Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ


 * 1) What is the naming history of this article?
 * 2) * This article was started on November 30, 2001 under the name "Sega Genesis".
 * Originally, the article covered only the North American console using the Genesis name.
 * Coverage of the Mega Drive brand was added on February 17, 2002.
 * 1) * The article was split in 2003 into two separate articles: "Sega Megadrive" and "Sega Genesis".
 * "Sega Megadrive" was created from a redirect, then renamed to "Sega Mega Drive" on August 21, 2004.
 * 1) * The two articles were later merged back into one in 2005, under the compound name "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis".
 * A set of editors discovered in 2006 that this title did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines regarding how titles should be formatted.
 * At the time, a consensus decision was reached favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis", largely due to it being the console's name at its initial launch in Japan.
 * 1) * The title "Mega Drive" was frequently contested between 2006 and 2011, resulting in numerous debates and discussions. Most of these discussions have resulted in approximately half of the editors favoring some form of "Mega Drive", and the other half favoring some form of "Sega Genesis".
 * 2) * In 2011, editors reached a compromise with the compound name "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive", in an attempt to give equal weight to both console names.
 * Another discussion immediately followed this decision, in which a broad cross-section of WikiProject Video Games editors and editors with expertise in WP:TITLE policy expressed concern that this compound name was inconsistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions.
 * A straw poll was held in which several alternative names were considered. The two most-favored names at this time were "Sega Genesis" and "Mega Drive", with a majority favoring the Genesis title.
 * This led to a new proposal to move the article to "Sega Genesis".
 * 1) * The article was renamed to "Sega Genesis" after the proposal succeeded, and has remained that way since.
 * 2) Why is the article's original, non-stub title important?
 * Because of the following title policy statement at WP:TITLECHANGES:
 * "[When a title] has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."
 * That is, when two titles are both well-supported by relevant policies, guidelines and usage, we should favor the original title as a "tie-breaker".
 * 1) The title was "Mega Drive" for around five years.  Doesn't that mean it was stable there?
 * Yes and no. The article could be considered "stable", in that its name didn't actually change during that period.  But the title was frequently contested, resulting in at least three major discussions and proposals on the matter.  Many editors take this as a sign of instability.
 * It's important to note that most of these discussions failed to reach a clear consensus either way - while there was no clear consensus to move to "Sega Genesis" or any other title at the time, there was also no clear consensus to remain at "Mega Drive". In fact, opinions were split approximately 50/50 between the two names throughout virtually all of the discussions during this period.  By default, no action was taken.
 * 1) So why change it to "Sega Genesis and Mega Drive" (the compound name)?
 * This name came about as an attempt to compromise with both sides of the ongoing dispute. In particular, the name was intended to give equal weight to both variants of the console, and was proposed in the hopes of drawing the dispute to a close.
 * The editors participating in this discussion at the time comprised a relatively small group compared to the scope of previous discussions. Seeing little opposition to the proposal, the group changed the article's name.
 * 1) So then, why did the title change to "Sega Genesis" and not back to "Mega Drive"?
 * As explained above, the discussion to move away from the compound name resulted first in a straw poll to decide on and narrow down the list of alternatives (which at the time showed "Sega Genesis" as the clear favorite), then a formal proposal for that name. "Mega Drive" was considered but ultimately rejected.
 * 1) So that means "Sega Genesis" is the current consensus, correct?
 * That is correct. It stands as the most recent title to have been decided upon via a consensus discussion.
 * There was another RM discussion in June 2013, which was closed as no consensus to move.
 * 1) Is the new title stable?
 * Yes. Although the title is occasionally challenged, no serious policy-based arguments for a change that garner significant support have thus far been made.
 * 1) What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Sega Genesis" over "Mega Drive"?  (Note: These reflect the primary arguments made and are not necessarily true or verified.)
 * 2) * "Sega Genesis" was the original title of the article (see the timeline above). (WP:TITLECHANGES)
 * 3) * "Genesis" was the first name given to the console in English-speaking markets. (Naturalness criterion)


