history, not the other way around). As for Recognizability, it's already been repeated many times before that "Mega Drive" is recognizable in more English-speaking nations (not to mention a larger population overall) than "Sega Genesis", so no point in me going there again (and no, sales figures do not equate to recognizability). As for Naturalness and Consistency, they could go either way. Overall, Mega Drive is more precise, concise, and recognizable... but even if (and that's a huge if) "Sega Genesis" was more recognizable, it should not override the criteria of precision and conciseness.
 * 7.2. No argument there.
 * 7.3. And how was this determined? A Google Scholar search? How many of those articles are US-based and how many are based in other countries? Did it take into account dedicated gaming publications? And if so, what about all the (especially British and Australian) gaming magazines that are out of print? A simple Google Scholar search simply isn't good enough to determine which name is used in more reliable sources. All it does show is that more US English scholarly articles on the subject are available online than non-US English ones (not to mention it completely ignores most of the dedicated gaming publications). If any method other than Google Scholar was used, then please do tell (instead of the usual "go read the archives" cop-out).
 * Anyway, we have something even better than Google Scholar that's much more game-specific: our own Google Custom Reliable Sources for Video Games search engine created at WP:VG/RS. When I type in Mega Drive, I get 31 million search results, yet when I type in Sega Genesis, I only get 3.84 million search results. It could be different for others, so I recommend others to confirm for themselves whether they get similar results in their own regions.
 * 7.4. So? Mega Drive was the original intended name for the North American market even before release (which I'm sure everyone knows by now, right?). I really don't see the relevance of this point. Care to link it to one of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies?
 * 7.5. See my response to point 5. Also, that's not quite what WP:NOCONSENSUS says, but what it states is "If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." I don't see anywhere where it says we should go back to the original title when the article was first created... And in this case, it was definitely a stub when first created.
 * 8. No point responding to this point since my responses above should already cover it.
 * 9. "Mega Drive" is also used in most countries where English is the primary language. And again, sales figures do not equate to recognizability. If anything, market share/penetration would give us a better representation, and the Mega Drive most certainly had a higher market share in other English-speaking countries (especially the UK) than it did in the US (for reference, see ). North America simply had more sales by virtue of having the world's largest gaming market. Simply having a larger population does not mean its language usage should be favoured over a smaller nation like the UK, but rather, the US and UK (and other English varieties) should be given equal weight according to WP:National varieties of English. In this case, we have more English-speaking nations that use "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis", so using the title "Mega Drive" would fit the criteria better than "Sega Genesis".
 * 10. Uh, "Mega Drive" was fine for a whole five years before it was needlessly moved in 2011... And oh yeah, see my response to point 5 above.
 * 11. No problem here.
 * 12. Ah, good old censorship... How convenient.

...And that's pretty much it (for now).

Jagged 85 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You know what? Nothing new here either.  Actually, that's not completely true - you do turn a neat phrase here :  "North America simply had more sales by virtue of having the world's largest gaming market."  I think that's a pretty good argument for having the name as Genesis, not Megadrive, so thanks for that little nugget. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which also follows that it's in fact NOT, necessarily, recognizable to "a larger population overall"...of people who speak English anyway. Number of nations shouldn't matter. If 20 nations have 10 million people total versus 3 nations that have 600 million people total (I know this isn't the case here, but it proves the point) why should the 20 nations take precedence because there are more individual nations? The issue of WP:National varieties of English isn't relevant when trying to decide which something is more known by, what it really means is that the US shouldn't be the default for everything because it's the biggest (thus the article on Soccer redirects to Association football, for instance). If it were the ONLY consideration then perhaps yes you'd be right, but really the end result of Genesis over Mega Drive was a slight one combining MANY points, and the Genesis just edged out Mega Drive. I'm pretty sure that most everyone would agree that the article COULD be titled Mega Drive without it being a problem, but just that most of us feel Genesis is /slightly/ better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the phrase "Pro-genesis editors". I'll bet it's used in a lot of POV debates on Wikipedia.
 * A few things about this stand out to me. It's pretty normal to consider an article's history to be the combined history of the two articles that merged to form it. I think most people would consider that reasonable.
 * Secondly, people coming here and complaining should not be taken as a sign that the article is "unstable". If the article were changed to "Mega-drive" it would undoubtedly get even more confused and angry comments, would you take that as evidence that it should be changed back to Genesis? Of course you wouldn't.APL (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And how is the article any more stable now as "Sega Genesis"? The article was called "Mega Drive" for five whole years from 2006 to 2011. The name change in 2011 was completely unnecessary. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that it doesn't matter which name we use because it will be unstable either way?LedRush (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For years I argued that one of the reasons Yoghurt should be moved to Yogurt was because it would be stable once it was moved.  But that wasn't my entire argument.  I argued it would be stable because there would be no reasonable arguments to move it back to Yoghurt once it was at Yogurt, but as long as it remained at Yoghurt, there would be reasonable arguments to move it (and these were all listed).  I turned out to be right, in that case.  But that's not what you're arguing here.  You're not arguing that it will be stable if moved, or even that it will more stable if moved.  The argument that the first title ever used for this topic was Sega Genesis will forever remain.  There is no avoiding that, and countless people will raise it if this article is moved to something else; anything else.  Because of that, this article might not be perfectly stable at Sega Genesis, but it is more stable here than it would be at any other title.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the same argument being used for the name 'Sega Mega Drive' name, it was "first title ever used". But the system had that name long before the article was made. (Floppydog66 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC))
 * The name the system had is not relevant to the issue of determining what title the article had when edited by the first major contributor, which is the title which is relevant to determining the "default" when consensus cannot be reached. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed all these points in a series of updates to the FAQ now. Let me know if I missed something or if there is more.  Some very good points, by the way.  Thanks for the input.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for updating the FAQ to address the concerns I raised above. However, there is still a big problem with point 9.2, which claims that "the console was far more popular in North America than in other English speaking countries." Like I pointed out above, the console's market share was arguably larger in the UK than it was in the US, therefore point 9.2 is highly misleading, as it's a pretty doubtful abstract claim. I would instead recommend updating it to point out that the console sold more units in North America than other English-speaking countries. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ . --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the FAQ lists plenty of reasons as to why "Genesis" is favoured, but barely any as to why "Mega Drive" should be given equal consideration. To me, it makes the debate seem one-sided. However, I don't want to "rock the boat" by making edits, as it's been a while since I've trawled the archives of this debate. There's also the issue of "Mega Drive" being referred to as "a marketing variant", when "Genesis" is a marketing variant of the Mega Drive, not the other way around. CNash (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are marketing variants of the same product, just as yogurt and yoghurt are two spelling variants for the same thing. If a product is marketed under two different names, then each is a variant of that product. A variant is simply a form of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing. In this case, that applies to "Sega Mega Drive" just as much as it applies to "Sega Genesis".   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do see a pattern of pro-genesis editors here who try to stifle discussion. Chaheel Riens response seems indicative of that. I am not convinced that the current name is appropriate nor does the FAQ actually reflect Wikipedia policy. ScienceApe (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Constructive discussion is not being stifled. What is inappropriate in the current title (that is not adequately addressed in the FAQ), and how is the FAQ contrary to policy?  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover ScienceApe, you'll see if you bother to look through the archives that I am in fact a British editor, and a pro-Megadrive supporter. I have stated several times that my personal take is that both Megadrive and Genesis are the common name, and that the arguments should be on which of the two is the correct common name, and disregard the arguments of which is a common name, as there is a subtle but important difference.  Due to the sheer geographical mass and userbase Genesis ultimately has a greater percentage of the slice, which again I think is a flaw in the common name argument as Megadrive clearly has a greater global presence.
 * However, tempered by that are two powerful arguments against having Megadrive as a title:
 * I am in a minority to think so, and (again due to the userbase) Genesis editors have the majority. I, like Wikipedians should, go by majority and strength of argument - which brings me to the next reason:
 * Frothy mouthed rabid slanging matches annoy the hell out of me, and I am prepared to put aside any national pride to exorcise such infantile gibberings from the project. If an editor really feels strongly enough to propose changing the name from Genesis to Megadrive, then they have a duty to do some research first - which includes reading through archives to check if their arguments and reasons have been brought up before, and to gauge the success (or lack of) that they may have had at the time.
 * Failure to meet the second point is grounds for removal, and ironically the above mentioned editors are the reason such a lengthy FAQ is necessary in the first place, yet very few of them seem to realise this, and include it as part of the attack on the page, and contributing editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Sega Mega Drive games, If it is named Megadrive there, it should be here aswell. and according to the article itself more units were sold outside of USA than inside and outside of USA it was caleld megadrive. TheZelos (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, according to the cited sales figures in the article, Sega sold roughly 35 million consoles during the Gen/MD era. Of that number, somewhere over 22 million were sold in North America (I'm using the most conservative estimate). If my math is correct, that means 62.8% of the Sega 16-bit consoles sold worldwide carried the Genesis name. -- McDoob  AU  93  18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know there's no way to have this opinion in the domain without it being removed, but that is just a ridiculous way of measuring it. Who cares if over 60% of sales carried the Genesis name? For almost A YEAR it was out as Mega Drive and in no way as Genesis! If someone released an album, then released it in another, more popular territory under a different name, would you use the second name? No, you wouldn't, and you shouldn't here. It is literally that simple. Just another way for Americans to show they're "the best" because they bought the most. Andre666 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the article itself 14 million in US, 29 million worldwide, it means 15 million outside. and I agree with Andre, the initial name should be the dominant name. This is not an issue that majority vote should settle because it is a matter of principle. If Wikipedia will change every article the moment sales increase somewhere with a different name then keeping it as Genesis makes sense, if it goes by original name (or closest to it) then Megadrive is the name to go. TheZelos (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Andre666: For what it's worth, the sales figures weren't really an issue in the main discussion cited in the FAQ, and even if they were, it wasn't the sole issue. Again, as a reminder this is not a forum to voice displeasure about what has previously been discussed and settled. The surest way to not get deleted is to offer a novel argument for a name change, something that hasn't been done since the current change has taken effect.