 * 1) * "Sega Genesis" is more "natural" and "recognizable" than "Mega Drive" in English-speaking markets. (WP:COMMONNAME)
 * 2) * Of all the consoles sold worldwide, roughly half of them were sold in North America under the Genesis name.
 * 3) ** It is important to note that no firm sales figures have been established, and that this particular argument is heavily disputed.
 * 4) * The Genesis received more press coverage in North America than the Mega Drive did in any other part of the world. (WP:N, WP:RS)
 * 5) * The Genesis has particular notability over the Mega Drive due to: (WP:N)
 * 6) ** The heated advertising war between Sega and Nintendo in the North American market; and
 * 7) ** U.S. Congressional hearings into violent video games, with particular attention given to the Genesis release of Mortal Kombat and the Sega CD game Night Trap.
 * 8) * While "Mega Drive" was the original name of the console outside North America, it was used mostly in countries where English is not the primary language.
 * 9) ** The vast majority of English-speaking users of the console are in North America, where the console was marketed with the "Genesis" name. (WP:ENGVAR)
 * 10) What are the main reasons editors have mentioned for favoring "Mega Drive" over "Sega Genesis"?  (Again, these are editors' arguments and are not necessarily statements of fact.)
 * 11) * "Mega Drive" was the title of the console when it was first introduced in Japan.
 * 12) * "Mega Drive" is the name of the console in every geographic market except North America. (WP:COMMON)
 * 13) ** The name "Genesis" was only given to the console in North America, and should be considered an exception.
 * 14) * Articles such as "Variations of the Mega Drive" exist that cover a broad range of topics related to the console's identity in regions outside North America.
 * 15) ** To keep things consistent, those articles would also need to reflect the Sega Genesis name, which would make them inconsistent with their topics.
 * 16) * "Sega Genesis" puts undue weight on the North American version of the console. (WP:WEIGHT)
 * 17) ** Sales figures are or should be irrelevant in discussions on a console's notability. (WP:N)
 * 18) * As of 2013, the title "Mega Drive" was used for the longest contiguous period of time (5 years). (Stability argument).
 * 19) Isn't it true that both "Mega Drive and "Sega Genesis" are perfectly acceptable titles for this article?
 * Per Wikipedia's various policies, both of these titles are acceptable. The community generally agrees that both names for the console have roughly equal weight and notability for different reasons, but nevertheless the consensus favors "Sega Genesis" as the title for a number of reasons.
 * "Sega Genesis" was favored in November 2011, though it was also generally recognized that the title "Mega Drive" would not be wrong.
 * 1) Why not consider periodically switching between the two titles?
 * This idea was discussed and rejected in the 2011 discussions for a variety of reasons, including:
 * Having the title change periodically would likely be confusing;
 * This article is not unusual in that it covers a topic with two acceptable titles. (See Nintendo Entertainment System and TurboGrafx-16, two similar articles in which the console in question has multiple names in different markets.)
 * 1) Why would it be a waste of time to debate this topic again?
 * Over the lifespan of this article, there have been at least six major debates over its title. The applicable policies and the availability of reliable sources haven't changed significantly over that time, so many of the debates end up coming down to the same general arguments, usually with no clear movement either direction.
 * Per consensus policy, consensus decisions are not generally changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so (eg. when the name conflicts with other uses in Wikipedia, or when compelling arguments are made that actually result in a new consensus). Past history has shown that discussions on this topic in particular generally result in a stalemate.
 * Many editors involved in these discussions, regardless of which side of the debate they're on, agree that the title of the article is not of great importance when compared to, among other things, the accuracy of the information in the article itself.
 * 1) Isn't this FAQ designed to shut down open discussion and debate on this topic?  What if I have something new to say?
 * The intent of this FAQ is to explain the history of this article's title, to give context to the surrounding controversy, and to explain (in a nutshell) how the community arrived at various decisions along the way. It is intended to explain what has already been discussed and debated so that future discussions don't have to repeat it unnecessarily.
 * Editors who have participated in multiple instances of this debate have seen many of the same arguments brought up each time, usually verbatim from prior instances, and usually with the same results. Most of the WikiProject Video Games community would prefer to avoid seeing history repeat itself again.
 * That said, if you do have something truly new to bring to the table, you are welcome to do so. But please cite relevant Wikipedia policies and reliable sources and be sure the issue is not already covered in this FAQ.
 * In June of 2013 a near-unanimous consensus of participating editors agreed that, after a good-faith review of this FAQ, discussing the title issue without raising something new would be considered disruptive.


 * Notes