 * @Zelos: It appears you're cherry-picking out of the notes for the "Sales numbers" subheading, instead of reading the explanation of that number ("However, this data was originally released in 1995 before production and sales of the console ended") and the citations provided by other reliable sources that place the sales numbers higher than that. -- McDoob  AU  93  18:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't believe how stricken with corruption this discussion is. I know it's a trivial issue, but what you're basically saying is that even if every single Wikipedian used a reason already apparently dealt with in the discussion (please...) the name would still not be changed. What a monopoly a few are having over this. You ought to be ashamed, this is meant to be the people's encyclopedia. Andre666 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey McDoob, how come you didn't go on my main point? Personally I care none for the sales, my main issue is. What is wikipedias policy? Change names when it gets more popular in areas with other names or retain original name? it should be the sole deciding factor. TheZelos (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Andre666: I would encourage you to read this essay, which applies perfectly to this discussion.
 * @Zelos: Wikipedia's policy is WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus was found to set the name at Genesis. -- McDoob  AU  93  19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So if I get consensus of calling it Hey-barberiba we will change the name to it? TheZelos (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're certainly welcome to try it out and see what happens. If the policy arguments are sound and other editors agree with said arguments, then it just might happen. However, I would encourage you to read this section first. -- McDoob  AU  93  20:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Humerous, I have no intent wasting energy on something that redicolous when it is obvious Argumentum ad populum, whim of the majority, oppression by the masses and not truth or reason is the ruling form as you already sp elegantly stated. TheZelos (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're not intending to disrupt Wikipedia to continue your argument. That said, I'm sorry you can't accept that others (both in Genesis and Mega Drive markets) decided your variation of the truth wasn't the best or that you feel "oppressed". -- McDoob  AU  93  01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Truth and reason cannot and will not ever be decieded by majority vote which is why consenssus is not the way to go. TheZelos (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said it was a vote. I said it was consensus. There is a difference; please read the two sections provided and you'll see what I mean. -- McDoob  AU  93  16:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case my question returns to the status of unanswered, what is the consensus on the question of does wikipedia change article name when it becomes more popular on other areas with different names or retain original name? and the fact you said I could rename it hey-barberiba with a consensus already tells it is a vote thing because if consensus is truth/accuracy and whatnot the possibility of my proposition is null. TheZelos (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus depends on what the editors of the given article discuss and agree to based on relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you'll refer to the discussion from November 2011 cited in the FAQ, you'll see that the discussion was rather lengthy. When the discussion is closed after a certain time (either after a specific number of days, after the conversation has naturally died down or when it's very clear what everyone wants), the closing administrator gives their decision and the rationale for the decision. In the case of this article, the arguments for Sega Genesis were shown to be better than the arguments for Sega Mega Drive, but only slightly so.


 * Yes, you could potentially get consensus for a name completely unrelated to the subject, but it's unlikely. Let's take your hypothetical name. It would immediately fail WP:COMMONNAME because the device has never been known as that and there are no reliable sources even suggesting it was, has been, or ever would be. Even editors who prefer Mega Drive would oppose such a name simply on those grounds. Those same editors agreed that, in English-language reliable sources, "Genesis" was used more often than "Mega Drive", another reason why the name was set at Genesis.


 * Lastly, you said something about "original name". That's yet another reason why Genesis was selected ... because when the article was first written 11 years ago, it was Genesis. When the article surpassed Stub-quality for the first time, it was Genesis. See Item 1 of the FAQ above for more details. All things considered, there were several reasons why Genesis was selected over Mega Drive, but it was not a landslide victory. That said, it was enough to consider the conversation settled pending a new, truly novel reason to start yet another move discussion. In the year since the discussion was closed, there hasn't been one; just people rehashing old arguments, exclaiming their belief in a pro-America bias in Wikipedia, etc. -- McDoob  AU  93  20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As stated in FAQ #8, the original name of the product is but one of many considerations in deciding the article title. The consensus was that other considerations favoring using another name outweighed this and others favoring the original name.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See also FAQ #9. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * McDoob, the fact that the original article was named Genesis has zero to do with the debate; something might've been wrong from the start, and being there from the start doesn't make it right, obviously. Anyway... when was this consensus reached? Is it not time for another discussion of it to be had, a formal debate of moving the article? Andre666 (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, raping women or killing people was alright at the start, because no one really thought it was wrong; but now we do, so they are outlawed. Extreme example I know, but it illustrates my point. Andre666 (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The name the article had originally is relevant when consensus cannot be otherwise reached - it is favored in such cases. Consensus can change, but there is no hint that has even started to occur here. Nothing not addressed in the FAQ has been raised.  No new points have been made.  --Born2cycle (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No new points have been made because no good ones were done from the begining to really be countered TheZelos (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)